November 10, 2025 • 38 mins
LGBTQ TikTok is in full meltdown mode after a Supreme Court ruling on passports and gender self-ID. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, TikTok influencers lash out over actress Sydney Sweeney's latest interview and MAGA YouTube star Candace Owens' conspiracies collapse during a CNN interview.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's all just another desperate attempt to concentrate power in
(00:03):
the hands of a few cis straight white men.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Another day, another TikTok meltdown that actually makes no sense.
We're going to break this down, plus so much more
on today's episode of The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, my
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from
(00:28):
across social media and the Internet, all from an independent
political perspective. Up first, we're going to talk about the
online meltdown over a preliminary Supreme Court ruling that was
handed out that concerns transgender rights, non binary rights, and
a Trump policy that would have and now will prohibit
(00:52):
people from getting an X on their passport because they
feel non binary listed as their sex, and will also
require people's sex biological sex to be listed rather than
how they identify or feel. The Supreme Court hasn't issued
a final ruling on this, but they did allow the
Trump administration's policy to go into effect until they decide
(01:14):
a further ruling. Here is Fox News summing up some
details of the case six three decision.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
The Court found that displaying a passport holders sex at
birth no more violates equal protection to displaying a person's
country of birth. It continues that in both cases, the
government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting
anyone to differential treatment. The decision undoes a lower courts
order that stopped the Trump administration from removing the X
option from passports. This now also allows the requirement of
(01:42):
listing biological sex to be enforced. The ex option on
passports was the product of the Biden administration. The White
House maintains that that brought unseeriousness to government documents meant
to accurately identify people. Attorney General Bondi celebrated the emergency
relief granted to the government, writing, in other words, they
there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting
(02:03):
for that simple truth. The fight is not over, though,
because this is not a final ruling. It simply allows
the new passport policy to continue while the cases play
out in lower court.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So to me, this is just common sense. There are
only two sexes, and your biological sex is not subject
to self identity. I find it laughable that the X
was ever an option, as if that makes any sense.
No humans sex is X, and the entire non binary
thing is ridiculous. So the fact that the Biden administration
(02:35):
actually made that as an option was always crazy. So
I support the Trump administration's policy doing away with that
because it's nonsensical and it fundamentally denies reality. However, that
the legal argument against this case, against this Trump policy
is that by requiring people to list their sex on
(02:57):
the passport on their passports rather than their self identified identity,
the government is somehow violating equal protection. It is discriminating
against people, but it's really not, because it's asking everyone
to list their sex the same and if that doesn't
discriminate against you, if your sex being listed upsets you,
(03:21):
that's not the same thing as being discriminated against. They're
arguing that it violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution to list a fact, which I don't understand how
that is even an argument or possible, because this is
I mean, you are free to live however you want
and identify yourself how you please, but your biological sex
(03:44):
is a fact and you can't choose it or change it,
And to list it the same way listing your height
or your race, nobody would ever say it violates the
equal protection clause the Constitution. That I can't list myself
as six foot five when I'm only six foot three,
or if a guy was and he really wanted to
feel taller. It's a listing a fact can't be a
(04:05):
hate crime. I don't know how how much further to
explain this, but as you can imagine over on TikTok,
the response to this ruling from the Supreme Court is
very measured and just kidding. They're losing their ever loving minds,
and we are going to go into it, and I'll
show you some of the crazier videos. Let's take a
look at the first video we have of a TikTok
(04:29):
lawyer allegedly on the lawyer part, losing her mind over
this ruling. Let's listen to her and see maybe she
makes some points. I don't know. Let's listen.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
When I say this, I mean it with my whole heart.
The Supreme Court six justices just greenlit a policy that
forces trans and non binary Americans to list the sex
on their birth certificate on their passport, even if it
outs them, endangers them, or contradicts who they are. It's
soaked up. It's not about accuracy, it's not about security.
(05:02):
It's about forcing people back into the closet and punishing
them for existing. Every person deserves dignity, every person deserves safety,
and every person deserves identification that reflects who they are,
not who extremists want them to be. So we fight this,
we protect our trans community, We show up because this
policy is built.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
On cruelty, and cruelty is a choice.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
There's a lot to unpack there. From our friend, I
don't think it's cruel to list a fact, and I
think that biological sex is a meaningful dimension of human
existence that's enshrined into our laws and into our ways
of life in many profound and important ways, and accurately
listing it on government documentation isn't a hate crime. And
(05:49):
I'm sorry. Of course, everyone deserves dignity and safety. And
I want all trans people, even people who identify as
non binary. While I don't think that's real, of course,
I want them to be safe and I want them
to be treated with respect. But you are not legally
or morally entitled to list inaccurate information on government documentation.
(06:11):
If you put your sex under this Biden policy, that's
being overturned. If you put your sex as X for
non binary, that is a literally false statement. It's not true.
So in these cases they're arguing they have a legal
right to put false information on their documentation. That's not
(06:31):
a thing that can't possibly be a thing in any
coherent system or structure. And then the idea that like, oh,
this is cruel, this puts people in danger. I really
don't agree with that or understand that, because fundamentally, you
are going to be treated the same way as anyone
(06:53):
else when you are traveling across country lines or what
have you, so long as or not going into a
country where being trans is like illegal or dangerous or
something like that, because then that would be very unwise.
But the question is why are you going to those
countries in the first place. As a transgender person, you
(07:15):
should not be going to a country where you will
be unsafe. It is if it is known that you
are transgender, and if you do, I would advise against
that strongly. I mean, I don't go to countries where
it's illegal to be gay. I never would, And if
you do, you are taking a degree of risk upon yourself.
And I don't think that your wish to do so
(07:38):
entitles you to false government documents, Like the government doesn't
have to help you go stealth in a foreign country.
There's not a constitutional right to that. That's a bizarre
claim to even argue. And I just don't think that
listing biological reality can be considered cruel. This woman talks
about that you have a right to identification the reflect
(08:00):
how you feel. You really don't. You have a right
to identification that is accurate and correct. If you feel
six foot five or if I felt African American, I
don't have a right to have either of those things
listed on my driver's license because those are not correct.
They're not true, they're not real. And I've never really
(08:21):
had any problem with trans people living how they want
to live and walking the world is the other gender
for many intents and purposes, but their sex still exists,
and their sex is still the same as it was
when they were born. Biological sex is immutable. It's defined
by the structure of your reproductive system. And to the
extent they are listing that that it's listing sex. A
(08:43):
fact is a fact, and a fact cannot be a
hate crime. People. I really don't understand this pushback, and
I think it's all a bit ridiculous. But guys, we
have another video this time from an actual non binary
identifying individual on TikTok, explaining why this is such an
outrage that I want to tackle with you all. But first,
do make sure subscribe, Do hit the like button, comment
(09:05):
with your thoughts as we go along. Remember to send
in your voice mails for our Voicemail Friday episodes where
I react to your wild car stories, give you advice
on your personal lives, and answer questions that you guys
have for me. The link to sending one of those
is as always in the description. Now, guys, let's look
at this second video, this time from a user who
identifies as non binary, explaining why they object to this
(09:29):
policy and this ruling. Let's listen.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
You think if I.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Walk up to you at the airport and show you
an F on my passport, you're gonna let me get
on that flight like you're not?
