November 25, 2025 • 38 mins
A wild new anti-Trump conspiracy theory about a change affecting "professional degrees" is taking over TikTok... but it's based on basically nothing. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, "red pill" guru Andrew Wilson's wild meltdown on the Whatever Podcast goes viral, and a gay influencer teams up with Zohran Mamdani to push a disturbing policy.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
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):
You mean, the people who literally keep this country from
falling apart like a stale major valley bar have now
been demoted.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Gry, you are about to be quietly legislated back into
being barefoot, pregnant, sitting in your gilded cage managed by
your husband.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
The Trump administration just made a small change to government policy,
and TikTok is losing its mind. We're going to break
this down plus so much more in today's episode of
The Bad Versus Everyone podcasts, my daily show where we
(00:36):
take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet and
social media, all from an independent political perspective. Guys, it
is so good to be back. I had a wonderful
time in Mexico with some friends, relaxing, get a little
getting a little bit of sunshine. But I missed bringing
you the show, and I will. I'm probably going to
(00:57):
take bigs Giving Day off, but other than that, we'll
have normal programming this week, so we will get into
all of the craziness. And there's a lot to unpack
because over on TikTok an entire discourse, and I'm talking
a megaviral discourse, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of likes
on each of these videos I'm going to show you
(01:17):
is unfolding because young people have worked themselves up into
a tizzy, particularly kind of young women and some of
the feminist influencer crowd, all about this idea that the
Trump administration is somehow decertifying certain female dominated professions or
making it harder for them to enter the workforce if
(01:38):
they're in certain lines of work. And basically all of
it's based on nothing. It's a total misconception and extrapolation
of a pretty minor policy change in the One big,
Beautiful Bill. We're going to break all of it down,
but first, I guess I'll just show you the first
video crashing out over this from channel fave Spence while
(01:58):
the influencer with millions of followers who constantly spreads panic
and propaganda when it comes to politics. Let's listen to
his analysis of the Trump administration's move to reclassify certain
graduate degrees as not professional degrees, which means there will
be a cap on the amount of student loans that
you can take out for the graduate programs that are
(02:21):
no longer considered professional, as those loans have a slightly
higher cap. But according to him, it's a profound attack
on women's rights or something. Let's listen.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
The Trump administration and whenever I start off a video
like that, you know, we cannot be good. Decided that nursing, teaching,
social work, physical therapy, and like half the medical fields
are no longer considered professional degrees. Oh you mean the
people who literally keep this country from falling apart like
a stale major valley bar have now been demoted.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Yes, right, well, uh, he always seems so stable and
well adjusted whenever we check in out one of his videos.
I want to talk about this because it's not just him,
Like this narrative is all over the internet right now
that the Trump administration has decided that certain degrees are
not professional and they're somehow dissing these people who are
(03:14):
in these different programs like advanced nursing programs, nurse practitioners
and this sort of thing. This is not the case.
This is not is what is happening. All that is
happening is simply that in the big beautiful bill, the
one big beautiful bill that they passed that was actually
terrible in many ways, but this isn't one of them,
they instituted some caps on graduate student loan borrowing, like,
(03:37):
for example, you can only borrow so much money for
certain degrees. And they're doing this to try to tamp
down on the costs, which we we'll get into later.
But they're not judging some degrees as good or bad,
or professional or unprofessional, or serious or unserious. That's not
a thing. It's just an internal DOE designation for which
(03:57):
ones qualify for which loan caps. Not that deep. They're
not trying to insult anyone. It changes nothing about the
status of your degree or career or anything like that.
I'll read here from a fact sheet that Apartment of
Education put out myth versus fact the definition of professional degrees.
They put this out specifically because there's so much misinformation.
President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act placed common sense
(04:21):
limits on federal student loans for graduate degrees. These loan
limits will help drive down the cost to graduate programs
and reduce the debts students have to take out. Graduate
students received more than half of all new federal student
loans originated in recent years. Under the Act, the agency
is required to identify professional degree programs that will be
eligible for higher federal lending limits. A Negotiating Committee convened
(04:41):
by the agency has proposed a consensus definition that designates medicine, MD, dentistry, law,
and several other high cost programs as eligible for a
two hundred k borrowing limit. Students who pursue a degree
in the other graduat or doctoral programs would be capped
at one hundred thousand dollars in federal loans. Under Graduate
students are generally not affected by the new lending limits.
(05:03):
So the TLDR there is that the professional degrees are
the ones that are falling in the two hundred k
cap and the other ones have one hundred k cap.
It's not them saying these degrees are good and these
degrees are bad. It's just them deciding what the cap
is going to be on the loans for various financial
and cost related reasons. It's not that deep and they're
(05:24):
not demoting people. But TikTok thinks this is literally the
handmaid's tail. And just one final thing from this press
release that's important myth. The Trump administration does not view
nurses as professionals because they are not classified as quote
a professional degree. Fact, the definition of a quote professional
degree is an internal definition used by the Department that
(05:45):
distinguish among programs which qualify for higher loan limits, not
a value judgment about the importance of programs. It has
no bearing on whether a program is professional in nature
or not. So this narrative and hysteria that's all over
social media, how they're saying nurse practitioners aren't professionals and
other things isn't true. Yet many content creators are genuinely
(06:07):
acting like this is the coming of the Handmaid's Tale.
At long last, let's listen to this second clip where
things get truly hysterical, and not in the funny sense,
in the hysteria sense.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
Women with advanced degrees should leave the United States immediately.
It has become that extreme. And women, if you are
pursuing an advanced degree, transfer to another country yesterday.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
I just I'm sorry. I'm gonna let her finish. But
the idea that you have to flee the United States
because the cap on graduate student loan spending is lower
for one degree than the other. What why? And also
this only affects future people, It doesn't affect anybody who
(06:51):
is currently, Like a nurse practitioner has an advanced degree
is totally unaffected. By this, This is just about future
students and how much they can borrow. That's it, gis
you've got a fully America like oh boy, oh boy.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
This reclassification of degrees as professional or not professional shows
that educated women are the biggest threat to this administration
and their goals.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
It actually shows that they're trying to bring down the
cost of these programs. I don't know whether it will work.
I think it will. But the reason they're interesting in
these caps is because with the unlimited blank check of you,
unlimited borrowing in effect allows these programs to raise their prices.
And these caps have already resulted in some graduate programs
lowering their tuition. So they're not trying to stop women
(07:40):
from getting these degrees. First of all, it applies to
everyone of any gender, and some of these are female
dominated field, sure, but it's men and women that are
affected by this, and they're doing this in hopes of
the Trump administration the part of education making these programs
more accessible. Now, you could say it's not going to work,
you could disagree with the policy, But to say they're
(08:01):
trying to stop women from getting these degrees, that's very
much the opposite of what Their goal is they're trying
to make these degree programs more affordable and take away
the blank check that has allowed the schools to just
increase the prices NonStop. That to me seems like sensible,
But call me crazy. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
So what are they trying to do. They are trying
to prevent more of us from being out there.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
You are about to be quietly legislated back into being barefoot, pregnant,
sitting in your gilded cage, managed by your husband, oh father,
And no one's a wiser.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
It's just it's it's the boy who cried a wolf situation.
You're saying stuff that isn't real, it's not happening. And
then all these videos have like hundreds of thousands of
likes and millions and millions of views across all of them.
It's this widespread narrative. You're getting people all worked up
for no reason. That's actually bad, that's actually really harmful.
(08:59):
And if you have legitimate concerns to raise at some
point with the Trump administration or crap they're pulling, everyone's
going to roll their eyes. And then here we go,
here's the crazy lady again who didn't take her meds
this morning, like nobody's gonna take you seriously because you're
acting like caps on student loan borrowing are somehow the
(09:19):
Handmaid's tail. And but what's funny is I believe there
were caps like not even that long ago, like a
decade or fifteen years ago, and then they remove them
and cost one up. So now they're putting them back in.
