August 25, 2025 • 29 mins
The Trump administration and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have really upset LGBT activists with their latest move. But who's actually in the right? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a centrist group advises Democrats to abandon "therapy-speak" and "sociology buzzwords," and President Trump claims a government ownership stake in a U.S. tech company.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm unfortunately completely serious when I say that I experience
and take this as a direct draw physical violence against
the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Like Ronda Santis and the Trump administration just trolled lgbt
activists in Florida and they are not coping. Well, We're
going to break this all down and so much more
on today's episode of The Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from
(00:30):
across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from
an independent perspective. Up first, guys, like I've mentioned, we've
got to check in on Florida, my new home state,
where I recently moved to Miami. By the way, guys,
I'm working on my lighting setup. It's kind of in
an experimental phase at the moment, so don't judge me
too harshly based on how I have things set up
(00:51):
for today. But anyway, Florida, I moved here recently in Miami.
I generally think ron De Santis is a very effective governor,
even if I don't always agree with him about everything,
and that Florida is a pretty great place to live
under his time in office. However, this is really making
ways something he just did in partnership with the Trump
Administration's Department of Transportation, where they in the middle of
(01:15):
the night, painted over a rainbow crosswalk in Orlando that
commemorated the victims of the Pulse Nightclub shooting, infamous mass
shooting that occurred at a gay nightclub a few years ago.
Let's catch up on this story with some reporting from
CBS News.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Florida has started enforcing a new initiative by the Trump
Administration's Department of Transportation. Secretary Sean Duffy directed the nation's
governors to identify what he called safety improvements, including any
political messages or artwork that could be distracting to drivers.
CBS is Christy on Benavitez Is in Delray Beach, where
colorful crosswalks are now in the state's crosshairs.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
This is one of many rainbow crosswalks across the Sunshine
State Arria. Several municipalities have received letters from the Florida
Department of Transportation demanding they paint over the ark or
face funding cuts.
Speaker 5 (02:09):
In Florida, rainbow crosswalks are being removed, including outside Orlando's
Pulse Nightclub, honoring the forty nine people gunned down in
the twenty seventeen mass shooting targeting the LGBTQ community, The
Florida Department of Transportation, the SEAM agency that first painted
the art, erased it. It's not that they do this
because this isn't being here from the day one. Florida
(02:29):
says it's following a new federal directive from the Trump
administration to keep crosswalks and intersections free from distractions. Safety
can never be used as a cover for intolerance. Alex
Fernandez is a Miami Beach City commissioner.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
It is in fact safer the some of our other
crosswalks on Ocean Drive.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
And that's the irony here. In the study, Bloomberg Philanthropy
also found colors and designs and intersections decreased crashes by
more than fifty percent. Think there's been loud and swift
backlash to the removals.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
So, as you can imagine, on an issue this politically
charged in controversial, LGBT activists online are responding in a
way that is perfectly rational and normal, just kidding. Here
is one interesting video. I discovered that it's only slightly
more unhinged than the general tenor of the TikTok discourse.
(03:17):
On this news development. Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
I'm unfortunately completely serious when I say that I experience
and take this as a direct threat of physical violence
against the LGBTQ community. Like it really is that serious,
Like it actually really really is. This is where forty
nine members of our community got killed shots and we
(03:41):
can't even warn our dead, we can't even have like
a symbol of what happened. Like it's really really sick,
and it is that serious, it really really is. And
I think that we all need to like.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
Lock in on that.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Okay, So I'll hold your hand here. It is not,
in fact a threat of violence that they painted over
a rainbow crosswalk. You need to calm down. It's not
the end of the world, and nobody is going to
physically harm you because of this development. Yikes, guys, yikes.
(04:15):
So a few more pieces of information about this development
before I get into my take on it.
Speaker 7 (04:21):
All.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
One is that we've now got in Orlando this kind
of silly standoff where the Florida Highway Patrol are monitoring
the former Pulse Memorial crosswalk after the second repainting it,
So they keep going back and forth in terms of
them chalking it or trying to repaint it, and then
the Florida Department of Transportation coming in and clearing it
(04:43):
out again. So glad to see that we're all super
serious and we're all focused on the things that truly matter.
But guys, my first point here is that I don't
accept the notion that both Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and
go and Irondo Santis have suggested that this is about safety.
(05:04):
For one, there is no evidence that, for example, in Orlando,
this particular crosswalk has caused any safety issues in the
time that it's been installed many years now, actually since
twenty seventeen, I believe, So the idea that this is
like an urgent safety issue seems nonsensical to me. It's
(05:25):
about the politics here, So just be honest about that.
You want to get rid of these because you think
rainbow is inherently political and that there should be no
such thing on city roadways and crosswalks and intersections. Let's
have that debate, But don't gaslight us and tell us
it's about safety, because in fact, the research and evidence
that we do have actually suggests that on the margins,
(05:48):
colorful crosswalks and other such things may increase safety by
causing people to slow down, by increasing the visibility, by
making people notice it more so. If anything, the safety
argument does not cut the way that DeSantis and the
Trump administration are suggesting it. And it's not about that,
So let's just be honest what it's really about. I
(06:10):
also think there's a consistency issue here. Are we really
going to do this? Are we going to get rid
of all political And I agree that the Pride colors
are political, but are we really going to get rid
of all political decorations and paintings on roads, including for example,
this one in Tampa that's back the Blue that is
covering the whole street. I certainly think that if you're
(06:32):
going to go down this path, you have to enforce
it consistently. And I'm not sure DeSantis is going to
want to be known as the governor who had to
paint over all the back the Blue memorials in Florida
in streets and crosswalks and what have you. I don't know,
but if you're going to do this kind of thing,
you have to enforce it consistently. Otherwise you really do
lend credence to the accusations that it's motivated by bigotry
(06:56):
or animus, which I'm open to the idea that it's not,
but I have to say going after the Pulse memorial
is just it's in really poor taste and can only
be defended if you're going to be extremely consistent and
remove everything, because again, this is just not causing any problems,
and it's something that was dear to a lot of
(07:17):
people in a community that experienced a tragedy. And to me,
it kind of feels like the administration and Governor DeSantis
are almost doing the opposite of virtue signaling or like
Republican virtue signaling. They're going after something that's going to
make no difference. This will not improve safety. That's totally silly,
But they're trying to show how anti woke they are,
(07:38):
and they're almost and it's really helping no one but
upsetting and distressing survivors of the shooting, that local community,
their families, upsetting them all just to kind of create
a headline showing, look how much we're doing to stamp
out woke And as concerned as I am about a
lot of the woke ideology that's infiltrated our institutions and
(08:00):
taken over the culture, in this country. I don't really
think that rainbow memorials for nightclub shooting victims are the problem.
