August 13, 2025 • 30 mins
TikTok stars and their fans are melting down after the Trump administration featured clips of them in an Instagram meme. Is this really an authoritarian tactic? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, an MSNBC anchor goes on an insane rant about crime in Washington, D.C., and a right-wing Newsmax anchor goes viral for a creepy monologue about sorority girls.
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):
Do you mean the White House just posted me on Instagram?
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Hey, so the official White House Instagram page has officially
doxed TikTokers.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Another day, another TikTok meltdown, this time over a meme.
We're gonna break this down, plus so much more in
today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily
show where we take on the craziest ideas from across
(00:32):
the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from an
independent perspective. Up first, guys, we're going to talk about
a kind of funny but kind of bizarre story where
some influencers on TikTok are very upset because the Trump
White House's official Instagram account used their meltdown videos from
after his election in an Instagram video. It's a wild story,
(00:58):
and we're going to start with a video from a
man named tweet Boozy Chase, who posted a now infamous
video of him screaming, crashing out over Trump's election that
was then used in a meme video that I will
show you in a little bit by the White House
Instagram and he is freaking out over it, as are
(01:20):
many of his followers. So let's look at this video
from him.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Do you mean the White House just posted me on Instagram.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
He seems stable, Like, why are you sobbing over an
Instagram video?
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Now?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
The comments on this actually got on hinch. I'll read
you a couple here. One person said, folks, this is dangerous.
They are exposing critics of the government, making them fair
game for dosing threats, etc. This is a very modern
day dictator way of handling their critics. What you posted
(02:02):
a public video seeking to get as many people to
view it as possible, and then they included it in
a compilation without any identifiers that they you wow, he
wrote the actual creator. The fact that they are using
my content that should scare the f out of y'all,
(02:22):
regardless if you like me or not. Why why should
that scare us that they used your content? I'm not
feeling scared. Are you guys scared by that? I'm I'm not.
Another person said, can't you sue them for using your
video without your consent? Which the creator liked that comment.
(02:46):
Spoiler alert, You cannot, in fact see them. When you
post content on the Internet, people are allowed under fair
use to include it, especially short snippets of it, in
transformative works with commentary or criticism or mockery or parody,
and so the White House is used here is entirely legal.
(03:09):
You would have no recourse whatsoever to sue them over this.
But I shouldn't be expecting TikTokers to know things. Now,
I'm going to show you, guys, this actual Instagram video
that has these people so concerned about like sliding into
dictatorship because they used you and a meme. Prepare to
(03:29):
be underwhelmed. Take a look at this.
Speaker 5 (03:32):
What you're about to see is the screen recording that
I took myself up the White House page on Instagram,
boxing its own citizens for speaking against its own government.
(04:01):
What do you guys think of that? Leave your comments
down below.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
So for audio listeners who can't see this, person showed
the White House video, which is like a ten second
video or whatever, and it's a compilation of people screaming
and crying about Trump being elected, like young people mostly,
and then the text on screen says, they don't know
it yet, but America Trump is making America better for them,
their kids and their grandkids. That's it. Did I miss
(04:27):
the part where people got doxed? Like words used to
have meanings, guys, They used to mean something. The dictionary
used to exist as a connoncept, but it is increasingly
just being nuked and violated every day. Doxing refers to
the leaking of private information online. So if somebody takes
a public figure and posts their phone number and their
(04:49):
home address on the Internet, that would be considered doxing.
You're telling me circulating videos people published of themselves that
went viral in a meme is docs. No, it is not.
You are not dosing critics. They are the same way
that if I go on television and I say something
(05:09):
critical of Trump, which I've done, and he splices me
up into one of his commercials, which he hasn't done,
but he could and has done for many other people,
that wouldn't be doxing. That's just them using footage that
I chose to make public. Same time, every time you
hit some post on TikTok, you're acting like they sent
in drones to record you in your home. What no
(05:30):
you chose to upload? How am I supposed to feel
bad for y'all? I don't understand. Now, Listen, we could
have a conversation about whether the White House should be
posting memes. I would like to live in a world
where just the government was more serious than it is.
But I think it's actually fair given the state of
our political discourse and the low level of engagement in
(05:52):
Like people don't read things, people don't follow news, They
get their news and their information on social media. I
do think it is fair that it would engage in
the means and the kind of this low level of
engagement in political discourse. I don't love it. It's not
my ideal world, but I totally get why they do it.
I would probably advise the same thing if I was
(06:12):
working in communications for a politician or an elected official. Now,
this overreaction, though, is kind of wild. Now let's go
back to the original guy, This Chase guy who crashed out.
He posted a longer video talking about how mortified he
is by this apparently traumatic experience of being put in
a meme. Let's take a look, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
In a shocking turn of events, today, Chase has now
ratioed the White House. Well, yes, folks, you heard that right.
Chase has officially ratioed the White House. This comes directly
after they have stolen his content from TikTok and posted
it with a politically charged caption. Onto it.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
Wow, this just in.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
We're getting some reports there might be some suspicions that
the White House social media account is run by a
fifteen year old. Is that really a surprise? A fifteen
year old in the White House? And now for the
man of the hour, y'all, thank you, thank you, thank you? Wow?
What do I say? Bingo card insane? Let's see two truths.
(07:18):
One lie always going to win it. And well, I'd
like to thank the Loraxe. I'd like to thank Concrete
and Hydrogen. But on a serious note, thank you guys
so much for steiking out for me. I really really
really appreciate it. And it's been a very very weird
and very scary day for me. But I'm here and
(07:39):
I thank you guys.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Some weird stuff in there I don't really know how
to unpack, like the Lora Axe or concrete or whatever.
And listen, I don't blame Burrow for getting his bag
and like cashing in on the moment of being featured
in a White House compilation. I guess that's like a
moment for you. You want to make some tiktoks about it, okay,
Like that's fine and get some money out of it.
(08:03):
Whatever They didn't steal your TikTok. That's not true. They
used like two seconds of footage in a compilation to
satirize you. That is totally legal, fair use of copyright.