They have to stop acting like everything Trump does is
unprecedented and crazy, because some of it is, but a
lot of it isn't. And when everything is, nothing is.
(09:41):
It's just maddening.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Programs I give women economic independence, professional mobility, and guess
what they're doing what they reclassify the degrees, they're lowering
the student loan amounts you can qualify for to pay
for them. Is it clicking? You heard me right. They're
making it harder to finance these programs so fewer women
can enter these professionals.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
So this is not really true. I mean, it's a
little complicated, but they're actually trying to bring the costs down.
And even then, most people won't be affected by this
because the caps are still pretty high. So here's more
from the Department of Education. Myth nurses will have a
harder time securing federal student loans for their programs, and
this would contribute to the nationwide nursing shortage. Fact, Department
(10:27):
of Education data indicates that ninety five percent of nursing
students borrow below the annual loan limit and therefore are
not affected by the new caps. Further, placing a cap
on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to
reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be
saddled with unmanageable student loan debt. It is important to
remember that the loan limits are limited to graduate programs
(10:49):
and have no impact on undergraduate nursing programs, including four
year Bachelors of Science and nursing degrees and two year
associate degrees in nursing. Eighty percent of the nursing workforce
does not have a graduate degree. So just using nursing
as an example, which is one of the examples that
keep going to, it makes it quite clear that this
won't affect like most people, only just the high end outliers.
(11:13):
So the idea that this is going to make it
impossible for people to get these jobs and or fund
finance these degrees isn't true. It's just hysteria and alarmism.
But uh yeah, there's a lot of that on the
internet these days. I think it's safe to say, sure,
this is.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
How you quietly disinvite women from the workplace without explicitly
telling them we don't want our asses in the workplace anymore.
Speaker 5 (11:40):
So is it just that they don't want us to work,
that they want to take us out?
Speaker 3 (11:46):
It's giving very much handmaids too.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Through his eye, it's giving very much.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
That today I learned that when you try to make
advanced degrees more affordable for men and women and that
pursue them, it's Handmaid's tale, Like this is one of
these stories that just makes me feel like we might
be cooked because people actually see this stuff and believe it.
(12:15):
My sister sent this to me, one of the original
freak out videos, and she was like, what's going on
with this? And I'm like, let me look into it.
And as soon as I look into it, I realized
it's like, it's not even just much you do about nothing,
it's much ado about like negative, there is no there
there to this panic at all. But of course some
of them also had to make it creepy and imply that,
(12:38):
like the Trump administration's real goal here is to get
rid of mandatory reporters who are required to report suspected
child abuse. That is actually the narrative that some of
them went with, which I think is really disgraceful. But
listen to this.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Is it weird to anyone else at that all the
jobs that the Department Education said are no longer professional
are all manted reporters of child abuse.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
The know think that's just a coincidence.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
I don't know, they're getting rid of our mandated reporters.
I was talking about the fields that they're trying to
get rid of. The Department Education say they're not professional anymore,
and looking at the list, so many in my comments,
many of the girls, the smart girls, the girls who
are thinking about the future, and men as well. There
were a couple of you all in there. We're saying
they're getting rid of mandated reporters, social workers.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Teachers, except for the part where none of this is
happening at all. Like, I don't know how to tell
you this, but they're not getting rid of any of
these professions or lines of work, particularly because most of
that is even undergraduate, but even for the ones that
do have an advanced degree. All they're doing is putting
(13:49):
a high end cap on the amount of student loans
that can borrow for for graduate programs that is below
what most people borrow anyway, So we're not getting rid
of man. The conspiracy theory that they're suggesting here is
that the Trump administration is trying to eliminate entire sectors
of the workforce, which isn't happening. This is no bearing
(14:12):
on that whatsoever. It's just about future applicants student loan
funding in order to make it harder to catch sexual abusers.
It's like, this is literally bluinon. It is QAnon for
woke people. But the difference is it's not on like
four Chan. It's on TikTok, getting millions of views and
(14:33):
people are eating it up. This is arsenic. This is
poison of our political discourse and of commentary, where you
are making people dumber, you are misinforming them about current events,
and you are making the other side out to be
like the most nefarious and evil people imaginable based off
something that isn't real. It's genuinely very concerning to me.
(14:55):
But this kind of stuff is just constantly spreading like
wildfire on social media. We're doing amazing. Everything is totally fine.
We're totally not at all cooked. Guys. Let me know
what you think. Have you seen this wild narrative spreading online.
I want to hear from you guys in the comments.
Make sure you subscribed if you aren't yet, hit that
leg button while you are re at it and all
(15:18):
of that. Now up next, guys, we are going to
check in with a so called red pill guru or
a alpha male, the Christian nationalist influencer Andrew Wilson, because
he is going extremely viral right now after a debate
clip from the podcast The Whatever Podcast is going super
(15:40):
viral featuring him debating a Twitch streamer named Charlie who
is a left wing feminist, and it got ugly, it
got nasty, it got personal. We're going to react to
this clip that everybody is sharing all over TikTok and
social media. And I have some thoughts that not a
(16:01):
big fan of how he behaves himself in this clip,
but I think I'll just let you listen to it.
It gets personal and it gets very ugly. And for context,
the woman that he is debating is a lesbian and
that is what he references in this clip. Let's listen.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
I mean, I'll try to rephrase this. I'm going to reframe,
and I'm just gonna be totally honest with you. I
will never be able to convince you of my worldview.
Speaker 7 (16:25):
You all, I know.
Speaker 6 (16:27):
But the reason is not because I'm not a great orator,
or I don't make good points, or I haven't said
things which should be compelling to a person. But Charlie,
I just think, honestly, you're too stupid to understand them.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Well, he is lovely and extremely modest. Like what a
wild way to make a point in a debate. I mean,
it's just not a good style of debating because even
if you don't like the person that you're sitting across,
from insulting them or demeaning them to anybody who starts
the debate or enters it sympathetic or agreeing with that
(17:04):
side on the defensive, like you're attacking them. So even
if you do feel that way about somebody, it's genuinely
not a great debate tactic to attack them personally like that.
And I definitely do apply that in both directions, and
then it's just not giving, it's giving very arrogant when
you're like, I'm a great orator and I have all
these amazing points where you're just too stupid to understand me.
(17:27):
Even if that is all true, which doubt it is,
it comes off as arrogant, I will say. And then
we haven't gotten to the crazy part of this clip yet.
We're about to.
Speaker 8 (17:39):
So, Andrew, can I sell you on my worldview? Yes,
your wife has three baby daddies and has been married
twice before and you.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
So she's bringing up his wife's past because Andrew Wilson
is a part of the red pill alpha male Christian community,
where he talks about women as being formiscuit and damaged
and tying their worth to their sexual pass and all
this kind of controversial stuff. He claims to be a traditionalist,
like a traditional man, and she's saying, you're not. Your
(18:11):
wife has this past. Now, I should be clear that
I really don't like getting personal in debates, and I
think it's often not productive. And I would not have
done that if I was her and I was debating
Andrew and having a conversation with him, I would have
tried to stick to substantive points. But I do understand
why she's doing it because she is trying to highlight
(18:33):
an inconsistency or hypocrisy between the way that he judges women,
Particularly on this podcast, he'll sit across women and tell
them that they are low value because they have a
a a messy past, or a lot of previous partners
or whatever. He says, single moms are not desirable or
all these other things. And yet that is his wife's past.
(18:55):
And I will also say that his wife is not
like just a private citizen that's being picked on for
con text, because that would also feel icky to me.
His wife is also a political commentary who weighs in
and attacks other people and criticizes them personally regularly. So
that's why I'm not as bothered by her bringing this up.
But Andrew was very bothered by it. Let's listen to
(19:17):
his response.
Speaker 8 (19:18):
You under and under your religion.
Speaker 7 (19:23):
Youlix snizz, don't talk about my wife. He's stupid bitch.