And I actually think that when you take it this
far and you go after these kinds of things, especially
if you do so in a selective manner, that you overreach,
you overplay your hand, and this is going to rub
a lot of people the wrong way. It really is
(08:21):
well essentially accomplishing nothing, because again, guys reading from the
Washington Post here, art painted on crosswalks makes streets safer
group says people drive slower and are more alert at
crosswalks decorated with murals. Study Fines and the State of
North Carolina, a red state, their Department of Research and Development,
found that yielding compliance at high visibility crosswalks like a
(08:43):
Pride crosswalk was actually higher. So reading here, a comparative
analysis of the before after data set found that on average,
driver yielding increased by twenty two percent at sites that
were converted to high visibility crosswalks, which was a statistically
significant difference from the change and yield rate observed at
the sites whether crosswalk remain the same. So on the margins,
(09:03):
they may actually be making these local communities less safe
to score points in the culture war. If you ask me,
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And in fact,
conservatives and Republicans over the years have often cried foul
when people, especially Democratic administrations, have tried to leverage federal
tax dollars and grants and the like to force their
(09:26):
preferred policies on the whole country and all localities. But
now they're essentially doing the same thing here. And if
you ask me, it should be up to Orlando City
officials how they want to designate their crosswalks, and not
everything needs to be federalized, and not everything needs to
be part of a culture war. So I think this thing,
I think this is a mistake. I think this is
(09:48):
a misguided effort that will accomplish very little but upset
a lot of people for no real reason at all.
But that's just my take on it. You guys, let
me know what you think in the comments below. Do
make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet, hit that
like button and remember sending your voicemails for my voicemail
Friday episodes where I react to your wo Carter's stories
(10:08):
give you advice on your personal life scenarios. And answer
any questions you guys have for me. The link to
send in one of those is as always in the description. Now,
guys up next, we're going to talk about a really
comical story, at least it's comical to me about the
Democratic Party because it's like the things that we have
been saying for years, critics of kind of woke nonsense
(10:30):
and extreme identity politics. It's like they're finally getting it
a little bit, at least some of them. So there's
this centrist center left group called Third Way, and they
just put out a memo to Democratic candidates telling them
to you don't even have to change any of your policies,
but stop using this insane, woke jargon that no one's
(10:50):
ever heard of that makes you sound like a crazy person.
Here's a clip from CNN explaining the memo and featuring
an executive from the group Third Way discussing it.
Speaker 8 (10:59):
Democrats struggle in poll after poll to connect with voters.
One center left think tank is out with a list
of words they'd like to see the party cut out
of their vocabulary in order to stop President Trump and
Republicans in next year's midterm elections. And if Democrats are listening.
Here's one phrase you wouldn't hear on the campaign trip.
Speaker 7 (11:19):
Climate change is the existential threat.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
An existential threat to America's labor movement.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Climate crisis is the existential threat.
Speaker 7 (11:27):
He loves his word. It's an existential threat, existential. He
has no idea what the hell the word means.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
Here now is Matt Bennett.
Speaker 8 (11:38):
He's co founder and executive vice president for public affairs
for Third Way, the group that published the memo this morning,
and I was telling Matt during the break this pretty
much lit up everybody's social media accounts, text messages, group
chats around Washington this morning.
Speaker 6 (11:51):
We've heard existential threat a lot.
Speaker 8 (11:53):
But I do I want to give people some context
on some other words and phrases that were in this memo.
Body shaming, cis holding space, incarcerated people, intersectionality, LGBTQIA plus,
pregnant people, systems of oppression, the unhoused. Why do you
think it's a words not a policies thing that Democrats
(12:16):
are suffering from right now?
Speaker 6 (12:19):
Oh, it's definitely both. I mean, we're a think tank.
We talk about policies all the time, but I think
sometimes we give short shrift to the words that public
facing democrats like the ones you just showed and others
are using, and those words matter a lot. Ask yourself,
if you're watching this, does anyone in your family around
(12:39):
the table use words like this? Do you hear this
when you talk to people that you went to high
school with, or folks you're talking to at the grocery store.
People just don't talk this way, and when democrats do,
they're putting a barrier between themselves and voters in ways
that are deeply alienating and really off putting. And we
thought it was time for somebody to tell them that.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
So I think this guy makes a really interesting point
here that democratic jargon and this kind of woke speak
is just not how normal people speak. It's really not
something you encounter in real life unless you are in
a college campus, or you live in like a deep
blue urban enclave, or you work in some kind of
(13:20):
HR department or equity field or something like that. This
really isn't how normal people speak, whether they are left, right, center,
somewhere in between, what have you. So it is very
much an alienating way of speaking. Now, some of the
pushback has immediately been, oh well, democrats don't even say
this it's just activists. And I mean, with some of
the more extreme jargon, that might be true that you
(13:42):
don't have a lot of elected officials for the Democrats
saying this kind of stuff, but it's just not true
at the institutional level. And more broadly, I mean I
started covering Democratic politics closely during the twenty twenty presidential primary,
when the different Democratic candidates were all vying for the nomination.
You had Elizabeth Warren, you had Bernie Sanders, you had
(14:02):
Pete Butajudge, you had Kamala Harris, you had Kristen gillibrand
you had others Corey Booker, and then ultimately it was
Joe Biden who got the nomination. And I can tell
you almost every single one of these candidates released all
sorts of equity focused Latin X incarcerated peoples, all sorts
of this stuff in their policy plans, and even the
(14:24):
Biden administration, he was perceived at the time as the
most moderate of all of those choices, but even the
Biden administration went on to embed this kind of DEI
language into many of their executive agencies, agendas, and policies.
