July 15, 2025 • 26 mins
I went back on CNN, and one moment where The View host Ana Navarro dismissed me for being a "white man" got spicy and is going viral. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, we recap our panel's debate on Medicaid cuts, Alligator Alcatraz, and more.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Subscribe to my 2nd channel: https://www.youtube.com/@UCO76JR1mK5X5zbPJnv3NhsQ
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 (00:01):
No, it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man. Oh,
it's certainly not hyperbolic for me a Latino. No, I'm
not being racing.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I went on CNN last night and a famous media
personality crashed out on me for daring to have an
opinion while being a white man. We're going to break
this down and so much more on today's episode of
The Brat Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we
(00:30):
take on the craziest ideas and across our media, politics,
and the Internet or from an independent perspective, and apparently
also sometimes talk about me when I'm in the media
or I'm across the internet for different controversies I'm involved in,
like a clip that's going viral right now. From my
appearance on CNN Newsnight ten pm Eats the Eastern you
(00:54):
can tune in with Abby Phillip, who I think is great,
hosts a really diverse panels. I really enjoyed being on
the show. You can tell. I'm still in the hotel
where I I'll be heading home later this evening on
not many hours of sleep, because by the time I
finished up the show, I was so hyped I didn't
fall asleep till nearly two am. Anyway, though, a couple
(01:15):
really important and interesting moments from the broadcast that I
want to recap with you guys, including one that's getting
a lot of attention and being shared across conservative media
right now because one of the other panelists, an A. Navarro,
was one of the very prominent hosts of the View
and kind of a liberal Democrat at this point. Once
(01:37):
upon a time she was a Republican strategist. But we
had a bit of a disagreement about immigration and rhetoric
regarding the Trump administration, and she took it to an
unfortunate level, and then I called her out on it.
So we're going to watch that clip and then discuss.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Millions of people out there protesting in small cities and
big cities, small protests and huge protests. Define uh, the fear,
Define the reign of terror.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
You're definitely being hyperbolic. You talk about a reign of
terror when the doomsday alarm from Democrats or from media
critics is always out of ten. It doesn't hit the
same honestly.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Also, I want to respond to you saying that I
was hyperbolic when I talked about a reign of terror. No,
it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man,
it's certainly not hyperbolic for me as a Latino. No,
I'm not being racist. I'm not dismissing your opinion. I
am telling you that what Latino, the Latino community, the
brown community in America. Okay, well, let me speak with
(02:41):
my voice. You said I was being hyperbolic. Let me
responst I'm not being a white man as an insult.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
When you invoke it to dismiss man being a white.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Man as an insult, I use do you think? Do
you do you think Latinos are living on circumstances that
other people may not be right now in this count.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
We're about to have a whole conversation about that very thing.
But I just want to make a point that, Brad,
all she's saying is that her view of the situation
is different from yours. I don't think that's an instrumentally.
She just said I see it.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
I see it.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
She said I see it differently from you, which is
not an insult. It's not and it's also not a racist.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
So, wow, this was an interesting experience. I didn't exactly
see this plot twist coming, but it was fascinating to me.
Because I guess the identity politics stuff is not over,
you know, at least in some media circles, because and
the Navarro was very prominent and very influential, literally is
(03:42):
still doing this, still thinks this is an argument. And
I tried to explain in the show, but it is
hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes, and you
know how it is. But I stand by one hundred
percent what I said. That we were having a spirited
discussion about a point. She claimed that the Trump administration
was a reign of terror, and while I'd been very
(04:04):
critical of Trump on certain issues, I do think that's
a hyperbolic statement. I also think Anna is prone to
hyperbole in her rhetoric. So I said it was hyperbolic, which,
by the way, is not like me throwing bombs at her.
It's just a little bit of pushback. And then she
wanted to refute that accusation of being hyperbolic, and then
in the very next sentence she says, no, you're wrong,
(04:25):
I'm not hyperbolic, you as a white man. So hold on,
we just skipped any facts, We just skipped any argument,
and we just cited my identity to dismiss my opinion.
Or suggest that I'm incorrect. That is why I called
that racist, because that is racist. That is discriminatory, and
more importantly than anything, it's not an argument. She didn't
(04:47):
outline points or data that support her assertion. She didn't
explain why she's correct. She didn't even do something that
I would have found far less objectionable, where she could
have said, you know, well, as a Latino woman, I
have a different perspective that I feel this. I still
don't love that, because that is kind of using your identity.
(05:07):
But at least then you're not like belittling or dismissing
someone for their identity. You're just talking about yourself. But no,
she came in hot with the you're a white man,
you don't get it, blah blah blah blah blah. And
I wasn't gonna stand for that because that's not acceptable.
That is racism. It is discrimination, and I'm not triggered.
It doesn't really bother me what she thinks of me.
But I was going to call that out in the
(05:28):
moment for what it was. And then I do felt
that she engaged in gaslighting by trying to pretend that
that's not what she did or not what she said.
I wasn't dismissing your opinion. I mean you were though,
Like you guys just watched the clip. You can rewind
on YouTube or on audio podcasts. I don't really think
there's any way to hear that other than the invocation
(05:49):
of white man after your statement is wrong as a
white man. We skipped over the argument, we skipped over
the facts as the logic, and we just went to
my identity and my demographic boxes. Ye, dismissing my opinion
on the basis of my race and my gender. That's discriminatory.
There's really no you're gaslighting us when you say, well,
being a white man is not an insult, of course not.
(06:11):
But invoking it as a reason that somebody is wrong
is an insult and is racist. Like, I don't know
how to explain this. It's extremely clear if you just
swap the seats. So imagine she had given an opinion
on something and I said, no, no, no, you don't get it.