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yes, I think they will. So this person is saying,
because sh I guess, because this person is female they
just told us is female, but presents in a more
masculine fashion that if they go up to security or
to the TSA checkpoints or what have you, or the
(10:02):
passport offices and customs and they have an a F
on their documentation, you're not going to allow me on
the plane. I think they will, actually, I think there
will be briefings and instructions that go out instructing people
to not necessarily hold up. And if the image matches,
I don't see why they wouldn't. And on the contrary
(10:23):
this argument and the side, because what they're arguing is
that while there's a discrepancy between my visual appearance and
what's listed on my documentation, and that could cause problems
when I'm traveling, and it could confuse security officers and
all that, And I don't actually deny that. I think
there could be issues, But there's also issues with the
Biden policy. When you're going to walk up and plenty
(10:47):
of people will label it did and have labeled their
change their labels or identification to their gender identity, but
still look like their birth sex, and they have an
issue and they have a mismatch, and so either way
there's going to be some confusion or some difficulties. So
that alone it doesn't win you this argument, I guess,
and especially once you hear a little more from this person,
(11:09):
you'll see why you're not.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
When I first started transitioning, I remember going into a
bar with my ID and having someone tell me that
it wasn't me because it was a woman's ID. Ever
since that happened, I was nervous to go to the airport,
I was nervous to travel. I was nervous to do
anything because my idea had an F on it. So
I felt immediate relief when I got an X on
my license finally to suppre hold up.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
I don't know if y'all caught that. So this person
told us I can't go up to a counter and
show them an idea that has an F on it
because I look more masculine. They'll be confused, they'll think
it's not me, they'll think it's not correct. But I
can go up with my sex listed as X, and
that won't confuse anyone. Am I going? Am I going insane?
(11:54):
That is way more confusing to ninety nine percent of people.
I know you're on TikTok, so maybe you're in that
echo chamber life, But to ninety nine percent of people,
that is a way more confusing than the idea that
you are biologically female but present yourself as a man
in many intents and purposes. Yeah, that's a lot more
confusing and incoherent and probably going to cause more problems
traveling to foreign countries. Make it make sense? Challenge level
(12:20):
one thousand impossible.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Supreme Court just ruled to resume Trump's plan and requires
people's sex assigned at birth to be displayed on their
identity documents. Not only is this going to take me
back to the place of fear and anxiety that I
was in five years ago, it's undoing a thirty three
year old policy that allows people to have accurate gender
and sex designations. How out of everything that's happening in
(12:43):
the world right now, is this an emergency in the
Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
So I the thirty three year old policy, the X
thing has only been around since Biden's presidency. And what
the person is referring to is that trans people, I guess,
have been able to change their passports for a very
long time. And maybe that wasn't such a big deal
when you only had a tiny number of people with
genuine gender dysphoria trying to change it, But then the
(13:07):
self ID and the wave of radical transactivism have made
it an issue. So I think it does need to
be changed, and stricter definitions and guidelines do have to
be enforced, and I'm sorry for the genuine anxiety or
stress that might cause some actual trans people, But yeah,
it's not cruel to list a fact. I don't know.
(13:31):
I have some sympathy and compassion for these people. You
can tell their emotion about this is real. But also,
at the end of the day, it's just a piece
of paper, and you should feel good about yourself and
who's strong in who you are, regardless of what that
piece of paper says. And if you can't accept the
fact that you're biologically female, that's something you should work
(13:52):
on because you are and that's never going to change.
You can be trans, you can walk the world in
a different way people can. I will happily engage in
some social fiction to that extent if that will help
you live a happy and successful life. But at the
end of the day, you have to accept reality and say,
the thirty three year old policy of having accurate documentation,
(14:15):
it's actually a thirty three year old policy of having
inaccurate documentation in some cases. And I don't think government
documents should be inaccurate. Sorry, I just don't.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Or this is an organized effort to humiliate and endangered
trans non binary and intersex Americans, and I just wish
everyone could see how it's all just another desperate attempt
to concentrate power in the hands of a few CIS
straight white men.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
I'm trying really hard to retain sympathy for this person,
but once you start babbling about CIS white men, I
roll my eyes so hard I get myself a headache.
And I'm sorry, but it is not an effort to
humiliate or endanger people to simply list biology. It's just
not an and y'all sound hysterical and delusional. That's my
(15:03):
take on it all, But you guys will have to
let me know what you think in the comments below.
Make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet, hit the
like button and all of that. Next guys, we are
gonna check in on the meltdown over Sidney Sweeney, the
actress who I wasn't super familiar with. I remember her
in White Lotus a couple of seasons ago, but I'm
(15:25):
hardly her the biggest fan in the world. But I
did respond to the online meltdown over her American Eagle
Jeans campaign where they did the Sydney Sweeney has gray
jeans and it was kind of like a pun that
she's really hot and beautiful, but she's wearing jeans, and
she has good jeans. Like genetics. The internet lost its
mind to declare her like a white supremacist and said
(15:48):
she was pushing eugenics and had this like weeks long
meltdown over this gens commercial in a way that was
really bizarre. Well, Sidney Sweeney has basically just told the
TikTok mob go f itself, and they're not coping. Well,
they're really losing it once again over on that corner
of the internet. But first here, I'll just show you
(16:08):
a clip from the GQ interview that Sidney Sweeney just
did where she refused to really acknowledge or apologize for
the fake controversy and online outrage, which, of course, to
some people has just proved how evil she is, but
to me is just deeply amusing.
Speaker 6 (16:26):
Let's look the criticism of the content, which was basically
that maybe specifically in this political climate, like white people
shouldn't joke about genetic superiority like that was kind of
like the criticism broadly speaking, And since you were talking
about this, I just wanted to give you an opportunity
to talk about that specifically.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
I think that when I have an issue that I
want to speak about, people will hear.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I just love this because this woke journalist is like
twisting ourselves and pretzels to try to like calmly suggest like, hey,
maybe address this unhinged, woke smear of you as a
eugenicist because you did a Gens commercial and did a pun.
And she's just like, I don't care. I'm not y'all
can go to hell in a handbasket's She gives zero fs.
(17:14):
And she is not even acknowledging the controversy because it's
so ridiculous, and she's not even accepting the framing or
the suggestion that there is anything to address or apologize
for in the first place, because there is not. The
Genes commercial was totally innocuous. It was a pun, and
people crashed out and worked themselves up into a little
(17:36):
mini meltdown over it. That is fundamentally not her problem.
And what I loved about this interview was it was
so twenty twenty five because just a few years ago
celebrities would have groveled and said, I'm so sorry to
the people who were hurt by it, and I'll do better,
and here's a big check to Black Lives Matter or whatever.
And she's just like, when I have something to say,
(17:58):
people will hear it, and I don't care and if
they want it, because the whole thing is people read
into one of the like twenty American Eagle spots she did.
No one talks about the other ones. Of course, this
whole message and political agenda and racist philosophy and all
this stuff that she never said she believes in her
supports at all. And so she's just like, if I
actually want to make a statement, I will, And so
(18:21):
what she's saying is there was nothing there, but she's
not really addressing it because she doesn't want to dignify
it with a response. I think that's totally valid. But
over on TikTok, they're acting like this proves them right
in the first place, and fantasizing about violently harming her
because of this little interview clip that we just watched.
Totally normal culture and atmosphere and discourse we've got going
(18:46):
over on that website. Let's look at a little compilation
I made for y'all because I just kept seeing crazy
videos about this. So let's take a look the end
of the day.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
Guys choosing not to say something in the current political
climate says everything.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
No, it doesn't. Not everyone is crazy, like y'all. Some
people just opt out of the craziness. I know that's
hard for y'all to understand. Not relatable to y'all, and
that's okay, but you please don't do the projection.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Everything new Sydney Sweeney interview is crazy. Like we are
no longer hinting at the thing, we are outright saying
it masked off white hood on these are all.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
He just a white hood on as in like the KKK,
and we're no longer hinting at it, we're outright saying it.
Did I just miss that part of the GQ interview
where she outright said anything about race or racism. No,
y'all hallucinated a wild accusation against her, and then when
she chose not to dignify it with a response, convince
(19:49):
yourself that somehow proves you right. No, babe, it's giving
padded room is where y'all belong with this, but go off.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
Please my genes and also I'm not a eugenicis see
that was.