Shut your mouth, Shut your stupid bitch.
Speaker 8 (19:30):
Mouth your wife with the three baby What.
Speaker 6 (19:32):
Did I just say with the sorry, I'm sorry? She
morally and consequential in comparison to your ditch licking.
Speaker 8 (19:39):
Do the men that you try to.
Speaker 7 (19:41):
Do the women that you try to your hatred.
Speaker 8 (19:43):
Aga.
Speaker 7 (19:43):
Do the women that you tried that they shouldn't.
Speaker 6 (19:46):
You know, Charlie, did I bring Charlie? Did I bring
your family is older? Did I bring any of your
family into Did I say anything about your family being stupid? Charlie?
Speaker 7 (19:56):
It's because I'm better than you, Charlie.
Speaker 8 (19:58):
No, it's because you're embarrassed. And you know that the
traditional values that you try to sell people because you
are not a traditional man through it. You are not
a traditional Let's.
Speaker 7 (20:07):
Go through it, Chuck.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Oh boy, Uh, she she kind of cooked, She kind
of ate. I mean, at the very least, she hid
a nerve with him, and that is obvious. And it
is funny to me because he is the type that
doesn't believe in women having the right to vote, for example,
because women are too emotional, they can't be trusted to
(20:30):
think logically. And and yet please never tell me women
are too emotional again, okay, when human beings are emotional,
and men and women can be too emotional, and clearly
that applies to men as well. Because he got all
in his feelings and then decided to viciously cuss at
and scream at this woman and say all these vile,
(20:50):
horrible things, which I think I understand feeling defensive if
your family is being criticized, but you have put your
family out there life is a political commentator who does
this and is in this space, so that is fair
game in a way that like bring up someone's private
family isn't really And even if you believe that what
(21:11):
Charlie did here was a lull blow was not cool,
this is still not an acceptable way to conduct yourself
or behave for a supposedly like upstanding Christian man to
speak to another, to a woman like this, really, to
any person like this is not christ like. It is
not traditional, right, like what happened to the idea of
(21:35):
turn the other cheek? Whereas you're gonna start calling her
all sorts of vile names and then just saying, oh,
you're a lesbian. You're a lesbian, But that doesn't even
make any point, because Charlie doesn't think there's anything wrong
with being a lesbian, so simply pointing that out doesn't
(21:55):
prove anything. You're not highlighting inconsistency, there's no gotcha there.
You're just what about ing in a way that doesn't
even accomplish anything or highlight anything meaningful because you feel
like you've just been exposed. And it is interesting because
he says, and I watched some more of the clip
as well, there's nothing wrong with his wife's past, and listen, personally,
(22:17):
I have no issue with his wife's past. I just
I do think there's hypocrisy, the fact that she's been
married multiple times, has kids out of wedlock, anything like that.
To me, I don't judge. Life is messy, life is complicated,
but it is inconsistent with the things that he says
are right and wrong, and that he's very judgmental about
others for so that is I think a meaningful point.
(22:39):
But it's interesting because he says that there's nothing wrong
with anything his wife's done or what him and his
family have done, Then why are you so so defensive?
Like it's incredibly amazing how defensive he gets here. I
would just calmly explain, Listen, I love my wife, I
don't think she's done anything wrong, and I'd rather stick
to the substance. But if you want to make it personal,
(23:01):
talk about it. I guess we can do that, right,
But to then crash out on this woman, nothing about
this is masculine or traditional or in keeping with Christian values.
I mean, ask yourself this. This is an interesting comment
that I saw somebody make. Would Charlie Kirk ever have
behaved like this? No? Absolutely not, And I listen, I
(23:22):
disagree with him on lots of things, but you would
never even if a person, and this happened many times
in his debate tours and all that a person was
very rude to him, very personal, very hostile, and he
responded with cool, calm, disarming levels of turn the other cheek.
Or even if he did get into it with them,
he would never scream at them or breate them or
(23:43):
speak to a young woman like this because it is
not traditional, It is not christ Like or anything. It
is deeply hypocritical and vile. And again I don't agree
with bringing up his wife. I don't support that approach
to debate, but you know what, there's a valid re
She did so, and then his response says everything really
(24:05):
Now here's a follow up video from her she posted
as this clip was going viral. Let's listen, your wife has.
Speaker 8 (24:12):
Three baby daddies and has been married twice before, and
you I'm underlick snizz hi. So that's me in the video.
I am the snizz liquor. The Snizzler if you will
video is making the rounds again on Instagram and Twitter,
so I just wanted to clarify a few things. I
don't take any issue with Andrew Wilson's wife having three
(24:32):
baby daddies and having been married multiple times before. I
don't think it's immortal. I'm a feminist. What I do
take issue with is the fact that Andrew Wilson built
his platform off of shaming and humiliating women for their
past sexual conduct. If Andrew Wilson met a woman like
his wife with three baby daddies on the Whatever podcast,
he would shame her, call her a hoe, and tell
(24:53):
her she's damaged goods and essentially unlovable, like he's done
to many women before.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
In the past.
Speaker 8 (24:58):
What I want people to take away from this clip
is not that Andrew Wilson is a cuck or that
Rachel Wilson is a hoe. I want people to understand
that they are hypocrites, and that if you're going to
marry a woman with the past, then you should give
other women the same grace that you give your wife.
Let he who is without sin be the first to
throw a stone or whatever Jesus said. I don't know.
(25:21):
I'm not the staunch Christian Andrew Wilson claims himself to be.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Look, I don't think she's perfect either. I wouldn't have
gone there myself. But I certainly think she's raised some
real points here and landed some serious blows and kind
of intentionally or not so intentionally exposed the problem that
I have with a lot of this red pel discourse
and these viral debaters and all these things. They're just
(25:47):
toxic people in many cases, and they are behaving themselves
in ways that I think are reprehensible. They are engaging
in this for clicks and for the most outrageous response imaginable,
not to actually foster meaningful discourse or to like help
kind of bridge the gender divide or any of these
real issues that I think are raised. I just think
(26:10):
the red pill manosphere all that area has turned into
a really toxic category of discourse, and I can see
why some of the feminist types are fighting back in
this aggressive manner, and it certainly does make for an
embarrassing moment for Andrew Wilson and not the greatest advertisement
for the quality of discourse over there. On the whatever podcast,
(26:34):
which I will say as much as of a shit
show as it clearly is. I do tune into clips
from time for time because it is it is entertaining,
to say the least. But you guys will have to
let me know what you think of all that that
madness that we just watched and unpacked in the comments.
Make sure you hit the leg button subscribe if you
haven't yet, and all of that. Now, guys, we have
(26:57):
to talk about a gay inflace, my fave. Actually his
name is Matt IV. He's all over kind of the
different social media platforms and YouTube with pretty popular presence
and following, spewing the most far left toxic woke rhetoric
and kind of the least nuanced and most extreme perspective
(27:20):
the typical woke white gay guy. And he is now
teaming up with the new mayor of New York City,
the incoming Mayor of New York City, Zoorn Mamdani, to
embrace a moderate and nuanced, insane approach just kidding. They
are teaming up to promote the efforts that Zorron is
(27:40):
going to be taking to promote giving minors irreversible medical
transitions in the name of trans writes or something. It's
actually kind of dark stuff. But let's look at the
video that Matt just posted featuring zo Ron as he
transitioned to becoming the mayor of New York City.
Speaker 9 (28:02):
Let's look Zoron, congratulations on starting your transition.
Speaker 10 (28:06):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (28:07):
What would you like to say to trans kids out
there who might be starting their transition.
Speaker 10 (28:11):
Well, well, these maybe different transitions. We're going to make
this a city that doesn't just protect trans kids, but
also celebrates and cherishes them.