You know, as a woman, you just don't understand this,
or you know, as a Latina you just can't understand this.
(06:34):
Everyone would be like, holy crap, that's so racist. They'd
probably kick me off the show. And have me leave
in the commercial break, seriously, And I would never do
that because it's rude, it's discriminatory, and it's a non argument.
It doesn't prove that someone's wrong or incorrect simply because
you point out their demographic traits, Like what are we
doing here? That's another thing that bothered me about it.
(06:56):
She kept saying, like, oh, well, this is affecting Latino
community most, and I acknowledge that that Hispanic people of
Hispanic backgrounds are more affected by the immigration debate. Sure,
but there is no such thing as the Latino or
Latina perspective, let alone LATINX on an issue. Right. This
(07:19):
is the collectivizing nature of identity politics. That's so empty,
so vacuous. Actually, they're all individuals and they have all
sorts of different opinions, and millions of Latinos or Latinas
voted for Trump, millions support his immigration policies, and they
are not like wrong or traitors to their race, or
(07:42):
their opinion is not somehow less valid. And she doesn't
speak for like, oh well, Latinos believe this or feel
this way. You really can only speak for yourselves, or
you could cite polling data or something to as certain
say most do. But even then it also gets to
the point of why what she said was such a
non sequitor, such a non argument, because there are many
(08:06):
Latino people out there in America who would agree with
my statement, and if one of them was sitting there
rather than me, who yes, I'm white, shoot me, I
wouldn't be more or less correct. It would still be
the same assertion, the same argument. This is how identity
politics invades logic and then kind of roots it out
like a parasite and destroys it. It substitutes invocations of
(08:31):
identity for reason itself, and that's why I think it's
such a destructive and harmful way to approach the world.
And actually my boyfriend pointed this out to me after
the show. I have to give him credit. He said
that the irony of this, and you guys probably won't
get this because it's just I showed be a brief clip,
is that this came in a segment where we were
(08:51):
discussing democratic messaging and comments by Barack Obama and the
Democrats need to adjust their messaging strategies, and fan of
Navarro is any example they most certainly do. What do
you guys think do you agree with me or do
you side with Anna on this one? Let me know
in the comments. Do make sure subscribe if you are
(09:12):
you hit that like button way at it. Remember you
can watch the Brad Versus Everyone podcast here on YouTube, yes,
but you can also tune in on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
or wherever you listen to podcasts. Love to have you
over there with me as well, and remember to send
in some voice notes for our voicemail Friday episodes where
I react to your wold cover stories, your personal life scenarios,
(09:32):
and your questions that you have for me and I
answer them on the show. Now, guys up next, I
do want to do something fun and read some of
the hate comments and hate mail that I got after
the show. One of course, actually came before the show
and was from my sister. Right before I got on air,
I received this lovely text, make sure they give you
(09:53):
enough makeup, brutal Savage. It's just a joke. Obviously we
just rid each other, but I thought that was It's
really funny. Made me laugh out loud I was in
the makeup chair. Some of the things I received after
the show, though, weren't quite as funny. For example, I
received one email that said you're a head as the
subject line and said, triggered much. You exemplify everything wrong
(10:18):
with white men. So it's not helping your case that
this isn't about race, this is a racist this is
about my identity. If you're saying I represent everything wrong
with a huge swath of the demographic trait of the population,
Like what seriously kind of proven my point there? And
I don't really agree that I was trigger Like I
(10:40):
just wanted to call out what I thought was harmful rhetoric.
I wasn't really reduced to an emotional pile of tears
or anything like. I don't care. I wasn't traumatized. I
was not even really offended. I just think it should
be called out. I don't care, Like I'll go back
on I'll talk to Anna again, Like there's really there's
(11:03):
no triggering in the room with us. I just will
call out when people engage in hypocritical and toxic approaches
to political discourse. I got some interesting comments from some
of the gays who apparently watched CNN and weren't big
fans of me. One person tweeted in the aftermath of
the show bred Palumbo is a nasty queen. Someone else said,
(11:25):
bred Palumbo excels at whining but lacks any substance weak sauce.
This one was kind of creepy. Bred Palumbo is a
gay green goblin in flesh paint. Oh that's oddly specific
and descriptive and slightly concerning. Another dude tweeted, stunned today
(11:48):
how utterly stupid at Brad Palumbo is and how much
he twists facts and disrespects, attacks and talks over women
when he's a guest on a show. They were guests
on the show as well, and I did with them
the same way I would do with any as I
did last time with some male co panelists that I
(12:09):
argued with, I had the exact type of exchange. I
treated them in the same way. There's nothing sexist about this.
