Loading...
Loading...

Another damn just burst and there's in this mega civil war and this time it's
Queen Canis Owens and FBI director Cash Patel's girlfriend, the the
country singer Alexis Wilkins. And when you know it, they are fighting over
Israel and anti-Semitism. And specifically the allegation that Wilkins is
actually an Israeli intelligence agent who's using a relationship with Patel
to manipulate the Trump administration. Something that's been out there and
also something that she denied on Megan Kelly's show last summer when the
claims first started bubbling up. Are you a spy for any government?
Definitely not. That is that is a firm no on that front.
But can you do so and she's not buying that.
They think I think they think your boyfriend's ugly. I don't know how to say
too. And so when they see you and they see him, they think this seems like a
mismatch unless maybe he's super duper rich or super duper powerful and she's
been sent as a honeypot. And I wasn't the one to put that out. So I'm not being
sued by you. But I just want to help you connect that dot.
Right. And the likely reason that she's hedging there is because Wilkins is
in fact sued a couple of people for defamation over this. First, the conservative
podcaster and former FBI agent Kyle Serifin who claimed that she's actually a
former massage agent. Anyway, I'm sure that that's totally just like love.
That's what real love looks like. That's why Caspar tells in his 40s and lives
with a man in Las Vegas full time. Totally regular. No big deal.
Then there was the right wing influencer Elijah Schaefer who reposted that same
claim. Then finally, at least for now, though, the failed GOP Senate candidate
Sam Parker, who's accused her of being a mouthpiece for Prager you and the
designist agenda. If you have to sue to prove that your relationship is real,
it's maybe not. But also Wilkins didn't stop with that because this week she dumped
a crazy 13 post thread on Twitter. And I was like, I've spent the last few
months learning to build programs to utilize publicly available information to
prove that this is way bigger than me. This is about creating chaos in the
Republican Party. It's about the organized effort to lose Republicans in
terms and subvert President Trump's agenda. And her big finding, according
to her, quote, a foreign linked influence network has been running coordinated
operations against the Trump administration for 22 months, without then
providing a bunch of data that supposedly proves that business happening. And
she names name claiming that Trump's former national security director, Michael
Flynn, is quote, the anchor of a digital infrastructure that has been repeatedly
activated at every major Republican fracture point over 22 months of
documented data. She then also goes after an organization called Catholics for
Catholics that he's a part of and then says that Russian state media amplified
the honeypot claims about her. She then claims that all the same accounts in
this supposed influence network immediately activated to boost Candace Owens
conspiracy theories about the Charlie Kirk assassination in Israel. She then
connects even more dots pointing out that right after national counterterrorism
center director Joe Kent resigned, Catholics for Catholics announced that
they'd have them at their event, or which he says was followed by Tucker Carlson
interviewing him and then Kent appearing on stage next to Flynn and Owens. Now
in response to all this, you had a Flynn posting a meme of two cats reading
smartphones with a caption me and my so-called Flynn network hard at work.
Don't lose your sense of humor folks, stuff get deep and then kind of funnily
enough when you think about it. You had that the queen conspiracy theorist
herself making fun of Wilkins for being so conspiracy brain.
There are accounts and you tweet something if they agree they retweet it.
So that's Jack Dorsey could have probably explained this to her
in less time than the months that it took her to come up with this theory.
I don't know how this jumps from the Catholics to there.
You have to read it. It's too stupid for me to understand.
So a news publication in Russia retweeted and that's how she then realized
that well then there's got to be international conspiracy.
It makes perfect sense if you suspend rational thinking.
But that's just a lot of the chapter or three. It's just a lie.
I was not naming Erica. I said nice things about Erica.
I didn't start covering Erica until Erica lied to my face in December but that
doesn't matter. This is Cash Patel's girlfriend.
In fact, she can just put whatever fact she was there.
I did go after Cash right away.
So I went after her boy boy and that's what she's upset about.
Obviously, Vladimir Putin is doing this and she then shows that the data
clearly demonstrates that the same people that are interested in the Butler assassination
are the same people that are interested in Jo Ken's resignation.
