HBO’s Bill Maher and former MSNBC host Chris Matthews were greatly displeased on Friday night’s Real Time that Democrats won’t replace President Joe Biden with California Gov. Gavin Newsom after his disastrous debate performance the night before. Maher was unconvinced of former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s claim that the reason why Biden is struggling in the polls is because of his policy record, “Are you kidding? Yes, we have problems like every country has problems, but a different candidate would make a huge difference, I think.”     He then accused Democrats of being blind partisans who are unable to see the disaster that is staring directly at them, “From last night, the flash poll afterward, Trump, they said won 67-33, 33, that number rings in my mind because you know what that number is? That's the number you always see, very close — 33, 34, 32 — of the people who are just always with their party. I mean, that's Mrs. Goebbels in the bunker number.” After the laughter from the audience subsided, Maher continued, “You see it on the right, they used to call them Birchers, birthers, Tea Party, whatever you, MAGA Nation, whatever, they never move, and now that's a third of the Democrats who like—they're going to stick with this guy and they are going to regret it. He is going to lose. I said nine months ago, and I’m saying it again tonight, and now it seems like it's so apparent.” Matthews agreed, “In the real world outside of the Biden world, it is clear to me that another candidate like Newsom, the governor of California, could have the dynamic to move from June, right now, to November, and build up support to match Trump's and maybe overtake him. He could change the whole situation.” While Maher decried blind loyalty, Matthews claimed Democrats have an additional problem. Even if Biden were to step aside, Democrats would choose to replace him with Vice President Kamala Harris instead of Newsom, “The problem is, and this is the Democratic Party, and the way it is. It's a party of center-left and left. If he does that, Kamala Harris people will go, ‘Wait a minute, I'm next’ and he’ll say, ‘You’re right, you are next,’ because that's what he is saying right now, and that's the problem.’” Maher was not persuaded that Matthews’s fears were warranted, “I’m not sure that’s even that big a problem for the Democrats. People, at the end of the day, want to win.” Gavin Newsom may be capable of sounding alive at a debate, but voters will probably not respond well to his infamous COVID hypocrisy and Panera Bread scandals. Here is a transcript for the June 28 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 6/28/2024 10:18 PM ET BILL MAHER: Are you kidding? Yes, we have problems like every country has problems, but a different candidate would make a huge difference, I think. From last night, the flash poll afterward, Trump, they said won 67-33, 33, that number rings in my mind because you know what that number is? That's the number you always see, very close — 33, 34, 32 — of the people who are just always with their party. TULSI GABBARD: Right. MAHER:  I mean, that's Mrs. Goebbels in the bunker number. I mean, you see— CHRIS MATTHEWS: They're the woman that kills all our kids. Right. MAHER: Rather live in a world without national socialism, exactly. MATTHEWS: You got it right. MAHER: You see it on the right, they used to call them Birchers, birthers, Tea Party, whatever you, MAGA Nation, whatever, they never move, and now that's a third of the Democrats who like—they're going to stick with this guy and they are going to regret it. He is going to lose. I said nine months ago, and I’m saying it again tonight, and now it seems like it's so apparent.” MATTHEWS: In the real world outside of the Biden world, it is clear to me that another candidate like Newsom, the governor of California, could have the dynamic to move from June, right now, to November, and build up support to match Trump's and maybe overtake him. He could change the whole situation. MAHER: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: The problem is, and this is the Democratic Party, and the way it is. It's a party of center-left and left. If he does that, Kamala Harris people will go, “Wait a minute, I'm next” and he’ll say, “You’re right, you are next,” because that's what he is saying right now and that's the problem. MAHER: No, but here's the great thing about Gavin Newsom as the candidate, she can't be his vice president. You can’t be from, you can't be from— MATTHEWS: No, she’s next for president. MAHER: Oh. MATTHEWS: That’s the problem. The problem is the—of the team. MAHER: I’m not sure that’s even that big a problem for the Democrats. People, at the end of the day, want to win.