And again it's ironic because like one of the women
attacked me in a way that you could arguably say
it was like identity based or what have you. I
certainly didn't treat them differently because they're women. I am
an equal opportunity sasser and interrupter. Another person says, you
(12:33):
don't know what it's like to be Latino. That's the point,
Queer boy, spare everyone the fake offended the look. Oh,
I mean, I don't remember claiming to know what it
was like to be Latino because I am not. I
remember making a claim about immigration policy in the state
of the Trump administration and then being told I'm wrong
(12:55):
because I'm white. So good luck on that one. And
it is funny. Obviously, this is a person who is
gay himself, so he's like thinks he can just say
slurs or whatever. I mean, I don't really care, but
interesting how quickly they go to that. Up next, the
conversation did turn a little bit more into policy weeds,
and one thing that came up was the Medicaid cuts
that will have millions of people losing coverage thanks to
(13:18):
the Republicans, Big Beautiful Bill. I've done a pretty deep
dive on this on the show already, but I didn't
want to play you this clip and discuss very briefly, and.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
All of the polls is that democratic policies absolutely are
incredibly popular to making sure to keep millions of people
so that they can have their health care, so they're
not kicked off of their health care, making sure that
veterans and children be able to eat because Republicans want
(13:49):
to want to steal the food, taking it out of
their mouth.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Defend that people who are ineligible. For example, the estimates
that millions of the people who would be removed by
the big beautiful bill, it's a fact people would lose
their health care. It's because they are literally ineligible for
Medicaid because.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
A lot of second let me just make one quick
point on that and then I'll let you unfeil. I mean,
I think it would be a little disingenuous to suggest
that that is the bulk of the people million, but
it's I mean out of eleven somewhere between the hold
on Somewhere between eleven and seventeen million Americans are estimated
to be losing their insurance. That population is not a majority,
(14:32):
it's not the line share. So there's there are a
bunch of different types of people who would lose insurance,
and most of them are not ineligible.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
So this was an interesting exchange to me because particularly
the co panelist, Maria the Democratic Strategist, called me out
and said that's not true. When I made the claim
that several million of the people who will be removed
from Medicaid under the Big Beautiful Bill will lose their
Medicaid because they are not eligible, and the Big Beautiful
(15:01):
Bill will increase eligibility verification, and so they're just going
to be removed because they do not meet Maybe their
income is too high, maybe there's other things that where
they're not supposed to be on the enrolled they were
improperly enrolled, or they were once eligible and they no
longer are, so these eligibility checks will have them removed
from the program. And she instantly said that's not true,
(15:24):
dismissing me, citing the Congressional Budget Office. Now here's the
thing about me, y'all. I don't just say shit. I
don't just pop off like I don't just make claims
that I can't back up or don't have receipts for.
So here is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office
saying CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions will increase
(15:45):
the number of people without health insurance by seven point
four million seven point eight million in twenty thirty four.
Of that number, about two point two million people would
become uninsured because of other provisions in HR one, including
provisions increasing the frequency of aircation of eligibility to enroll
in Medicaid. So, yes, millions of people would be removed
(16:06):
from Medicaid under the big Beautiful bill because they are
ineligible for Medicaid. And I asked, very simply, do you
support that, because if you even support those two million
people removed, then you are just as guilty of kicking
millions of people off their healthcare. People will die, all
this rhetoric from Democrats, and if you don't, then you're
(16:27):
saying no one can ever be removed ever from any
health insurance program funded by taxpayers, or even if they're
totally ineligible for it, because that's murder or something. So
I never suggested abby pushback and said that that's not
the majority. I didn't say it was. My point was
it is. It's not like two thousand people, it's two
(16:49):
million people. It's a significant percentage. And would Democrats even
be okay with removing them? That's my question. The answer
is no, And so the point of me bringing that
up was simply to show there's really no cuts democrats
or liberal commentators in media would ever be okay with.
(17:09):
So that's important to keep in context when you hear
them handwringing about the big, beautiful bill. That was my point.
But I just wanted to provide those receipts because, once again, y'all,
I do not just say shit. I always only make
claims if I know they are true factually speaking. Up next, guys,
I want to play you a clip where we talked
(17:29):
about Alligator Alcatraz, the very controversial federal detention facility immigration
facility in Florida being managed by the state of Florida,
where illegal immigrants are being detained in what some say
are very bad conditions what others say are perfectly normal
conditions temporarily before being deported. I thought this exchange was interesting.
(17:51):
Let's listen to that.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
We saw humans being held in cages thirty two people
per cage, three toilets in each cage for these thirty
to people, and their drinking water comes from the toilet.
And I got to tell you it was very emotional
to be there for all of us to hear that
and to see that our taxpayer money is being used
for this, used for this stunt. This has nothing to
(18:15):
do with what they tell you it is, and it's
all a cruel stunt, cruelties and just the point, it's
the strategy.
Speaker 6 (18:20):
These people are getting three hots in the cot. They're
not They're not being abused or not being tortured. They're
getting better conditions than I had when my team lived
in Afghanistan. And so the reality is the idea that
they are somehow being abused as people having their humanity
strip from them is a misnomber. I reject that I
haven't been to that one yet, but I've been. I've
been to them before. I don't I do not have
(18:42):
to walk in the door to know what the requirements
are for.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
The pilment.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
In Congress.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Look, let me read the first. Let me say one
thing first. The Trump administration says what you're saying. Okay,
that's the official line, but the blobbakers who visited say
other things. Here is one Venezuela Detaine who spoke to
the Associated Press and said the conditions in which we
are living are inhuman The man, who asked not to
be identified for fear of reprisals, characterized the cells as
(19:14):
zoom cages with eight beds each teeming with mosquitoes, crickets,
and frogs. He says they're locked up twenty four hours
a day with no windows, no way to know the time.
There have also been reports that the lights are on
twenty four hours a day, people can't sleep. And the
implication here is that they want to create conditions that
(19:36):
are so unpleasant that, rather than be deported through a process,
people just sign away their rights and get sent on
a planning cup.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I mean, I'm actually horrified about what you've just described,
but I want to attach the biggest because I think
do process is a human right. I think that these
are basic elements everyone should be treated with dignity and
federal detention. But it's the biggest, if true ever because
we need to actually verify this. I'm actually seeking to
see if I can go this week in I live
in Florida, and I'd like to report there myself. The
(20:04):
Democratic lawmakers. You have on one hand, the Trump Admistration
officials saying it's fine, it's up to par We have
a hand these Democrats. I don't really believe anything they
say when it comes to Trump. I've had Democrats tell
me that net neutrality would end the Internet. I've had
members of Congress Aana Presley many others say that Trump
was bringing back segregation verbatim, say that so the credibility
(20:25):
in the bank. I want some dependent verification of what's
going on in this facility.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
The should let the media in. I agree, absolutely, let
the median. Why aren't they letting the median?