Speaker 8 (20:00):
And I guess my thought is like if Sidney Sweeney
is saying like, yeah, I'm a white supremacist area nationalist,
like diva Dillon Hitler is the best type.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
But she's not. She literally never said these people are crazy.
They just start having conversations with themselves, like like words
and statements that were never made. They are hearing. When
you're hearing voices, babe, you're supposed to see a doctor
about that, not yap about it on TikTok and act
(20:29):
like the voices are real. Oh my goodness, that's just wild.
She just didn't say that. She didn't say, yeah, I'm
a racist. I love Hitler. What type diva?
Speaker 8 (20:41):
Like if that's your shit, that's your josh period whatever. GQ,
are you not responsible potentially absolutely for like platforming said
thought school, you didn't have to share that article. You
saw it in the edit. You saw what she said.
She all but said like, yeah, I got a couple
of heads in my closet. You want to see one,
And you guys are like front Page actually stamp.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
One. Again, she didn't say that, and this man is
just hallucinating. But two, this is a very warped view
of journalism because even if Sidney Sweeney and again she
didn't if she had come out and made some racist
statements or said yeah I am racist or whatever, that
would be newsworthy. They would be doing their job by
publishing that statement. So the world knows what she thinks
and what she says and can view her accordingly. So
(21:27):
of course they're still going to publish the interview even
if a little bit of it's controversial, which it actually isn't.
But to these crazy people, they can work themselves up
over nothing. But like, that's the fundamental misunderstanding of what
journalism and media is and exists. To do the critique
of this cringe worthy journalist in the GQ AD a
more serious critique is just that she was so like
(21:51):
beat around the bush about it, Like she she just
wasn't very upfront with anything or very hard hitting or direct.
And that's a very very entertainment journalism style of interview
that I find frustrating.
Speaker 6 (22:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
The reason they do it sometimes is because in that
kind of media they will hit you with like lists
of things you have to agree to before they give
you the interview, which in political media you would never accept,
but in entertainment, in entertainment media they do accept. Then
sometimes they'll try to go there anyway by like working
around it in a roundabout way. So maybe that's what happened.
But regardless, this dude's like once she said she's racist,
(22:24):
the thing you hallucinated, and she said you had white hoods,
another thing you hallucinated. Maybe the pattern here is you hallucinating.
But regardless, then why would they ever publish that? That's
because it's newsworthy because people deserve to know who somebody
who they might support financially, what they believe, and what
they say, Like, what are you thinking? You only publish
(22:44):
sweet and nice and lovely conversations. That is not how
media works. Crazy stamped y'all have also co signed this
because I watched the interview.
Speaker 7 (22:55):
First off, why the is her face so punishable?
Speaker 6 (22:58):
Right?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
You sound crazy? And I understand they're gay men and
they're being sassy, but can we just like not joke
about hitting women? Could we not?
Speaker 1 (23:11):
We need to cancel her. I'm annoyed about it because
she one thousand percent shouldn't be famous anymore, She shouldn't
have a platform.
Speaker 7 (23:17):
She clearly is a dumb bitch.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Like, I don't know what else to say. Sidney Sweeney,
Going Dad spoke for itself she's so punchable. Oh my gosh,
at least this is a woman so less bad but
still bad. Actually, to suggest punching people because you don't
like them or what they say, or because they refuse
(23:39):
to play her stupid games, that's what's really going on here.
They can't stand that Sidney Sweeney won't play their stupid,
woke games.
Speaker 5 (23:46):
Punchable, you know, the ad speaks for itself.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Oh my god, homegirl here, look just looks crazy. She
looks crazed.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
A white supremacist come out. She was asked, point blank,
do you condemn white supremacy? Did you mean to say
that white people's genes are superior in that ad? And
(24:18):
she says, I'll let it speak for itself.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
None of the things you just described happened. She was
asked point blank this this, except she wasn't, And even
if she did, it would actually be okay to not
dignify ridiculous questions and assertions all based on a pun
between a hot person having good genes and selling a
pair of genes, some grand theory about white supremacy, eugenics,
(24:47):
all this. Yeah, it's actually okay to not like, actively
enable and dignify with a response absurd smears and conspiracies,
and these people, I mean, they just come off as
unhealthily obsessed with the woman in this discourse, and like
they are constantly trying to find reasons to be offended
and outraged where no actual reasons exist. It's just a
(25:09):
genuinely it's a way of walking through the world that
seems exhausting. Don't they get tired of this? I would
get I get tired of watching them twist themselves up
in pretzels like this, And I can only imagine when
it must be like to actually participate in that. But
I guess it gets them clicks or like approval from
their little echo chamber crowd therewith on TikTok, But I
(25:31):
find the whole thing absurd. Up next, we've got to
talk about Candae Owans, because she just did a CNN interview,
or at least it was just released that is absolutely
devastating to her credibility. Despite becoming recently, according to her,
the number one podcast in the world and making very
serious accusations and allegations and conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's
(25:55):
death and murder, she apparently doesn't know very much about it.
And is just Lee lying both on social media and
in her coverage, making inaccuracies. And CNN did this interview
with her with the journalist El Reeves, and I'm just
going to show it to you or at least a
clip from it, because it's just devastating for Candace. Just
makes it clear she doesn't know what she's talking about.
(26:17):
So this interview was conducted on September twenty sixth, according
to Candace, several weeks after Charlie Kirk was killed, and
after she had done a bunch of episodes deep diving
into her conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's killing, including suggesting
that the text between the alleged killer and his alleged
lover were fake. Yet in this conversation, Candace doesn't even
(26:42):
know or understand the basic facts about the case she's discussing.
Let's listen, when.
Speaker 9 (26:47):
You say you believe that Charlie Kirk was betrayed by
someone close to him, what do you mean?
Speaker 10 (26:54):
I think that in the coming weeks, there's going to
be a lot of financial reports that are coming out,
and I, first and foremost do not believe that Tyler
Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear
in that whether he was involved, I think the answer
is yes. I think that's obvious.
Speaker 9 (27:14):
And your basis for saying he didn't act alone is.
Speaker 10 (27:18):
What I don't know. Maybe the weird fed messages that
were concocted out of thin air, that had no time
stamp and were written like they were speaking in eighteen
twenty two, among other things.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
So just to pause on this, she's saying the text
messages would were fake between Robinson and his alleged lover,
and that would require that the Utah state authorities, the governors,
the prosecutors, everyone, as well as the local police and
the FBI, headed up by friends of Charlie kirk so
(27:53):
Cash battel over there and Dan Bongino is the deputy,
all conspired to fake text messages. I guess framing this
this Tyler Robinson person, that's an extraordinary, extraordinarily unlikely a
sequence of events that you would have so many people
in on a conspiracy, most of whom have no clear
motive for doing so or participating in it, and yet
(28:16):
nobody would leak that or anything. But clearly Candace has
done extensive research about this, knows all about it. She
would never make such an outlandish suggestion to her massive
audience without serious proof and having done the work and
fully understood. Just kidding, just kidding, listen to this next part.
Speaker 10 (28:33):
All other things there are lack of an ability to
answer any basic questions about what took place.
Speaker 9 (28:38):
Do you have any proof that messages were made up?
Speaker 10 (28:41):
Because that would be easily yeah, proven, Yeah, but they
didn't put timestamps on them, and Discord came out and
said they didn't exist.
Speaker 9 (28:47):
This was supposedly text messages, not Discord messages. It's my
understanding from the indictment.
Speaker 10 (28:52):
I actually did not read that they were text messages.
Speaker 9 (28:55):
The indictment caused them text messages, messages?