And they are the same people that are interested in trying her assassination.
By Godly guys, she has figured out that the mega voting block might be all interested
in these topics.
But also like a big thing with this is this spat between Wilkins and Owens.
It's not an isolated thing or the Republican party.
They are really beginning to notice that the next generation of conservatives
they're sliding more towards Candice Owens' end of the spectrum.
You know, you might remember that leaked group chat from October with young Republican
leaders in several states apparently joking though maybe not joking about gas chambers,
slavery, rape, black people being monkeys, loving Hitler and hating the Jews.
Or maybe when it was revealed that my any Republican party made a group chat for students
were within three weeks, there were over 400 mentions of the N word as well as misogynistic,
homovobic and anti-Semitic slurs and talk about Nazi having leaks that led to the resignation
of attorney point USA chapter president who wrote, I would deaf not marry a Jew.
Meanwhile, the University of Florida's college Republican chapter was disbanded after
its members were accused of doing a Nazi salute.
And then this month the college Republicans of America appointed a longtime fan of Nick Fuentes
as their political director.
With people that are voting out that he has made comments many consider anti-Semitic saying
that he promoted Fuentes's white boy summer torn 2021.
He was a special guest at Fuentes's conference next year and he's a channel on Cozy.tv
which is a platform founded by Fuentes and Alex Jones.
Now with all this you know the Republican old guard like Ted Cruz for example,
they've watched all this with dismay.
I have seen more anti-Semitism on the right than at any point in my life.
And it is dangerous and it risks consuming our party.
I don't want us to make the same mistake Democrat leaders made a decade ago
of just to look the other way and to be silent.
And also echoing that you had Californias Republican parties circulating a memo last month
warning that Fuentes fans were making their way into party positions and running for office
requiring a conscious effort to keep them out.
So personally I don't think they realize how much they've already been infiltrated which
makes sense because Fuentes has a whole thing where he tells his viewers to hide their power level.
Even at times expressing frustration with his audience for doing things that kind of
were they out themselves.
But also with this you have others that are less concerned arguing instead that these are
just kind of fringe weirdos trying to make themselves seem bigger than they really are.
And there you have some saying that there's evidence to back that up right at a
TPUSA's conference late last year for example an official straw poll found that
87% of attendees viewed Israel as an ally.
And there was also a study published back in December that suggested that Fuentes' rise to
prominence was artificially fueled by foreign bot farms.
As you've had the founding president of the foundation behind the annual National
Conservatism Conference telling the Washington Post, the migration of our politics online has
created a perverse incentive structure.
If you voice anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views you get an instant reward in the form of clicks,
likes and follows.
This fuels the fallacy that the activist base of the party shares these views.
But with that I would warn them you know underestimate these people at your own risk.
Nick Fuentes, Candice Owens, Tucker Carlson, people in this specific space with a certain kind of
view they are prepared for a world where Donald Trump is no longer the president or isn't
around anymore.
And in the vacuum that is left when a leader like that who has his hooks into his supporters so hard
is there there's going to be a change.
And to mention a straw poll about Israel, a TPUSA as a way to go, oh Nick Fuentes and these people
they don't matter, that's a word I don't use anymore.
It's really dumb that those are different kinds of conservatives.
Right in the rise of Donald Trump I'm talking all the way back in like 2016.
That shows what you can do with a really strong initial base of 15% of a party.
So this mega civil war the fights that we see they're not like drama they're not random side
shows. This is this is a war for the the soul of the future of the party.
But then also with us talking about a drastically different future we got to talk about how
we may experience a completely different social media and tech landscape altogether in the future.
And part of that it's connected to why you're seeing parents and advocates celebrating the
cracks that are forming in big tech shield of legal protections.
Right because specifically we need to talk about how juries in two separate states dealt very
very big blows to both meta and YouTube this week. Right just yesterday we saw a jury in LA
finding both companies liable for harms to children using their services.