And you just don't know how you should know how
these things work as a content creator, So I don't
appreciate that, but that's fine. And I also don't know
what it means how you ratioed them. I don't really
(08:25):
think that's true, but whatever. Lean in. What is strange
to me is the way that a lot of people
on the Internet seem to think that the Trump administration
has like done something to target their critics with this.
And what's crazy is like Trump administration actually has gone
after some of their critics in ways I don't support,
like some of the retaliatory actions that they've taken against
(08:49):
law firms that represent Democrats and other things like that.
But then you just have them including your TikTok for
two seconds in a compilation meme. That's not a hate crime,
like you, you're not like in frank Because of that,
they're acting like they're the new Rosa Parks of TikTok.
(09:10):
I find it diabolical. Here's another video of someone unironically
claiming that these people were dockxed.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Hey, so the official White House Instagram page has officially
doxed TikTokers, you know, citizens, regular everyday people.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And they docs, Uh said TikTokers because said TikTokers voice
their opinion about the administration, which I thought fell under
free speech in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
Right, And I know the Trumpers are going to come
into this conversation like, well, you know, TikTokers, they be
doxing each other all the time, maybe docsing White Mega
people for losing, you know, for saying racist stuff and
reporting their job. You cannot compare regular ass citizens to
the government.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
That much power, that much influence.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
And then you got a crazed ass fan base like
Mega and you post that that is extremely irresponsible. If
you can't take criticism, do not run for office of
any government in.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
The United States of America period.
Speaker 7 (10:19):
I am shocked and appalled that the White House would
do that.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
You just literally put a.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Bullseye on their back.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
They are allowed to criticize you. So I just I
found this absurd. Again, no one was docs. They reposted
things you posted publicly. There's no private information being shared.
If the White House was really like putting names and
like putting spotlighting random TikTokers, I could see that as
a problem. They just included you in a meme for
(10:47):
two seconds with no not even identifiable information, really, so
I don't buy that for a second. I don't think
this guy knows what free speech means, because they didn't
violate your free speech by mocking you. That's their own
free speech. These people engaged in free speech by posting
themselves sighing, sobbing and crashing out after Trump won in November,
(11:11):
and now the White House is engaging in their free
speech by mocking them and talking about how they're making
America great again. You don't have to like it, but like,
that's not an attack on free speech, and it also
doesn't place a bull's eye on anyone. That's not true. That, Like,
there is really no reason to believe that the White
House is in any way calling for violence against anyone
(11:33):
just because they're poking fun at TikTok crashouts. And I'm sorry,
if we're going to talk about people suggesting violence, there
are a lot more TikTokers suggesting violence towards Trump. Then
there are people being, you know, calling for violence in
this Instagram video on the White House because there are
zero like, there was no nothing violent about it whatsoever.
(11:54):
It's actually wholesome, or at least it's going for a
wholesome vibe trying to say like, you hate us, but
we're helping you, and you don't realize it, so you
hallucinated that. And the ironic part of it is that
the truth is actually the opposite of what this dude
just sets, So that actually makes it pretty power for
the course for TikTok. But what do you guys think?
(12:15):
Are you scandalized by the White House's use of these
tiktoker's videos and this meme? I personally am not, but
you'll have to let me know what you think in
the comments below. Make sure subscribe if you already hit
that like button. While you're at it, remember to sending
your voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes where I react
to your woe car stories, give you advice on personal
life scenarios, or answer any questions you have for me.
(12:37):
The link to send in one of those is in
the description. Up next, We've got to check in with
MSNBC because some of their anchors are not coping.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
Well.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Basically, the context here is that Trump, the Trump administration
took a pretty controversial move. They federalized to the police
in Washington, DC and took control of it, which they
have the legal authority to do, but is definitely a
controversial thing. And they're taking over law enforcement in the
District of Columbia, directing it under Attorney General Pam Bondi
(13:09):
because of what they say are really unacceptably high levels
of crime in DC. And as a former resident of DC,
I can tell you it is not the safest city
in a number of ways. But well, we'll talk about
more of that. We're going to discuss a clip of
Simone Sanders, who I believe used to work for Biden,
but she is a Democrat and she is a MSNBC
(13:29):
anchor talking about this move and saying some eyebrow raising things.
Let's take a listen to a clip of her on
Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough. You don't think more police
make streets safer, No, Joe.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
I'm a black woman in America. I do not always
think that more police make streets safer. When you walk
down the streets of Georgetown. You don't see a police
officer on every corner, but you don't feel unsafe. So
what is it about talking about places like Southeast DC
right if you will, that people say, well, we need
more officers to make us safe. I think we have
to rethink what safety means in America.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I'm sorry what there is so much to unpack here.
We actually don't need to rethink what safety means in America.
We know what it means. It means not getting murdered
and not getting carjacked, both of which are serious problems
in Washington, DC and have significantly higher crime rates than
(14:28):
other major US cities like New York City, for example.
And you being a black woman is not relevant to
your take or analysis here. There are many black women
in America who want more police in their community, not less.
