Thursday, August 20, 2026

The NeverTrumpers Are Back. This Time Their Target Is J.D. Vance


The same people who attacked Trump in 2016 are now attacking the vice president. They want the GOP back after Trump is gone.



As we near the halfway point of President Donald Trump’s second term, the neocon establishment is openly scheming to reclaim the Republican Party.

That’s why they’re attacking his proxy and likely successor, Vice President J.D. Vance, attempting to paint him as a socialist of the “woke right.” These attacks are being launched by the same people who opposed Trump in 2016, who derided the America First agenda as protectionist, socialist, isolationist, and denounced the president as a fascist and a xenophobe over his immigration agenda. The NeverTrumpers are back, and they’re recycling the same attacks they leveled against the president a decade ago, aiming them now at Vance in a bid to retake the GOP.

The NeverVance campaign has been going strong, especially on X, ever since Vance said in an interview last week on Fox News’ The Will Cain Show that “You don’t stop socialism by throwing slogans at people about the free market. You stop socialism by making people’s lives better.” He was responding to the primary success of a handful of DSA-affiliated Democrats who are selling voters on the idea of socialism as the answer to affordability problems.

Vance’s crime, according to critics like Ben Shapiro and Erick Erickson, was acknowledging the affordability issue is real and proposing that government should do something about it. Shapiro responded with a bizarre post about free markets and process neutralism, while Erickson wrote a lengthy essay arguing that Vance thinks low prices are bad and that America needs a strongman to manage its decline.

Plenty of others jumped on the bandwagon to denounce Vance as a “right-wing socialist” — a favorite epithet of the NeverVancers. Some even took the trouble to compile old interview clips of Vance explaining how we should do things like tax the endowments of Ivy League schools or seize the assets of left-wing NGOs — as if that’s a bad thing.  

The only way to make sense of these garbled lines of attack on Vance is to keep in mind that the overarching motivation here is to return the GOP to its pre-Trump state. If Vance proposes something that sounds populist, or if he suggests that the government might be able to improve the lives of ordinary working Americans, then that’s “socialism.” If he talks about the common good — something nearly every American political leader going back to our founding agreed with and espoused — then he’s on the “woke right.” If he suggests that our foreign policy should be refocused on the Western Hemisphere, that’s “isolationist.” (Never mind that all of Trump’s top officials, including Marco Rubio, agree with Vance on all this stuff but never get attacked by the neocons for it.)

Neocons like Shapiro are not making an actual argument, either for the free market or against socialism. They use these as slop terms to express dislike for Vance. Indeed, Vance’s shot last week at those who would “throw slogans at people about the free market” is well-aimed in this regard. What we have in America today, across vast swaths of the economy, is not really a free market but a rigged market full of moral hazard, overregulation, and manufactured scarcity — precisely in the industries that hit families the hardest.

As my friend Inez Stepman wrote in National Review recently, “At least four of the largest stressors on the aspiring middle-class family aren’t tied to weekly or monthly economic indicators. Instead, they are found in the costs of basic middle-class staples: housing, health care, education, and childcare. For many, these costs are unavoidable and have been rising at rates well above inflation and wage growth for decades.”

When Americans express dismay over prices and affordability, or complain that the American dream is out of reach, it won’t do any good to point to rising GDP or gains in the job market. Those gains might be real, but they are not enough to offset the financial strain American households are under. They feel that strain every time they gas up or buy groceries or take a sick kid to the doctor.

It’s not “socialism” to expect the government to do something about this. And yet the reaction of GOP establishment types has been to mock Vance and sneer at anyone concerned about affordability. As Terry Schilling argues, “You are not a socialist for noticing that young people and families are being priced out of the economy in large parts of America, and you are not a socialist for wanting to fix these problems. You are closer to a socialist if you defend the present system that redistributes trillions every year to people and institutions that have not earned it.”

Or, as my colleague Sean Davis argued last week, we’re not going to save the American Dream by pretending we don’t have a problem. “The American Dream was a promise that if you worked hard, you could make it no matter the circumstances you were born into. But that promise has been inaccessible to tens of millions for decades, due in large part to policies Shapiro himself pushed.”