And you can go and find all sorts of executive
orders and regulations and rules that have all this stuff
(14:44):
embedded into embedded into it very deeply. So even if
they didn't, you know, President Biden wasn't out here saying
pregnant person very often in public when they even let
him speak in public, that is. But you can't really
deny that this kind of stuff has been thoroughly intertwined
with the Democratic Party to its massive detriment. Now, I
do agree with the CNN host as well when he's like,
(15:06):
but it's not just about the language. It's also about
the policies. I've talked about this. There's no messaging that
could get people to accept Biden's border policy or Biden's
full throated embrace of child sex changes. Simply using different
words isn't going to help you there. But broadly speaking,
on many of these issues, the Democratic positions aren't actually
(15:26):
as radical or crazy as they sound necessarily or as
unpopular as they sound when you use this ridiculous language.
And I want to go through I read the full
memo from Third Way, and I pulled out a couple
pieces of it that I think are going underlook that
are really I mean, it's just wild. This even has
to be said so they talk about therapy speak and
(15:47):
they say these words say, I'm more empathetic than you,
and you are callous to hurting other people's feelings. Privilege
violence as in environmental violence, die logging, othering, triggering, microaggression,
progressive stack centering, holding space, safe space, body shaming. Oh
(16:11):
my goodness, from your lips to God's ears. Third Way,
if I never have to hear about a microaggression ever
again in my life, I will be profoundly grateful to y'all.
But the truth is, no one's gonna Unfortunately, no one's
gonna listen, or at least some Democrats might listen, but
many won't because their staffers are right rabid ideologues who
(16:32):
truly believe all this stuff. And then they're very afraid
of the militant activists in the you know, the groups
as they are called, who push this stuff. So don't
expect major, a lot of major Democrats to change more.
Here from third way gender slash orientation correctness. These say
your views on traditional genders and gender roles are at
(16:53):
best quaint. And then the examples of words here birthing
person slash in seminated person. Yes, that's actually a real example,
Democratic officials started referring to women as the inseminated person
in certain context, I think, regarding like IVF and other
stuff absolutely insane. Other words, here from this list pregnant people,
(17:18):
chest feeding, cisgender dead, naming, heteronormative patriarchy, lgbtqia plus, and
they write standing up to Mega's cruel attacks on gay
and transgender people requires creating empathy and building a broad coalition,
not confusing or shaming people who would otherwise be allies. Now,
while I kind of dispute the idea that MEGA has
(17:40):
attacked gay people, I would say that generally that I
think is true that the Democrats or LGBT activists in
general do a huge disservice to themselves in their own
cause by like micro policing people's language and scolding people
and taking everything to this extreme degree when most people
in a mayorarecca, I think, have a generally live and
(18:02):
let live approach to these kinds of social issues. When
you start saying, oh, well, actually you have to call
it chest feeding, or when you get you know, medical
forms saying pregnant people, people are going to be like
the fuck like normal people, even people have no issue
with gay people, no issue with trans adults living their lives,
and if Democrats were smart, they would internalize some of
(18:24):
this advice, but again I remain skeptical. More here from
Third Way, they talk about the shifting language of racial constructs.
These words signal that talking about race is even more
of a minefield. You'll be called out as racist if
you do not use the latest and correct terminology. Then
they list these words here LATINX, bipoc allyeship, intersectionality, minoritized communities,
(18:51):
and they say, as we fight racism and discrimination, we
should reflect upon whether the words we are using are
part of the reason Democrats are losing support from all
non white voter groups. We must know when to take
a step back and listen instead of peppering our websites,
fundraising asks and newsletters with sociology buzzwords. Wow, I mean
(19:12):
some people get it, and latinx is actually a great
example for the people who want to say, oh, well,
Democratic officials don't even use this, it's just Twitter activists.
Then it gets attributed to all Democrats. That is not
true LATINX. Biden and Harris said latinx too many times
to count in tweets, documents, statements. Gavin Newsom, the governor
(19:33):
of California, who's rebranding himself as like, Oh, I'm a
moderate dude, says I'd never even heard LATINX. He said
it dozens of times. Dozens. I mean, So, this stuff
is embedded, embedded into democratic rhetoric, whether they want to
admit it or not. And it is so cringe and
so alienating that, like they said, minorities don't like it.
They find it offensive and condescending and ridiculous. And Democrats
(19:56):
have gotten less popular with racial minorities more or they
have embraced like woke identity speak that should tell you something,
and it's not something good about that approach to identity issues.
One final piece from this third way memo explaining away crime.
This language says the criminal is the victim, and the
victim is an afterthought. Justice involved incarceration, incarcerated people instead
(20:23):
of prisoners, involuntary confinement. And then a third way right.
People deserve to feel safe where they live, work, and
go to school. And we can't defend the progress we've
made on criminal justice reform or hope to make more
unless we acknowledge that reality in plain terms. I agree
with this I mean, I am somebody who supports a
fair amount of criminal justice reform in many ways. But
(20:43):
when you hear progressives speak about these issues, whether it
was the whole abolish the police, defund the police debacle,
or whether it was you know, talking about felons who
hit hurts somebody badly and saying, oh, well, that's a
justice involved individual, like as in the justice system, it's
just insane. It strikes most people as totally out of
(21:05):
touch and again like prioritizing the criminals over the victims,
which is not actually you know, if you were going
to have sensible criminal justice reform, you can improve public
safety by not wasting resources on stupid things and instead
concentrating them where they're needed most. But this kind of
woke speak does the cause such a disservice and has
(21:26):
really allowed it to be hijacked by radical activists who
don't even believe in policing at all. And frankly, any
movement like that is never going to be remotely mainstreamed
in America. So I thought this memo was really interesting.
The splash that it's made online has been fascinating to
me as well. I think it's resonating with some people
on the center left, but ultimately not with the ones
(21:49):
who actually need to hear it, the squad, the Progressive Democrats,
the new leaders of this party. I don't really They
might drop some of the more extreme in buzzwords, but
the fundamental thrust of it all, the kind of social
justice activism and ideology underlying it. I don't think they'll
ever give up. But I could be wrong this time.
(22:11):
I actually hope I'm wrong, but I don't know. We'll
have to see you, guys. Let me know what you
think in the comments below. Make sure subscribe if you're
not yet, and hit that like button while you're at it. Okay, guys.