Why can't you just speak for yourself rather than suggest
that your demographic boxes somehow determine your worldview or your
(14:49):
position on this political development. That's really the kind of
toxic identity politics I think most Americans are just about
fed up with. And as for the question of why
is Georgetown treated differently than other parts of DC viewed
as less safe because it literally is she's trying to
make this a race thing. She's trying to say that
in Georgetown they're more white people, and that in Ward
(15:11):
eight and other parts of the city there are more
black people, which is true, but that's not the reason
it's less safe or and that's not the reason that
police resources may be funneled into those areas. It's because
there's literally more crime there. I don't know what to
tell you, these are just the facts. The conservative scholar
Delano Squires pointed out USA Today reporting and said the
reason at Simone Sanders, the reason there are far more
(15:32):
police in Ward eight than Georgetown is because sixty percent
of the city's homicides occur east of Anacostia. The USA
Today reporting linked here says specifically that violent crime in
Washington is highest in Ward eight, the southeastern corner of
the city. So the reason they might send more police
there is not because they're racist and because there's black
(15:53):
people there. It's because there's more violent crime there. Like,
I don't know how to tell you this, And in fact,
there's an argument that you will better help the minority
residents of those areas by cracking down on that crime
and sending more police there, even though I would acknowledge
that like more police presence does mean maybe there's a
higher chance of police brutality or other violations. We talk
(16:15):
about that. But at the end of the day, this
is not some racist crackdown. In fact, it is people
of color who are disproportionally the victims of this kind
of crime. But actually, we should talk about this. It's
a real problem. It's affected some I used to live
in DC. I know so many people that do still
live in DC. It is a very real problem. Now
a lot of democratic officials and liberal media commentators are
(16:37):
pointing to the fact that year over year crime is
down in DC and they're saying, look, it's actually this
is a fake issue. There are some problems with that. One,
the murder rate is still unusually high in DC compared
to other places like New York City, unacceptably high. Carjacking
rates still very high, and those numbers that show it
(16:59):
coming down a relative and they're relative to a baseline
that I think is unacceptably high for most people. Also,
we have to talk about the fact that a lot
of the crime goes unreported, so it's not captured in
these statistics. And then actually they've had major scandals with
police officials in DC fudging the numbers anyway to try
to cover up how bad it actually is. So I
(17:20):
do look as scance at some of that data anyway,
and I really don't think that democratic officials or liberal
media personalities, I don't think they do even their own
side of this argument in any service by like mocking
or downplaying the reality of crime in DC. But that's
kind of what Simone Sanders did in this other clip.
Take a look at that.
Speaker 8 (17:40):
It is perceived violence amplified by some actual, real acts
of violence. But the way I've heard DC being described
this morning is like it's a city under siege, Like
it's a dangerous place, clutching your pearls, you got to
keep your bag under your dress when you leave the house,
And that's that's just not true. What we are talking about, though,
(18:01):
is these instances of juvenile crime. That is what Janine
Piro came to the White House Press briefing yesterday and
zeroed in on one. I was surprised I didn't hear
Brian Schwab talk more about it. He mentioned the juvenile
courts and the judges. But my concern is that the
president is using instances of juvenile crime in the city
(18:22):
of Washington, d C. As a pretext for what I
would describe as his authoritarian overreach.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
So I really found this clip gross because it seems
like she is mocking and belittling people who have concerns
about violent crime or being robbed in DC. It's a
real issue. You might disagree with Trump's solution taking federalizing
and taking over the DC Police Department, putting Pambondi in charge.
Whether that's an overreach, we can absolutely debate. But mocking
(18:50):
people who are concerned about this is despicable to me, honestly,
because I know many many people who have personally been victimized.
I knew acquaintances and staffers who were brutally randomly attacked
in DC. Like this is a real problem. People do
not feel safe there in comparison to five or ten
(19:11):
years ago, prior to the pandemic, especially, and we should
acknowledge that and then have a productive conversation about whether
what Trump is doing is okay or not. But like,
you don't have to actually do this, You don't have
to belittle people's concerns like this or mock them. Oh
clutching my pearls. In fact, it discredits you. And I
(19:31):
thought that was a really, really gross clip and shows
you how out of touch liberal elites can be on
these kinds of issues. Because I'm sure that Simone Sanders
when MSNBC sends a car to take her to the
airport and drives her through the city, I'm sure she
feels very comfortable. My friends who take the subway, my
young female friends in and out of Capitol Hill, they
don't feel so safe, actually, And I've had many horrible experiences,
(19:53):
so I really really don't like that. I do want
to play another clip. This is from another ms NBC analyst,
Anthony Coley, who actually did make some sense.
Speaker 9 (20:04):
And I live in Washington. This is personal for me.
Many people are frustrated with crime that we see, particularly
committed by juveniles in the in the city of Washington.
People are frustrated really that they when they go to
CBS to buy deodorant, that they have to get it
(20:25):
from behind lot plexiglass.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Right.
Speaker 9 (20:29):
But the response here, and you know, let me say this, right,
this is not these are not just random anadotes. What
we see in Washington Post polling, among others, is that
roughly half of DC residents, mostly half of DC repid
view this as a serious problem or an extremely serious problem.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Notice how he didn't start his commentary with well as
a black man, because when you actually have facts or
data on your side, you don't need to do that simone.
I'm still not over that. I thought he made sense here.
I think it's true. People really do bristle at this idea.
This shoplifting is so common and so tolerated in some
of these cities that you need to get a clerk
(21:09):
to unlock a toothbrush and then they'll tell you all
the stats are down. Shoplifting isn't a big issue. A
lot of it goes unreported. It does. I'm sorry. It's
simply the truth, and people can see it and feel
it all around them. Again, I am entirely open to
the idea that what Trump is doing is not justified.
But do not downplay the fact that DC has a
(21:31):
crime problem. You just sound out of touch and ridiculous.
Now that said, I think the argument is more so
that what Trump is doing it may honestly crack down
on crime. You just have all these federal law enforcement
and actually the National Guard just standing around that may
have an effect on reducing crime. I'm not sure it's
(21:52):
the greatest look for our capital, but I mean, okay,
but the real underlying cause of DC's crime problem, from
what I have seen, is actually a lack of prosecuting criminals.
Shocker that when you don't prosecute criminals, that they continue
to offend, and that people creates a culture of lawlessness
where then people continue to commit crimes. I don't know
(22:14):
who could have possibly predicted that, but I want to
read from this interesting article on Reason dot com what
caused the DC crime wave. Don't blame criminal justice reform
or a lack of social spending for DC's crime spike.
