May 14, 2025 • 27 mins
The Democratic Party is in disarray after a vote to cancel the recent election of DNC Vice Chair David Hogg due to gender diversity quotas. Yes, seriously! I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a bizarre viral TikTok simping for Luigi Mangione, a CNN panel crashes out over a fact, and a Republican governor makes a strange and indefensible move.
CHECK OUT THE MERCH: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
SEND ME A VOICE NOTE: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEW 2ND CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/@MoreBradPolumbo
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):
We have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because
of course we do. Okay, Frankly, I don't even know
if it makes sense for us to have the gender
balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I
want to focus on whoever's just best at the job.
Great at this point, that's my own deal.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Pterraffic Day is the day that ends in why so
the Democratic Party is collapsing under the weight of its
own absurdity. We're going to break down the latest bizarre
identity politics that are tearing the Democratic Party down from
the inside, and so much more, including a bizarre CNN segment,
(00:36):
an unhinged TikTok, and a strange move by a Republican
governor in today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast,
my daily show where we take on the craziest ideas
from across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all
from an independent perspective. First, like I mentioned, we got
to check in with the Democratic Party and spoiler alert, folks,
(00:58):
they're not doing well. We talked about this a little
while back, but they recently elected a guy named David
Hogg to be one of several vice chairs for the
Democratic National Committee that the NC the body that organizes
the Democratic Party's political affairs. And David Hogg is an
interesting character to say the least, because he was tragically
involved in a school shooting while still in high school
(01:20):
and then became a prominent gun control activist, but then
kind of more broadly a liberal activist and commentator, and
he was at one point kind of cartoonishly woke and absurd,
but in the last couple of years has seemed to
at least somewhat adjust his messaging and even in recent
weeks since becoming DNC vice chair, has spoken a little
(01:41):
bit of common sense and actually seemed to get it
at least a tiny little bit, like he did in
their recent appearance with Bill Maher.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
What I think hal in last election, as younger men,
they would rather vote for somebody who feels who even
if they don't completely agree with, they don't feel judged
by it, than somebody who they do agree with that
they feel like they have to walk on eggshells around
constantly because going to be judged or ostracized or excommunicated.
And what's interesting about this moment is it feels like
the two parties in some senses have flipped where, you know,
Republicans used to be the judgmental assholes in many ways,
(02:11):
and since many Democrats, despite us, I would say for
most of us coming from the right place of wanting
to do the right thing, we've created a culture where
we say, well, if you say the wrong thing, you're excommunicated.
And that's just not how human beings work. Nobody is perfect.
But ultimately what we have to do here is figure
out how to bring people back in and work towards
the bigger goal of advancing the future of this country
and helping young people, especially get by so that they're
(02:34):
able to focus on their lives and you know, getting
with a young woman or something like that. Instead of
how are they going to pay their rent, for example,
or how are they working their two jobs? Young people
should be able to focus on what young people should
be focused on, which is how to get laid and
how to go and have fun.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Rather David had for question.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Hog has also rocked the boat by suggesting that even
in his role as DNC vice chair, he will still
work to support primary challenges to old Democrats who are
establishment incumbits, and he will support challengers even potentially in
safe seats. This has upset a lot of people in
the Democratic Party, of course, but he's not wrong that
(03:15):
they need new energy and need perhaps fewer octogenarians in
party leadership and in important positions. But that hasn't gone
overwhell with a lot of the rest of the party naturally,
because you're going to ruffle feathers when you threaten to
take people's jobs away or support challengers to their elections.
And at the same time all of this is going on,
there's been kind of an absurd saga playing out in
(03:36):
the background that's sort of parallel to this that you
can't totally separate it from all of this drama, but
it is sort of separate. Where a losing candidate for
the DNC vice chair, a female candidate, has been challenging
the legitimacy of Hogg's election, not on the basis that
the votes were fraudulent or anything like that, but on
(03:57):
the basis that it violated their gender parity rules. Yes, seriously,
the DNC has written into its rules absurd gender quotas
that explicitly say they cannot simply elect the best candidates.
They must do explicit balancing in the election process in
(04:17):
terms of male, female, and press as shored non binary candidates.
This led to tremendous confusion during the most recent selection process,
as this sense infamous clip from former DNC chair Jamie
Harrison showed when he was trying to figure out how
the heck they could deal with this gender parity rule
(04:38):
given that one of the candidates was non binary, or
so they claim.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
The rules specify that when we have a gender non
binary candidate or officer, the non binary individual is counted
as neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices
must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous
four elections, and officers are currently two male and too female.
(05:05):
In order to be gender balanced, we must we must
elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender.
So again, this is what we have to do for
this vice chair race.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Now this is honestly all beyond parody at this point,
but it did lead to serious problems that afterwards. After
the election occurred and Hog as well as the other
male candidate, Kenyata, were selected in addition to one female
candidate who was also selected. They now are being challenged
through the Procedural Rules Committee as part of the DNC
(05:46):
to have that election overturned, and that committee just approved
the challenge. NBC News reports DNC panel recommends redo a
vote that elevated David Hogg to vice chair after procedural concerns.
The recommendations could also affect the post held by Malcolm care,
a Pennsylvania state legislator. A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on
Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February
(06:07):
vice chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates.