One final story I want to touch on today, and
that is a big announcement coming out of the Trump
administration that they plan on taking on behalf of the
(22:31):
US government ten percent of the tech company Intel. Here
is Trump speaking about that decision.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Is that Intel.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
Reports it considering Intel about the ten percent?
Speaker 7 (22:45):
Yeah. I met a man who was a very nice man,
and I called for his removal because I saw something
by a man named Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkinsas
is a great guy, friend of mine, supporter of mine.
Big I'm a supporter of his two and he wrote
a pretty nasty story about the head of Intel, and
I said, well, if that's right, he should resign. And
(23:06):
he came in, he saw me, we talked for a while.
I liked him a lot. I thought he was very good.
I thought he was somewhat a victim, but you know,
nobody's a total victim, I guess. And I said, you
know what, I think the United States should be given
ten percent of Intel. And he said I would consider that.
(23:27):
I say, well, I'd like you to do that because
Intel has been left behind, as you know, compared to
Jensen and some of our friends and Vidio, some of
the people and the people, and because Intel should have
never been Intel was the biggest, most powerful chip company
in the world.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I feel like I'm going crazy because Trump explicitly campaigned
on the idea that Kamala Harris was like a socialist
radical and jew was pretty far to the left. But
now we have him literally having government take ownership of
the means of production, which is socialist in nature. I mean,
it's just ten percent, it's a non voting share, I understand,
(24:10):
but it's to me just not something that's remotely necessary.
Or a good idea, and just seems like a step backwards.
Speaker 6 (24:18):
Now.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Their argument is that, well, we're giving them these billions
of dollars of corporate welfare, taxpayer subsidase under the Chips AC,
so we should get something in return. And to that
I would say, no, just stop giving away our money
to these massive companies, especially ones that are failing. Intel
is a failing company, and now the government is investing
in it, giving them billions of dollars in taking stock ownership.
(24:41):
What could possibly go wrong?
Speaker 7 (24:43):
Right?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
I Mean, the one thing I have to say about
this is I don't think it's like the end of
the world. I ultimately think people will blink and forget
about this. But I do bristle at it. For one,
just the kind of core ideological bankruptcy of it all.
And then two, I know for a fact that right
he's being heralded as like, oh, what a good businessman.
(25:04):
Right now, if Obama had done something like this, and
he actually did something like this with car manufacturers, but
that was just temporary and at least that was authorized
by legislation. There's no actual authorization for Trump doing this.
But if a Democrat had done this, Fox News and
Conservatives would be crying Marxists, communists, socialists, they'd be blaring
(25:25):
it as like anti American and all this stuff, and
Trump does it and they're like, great businessman, maga. I
just it's stuff like this. Like I said, I don't
think it's the end of the world. I don't think
it's actually that consequential of a move. But it's just
it's the kind of thing that reminds me of the
hypocrisy and the total lack of principles of guiding principles
(25:46):
of really either political party at this point, but especially
of the political parties media apparatuses that they really have
no values other than their team. And the only criticism
I've seen of this on the right has been from
out side figures and it's been pretty muted. And I
just know that if a Democrat had done the same
exact thing, they would be screaming bloody murder. I would
(26:08):
probably be saying the same thing in either case that
I think it's unnecessary and dumb and probably just gonna
end up being a waste of money, and it's gonna actually,
you know, Trump talks about like draining the swamp. This
kind of thing feeds the swamp because it plays into
crony capitalism. So I would be saying it's a mistake
either way. But most people in media you will see
basically just flip on a dime based on what the
(26:31):
party is of the person doing it. And I find
that incredibly, incredibly demoralizing and pathetic. I want to read you,
guys a thread from the economist. Scott lends a comb
of the Cato Institute explaining a few reasons why this
kind of thing can be harmful from an economic perspective.
So he called this a terrible decision that's bad for
almost everyone, and here are six quick reasons why. Number one,
(26:52):
he says it's bad for Intel's long term viability as politics,
not commercial considerations, increasingly decide to drive its decisions, and
he notes that state owned enterprises are notoriously slow, bloated,
and unproductive. He also adds that foreign governments may target
Intel like with sanctions and the like. He then concludes
(27:13):
as well that this is bad for Intel's competitors who
are suddenly competing against it and Uncle Sam, for customers, capital, etc.
And not just chip production, because they do a lot
of other stuff. He now says that this is bad
for Intel's customers, who must also fear and may face
pressure to buy Intel's products regardless of their merit. After all,
(27:34):
Intel is still struggling to make a top end chip,
and this is bad for the US tech sector overall.
He also adds that this is bad for US exports,
which is something Trump wants to promote, because sales from Intel,
which is now a state owned enterprise, might be deemed
government subsidies by foreign governments, which could then slap countervailing
duties aka more tariffs and levies on US goods containing
(27:56):
Intel's chips, which actually this was the government's position in
the US. Free Scott concludes that overall, it's a horrendous
move that will have real harms for US companies, US
tech leadership, and the US economy overall. Hopefully they don't
go through with it. Well, they are going through with it,
and I don't think it's a great idea. This is
not the kind of thing I support. I'm here to
(28:17):
tell you that, and I'd be saying the same thing
as far as the principles and economics behind it if
Biden was doing it. However, the more revealing beyond the
economics of this all The more revealing thing about this
to me is how suddenly you have Democrats, democratic elected
officials getting on television and saying this is an attack
on free market capitalism, as if that's something they have
(28:40):
ever cared about, and you have Fox News hosts and
Republican politicians cheering this as smart, great leadership and a
businessman taking charge, when we all know if a Democrat
had done it, they would be screaming Marxism, literally Marxism,
all over TV, radio and the halls of Congress. So
(29:02):
to me that that's actually the more important reminder and
lesson from this is that basically everyone is a partisan fraud.