These are the plaintiff in that case going by KGM and her initial case included all the big
social media companies tiktok snap YouTube and meta with tiktok and snap actually settling
before the case went to trial. You KGM arguing that meta and YouTube's platform features they
were designed intentionally to be addictive especially to young users and specifically blaming
them for the depression and anxiety that she faced as an adult saying the issue is developed
because of her compulsive use of their platforms as a child. And a huge thing is that this is far
from the only case that has made this accusation. In fact thousands of families across the country
have filed similar lawsuits and this was chosen as one of just a handful of bell weather trials.
Right test to see how both sides of this argument play out before a jury. And this one I mean
it seems to have worked out pretty great for them with the jury awarding KGM $6 million in damages.
And meta they're actually on the hook for the biggest chunk of that. And then in New Mexico
you saw a jury order meta to pay $375 million in damages for failing to protect young
users from child predators. Right and finding the company responsible for misleading consumers
about the safety of its platforms. Now with all this as you could probably guess meta and google
which owns YouTube they you know they didn't take kindly to these rulings. Both companies
promised to appeal the case in LA and meta statement argued that teen mental health is quote profoundly
complex and cannot be linked to a single lap. And Google spokesperson responded that the case
misunderstands YouTube which is a responsibly built streaming platform not a social media site.
And also you know a big thing with this is that these are definitely different from previous cases
against social media platforms because they focused on deliberate design choices and product liability
and so they were able to skirt around section 230 which of course having done this over the last
two decades we have talked about a lot it's a it's a chunk of the 1996 communications decency
act that generally exempts internet companies reliability for material that users post on their
platforms. Made at a major hurdle for previous lawsuits focusing on how the platforms actually
distribute content. Are you with these companies successfully arguing for years that any harm
potentially caused by their platforms it's just a byproduct or the unintentional and inevitable
consequences of broader societal issues or bad actors taking advantage of safeguards. And then
also any cases that they've lost they were pretty easily able to pay the penalty as the the
cost to just doing business and then able to move on. A few million dollars it's it's a rounding
error in the eyes of these multi billion dollar companies which is then actually why you have
many people saying that the real victory here isn't necessarily that the company is have to cut a
check but rather there is a very real chance it change. And with tech watchdogs parents and
children's advocates saying things like the era of big tech invincibility is over. After years
of gaslighting from companies at Google and meta new evidence and testimony have pulled back the
curtain and validated the harms young people and parents have been telling the world about for years
and saying for the parents whose children died as a result of social media harms today's verdict
is a huge step toward truth justice and accountability and you've even got people comparing this to the
cases that targeted big tobacco saying this could be the beginning of a reckoning across the
social media landscape especially because like I said there are thousands of cases like KGMs
waiting in the wings and so you're seeing people like an assistant professor of law the University
of Houston Law Center saying for the first time courts have held social media platforms accountable
for how their product design can harm users. This is a new legal territory that could reshape
an industry long shielded by section 230 platforms will have to rethink their focus on engagement at
any cause which has outlived itself. In gym style the chief executive of common sense media said that
these rulings show that the courts are willing to align with state legislatures and foreign
governments to reshape Silicon Valley. Right multiple states have enacted various social media
laws aimed at protecting kids or saying they're protecting kids or launching investigations into
platforms and then also with us also say well lawmakers at the federal level have been slow to act
that the same is not true for other countries. They both the European Union and individual
countries within Europe they've taken more aggressive actions to crack down on social media
usage among younger kids. Right in addition to you know more robust laws in general EU regulators
have launched numerous investigations issued a preliminary decision last month against TikTok
for its addictive designs saying that it threatens the well-being of users including minors.