Speaker 2 (28:59):
What would it be? I'm sorry, this is shocking. She
thinks they were Discord messages. She had already done at
this point, whole hour long shows deep diving into this case,
suggesting was framed, suggesting that the messages were fake. Had
she even read the indictment, Because I did, and I
(29:21):
went back and looked at it, and it's very clear
these are text messages, not Discord messages, text messages, But
she doesn't know that in this interview. How are you
going to make these elaborate extraordinary claims and not even
due due diligence or basic research and reading, and familiarize
yourself with the facts of this case and the fact
(29:42):
that there are not timestamps associated with them. That is
for presentation purposes in an indictment, so they are easier
to follow and not confusing. But in the actual court case,
all of this metadata and information will and probably already
has been I don't know, but if not, it will
be and over to the defense team and they will
have the opportunity to independently verify and scrutinize all of
(30:05):
the evidence against their client, including these text messages, including
by bringing out in their own analysts and experts to
put them under the microscope and make sure they are real.
So the idea that they would be fabricated and therefore
that will never come out and the FBI will just
get away with that. Obviously not you can't just do
(30:26):
that and then present them in court and have that
not come out and not be revealed. But Kandace doesn't care.
She doesn't know what she's talking about. She's just spewing
wild conspiracies and with grave allegations of people inside TPUSA
betraying their dear friend, with no care for the facts,
with very sloppy minimum research, and fundamentally, she just does
(30:46):
this because it feels. It's all about how it just feels.
It feels fake and gay, is what she always says,
which is so wild. But it's just a vibe to her.
And I'm sorry, but when we're talking about life and
death and we're talking about a Q seeing people of
serious crimes against their loved ones, you've got to have
a little bit more than vibes to go off of,
and you have to do your freaking research. And she
(31:08):
clearly hasn't and hadn't even weeks after Charlie's death, and
after she had done so many videos already to her
millions and millions and millions of viewers and listeners across
the world. Yikes, major yikes. Let's listen to the rest
of this clip.
Speaker 9 (31:23):
What would it be like like like the Feds are
like on a computer, like yeah, being in out back
And that's.
Speaker 10 (31:28):
Exactly what it is. The FEDS made up the text messages.
Speaker 9 (31:31):
But you don't have anyone from like the FBI telling
you that or I have weeks Okay, has anyone leaked.
Speaker 10 (31:37):
To you and Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 9 (31:39):
Has anyone said to you, even off the record, like yeah,
we faked these.
Speaker 10 (31:44):
I have very strong sources everywhere on both sides.
Speaker 9 (31:49):
Well, I look forward to seeing evidence.
Speaker 10 (31:51):
Yeah, sure, because when we see keep talking about evidence,
it's like, who's going to present that evidence? Like the
mainstream media like, who are you expecting to go out story? Now,
it wouldn't be.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
It wouldn't be.
Speaker 9 (32:01):
It wouldn't be if the FBI. Like if I had
a source telling me, like, if I had proof that
the FBI faked those messages, they'll be an enormous story.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (32:11):
I kind of feel like we live in a post
Epstein world and we know how stories get shut down.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
I have sources, trust me, Bro, I have lots of
high level, important sources on both sides. You have no
sources telling you these messages are fake, and if you did,
you would say so, Yes. I have sources inside the
FBI telling me the messages are fake and that they
concocted them, and that they got the governor of Utah
and the local police and the cash would tell and
(32:39):
all these people to participate through this. You got nothing
and you're just saying trust me, Bro, No, one's going
to trust you on this, especially when you're not even
familiar with the basic facts of this case. And it
really does come down to feelings over facts. With Candae,
listen to this, just a slight little montage of some
moments with her, where she makes it pretty clear it's
about feelings and vibes. What I do know is.
Speaker 11 (33:02):
We're not getting the full story because I just spiritually
know that more people are involved. Okay, so I would
discern that we are looking just vibe again. Two different
people would be my thing. Two different people. I think
the person in the maroon that's walking is different from
(33:23):
the person that's walking up the stairs. It's a gut thing.
Speaker 10 (33:26):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
I don't know no, but I know. Okay, I don't
know no, but I know. We don't know no, but
we know. Sorry, Candace, that's not going to cut it here.
You cannot make outlandish and grave and extreme allegations and
theories and push them to millions of people when you
haven't done your due diligence. You're incredibly sloppy and you're
(33:49):
just going off vibes and trust me, Bro, that is
wildly irresponsible use of your platform. And it is not
even anything closely resembling journalism or responsible political commentary. It's
Alex Jones with more polish and charisma. That's it. It's
I mean, it's really not too dissimilar from the kind
(34:11):
of lies he told about Sandy Hook and other things,
where it's just outlandish conspiracies with no basis in reality
that caused people real human suffering. Right, what do you
think it must be like to be one of these
TPUSA executives hounded with harassment because people think they betrayed
and murdered their friend fore with no evidence behind that.
And also you can monetize it and draw attention to
(34:33):
yourself and make it about you. It's really sickening stuff.
But of course Candace is the real victim here and
CNN did her dirty except they didn't at all, and
she's lying again. Let's look at this. So Candace tweeted
after this dispute that quote, my Siena interview was booked
(34:53):
before Charlie died, and it was related to my book launch.
That's true. We kept the interview, which took place about
twenty days after he had passed, and we told them
in writing multiple times that I wanted no questions about Charlie.
Despite this, CNN with CNN and violated our request and
asked about him once Cam was we're rolling so a
couple things here. This actually isn't true, But even if
(35:14):
it was, that's not really how interviews work. You could
request that certain topics not be asked about, but they
don't have to do that, and it's not a reasonable
request because it's not like she was quietly mourning. She
was doing our two hour livestream episodes about Charlie Kirk's killing.
(35:34):
Yet you're gonna sit for an interview and you can't
be asked about it. You don't really get to do that.
You don't really get to put multi hour podcasts out
commenting on this and then be like I don't want
to talk about it, it's too soon. That doesn't add up,
like no, you can't do that. And then the crazy
thing about this is it's literally not true. So the
(35:55):
journalist CNN l Reeve posted an email receipt and wrote
for clarity Owens via her representative did agree to talk
about Charlie Kirk before our interview, and this shows that
Candacee's representative says, thank you, so long as Charlie is
discussed in a tasteful way. That's fine, I understand you
have to ask. I would just keep it to one
(36:16):
or two questions about his passing. She's still mourning, so
it's a sensitive topic. So they actually did agree to
talk about it. So she just lied on social media again,
nuking her credibility into the sun once more. And it's
a sensitive topic, she's still mourning. Even that is kind
of bullshit because she's doing entire podcast episodes spewing conspiracies
(36:40):
about it and opining on it. So then to say, oh,
I don't really want to talk about it in this
interview it's too sensitive. I'm mourning is bullshit. You can't
have it both ways. If she truly was mourning and
not talking about it and processing, I would respect that,
and I think most journalists would. But you can't be
doing that and then claim but you can't bring that
(37:00):
up if you do an interview. No, I'm sorry. That's
not how journalism works. That's not how media works. And
then to lie about it is just once again proving
that she is not a reliable narrator of her own life,
let alone of news and the most important and grave
things happening in our world today. But Candice is charismatic,
she's entertaining, and yeah, sure she might be totally divorced
from reality and fundamentally dishonest, but hey, she's entertaining and
(37:25):
beautiful and fun to listen to. And I guess that's
all people care about these days. But if you ask me,
that is actually bleak. That people don't care if somebody
repeatedly lies to them, don't care if somebody is incredibly
sloppy with their basic research and fact finding, as long
as they're entertaining. That's a bleak place for the American
(37:47):
media landscape to be at. But hey, it's where we are,
and all I can do is give you my honest
take on it. What do you guys think? Let me
know in the comments, make sure you're subscribed. In all that,
I have a clot of booting
It's all just another desperate attempt to concentrate power in
(00:03):
the hands of a few cis straight white men.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Another day, another TikTok meltdown that actually makes no sense.