The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC
votes to approve it, could open up new races for
the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and
Malcolm Knyada, a Pennsylvania state legislator. The challenge by Oklahoma
Democratic Committee woman Caylin Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hog
(06:28):
and Kenyada in the February race for vice chair, is
not related to the ongoing tension between Hag and the
National Party over his push to support primary challenges against
incumbent Democrats. Instead, it was based off frieze claim that
the handling of the vice chair vote gave the two
men an unfair advantage amid the National Party's requirement that
its executive committee achieved gender balance, that's right. This all
(06:52):
stems back to the fact that they literally have gender quotas,
and in the bizarre and very bureaucratic and confusing process
that took place trying to account for those, this woman
claims that these quotas weren't properly enforced. Here's what Hogg
said when he was asked about this recently on Bill
Maher's show.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That is the deal on the I'm the woman who
attacked you because you beat her at that job?
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Did you beat her far and square?
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Was there any fire there? There was? There was the
election that the DNC held, and I was the person
that was one of the people that won one of
the three positions that they had for the the at
large fight.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
So what was her claim?
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Part of the claim? So, I don't not to bore people,
but to get into the bureaucracy of the DNC. We
have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because of
course we do, okay right away, by the way, the
Republican Party does too.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
If the chair is a male, then the vice chair
has to be a female.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Well, what's interesting is that's even more progressive than our vision,
which is that the chair doesn't count towards the gender
balance rule that we have. Frankly, I don't even know
if it makes sense for us to have the gender
balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I
want to focus on whoever's just best at the job.
Great at this point, that's my own deal.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Pratic What a crazy idea that they should just elect
whoever's best for the job and not enforce bizarre gender quotas.
Now it is rich to hear that coming from hag
who had a long history until very recently of being
the exact kind of woke activist that would have supported
this kind of thing, including very famously now tweeting I'm
(08:24):
one of the most politically toxic people in the country
and I'm too radical for American politics. No, I'm not
running for office. We have enough straight white men in power.
It'd be nice to see some people who actually look
like our country and not privilege. That's what he tweeted
in twenty twenty two, so not all that long ago.
(08:45):
But he's clearly had a change of heart and now
sees the error of these woke identitarian ways, which I
guess better late than never. But it is kind of
funny to see him in this situation given his past comments.
I'm so surprised and disappointed to hear that Republicans have
these kinds of rules as well, as far as I'm concerned,
(09:07):
Scrap all that nonsense, open up these party elections to anybody,
regardless of their gender, and just elect the best person.
But to me, this is really indicative of the problems
facing the Democratic Party. They are trying, or at least
some of the smarter voices inside of it, are trying
to disentangle themselves from the woke, toxic, identitarian obsessions that
(09:28):
have really dragged the party down. But so many high
profile leaders like Biden and Tim Walls in recent comments,
keep going back into this identitarian, victim obsessed territory and
dragging the party back into this rather than presenting any
sort of like moderate economics driven message or just pushing
(09:49):
back on the extremes of the Trump administration and offering
kind of a sane, sensible alternative. Rather than that, they
keep getting pulled back into this stuff. And that's because
the rot goes deep. As you can see, it is
literally embedded into the rules of the party itself. You
can't just flip a switch, especially when you're not willing
(10:09):
to take on the radical activists that have bullied the
Democrats in terms of this kind of issue to adopt
these absurdities and these radical positions in the first place.
I mean, they're literally about to remove their two male
vice chairs over allegations that they're elections which they won
by a lot of votes. By the way, it wasn't
close violated their rules regarding gender parity quotas. It is
(10:34):
not twenty twenty. And I don't know how they're still
doing this, how these rules haven't been updated. To be clear,
this woman, she may actually be correct in her procedural
claim that this was in fact the rules, and it was.
It gets very arcane and very complicated in the details
essentially what happened, and I will try not to butcher this,
(10:56):
but what happened was the first vote where they elected
the first chair elected a female candidate. Then they had
to elect two more chairs and they did it in
one single vote, and they told everyone that you had
to vote for one male in this vote because of
those parity rules, and then one candidate of any gender. Now,
the two that resulted from that vote were Kenyata and hog.
(11:20):
This woman claims that because they were instructed that they
had to pick one male, then therefore she was discriminated
against even though everyone had the option to pick her
and just didn't. Still, maybe that is technically true according
to the rules. Maybe they were incorrect to add that stipulation.
I don't know the Rules Committee voted that that was
the case. But to me, it's the fact that they
(11:41):
still have these absurd rules and they're still playing these
stupid games. That is just beyond parity at this point.
And I will say it is unlike what this NBC
News article suggested to me, it is actually not possible
to completely disentangle this mess from the ongoing feud that
Hog is happy with the party where he's trying to
(12:02):
take it in a different direction. And look, I'm not
sure his direction is the right direction politically speaking or
policy wise, certainly not, but at least it's different and
what the Democrats have been doing isn't working. But obviously
this ruling is not about that. It's about the technicalities
of the rules. But it is an open question whether
the members of this committee, who many of whom may
(12:23):
have been very upset or offended or felt threatened by
what Hag is doing, had that influence their decision. He
has said publicly that he believes if there was someone
else involved then it wasn't his name, they would not
be redoing the election like this. They wouldn't have passed
this procedural objection. They would have just said, Okay, next time,
we'll do it differently. But this one stands. And so
(12:44):
I don't know if that's true or not, but my
hunches it's potentially at least a factor. And then you
can't totally disentangle these two ongoing controversies. But I just
find it funny how Democrats are going through all this
soul searching right now about like how did we lose
young men of all races, but especially young white men.
It's actually not that deep. No one in these groups, really,
(13:08):
no one in any groups, but especially in these groups,
is interested in toxic identitarianism. And for years, you guys
have been deeply, deeply intertwined with those exact ideas and
philosophical approaches to politics, even at the core level of
your party itself. If you want to stop the bleeding,
(13:29):
if you want to win back some of these people,
which I'm not sure it's even possible, but you've got
to try something different and rip up these identitarian rules
and obsessions. But what do you guys think of this mess?