Sorry to demoralize y'all on this Monday, but that's my
takeaway here. You guys let me know, Like I'm open
to you guys having a different perspective on whether it's
a good deal or not a good deal. I think
it's baby debatable. Like I said, I don't think it's
(29:23):
going to be the end of the world either way,
but I do kind of despair in the hypocrisy that
moves like this reveal in our media and in our
political class. What do you guys think? Let me know
in the comments, Hit that like button. While you're at it,
make sure subscribed. Remember to sending your voicemails for my
Voicemail Friday episodes, and we'll talk again real soon
I'm unfortunately completely serious when I say that I experience
and take this as a direct draw physical violence against
the LGBTQ community.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Like Ronda Santis and the Trump administration just trolled lgbt
activists in Florida and they are not coping. Well, We're
going to break this all down and so much more
on today's episode of The Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from
(00:30):
across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from
an independent perspective. Up first, guys, like I've mentioned, we've
got to check in on Florida, my new home state,
where I recently moved to Miami. By the way, guys,
I'm working on my lighting setup. It's kind of in
an experimental phase at the moment, so don't judge me
too harshly based on how I have things set up
(00:51):
for today. But anyway, Florida, I moved here recently in Miami.
I generally think ron De Santis is a very effective governor,
even if I don't always agree with him about everything,
and that Florida is a pretty great place to live
under his time in office. However, this is really making
ways something he just did in partnership with the Trump
Administration's Department of Transportation, where they in the middle of
(01:15):
the night, painted over a rainbow crosswalk in Orlando that
commemorated the victims of the Pulse Nightclub shooting, infamous mass
shooting that occurred at a gay nightclub a few years ago.
Let's catch up on this story with some reporting from
CBS News.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
Florida has started enforcing a new initiative by the Trump
Administration's Department of Transportation. Secretary Sean Duffy directed the nation's
governors to identify what he called safety improvements, including any
political messages or artwork that could be distracting to drivers.
CBS is Christy on Benavitez Is in Delray Beach, where
colorful crosswalks are now in the state's crosshairs.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
This is one of many rainbow crosswalks across the Sunshine
State Arria. Several municipalities have received letters from the Florida
Department of Transportation demanding they paint over the ark or
face funding cuts.
Speaker 5 (02:09):
In Florida, rainbow crosswalks are being removed, including outside Orlando's
Pulse Nightclub, honoring the forty nine people gunned down in
the twenty seventeen mass shooting targeting the LGBTQ community, The
Florida Department of Transportation, the SEAM agency that first painted
the art, erased it. It's not that they do this
because this isn't being here from the day one. Florida
(02:29):
says it's following a new federal directive from the Trump
administration to keep crosswalks and intersections free from distractions. Safety
can never be used as a cover for intolerance. Alex
Fernandez is a Miami Beach City commissioner.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
It is in fact safer the some of our other
crosswalks on Ocean Drive.
Speaker 5 (02:45):
And that's the irony here. In the study, Bloomberg Philanthropy
also found colors and designs and intersections decreased crashes by
more than fifty percent. Think there's been loud and swift
backlash to the removals.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
So, as you can imagine, on an issue this politically
charged in controversial, LGBT activists online are responding in a
way that is perfectly rational and normal, just kidding. Here
is one interesting video. I discovered that it's only slightly
more unhinged than the general tenor of the TikTok discourse.
(03:17):
On this news development. Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
I'm unfortunately completely serious when I say that I experience
and take this as a direct threat of physical violence
against the LGBTQ community. Like it really is that serious,
Like it actually really really is. This is where forty
nine members of our community got killed shots and we
(03:41):
can't even warn our dead, we can't even have like
a symbol of what happened. Like it's really really sick,
and it is that serious, it really really is. And
I think that we all need to like.
Speaker 6 (03:53):
Lock in on that.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Okay, So I'll hold your hand here. It is not,
in fact a threat of violence that they painted over
a rainbow crosswalk. You need to calm down. It's not
the end of the world, and nobody is going to
physically harm you because of this development. Yikes, guys, yikes.
(04:15):
So a few more pieces of information about this development
before I get into my take on it.
Speaker 7 (04:21):
All.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
One is that we've now got in Orlando this kind
of silly standoff where the Florida Highway Patrol are monitoring
the former Pulse Memorial crosswalk after the second repainting it,
So they keep going back and forth in terms of
them chalking it or trying to repaint it, and then
the Florida Department of Transportation coming in and clearing it
(04:43):
out again. So glad to see that we're all super
serious and we're all focused on the things that truly matter.
But guys, my first point here is that I don't
accept the notion that both Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and
go and Irondo Santis have suggested that this is about safety.
(05:04):
For one, there is no evidence that, for example, in Orlando,
this particular crosswalk has caused any safety issues in the
time that it's been installed many years now, actually since
twenty seventeen, I believe, So the idea that this is
like an urgent safety issue seems nonsensical to me. It's
(05:25):
about the politics here, So just be honest about that.
You want to get rid of these because you think
rainbow is inherently political and that there should be no
such thing on city roadways and crosswalks and intersections. Let's
have that debate, But don't gaslight us and tell us
it's about safety, because in fact, the research and evidence
that we do have actually suggests that on the margins,
(05:48):
colorful crosswalks and other such things may increase safety by
causing people to slow down, by increasing the visibility, by
making people notice it more so. If anything, the safety
argument does not cut the way that DeSantis and the
Trump administration are suggesting it. And it's not about that,
So let's just be honest what it's really about. I
(06:10):
also think there's a consistency issue here. Are we really
going to do this? Are we going to get rid
of all political And I agree that the Pride colors
are political, but are we really going to get rid
of all political decorations and paintings on roads, including for example,
this one in Tampa that's back the Blue that is
covering the whole street. I certainly think that if you're
(06:32):
going to go down this path, you have to enforce
it consistently. And I'm not sure DeSantis is going to
want to be known as the governor who had to
paint over all the back the Blue memorials in Florida
in streets and crosswalks and what have you. I don't know,
but if you're going to do this kind of thing,
you have to enforce it consistently. Otherwise you really do
lend credence to the accusations that it's motivated by bigotry
(06:56):
or animus, which I'm open to the idea that it's not,
but I have to say going after the Pulse memorial
is just it's in really poor taste and can only
be defended if you're going to be extremely consistent and
remove everything, because again, this is just not causing any problems,
and it's something that was dear to a lot of
(07:17):
people in a community that experienced a tragedy. And to me,
it kind of feels like the administration and Governor DeSantis
are almost doing the opposite of virtue signaling or like
Republican virtue signaling. They're going after something that's going to
make no difference. This will not improve safety. That's totally silly,
But they're trying to show how anti woke they are,
(07:38):
and they're almost and it's really helping no one but
upsetting and distressing survivors of the shooting, that local community,
their families, upsetting them all just to kind of create
a headline showing, look how much we're doing to stamp
out woke And as concerned as I am about a
lot of the woke ideology that's infiltrated our institutions and
(08:00):
taken over the culture, in this country. I don't really
think that rainbow memorials for nightclub shooting victims are the problem.