Speaker 9 (28:17):
And we are wishing everyone who wants to transition a
smooth enough and exciting transition to be just like Zoron.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
I guess they want transgender for everybody, everybody transgender. I
don't like this. I hate it here sometimes. I mean,
what you have is them talking about the fact that
Zo run plans to make New York City a safe
(28:46):
haven for child sex changes, a barbaric and extreme practice
that is not supported by medical evidence and literature and
systematic reviews. And the children just cannot consent to this,
to things that leave them, in many cases, infertile and
sterile and sexually unable to function for life, all to
(29:09):
treat a state of being that many of them would
have grown out of had they gone through their birth sexes,
puberty and yeah, I'm sorry, it is crazy that people
are still doubling down on this. Well, what I think
will go down is similar to the lobotomy, what was
done to many of these children, and are acting like
it's something to be celebrated and cherished and defended and
(29:32):
even funded. Remember Soroan and I'll insert a clip here,
but he doubled down on all of this during his
mayoral campaign, promising that they would use New York City
taxpayer money to fund all of this for everyone. Listen
to that here.
Speaker 10 (29:47):
New York will not sit idly by while trans people
are attacked, will deploy hundreds of lawyers to combat Trump's hate,
make New York City an LGBTQI plus sanctuary city, and
create the Office of LGBTQI plus Affairs to allocate millions
for youth and adult housing programs as well as gender
of firm and care.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
So it's not just virtue signaling, but Zoran Romdani really plans,
with the help of the woke influencers I guess doing
his pr to turn New York City into a sanctuary
hub for these barbaric medically transitioning of miners, whether it's
hormone therapy, potentially surgeries as well, all of these things
(30:26):
that most Americans don't believe they can consent to or understand,
and that many places, including the same progressive European countries
that people like Zorroon typically point to as an example
of policies they want to emulate, are instead scaling back
on and restricting and admitting that the evidence doesn't support them. Well,
(30:46):
they are doubling down, and unfortunately they are even going
to be using taxpayer dollars to fund it if Zoron
gets his way. I want to revisit some reporting from
The New York Sun from a few months back. Breakout
New York mayoral contenders around Mamdani wants to spend sixty
five million dollars on medical gender treatments for miners and adults.
(31:07):
The Democratic Socialist candidate for New York City mayor proposes
using taxpayer funds to pay for gender transition treatments, including miners,
in the face of Trump's and other right wing attacks
on such access. And this is the reporter Benjamin Ryan.
He writes in a little noticed spending proposal In mister
Mamdanie's detailed policy platform, the young state assemblyman calls for
(31:28):
spending sixty five million dollars to expand and protect gender
affirming care city wide for both transgender youth and adults.
So it's very clear their plan is to use taxpayer
money to fund the medical transition of miners for free
or at least at the taxpayer's expense. So if you
(31:49):
live in New York City, your tax dollars will get
to fund that. Really, really, I think tragic practice is
I guess how I would describe it. And if I
was in New York City, tex expair, that would mortify me.
And it's interesting how he's not even just saying we're
going to fight to keep it legal, right, but also
we're going to forcibly fund it, Whereas more moderate Democrats
(32:10):
in the past, even Joe Biden for many years and
those types agreed when it comes to ethically controversial practices
like abortion, even though they wanted it to be legal,
they would support things like the High Amendment that theoretically,
I mean, it's a dubious whether it really does this,
but theoretically prevent tax payer dollars from being used for
it because they understood that a lot of their fellow
(32:31):
citizens had genuine ethical concerns and wouldn't want their money
to go out the window for that and to fund that. Well,
that kind of nuance or moderate approach at all is
officially out the window for some Democrats like Zorron, who says, yeah,
get over it. I'm going to take your money and
use it to sterilize kids. What lovely, lovely saying and
(32:52):
moderate stuff we're going to have in New York City.
And it's so interesting to see them like wrap themselves
around Zorn as if he is going to be some
pioneer for the Democratic Party. Good luck with that nationally.
I mean, New York City is one thing, because it's
very left leaning city and left leaning voter base, and
the other options were deeply, deeply flawed and detestable in
(33:12):
their own right in many ways. But trying to sell
this on the national stage is not going to go
well to the Democratic Party. More from The New York
Sun Here, mister Mandani cites the Trump administration's for posed
elimination of federal support for what's known as gender affirming
care as driving his proposal, which would seek to force
private hospitals to continue providing gender treatments to minors, even
(33:36):
in the face of mounting counter threats from the President.
The Mamdani administration, the proposal says, will also hold private
hospital systems denying gender affirming care accountable. Hospitals that continue
to deny trans youth access to gender affirming care are
in violation of New York's constitution as well as multiple
state and city laws. The Mamdani administration will coordinate with
(33:58):
the New York Attorney General and district attorneys to investigate
and hold public hearings on hospitals that deny trans youth
their rightful health care and hold them accountable to the law.
This is madness, by the way, this is absolutely insane.
So what they're saying is hospitals will sterilize the kids,
will give them the medical sex changes that are not
(34:18):
supported by evidence. And I call them sex changes. That's
not correct terminology. You can't change your sex. So I
need a better word for it. But I don't want
to say gender affirming care because it is so euphemistic
and kind of heights I think, or masks the severity
of these treatments and their lifelong ramifications. But it shows
you as well. Maybe and maybe this is the socialistic
(34:40):
impulse of the Mamdani administration and their kind of camp.
They just don't care. Think about the position they are
putting these hospitals in. Who maybe they have ethical concerns,
maybe about the transitioning miners. Maybe they don't want to
do it because it's not supported by evidence. You would
hope that that's the case, but let's say that's not
even in the case. Say they're just practical, and they
(35:01):
have the Trump administration threatening to revoke the funding they
rely on from the federal government if they don't stop
offering these barbaric treatments to kids, and then they have
the mayor telling them, no, you must do it or
we will come after you. You really are putting these
hospitals and these medical providers in an impossible position, and
(35:22):
you just don't care. Like I guess, you just don't
care because there's really no way for them to not
have one level of government coming for their throat. It really,
I mean not to break out the smallest of tiny
violin for hospital administrators, but I kind of do feel
bad for them anyway. More. Here from the Sun the
policy memo on mister Mamdanie's campaign website, outlining his plan
(35:44):
to spend sixty five million in city funds to support
access to gender transition treatment for New Yorkers, states that
the city will direct fifty seven million to public hospitals,
community clinics, federally qualified health centers, and nonprofits that provide
gender transition treatment, an additional eight million with developing support,
virtual and telehealth services by community health providers, add gender
(36:05):
transition treatments to the existing virtual services provided by the
public New York Health Hospital system, create a hub to
help connect people to providers who could prescribe these medications,
and support programs like the one by the LGBTQ focused
Kellen Lord Community Health Clinic for caring for transgender sex workers.
It is not only the law in New York for
people of all ages to be able to access gender
(36:27):
affirming care easily and safely, but it is our moral obligation.
Mister mom Donnie wrote in response to a candidate survey
by the Jim ol Ewell's Liberal Democratic Club, a local
LGBT focused group. Well, I discend from this monstrosity, and
I think that the fact that such high profile LGBT
(36:48):
influencers are going all in on. This is a huge
part of why support for the LGBT community and even
things like gay marriage continues to decline. And frankly, I
think the Democratic Party is out of it's mind if
it thinks that this kind of a platform and radicalism
is ever going to chart a meaningful pathway for some
sort of nationwide, nationally competitive candidate or message. This is
(37:14):
insanity and you might be able to get away with
it in New York City in California, but most of
the country is never going to be on board with this,
no matter how much propaganda far left influencers do trying
to paint it as funny and chic. That's my take
at least, but you guys will have to let me
know what you think in the comments. Do make sure
(37:34):
subscribe like and if you're listening on audio podcast, do
take a second to rate and review the show wherever
you listen and recommend the show to a friend. That's
so number one way the podcasts grow, and I really
love to reach more of you and I just love
bringing you all this show. So with that, guys, that'll
be it for today's episode of the Bread Versus Everyone Podcast.