And in fact just today you had officials announcing that they have launched an investigation into
SNAP for violations of a 2022 law that forced social media companies to police elicit content more
aggressively. And specifically there the EU is alleging that SNAP's age verification system is
ineffective at preventing children under 13 from using the app. Right and regulators also claiming
that the algorithm regularly misclassifies users age 13 to 17 as adults and then directs them to
an explicit content exposes them to dangerous contacts for sexual exploitation provides access
to illegal products. So also as an addition to the excitement and declarations of accountability
from the US rulings it is very important to know that we do not know for sure what the real
outcome of the ripple effects of this are going to be. There are a number of things that are constantly
labeled as like a way to protect kids but it really is cracking down on anonymity on the internet
people's rights in general. And some people have already sounded that alarm saying these rulings
could be teeing up a serious blow to section 230 privacy and free speech. You have the foundation
for individual rights and expressions saying if media companies must worry about liability whenever
their expressive outputs are thought to be harmful the universe of available content would be reduced
to the safest blandest and least engaging stuff imaginable. And when it comes to social media
that affects what you're allowed to post too. Not to mention a potential gold rush for personal
injury attorneys with for example an r-street institute policy analyst noting cases like this
will likely unleash a trial lawyer bananza via a much broader wave of mostly frivolous lawsuits.
Every tort lawyer in America is probably thinking about ripping down there been in a crash
billboards right now and replacing them with addicted to the internet signs. And that was something
you also saw echoed by the Wall Street Journal editorial board saying using a novel product liability
theory to shake down companies won't help young people and isn't a good way to make law. And
then on top of that you have many others pushing back on the argument that social media is addictive
saying you know these platforms aren't products like cigarettes or alcohol. Even making the
comparison at times to similar concerns about comic books back in the 50s. As far as how all of this
is going to turn out we probably aren't going to know for years and years. There's a very long
way to go I mean just even with these two cases. And overall whether it's a good change or a bad
change or whatever change it's going to take court ruling state legislatures congress and even
international pressure like what we're seeing in the EU to truly make a difference or make some sort
of change. But for many out there at least for the the time being you see them acting like this
feels like a step in the right direction. The really time will tell and in the meantime of course
I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. And then there's more we've got to
dive into in just a minute. But first let me thank a sponsor and say you know as a parent it is
wild to me that kids today don't even have a choice when it comes to their digital identity. But before
you kiddie to know is how to manage their inbox the internet can already start profiling them it's
insane and yet it's the norm. And that's where today's sponsor proton male and their born private
campaign come in. For just a dollar you can reserve your child's email address and keep it protected
for up to 15 years. Right that symbolic dollar goes directly to the proton foundation and it
gives your kid a clean start before the tracking profiling and digital baggage start piling up.
It's a smarter way to protect your kids digital identity from day one. You know email isn't this
temporary thing anymore it's how your kid accesses school services and opportunities. But guess what
all of that data it might be tracked, profiled and sold to sketchy third party websites before
your kid even gets a sand the matter. But proton gives your kid a fresh clean slate free from ads
tracking and data mining from the big tech providers. With proton only your kid can read their emails
not even proton itself. It's no one snooping no ads again that no data is getting sold.
Say head to proton.me slash to franko to protect your digital identity today. Protect your child's
privacy while you still can. Then diving right back into the news the White House is threatening to
unleash hell on Iran. The Pentagon is getting ready to deliver one massive final blow and Donald
Trump continues to insist that actually Iran they're the one that's begging for a deal. And
depending on you know whether he's actually telling the truth we may be inching toward an end
to this war or a brand new chapter with even graver consequences. And in the meantime what's
happening with this conflict it's already shaping what's going on with another rushes war in
Ukraine. But where I want to start with you is with the situation between the US and Iran because
Trump says you know they're talking or on says they're not and the truth it might actually be
somewhere in the middle because the administration they just sent Iran a 15 point plan to end the war.