Blame government mismanagement. And this is by Joe bis Bishop
Henchman and is from the July twenty twenty four issue
of Reason magazine. So they were talking about this before
(22:36):
all this controversy went down. He writes, in the first
decade of the two thousands, the US Attorney for DC
prosecuted more than seventy percent of arrests. In twenty sixteen,
the percentage began to slide downward, falling below fifty percent
in twenty twenty one and hitting thirty three percent in
twenty twenty two, after some attention was drawn to the decline,
(22:57):
the number recovered a bit to a still low forty
four percent, and in twenty twenty three. Felony prosecutions fell
from more than eighty percent to about fifty percent in
twenty twenty two, then rose to sixty percent in twenty
twenty three. The US declined to prosecute fifty eight percent
of all arrests for theft in twenty twenty one and
twenty twenty two, which quote undermined the certainty of punishment
(23:21):
for theft in DC. And he shows in that article
that similarly sized cities have much higher rates of prosecution.
And what's interesting is that this is actually not something
because this is under federal control. The US Attorney for DC,
not something the local government is responsible for. It's actually
a federal appointee. So that would have been a Biden
(23:42):
appointee when all this went down. That bears a lot
of the blame for this, And there are some reasons
why this rate fell down. Part of it is kind
of the BLM attitudes and progressive thinking on criminal justice,
but then part of it was logistical issues, like the
fact that they did not have a functioning forensic lab
wh made it hard to prosecute cases because they had
(24:02):
a whole issue with their lab in DC and they
had to outsource it to another lab, and it created
this big backlog, and Trump's takeover won't do anything to
fix that. So there are underlying issues here. But you
have to prosecute the criminals that people that steal stuff
and hurt people and put them away and send a
message that if you do that, you'll get caught and
you'll go to jail, and if you don't, you'll have
(24:24):
a crime issue in your city. And even if stats
relatively fall, you still might have a crime issue. And
people have a very low tolerance for crime because it
is so harmful and so corrosive and so destructive and
so chilling to people at their fundamental core that they
might walk down the street and just not be safe.
That when you do allow this kind of thing to happen,
(24:46):
you will get strong overreactions or overaction corrections, and people
will support it and cheer it. So I am not
necessarily convinced that this is a good idea what Trump
is doing, but I will tell you right now, it's
not going to play poorly for him. Lots of Americans
will look at that and go, yeah, sounds about right
or long overdue, and makes sense when you look at
(25:09):
how we got here and the fact that people's response
on the left, some of some people at least, is
to sneer at them and mock them for being concerned
about crime and DC. Really, really, that's where we're at.
Other than that, great job, Simonton Sanders, what do you
guys think? Let me know in the comments, especially DC residents.
I want to hear from you guys the most. Hit
(25:30):
that leg button and make sure you're subscribed if you
aren't yet. Okay, one final item we're going to talk about.
This is just one of the cringiest right wing television
segments I've seen in a long time, and it is
about sorority girls, which, as you must know, have been
were made illegal under Joe Biden's presidency. But they're back.
(25:53):
America is back under Trump, and we have hot sorority
girls doing TikTok dances once again. And this guy, Rob
Finnerty I think is his name, just dedicated an entire
monologue on Newsmax to America being back and sorority girls
dancing again because of President Trump. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10 (26:16):
Over the last few weeks, students are heading back to college,
particularly in the South. They start early down there, and
one of the great American traditions for female college students
is rushing a sorority. They don't do this in China,
they don't do this in Russia, they don't do this
in Namibia. They do it in America. And that should
be okay. It should be okay to celebrate things that
are uniquely American. But over the past several years, we
(26:39):
haven't done that. We've been scared, scared of the backlash,
scared of who we might offend. We've been told that
what you're seeing here is wrong. We were told there
wasn't enough diversity in all these videos. But all that
is changing, and it's changing because of what happened in November.
What you're looking at are sorority sisters competing with other
sororities at other schools all over the country making these
(27:02):
videos to try and attract new members. This fall. It
started at just one college sisters choreograph a dance, and
now it's a trend that has only grown from there
to dozens of colleges. You can't watch these videos without
smiling and maybe wishing that you were in college, maybe
wishing that this could be you again, and that should
be oh kay. After four years of Joe Biden and
(27:26):
DEI and tremendous reverse discrimination, especially against white people, especially
against white men, fun is back. When people say America
is healing, they're typically talking about the border being closed,
or inflation coming down, or common sense coming back to
the culture. And it's all of that, But more than anything,
it's things like okay.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Still, Rob seems a little too excited. He seems to
really be enjoying these videos of sorority girls girls and
listen to each their own I am not going to
judge him for that browser history, but I don't think
this needed to be a group experience, a television monologue.
(28:12):
How much he loves watching sorority girls. And I am
very sympathetic to a lot of the right wing criticisms
of DEI, of Joe Biden, of all of this. But
can we not like hallucinate, can we not pretend that
this was illegal. Sorority girls have been doing TikTok dances
(28:32):
throughout the last five years. They did it in twenty
twenty three, and they did it in twenty twenty four,
and they have done it again in twenty twenty five.
Rush season didn't like disappear Underbiden because fun became illegal,
And you just kind of sound silly when you suggest
otherwise like this. I mean, maybe there were definitely some
(28:53):
like outrageous or ridiculous meltdowns over not enough diversity or whatever.
But I even texted my sister who in Greek life,
and I was like, and just recently graduated from college
not very long ago. I was like, was this not
a thing under Biden? She's like, what, No, they always
do this, this is not new, Like, I'm not exactly
the world's expert in sorority girls. It sounds like Rob
(29:15):
here has more experience in the subject than me. But
this might be a slight overreaction. And it's the kind
of cartoonish culture war stuff on the right that I
think is unfortunate because it discredits and distracts from the
many very real and legitimate complaints and critiques of DEI
(29:38):
and of kind of all this toxic, woke culture. You
don't also have to be a right wing goofball about it, Like,
no one ever made sorority girls illegal. You're and maybe
maybe next time right in your diary about this rather
than sharing it with the world. Rob, What do you
(30:00):
guys think? Do you agree? Do you share Rob's affinity
for sorority girls? Let me know in the comments. Hit
that like button, make sure subscribed if you aren't all right, guys,
that'll be it for today's episode of the Brad Versus
Everyone Podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in. Remember
to send in your voicemails for my voicemail Friday episodes
and we'll talk again.