(37:55):
Thanks so much. For tuning in, and we'll talk again.
Reil sim
You mean, the people who literally keep this country from
falling apart like a stale major valley bar have now
been demoted.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Gry, you are about to be quietly legislated back into
being barefoot, pregnant, sitting in your gilded cage managed by
your husband.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
The Trump administration just made a small change to government policy,
and TikTok is losing its mind. We're going to break
this down plus so much more in today's episode of
The Bad Versus Everyone podcasts, my daily show where we
(00:36):
take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet and
social media, all from an independent political perspective. Guys, it
is so good to be back. I had a wonderful
time in Mexico with some friends, relaxing, get a little
getting a little bit of sunshine. But I missed bringing
you the show, and I will. I'm probably going to
(00:57):
take bigs Giving Day off, but other than that, we'll
have normal programming this week, so we will get into
all of the craziness. And there's a lot to unpack
because over on TikTok an entire discourse, and I'm talking
a megaviral discourse, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of likes
on each of these videos I'm going to show you
(01:17):
is unfolding because young people have worked themselves up into
a tizzy, particularly kind of young women and some of
the feminist influencer crowd, all about this idea that the
Trump administration is somehow decertifying certain female dominated professions or
making it harder for them to enter the workforce if
(01:38):
they're in certain lines of work. And basically all of
it's based on nothing. It's a total misconception and extrapolation
of a pretty minor policy change in the One big,
Beautiful Bill. We're going to break all of it down,
but first, I guess I'll just show you the first
video crashing out over this from channel fave Spence while
(01:58):
the influencer with millions of followers who constantly spreads panic
and propaganda when it comes to politics. Let's listen to
his analysis of the Trump administration's move to reclassify certain
graduate degrees as not professional degrees, which means there will
be a cap on the amount of student loans that
you can take out for the graduate programs that are
(02:21):
no longer considered professional, as those loans have a slightly
higher cap. But according to him, it's a profound attack
on women's rights or something. Let's listen.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
The Trump administration and whenever I start off a video
like that, you know, we cannot be good. Decided that nursing, teaching,
social work, physical therapy, and like half the medical fields
are no longer considered professional degrees. Oh you mean the
people who literally keep this country from falling apart like
a stale major valley bar have now been demoted.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Yes, right, well, uh, he always seems so stable and
well adjusted whenever we check in out one of his videos.
I want to talk about this because it's not just him,
Like this narrative is all over the internet right now
that the Trump administration has decided that certain degrees are
not professional and they're somehow dissing these people who are
(03:14):
in these different programs like advanced nursing programs, nurse practitioners
and this sort of thing. This is not the case.
This is not is what is happening. All that is
happening is simply that in the big beautiful bill, the
one big beautiful bill that they passed that was actually
terrible in many ways, but this isn't one of them,
they instituted some caps on graduate student loan borrowing, like,
(03:37):
for example, you can only borrow so much money for
certain degrees. And they're doing this to try to tamp
down on the costs, which we we'll get into later.
But they're not judging some degrees as good or bad,
or professional or unprofessional, or serious or unserious. That's not
a thing. It's just an internal DOE designation for which
(03:57):
ones qualify for which loan caps. Not that deep. They're
not trying to insult anyone. It changes nothing about the
status of your degree or career or anything like that.
I'll read here from a fact sheet that Apartment of
Education put out myth versus fact the definition of professional degrees.
They put this out specifically because there's so much misinformation.
President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act placed common sense
(04:21):
limits on federal student loans for graduate degrees. These loan
limits will help drive down the cost to graduate programs
and reduce the debts students have to take out. Graduate
students received more than half of all new federal student
loans originated in recent years. Under the Act, the agency
is required to identify professional degree programs that will be
eligible for higher federal lending limits. A Negotiating Committee convened
(04:41):
by the agency has proposed a consensus definition that designates medicine, MD, dentistry, law,
and several other high cost programs as eligible for a
two hundred k borrowing limit. Students who pursue a degree
in the other graduat or doctoral programs would be capped
at one hundred thousand dollars in federal loans. Under Graduate
students are generally not affected by the new lending limits.
(05:03):
So the TLDR there is that the professional degrees are
the ones that are falling in the two hundred k
cap and the other ones have one hundred k cap.
It's not them saying these degrees are good and these
degrees are bad. It's just them deciding what the cap
is going to be on the loans for various financial
and cost related reasons. It's not that deep and they're
(05:24):
not demoting people. But TikTok thinks this is literally the
handmaid's tail. And just one final thing from this press
release that's important myth. The Trump administration does not view
nurses as professionals because they are not classified as quote
a professional degree. Fact, the definition of a quote professional
degree is an internal definition used by the Department that
(05:45):
distinguish among programs which qualify for higher loan limits, not
a value judgment about the importance of programs. It has
no bearing on whether a program is professional in nature
or not. So this narrative and hysteria that's all over
social media, how they're saying nurse practitioners aren't professionals and
other things isn't true. Yet many content creators are genuinely
(06:07):
acting like this is the coming of the Handmaid's Tale.
At long last, let's listen to this second clip where
things get truly hysterical, and not in the funny sense,
in the hysteria sense.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
Women with advanced degrees should leave the United States immediately.
It has become that extreme. And women, if you are
pursuing an advanced degree, transfer to another country yesterday.
Speaker 3 (06:31):
I just I'm sorry. I'm gonna let her finish. But
the idea that you have to flee the United States
because the cap on graduate student loan spending is lower
for one degree than the other. What why? And also
this only affects future people, It doesn't affect anybody who
(06:51):
is currently, Like a nurse practitioner has an advanced degree
is totally unaffected. By this, This is just about future
students and how much they can borrow. That's it, gis
you've got a fully America like oh boy, oh boy.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
This reclassification of degrees as professional or not professional shows
that educated women are the biggest threat to this administration
and their goals.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
It actually shows that they're trying to bring down the
cost of these programs. I don't know whether it will work.
I think it will. But the reason they're interesting in
these caps is because with the unlimited blank check of you,
unlimited borrowing in effect allows these programs to raise their prices.
And these caps have already resulted in some graduate programs
lowering their tuition. So they're not trying to stop women
(07:40):
from getting these degrees. First of all, it applies to
everyone of any gender, and some of these are female
dominated field, sure, but it's men and women that are
affected by this, and they're doing this in hopes of
the Trump administration the part of education making these programs
more accessible. Now, you could say it's not going to work,
you could disagree with the policy, But to say they're
(08:01):
trying to stop women from getting these degrees, that's very
much the opposite of what Their goal is they're trying
to make these degree programs more affordable and take away
the blank check that has allowed the schools to just
increase the prices NonStop. That to me seems like sensible,
But call me crazy. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
So what are they trying to do. They are trying
to prevent more of us from being out there.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
You are about to be quietly legislated back into being barefoot, pregnant,
sitting in your gilded cage, managed by your husband, oh father,
And no one's a wiser.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
It's just it's it's the boy who cried a wolf situation.
You're saying stuff that isn't real, it's not happening. And
then all these videos have like hundreds of thousands of
likes and millions and millions of views across all of them.
It's this widespread narrative. You're getting people all worked up
for no reason. That's actually bad, that's actually really harmful.
(08:59):
And if you have legitimate concerns to raise at some
point with the Trump administration or crap they're pulling, everyone's
going to roll their eyes. And then here we go,
here's the crazy lady again who didn't take her meds
this morning, like nobody's gonna take you seriously because you're
acting like caps on student loan borrowing are somehow the
(09:19):
Handmaid's tail. And but what's funny is I believe there
were caps like not even that long ago, like a
decade or fifteen years ago, and then they remove them
and cost one up. So now they're putting them back in.
They have to stop acting like everything Trump does is
unprecedented and crazy, because some of it is, but a
lot of it isn't. And when everything is, nothing is.