A plan which reportedly called for the country to dismantle its nuclear sites, halty raining
enrichment to spend its ballistic missile program, curb support for its regional allies and fully
re-open the street of Hormuz. But Iran they publicly rejected that plan and they played out
their own conditions for ending the war including an end to sanctions compensation for damages, a
wider ceasefire for the region that protects Hezbollah and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over
the street of Hormuz. And you would Iran's foreign minister telling state media that Iran had
no intention to hold talks with the United States but then despite that you had the US and Israel
temporarily removing him and Iran's speaker apartment from their hit list even as an Israeli
air strike allegedly killed the naval commander who played a key role in shutting down the street of
Hormuz. And you've also reportedly had some Iranian officials speaking to the New York Times
suggesting that they're open to negotiations and they're even considering meeting with Trump
administration officials in Pakistan over the next week but they want more than a temporary
pause to the fighting which they fear that Israel and the US would only use as an opportunity
to build up their forces before launching strikes again. And while they're apparently willing to
discuss limitations on nuclear enrichment they're not open to limitations on the country's missile
program. And they also won't re-open the street of Hormuz without a peace deal in place and
if it is open they still are hoping to charge ships that pass through it. So the available
information it might suggest that the gap between the two sides is still massive but also there
is a real desire to find a diplomatic solution. But this very slight chance of a diplomatic breakthrough
is apparently led Israeli Prime Minister BB Netanyahu to direct his country's military to
increase strikes on Iran's arms industry as much as possible. That order apparently coming
after his government got a copy of Trump's 15 point plan which was reportedly detailed enough to
alarm Netanyahu as staff and Israel's defense chiefs who felt it didn't go far enough to keep
Iran's nuclear program or missile capabilities in check. But then also understand the US is
preparing to ramp up with White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt claiming yesterday that yes
talks were ongoing and productive but also saying that if Iran doesn't make a deal the US will hit
Iran harder than they have ever been hit before and adding President Trump does not bluff and he
is prepared to unleash hell. And so then also with that you had Trump following up on social media
this morning writing the Iranian negotiators are very different and strange they are begging us to
make a deal which they should be doing since they've been militarily obliterated with zero chance
of a comeback and yet they publicly state that they are only looking at our proposal wrong.
They better get serious soon before it is too late because once that happens there is no turning
back and it won't be pretty. And of course you know it's clear that the US is at least positioning
itself to follow through on Trump's threats with thousands more troops on their way to the region
and a $200 billion funding request potentially soon on its way to Congress.
And then on top of that the Pentagon's reportedly developing military options for a final
blow solution that can involve the use of ground forces in a massive bombing campaign including
invading or blockading car gaisland which is Iran's main oil export taking over other strategic
islands that help Iran maintain control over the street and blocking their season ships that are
exporting Iranian oil on the eastern side of the street. And you have some American officials
reportedly of the mind that an adequate display of force it would give the US more leverage in peace
talks or at least give Trump something to point to into clear victory. Then with this you had a
Iran speaker of parliament suggesting that they were aware of the Pentagon's preparations in a
post on Twitter yesterday writing the Iran's enemies with the support of one of the regional
countries are preparing to occupy one of the Iranian islands. All enemy movements are under
the full surveillance of our armed forces. If they stepped out of line all the vital infrastructure
of that regional country will without restriction become the target of relentless attacks.
So it seems likely he was referring to an island steer the western entrance of the stray
controlled by Iran but claimed by the UAE which is likely the regional country that he's mentioning
there. Because along with Saudi Arabia the UAE's reportedly pushed Trump to keep the war going
and even considered getting directly involved. But also according to report from the Wall Street
Journal what Trump may be most concerned with is ending this war quickly. The problem with that
is Iran also gets to say in how the war ends. The options that are being discussed I mean they
could actually drag the fighting out and make it worse instead of pushing things towards a clear
finish. You have people close to Trump reportedly warning that it is very hard to guess what he might
do next saying that he is often gone back and forth between diplomacy and escalation. Though very
notably some of his allies are apparently encouraging him to escalate saying that regime change in Iran
it could be legacy defining and he's reportedly willing to put boots on the ground but is also
reluctant to do so at least partly because they could undermine his goal of bringing the conflict
to a swift end. And then he's also concerned that the number of troops killed or injured
ol' rise if the war continues with so far 13 Americans have been killed and nearly 300 wounded.