And I actually think that when you take it this
far and you go after these kinds of things, especially
if you do so in a selective manner, that you overreach,
you overplay your hand, and this is going to rub
a lot of people the wrong way. It really is
(08:21):
well essentially accomplishing nothing, because again, guys reading from the
Washington Post here, art painted on crosswalks makes streets safer
group says people drive slower and are more alert at
crosswalks decorated with murals. Study Fines and the State of
North Carolina, a red state, their Department of Research and Development,
found that yielding compliance at high visibility crosswalks like a
(08:43):
Pride crosswalk was actually higher. So reading here, a comparative
analysis of the before after data set found that on average,
driver yielding increased by twenty two percent at sites that
were converted to high visibility crosswalks, which was a statistically
significant difference from the change and yield rate observed at
the sites whether crosswalk remain the same. So on the margins,
(09:03):
they may actually be making these local communities less safe
to score points in the culture war. If you ask me,
that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And in fact,
conservatives and Republicans over the years have often cried foul
when people, especially Democratic administrations, have tried to leverage federal
tax dollars and grants and the like to force their
(09:26):
preferred policies on the whole country and all localities. But
now they're essentially doing the same thing here. And if
you ask me, it should be up to Orlando City
officials how they want to designate their crosswalks, and not
everything needs to be federalized, and not everything needs to
be part of a culture war. So I think this thing,
I think this is a mistake. I think this is
(09:48):
a misguided effort that will accomplish very little but upset
a lot of people for no real reason at all.
But that's just my take on it. You guys, let
me know what you think in the comments below. Do
make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet, hit that
like button and remember sending your voicemails for my voicemail
Friday episodes where I react to your wo Carter's stories
(10:08):
give you advice on your personal life scenarios. And answer
any questions you guys have for me. The link to
send in one of those is as always in the description. Now,
guys up next, we're going to talk about a really
comical story, at least it's comical to me about the
Democratic Party because it's like the things that we have
been saying for years, critics of kind of woke nonsense
(10:30):
and extreme identity politics. It's like they're finally getting it
a little bit, at least some of them. So there's
this centrist center left group called Third Way, and they
just put out a memo to Democratic candidates telling them
to you don't even have to change any of your policies,
but stop using this insane, woke jargon that no one's
(10:50):
ever heard of that makes you sound like a crazy person.
Here's a clip from CNN explaining the memo and featuring
an executive from the group Third Way discussing it.
Speaker 8 (10:59):
Democrats struggle in poll after poll to connect with voters.
One center left think tank is out with a list
of words they'd like to see the party cut out
of their vocabulary in order to stop President Trump and
Republicans in next year's midterm elections. And if Democrats are listening.
Here's one phrase you wouldn't hear on the campaign trip.
Speaker 7 (11:19):
Climate change is the existential threat.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
An existential threat to America's labor movement.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Climate crisis is the existential threat.
Speaker 7 (11:27):
He loves his word. It's an existential threat, existential. He
has no idea what the hell the word means.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
Here now is Matt Bennett.
Speaker 8 (11:38):
He's co founder and executive vice president for public affairs
for Third Way, the group that published the memo this morning,
and I was telling Matt during the break this pretty
much lit up everybody's social media accounts, text messages, group
chats around Washington this morning.
Speaker 6 (11:51):
We've heard existential threat a lot.
Speaker 8 (11:53):
But I do I want to give people some context
on some other words and phrases that were in this memo.
Body shaming, cis holding space, incarcerated people, intersectionality, LGBTQIA plus,
pregnant people, systems of oppression, the unhoused. Why do you
think it's a words not a policies thing that Democrats
(12:16):
are suffering from right now?
Speaker 6 (12:19):
Oh, it's definitely both. I mean, we're a think tank.
We talk about policies all the time, but I think
sometimes we give short shrift to the words that public
facing democrats like the ones you just showed and others
are using, and those words matter a lot. Ask yourself,
if you're watching this, does anyone in your family around
(12:39):
the table use words like this? Do you hear this
when you talk to people that you went to high
school with, or folks you're talking to at the grocery store.
People just don't talk this way, and when democrats do,
they're putting a barrier between themselves and voters in ways
that are deeply alienating and really off putting. And we
thought it was time for somebody to tell them that.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
So I think this guy makes a really interesting point
here that democratic jargon and this kind of woke speak
is just not how normal people speak. It's really not
something you encounter in real life unless you are in
a college campus, or you live in like a deep
blue urban enclave, or you work in some kind of
(13:20):
HR department or equity field or something like that. This
really isn't how normal people speak, whether they are left, right, center,
somewhere in between, what have you. So it is very
much an alienating way of speaking. Now, some of the
pushback has immediately been, oh well, democrats don't even say
this it's just activists. And I mean, with some of
the more extreme jargon, that might be true that you
(13:42):
don't have a lot of elected officials for the Democrats
saying this kind of stuff, but it's just not true
at the institutional level. And more broadly, I mean I
started covering Democratic politics closely during the twenty twenty presidential primary,
when the different Democratic candidates were all vying for the nomination.
You had Elizabeth Warren, you had Bernie Sanders, you had
(14:02):
Pete Butajudge, you had Kamala Harris, you had Kristen gillibrand
you had others Corey Booker, and then ultimately it was
Joe Biden who got the nomination. And I can tell
you almost every single one of these candidates released all
sorts of equity focused Latin X incarcerated peoples, all sorts
of this stuff in their policy plans, and even the
(14:24):
Biden administration, he was perceived at the time as the
most moderate of all of those choices, but even the
Biden administration went on to embed this kind of DEI
language into many of their executive agencies, agendas, and policies.