(09:41):
It's just maddening.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Programs I give women economic independence, professional mobility, and guess
what they're doing what they reclassify the degrees, they're lowering
the student loan amounts you can qualify for to pay
for them. Is it clicking? You heard me right. They're
making it harder to finance these programs so fewer women
can enter these professionals.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
So this is not really true. I mean, it's a
little complicated, but they're actually trying to bring the costs down.
And even then, most people won't be affected by this
because the caps are still pretty high. So here's more
from the Department of Education. Myth nurses will have a
harder time securing federal student loans for their programs, and
this would contribute to the nationwide nursing shortage. Fact, Department
(10:27):
of Education data indicates that ninety five percent of nursing
students borrow below the annual loan limit and therefore are
not affected by the new caps. Further, placing a cap
on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to
reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be
saddled with unmanageable student loan debt. It is important to
remember that the loan limits are limited to graduate programs
(10:49):
and have no impact on undergraduate nursing programs, including four
year Bachelors of Science and nursing degrees and two year
associate degrees in nursing. Eighty percent of the nursing workforce
does not have a graduate degree. So just using nursing
as an example, which is one of the examples that
keep going to, it makes it quite clear that this
won't affect like most people, only just the high end outliers.
(11:13):
So the idea that this is going to make it
impossible for people to get these jobs and or fund
finance these degrees isn't true. It's just hysteria and alarmism.
But uh yeah, there's a lot of that on the
internet these days. I think it's safe to say, sure,
this is.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
How you quietly disinvite women from the workplace without explicitly
telling them we don't want our asses in the workplace anymore.
Speaker 5 (11:40):
So is it just that they don't want us to work,
that they want to take us out?
Speaker 3 (11:46):
It's giving very much handmaids too.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Through his eye, it's giving very much.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
That today I learned that when you try to make
advanced degrees more affordable for men and women and that
pursue them, it's Handmaid's tale, Like this is one of
these stories that just makes me feel like we might
be cooked because people actually see this stuff and believe it.
(12:15):
My sister sent this to me, one of the original
freak out videos, and she was like, what's going on
with this? And I'm like, let me look into it.
And as soon as I look into it, I realized
it's like, it's not even just much you do about nothing,
it's much ado about like negative, there is no there
there to this panic at all. But of course some
of them also had to make it creepy and imply that,
(12:38):
like the Trump administration's real goal here is to get
rid of mandatory reporters who are required to report suspected
child abuse. That is actually the narrative that some of
them went with, which I think is really disgraceful. But
listen to this.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Is it weird to anyone else at that all the
jobs that the Department Education said are no longer professional
are all manted reporters of child abuse.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
The know think that's just a coincidence.
Speaker 5 (13:06):
I don't know, they're getting rid of our mandated reporters.
I was talking about the fields that they're trying to
get rid of. The Department Education say they're not professional anymore,
and looking at the list, so many in my comments,
many of the girls, the smart girls, the girls who
are thinking about the future, and men as well. There
were a couple of you all in there. We're saying
they're getting rid of mandated reporters, social workers.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Teachers, except for the part where none of this is
happening at all. Like, I don't know how to tell
you this, but they're not getting rid of any of
these professions or lines of work, particularly because most of
that is even undergraduate, but even for the ones that
do have an advanced degree. All they're doing is putting
(13:49):
a high end cap on the amount of student loans
that can borrow for for graduate programs that is below
what most people borrow anyway, So we're not getting rid
of man. The conspiracy theory that they're suggesting here is
that the Trump administration is trying to eliminate entire sectors
of the workforce, which isn't happening. This is no bearing
(14:12):
on that whatsoever. It's just about future applicants student loan
funding in order to make it harder to catch sexual abusers.
It's like, this is literally bluinon. It is QAnon for
woke people. But the difference is it's not on like
four Chan. It's on TikTok, getting millions of views and
(14:33):
people are eating it up. This is arsenic. This is
poison of our political discourse and of commentary, where you
are making people dumber, you are misinforming them about current events,
and you are making the other side out to be
like the most nefarious and evil people imaginable based off
something that isn't real. It's genuinely very concerning to me.
(14:55):
But this kind of stuff is just constantly spreading like
wildfire on social media. We're doing amazing. Everything is totally fine.
We're totally not at all cooked. Guys. Let me know
what you think. Have you seen this wild narrative spreading online.
I want to hear from you guys in the comments.
Make sure you subscribed if you aren't yet, hit that
leg button while you are re at it and all
(15:18):
of that. Now up next, guys, we are going to
check in with a so called red pill guru or
a alpha male, the Christian nationalist influencer Andrew Wilson, because
he is going extremely viral right now after a debate
clip from the podcast The Whatever Podcast is going super
(15:40):
viral featuring him debating a Twitch streamer named Charlie who
is a left wing feminist, and it got ugly, it
got nasty, it got personal. We're going to react to
this clip that everybody is sharing all over TikTok and
social media. And I have some thoughts that not a
(16:01):
big fan of how he behaves himself in this clip,
but I think I'll just let you listen to it.
It gets personal and it gets very ugly. And for context,
the woman that he is debating is a lesbian and
that is what he references in this clip. Let's listen.
Speaker 6 (16:16):
I mean, I'll try to rephrase this. I'm going to reframe,
and I'm just gonna be totally honest with you. I
will never be able to convince you of my worldview.
Speaker 7 (16:25):
You all, I know.
Speaker 6 (16:27):
But the reason is not because I'm not a great orator,
or I don't make good points, or I haven't said
things which should be compelling to a person. But Charlie,
I just think, honestly, you're too stupid to understand them.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Well, he is lovely and extremely modest. Like what a
wild way to make a point in a debate. I mean,
it's just not a good style of debating because even
if you don't like the person that you're sitting across,
from insulting them or demeaning them to anybody who starts
the debate or enters it sympathetic or agreeing with that
(17:04):
side on the defensive, like you're attacking them. So even
if you do feel that way about somebody, it's genuinely
not a great debate tactic to attack them personally like that.
And I definitely do apply that in both directions, and
then it's just not giving, it's giving very arrogant when
you're like, I'm a great orator and I have all
these amazing points where you're just too stupid to understand me.
(17:27):
Even if that is all true, which doubt it is,
it comes off as arrogant, I will say. And then
we haven't gotten to the crazy part of this clip yet.
We're about to.
Speaker 8 (17:39):
So, Andrew, can I sell you on my worldview? Yes,
your wife has three baby daddies and has been married
twice before and you.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
So she's bringing up his wife's past because Andrew Wilson
is a part of the red pill alpha male Christian community,
where he talks about women as being formiscuit and damaged
and tying their worth to their sexual pass and all
this kind of controversial stuff. He claims to be a traditionalist,
like a traditional man, and she's saying, you're not. Your
(18:11):
wife has this past. Now, I should be clear that
I really don't like getting personal in debates, and I
think it's often not productive. And I would not have
done that if I was her and I was debating
Andrew and having a conversation with him, I would have
tried to stick to substantive points. But I do understand
why she's doing it because she is trying to highlight
(18:33):
an inconsistency or hypocrisy between the way that he judges women,
Particularly on this podcast, he'll sit across women and tell
them that they are low value because they have a
a a messy past, or a lot of previous partners
or whatever. He says, single moms are not desirable or
all these other things. And yet that is his wife's past.
(18:55):
And I will also say that his wife is not
like just a private citizen that's being picked on for
con text, because that would also feel icky to me.
His wife is also a political commentary who weighs in
and attacks other people and criticizes them personally regularly. So
that's why I'm not as bothered by her bringing this up.
But Andrew was very bothered by it. Let's listen to
(19:17):
his response.
Speaker 8 (19:18):
You under and under your religion.
Speaker 7 (19:23):
Youlix snizz, don't talk about my wife. He's stupid bitch.
Shut your mouth, Shut your stupid bitch.
Speaker 8 (19:30):
Mouth your wife with the three baby What.