Speaker 2 (20:35):
They have let some reporters because they did a whole
So this was interesting to me because, like I said
in the clib look, I think everybody should be treated humanly.
And if the conditions at Alligator Alcatraz are not good
or are you inhumane, I would condemn that totally and
want that to be resolved. Even if some of these
people are terrible criminals. Some of them are unjust undocumented
(20:56):
immigrants or illegal immigrants who haven't committed other crimes. But
and if some of them are the worst of the worst,
I still believe that there's a basic minimum standard for
how people should be treated. But like I said on
the show, I just don't know what to believe. And
you have the Trump administration saying everything is fine and
dandy here DeSantis's people tell me, oh no, it's the
(21:16):
conditions are totally up to scratch. And I'm not just
gonna blindly believe them. I mean, of course that's what
they're gonna say, even and it's possible they're being honest,
but it's also possible they're not being honest and they're
just kind of covering their asses. But of course, I
also like when I asked Maria on the panel, Okay,
you're saying all this, what's your source for this? She says, well,
(21:38):
democratic members of Congress have told me. I'm like, yeah, okay,
there we go with that. I just like I said
on the show, I can't take these people seriously because
they've cried wolf so many times and they constantly twist
everything and distort everything that maybe this time they're telling
the truth, but maybe this time is another one of
their tall tales. I really don't know what to believe. So,
(21:58):
like I told you guys, I would love to go
visit Alligator Alcatraz. I have reached out to the Florida
state government about obtaining press access, have not heard back
so far, but would be very interested. I'm going there
myself with camerau team and an interpreter and get into
the bottom of it myself and seeing what's really happening.
And I do agree. I did point out they have
(22:21):
allowed some media in, but I do think they should
allow more. While we were on the immigration subject, I
did make one point where you guys know, I talked
about this on the show a while ago. I don't
support the Trump's idea of mass deportation, deporting you know,
ten million people plus from the country, a lot of
whom have been here for a long time, who have jobs,
who are rooted in the community, some of whom were
(22:42):
brought here by their parents illegally as very young children,
and really never chose to do it. I've always wanted
to just deport you know, criminals, people abusing welfare, and
then secure the border so the flow of illegal imigrant stops.
It's one of the reasons I didn't support Trump is
I didn't fully support his immigration policies. But I did
have to point now on the CNN show in the
context of a lot of people saying like I didn't
(23:05):
vote for this, or this is too much or whatever,
when it comes to Trump deporting people and this stuff,
this is what he was elected to do. This is
what he promised to do. He was very explicit during
the campaign mass deportations, not just criminals, not targeted deportations,
mass deportations. And I listened and I believed him, but
(23:27):
apparently some people didn't. And I did have to point
that out on the show.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Donald Trump's numbers approval numbers on immigration have gone down dramatically,
and I think part of it is because the American
people voted for criminals and gang members to be deported
and to be prosecuted and to be gotten rid of.
I agree with that, and what they are seeing is
that it's legal permanent residents. What they are seeing is
that it's mothers and fathers and children and teenagers and
(23:54):
people who play with their kids at a school, and
people who work at farms that then we eat the food.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
But Trump exactly that that was what epectation was. I
didn't support it, but he wasn't. He never said or
he may have said it a few times, but his
actual platform was always massive reportation, not just the criminals.
So when people say I didn't vote for this, you
actually kind of did do stand by this, And it's
one of the reasons why I've seen a few videos
from like people interviewed who voted for Trump but then
(24:22):
had an illegal immigrant or undocumented girlfriend get deported, or
a business owner who voted for Trump and then his
workers are suddenly getting deported and he's out. You're all
outraged like I didn't vote for this, I didn't support
this or whatever, and I I guess I have some
sympathy with these people, but I'm also frustrated by them
because I'm like, didn't you listen. This is what he
(24:44):
said he would do, so what people voted for, so
what he said over and over again. I give him credit.
He's true to his word. He is attempting to do
exactly that which he campaigned on. So I do find
it frustrating when people pretend that he campaigned on the
more position and is suddenly betraying that and going more extreme.
That's not what happened. We just should be honest about
(25:06):
it now. I did want to also play you guys
this one clip from a fun segment that they do
to round out their shows, where you give kind of
a random, non political take. Here was mine say, wants
to get working on the ice machines because I have
moved to three different apartments or homes in the last few years.
Every single one the ice maker and refrigerator never works.
(25:27):
The ice maker in this office doesn't work.
Speaker 5 (25:30):
No shade, we'll call us out here, Brad.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I really do believe this with every inch of my
every fiber of my being. That ice machines in this
country are just diabolically in the states of disrepair, and
we've got to figure out what's going on because this
is a serious problem. I need my ice coffee, people,
What do you expect me to drink it hot in Miami? No,
(25:55):
thank you, I'd like it iced, and I want my
ice and my refrigerator to actually work. Is that not
too much to ask? Yeah? Sure, people in the world
are starving and dying, but if you think about it,
the victim is really me because my ice machines keep
not working. All right, guys, I'm going to leave bit
there for this episode of the Barad Versus Everyone podcast.
(26:16):
Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll be back
in our normal setup, although that's still also sort of
in flux in Miami tomorrow and the rest of the week.
