MAGA's Civil War Is Worse Than They Realize. The Dam Is Bursting.

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.