Do let me know in the comments. Do hit that
leg button while you're at it, and make sure you're
subscribed as well. Plus, guys, remember to send me voice
notes at the link in the description with your woke
(13:51):
car stories, your personal experiences, and other things you want
me to respond to and give you advice in an
upcoming episode. And remember to check out the new last
brain Cell merch line that just dropped. Check it out
in the description. Plus, subscribe to my second YouTube channel,
where I will be uploading original bonus content and already
did put out one story time about how I got
fired from my woke college newspaper for a non binary
(14:16):
microaggression and for supposedly old racist tweets. I told that
whole story on my second channel. Go check it out
at the link below after you finished this episode, because
we are not done. There's so much more to talk
about today. First, here's a TikTok that's going viral where
a white woman is practically peeing herself with joy at
the idea that Luigi Mangioni the alleged killer of a
(14:39):
healthcare CEO may go free because of a theory she's concocted.
Let's take a listen, Bro, Luigi MANGIONI my walk.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Allegedly, the cops forgot to provide a warrant when they
searched Luigi's backpack. Bro, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
They did not a warrant when searching Luigi's backpack. This
man could walk.
Speaker 6 (15:07):
Imagine, imagine, Imagine.
Speaker 7 (15:10):
Luigi runs her office somewhere because he gets to walk
on this case because of an administrative error by the
from the cops not providing a warrant.
Speaker 6 (15:23):
I haven't validated this for sure. I just got a
text message from one.
Speaker 7 (15:26):
Of my friends.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
I haven't validated this entirely on my own yet, so
I still have to do a little bit more research
to find out if this is like legitimate. But this
dude could walk, no charges, This guy could walk out
of there. Stay tuned. I'm about to be home. I'll
provide an update as soon as I can. This is insane.
If this is real, this is literally insane. His legal
(15:48):
defense fund has also reached over a million dollars, according
to his lawyers.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
More to come, well, that's concerning that over a million
dollars has been raised for somebody who's accused of murdering
someone in cold blood. But a lot to unpack here.
First of all, kind of insane to admit that you're
just posting random information on the Internet that you haven't
verified before even checking it. That's probably not great. That's
(16:15):
probably not the best thing to do. Just my hot take.
But she's just probably incorrect on the facts for a
couple of reasons. One, there's a ton of evidence against Mangioni,
so even if the backpack was excluded, the whole case
wouldn't be dismissed. You wouldn't necessarily just walk. And also,
they searched his backpack when he was arrested. And I'm
(16:36):
not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this, but
I think if they have a warrant for your arrest,
or they have probable cause to arrest you, they are
allowed to search you and your belongings and don't need
a separate warrant for that. I'm pretty sure she's just
wrong about this whole thing. But the more important thing
to me is the idea that this woman genuinely seems
thrilled to the point of euphoria at the idea that
(16:59):
somebody who allegedly track someone down, track down a father
of two and killed him in cold blood would walk
for that. Are y' all sure, because it's not just
this one girl. We've gone over the polling, there is
fairly widespread support among young people for Luigi Mangioni, for
people who feel that his actions are justified by what
they see as the horrors and harm caused by health
(17:21):
insurance industry. But that is I've talked about this before.
That is an insane perspective that literally threatens the foundations
of our civilization because one I think that the claim
that he's responsible for killing people with his insurance denials
and all that is highly suspected. We could get into
all the details of it. But even if he was,
(17:42):
this man received no trial, He was accused of violating
no law in a court. He received no sort of
verdict from a jury of his peers to be sentenced
to a death penalty. So what you are saying, if
you support Luigi, if you want him free, even though
you believe he did it, is that it's okay to
go out and kill someone just based on a belief
(18:04):
that they're doing harm in the world and they don't
deserve a trial, they don't deserve charges anything. Vigilante justice
is wonderful and to be supported to the tune of
millions of dollars of fundraising and bizarre TikTok videos filmed
in your car. All if you agree with the person's
objections to the nature of the targeted person's work, that's
(18:24):
a can of worms, that's a Pandora's box that, if
you open it up, leads to outright violence in the
streets and civil unrest and conflict. You will have people
who will go after the CEO of Planned Parenthood by
that exact same logic, and I would never support that.
But there's no way to argue that someone like Luigi
Mangioni's actions are justified, but that person in that situation
(18:48):
wouldn't be by the same logic. Either you want to
live in a civilized society with a rule of law
or you want to live in anarchy. I know my answer,
but these TikTokers really seem caught up, and maybe it's
just them being thirsty for Luigi, but they really don't
seem to have thought through any of the ramifications or
(19:08):
consequences of this world view that they're adopting by just
hopping on board with this extremist vigilante violence. What do
you guys think are even surprised by these videos at
this point or is it just kind of part of
the course. Let me know in the comments. Up next,
a CNN panel just crashed out and lost it because
(19:29):
Kevin O'Leary, who I guess is sort of a Republican.
He's of Shark Tank fame, but he's got more I
think pro Trump, pro Republican perspectives. This CNN panel freaked
out over a basic fact. Take a listen. Lastly, there's
nothing about Kamala Harris that's a loser.
Speaker 6 (19:44):
Let's just put it.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Oh, I think there is. She lost big times.
Speaker 8 (19:52):
Listen, we are not gonna hold on.
Speaker 4 (19:54):
Hold on, I'm talking. She got slaughtered because they disabled
the process.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
They have anointed her and she got slat.
Speaker 8 (20:02):
I just want that we don't have to bake oncond
We do not have to bake some Hold on a second, Kevin,
just clarification. She was elected in the twenty twenty election.