Do you mean the White House just posted me on Instagram?
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Hey, so the official White House Instagram page has officially
doxed TikTokers.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Another day, another TikTok meltdown, this time over a meme.
We're gonna break this down, plus so much more in
today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily
show where we take on the craziest ideas from across
(00:32):
the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from an
independent perspective. Up first, guys, we're going to talk about
a kind of funny but kind of bizarre story where
some influencers on TikTok are very upset because the Trump
White House's official Instagram account used their meltdown videos from
after his election in an Instagram video. It's a wild story,
(00:58):
and we're going to start with a video from a
man named tweet Boozy Chase, who posted a now infamous
video of him screaming, crashing out over Trump's election that
was then used in a meme video that I will
show you in a little bit by the White House
Instagram and he is freaking out over it, as are
(01:20):
many of his followers. So let's look at this video
from him.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Do you mean the White House just posted me on Instagram.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
He seems stable, Like, why are you sobbing over an
Instagram video?
Speaker 4 (01:38):
Now?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
The comments on this actually got on hinch. I'll read
you a couple here. One person said, folks, this is dangerous.
They are exposing critics of the government, making them fair
game for dosing threats, etc. This is a very modern
day dictator way of handling their critics. What you posted
(02:02):
a public video seeking to get as many people to
view it as possible, and then they included it in
a compilation without any identifiers that they you wow, he
wrote the actual creator. The fact that they are using
my content that should scare the f out of y'all,
(02:22):
regardless if you like me or not. Why why should
that scare us that they used your content? I'm not
feeling scared. Are you guys scared by that? I'm I'm not.
Another person said, can't you sue them for using your
video without your consent? Which the creator liked that comment.
(02:46):
Spoiler alert, You cannot, in fact see them. When you
post content on the Internet, people are allowed under fair
use to include it, especially short snippets of it, in
transformative works with commentary or criticism or mockery or parody,
and so the White House is used here is entirely legal.
(03:09):
You would have no recourse whatsoever to sue them over this.
But I shouldn't be expecting TikTokers to know things. Now,
I'm going to show you, guys, this actual Instagram video
that has these people so concerned about like sliding into
dictatorship because they used you and a meme. Prepare to
(03:29):
be underwhelmed. Take a look at this.
Speaker 5 (03:32):
What you're about to see is the screen recording that
I took myself up the White House page on Instagram,
boxing its own citizens for speaking against its own government.
(04:01):
What do you guys think of that? Leave your comments
down below.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
So for audio listeners who can't see this, person showed
the White House video, which is like a ten second
video or whatever, and it's a compilation of people screaming
and crying about Trump being elected, like young people mostly,
and then the text on screen says, they don't know
it yet, but America Trump is making America better for them,
their kids and their grandkids. That's it. Did I miss
(04:27):
the part where people got doxed? Like words used to
have meanings, guys, They used to mean something. The dictionary
used to exist as a connoncept, but it is increasingly
just being nuked and violated every day. Doxing refers to
the leaking of private information online. So if somebody takes
a public figure and posts their phone number and their
(04:49):
home address on the Internet, that would be considered doxing.
You're telling me circulating videos people published of themselves that
went viral in a meme is docs. No, it is not.
You are not dosing critics. They are the same way
that if I go on television and I say something
(05:09):
critical of Trump, which I've done, and he splices me
up into one of his commercials, which he hasn't done,
but he could and has done for many other people,
that wouldn't be doxing. That's just them using footage that
I chose to make public. Same time, every time you
hit some post on TikTok, you're acting like they sent
in drones to record you in your home. What no
(05:30):
you chose to upload? How am I supposed to feel
bad for y'all? I don't understand. Now, Listen, we could
have a conversation about whether the White House should be
posting memes. I would like to live in a world
where just the government was more serious than it is.
But I think it's actually fair given the state of
our political discourse and the low level of engagement in
(05:52):
Like people don't read things, people don't follow news, They
get their news and their information on social media. I
do think it is fair that it would engage in
the means and the kind of this low level of
engagement in political discourse. I don't love it. It's not
my ideal world, but I totally get why they do it.
I would probably advise the same thing if I was
(06:12):
working in communications for a politician or an elected official. Now,
this overreaction, though, is kind of wild. Now let's go
back to the original guy, This Chase guy who crashed out.
He posted a longer video talking about how mortified he
is by this apparently traumatic experience of being put in
a meme. Let's take a look, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
In a shocking turn of events, today, Chase has now
ratioed the White House. Well, yes, folks, you heard that right.
Chase has officially ratioed the White House. This comes directly
after they have stolen his content from TikTok and posted
it with a politically charged caption. Onto it.
Speaker 5 (06:54):
Wow, this just in.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
We're getting some reports there might be some suspicions that
the White House social media account is run by a
fifteen year old. Is that really a surprise? A fifteen
year old in the White House? And now for the
man of the hour, y'all, thank you, thank you, thank you? Wow?
What do I say? Bingo card insane? Let's see two truths.
(07:18):
One lie always going to win it. And well, I'd
like to thank the Loraxe. I'd like to thank Concrete
and Hydrogen. But on a serious note, thank you guys
so much for steiking out for me. I really really
really appreciate it. And it's been a very very weird
and very scary day for me. But I'm here and
(07:39):
I thank you guys.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Some weird stuff in there I don't really know how
to unpack, like the Lora Axe or concrete or whatever.
And listen, I don't blame Burrow for getting his bag
and like cashing in on the moment of being featured
in a White House compilation. I guess that's like a
moment for you. You want to make some tiktoks about it, okay,
Like that's fine and get some money out of it.
(08:03):
Whatever They didn't steal your TikTok. That's not true. They
used like two seconds of footage in a compilation to
satirize you. That is totally legal, fair use of copyright.