And you can go and find all sorts of executive
orders and regulations and rules that have all this stuff
(14:44):
embedded into embedded into it very deeply. So even if
they didn't, you know, President Biden wasn't out here saying
pregnant person very often in public when they even let
him speak in public, that is. But you can't really
deny that this kind of stuff has been thoroughly intertwined
with the Democratic Party to its massive detriment. Now, I
do agree with the CNN host as well when he's like,
(15:06):
but it's not just about the language. It's also about
the policies. I've talked about this. There's no messaging that
could get people to accept Biden's border policy or Biden's
full throated embrace of child sex changes. Simply using different
words isn't going to help you there. But broadly speaking,
on many of these issues, the Democratic positions aren't actually
(15:26):
as radical or crazy as they sound necessarily or as
unpopular as they sound when you use this ridiculous language.
And I want to go through I read the full
memo from Third Way, and I pulled out a couple
pieces of it that I think are going underlook that
are really I mean, it's just wild. This even has
to be said so they talk about therapy speak and
(15:47):
they say these words say, I'm more empathetic than you,
and you are callous to hurting other people's feelings. Privilege
violence as in environmental violence, die logging, othering, triggering, microaggression,
progressive stack centering, holding space, safe space, body shaming. Oh
(16:11):
my goodness, from your lips to God's ears. Third Way,
if I never have to hear about a microaggression ever
again in my life, I will be profoundly grateful to y'all.
But the truth is, no one's gonna Unfortunately, no one's
gonna listen, or at least some Democrats might listen, but
many won't because their staffers are right rabid ideologues who
(16:32):
truly believe all this stuff. And then they're very afraid
of the militant activists in the you know, the groups
as they are called, who push this stuff. So don't
expect major, a lot of major Democrats to change more.
Here from third way gender slash orientation correctness. These say
your views on traditional genders and gender roles are at
(16:53):
best quaint. And then the examples of words here birthing
person slash in seminated person. Yes, that's actually a real example,
Democratic officials started referring to women as the inseminated person
in certain context, I think, regarding like IVF and other
stuff absolutely insane. Other words, here from this list pregnant people,
(17:18):
chest feeding, cisgender dead, naming, heteronormative patriarchy, lgbtqia plus, and
they write standing up to Mega's cruel attacks on gay
and transgender people requires creating empathy and building a broad coalition,
not confusing or shaming people who would otherwise be allies. Now,
while I kind of dispute the idea that MEGA has
(17:40):
attacked gay people, I would say that generally that I
think is true that the Democrats or LGBT activists in
general do a huge disservice to themselves in their own
cause by like micro policing people's language and scolding people
and taking everything to this extreme degree when most people
in a mayorarecca, I think, have a generally live and
(18:02):
let live approach to these kinds of social issues. When
you start saying, oh, well, actually you have to call
it chest feeding, or when you get you know, medical
forms saying pregnant people, people are going to be like
the fuck like normal people, even people have no issue
with gay people, no issue with trans adults living their lives,
and if Democrats were smart, they would internalize some of
(18:24):
this advice, but again I remain skeptical. More here from
Third Way, they talk about the shifting language of racial constructs.
These words signal that talking about race is even more
of a minefield. You'll be called out as racist if
you do not use the latest and correct terminology. Then
they list these words here LATINX, bipoc allyeship, intersectionality, minoritized communities,
(18:51):
and they say, as we fight racism and discrimination, we
should reflect upon whether the words we are using are
part of the reason Democrats are losing support from all
non white voter groups. We must know when to take
a step back and listen instead of peppering our websites,
fundraising asks and newsletters with sociology buzzwords. Wow, I mean
(19:12):
some people get it, and latinx is actually a great
example for the people who want to say, oh, well,
Democratic officials don't even use this, it's just Twitter activists.
Then it gets attributed to all Democrats. That is not
true LATINX. Biden and Harris said latinx too many times
to count in tweets, documents, statements. Gavin Newsom, the governor
(19:33):
of California, who's rebranding himself as like, Oh, I'm a
moderate dude, says I'd never even heard LATINX. He said
it dozens of times. Dozens. I mean, So, this stuff
is embedded, embedded into democratic rhetoric, whether they want to
admit it or not. And it is so cringe and
so alienating that, like they said, minorities don't like it.
They find it offensive and condescending and ridiculous. And Democrats
(19:56):
have gotten less popular with racial minorities more or they
have embraced like woke identity speak that should tell you something,
and it's not something good about that approach to identity issues.
One final piece from this third way memo explaining away crime.
This language says the criminal is the victim, and the
victim is an afterthought. Justice involved incarceration, incarcerated people instead
(20:23):
of prisoners, involuntary confinement. And then a third way right.
People deserve to feel safe where they live, work, and
go to school. And we can't defend the progress we've
made on criminal justice reform or hope to make more
unless we acknowledge that reality in plain terms. I agree
with this I mean, I am somebody who supports a
fair amount of criminal justice reform in many ways. But
(20:43):
when you hear progressives speak about these issues, whether it
was the whole abolish the police, defund the police debacle,
or whether it was you know, talking about felons who
hit hurts somebody badly and saying, oh, well, that's a
justice involved individual, like as in the justice system, it's
just insane. It strikes most people as totally out of
(21:05):
touch and again like prioritizing the criminals over the victims,
which is not actually you know, if you were going
to have sensible criminal justice reform, you can improve public
safety by not wasting resources on stupid things and instead
concentrating them where they're needed most. But this kind of
woke speak does the cause such a disservice and has
(21:26):
really allowed it to be hijacked by radical activists who
don't even believe in policing at all. And frankly, any
movement like that is never going to be remotely mainstreamed
in America. So I thought this memo was really interesting.
The splash that it's made online has been fascinating to
me as well. I think it's resonating with some people
on the center left, but ultimately not with the ones
(21:49):
who actually need to hear it, the squad, the Progressive Democrats,
the new leaders of this party. I don't really They
might drop some of the more extreme in buzzwords, but
the fundamental thrust of it all, the kind of social
justice activism and ideology underlying it. I don't think they'll
ever give up. But I could be wrong this time.
(22:11):
I actually hope I'm wrong, but I don't know. We'll
have to see you, guys. Let me know what you
think in the comments below. Make sure subscribe if you're
not yet, and hit that like button while you're at it. Okay, guys.