Joe Biden. She she was elected in twenty twenty on
the same ticket as Joe Biden. So there's that. We
(20:25):
got to leave it there for this conversation.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Come on, true, Wow, the cope is off the charts.
They just lost their minds because he stated basic facts.
Kamala Harris is a huge political loser. She's won a
bunch of safe elections in a deep blue state like California. Sure,
but when she ran for president in twenty twenty four,
she did terribly. She lost by a huge margin to
(20:51):
Donald Trump. And sure, the host Aabby Phillip, who I
like as a person, says that she well, she won
his vice president in twenty twenty. No one votes based
on the vice president. She's at the bottom of the ticket.
They were voting on Biden versus Trump. Okay, so technically, yes,
she won, but that you can't really cite that to
suggest she's some sort of political winner. And in fact,
(21:12):
when she ran her own Democratic presidential primary campaign in
twenty twenty, she crashed and burned, despite having a lot
of liberal mainstream media outlets openly supporting her and simping
for her. So when Kevin O'Leary says Kamala Harris is
a loser politically speaking, he's kind of just stating a fact,
and it is astounding that I agree to which these
(21:36):
other panelists just lost it over this, and how much
cope and denial they're still somehow in. That's the thing
that kind of concerns me about this. How are you
going to learn? How are you going to construct and
form a better approach for next time when you're still
in denial about the fact that you even messed up
(21:56):
in the first place. Finally, I want to talk about
something that a Republican governor just did that making some
serious waves. Here's the latest news out of Montana.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Well, Montana has become the fourth state to pass legislation
banning lab grown meat after Governor Greg Ganfte signed HB
four oh one into law earlier this month, and the
governor says he's proud to support Montana's ranchers.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
There's nothing better than Montana beef. The world knows that.
I don't know why anybody would want something out of
a petri dish, So I was proud to sign this
bill into law.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
We don't need lab grown meat here in the state
of Montana.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
The governor is publicly bragging about what he just did.
He posted a tweet that says so called lab grown
meat has no place in Montana. By signing HB four
oh one into law, I am proud to defend our
way of life and the hard working Montana ranchers who
produce the best beef in the world. He attached a
(23:01):
press release that has more details. Sponsored by Rep. Braxton Mitchell,
Republican from Columbia, Falls, House Bill four oh one prohibits
the manufacture, for sale, or distribution of cell cultured edible product.
The bill defines cell cultured edible product as the concept
of meat, including but not limited to muscle cells, fat cells,
connective tissue, blood, and other components produced via cell culture
(23:26):
rather than from a whole slaughtered animal. Darting October first,
any retail food establishment in Montana that manufactures, sells, or
distributes cell cultured edible product is subject to suspension of
their license and could be found guilty of a misdemeanor
and face with fines and imprisonment if convicted. So Governor
(23:46):
Ganforte is not the only one to do this. Others
like Republican Governor Ron De Santis in the Free State
of Florida have done something similar and also banned lab
grown meat. From their states. We have a huge problem
with this because what you're essentially doing is substituting the
(24:06):
government's judgment for what individuals can buy and consume, with
absolutely none of the normal legitimate justifications that would justify
such an intervention. These meat products have to be approved
by the FDA and their extensive safety testing process, and
there's a lot of research showing it's not harmful for you,
(24:28):
so there is no safety reason to be doing this.
They're simply saying this isn't real meat and it's not
our way of life to eat stuff like this. That's fine, though,
then don't eat it, don't purchase it, use your dollars,
and in your community, support ranchers locally. But some people
might want to eat lab grown meat. They might be
concerned about reducing carbon emissions because there's a lot of
(24:52):
COTO emissions they involved in traditional meat production. They might
be concerned about ending cruelty and suffering towards animals, but
still want to consume meat. That's one reason I would
personally be very interested in trying lab grown meat. I'm
very bothered by the points that vegetarians raise about how
animals are treated in kind of our meat production system.
(25:15):
But I'm pretty attached to eating meat, so something like
this should be a great option for me that I
should be free to try. It's not your business to
tell me, with no valid safety justification, what I can
and can't eat, or what businesses should win and lose
in a market. And that's what they're doing here. They're
open about it. They're picking winners and losers. They're saying,
(25:36):
we're going to use the force of the law to
legally ban competition from traditional farmers, which will potentially stop
price reductions that would come from competition, and it will
stop people from actually getting to choose what kind of
business and what kind of product they want to support.
I thought Republicans were all about freedom and about choices
(25:56):
and about personal responsibility and being free and not having
overreaching government. Well now y'all want the government to reach
into my grocery cart. Seriously, there's a blatantly crony capitalist
nature to this as well. They're blatantly and openly doing this,
saying we're doing this to protect the cattle ranchers from
competition from this other product and meat source. They're not
(26:20):
being shy about it. These are groups that donate a
lot of money to these politicians and lobby them, and
they are rewarding them by using the power of government,
which is supposed to simply be used to uphold the
public's safety and rights, to benefit these specific businesses by
legally prohibiting their competition and taking choices away from consumers
(26:42):
so that these traditional cattle farmers don't have to compete
but instead just get the market kind of skewed in
their balance into perpetuity by the government. That's ironically enough,
almost a form of dei for cattle ranchers. Like, it's
not equality, it's not competition, it's not meritocracy made the
best approach and product win. It's special privileges for groups
(27:07):
that the institution wants to promote. You can't claim to
be the party of meritocracy while pulling stunts like this.
I find this ridiculous and deeply hypocritical. But you guys,
let me know what you think. Maybe you support it,
let me know in the comments. All right, guys, that'll
be for this episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast.