And you just don't know how you should know how
these things work as a content creator, So I don't
appreciate that, but that's fine. And I also don't know
what it means how you ratioed them. I don't really
(08:25):
think that's true, but whatever. Lean in. What is strange
to me is the way that a lot of people
on the Internet seem to think that the Trump administration
has like done something to target their critics with this.
And what's crazy is like Trump administration actually has gone
after some of their critics in ways I don't support,
like some of the retaliatory actions that they've taken against
(08:49):
law firms that represent Democrats and other things like that.
But then you just have them including your TikTok for
two seconds in a compilation meme. That's not a hate crime,
like you, you're not like in frank Because of that,
they're acting like they're the new Rosa Parks of TikTok.
(09:10):
I find it diabolical. Here's another video of someone unironically
claiming that these people were dockxed.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Hey, so the official White House Instagram page has officially
doxed TikTokers, you know, citizens, regular everyday people.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And they docs, Uh said TikTokers because said TikTokers voice
their opinion about the administration, which I thought fell under
free speech in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
Right, And I know the Trumpers are going to come
into this conversation like, well, you know, TikTokers, they be
doxing each other all the time, maybe docsing White Mega
people for losing, you know, for saying racist stuff and
reporting their job. You cannot compare regular ass citizens to
the government.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
That much power, that much influence.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
And then you got a crazed ass fan base like
Mega and you post that that is extremely irresponsible. If
you can't take criticism, do not run for office of
any government in.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
The United States of America period.
Speaker 7 (10:19):
I am shocked and appalled that the White House would
do that.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
You just literally put a.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Bullseye on their back.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
They are allowed to criticize you. So I just I
found this absurd. Again, no one was docs. They reposted
things you posted publicly. There's no private information being shared.
If the White House was really like putting names and
like putting spotlighting random TikTokers, I could see that as
a problem. They just included you in a meme for
(10:47):
two seconds with no not even identifiable information, really, so
I don't buy that for a second. I don't think
this guy knows what free speech means, because they didn't
violate your free speech by mocking you. That's their own
free speech. These people engaged in free speech by posting
themselves sighing, sobbing and crashing out after Trump won in November,
(11:11):
and now the White House is engaging in their free
speech by mocking them and talking about how they're making
America great again. You don't have to like it, but like,
that's not an attack on free speech, and it also
doesn't place a bull's eye on anyone. That's not true. That, Like,
there is really no reason to believe that the White
House is in any way calling for violence against anyone
(11:33):
just because they're poking fun at TikTok crashouts. And I'm sorry,
if we're going to talk about people suggesting violence, there
are a lot more TikTokers suggesting violence towards Trump. Then
there are people being, you know, calling for violence in
this Instagram video on the White House because there are
zero like, there was no nothing violent about it whatsoever.
(11:54):
It's actually wholesome, or at least it's going for a
wholesome vibe trying to say like, you hate us, but
we're helping you, and you don't realize it, so you
hallucinated that. And the ironic part of it is that
the truth is actually the opposite of what this dude
just sets, So that actually makes it pretty power for
the course for TikTok. But what do you guys think?
(12:15):
Are you scandalized by the White House's use of these
tiktoker's videos and this meme? I personally am not, but
you'll have to let me know what you think in
the comments below. Make sure subscribe if you already hit
that like button. While you're at it, remember to sending
your voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes where I react
to your woe car stories, give you advice on personal
life scenarios, or answer any questions you have for me.
(12:37):
The link to send in one of those is in
the description. Up next, We've got to check in with
MSNBC because some of their anchors are not coping.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
Well.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Basically, the context here is that Trump, the Trump administration
took a pretty controversial move. They federalized to the police
in Washington, DC and took control of it, which they
have the legal authority to do, but is definitely a
controversial thing. And they're taking over law enforcement in the
District of Columbia, directing it under Attorney General Pam Bondi
(13:09):
because of what they say are really unacceptably high levels
of crime in DC. And as a former resident of DC,
I can tell you it is not the safest city
in a number of ways. But well, we'll talk about
more of that. We're going to discuss a clip of
Simone Sanders, who I believe used to work for Biden,
but she is a Democrat and she is a MSNBC
(13:29):
anchor talking about this move and saying some eyebrow raising things.
Let's take a listen to a clip of her on
Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough. You don't think more police
make streets safer, No, Joe.
Speaker 8 (13:46):
I'm a black woman in America. I do not always
think that more police make streets safer. When you walk
down the streets of Georgetown. You don't see a police
officer on every corner, but you don't feel unsafe. So
what is it about talking about places like Southeast DC
right if you will, that people say, well, we need
more officers to make us safe. I think we have
to rethink what safety means in America.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I'm sorry what there is so much to unpack here.
We actually don't need to rethink what safety means in America.
We know what it means. It means not getting murdered
and not getting carjacked, both of which are serious problems
in Washington, DC and have significantly higher crime rates than
(14:28):
other major US cities like New York City, for example.
And you being a black woman is not relevant to
your take or analysis here. There are many black women
in America who want more police in their community, not less.