We're going to break this down, plus so much more
on today's episode of The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, my
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from
(00:28):
across social media and the Internet, all from an independent
political perspective. Up first, we're going to talk about the
online meltdown over a preliminary Supreme Court ruling that was
handed out that concerns transgender rights, non binary rights, and
a Trump policy that would have and now will prohibit
(00:52):
people from getting an X on their passport because they
feel non binary listed as their sex, and will also
require people's sex biological sex to be listed rather than
how they identify or feel. The Supreme Court hasn't issued
a final ruling on this, but they did allow the
Trump administration's policy to go into effect until they decide
(01:14):
a further ruling. Here is Fox News summing up some
details of the case six three decision.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
The Court found that displaying a passport holders sex at
birth no more violates equal protection to displaying a person's
country of birth. It continues that in both cases, the
government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting
anyone to differential treatment. The decision undoes a lower courts
order that stopped the Trump administration from removing the X
option from passports. This now also allows the requirement of
(01:42):
listing biological sex to be enforced. The ex option on
passports was the product of the Biden administration. The White
House maintains that that brought unseeriousness to government documents meant
to accurately identify people. Attorney General Bondi celebrated the emergency
relief granted to the government, writing, in other words, they
there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting
(02:03):
for that simple truth. The fight is not over, though,
because this is not a final ruling. It simply allows
the new passport policy to continue while the cases play
out in lower court.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
So to me, this is just common sense. There are
only two sexes, and your biological sex is not subject
to self identity. I find it laughable that the X
was ever an option, as if that makes any sense.
No humans sex is X, and the entire non binary
thing is ridiculous. So the fact that the Biden administration
(02:35):
actually made that as an option was always crazy. So
I support the Trump administration's policy doing away with that
because it's nonsensical and it fundamentally denies reality. However, that
the legal argument against this case, against this Trump policy
is that by requiring people to list their sex on
(02:57):
the passport on their passports rather than their self identified identity,
the government is somehow violating equal protection. It is discriminating
against people, but it's really not, because it's asking everyone
to list their sex the same and if that doesn't
discriminate against you, if your sex being listed upsets you,
(03:21):
that's not the same thing as being discriminated against. They're
arguing that it violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution to list a fact, which I don't understand how
that is even an argument or possible, because this is
I mean, you are free to live however you want
and identify yourself how you please, but your biological sex
(03:44):
is a fact and you can't choose it or change it,
And to list it the same way listing your height
or your race, nobody would ever say it violates the
equal protection clause the Constitution. That I can't list myself
as six foot five when I'm only six foot three,
or if a guy was and he really wanted to
feel taller. It's a listing a fact can't be a
(04:05):
hate crime. I don't know how how much further to
explain this, but as you can imagine over on TikTok,
the response to this ruling from the Supreme Court is
very measured and just kidding. They're losing their ever loving minds,
and we are going to go into it, and I'll
show you some of the crazier videos. Let's take a
look at the first video we have of a TikTok
(04:29):
lawyer allegedly on the lawyer part, losing her mind over
this ruling. Let's listen to her and see maybe she
makes some points. I don't know. Let's listen.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
When I say this, I mean it with my whole heart.
The Supreme Court six justices just greenlit a policy that
forces trans and non binary Americans to list the sex
on their birth certificate on their passport, even if it
outs them, endangers them, or contradicts who they are. It's
soaked up. It's not about accuracy, it's not about security.
(05:02):
It's about forcing people back into the closet and punishing
them for existing. Every person deserves dignity, every person deserves safety,
and every person deserves identification that reflects who they are,
not who extremists want them to be. So we fight this,
we protect our trans community, We show up because this
policy is built.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
On cruelty, and cruelty is a choice.
Speaker 2 (05:27):
There's a lot to unpack there. From our friend, I
don't think it's cruel to list a fact, and I
think that biological sex is a meaningful dimension of human
existence that's enshrined into our laws and into our ways
of life in many profound and important ways, and accurately
listing it on government documentation isn't a hate crime. And
(05:49):
I'm sorry. Of course, everyone deserves dignity and safety. And
I want all trans people, even people who identify as
non binary. While I don't think that's real, of course,
I want them to be safe and I want them
to be treated with respect. But you are not legally
or morally entitled to list inaccurate information on government documentation.
(06:11):
If you put your sex under this Biden policy, that's
being overturned. If you put your sex as X for
non binary, that is a literally false statement. It's not true.
So in these cases they're arguing they have a legal
right to put false information on their documentation. That's not
(06:31):
a thing that can't possibly be a thing in any
coherent system or structure. And then the idea that like, oh,
this is cruel, this puts people in danger. I really
don't agree with that or understand that, because fundamentally, you
are going to be treated the same way as anyone
(06:53):
else when you are traveling across country lines or what
have you, so long as or not going into a
country where being trans is like illegal or dangerous or
something like that, because then that would be very unwise.
But the question is why are you going to those
countries in the first place. As a transgender person, you
(07:15):
should not be going to a country where you will
be unsafe. It is if it is known that you
are transgender, and if you do, I would advise against
that strongly. I mean, I don't go to countries where
it's illegal to be gay. I never would, And if
you do, you are taking a degree of risk upon yourself.
And I don't think that your wish to do so
(07:38):
entitles you to false government documents, Like the government doesn't
have to help you go stealth in a foreign country.
There's not a constitutional right to that. That's a bizarre
claim to even argue. And I just don't think that
listing biological reality can be considered cruel. This woman talks
about that you have a right to identification the reflect
(08:00):
how you feel. You really don't. You have a right
to identification that is accurate and correct. If you feel
six foot five or if I felt African American, I
don't have a right to have either of those things
listed on my driver's license because those are not correct.
They're not true, they're not real. And I've never really
(08:21):
had any problem with trans people living how they want
to live and walking the world is the other gender
for many intents and purposes, but their sex still exists,
and their sex is still the same as it was
when they were born. Biological sex is immutable. It's defined
by the structure of your reproductive system. And to the
extent they are listing that that it's listing sex. A
(08:43):
fact is a fact, and a fact cannot be a
hate crime. People. I really don't understand this pushback, and
I think it's all a bit ridiculous. But guys, we
have another video this time from an actual non binary
identifying individual on TikTok, explaining why this is such an
outrage that I want to tackle with you all. But first,
do make sure subscribe, Do hit the like button, comment
(09:05):
with your thoughts as we go along. Remember to send
in your voice mails for our Voicemail Friday episodes where
I react to your wild car stories, give you advice
on your personal lives, and answer questions that you guys
have for me. The link to sending one of those
is as always in the description. Now, guys, let's look
at this second video, this time from a user who
identifies as non binary, explaining why they object to this
(09:29):
policy and this ruling. Let's listen.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
You think if I.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Walk up to you at the airport and show you
an F on my passport, you're gonna let me get
on that flight like you're not?