Thank you all so much for tuning in. Please do
(27:28):
make sure you subscribed. If you aren't yet, do hit
that like button. Before you go, remember to send me
some voice notes. Check out the merch and subscribe to
my second channel, and with that we'll talk again real soon.
We have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because
of course we do. Okay, Frankly, I don't even know
if it makes sense for us to have the gender
balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I
want to focus on whoever's just best at the job.
Great at this point, that's my own deal.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Pterraffic Day is the day that ends in why so
the Democratic Party is collapsing under the weight of its
own absurdity. We're going to break down the latest bizarre
identity politics that are tearing the Democratic Party down from
the inside, and so much more, including a bizarre CNN segment,
(00:36):
an unhinged TikTok, and a strange move by a Republican
governor in today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast,
my daily show where we take on the craziest ideas
from across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all
from an independent perspective. First, like I mentioned, we got
to check in with the Democratic Party and spoiler alert, folks,
(00:58):
they're not doing well. We talked about this a little
while back, but they recently elected a guy named David
Hogg to be one of several vice chairs for the
Democratic National Committee that the NC the body that organizes
the Democratic Party's political affairs. And David Hogg is an
interesting character to say the least, because he was tragically
involved in a school shooting while still in high school
(01:20):
and then became a prominent gun control activist, but then
kind of more broadly a liberal activist and commentator, and
he was at one point kind of cartoonishly woke and absurd,
but in the last couple of years has seemed to
at least somewhat adjust his messaging and even in recent
weeks since becoming DNC vice chair, has spoken a little
(01:41):
bit of common sense and actually seemed to get it
at least a tiny little bit, like he did in
their recent appearance with Bill Maher.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
What I think hal in last election, as younger men,
they would rather vote for somebody who feels who even
if they don't completely agree with, they don't feel judged
by it, than somebody who they do agree with that
they feel like they have to walk on eggshells around
constantly because going to be judged or ostracized or excommunicated.
And what's interesting about this moment is it feels like
the two parties in some senses have flipped where, you know,
Republicans used to be the judgmental assholes in many ways,
(02:11):
and since many Democrats, despite us, I would say for
most of us coming from the right place of wanting
to do the right thing, we've created a culture where
we say, well, if you say the wrong thing, you're excommunicated.
And that's just not how human beings work. Nobody is perfect.
But ultimately what we have to do here is figure
out how to bring people back in and work towards
the bigger goal of advancing the future of this country
and helping young people, especially get by so that they're
(02:34):
able to focus on their lives and you know, getting
with a young woman or something like that. Instead of
how are they going to pay their rent, for example,
or how are they working their two jobs? Young people
should be able to focus on what young people should
be focused on, which is how to get laid and
how to go and have fun.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Rather David had for question.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Hog has also rocked the boat by suggesting that even
in his role as DNC vice chair, he will still
work to support primary challenges to old Democrats who are
establishment incumbits, and he will support challengers even potentially in
safe seats. This has upset a lot of people in
the Democratic Party, of course, but he's not wrong that
(03:15):
they need new energy and need perhaps fewer octogenarians in
party leadership and in important positions. But that hasn't gone
overwhell with a lot of the rest of the party naturally,
because you're going to ruffle feathers when you threaten to
take people's jobs away or support challengers to their elections.
And at the same time all of this is going on,
there's been kind of an absurd saga playing out in
(03:36):
the background that's sort of parallel to this that you
can't totally separate it from all of this drama, but
it is sort of separate. Where a losing candidate for
the DNC vice chair, a female candidate, has been challenging
the legitimacy of Hogg's election, not on the basis that
the votes were fraudulent or anything like that, but on
(03:57):
the basis that it violated their gender parity rules. Yes, seriously,
the DNC has written into its rules absurd gender quotas
that explicitly say they cannot simply elect the best candidates.
They must do explicit balancing in the election process in
(04:17):
terms of male, female, and press as shored non binary candidates.
This led to tremendous confusion during the most recent selection process,
as this sense infamous clip from former DNC chair Jamie
Harrison showed when he was trying to figure out how
the heck they could deal with this gender parity rule
(04:38):
given that one of the candidates was non binary, or
so they claim.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
The rules specify that when we have a gender non
binary candidate or officer, the non binary individual is counted
as neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices
must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous
four elections, and officers are currently two male and too female.
(05:05):
In order to be gender balanced, we must we must
elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender.
So again, this is what we have to do for
this vice chair race.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Now this is honestly all beyond parody at this point,
but it did lead to serious problems that afterwards. After
the election occurred and Hog as well as the other
male candidate, Kenyata, were selected in addition to one female
candidate who was also selected. They now are being challenged
through the Procedural Rules Committee as part of the DNC
(05:46):
to have that election overturned, and that committee just approved
the challenge. NBC News reports DNC panel recommends redo a
vote that elevated David Hogg to vice chair after procedural concerns.
The recommendations could also affect the post held by Malcolm care,
a Pennsylvania state legislator. A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on
Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February
(06:07):
vice chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates.
The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC
votes to approve it, could open up new races for
the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and
Malcolm Knyada, a Pennsylvania state legislator. The challenge by Oklahoma
Democratic Committee woman Caylin Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hog
(06:28):
and Kenyada in the February race for vice chair, is
not related to the ongoing tension between Hag and the
National Party over his push to support primary challenges against
incumbent Democrats. Instead, it was based off frieze claim that
the handling of the vice chair vote gave the two
men an unfair advantage amid the National Party's requirement that
its executive committee achieved gender balance, that's right. This all
(06:52):
stems back to the fact that they literally have gender quotas,
and in the bizarre and very bureaucratic and confusing process
that took place trying to account for those, this woman
claims that these quotas weren't properly enforced. Here's what Hogg
said when he was asked about this recently on Bill
Maher's show.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That is the deal on the I'm the woman who
attacked you because you beat her at that job?