Do it that leg button subscribe if you haven't yet,
gotta YadA, Yeah, send in your voice notes and we'll
talk again real soon.
No, it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man. Oh,
it's certainly not hyperbolic for me a Latino. No, I'm
not being racing.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
I went on CNN last night and a famous media
personality crashed out on me for daring to have an
opinion while being a white man. We're going to break
this down and so much more on today's episode of
The Brat Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we
(00:30):
take on the craziest ideas and across our media, politics,
and the Internet or from an independent perspective, and apparently
also sometimes talk about me when I'm in the media
or I'm across the internet for different controversies I'm involved in,
like a clip that's going viral right now. From my
appearance on CNN Newsnight ten pm Eats the Eastern you
(00:54):
can tune in with Abby Phillip, who I think is great,
hosts a really diverse panels. I really enjoyed being on
the show. You can tell. I'm still in the hotel
where I I'll be heading home later this evening on
not many hours of sleep, because by the time I
finished up the show, I was so hyped I didn't
fall asleep till nearly two am. Anyway, though, a couple
(01:15):
really important and interesting moments from the broadcast that I
want to recap with you guys, including one that's getting
a lot of attention and being shared across conservative media
right now because one of the other panelists, an A. Navarro,
was one of the very prominent hosts of the View
and kind of a liberal Democrat at this point. Once
(01:37):
upon a time she was a Republican strategist. But we
had a bit of a disagreement about immigration and rhetoric
regarding the Trump administration, and she took it to an
unfortunate level, and then I called her out on it.
So we're going to watch that clip and then discuss.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Millions of people out there protesting in small cities and
big cities, small protests and huge protests. Define uh, the fear,
Define the reign of terror.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
You're definitely being hyperbolic. You talk about a reign of
terror when the doomsday alarm from Democrats or from media
critics is always out of ten. It doesn't hit the
same honestly.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Also, I want to respond to you saying that I
was hyperbolic when I talked about a reign of terror. No,
it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man,
it's certainly not hyperbolic for me as a Latino. No,
I'm not being racist. I'm not dismissing your opinion. I
am telling you that what Latino, the Latino community, the
brown community in America. Okay, well, let me speak with
(02:41):
my voice. You said I was being hyperbolic. Let me
responst I'm not being a white man as an insult.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
When you invoke it to dismiss man being a white.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
Man as an insult, I use do you think? Do
you do you think Latinos are living on circumstances that
other people may not be right now in this count.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
We're about to have a whole conversation about that very thing.
But I just want to make a point that, Brad,
all she's saying is that her view of the situation
is different from yours. I don't think that's an instrumentally.
She just said I see it.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
I see it.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
She said I see it differently from you, which is
not an insult. It's not and it's also not a racist.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
So, wow, this was an interesting experience. I didn't exactly
see this plot twist coming, but it was fascinating to me.
Because I guess the identity politics stuff is not over,
you know, at least in some media circles, because and
the Navarro was very prominent and very influential, literally is
(03:42):
still doing this, still thinks this is an argument. And
I tried to explain in the show, but it is
hard to get in a word edgewise sometimes, and you
know how it is. But I stand by one hundred
percent what I said. That we were having a spirited
discussion about a point. She claimed that the Trump administration
was a reign of terror, and while I'd been very
(04:04):
critical of Trump on certain issues, I do think that's
a hyperbolic statement. I also think Anna is prone to
hyperbole in her rhetoric. So I said it was hyperbolic, which,
by the way, is not like me throwing bombs at her.
It's just a little bit of pushback. And then she
wanted to refute that accusation of being hyperbolic, and then
in the very next sentence she says, no, you're wrong,
(04:25):
I'm not hyperbolic, you as a white man. So hold on,
we just skipped any facts, We just skipped any argument,
and we just cited my identity to dismiss my opinion.
Or suggest that I'm incorrect. That is why I called
that racist, because that is racist. That is discriminatory, and
more importantly than anything, it's not an argument. She didn't
(04:47):
outline points or data that support her assertion. She didn't
explain why she's correct. She didn't even do something that
I would have found far less objectionable, where she could
have said, you know, well, as a Latino woman, I
have a different perspective that I feel this. I still
don't love that, because that is kind of using your identity.
(05:07):
But at least then you're not like belittling or dismissing
someone for their identity. You're just talking about yourself. But no,
she came in hot with the you're a white man,
you don't get it, blah blah blah blah blah. And
I wasn't gonna stand for that because that's not acceptable.
That is racism. It is discrimination, and I'm not triggered.
It doesn't really bother me what she thinks of me.
But I was going to call that out in the
(05:28):
moment for what it was. And then I do felt
that she engaged in gaslighting by trying to pretend that
that's not what she did or not what she said.
I wasn't dismissing your opinion. I mean you were though,
Like you guys just watched the clip. You can rewind
on YouTube or on audio podcasts. I don't really think
there's any way to hear that other than the invocation
(05:49):
of white man after your statement is wrong as a
white man. We skipped over the argument, we skipped over
the facts as the logic, and we just went to
my identity and my demographic boxes. Ye, dismissing my opinion
on the basis of my race and my gender. That's discriminatory.
There's really no you're gaslighting us when you say, well,
being a white man is not an insult, of course not.
(06:11):
But invoking it as a reason that somebody is wrong
is an insult and is racist. Like, I don't know
how to explain this. It's extremely clear if you just
swap the seats. So imagine she had given an opinion
on something and I said, no, no, no, you don't get it.
You know, as a woman, you just don't understand this,
or you know, as a Latina you just can't understand this.