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yes, I think they will. So this person is saying,
because sh I guess, because this person is female they
just told us is female, but presents in a more
masculine fashion that if they go up to security or
to the TSA checkpoints or what have you, or the
(10:02):
passport offices and customs and they have an a F
on their documentation, you're not going to allow me on
the plane. I think they will, actually, I think there
will be briefings and instructions that go out instructing people
to not necessarily hold up. And if the image matches,
I don't see why they wouldn't. And on the contrary
(10:23):
this argument and the side, because what they're arguing is
that while there's a discrepancy between my visual appearance and
what's listed on my documentation, and that could cause problems
when I'm traveling, and it could confuse security officers and
all that, And I don't actually deny that. I think
there could be issues, But there's also issues with the
Biden policy. When you're going to walk up and plenty
(10:47):
of people will label it did and have labeled their
change their labels or identification to their gender identity, but
still look like their birth sex, and they have an
issue and they have a mismatch, and so either way
there's going to be some confusion or some difficulties. So
that alone it doesn't win you this argument, I guess,
and especially once you hear a little more from this person,
(11:09):
you'll see why you're not.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
When I first started transitioning, I remember going into a
bar with my ID and having someone tell me that
it wasn't me because it was a woman's ID. Ever
since that happened, I was nervous to go to the airport,
I was nervous to travel. I was nervous to do
anything because my idea had an F on it. So
I felt immediate relief when I got an X on
my license finally to suppre hold up.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
I don't know if y'all caught that. So this person
told us I can't go up to a counter and
show them an idea that has an F on it
because I look more masculine. They'll be confused, they'll think
it's not me, they'll think it's not correct. But I
can go up with my sex listed as X, and
that won't confuse anyone. Am I going? Am I going insane?
(11:54):
That is way more confusing to ninety nine percent of people.
I know you're on TikTok, so maybe you're in that
echo chamber life, But to ninety nine percent of people,
that is a way more confusing than the idea that
you are biologically female but present yourself as a man
in many intents and purposes. Yeah, that's a lot more
confusing and incoherent and probably going to cause more problems
traveling to foreign countries. Make it make sense? Challenge level
(12:20):
one thousand impossible.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
Supreme Court just ruled to resume Trump's plan and requires
people's sex assigned at birth to be displayed on their
identity documents. Not only is this going to take me
back to the place of fear and anxiety that I
was in five years ago, it's undoing a thirty three
year old policy that allows people to have accurate gender
and sex designations. How out of everything that's happening in
(12:43):
the world right now, is this an emergency in the
Supreme Court?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
So I the thirty three year old policy, the X
thing has only been around since Biden's presidency. And what
the person is referring to is that trans people, I guess,
have been able to change their passports for a very
long time. And maybe that wasn't such a big deal
when you only had a tiny number of people with
genuine gender dysphoria trying to change it, But then the
(13:07):
self ID and the wave of radical transactivism have made
it an issue. So I think it does need to
be changed, and stricter definitions and guidelines do have to
be enforced, and I'm sorry for the genuine anxiety or
stress that might cause some actual trans people, But yeah,
it's not cruel to list a fact. I don't know.
(13:31):
I have some sympathy and compassion for these people. You
can tell their emotion about this is real. But also,
at the end of the day, it's just a piece
of paper, and you should feel good about yourself and
who's strong in who you are, regardless of what that
piece of paper says. And if you can't accept the
fact that you're biologically female, that's something you should work
(13:52):
on because you are and that's never going to change.
You can be trans, you can walk the world in
a different way people can. I will happily engage in
some social fiction to that extent if that will help
you live a happy and successful life. But at the
end of the day, you have to accept reality and say,
the thirty three year old policy of having accurate documentation,
(14:15):
it's actually a thirty three year old policy of having
inaccurate documentation in some cases. And I don't think government
documents should be inaccurate. Sorry, I just don't.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Or this is an organized effort to humiliate and endangered
trans non binary and intersex Americans, and I just wish
everyone could see how it's all just another desperate attempt
to concentrate power in the hands of a few CIS
straight white men.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
I'm trying really hard to retain sympathy for this person,
but once you start babbling about CIS white men, I
roll my eyes so hard I get myself a headache.
And I'm sorry, but it is not an effort to
humiliate or endanger people to simply list biology. It's just
not an and y'all sound hysterical and delusional. That's my
(15:03):
take on it all, But you guys will have to
let me know what you think in the comments below.
Make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet, hit the
like button and all of that. Next guys, we are
gonna check in on the meltdown over Sidney Sweeney, the
actress who I wasn't super familiar with. I remember her
in White Lotus a couple of seasons ago, but I'm
(15:25):
hardly her the biggest fan in the world. But I
did respond to the online meltdown over her American Eagle
Jeans campaign where they did the Sydney Sweeney has gray
jeans and it was kind of like a pun that
she's really hot and beautiful, but she's wearing jeans, and
she has good jeans. Like genetics. The internet lost its
mind to declare her like a white supremacist and said
(15:48):
she was pushing eugenics and had this like weeks long
meltdown over this gens commercial in a way that was
really bizarre. Well, Sidney Sweeney has basically just told the
TikTok mob go f itself, and they're not coping. Well,
they're really losing it once again over on that corner
of the internet. But first here, I'll just show you
(16:08):
a clip from the GQ interview that Sidney Sweeney just
did where she refused to really acknowledge or apologize for
the fake controversy and online outrage, which, of course, to
some people has just proved how evil she is, but
to me is just deeply amusing.
Speaker 6 (16:26):
Let's look the criticism of the content, which was basically
that maybe specifically in this political climate, like white people
shouldn't joke about genetic superiority like that was kind of
like the criticism broadly speaking, And since you were talking
about this, I just wanted to give you an opportunity
to talk about that specifically.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
I think that when I have an issue that I
want to speak about, people will hear.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I just love this because this woke journalist is like
twisting ourselves and pretzels to try to like calmly suggest like, hey,
maybe address this unhinged, woke smear of you as a
eugenicist because you did a Gens commercial and did a pun.
And she's just like, I don't care. I'm not y'all
can go to hell in a handbasket's She gives zero fs.
(17:14):
And she is not even acknowledging the controversy because it's
so ridiculous, and she's not even accepting the framing or
the suggestion that there is anything to address or apologize
for in the first place, because there is not. The
Genes commercial was totally innocuous. It was a pun, and
people crashed out and worked themselves up into a little
(17:36):
mini meltdown over it. That is fundamentally not her problem.
And what I loved about this interview was it was
so twenty twenty five because just a few years ago
celebrities would have groveled and said, I'm so sorry to
the people who were hurt by it, and I'll do better,
and here's a big check to Black Lives Matter or whatever.
And she's just like, when I have something to say,
(17:58):
people will hear it, and I don't care and if
they want it, because the whole thing is people read
into one of the like twenty American Eagle spots she did.
No one talks about the other ones. Of course, this
whole message and political agenda and racist philosophy and all
this stuff that she never said she believes in her
supports at all. And so she's just like, if I
actually want to make a statement, I will, And so
(18:21):
what she's saying is there was nothing there, but she's
not really addressing it because she doesn't want to dignify
it with a response. I think that's totally valid. But
over on TikTok, they're acting like this proves them right
in the first place, and fantasizing about violently harming her
because of this little interview clip that we just watched.
Totally normal culture and atmosphere and discourse we've got going
(18:46):
over on that website. Let's look at a little compilation
I made for y'all because I just kept seeing crazy
videos about this. So let's take a look the end
of the day.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
Guys choosing not to say something in the current political
climate says everything.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
No, it doesn't. Not everyone is crazy, like y'all. Some
people just opt out of the craziness. I know that's
hard for y'all to understand. Not relatable to y'all, and
that's okay, but you please don't do the projection.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Everything new Sydney Sweeney interview is crazy. Like we are
no longer hinting at the thing, we are outright saying
it masked off white hood on these are all.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
He just a white hood on as in like the KKK,
and we're no longer hinting at it, we're outright saying it.
Did I just miss that part of the GQ interview
where she outright said anything about race or racism. No,
y'all hallucinated a wild accusation against her, and then when
she chose not to dignify it with a response, convince
(19:49):
yourself that somehow proves you right. No, babe, it's giving
padded room is where y'all belong with this, but go off.
Speaker 7 (19:57):
Please my genes and also I'm not a eugenicis see
that was.