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Did you beat her far and square?
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Was there any fire there? There was? There was the
election that the DNC held, and I was the person
that was one of the people that won one of
the three positions that they had for the the at
large fight.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
So what was her claim?
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Part of the claim? So, I don't not to bore people,
but to get into the bureaucracy of the DNC. We
have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because of
course we do, okay right away, by the way, the
Republican Party does too.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
If the chair is a male, then the vice chair
has to be a female.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
Well, what's interesting is that's even more progressive than our vision,
which is that the chair doesn't count towards the gender
balance rule that we have. Frankly, I don't even know
if it makes sense for us to have the gender
balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I
want to focus on whoever's just best at the job.
Great at this point, that's my own deal.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Pratic What a crazy idea that they should just elect
whoever's best for the job and not enforce bizarre gender quotas.
Now it is rich to hear that coming from hag
who had a long history until very recently of being
the exact kind of woke activist that would have supported
this kind of thing, including very famously now tweeting I'm
(08:24):
one of the most politically toxic people in the country
and I'm too radical for American politics. No, I'm not
running for office. We have enough straight white men in power.
It'd be nice to see some people who actually look
like our country and not privilege. That's what he tweeted
in twenty twenty two, so not all that long ago.
(08:45):
But he's clearly had a change of heart and now
sees the error of these woke identitarian ways, which I
guess better late than never. But it is kind of
funny to see him in this situation given his past comments.
I'm so surprised and disappointed to hear that Republicans have
these kinds of rules as well, as far as I'm concerned,
(09:07):
Scrap all that nonsense, open up these party elections to anybody,
regardless of their gender, and just elect the best person.
But to me, this is really indicative of the problems
facing the Democratic Party. They are trying, or at least
some of the smarter voices inside of it, are trying
to disentangle themselves from the woke, toxic, identitarian obsessions that
(09:28):
have really dragged the party down. But so many high
profile leaders like Biden and Tim Walls in recent comments,
keep going back into this identitarian, victim obsessed territory and
dragging the party back into this rather than presenting any
sort of like moderate economics driven message or just pushing
(09:49):
back on the extremes of the Trump administration and offering
kind of a sane, sensible alternative. Rather than that, they
keep getting pulled back into this stuff. And that's because
the rot goes deep. As you can see, it is
literally embedded into the rules of the party itself. You
can't just flip a switch, especially when you're not willing
(10:09):
to take on the radical activists that have bullied the
Democrats in terms of this kind of issue to adopt
these absurdities and these radical positions in the first place.
I mean, they're literally about to remove their two male
vice chairs over allegations that they're elections which they won
by a lot of votes. By the way, it wasn't
close violated their rules regarding gender parity quotas. It is
(10:34):
not twenty twenty. And I don't know how they're still
doing this, how these rules haven't been updated. To be clear,
this woman, she may actually be correct in her procedural
claim that this was in fact the rules, and it was.
It gets very arcane and very complicated in the details
essentially what happened, and I will try not to butcher this,
(10:56):
but what happened was the first vote where they elected
the first chair elected a female candidate. Then they had
to elect two more chairs and they did it in
one single vote, and they told everyone that you had
to vote for one male in this vote because of
those parity rules, and then one candidate of any gender. Now,
the two that resulted from that vote were Kenyata and hog.
(11:20):
This woman claims that because they were instructed that they
had to pick one male, then therefore she was discriminated
against even though everyone had the option to pick her
and just didn't. Still, maybe that is technically true according
to the rules. Maybe they were incorrect to add that stipulation.
I don't know the Rules Committee voted that that was
the case. But to me, it's the fact that they
(11:41):
still have these absurd rules and they're still playing these
stupid games. That is just beyond parity at this point.
And I will say it is unlike what this NBC
News article suggested to me, it is actually not possible
to completely disentangle this mess from the ongoing feud that
Hog is happy with the party where he's trying to
(12:02):
take it in a different direction. And look, I'm not
sure his direction is the right direction politically speaking or
policy wise, certainly not, but at least it's different and
what the Democrats have been doing isn't working. But obviously
this ruling is not about that. It's about the technicalities
of the rules. But it is an open question whether
the members of this committee, who many of whom may
(12:23):
have been very upset or offended or felt threatened by
what Hag is doing, had that influence their decision. He
has said publicly that he believes if there was someone
else involved then it wasn't his name, they would not
be redoing the election like this. They wouldn't have passed
this procedural objection. They would have just said, Okay, next time,
we'll do it differently. But this one stands. And so
(12:44):
I don't know if that's true or not, but my
hunches it's potentially at least a factor. And then you
can't totally disentangle these two ongoing controversies. But I just
find it funny how Democrats are going through all this
soul searching right now about like how did we lose
young men of all races, but especially young white men.
It's actually not that deep. No one in these groups, really,
(13:08):
no one in any groups, but especially in these groups,
is interested in toxic identitarianism. And for years, you guys
have been deeply, deeply intertwined with those exact ideas and
philosophical approaches to politics, even at the core level of
your party itself. If you want to stop the bleeding,
(13:29):
if you want to win back some of these people,
which I'm not sure it's even possible, but you've got
to try something different and rip up these identitarian rules
and obsessions. But what do you guys think of this mess?