Why can't you just speak for yourself rather than suggest
that your demographic boxes somehow determine your worldview or your
(14:49):
position on this political development. That's really the kind of
toxic identity politics I think most Americans are just about
fed up with. And as for the question of why
is Georgetown treated differently than other parts of DC viewed
as less safe because it literally is she's trying to
make this a race thing. She's trying to say that
in Georgetown they're more white people, and that in Ward
(15:11):
eight and other parts of the city there are more
black people, which is true, but that's not the reason
it's less safe or and that's not the reason that
police resources may be funneled into those areas. It's because
there's literally more crime there. I don't know what to
tell you, these are just the facts. The conservative scholar
Delano Squires pointed out USA Today reporting and said the
reason at Simone Sanders, the reason there are far more
(15:32):
police in Ward eight than Georgetown is because sixty percent
of the city's homicides occur east of Anacostia. The USA
Today reporting linked here says specifically that violent crime in
Washington is highest in Ward eight, the southeastern corner of
the city. So the reason they might send more police
there is not because they're racist and because there's black
(15:53):
people there. It's because there's more violent crime there. Like,
I don't know how to tell you this, And in fact,
there's an argument that you will better help the minority
residents of those areas by cracking down on that crime
and sending more police there, even though I would acknowledge
that like more police presence does mean maybe there's a
higher chance of police brutality or other violations. We talk
(16:15):
about that. But at the end of the day, this
is not some racist crackdown. In fact, it is people
of color who are disproportionally the victims of this kind
of crime. But actually, we should talk about this. It's
a real problem. It's affected some I used to live
in DC. I know so many people that do still
live in DC. It is a very real problem. Now
a lot of democratic officials and liberal media commentators are
(16:37):
pointing to the fact that year over year crime is
down in DC and they're saying, look, it's actually this
is a fake issue. There are some problems with that. One,
the murder rate is still unusually high in DC compared
to other places like New York City, unacceptably high. Carjacking
rates still very high, and those numbers that show it
(16:59):
coming down a relative and they're relative to a baseline
that I think is unacceptably high for most people. Also,
we have to talk about the fact that a lot
of the crime goes unreported, so it's not captured in
these statistics. And then actually they've had major scandals with
police officials in DC fudging the numbers anyway to try
to cover up how bad it actually is. So I
(17:20):
do look as scance at some of that data anyway,
and I really don't think that democratic officials or liberal
media personalities, I don't think they do even their own
side of this argument in any service by like mocking
or downplaying the reality of crime in DC. But that's
kind of what Simone Sanders did in this other clip.
Take a look at that.
Speaker 8 (17:40):
It is perceived violence amplified by some actual, real acts
of violence. But the way I've heard DC being described
this morning is like it's a city under siege, Like
it's a dangerous place, clutching your pearls, you got to
keep your bag under your dress when you leave the house,
And that's that's just not true. What we are talking about, though,
(18:01):
is these instances of juvenile crime. That is what Janine
Piro came to the White House Press briefing yesterday and
zeroed in on one. I was surprised I didn't hear
Brian Schwab talk more about it. He mentioned the juvenile
courts and the judges. But my concern is that the
president is using instances of juvenile crime in the city
(18:22):
of Washington, d C. As a pretext for what I
would describe as his authoritarian overreach.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
So I really found this clip gross because it seems
like she is mocking and belittling people who have concerns
about violent crime or being robbed in DC. It's a
real issue. You might disagree with Trump's solution taking federalizing
and taking over the DC Police Department, putting Pambondi in charge.
Whether that's an overreach, we can absolutely debate. But mocking
(18:50):
people who are concerned about this is despicable to me, honestly,
because I know many many people who have personally been victimized.
I knew acquaintances and staffers who were brutally randomly attacked
in DC. Like this is a real problem. People do
not feel safe there in comparison to five or ten
(19:11):
years ago, prior to the pandemic, especially, and we should
acknowledge that and then have a productive conversation about whether
what Trump is doing is okay or not. But like,
you don't have to actually do this, You don't have
to belittle people's concerns like this or mock them. Oh
clutching my pearls. In fact, it discredits you. And I
(19:31):
thought that was a really, really gross clip and shows
you how out of touch liberal elites can be on
these kinds of issues. Because I'm sure that Simone Sanders
when MSNBC sends a car to take her to the
airport and drives her through the city, I'm sure she
feels very comfortable. My friends who take the subway, my
young female friends in and out of Capitol Hill, they
don't feel so safe, actually, And I've had many horrible experiences,
(19:53):
so I really really don't like that. I do want
to play another clip. This is from another ms NBC analyst,
Anthony Coley, who actually did make some sense.
Speaker 9 (20:04):
And I live in Washington. This is personal for me.
Many people are frustrated with crime that we see, particularly
committed by juveniles in the in the city of Washington.
People are frustrated really that they when they go to
CBS to buy deodorant, that they have to get it
(20:25):
from behind lot plexiglass.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Right.
Speaker 9 (20:29):
But the response here, and you know, let me say this, right,
this is not these are not just random anadotes. What
we see in Washington Post polling, among others, is that
roughly half of DC residents, mostly half of DC repid
view this as a serious problem or an extremely serious problem.
Speaker 3 (20:47):
Notice how he didn't start his commentary with well as
a black man, because when you actually have facts or
data on your side, you don't need to do that simone.
I'm still not over that. I thought he made sense here.
I think it's true. People really do bristle at this idea.
This shoplifting is so common and so tolerated in some
of these cities that you need to get a clerk
(21:09):
to unlock a toothbrush and then they'll tell you all
the stats are down. Shoplifting isn't a big issue. A
lot of it goes unreported. It does. I'm sorry. It's
simply the truth, and people can see it and feel
it all around them. Again, I am entirely open to
the idea that what Trump is doing is not justified.
But do not downplay the fact that DC has a
(21:31):
crime problem. You just sound out of touch and ridiculous.
Now that said, I think the argument is more so
that what Trump is doing it may honestly crack down
on crime. You just have all these federal law enforcement
and actually the National Guard just standing around that may
have an effect on reducing crime. I'm not sure it's
(21:52):
the greatest look for our capital, but I mean, okay,
but the real underlying cause of DC's crime problem, from
what I have seen, is actually a lack of prosecuting criminals.
Shocker that when you don't prosecute criminals, that they continue
to offend, and that people creates a culture of lawlessness
where then people continue to commit crimes. I don't know
(22:14):
who could have possibly predicted that, but I want to
read from this interesting article on Reason dot com what
caused the DC crime wave. Don't blame criminal justice reform
or a lack of social spending for DC's crime spike.