Politically, it won’t work simply to call Vance a socialist for noticing the problems with a “free market” system that’s leaving more and more Americans behind. Politically, it’s a losing proposition. A majority of Americans under the age of 50 now believe the American Dream is no longer possible for them. Right now, half of all Americans age 18 to 29 are living with their parents — the highest share since the Great Depression. Another 47 percent in that age group get financial help from someone outside their household to pay basic living expenses.

Why is this happening? One reason is mass legal immigration, which has brought millions of foreign nationals into our country on H-1B visas, taking jobs in tech and software development that should have gone to American workers. Recent data from the Labor Department showed that through the third quarter of this fiscal year, employers filled more than 830,000 positions with foreign workers on the H-1B program — nearly a third of which went to software development positions.

So no, under these circumstances it’s not good enough to repeat “free market good, socialism bad,” as an argument against Vance. For many decades now, the Washington establishment has focused on the health of global corporations and foreign nationals, and not on the health of American families. Noticing that, and insisting that the government do something about it, doesn’t make you a socialist. It makes you a patriot.

And remember, all the same people that tried to gaslight you about Trump in 2016 are doing the same thing about Vance right now. And I think we all know why.


Podcast thread for August 20

 


what a day.

Round River Docs Suggest FBI Misclassified Information To Hide Biden Family Crimes


It now appears the FBI had multiple ways of disappearing evidence — both evidence that inculpated the Bidens and exculpated Trump.




Documents recently obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, included an anomaly in the classification coding — one that indicates FBI agents intentionally misclassified information to conceal evidence of Biden-family corruption.

On Monday, Grassley highlighted the discovery in a letter he penned to Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, about misconduct he has uncovered related to “Operation Round River.” “Round River” was the name of the investigation run out of FBI headquarters, in conjunction with the Foreign Influence Task Force (“FITF”); an investigation whistleblowers claim sought to “improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.”

As The Federalist previously reported, Grassley revealed FITF used the investigation “to seek out CHS holdings at FBI Field Offices across the country relating to the Biden family and falsely discredit them as foreign disinformation.” And “at one point in time the FBI maintained over 40 Confidential Human Sources that provided criminal information relating to Joe Biden, James Biden, and Hunter Biden.” Sources familiar with Round River also told The Federalist “that the investigation sought to scuttle any investigative leads into Biden family corruption by discrediting it as Russia disinformation.”

In his Monday letter, Grassley revealed that the records related to Round River also showed the intelligence community “used its resources to downgrade allegations of criminality relating to the Biden family apparently without sufficient investigation.” And notwithstanding the lack of an appropriate investigation, the intelligence community created a list of supposed “conduits” of disinformation related to evidence implicating the Biden family in Ukrainian corrupt — a list that included then-Attorney General William Barr.

What followed, though, suggests there is much more to come: In his letter, Grassley noted that “some Round River documents include banner markings to identify classified information; however, the banner markings include ‘Round River’ as a classification code.” Grassley continued: “Accordingly, it appears the Wray FBI treated Round River as a Special Access Program when all accounts provided to us so far show no indication that it was in fact such a program.”

This narrative proves explosive when one considers the coding used by the intelligence community and FBI. That coding system first requires documents be classification as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, or Unclassified. A “banner” on top of the document begins with the appropriate classification category. Two front slashes follow the classification, and then various markings, such as “FOUO,” meaning “For Official Use Only” or NOFORN, standing for “Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals.”

Significantly, and unsurprisingly, there is no “Round River” marking in the register of “Authorized Classification and Control Markings.” Conversely, when a document falls within the “Special Access Program,” agents include SAR-Name, with SAR meaning Special Access Required, in the banner. The FOIA release of the Authorized Classification and Control Markings Register provides this example:

This document is thus Top Secret and concerns a Special Access Program named “Butter Popcorn,” which would be abbreviated SAR-BP.

But according to Grassley’s letter, it does not appear that Round River was classified as a Special Access Program because the banner lacks any such designation. Nonetheless, the banner included the investigation name of Round River. To the Iowa senator, that suggests the agents may have nonetheless treated the investigation as a Special Access Program.

That matters because Special Access Programs don’t just limit who has access to the information within the FBI, but by statute only a few select senators and representatives receive briefings on those programs. So, if the FBI treated Round River as a Special Access Program, the many requests Grassley has made for relevant documents to conduct oversight could have been ignored. High-level approval is also needed to run a Special Access Program, which does not appear to have been given, although on this point, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee asks for “clarification” in his letter.