And with that you know cracks may be starting to show among Republicans when it comes to support
for this war. Or with several of them leaving classified Pentagon briefings yesterday expressing
frustration at the lack of detailed information that they're getting especially related to the
possibility of sending ground troops into Iran. You'd one lawmakers saying boots on the ground
may be a red line for some and adding that's the time that they're going to abandon the effort
and was concerned that this is not being ruled out. And with that you would Republican Congress
women Nancy May saying she will not support troops on the ground in Iran even more so after
this briefing and attic. The justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran
were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House Armed Services Committee.
Saying this gap is deeply troubling but longer this war continues the faster it will lose the
support of Congress and the American people. We've then also seen frustration being expressed
by European leaders with for example Germany's defense minister saying at a meeting of the G7
today to make it crystal clear this war is a catastrophe for the world's economies. European
partners and Germany highlighted from the beginning that we have not been consulted before. Nobody
asked us before it's not our war. Then in a cabinet meeting today Trump appeared focused on
projecting confidence with him repeatedly insisting that Iran is desperate for a deal in fact not him.
They are begging to make a deal not me. They're begging to make a deal and anybody that so what
was happening over there would understand why they want to make a deal. They are begging to
work out a deal. I don't know if we'll be able to do that. I don't know if we're willing to do that.
They should have done that four weeks ago. They should have done it two years ago
or they should have done it where we first came into office. They are begging to make a deal.
Trump also revealed that his so-called mysterious gift that he was talking about, that he received
from Iran. It was claiming it had allowed several oil tankers to pass through the straight
over moves to show that it was serious about negotiating. Then also speaking of oil tankers,
he had British Prime Minister Kier Starmer authorizing the UK's military to board and attain Russian
shadowfully tankers in British waters today. It's joining other countries including France,
Belgium and Sweden to take in similar measures. But I also mentioned it in a story about Iran because
Starmer specifically claimed that his decision was driven at least partly by the fact that
Russia is benefiting from rising oil prices that are linked to the Iran war. Which also is just
especially the case since the US partially lifted sanctions on Russian oil exports,
helping bring its daily oil revenues to their highest levels in years. And then also that this
is not the only way that the two conflicts are connected. The Pentagon is now also considering
whether to divert weapons originally intended for Ukraine now to the Middle East. And that includes
some of the systems that Ukraine needs most like high-end missile interceptors. The same equipment
that the US has already been redirecting from Europe and East Asia to reinforce its forces in
the Middle East, raising concerns there as well. And then Russia, they may also be trying to use
the war in Iran to undermine US support for Ukraine in other ways as well. Or with, for example,
Zelensky claiming that Russia offered to stop sharing military intelligence with Iran,
if the US cuts off intelligence support to Ukraine in return. And to the meantime, with so much
attention on Iran, Putin's only been ramping up his attacks on the country, launching a new spring
offensive that's involved the largest single-day drone assault since Russia launched its full-scale
invasion more than four years ago. And then of course, you have to remember that both of these
wars they've had massive economic impacts as well. But also, you know, while the conflict may be
driving a crisis, the affordability crisis, it's been a long time in the making. And also,
affordability, it might be about to be an even bigger issue as economists sound the alarm,
right? Politicians are about to make life way more expensive for you because their approach to
the problem is fundamentally flawed. And that's because they're listening to big business instead of
the experts who actually know what they're doing, right? Since affordability has become a buzzword
or political landscape, both sides of the aisle have offered their own solutions. Some have
suggested putting a cap on credit card interest rates and extending mortgages to 50-year terms,
while axing taxes on tips, car loan interest, and overtime pay. Others have been pushing for
freezing rent and utility rates and putting caps on grocery prices, while also tossing round ideas
to suspend seniors' property taxes and the gas tax, which sounds pretty enticing right now.
And both sides have even found some common ground enforcing some institutional investors out of
the housing market, and all of this, again, is in the name of making life cheaper for you.