The New York Times surprised its audience on Friday morning with no front-page story on the debate. They just told readers to go to NYTimes.com. If Trump was the candidate who had a terrible debate, would they do that? Online, they admitted in an online headline that “Biden Campaign Plunged Into Crisis After Halting Debate Performance” after Thursday evening’s embarrassment. But political reporter Michael Gold still played defense for the paper's preferred candidate. If the biased headline didn’t give the game away (“Trump’s Debate Performance: Relentless Attacks and Falsehoods” ), then complaining about Trump both “seizing” and having “pounced” in a single sentence makes Gold’s pro-Biden slant clear. For most of Thursday night’s debate, former President Donald J. Trump verbally pummeled President Biden, painting his political opponent as an ineffective leader with a torrent of attacks that were frequently false, lacked context or were vague enough to be misleading. .... He tried to accuse Mr. Biden of corruption, dubbing the president as a “Manchurian candidate” who was “paid by China,” a nod to frequent accusations of undue influence for which there is no evidence. He directly blamed Mr. Biden for a wave of immigrants “coming in and killing our citizens at a level we’ve never” seen, a hyperbolic claim that is not backed up by available statistics. After weeks of reporters relishing MAGA complaints about a debate format supposedly tilted against Trump, Gold whined that those rules kept Biden from challenging Trump. He even whined that the CNN moderators failed to fact-check Trump, as if they were supposed to interfere in the flow of the debate on Democrat Biden’s behalf. But the barrage of attacks during the debate was particularly striking given that Mr. Biden was standing mere feet away from him, unable to interrupt or effectively challenge Mr. Trump because of debate rules that kept his microphone muted. And as the debate’s moderators, the CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, focused on keeping the peace, they did not even try to fact-check Mr. Trump’s assertions, allowing them to stand unchallenged. Mr. Biden got in a few licks, including some of the debate’s more memorable moments. He said Mr. Trump had the “morals of an alley cat” and accused him of having sex with a porn star while his wife was pregnant. But by and large, Mr. Biden was on the defensive from the get-go in the face of a steady stream of insults, false characterizations and attacks from Mr. Trump. Then came a classic sentence, with the reporter fitting in not one but two classic terms used by liberal reporters to denigrate effective Republican talking points: Seizing on Mr. Biden’s halting speech early in the debate, Mr. Trump pounced at one moment when Mr. Biden trailed off, saying: “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said, either.” Gold even defended Biden’s indefensible immigration policies, via unlabeled liberal "experts." Mr. Trump accused his successor of “ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies” that fostered a crime wave, pointing to high-profile killings that involved immigrants. He vaguely accused Mr. Biden of killing “so many at our border” by not curbing the surge of migrants, an assertion that he did not back up with statistics. Experts have said that those heavily publicized cases do not represent a broader trend. Studies have concluded that immigration does not push up crime rates.

When you see 'Biden Is Toast' in a Politico headline, you know things are really, really bad for Joe Biden. That line was part of a title of a story in that periodical about Biden's disastrous debate performance on Thursday which was originally published fifteen minutes before that event was even completed: "Dems freak out over Biden’s debate performance: ‘Biden is toast’." Lisa Kashinsky, Adam Cancryn, and Eugene Daniels, acting more like coroners providing a Biden campaign autopsy than as Politico reporters, had the sad task of laying out the brutal facts for the bereaved Democrats and their media allies. ...he stammered. He stumbled. And, with fewer than five months to November, he played straight into Democrats’ worst fears — that he’s fumbling away this election to Donald Trump. The alarm bells for Democrats started ringing the second Biden started speaking in a haltingly hoarse voice. Minutes into the debate, he struggled to mount an effective defense of the economy on his watch and flubbed the description of key health initiatives he’s made central to his reelection bid, saying “we finally beat Medicare” and incorrectly stating how much his administration lowered the price of insulin. He talked himself into a corner on Afghanistan, bringing up his administration’s botched withdrawal unprompted. He repeatedly mixed up “billion” and “million,” and found himself stuck for long stretches of the 90-minute debate playing defense. And when he wasn’t speaking, he stood frozen behind his podium, mouth agape, his eyes wide and unblinking for long stretches of time. Reading this you could almost hear Howard Cosell yelling "DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!" except substitute "Biden" for "Frazier." And now the Politico serving of toast followed by a heaping pile of sheer Democrat panic: “Biden is toast — calling it now,” said Jay Surdukowski, an attorney and Democratic activist from New Hampshire who co-chaired former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s 2016 presidential campaign in the state. In text messages with POLITICO, Democrats expressed confusion and concern as they watched the first minutes of the event. One former Biden White House and campaign aide called it “terrible,” adding that they have had to ask themselves over and over: “What did he just say? This is crazy.” It seemed to be so bad for Biden that the Politico coroners/reporters even appeared to pronounce his campaign to be DOA: Already, some Democrats were openly saying that Biden should end his campaign. One major Democratic donor and Biden supporter said simply: “Biden needs to drop out. No question about it.” ...Fergus Cullen, a former New Hampshire GOP chair and “Never Trumper” who is considering voting for Biden, had warned that Democrats would need to reconsider their ticket if the president delivered a poor performance on Thursday. After the debate, Cullen said: “Anyone who has watched a parent grow old, frail, and foggy recognizes what they are seeing and knows it only gets worse, at an accelerating rate, from here.” One beneficial side effect of this Politico panic attack over Biden's presidential campaign future is that perhaps the media will finally drop its absurd "cheapfake" shtick to debunk videos of Biden acting as incoherent as he did during Thursday's debate.