One final story I want to touch on today, and
that is a big announcement coming out of the Trump
administration that they plan on taking on behalf of the
(22:31):
US government ten percent of the tech company Intel. Here
is Trump speaking about that decision.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Is that Intel.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
Reports it considering Intel about the ten percent?
Speaker 7 (22:45):
Yeah. I met a man who was a very nice man,
and I called for his removal because I saw something
by a man named Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkinsas
is a great guy, friend of mine, supporter of mine.
Big I'm a supporter of his two and he wrote
a pretty nasty story about the head of Intel, and
I said, well, if that's right, he should resign. And
(23:06):
he came in, he saw me, we talked for a while.
I liked him a lot. I thought he was very good.
I thought he was somewhat a victim, but you know,
nobody's a total victim, I guess. And I said, you
know what, I think the United States should be given
ten percent of Intel. And he said I would consider that.
(23:27):
I say, well, I'd like you to do that because
Intel has been left behind, as you know, compared to
Jensen and some of our friends and Vidio, some of
the people and the people, and because Intel should have
never been Intel was the biggest, most powerful chip company
in the world.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
I feel like I'm going crazy because Trump explicitly campaigned
on the idea that Kamala Harris was like a socialist
radical and jew was pretty far to the left. But
now we have him literally having government take ownership of
the means of production, which is socialist in nature. I mean,
it's just ten percent, it's a non voting share, I understand,
(24:10):
but it's to me just not something that's remotely necessary.
Or a good idea, and just seems like a step backwards.
Speaker 6 (24:18):
Now.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Their argument is that, well, we're giving them these billions
of dollars of corporate welfare, taxpayer subsidase under the Chips AC,
so we should get something in return. And to that
I would say, no, just stop giving away our money
to these massive companies, especially ones that are failing. Intel
is a failing company, and now the government is investing
in it, giving them billions of dollars in taking stock ownership.
(24:41):
What could possibly go wrong?
Speaker 7 (24:43):
Right?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
I Mean, the one thing I have to say about
this is I don't think it's like the end of
the world. I ultimately think people will blink and forget
about this. But I do bristle at it. For one,
just the kind of core ideological bankruptcy of it all.
And then two, I know for a fact that right
he's being heralded as like, oh, what a good businessman.
(25:04):
Right now, if Obama had done something like this, and
he actually did something like this with car manufacturers, but
that was just temporary and at least that was authorized
by legislation. There's no actual authorization for Trump doing this.
But if a Democrat had done this, Fox News and
Conservatives would be crying Marxists, communists, socialists, they'd be blaring
(25:25):
it as like anti American and all this stuff, and
Trump does it and they're like, great businessman, maga. I
just it's stuff like this. Like I said, I don't
think it's the end of the world. I don't think
it's actually that consequential of a move. But it's just
it's the kind of thing that reminds me of the
hypocrisy and the total lack of principles of guiding principles
(25:46):
of really either political party at this point, but especially
of the political parties media apparatuses that they really have
no values other than their team. And the only criticism
I've seen of this on the right has been from
out side figures and it's been pretty muted. And I
just know that if a Democrat had done the same
exact thing, they would be screaming bloody murder. I would
(26:08):
probably be saying the same thing in either case that
I think it's unnecessary and dumb and probably just gonna
end up being a waste of money, and it's gonna actually,
you know, Trump talks about like draining the swamp. This
kind of thing feeds the swamp because it plays into
crony capitalism. So I would be saying it's a mistake
either way. But most people in media you will see
basically just flip on a dime based on what the
(26:31):
party is of the person doing it. And I find
that incredibly, incredibly demoralizing and pathetic. I want to read you,
guys a thread from the economist. Scott lends a comb
of the Cato Institute explaining a few reasons why this
kind of thing can be harmful from an economic perspective.
So he called this a terrible decision that's bad for
almost everyone, and here are six quick reasons why. Number one,
(26:52):
he says it's bad for Intel's long term viability as politics,
not commercial considerations, increasingly decide to drive its decisions, and
he notes that state owned enterprises are notoriously slow, bloated,
and unproductive. He also adds that foreign governments may target
Intel like with sanctions and the like. He then concludes
(27:13):
as well that this is bad for Intel's competitors who
are suddenly competing against it and Uncle Sam, for customers, capital, etc.
And not just chip production, because they do a lot
of other stuff. He now says that this is bad
for Intel's customers, who must also fear and may face
pressure to buy Intel's products regardless of their merit. After all,
(27:34):
Intel is still struggling to make a top end chip,
and this is bad for the US tech sector overall.
He also adds that this is bad for US exports,
which is something Trump wants to promote, because sales from Intel,
which is now a state owned enterprise, might be deemed
government subsidies by foreign governments, which could then slap countervailing
duties aka more tariffs and levies on US goods containing
(27:56):
Intel's chips, which actually this was the government's position in
the US. Free Scott concludes that overall, it's a horrendous
move that will have real harms for US companies, US
tech leadership, and the US economy overall. Hopefully they don't
go through with it. Well, they are going through with it,
and I don't think it's a great idea. This is
not the kind of thing I support. I'm here to
(28:17):
tell you that, and I'd be saying the same thing
as far as the principles and economics behind it if
Biden was doing it. However, the more revealing beyond the
economics of this all The more revealing thing about this
to me is how suddenly you have Democrats, democratic elected
officials getting on television and saying this is an attack
on free market capitalism, as if that's something they have
(28:40):
ever cared about, and you have Fox News hosts and
Republican politicians cheering this as smart, great leadership and a
businessman taking charge, when we all know if a Democrat
had done it, they would be screaming Marxism, literally Marxism,
all over TV, radio and the halls of Congress. So
(29:02):
to me that that's actually the more important reminder and
lesson from this is that basically everyone is a partisan fraud.
Sorry to demoralize y'all on this Monday, but that's my
takeaway here. You guys let me know, Like I'm open
to you guys having a different perspective on whether it's
a good deal or not a good deal. I think
it's baby debatable. Like I said, I don't think it's
(29:23):
going to be the end of the world either way,
but I do kind of despair in the hypocrisy that
moves like this reveal in our media and in our
political class. What do you guys think? Let me know
in the comments, Hit that like button. While you're at it,
make sure subscribed. Remember to sending your voicemails for my
Voicemail Friday episodes, and we'll talk again real soon
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com