Do let me know in the comments. Do hit that
leg button while you're at it, and make sure you're
subscribed as well. Plus, guys, remember to send me voice
notes at the link in the description with your woke
(13:51):
car stories, your personal experiences, and other things you want
me to respond to and give you advice in an
upcoming episode. And remember to check out the new last
brain Cell merch line that just dropped. Check it out
in the description. Plus, subscribe to my second YouTube channel,
where I will be uploading original bonus content and already
did put out one story time about how I got
fired from my woke college newspaper for a non binary
(14:16):
microaggression and for supposedly old racist tweets. I told that
whole story on my second channel. Go check it out
at the link below after you finished this episode, because
we are not done. There's so much more to talk
about today. First, here's a TikTok that's going viral where
a white woman is practically peeing herself with joy at
the idea that Luigi Mangioni the alleged killer of a
(14:39):
healthcare CEO may go free because of a theory she's concocted.
Let's take a listen, Bro, Luigi MANGIONI my walk.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Allegedly, the cops forgot to provide a warrant when they
searched Luigi's backpack. Bro, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
They did not a warrant when searching Luigi's backpack. This
man could walk.
Speaker 6 (15:07):
Imagine, imagine, Imagine.
Speaker 7 (15:10):
Luigi runs her office somewhere because he gets to walk
on this case because of an administrative error by the
from the cops not providing a warrant.
Speaker 6 (15:23):
I haven't validated this for sure. I just got a
text message from one.
Speaker 7 (15:26):
Of my friends.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
I haven't validated this entirely on my own yet, so
I still have to do a little bit more research
to find out if this is like legitimate. But this
dude could walk, no charges, This guy could walk out
of there. Stay tuned. I'm about to be home. I'll
provide an update as soon as I can. This is insane.
If this is real, this is literally insane. His legal
(15:48):
defense fund has also reached over a million dollars, according
to his lawyers.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
More to come, well, that's concerning that over a million
dollars has been raised for somebody who's accused of murdering
someone in cold blood. But a lot to unpack here.
First of all, kind of insane to admit that you're
just posting random information on the Internet that you haven't
verified before even checking it. That's probably not great. That's
(16:15):
probably not the best thing to do. Just my hot take.
But she's just probably incorrect on the facts for a
couple of reasons. One, there's a ton of evidence against Mangioni,
so even if the backpack was excluded, the whole case
wouldn't be dismissed. You wouldn't necessarily just walk. And also,
they searched his backpack when he was arrested. And I'm
(16:36):
not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this, but
I think if they have a warrant for your arrest,
or they have probable cause to arrest you, they are
allowed to search you and your belongings and don't need
a separate warrant for that. I'm pretty sure she's just
wrong about this whole thing. But the more important thing
to me is the idea that this woman genuinely seems
thrilled to the point of euphoria at the idea that
(16:59):
somebody who allegedly track someone down, track down a father
of two and killed him in cold blood would walk
for that. Are y' all sure, because it's not just
this one girl. We've gone over the polling, there is
fairly widespread support among young people for Luigi Mangioni, for
people who feel that his actions are justified by what
they see as the horrors and harm caused by health
(17:21):
insurance industry. But that is I've talked about this before.
That is an insane perspective that literally threatens the foundations
of our civilization because one I think that the claim
that he's responsible for killing people with his insurance denials
and all that is highly suspected. We could get into
all the details of it. But even if he was,
(17:42):
this man received no trial, He was accused of violating
no law in a court. He received no sort of
verdict from a jury of his peers to be sentenced
to a death penalty. So what you are saying, if
you support Luigi, if you want him free, even though
you believe he did it, is that it's okay to
go out and kill someone just based on a belief
(18:04):
that they're doing harm in the world and they don't
deserve a trial, they don't deserve charges anything. Vigilante justice
is wonderful and to be supported to the tune of
millions of dollars of fundraising and bizarre TikTok videos filmed
in your car. All if you agree with the person's
objections to the nature of the targeted person's work, that's
(18:24):
a can of worms, that's a Pandora's box that, if
you open it up, leads to outright violence in the
streets and civil unrest and conflict. You will have people
who will go after the CEO of Planned Parenthood by
that exact same logic, and I would never support that.
But there's no way to argue that someone like Luigi
Mangioni's actions are justified, but that person in that situation
(18:48):
wouldn't be by the same logic. Either you want to
live in a civilized society with a rule of law
or you want to live in anarchy. I know my answer,
but these TikTokers really seem caught up, and maybe it's
just them being thirsty for Luigi, but they really don't
seem to have thought through any of the ramifications or
(19:08):
consequences of this world view that they're adopting by just
hopping on board with this extremist vigilante violence. What do
you guys think are even surprised by these videos at
this point or is it just kind of part of
the course. Let me know in the comments. Up next,
a CNN panel just crashed out and lost it because
(19:29):
Kevin O'Leary, who I guess is sort of a Republican.
He's of Shark Tank fame, but he's got more I
think pro Trump, pro Republican perspectives. This CNN panel freaked
out over a basic fact. Take a listen. Lastly, there's
nothing about Kamala Harris that's a loser.
Speaker 6 (19:44):
Let's just put it.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Oh, I think there is. She lost big times.
Speaker 8 (19:52):
Listen, we are not gonna hold on.
Speaker 4 (19:54):
Hold on, I'm talking. She got slaughtered because they disabled
the process.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
They have anointed her and she got slat.
Speaker 8 (20:02):
I just want that we don't have to bake oncond
We do not have to bake some Hold on a second, Kevin,
just clarification. She was elected in the twenty twenty election.
Joe Biden. She she was elected in twenty twenty on
the same ticket as Joe Biden. So there's that. We
(20:25):
got to leave it there for this conversation.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Come on, true, Wow, the cope is off the charts.