Blame government mismanagement. And this is by Joe bis Bishop
Henchman and is from the July twenty twenty four issue
of Reason magazine. So they were talking about this before
(22:36):
all this controversy went down. He writes, in the first
decade of the two thousands, the US Attorney for DC
prosecuted more than seventy percent of arrests. In twenty sixteen,
the percentage began to slide downward, falling below fifty percent
in twenty twenty one and hitting thirty three percent in
twenty twenty two, after some attention was drawn to the decline,
(22:57):
the number recovered a bit to a still low forty
four percent, and in twenty twenty three. Felony prosecutions fell
from more than eighty percent to about fifty percent in
twenty twenty two, then rose to sixty percent in twenty
twenty three. The US declined to prosecute fifty eight percent
of all arrests for theft in twenty twenty one and
twenty twenty two, which quote undermined the certainty of punishment
(23:21):
for theft in DC. And he shows in that article
that similarly sized cities have much higher rates of prosecution.
And what's interesting is that this is actually not something
because this is under federal control. The US Attorney for DC,
not something the local government is responsible for. It's actually
a federal appointee. So that would have been a Biden
(23:42):
appointee when all this went down. That bears a lot
of the blame for this, And there are some reasons
why this rate fell down. Part of it is kind
of the BLM attitudes and progressive thinking on criminal justice,
but then part of it was logistical issues, like the
fact that they did not have a functioning forensic lab
wh made it hard to prosecute cases because they had
(24:02):
a whole issue with their lab in DC and they
had to outsource it to another lab, and it created
this big backlog, and Trump's takeover won't do anything to
fix that. So there are underlying issues here. But you
have to prosecute the criminals that people that steal stuff
and hurt people and put them away and send a
message that if you do that, you'll get caught and
you'll go to jail, and if you don't, you'll have
(24:24):
a crime issue in your city. And even if stats
relatively fall, you still might have a crime issue. And
people have a very low tolerance for crime because it
is so harmful and so corrosive and so destructive and
so chilling to people at their fundamental core that they
might walk down the street and just not be safe.
That when you do allow this kind of thing to happen,
(24:46):
you will get strong overreactions or overaction corrections, and people
will support it and cheer it. So I am not
necessarily convinced that this is a good idea what Trump
is doing, but I will tell you right now, it's
not going to play poorly for him. Lots of Americans
will look at that and go, yeah, sounds about right
or long overdue, and makes sense when you look at
(25:09):
how we got here and the fact that people's response
on the left, some of some people at least, is
to sneer at them and mock them for being concerned
about crime and DC. Really, really, that's where we're at.
Other than that, great job, Simonton Sanders, what do you
guys think? Let me know in the comments, especially DC residents.
I want to hear from you guys the most. Hit
(25:30):
that leg button and make sure you're subscribed if you
aren't yet. Okay, one final item we're going to talk about.
This is just one of the cringiest right wing television
segments I've seen in a long time, and it is
about sorority girls, which, as you must know, have been
were made illegal under Joe Biden's presidency. But they're back.
(25:53):
America is back under Trump, and we have hot sorority
girls doing TikTok dances once again. And this guy, Rob
Finnerty I think is his name, just dedicated an entire
monologue on Newsmax to America being back and sorority girls
dancing again because of President Trump. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10 (26:16):
Over the last few weeks, students are heading back to college,
particularly in the South. They start early down there, and
one of the great American traditions for female college students
is rushing a sorority. They don't do this in China,
they don't do this in Russia, they don't do this
in Namibia. They do it in America. And that should
be okay. It should be okay to celebrate things that
are uniquely American. But over the past several years, we
(26:39):
haven't done that. We've been scared, scared of the backlash,
scared of who we might offend. We've been told that
what you're seeing here is wrong. We were told there
wasn't enough diversity in all these videos. But all that
is changing, and it's changing because of what happened in November.
What you're looking at are sorority sisters competing with other
sororities at other schools all over the country making these
(27:02):
videos to try and attract new members. This fall. It
started at just one college sisters choreograph a dance, and
now it's a trend that has only grown from there
to dozens of colleges. You can't watch these videos without
smiling and maybe wishing that you were in college, maybe
wishing that this could be you again, and that should
be oh kay. After four years of Joe Biden and
(27:26):
DEI and tremendous reverse discrimination, especially against white people, especially
against white men, fun is back. When people say America
is healing, they're typically talking about the border being closed,
or inflation coming down, or common sense coming back to
the culture. And it's all of that, But more than anything,
it's things like okay.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Still, Rob seems a little too excited. He seems to
really be enjoying these videos of sorority girls girls and
listen to each their own I am not going to
judge him for that browser history, but I don't think
this needed to be a group experience, a television monologue.
(28:12):
How much he loves watching sorority girls. And I am
very sympathetic to a lot of the right wing criticisms
of DEI, of Joe Biden, of all of this. But
can we not like hallucinate, can we not pretend that
this was illegal. Sorority girls have been doing TikTok dances
(28:32):
throughout the last five years. They did it in twenty
twenty three, and they did it in twenty twenty four,
and they have done it again in twenty twenty five.
Rush season didn't like disappear Underbiden because fun became illegal,
And you just kind of sound silly when you suggest
otherwise like this. I mean, maybe there were definitely some
(28:53):
like outrageous or ridiculous meltdowns over not enough diversity or whatever.
But I even texted my sister who in Greek life,
and I was like, and just recently graduated from college
not very long ago. I was like, was this not
a thing under Biden? She's like, what, No, they always
do this, this is not new, Like, I'm not exactly
the world's expert in sorority girls. It sounds like Rob
(29:15):
here has more experience in the subject than me. But
this might be a slight overreaction. And it's the kind
of cartoonish culture war stuff on the right that I
think is unfortunate because it discredits and distracts from the
many very real and legitimate complaints and critiques of DEI
(29:38):
and of kind of all this toxic, woke culture. You
don't also have to be a right wing goofball about it, Like,
no one ever made sorority girls illegal. You're and maybe
maybe next time right in your diary about this rather
than sharing it with the world. Rob, What do you
(30:00):
guys think? Do you agree? Do you share Rob's affinity
for sorority girls? Let me know in the comments. Hit
that like button, make sure subscribed if you aren't all right, guys,
that'll be it for today's episode of the Brad Versus
Everyone Podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in. Remember
to send in your voicemails for my voicemail Friday episodes
and we'll talk again.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com