(06:34):
Everyone would be like, holy crap, that's so racist. They'd
probably kick me off the show. And have me leave
in the commercial break, seriously, And I would never do
that because it's rude, it's discriminatory, and it's a non argument.
It doesn't prove that someone's wrong or incorrect simply because
you point out their demographic traits, Like what are we
doing here? That's another thing that bothered me about it.
(06:56):
She kept saying, like, oh, well, this is affecting Latino
community most, and I acknowledge that that Hispanic people of
Hispanic backgrounds are more affected by the immigration debate. Sure,
but there is no such thing as the Latino or
Latina perspective, let alone LATINX on an issue. Right. This
(07:19):
is the collectivizing nature of identity politics. That's so empty,
so vacuous. Actually, they're all individuals and they have all
sorts of different opinions, and millions of Latinos or Latinas
voted for Trump, millions support his immigration policies, and they
are not like wrong or traitors to their race, or
(07:42):
their opinion is not somehow less valid. And she doesn't
speak for like, oh well, Latinos believe this or feel
this way. You really can only speak for yourselves, or
you could cite polling data or something to as certain
say most do. But even then it also gets to
the point of why what she said was such a
non sequitor, such a non argument, because there are many
(08:06):
Latino people out there in America who would agree with
my statement, and if one of them was sitting there
rather than me, who yes, I'm white, shoot me, I
wouldn't be more or less correct. It would still be
the same assertion, the same argument. This is how identity
politics invades logic and then kind of roots it out
like a parasite and destroys it. It substitutes invocations of
(08:31):
identity for reason itself, and that's why I think it's
such a destructive and harmful way to approach the world.
And actually my boyfriend pointed this out to me after
the show. I have to give him credit. He said
that the irony of this, and you guys probably won't
get this because it's just I showed be a brief clip,
is that this came in a segment where we were
(08:51):
discussing democratic messaging and comments by Barack Obama and the
Democrats need to adjust their messaging strategies, and fan of
Navarro is any example they most certainly do. What do
you guys think do you agree with me or do
you side with Anna on this one? Let me know
in the comments. Do make sure subscribe if you are
(09:12):
you hit that like button way at it. Remember you
can watch the Brad Versus Everyone podcast here on YouTube, yes,
but you can also tune in on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
or wherever you listen to podcasts. Love to have you
over there with me as well, and remember to send
in some voice notes for our voicemail Friday episodes where
I react to your wold cover stories, your personal life scenarios,
(09:32):
and your questions that you have for me and I
answer them on the show. Now, guys up next, I
do want to do something fun and read some of
the hate comments and hate mail that I got after
the show. One of course, actually came before the show
and was from my sister. Right before I got on air,
I received this lovely text, make sure they give you
(09:53):
enough makeup, brutal Savage. It's just a joke. Obviously we
just rid each other, but I thought that was It's
really funny. Made me laugh out loud I was in
the makeup chair. Some of the things I received after
the show, though, weren't quite as funny. For example, I
received one email that said you're a head as the
subject line and said, triggered much. You exemplify everything wrong
(10:18):
with white men. So it's not helping your case that
this isn't about race, this is a racist this is
about my identity. If you're saying I represent everything wrong
with a huge swath of the demographic trait of the population,
Like what seriously kind of proven my point there? And
I don't really agree that I was trigger Like I
(10:40):
just wanted to call out what I thought was harmful rhetoric.
I wasn't really reduced to an emotional pile of tears
or anything like. I don't care. I wasn't traumatized. I
was not even really offended. I just think it should
be called out. I don't care, Like I'll go back
on I'll talk to Anna again, Like there's really there's
(11:03):
no triggering in the room with us. I just will
call out when people engage in hypocritical and toxic approaches
to political discourse. I got some interesting comments from some
of the gays who apparently watched CNN and weren't big
fans of me. One person tweeted in the aftermath of
the show bred Palumbo is a nasty queen. Someone else said,
(11:25):
bred Palumbo excels at whining but lacks any substance weak sauce.
This one was kind of creepy. Bred Palumbo is a
gay green goblin in flesh paint. Oh that's oddly specific
and descriptive and slightly concerning. Another dude tweeted, stunned today
(11:48):
how utterly stupid at Brad Palumbo is and how much
he twists facts and disrespects, attacks and talks over women
when he's a guest on a show. They were guests
on the show as well, and I did with them
the same way I would do with any as I
did last time with some male co panelists that I
(12:09):
argued with, I had the exact type of exchange. I
treated them in the same way. There's nothing sexist about this.