Speaker 8 (20:00):
And I guess my thought is like if Sidney Sweeney
is saying like, yeah, I'm a white supremacist area nationalist,
like diva Dillon Hitler is the best type.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
But she's not. She literally never said these people are crazy.
They just start having conversations with themselves, like like words
and statements that were never made. They are hearing. When
you're hearing voices, babe, you're supposed to see a doctor
about that, not yap about it on TikTok and act
(20:29):
like the voices are real. Oh my goodness, that's just wild.
She just didn't say that. She didn't say, yeah, I'm
a racist. I love Hitler. What type diva?
Speaker 8 (20:41):
Like if that's your shit, that's your josh period whatever. GQ,
are you not responsible potentially absolutely for like platforming said
thought school, you didn't have to share that article. You
saw it in the edit. You saw what she said.
She all but said like, yeah, I got a couple
of heads in my closet. You want to see one,
And you guys are like front Page actually stamp.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
One. Again, she didn't say that, and this man is
just hallucinating. But two, this is a very warped view
of journalism because even if Sidney Sweeney and again she
didn't if she had come out and made some racist
statements or said yeah I am racist or whatever, that
would be newsworthy. They would be doing their job by
publishing that statement. So the world knows what she thinks
and what she says and can view her accordingly. So
(21:27):
of course they're still going to publish the interview even
if a little bit of it's controversial, which it actually isn't.
But to these crazy people, they can work themselves up
over nothing. But like, that's the fundamental misunderstanding of what
journalism and media is and exists. To do the critique
of this cringe worthy journalist in the GQ AD a
more serious critique is just that she was so like
(21:51):
beat around the bush about it, Like she she just
wasn't very upfront with anything or very hard hitting or direct.
And that's a very very entertainment journalism style of interview
that I find frustrating.
Speaker 6 (22:03):
Now.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
The reason they do it sometimes is because in that
kind of media they will hit you with like lists
of things you have to agree to before they give
you the interview, which in political media you would never accept,
but in entertainment, in entertainment media they do accept. Then
sometimes they'll try to go there anyway by like working
around it in a roundabout way. So maybe that's what happened.
But regardless, this dude's like once she said she's racist,
(22:24):
the thing you hallucinated, and she said you had white hoods,
another thing you hallucinated. Maybe the pattern here is you hallucinating.
But regardless, then why would they ever publish that? That's
because it's newsworthy because people deserve to know who somebody
who they might support financially, what they believe, and what
they say, Like, what are you thinking? You only publish
(22:44):
sweet and nice and lovely conversations. That is not how
media works. Crazy stamped y'all have also co signed this
because I watched the interview.
Speaker 7 (22:55):
First off, why the is her face so punishable?
Speaker 6 (22:58):
Right?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
You sound crazy? And I understand they're gay men and
they're being sassy, but can we just like not joke
about hitting women? Could we not?
Speaker 1 (23:11):
We need to cancel her. I'm annoyed about it because
she one thousand percent shouldn't be famous anymore, She shouldn't
have a platform.
Speaker 7 (23:17):
She clearly is a dumb bitch.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Like, I don't know what else to say. Sidney Sweeney,
Going Dad spoke for itself she's so punchable. Oh my gosh,
at least this is a woman so less bad but
still bad. Actually, to suggest punching people because you don't
like them or what they say, or because they refuse
(23:39):
to play her stupid games, that's what's really going on here.
They can't stand that Sidney Sweeney won't play their stupid,
woke games.
Speaker 5 (23:46):
Punchable, you know, the ad speaks for itself.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
Oh my god, homegirl here, look just looks crazy. She
looks crazed.
Speaker 5 (23:58):
A white supremacist come out. She was asked, point blank,
do you condemn white supremacy? Did you mean to say
that white people's genes are superior in that ad? And
(24:18):
she says, I'll let it speak for itself.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
None of the things you just described happened. She was
asked point blank this this, except she wasn't, And even
if she did, it would actually be okay to not
dignify ridiculous questions and assertions all based on a pun
between a hot person having good genes and selling a
pair of genes, some grand theory about white supremacy, eugenics,
(24:47):
all this. Yeah, it's actually okay to not like, actively
enable and dignify with a response absurd smears and conspiracies,
and these people, I mean, they just come off as
unhealthily obsessed with the woman in this discourse, and like
they are constantly trying to find reasons to be offended
and outraged where no actual reasons exist. It's just a
(25:09):
genuinely it's a way of walking through the world that
seems exhausting. Don't they get tired of this? I would
get I get tired of watching them twist themselves up
in pretzels like this, And I can only imagine when
it must be like to actually participate in that. But
I guess it gets them clicks or like approval from
their little echo chamber crowd therewith on TikTok, But I
(25:31):
find the whole thing absurd. Up next, we've got to
talk about Candae Owans, because she just did a CNN interview,
or at least it was just released that is absolutely
devastating to her credibility. Despite becoming recently, according to her,
the number one podcast in the world and making very
serious accusations and allegations and conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's
(25:55):
death and murder, she apparently doesn't know very much about it.
And is just Lee lying both on social media and
in her coverage, making inaccuracies. And CNN did this interview
with her with the journalist El Reeves, and I'm just
going to show it to you or at least a
clip from it, because it's just devastating for Candace. Just
makes it clear she doesn't know what she's talking about.
(26:17):
So this interview was conducted on September twenty sixth, according
to Candace, several weeks after Charlie Kirk was killed, and
after she had done a bunch of episodes deep diving
into her conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's killing, including suggesting
that the text between the alleged killer and his alleged
lover were fake. Yet in this conversation, Candace doesn't even
(26:42):
know or understand the basic facts about the case she's discussing.
Let's listen, when.
Speaker 9 (26:47):
You say you believe that Charlie Kirk was betrayed by
someone close to him, what do you mean?
Speaker 10 (26:54):
I think that in the coming weeks, there's going to
be a lot of financial reports that are coming out,
and I, first and foremost do not believe that Tyler
Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. I want to be very clear
in that whether he was involved, I think the answer
is yes. I think that's obvious.
Speaker 9 (27:14):
And your basis for saying he didn't act alone is.
Speaker 10 (27:18):
What I don't know. Maybe the weird fed messages that
were concocted out of thin air, that had no time
stamp and were written like they were speaking in eighteen
twenty two, among other things.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
So just to pause on this, she's saying the text
messages would were fake between Robinson and his alleged lover,
and that would require that the Utah state authorities, the governors,
the prosecutors, everyone, as well as the local police and
the FBI, headed up by friends of Charlie kirk so
(27:53):
Cash battel over there and Dan Bongino is the deputy,
all conspired to fake text messages. I guess framing this
this Tyler Robinson person, that's an extraordinary, extraordinarily unlikely a
sequence of events that you would have so many people
in on a conspiracy, most of whom have no clear
motive for doing so or participating in it, and yet
(28:16):
nobody would leak that or anything. But clearly Candace has
done extensive research about this, knows all about it. She
would never make such an outlandish suggestion to her massive
audience without serious proof and having done the work and
fully understood. Just kidding, just kidding, listen to this next part.
Speaker 10 (28:33):
All other things there are lack of an ability to
answer any basic questions about what took place.
Speaker 9 (28:38):
Do you have any proof that messages were made up?
Speaker 10 (28:41):
Because that would be easily yeah, proven, Yeah, but they
didn't put timestamps on them, and Discord came out and
said they didn't exist.
Speaker 9 (28:47):
This was supposedly text messages, not Discord messages. It's my
understanding from the indictment.
Speaker 10 (28:52):
I actually did not read that they were text messages.
Speaker 9 (28:55):
The indictment caused them text messages, messages?