This latest development follows the earlier discovery by the Iowa senator that the FBI, under Director Wray, hid documents related to Crossfire Hurricane by use of the “Prohibited Access” functionality of the Sentinel case management system. That designation rendered the documents invisible to agents searching the FBI database. 

It now appears the FBI had multiple ways of disappearing evidence — both evidence that inculpated the Bidens and exculpated Trump.


🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Bots Now Make Up More Than Half of Internet Traffic. Here’s How It’s Affecting Businesses.

The flood of AI-driven automated traffic hitting websites is changing the game.



More than half of all internet traffic now comes from bots, analysts say, and for businesses, that means reaching customers may be more challenging than ever. The flood of artificial intelligence-powered bots is forcing small businesses especially to find new strategies to make human connections.

“When traffic is overblown, making advertising decisions becomes impossible,” business owner Cameron Figgins told The Epoch Times. “I’ve seen monthly analytics with 30 [to] 40 percent of site visits as non-human.”

Figgins owns Absolute Maintenance and Consulting, a California company that specializes in remediating mold and water damage. He said the flood of AI bots visiting his company’s website costs real-world money.

“Imagine that you’re spending $2,000 a month on paid ads, with one third of your clicks being bots. You’re wasting $600 to $700 a month with nothing to show for it,” he said.

Business owner Ilya Ornatov said he’s having the same problem.

“I run a house cleaning business, but our website is basically our number one salesperson,” Ornatov, the owner of NW Maids, told The Epoch Times.

“For a small local business, the biggest impact is that the bot traffic makes it really hard to tell what’s actually working. Our website is where most of our new customers come from, so I watch the numbers closely, and a chunk of that traffic is just bots crawling the site, not real people who might book a cleaning.”

Like Figgins, Ornatov said paying for advertising makes less and less sense when the audience is mostly automated. “You’re literally paying for fake visits, so you can burn money without a single real customer to show for it,” he said.

Liz Reid, Google's vice president of Search, demonstrates an AI-generated search result during the Google I/O conference in Mountain View, Calif., on May 14, 2024. Today, most internet traffic comes from bots, with AI-powered web crawlers driving up infrastructure costs and forcing businesses to rethink advertising, engagement metrics, and how they reach human customers. Jeff Chiu/AP Photo

There’s growing evidence to back these claims, especially now that many tech insiders believe the internet has crossed the inversion point, or the moment when human web traffic officially became less than that of bots.

Cybersecurity firm Imperva found in its “2026 Bad Bot Report” that 53 percent of all web traffic in 2025 came from bots.

“Welp, that happened faster than I predicted,” Matthew Prince, co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare, posted on his X account in June. He said he'd originally predicted the inversion point would come at the end of 2027.

And the ratio of bots to humans is increasing. On Aug. 18, 63 percent of all HTTP requests came from bots, according to Cloudflare’s global tracker.

The Imperva team noted that its observations were indicative of “a structural change in how the internet operates.”

“Increasingly, businesses are not serving customers alone. They are serving machines,” the analysts wrote.

Matthew Prince (L), co-founder and CEO of Cloudflare, speaks onstage alongside Reed Albergotti, technology editor for Semafor, during Semafor World Economy 2026 in Washington on April 17, 2026. Prince has expressed concern about the rapidly increasing pace of online bot traffic. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Semafor World Economy

Beyond the Numbers

Tech insiders say bot domination creates trouble by obscuring human behavior.

“The biggest impact is that businesses are losing visibility of actual customer behavior,” Naveen Ayalla, a senior data engineer at Microsoft, told The Epoch Times.

Ayalla said an e-commerce company might mistake a 30 percent traffic spike from AI crawlers for a successful marketing campaign. That distorts marketing reports and creates unnecessary infrastructure costs, which can lead to poor investment decisions based on misleading data.

“Traditional analytics assume most visitors are human, which is no longer reliable,” Ayalla said. “A new product page might receive thousands of views from AI bots indexing content without any intent to purchase, creating false engagement.”

To counter this, Ayalla said businesses must shift their focus from superficial metrics such as page views and clicks to deep funnel signals, or actions by potential customers that indicate genuine intent. Those include purchases, completed forms, long-term retention, and more.