Speaker 6 (19:32):
Did I just say with the sorry, I'm sorry? She
morally and consequential in comparison to your ditch licking.
Speaker 8 (19:39):
Do the men that you try to.
Speaker 7 (19:41):
Do the women that you try to your hatred.
Speaker 8 (19:43):
Aga.
Speaker 7 (19:43):
Do the women that you tried that they shouldn't.
Speaker 6 (19:46):
You know, Charlie, did I bring Charlie? Did I bring
your family is older? Did I bring any of your
family into Did I say anything about your family being stupid? Charlie?
Speaker 7 (19:56):
It's because I'm better than you, Charlie.
Speaker 8 (19:58):
No, it's because you're embarrassed. And you know that the
traditional values that you try to sell people because you
are not a traditional man through it. You are not
a traditional Let's.
Speaker 7 (20:07):
Go through it, Chuck.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Oh boy, Uh, she she kind of cooked, She kind
of ate. I mean, at the very least, she hid
a nerve with him, and that is obvious. And it
is funny to me because he is the type that
doesn't believe in women having the right to vote, for example,
because women are too emotional, they can't be trusted to
(20:30):
think logically. And and yet please never tell me women
are too emotional again, okay, when human beings are emotional,
and men and women can be too emotional, and clearly
that applies to men as well. Because he got all
in his feelings and then decided to viciously cuss at
and scream at this woman and say all these vile,
(20:50):
horrible things, which I think I understand feeling defensive if
your family is being criticized, but you have put your
family out there life is a political commentator who does
this and is in this space, so that is fair
game in a way that like bring up someone's private
family isn't really And even if you believe that what
(21:11):
Charlie did here was a lull blow was not cool,
this is still not an acceptable way to conduct yourself
or behave for a supposedly like upstanding Christian man to
speak to another, to a woman like this, really, to
any person like this is not christ like. It is
not traditional, right, like what happened to the idea of
(21:35):
turn the other cheek? Whereas you're gonna start calling her
all sorts of vile names and then just saying, oh,
you're a lesbian. You're a lesbian, But that doesn't even
make any point, because Charlie doesn't think there's anything wrong
with being a lesbian, so simply pointing that out doesn't
(21:55):
prove anything. You're not highlighting inconsistency, there's no gotcha there.
You're just what about ing in a way that doesn't
even accomplish anything or highlight anything meaningful because you feel
like you've just been exposed. And it is interesting because
he says, and I watched some more of the clip
as well, there's nothing wrong with his wife's past, and listen, personally,
(22:17):
I have no issue with his wife's past. I just
I do think there's hypocrisy, the fact that she's been
married multiple times, has kids out of wedlock, anything like that.
To me, I don't judge. Life is messy, life is complicated,
but it is inconsistent with the things that he says
are right and wrong, and that he's very judgmental about
others for so that is I think a meaningful point.
(22:39):
But it's interesting because he says that there's nothing wrong
with anything his wife's done or what him and his
family have done, Then why are you so so defensive?
Like it's incredibly amazing how defensive he gets here. I
would just calmly explain, Listen, I love my wife, I
don't think she's done anything wrong, and I'd rather stick
to the substance. But if you want to make it personal,
(23:01):
talk about it. I guess we can do that, right,
But to then crash out on this woman, nothing about
this is masculine or traditional or in keeping with Christian values.
I mean, ask yourself this. This is an interesting comment
that I saw somebody make. Would Charlie Kirk ever have
behaved like this? No? Absolutely not, And I listen, I
(23:22):
disagree with him on lots of things, but you would
never even if a person, and this happened many times
in his debate tours and all that a person was
very rude to him, very personal, very hostile, and he
responded with cool, calm, disarming levels of turn the other cheek.
Or even if he did get into it with them,
he would never scream at them or breate them or
(23:43):
speak to a young woman like this because it is
not traditional, It is not christ Like or anything. It
is deeply hypocritical and vile. And again I don't agree
with bringing up his wife. I don't support that approach
to debate, but you know what, there's a valid re
She did so, and then his response says everything really
(24:05):
Now here's a follow up video from her she posted
as this clip was going viral. Let's listen, your wife has.
Speaker 8 (24:12):
Three baby daddies and has been married twice before, and
you I'm underlick snizz hi. So that's me in the video.
I am the snizz liquor. The Snizzler if you will
video is making the rounds again on Instagram and Twitter,
so I just wanted to clarify a few things. I
don't take any issue with Andrew Wilson's wife having three
(24:32):
baby daddies and having been married multiple times before. I
don't think it's immortal. I'm a feminist. What I do
take issue with is the fact that Andrew Wilson built
his platform off of shaming and humiliating women for their
past sexual conduct. If Andrew Wilson met a woman like
his wife with three baby daddies on the Whatever podcast,
he would shame her, call her a hoe, and tell
(24:53):
her she's damaged goods and essentially unlovable, like he's done
to many women before.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
In the past.
Speaker 8 (24:58):
What I want people to take away from this clip
is not that Andrew Wilson is a cuck or that
Rachel Wilson is a hoe. I want people to understand
that they are hypocrites, and that if you're going to
marry a woman with the past, then you should give
other women the same grace that you give your wife.
Let he who is without sin be the first to
throw a stone or whatever Jesus said. I don't know.
(25:21):
I'm not the staunch Christian Andrew Wilson claims himself to be.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Look, I don't think she's perfect either. I wouldn't have
gone there myself. But I certainly think she's raised some
real points here and landed some serious blows and kind
of intentionally or not so intentionally exposed the problem that
I have with a lot of this red pel discourse
and these viral debaters and all these things. They're just
(25:47):
toxic people in many cases, and they are behaving themselves
in ways that I think are reprehensible. They are engaging
in this for clicks and for the most outrageous response imaginable,
not to actually foster meaningful discourse or to like help
kind of bridge the gender divide or any of these
real issues that I think are raised. I just think
(26:10):
the red pill manosphere all that area has turned into
a really toxic category of discourse, and I can see
why some of the feminist types are fighting back in
this aggressive manner, and it certainly does make for an
embarrassing moment for Andrew Wilson and not the greatest advertisement
for the quality of discourse over there. On the whatever podcast,
(26:34):
which I will say as much as of a shit
show as it clearly is. I do tune into clips
from time for time because it is it is entertaining,
to say the least. But you guys will have to
let me know what you think of all that that
madness that we just watched and unpacked in the comments.
Make sure you hit the leg button subscribe if you
haven't yet, and all of that. Now, guys, we have
(26:57):
to talk about a gay inflace, my fave. Actually his
name is Matt IV. He's all over kind of the
different social media platforms and YouTube with pretty popular presence
and following, spewing the most far left toxic woke rhetoric
and kind of the least nuanced and most extreme perspective
(27:20):
the typical woke white gay guy. And he is now
teaming up with the new mayor of New York City,
the incoming Mayor of New York City, Zoorn Mamdani, to
embrace a moderate and nuanced, insane approach just kidding. They
are teaming up to promote the efforts that Zorron is
(27:40):
going to be taking to promote giving minors irreversible medical
transitions in the name of trans writes or something. It's
actually kind of dark stuff. But let's look at the
video that Matt just posted featuring zo Ron as he
transitioned to becoming the mayor of New York City.
Speaker 9 (28:02):
Let's look Zoron, congratulations on starting your transition.
Speaker 10 (28:06):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (28:07):
What would you like to say to trans kids out
there who might be starting their transition.
Speaker 10 (28:11):
Well, well, these maybe different transitions. We're going to make
this a city that doesn't just protect trans kids, but
also celebrates and cherishes them.