Speaker 2 (28:59):
What would it be? I'm sorry, this is shocking. She
thinks they were Discord messages. She had already done at
this point, whole hour long shows deep diving into this case,
suggesting was framed, suggesting that the messages were fake. Had
she even read the indictment, Because I did, and I
(29:21):
went back and looked at it, and it's very clear
these are text messages, not Discord messages, text messages, But
she doesn't know that in this interview. How are you
going to make these elaborate extraordinary claims and not even
due due diligence or basic research and reading, and familiarize
yourself with the facts of this case and the fact
(29:42):
that there are not timestamps associated with them. That is
for presentation purposes in an indictment, so they are easier
to follow and not confusing. But in the actual court case,
all of this metadata and information will and probably already
has been I don't know, but if not, it will
be and over to the defense team and they will
have the opportunity to independently verify and scrutinize all of
(30:05):
the evidence against their client, including these text messages, including
by bringing out in their own analysts and experts to
put them under the microscope and make sure they are real.
So the idea that they would be fabricated and therefore
that will never come out and the FBI will just
get away with that. Obviously not you can't just do
(30:26):
that and then present them in court and have that
not come out and not be revealed. But Kandace doesn't care.
She doesn't know what she's talking about. She's just spewing
wild conspiracies and with grave allegations of people inside TPUSA
betraying their dear friend, with no care for the facts,
with very sloppy minimum research, and fundamentally, she just does
(30:46):
this because it feels. It's all about how it just feels.
It feels fake and gay, is what she always says,
which is so wild. But it's just a vibe to her.
And I'm sorry, but when we're talking about life and
death and we're talking about a Q seeing people of
serious crimes against their loved ones, you've got to have
a little bit more than vibes to go off of,
and you have to do your freaking research. And she
(31:08):
clearly hasn't and hadn't even weeks after Charlie's death, and
after she had done so many videos already to her
millions and millions and millions of viewers and listeners across
the world. Yikes, major yikes. Let's listen to the rest
of this clip.
Speaker 9 (31:23):
What would it be like like like the Feds are
like on a computer, like yeah, being in out back
And that's.
Speaker 10 (31:28):
Exactly what it is. The FEDS made up the text messages.
Speaker 9 (31:31):
But you don't have anyone from like the FBI telling
you that or I have weeks Okay, has anyone leaked.
Speaker 10 (31:37):
To you and Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 9 (31:39):
Has anyone said to you, even off the record, like yeah,
we faked these.
Speaker 10 (31:44):
I have very strong sources everywhere on both sides.
Speaker 9 (31:49):
Well, I look forward to seeing evidence.
Speaker 10 (31:51):
Yeah, sure, because when we see keep talking about evidence,
it's like, who's going to present that evidence? Like the
mainstream media like, who are you expecting to go out story? Now,
it wouldn't be.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
It wouldn't be.
Speaker 9 (32:01):
It wouldn't be if the FBI. Like if I had
a source telling me, like, if I had proof that
the FBI faked those messages, they'll be an enormous story.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (32:11):
I kind of feel like we live in a post
Epstein world and we know how stories get shut down.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
I have sources, trust me, Bro, I have lots of
high level, important sources on both sides. You have no
sources telling you these messages are fake, and if you did,
you would say so, Yes. I have sources inside the
FBI telling me the messages are fake and that they
concocted them, and that they got the governor of Utah
and the local police and the cash would tell and
(32:39):
all these people to participate through this. You got nothing
and you're just saying trust me, Bro, No, one's going
to trust you on this, especially when you're not even
familiar with the basic facts of this case. And it
really does come down to feelings over facts. With Candae,
listen to this, just a slight little montage of some
moments with her, where she makes it pretty clear it's
about feelings and vibes. What I do know is.
Speaker 11 (33:02):
We're not getting the full story because I just spiritually
know that more people are involved. Okay, so I would
discern that we are looking just vibe again. Two different
people would be my thing. Two different people. I think
the person in the maroon that's walking is different from
(33:23):
the person that's walking up the stairs. It's a gut thing.
Speaker 10 (33:26):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
I don't know no, but I know. Okay, I don't
know no, but I know. We don't know no, but
we know. Sorry, Candace, that's not going to cut it here.
You cannot make outlandish and grave and extreme allegations and
theories and push them to millions of people when you
haven't done your due diligence. You're incredibly sloppy and you're
(33:49):
just going off vibes and trust me, Bro, that is
wildly irresponsible use of your platform. And it is not
even anything closely resembling journalism or responsible political commentary. It's
Alex Jones with more polish and charisma. That's it. It's
I mean, it's really not too dissimilar from the kind
(34:11):
of lies he told about Sandy Hook and other things,
where it's just outlandish conspiracies with no basis in reality
that caused people real human suffering. Right, what do you
think it must be like to be one of these
TPUSA executives hounded with harassment because people think they betrayed
and murdered their friend fore with no evidence behind that.
And also you can monetize it and draw attention to
(34:33):
yourself and make it about you. It's really sickening stuff.
But of course Candace is the real victim here and
CNN did her dirty except they didn't at all, and
she's lying again. Let's look at this. So Candace tweeted
after this dispute that quote, my Siena interview was booked
(34:53):
before Charlie died, and it was related to my book launch.
That's true. We kept the interview, which took place about
twenty days after he had passed, and we told them
in writing multiple times that I wanted no questions about Charlie.
Despite this, CNN with CNN and violated our request and
asked about him once Cam was we're rolling so a
couple things here. This actually isn't true, But even if
(35:14):
it was, that's not really how interviews work. You could
request that certain topics not be asked about, but they
don't have to do that, and it's not a reasonable
request because it's not like she was quietly mourning. She
was doing our two hour livestream episodes about Charlie Kirk's killing.
(35:34):
Yet you're gonna sit for an interview and you can't
be asked about it. You don't really get to do that.
You don't really get to put multi hour podcasts out
commenting on this and then be like I don't want
to talk about it, it's too soon. That doesn't add up,
like no, you can't do that. And then the crazy
thing about this is it's literally not true. So the
(35:55):
journalist CNN l Reeve posted an email receipt and wrote
for clarity Owens via her representative did agree to talk
about Charlie Kirk before our interview, and this shows that
Candacee's representative says, thank you, so long as Charlie is
discussed in a tasteful way. That's fine, I understand you
have to ask. I would just keep it to one
(36:16):
or two questions about his passing. She's still mourning, so
it's a sensitive topic. So they actually did agree to
talk about it. So she just lied on social media again,
nuking her credibility into the sun once more. And it's
a sensitive topic, she's still mourning. Even that is kind
of bullshit because she's doing entire podcast episodes spewing conspiracies
(36:40):
about it and opining on it. So then to say, oh,
I don't really want to talk about it in this
interview it's too sensitive. I'm mourning is bullshit. You can't
have it both ways. If she truly was mourning and
not talking about it and processing, I would respect that,
and I think most journalists would. But you can't be
doing that and then claim but you can't bring that
(37:00):
up if you do an interview. No, I'm sorry. That's
not how journalism works. That's not how media works. And
then to lie about it is just once again proving
that she is not a reliable narrator of her own life,
let alone of news and the most important and grave
things happening in our world today. But Candice is charismatic,
she's entertaining, and yeah, sure she might be totally divorced
from reality and fundamentally dishonest, but hey, she's entertaining and
(37:25):
beautiful and fun to listen to. And I guess that's
all people care about these days. But if you ask me,
that is actually bleak. That people don't care if somebody
repeatedly lies to them, don't care if somebody is incredibly
sloppy with their basic research and fact finding, as long
as they're entertaining. That's a bleak place for the American
(37:47):
media landscape to be at. But hey, it's where we are,
and all I can do is give you my honest
take on it. What do you guys think? Let me
know in the comments, make sure you're subscribed. In all that,
I have a clot of booting
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com