And again it's ironic because like one of the women
attacked me in a way that you could arguably say
it was like identity based or what have you. I
certainly didn't treat them differently because they're women. I am
an equal opportunity sasser and interrupter. Another person says, you
(12:33):
don't know what it's like to be Latino. That's the point,
Queer boy, spare everyone the fake offended the look. Oh,
I mean, I don't remember claiming to know what it
was like to be Latino because I am not. I
remember making a claim about immigration policy in the state
of the Trump administration and then being told I'm wrong
(12:55):
because I'm white. So good luck on that one. And
it is funny. Obviously, this is a person who is
gay himself, so he's like thinks he can just say
slurs or whatever. I mean, I don't really care, but
interesting how quickly they go to that. Up next, the
conversation did turn a little bit more into policy weeds,
and one thing that came up was the Medicaid cuts
that will have millions of people losing coverage thanks to
(13:18):
the Republicans, Big Beautiful Bill. I've done a pretty deep
dive on this on the show already, but I didn't
want to play you this clip and discuss very briefly, and.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
All of the polls is that democratic policies absolutely are
incredibly popular to making sure to keep millions of people
so that they can have their health care, so they're
not kicked off of their health care, making sure that
veterans and children be able to eat because Republicans want
(13:49):
to want to steal the food, taking it out of
their mouth.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Defend that people who are ineligible. For example, the estimates
that millions of the people who would be removed by
the big beautiful bill, it's a fact people would lose
their health care. It's because they are literally ineligible for
Medicaid because.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
A lot of second let me just make one quick
point on that and then I'll let you unfeil. I mean,
I think it would be a little disingenuous to suggest
that that is the bulk of the people million, but
it's I mean out of eleven somewhere between the hold
on Somewhere between eleven and seventeen million Americans are estimated
to be losing their insurance. That population is not a majority,
(14:32):
it's not the line share. So there's there are a
bunch of different types of people who would lose insurance,
and most of them are not ineligible.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
So this was an interesting exchange to me because particularly
the co panelist, Maria the Democratic Strategist, called me out
and said that's not true. When I made the claim
that several million of the people who will be removed
from Medicaid under the Big Beautiful Bill will lose their
Medicaid because they are not eligible, and the Big Beautiful
(15:01):
Bill will increase eligibility verification, and so they're just going
to be removed because they do not meet Maybe their
income is too high, maybe there's other things that where
they're not supposed to be on the enrolled they were
improperly enrolled, or they were once eligible and they no
longer are, so these eligibility checks will have them removed
from the program. And she instantly said that's not true,
(15:24):
dismissing me, citing the Congressional Budget Office. Now here's the
thing about me, y'all. I don't just say shit. I
don't just pop off like I don't just make claims
that I can't back up or don't have receipts for.
So here is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office
saying CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions will increase
(15:45):
the number of people without health insurance by seven point
four million seven point eight million in twenty thirty four.
Of that number, about two point two million people would
become uninsured because of other provisions in HR one, including
provisions increasing the frequency of aircation of eligibility to enroll
in Medicaid. So, yes, millions of people would be removed
(16:06):
from Medicaid under the big Beautiful bill because they are
ineligible for Medicaid. And I asked, very simply, do you
support that, because if you even support those two million
people removed, then you are just as guilty of kicking
millions of people off their healthcare. People will die, all
this rhetoric from Democrats, and if you don't, then you're
(16:27):
saying no one can ever be removed ever from any
health insurance program funded by taxpayers, or even if they're
totally ineligible for it, because that's murder or something. So
I never suggested abby pushback and said that that's not
the majority. I didn't say it was. My point was
it is. It's not like two thousand people, it's two
(16:49):
million people. It's a significant percentage. And would Democrats even
be okay with removing them? That's my question. The answer
is no, And so the point of me bringing that
up was simply to show there's really no cuts democrats
or liberal commentators in media would ever be okay with.
(17:09):
So that's important to keep in context when you hear
them handwringing about the big, beautiful bill. That was my point.
But I just wanted to provide those receipts because, once again, y'all,
I do not just say shit. I always only make
claims if I know they are true factually speaking. Up next, guys,
I want to play you a clip where we talked
(17:29):
about Alligator Alcatraz, the very controversial federal detention facility immigration
facility in Florida being managed by the state of Florida,
where illegal immigrants are being detained in what some say
are very bad conditions what others say are perfectly normal
conditions temporarily before being deported. I thought this exchange was interesting.
(17:51):
Let's listen to that.
Speaker 5 (17:52):
We saw humans being held in cages thirty two people
per cage, three toilets in each cage for these thirty
to people, and their drinking water comes from the toilet.
And I got to tell you it was very emotional
to be there for all of us to hear that
and to see that our taxpayer money is being used
for this, used for this stunt. This has nothing to
(18:15):
do with what they tell you it is, and it's
all a cruel stunt, cruelties and just the point, it's
the strategy.
Speaker 6 (18:20):
These people are getting three hots in the cot. They're
not They're not being abused or not being tortured. They're
getting better conditions than I had when my team lived
in Afghanistan. And so the reality is the idea that
they are somehow being abused as people having their humanity
strip from them is a misnomber. I reject that I
haven't been to that one yet, but I've been. I've
been to them before. I don't I do not have
(18:42):
to walk in the door to know what the requirements
are for.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
The pilment.
Speaker 4 (18:48):
In Congress.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Look, let me read the first. Let me say one
thing first. The Trump administration says what you're saying. Okay,
that's the official line, but the blobbakers who visited say
other things. Here is one Venezuela Detaine who spoke to
the Associated Press and said the conditions in which we
are living are inhuman The man, who asked not to
be identified for fear of reprisals, characterized the cells as
(19:14):
zoom cages with eight beds each teeming with mosquitoes, crickets,
and frogs. He says they're locked up twenty four hours
a day with no windows, no way to know the time.
There have also been reports that the lights are on
twenty four hours a day, people can't sleep. And the
implication here is that they want to create conditions that
(19:36):
are so unpleasant that, rather than be deported through a process,
people just sign away their rights and get sent on
a planning cup.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
I mean, I'm actually horrified about what you've just described,
but I want to attach the biggest because I think
do process is a human right. I think that these
are basic elements everyone should be treated with dignity and
federal detention. But it's the biggest, if true ever because
we need to actually verify this. I'm actually seeking to
see if I can go this week in I live
in Florida, and I'd like to report there myself. The
(20:04):
Democratic lawmakers. You have on one hand, the Trump Admistration
officials saying it's fine, it's up to par We have
a hand these Democrats. I don't really believe anything they
say when it comes to Trump. I've had Democrats tell
me that net neutrality would end the Internet. I've had
members of Congress Aana Presley many others say that Trump
was bringing back segregation verbatim, say that so the credibility
(20:25):
in the bank. I want some dependent verification of what's
going on in this facility.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
The should let the media in. I agree, absolutely, let
the median. Why aren't they letting the median?