They just lost their minds because he stated basic facts.
Kamala Harris is a huge political loser. She's won a
bunch of safe elections in a deep blue state like California. Sure,
but when she ran for president in twenty twenty four,
she did terribly. She lost by a huge margin to
(20:51):
Donald Trump. And sure, the host Aabby Phillip, who I
like as a person, says that she well, she won
his vice president in twenty twenty. No one votes based
on the vice president. She's at the bottom of the ticket.
They were voting on Biden versus Trump. Okay, so technically, yes,
she won, but that you can't really cite that to
suggest she's some sort of political winner. And in fact,
(21:12):
when she ran her own Democratic presidential primary campaign in
twenty twenty, she crashed and burned, despite having a lot
of liberal mainstream media outlets openly supporting her and simping
for her. So when Kevin O'Leary says Kamala Harris is
a loser politically speaking, he's kind of just stating a fact,
and it is astounding that I agree to which these
(21:36):
other panelists just lost it over this, and how much
cope and denial they're still somehow in. That's the thing
that kind of concerns me about this. How are you
going to learn? How are you going to construct and
form a better approach for next time when you're still
in denial about the fact that you even messed up
(21:56):
in the first place. Finally, I want to talk about
something that a Republican governor just did that making some
serious waves. Here's the latest news out of Montana.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Well, Montana has become the fourth state to pass legislation
banning lab grown meat after Governor Greg Ganfte signed HB
four oh one into law earlier this month, and the
governor says he's proud to support Montana's ranchers.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
There's nothing better than Montana beef. The world knows that.
I don't know why anybody would want something out of
a petri dish, So I was proud to sign this
bill into law.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
We don't need lab grown meat here in the state
of Montana.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
The governor is publicly bragging about what he just did.
He posted a tweet that says so called lab grown
meat has no place in Montana. By signing HB four
oh one into law, I am proud to defend our
way of life and the hard working Montana ranchers who
produce the best beef in the world. He attached a
(23:01):
press release that has more details. Sponsored by Rep. Braxton Mitchell,
Republican from Columbia, Falls, House Bill four oh one prohibits
the manufacture, for sale, or distribution of cell cultured edible product.
The bill defines cell cultured edible product as the concept
of meat, including but not limited to muscle cells, fat cells,
connective tissue, blood, and other components produced via cell culture
(23:26):
rather than from a whole slaughtered animal. Darting October first,
any retail food establishment in Montana that manufactures, sells, or
distributes cell cultured edible product is subject to suspension of
their license and could be found guilty of a misdemeanor
and face with fines and imprisonment if convicted. So Governor
(23:46):
Ganforte is not the only one to do this. Others
like Republican Governor Ron De Santis in the Free State
of Florida have done something similar and also banned lab
grown meat. From their states. We have a huge problem
with this because what you're essentially doing is substituting the
(24:06):
government's judgment for what individuals can buy and consume, with
absolutely none of the normal legitimate justifications that would justify
such an intervention. These meat products have to be approved
by the FDA and their extensive safety testing process, and
there's a lot of research showing it's not harmful for you,
(24:28):
so there is no safety reason to be doing this.
They're simply saying this isn't real meat and it's not
our way of life to eat stuff like this. That's fine, though,
then don't eat it, don't purchase it, use your dollars,
and in your community, support ranchers locally. But some people
might want to eat lab grown meat. They might be
concerned about reducing carbon emissions because there's a lot of
(24:52):
COTO emissions they involved in traditional meat production. They might
be concerned about ending cruelty and suffering towards animals, but
still want to consume meat. That's one reason I would
personally be very interested in trying lab grown meat. I'm
very bothered by the points that vegetarians raise about how
animals are treated in kind of our meat production system.
(25:15):
But I'm pretty attached to eating meat, so something like
this should be a great option for me that I
should be free to try. It's not your business to
tell me, with no valid safety justification, what I can
and can't eat, or what businesses should win and lose
in a market. And that's what they're doing here. They're
open about it. They're picking winners and losers. They're saying,
(25:36):
we're going to use the force of the law to
legally ban competition from traditional farmers, which will potentially stop
price reductions that would come from competition, and it will
stop people from actually getting to choose what kind of
business and what kind of product they want to support.
I thought Republicans were all about freedom and about choices
(25:56):
and about personal responsibility and being free and not having
overreaching government. Well now y'all want the government to reach
into my grocery cart. Seriously, there's a blatantly crony capitalist
nature to this as well. They're blatantly and openly doing this,
saying we're doing this to protect the cattle ranchers from
competition from this other product and meat source. They're not
(26:20):
being shy about it. These are groups that donate a
lot of money to these politicians and lobby them, and
they are rewarding them by using the power of government,
which is supposed to simply be used to uphold the
public's safety and rights, to benefit these specific businesses by
legally prohibiting their competition and taking choices away from consumers
(26:42):
so that these traditional cattle farmers don't have to compete
but instead just get the market kind of skewed in
their balance into perpetuity by the government. That's ironically enough,
almost a form of dei for cattle ranchers. Like, it's
not equality, it's not competition, it's not meritocracy made the
best approach and product win. It's special privileges for groups
(27:07):
that the institution wants to promote. You can't claim to
be the party of meritocracy while pulling stunts like this.
I find this ridiculous and deeply hypocritical. But you guys,
let me know what you think. Maybe you support it,
let me know in the comments. All right, guys, that'll
be for this episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast.
Thank you all so much for tuning in. Please do
(27:28):
make sure you subscribed. If you aren't yet, do hit
that like button. Before you go, remember to send me
some voice notes. Check out the merch and subscribe to
my second channel, and with that we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
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.