“When the bots are in the mix, bounce rates, session times, and conversion metrics all lose their significance,” Figgins said. “You believe that your landing page isn’t working well enough and you discard it, only to find that the actual human visitors were converting quite well.”


The ChatGPT app is displayed on an iPhone in New York City on May 18, 2023. As more people turn to large language models such as ChatGPT for recommendations on goods and services, artificial intelligence-recommended brands are “significantly more likely” to receive a human website visit, according to a Similarweb analysis. Richard Drew/AP Photo/File

Not All Bots Are Equal

Not all automated traffic is harming businesses. In fact, some of it is helping to create connections with real customers.

A growing number of people are asking large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT for recommendations on goods and services. AI-recommended brands are “significantly more likely” to see a human website visit, according to a SimilarWeb analysis. On average, researchers found that ChatGPT users were 2 1/2 times more likely to engage with an AI-recommended brand over its competition.

“Search engine crawlers and AI assistants can actually drive value by helping websites get discovered,” Ayalla said.

The key challenge is distinguishing between what he called “valuable automated traffic” and run-of-the-mill, resource-consuming bots.


Ayalla said blocking all bots from visiting a website isn’t a realistic approach, given the technology’s rising importance in connecting with potential clients. “Businesses need a balanced approach to maintain visibility in AI-powered search while protecting their infrastructure and content,” he said.

For Ornatov, AI bots have revolutionized his approach to creating web content.


Online customer reviews for a product are displayed on a computer screen in New York on April 17, 2019. The traditional metrics used to measure the effectiveness of a company’s website can’t be trusted anymore, one business owner said. Jenny Kane, File/AP Photo


“It’s changed what we write and how we lay it out. We used to just write for Google rankings,“ he said. ”Now I make sure our pages answer real questions in plain language, with clear FAQ sections, because that’s the stuff an AI assistant can actually pull and repeat back to a customer.

“So instead of stuffing keywords, we try to just clearly answer ‘How much does a deep clean cost?’ or ‘Do you bring your own supplies?’—because that’s what gets quoted.

“We leaned into it, we made sure the site was easy for those tools to read and quote, and now it’s turned into a small but real source of new customers instead of a threat.”



Gabe Uribe (R) of tech public relations firm LA Tech House reviews Google Trends data with a strategist, in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Sept. 17, 2019. Business owners say websites are seeing more bot traffic, causing advertising to consume a growing share of budgets while reaching fewer real customers. Damian Dovarganes/AP Photo

Protecting Information

But just as problematic is AI-driven bot “scraping” of online information—including private and copyrighted content—to train LLMs such as Claude or ChatGPT. Much of the content scraped is used for training LLMs and offers no benefits to the businesses they pilfered from.

Bots that track multiple web pages or sites are called “crawlers.”

“Many scraping applications continuously steal confidential legal materials, placing companies in the position of trade-secret misappropriation, and causing company servers to crash due to thousands of dollars in remedial efforts,” attorney Robert Tsigler said.

Tsigler’s work as a lead counsel on high-profile corporate litigation has given him “firsthand experience of how copyright liability and cyber-security vulnerabilities are created through automated scraping.”

He said automated “scraper traffic” is responsible for increasing clients’ server bandwidth costs by up to 40 percent while creating false impressions in user analytics.

“To separate legitimate users from automatic [bot] scraping software now requires that many businesses implement specialized cybersecurity infrastructures, which can cost anywhere from $15,000 per year for mid-sized companies,” he said.

When asked how companies can blunt the impact of bad bots, Ayalla predicts it won’t be a “binary choice” in the future, but about more layered access controls.

“We will likely see a clear separation where general information remains accessible to AI systems, while high-value, proprietary data requires authenticated access,” he said.

“The focus will ultimately shift from blocking AI to safely collaborating with it.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/bots-now-make-up-more-than-half-of-internet-traffic-heres-how-its-affecting-businesses-6067661?&utm_source=MB_article_paid_f&utm_campaign=MB_article_2026-08-20-ca&utm_medium=email&est=fkaQ%2FI9IPSqgvNk4EEoKdmIVt548%2FDKNk2XCCerrXYLJZalCo1YkhUHC989WBrRTJ%2Fp%2F&utm_content=highlight-news-1