Speaker 9 (28:17):
And we are wishing everyone who wants to transition a
smooth enough and exciting transition to be just like Zoron.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
I guess they want transgender for everybody, everybody transgender. I
don't like this. I hate it here sometimes. I mean,
what you have is them talking about the fact that
Zo run plans to make New York City a safe
(28:46):
haven for child sex changes, a barbaric and extreme practice
that is not supported by medical evidence and literature and
systematic reviews. And the children just cannot consent to this,
to things that leave them, in many cases, infertile and
sterile and sexually unable to function for life, all to
(29:09):
treat a state of being that many of them would
have grown out of had they gone through their birth sexes,
puberty and yeah, I'm sorry, it is crazy that people
are still doubling down on this. Well, what I think
will go down is similar to the lobotomy, what was
done to many of these children, and are acting like
it's something to be celebrated and cherished and defended and
(29:32):
even funded. Remember Soroan and I'll insert a clip here,
but he doubled down on all of this during his
mayoral campaign, promising that they would use New York City
taxpayer money to fund all of this for everyone. Listen
to that here.
Speaker 10 (29:47):
New York will not sit idly by while trans people
are attacked, will deploy hundreds of lawyers to combat Trump's hate,
make New York City an LGBTQI plus sanctuary city, and
create the Office of LGBTQI plus Affairs to allocate millions
for youth and adult housing programs as well as gender
of firm and care.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
So it's not just virtue signaling, but Zoran Romdani really plans,
with the help of the woke influencers I guess doing
his pr to turn New York City into a sanctuary
hub for these barbaric medically transitioning of miners, whether it's
hormone therapy, potentially surgeries as well, all of these things
(30:26):
that most Americans don't believe they can consent to or understand,
and that many places, including the same progressive European countries
that people like Zorroon typically point to as an example
of policies they want to emulate, are instead scaling back
on and restricting and admitting that the evidence doesn't support them. Well,
(30:46):
they are doubling down, and unfortunately they are even going
to be using taxpayer dollars to fund it if Zoron
gets his way. I want to revisit some reporting from
The New York Sun from a few months back. Breakout
New York mayoral contenders around Mamdani wants to spend sixty
five million dollars on medical gender treatments for miners and adults.
(31:07):
The Democratic Socialist candidate for New York City mayor proposes
using taxpayer funds to pay for gender transition treatments, including miners,
in the face of Trump's and other right wing attacks
on such access. And this is the reporter Benjamin Ryan.
He writes in a little noticed spending proposal In mister
Mamdanie's detailed policy platform, the young state assemblyman calls for
(31:28):
spending sixty five million dollars to expand and protect gender
affirming care city wide for both transgender youth and adults.
So it's very clear their plan is to use taxpayer
money to fund the medical transition of miners for free
or at least at the taxpayer's expense. So if you
(31:49):
live in New York City, your tax dollars will get
to fund that. Really, really, I think tragic practice is
I guess how I would describe it. And if I
was in New York City, tex expair, that would mortify me.
And it's interesting how he's not even just saying we're
going to fight to keep it legal, right, but also
we're going to forcibly fund it, Whereas more moderate Democrats
(32:10):
in the past, even Joe Biden for many years and
those types agreed when it comes to ethically controversial practices
like abortion, even though they wanted it to be legal,
they would support things like the High Amendment that theoretically,
I mean, it's a dubious whether it really does this,
but theoretically prevent tax payer dollars from being used for
it because they understood that a lot of their fellow
(32:31):
citizens had genuine ethical concerns and wouldn't want their money
to go out the window for that and to fund that. Well,
that kind of nuance or moderate approach at all is
officially out the window for some Democrats like Zorron, who says, yeah,
get over it. I'm going to take your money and
use it to sterilize kids. What lovely, lovely saying and
(32:52):
moderate stuff we're going to have in New York City.
And it's so interesting to see them like wrap themselves
around Zorn as if he is going to be some
pioneer for the Democratic Party. Good luck with that nationally.
I mean, New York City is one thing, because it's
very left leaning city and left leaning voter base, and
the other options were deeply, deeply flawed and detestable in
(33:12):
their own right in many ways. But trying to sell
this on the national stage is not going to go
well to the Democratic Party. More from The New York
Sun Here, mister Mandani cites the Trump administration's for posed
elimination of federal support for what's known as gender affirming
care as driving his proposal, which would seek to force
private hospitals to continue providing gender treatments to minors, even
(33:36):
in the face of mounting counter threats from the President.
The Mamdani administration, the proposal says, will also hold private
hospital systems denying gender affirming care accountable. Hospitals that continue
to deny trans youth access to gender affirming care are
in violation of New York's constitution as well as multiple
state and city laws. The Mamdani administration will coordinate with
(33:58):
the New York Attorney General and district attorneys to investigate
and hold public hearings on hospitals that deny trans youth
their rightful health care and hold them accountable to the law.
This is madness, by the way, this is absolutely insane.
So what they're saying is hospitals will sterilize the kids,
will give them the medical sex changes that are not
(34:18):
supported by evidence. And I call them sex changes. That's
not correct terminology. You can't change your sex. So I
need a better word for it. But I don't want
to say gender affirming care because it is so euphemistic
and kind of heights I think, or masks the severity
of these treatments and their lifelong ramifications. But it shows
you as well. Maybe and maybe this is the socialistic
(34:40):
impulse of the Mamdani administration and their kind of camp.
They just don't care. Think about the position they are
putting these hospitals in. Who maybe they have ethical concerns,
maybe about the transitioning miners. Maybe they don't want to
do it because it's not supported by evidence. You would
hope that that's the case, but let's say that's not
even in the case. Say they're just practical, and they
(35:01):
have the Trump administration threatening to revoke the funding they
rely on from the federal government if they don't stop
offering these barbaric treatments to kids, and then they have
the mayor telling them, no, you must do it or
we will come after you. You really are putting these
hospitals and these medical providers in an impossible position, and
(35:22):
you just don't care. Like I guess, you just don't
care because there's really no way for them to not
have one level of government coming for their throat. It really,
I mean not to break out the smallest of tiny
violin for hospital administrators, but I kind of do feel
bad for them anyway. More. Here from the Sun the
policy memo on mister Mamdanie's campaign website, outlining his plan
(35:44):
to spend sixty five million in city funds to support
access to gender transition treatment for New Yorkers, states that
the city will direct fifty seven million to public hospitals,
community clinics, federally qualified health centers, and nonprofits that provide
gender transition treatment, an additional eight million with developing support,
virtual and telehealth services by community health providers, add gender
(36:05):
transition treatments to the existing virtual services provided by the
public New York Health Hospital system, create a hub to
help connect people to providers who could prescribe these medications,
and support programs like the one by the LGBTQ focused
Kellen Lord Community Health Clinic for caring for transgender sex workers.
It is not only the law in New York for
people of all ages to be able to access gender
(36:27):
affirming care easily and safely, but it is our moral obligation.
Mister mom Donnie wrote in response to a candidate survey
by the Jim ol Ewell's Liberal Democratic Club, a local
LGBT focused group. Well, I discend from this monstrosity, and
I think that the fact that such high profile LGBT
(36:48):
influencers are going all in on. This is a huge
part of why support for the LGBT community and even
things like gay marriage continues to decline. And frankly, I
think the Democratic Party is out of it's mind if
it thinks that this kind of a platform and radicalism
is ever going to chart a meaningful pathway for some
sort of nationwide, nationally competitive candidate or message. This is
(37:14):
insanity and you might be able to get away with
it in New York City in California, but most of
the country is never going to be on board with this,
no matter how much propaganda far left influencers do trying
to paint it as funny and chic. That's my take
at least, but you guys will have to let me
know what you think in the comments. Do make sure
(37:34):
subscribe like and if you're listening on audio podcast, do
take a second to rate and review the show wherever
you listen and recommend the show to a friend. That's
so number one way the podcasts grow, and I really
love to reach more of you and I just love
bringing you all this show. So with that, guys, that'll
be it for today's episode of the Bread Versus Everyone Podcast.
(37:55):
Thanks so much. For tuning in, and we'll talk again.
Reil sim
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
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