However, it has also left economists scared shitless. Scott Lensicom, for example,
Vice President of General Economics, the Libertarian Cato Institute, said,
you can come up with a laundry list of these things that are very attractive to normal humans,
but that repulse economists. And politicians may write economic policies, but the ones who
actually know the science behind it, they say that, you know, their solutions, they often cause
other problems. And the catch 22 here is that politicians, you know, they're at the back
can call their voters or at least they're supposed to be often leading to economic solutions
that Lensicom says are eternally seductive because they communicate to a political audience that
you are stopping the price increases. However, these solutions, they also lead to other issues that
have the opposite effect in the long run. So for example, when you look at things like grocery
prices, you have Josh Bivens, the Chief Economist of the Liberal Economic Policy Institute, saying,
if you try to push down grocery prices, you could actually start reducing supply. People might
start going out of business or grocery stores close. Also, another example is the push for rent
control that we've seen from people like Zora and Mom Donnie. There, you've actually got
economist warning, you know, this could make landlords reluctant to invest in their properties either
out of retaliation or genuine financial strain leading to degraded housing and less livable spaces.
Though I will say from both personal experience and just talking to friends, there's a lot of
shitty landlords out there that are going to kind of not make the best choices either way. But,
you know, we don't want to paint everyone with a broad brush. You know, all of these concerns
exist for almost all the ways that politicians have offered to help with affordability. It's a
report say that freezing seniors property taxes, it could lead to higher tax bills for everyone
else, capping credit card interest rates, it could make it harder for low income consumers to
be approved for credit cards. But we, as average citizens, don't always see these risks because
politicians only present the most instantly gratifying parts of these policies to save their seats
in office. And so the economist is saying that the issues in these policies are all because
Congress is working from the wrong end of the problem, which is why they suggest that we need more
income. I should say that the affordability issues will be better solved if we focus on things
like reducing unemployment and strengthening unions. And the idea is that, you know, we should be
adapting to a problem that's here to stay rather than trying to pretend we can snuff it out.
Jason Furman, for example, a Harvard economist who led President Barack Obama's Council of Economic
Advisors, he said, I think we are seeing more bad economic ideas than before because people
are trying to solve a problem that doesn't have a solution. And yeah, that's very tough to hear as
many Americans become one issue voters only concerned with the economy. But many Americans may not
realize that we may be fighting a losing battle if we don't start to see more of a separation
between our politicians and being business. Re cash sitting high or getting slung at Capitol Hill,
you know, that's just been the thing. Right, that's to say, it's not new. This has been happening.
Right, but with this president in particular, reports show that even using the most conservative
estimates, the Trumps have made almost $4 billion off of the presidency in just about a year.
tariffs, those have been weaponized, causing businesses to nose dives, led unprecedented interventions
into companies like Intel. And we've seen his billionaire buddies in high places with an
oligarch level of influence in our government near a tandem, a top Biden advisor and head of the
center for American progress. You had her saying, I haven't seen in my lifetime a president use
the powers of the federal government to interfere with the market more than Trump. But also like when
you look at our capitalists, to me, look at the way things have happened, it's not, it's not
surprising. It's happened. It's not to take any of the blame or the weight off a Trump, but like,
we can't have big business funding campaign trails and cuddling up to politicians if we expect to
economic centered around real people. And then also we can't have politicians placating the
public with quick fix economic solutions that just plants another problem for us to find five
years later. And it's now foreign conflicts are continuing to drive a prices for American citizens
and you got people continuing to search high and low for any job at all, let alone, you know,
one with a livable wage, you have to wonder, at what point is this affordability crisis going
to come to a head? And what will it look like when, you know, we show up to vote in the fall end
in 2028? But that my friends, you beautiful bastards, is the end of your Thursday Philip
to Franco show dive into the news. Let me just say thank you for watching. I love your faces.
And hopefully I'll see you right back here on Monday because there will have not been a reason
that I need to make an emergency episode Friday, Saturday or Sunday, even though I feel like
we are probably going to have to possibly have an emergency episode based off of what I think
is going to happen. We'll see. Stay safe. Stay sane. I'll see you soon.
The Philip DeFranco Show