Speaker 2 (20:35):
They have let some reporters because they did a whole
So this was interesting to me because, like I said
in the clib look, I think everybody should be treated humanly.
And if the conditions at Alligator Alcatraz are not good
or are you inhumane, I would condemn that totally and
want that to be resolved. Even if some of these
people are terrible criminals. Some of them are unjust undocumented
(20:56):
immigrants or illegal immigrants who haven't committed other crimes. But
and if some of them are the worst of the worst,
I still believe that there's a basic minimum standard for
how people should be treated. But like I said on
the show, I just don't know what to believe. And
you have the Trump administration saying everything is fine and
dandy here DeSantis's people tell me, oh no, it's the
(21:16):
conditions are totally up to scratch. And I'm not just
gonna blindly believe them. I mean, of course that's what
they're gonna say, even and it's possible they're being honest,
but it's also possible they're not being honest and they're
just kind of covering their asses. But of course, I
also like when I asked Maria on the panel, Okay,
you're saying all this, what's your source for this? She says, well,
(21:38):
democratic members of Congress have told me. I'm like, yeah, okay,
there we go with that. I just like I said
on the show, I can't take these people seriously because
they've cried wolf so many times and they constantly twist
everything and distort everything that maybe this time they're telling
the truth, but maybe this time is another one of
their tall tales. I really don't know what to believe. So,
(21:58):
like I told you guys, I would love to go
visit Alligator Alcatraz. I have reached out to the Florida
state government about obtaining press access, have not heard back
so far, but would be very interested. I'm going there
myself with camerau team and an interpreter and get into
the bottom of it myself and seeing what's really happening.
And I do agree. I did point out they have
(22:21):
allowed some media in, but I do think they should
allow more. While we were on the immigration subject, I
did make one point where you guys know, I talked
about this on the show a while ago. I don't
support the Trump's idea of mass deportation, deporting you know,
ten million people plus from the country, a lot of
whom have been here for a long time, who have jobs,
who are rooted in the community, some of whom were
(22:42):
brought here by their parents illegally as very young children,
and really never chose to do it. I've always wanted
to just deport you know, criminals, people abusing welfare, and
then secure the border so the flow of illegal imigrant stops.
It's one of the reasons I didn't support Trump is
I didn't fully support his immigration policies. But I did
have to point now on the CNN show in the
context of a lot of people saying like I didn't
(23:05):
vote for this, or this is too much or whatever,
when it comes to Trump deporting people and this stuff,
this is what he was elected to do. This is
what he promised to do. He was very explicit during
the campaign mass deportations, not just criminals, not targeted deportations,
mass deportations. And I listened and I believed him, but
(23:27):
apparently some people didn't. And I did have to point
that out on the show.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Donald Trump's numbers approval numbers on immigration have gone down dramatically,
and I think part of it is because the American
people voted for criminals and gang members to be deported
and to be prosecuted and to be gotten rid of.
I agree with that, and what they are seeing is
that it's legal permanent residents. What they are seeing is
that it's mothers and fathers and children and teenagers and
(23:54):
people who play with their kids at a school, and
people who work at farms that then we eat the food.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
But Trump exactly that that was what epectation was. I
didn't support it, but he wasn't. He never said or
he may have said it a few times, but his
actual platform was always massive reportation, not just the criminals.
So when people say I didn't vote for this, you
actually kind of did do stand by this, And it's
one of the reasons why I've seen a few videos
from like people interviewed who voted for Trump but then
(24:22):
had an illegal immigrant or undocumented girlfriend get deported, or
a business owner who voted for Trump and then his
workers are suddenly getting deported and he's out. You're all
outraged like I didn't vote for this, I didn't support
this or whatever, and I I guess I have some
sympathy with these people, but I'm also frustrated by them
because I'm like, didn't you listen. This is what he
(24:44):
said he would do, so what people voted for, so
what he said over and over again. I give him credit.
He's true to his word. He is attempting to do
exactly that which he campaigned on. So I do find
it frustrating when people pretend that he campaigned on the
more position and is suddenly betraying that and going more extreme.
That's not what happened. We just should be honest about
(25:06):
it now. I did want to also play you guys
this one clip from a fun segment that they do
to round out their shows, where you give kind of
a random, non political take. Here was mine say, wants
to get working on the ice machines because I have
moved to three different apartments or homes in the last few years.
Every single one the ice maker and refrigerator never works.
(25:27):
The ice maker in this office doesn't work.
Speaker 5 (25:30):
No shade, we'll call us out here, Brad.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
I really do believe this with every inch of my
every fiber of my being. That ice machines in this
country are just diabolically in the states of disrepair, and
we've got to figure out what's going on because this
is a serious problem. I need my ice coffee, people,
What do you expect me to drink it hot in Miami? No,
(25:55):
thank you, I'd like it iced, and I want my
ice and my refrigerator to actually work. Is that not
too much to ask? Yeah? Sure, people in the world
are starving and dying, but if you think about it,
the victim is really me because my ice machines keep
not working. All right, guys, I'm going to leave bit
there for this episode of the Barad Versus Everyone podcast.
(26:16):
Thank you so much for tuning in. We'll be back
in our normal setup, although that's still also sort of
in flux in Miami tomorrow and the rest of the week.
Do it that leg button subscribe if you haven't yet,
gotta YadA, Yeah, send in your voice notes and we'll
talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.