The New York Times editorial board declared that President Joe Biden should drop his re-election bid. "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race," the headline of the piece asserts.The editorial board's suggestion that Biden should abandon his run for another term came on the heels of the president's abysmal performance in a debate against former President Donald Trump.'That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses.'"The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump's provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence," the editorial board wrote.But the New York Times editorial board still said that it would back Biden over Trump in a contest between the two men."If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board's unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump's challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him," the piece states."The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public: acknowledge that Mr. Biden can't continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place to defeat Mr. Trump in November," the editorial board wrote. "It is the best chance to protect the soul of the nation — the cause that drew Mr. Biden to run for the presidency in 2019 — from the malign warping of Mr. Trump. And it is the best service that Mr. Biden can provide to a country that he has nobly served for so long."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California Gov. Gavin Newsom praised a split decision by the Supreme Court to allow cities to prohibit homeless people from sleeping and camping in public spaces. The 6-3 decision overturns a lower court order that called such prohibitions unconstitutional violations of the Eighth Amendment. 'Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime.' Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion that included the conservative justices on the court. “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” he wrote. “A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the minority dissent opinion. “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” she wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”She went on to call some city actions against the homeless "unconscionable and unconstitutional.”The National Homeless Law Center condemned the ruling and said it would make the homeless crisis worse. "In a profoundly disappointing ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today decided that the US Constitution does not protect homeless people against cruel and unusual punishment, even when they have no choice to sleep in public using things like blankets or pillows," read its statement in part. "Arresting or fining people for trying to survive is expensive, counterproductive, and cruel," it continued. "While we are disappointed, we are not surprised that this Supreme Court ruled against the interests of our poorest neighbors."'The definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe homeless encampments.' While homeless advocates were aghast at the decision, Newsom said it would allow cities to better govern their public spaces. "Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe homeless encampments and helps us deliver common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities," he wrote on social media. Other California Democrats agreed. San Francisco Mayor London Breed said in a media briefing that the order would allow the city to be more aggressive in taking action against homeless encampments. On the other hand, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, also a Democrat, criticized the ruling and scolded cities who were trying to “arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Parents and lawmakers across the country are trying to find a solution to protect young Americans from the dangers of social media and smartphone use, according to Fox News Digital. One prevalent solution is for parents to wait to give their child a smartphone until the end of eighth grade. However, social media expert Melanie Hempe claimed that "there could not possibly be a worse time for social media exposure in a child's life."'We are giving our kids one of the highest dopaminergic devices during the most vulnerable stages of development when their guard is the lowest and the most harm can be done.'"We cannot afford to keep getting this wrong. This is not cute. It is not to be taken so lightly. It is serious, and we should not rely on a rhyme to parent our kids," she said.The Wait Until 8th movement is a growing one across the U.S., where parents have pledged to refrain from handing their children a smartphone at an early age. According to the project's website, it is meant to "empower parents to rally together to delay giving children a smartphone until at least the end of 8th grade. Let's protect the elementary and middle school years from the distractions and the dangers of a smartphone.""Banding together helps decrease the pressure to have a phone at an early age," the statement continued. "Ten years old is the average age children get their first smartphone. You can change this!"Hempe noted that the Wait Until 8th movement is running parallel to the "greatest adolescent mental health crisis" in the country. Hempe, who is also a registered nurse, claimed that eighth grade is not a good time to introduce smartphones and social media, per the report.She emphasized that there is an incongruency in brain development for students in the eighth grade that could make the introduction of social media more harmful in the long run."The accelerator is working before the brakes," she said. "And what this means is they are taking higher risk before the frontal cortex, the judgment center of their brain, is developed. So their emotion center is developing before the frontal cortex or the reasoning center.""By eighth grade they are searching for content that is more provocative," she continued. "They're searching for content like anxiety and depression and mental health diagnoses because all their friends have one, so they're trying to figure out what theirs is. And then the algorithms kick in and they get exposed to the worst content at the most vulnerable stage and impressionable stage of their development."The CDC recently published a research paper that stated suicide is among the most common causes of death in high school students. Consequently, suicide and suicidal behavior is considered a public health concern."Among high school-age youths aged 14–18 years, 1,952 suicides occurred in 2021, making suicide the third leading cause of death for this age group (2021 rate = 9.0 per 100,000 population). Suicide accounted for approximately one fifth of deaths (18.6%) among this age group," according to the paper.Hempe also called attention to the prevalence of addictive behaviors forming in adolescent children, saying: "Suicide interest in attempts are peaking, addictions are peaking and forming, the brain becomes what it does.""So the teenage brain is the most susceptible to addiction. We know that 90% of all adult addictions start in adolescence. Just because your child is intelligent doesn't mean they're mature enough to handle or wise enough to handle a smartphone.""We are giving our kids one of the highest dopaminergic devices during the most vulnerable stages of development when their guard is the lowest and the most harm can be done."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station settled into their "lifeboat vehicles" and prepared for an emergency evacuation after a defunct Russian satellite shattered into pieces, potentially sending dangerous debris speeding around Earth, according to LiveScience.The nine crew members on the ISS, including the Boeing Starliner's Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, were forced to take cover for around an hour Friday evening. The astronauts took the precautionary measure after the Resurs-P1 Russian Earth observation satellite broke into pieces, sending more than 100 pieces of debris spinning around the space station.'Our plan is to continue to return them on Starliner and return them home at the right time.'Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, said "[w]e used Starliner for that safe haven capability," adding that "[The astronauts] got in the spacecraft, powered the vehicle up, closed the hatch and were ready to execute … an emergency unlocking (from the ISS) and landing."Fox News Digital reported that Starliner's launch on June 5 was the first manned expedition Boeing had carried out to the ISS since 2014, when NASA and Boeing agreed to a $4.2 billion public-private partnership.The Starliner reportedly experienced helium leaks in the propulsion system, along with faulty thrusters. What was supposed to be a short trip to the ISS for the astronauts has now turned into an indefinite stay in space. Despite the unusual situation, Stich insisted that the astronauts "are not stranded in space," according to Phys.org.Starliner is currently docked at the ISS as engineers attempt to find a solution to the issues. Boeing stated that the helium leaks "are all stable and not a concern for a return mission," noting that the five thrusters that were shut down are now "operating normally," according to reports."Our plan is to continue to return them on Starliner and return them home at the right time," Stich said. However, no timeline for their return has yet been announced.The ISS X account published a statement Wednesday evening, which said: "Shortly after 9 p.m. EDT, @NASA instructed crews aboard the space station to shelter in their respective spacecraft as a standard precautionary measure after it was informed of a satellite break-up at an altitude near the station’s earlier Wednesday. Mission Control continued to monitor the path of the debris, and after about an hour, the crew was cleared to exit their spacecraft and the station resumed normal operations."While the astronauts remain at the ISS, they must remain aware of space junk that routinely orbits above Earth. LiveScience reported that such space junk is a growing and persistent problem for astronauts and satellites. Space agencies regularly monitor more than 30,000 pieces of junk flittering above Earth, but there are many other pieces of debris that are too small to identify.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The National UFO Reporting Center released a report earlier this month that suggested around a dozen employees at the Red Rocks Amphitheater watched on as a large UFO lit up the sky in Colorado.The employees were reportedly cleaning up the grounds around 1:00 a.m. on June 5 shortly after country music star Ian Munsick took the stage for the evening's performance. The employees claimed that they spotted a dark metallic disk appear in the sky.'[I]t started fading away until it was invisible. It didn’t shoot off into the distance. It simply dissolved into the ether. We all watched it vanish.'The anonymous employee who reported the incident said "[o]ne of our coworkers suddenly said to us, 'Hey, what is that over there? It looks like a spaceship.'"The employee described how their peers "all turned around in the direction he was pointing and sure enough, there was a UFO hovering about a half a mile to a mile north of red rocks," per the post.“A dozen of us saw it. We all kept asking each other, ‘Are you seeing this too?’ It was a resounding ‘yes’ from everyone in the group.”The tipster claimed that the mysterious flying object hovered above the treetops around the Golden, Colorado, venue for less than a minute before it "disappeared into thin air," according to witnesses.The report mentioned that the object was disc-shaped and had three stories that resembled a massive office building. The object was estimated to be several hundred feet in length and was illuminated with lights, according to the New York Post.Just as disturbing as seeing the object, witnesses claimed that it did not make a sound. It was completely silent as it hovered, according to the report.“What’s even crazier is that as soon as we all started noticing it and stopped what we were doing to pay attention to it, the craft tipped at an angle and slowly started moving belly-first to the east. Then it started fading away until it was invisible. It didn’t shoot off into the distance. It simply dissolved into the ether. We all watched it vanish,” the post noted.No explanation for the sudden disappearance was provided. Additionally, the tipster insisted that the object could not have been mistaken for a satellite or drone.The New York Post reported that there have been 3,320 UFO sightings reported in the state of Colorado alone. This makes it the 12th-ranking spot for states with the most sightings. It is still uncertain what, specifically, the witnesses saw in the sky that evening.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Joe Biden clearly isn’t great at debating, but he apparently is good at using his personal property like an ATM.President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden have reportedly taken out several mortgages and refinanced their home 35 times. A report has just been released by the Daily Mail that claims Joe and Jill Biden “have been using their Delaware house for fast cash.” The pair have reportedly refinanced their home 20 times with loans totaling $4.2 million since buying the $350,000 home. The Bidens borrowed a total sum of $6 million on their two properties and still have an outstanding $541,000 mortgage on their current Wilmington mansion nearly 30 years after the original purchase.The Biden’s have a reported net worth of $10 million that the president claims is from “book deals,” so the constant refinancing is raising questions. “There’s no record of him ever getting payment except for the signing bonus because nobody reads the books,” Glenn Beck says, confused. While it’s not likely Biden will give an honest answer as to why he’s been constantly refinancing his home, ChatGPT has some theories. “This is what ChatGPT came up with,” Glenn says, “and I think I’m going to start with the least likely, number five.” “Constant refinancing can be a method to manipulate debt and create the appearance of legitimate financial activity. This could help in justifying the large sums of money received and repaid,” Glenn reads. Number four, ChatGPT guesses, is tax evasion. “Refinancing can provide a way to manipulate table income and avoid taxes on illicit funds by cycling mortgages. The president could claim interest deductions and reduce their overall taxable income,” Glenn explains via the AI bot before reading number three. “Hiding assets. Frequent refinancing can be used to mask the true financial status and hide assets from investigators or regulatory authorities. This can help in evading detection of illicit funds,” he reads.Number two is “creating a paper trail.” “Mortgage cycling can create a complex financial paper trail that makes it difficult for investigators to track the true source and destination of money. This can also help hide illegal financial financial activities,” Glenn continues. ChatGPT’s number one reason for the president continuously refinancing his house is that “it can be a method to launder illicit funds.”“ChatGPT didn’t come up with a single non-nefarious reason,” Glenn says, unphased. Want more from Glenn Beck? To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

I grew up a Nintendo kid with an Xbox on the side to play Halo and Guitar Hero, but that all changed when FromSoftware released the original Demon’s Souls on PS3 back in 2009. Discourse around the first Souls was a combination of criticism for the punishing difficulty and overall jankiness, mixed with plaudits for innovation - in an era of gaming defined by hand-holding tutorials, Demon's Souls was all about friction. That was enough to convince me, but after reaching the first boss I realized I made a mistake. Demon’s Souls wasn’t fun. It was needlessly cruel. Fifteen years later, this same complaint is being leveled at Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree. Continue reading Elden Ring’s DLC is too hard, but that’s exactly how it should be MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Elden Ring builds, Elden Ring bosses, Elden Ring weapons