June 12, 2025 • 32 mins
A prominent left-leaning Twitter influencer just got into an online feud with Vice President JD Vance... and it may end with him getting deported. Is he a victim, or did he cause his own problems? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, Democratic lawmakers play the victim in a WILD congressional hearing and engage in emotional manipulation on food stamps, and the Washington Post publishes an absurd piece claiming Trump is erasing women and minorities from American life.
Send me a voicenote: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Subscribe to my 2nd channel: https://www.youtube.com/@MoreBradPolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
If you're in America illegally, maybe don't brag about it
to your one point three million followers. We're gonna talk
about the latest wild saga involving a prominent influencer who
might have gotten himself deported, and so much more on
(00:22):
today's episode of The Bread Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily
show where we take on the craziest ideas from across
the Internet, our politics, and our media, all from an
independent perspective. Up first, like I mentioned, we're going to
talk about somebody named Derek Guy. He's known as the
Menswear Guy on Twitter or I guess it's called x now,
(00:44):
but anyway, he's built up a huge social media following
by sometimes very harshly reviewing public figures menswear, you know,
like their suits, their ties, that kind of thing. He's
been pretty big, to the point where he's even been
featured by major media outlets like Politico, and he has
over one point three million followers on x his biggest platform.
(01:06):
But he decided to use that platform in a way
that well interesting, I have to give him credit, was
not advisable and may fall into the category of playing
stupid games and winning stupid prizes. Because as anybody who's awake, right,
as anybody who hasn't been hibernating for the last year knows.
(01:27):
President Trump and his running mate JD. Vance ran on
a pretty explicit promise of mass deportation, of deporting all
illegal immigrants, not just some, not giving amnesty to some. Right,
what was traditionally the more moderate Republican position, deporting them all?
They said it over and over and over again. Well,
Derek Guya, the Menswear Guy, decided to use his platform
(01:53):
to openly talk about the fact that he's an illegal immigrant. Yeah, seriously,
that's what he did in a post on X that
we'll read. I debated whether to share my story on here,
but I guess I will. He wrote, I think there's
an idea out there that millions of violent criminals are
pouring across the border, carrying machetes and drugs, looking to
(02:14):
harm Americans. Certainly, while some people fall into that category,
the vast majority of undocumented immigrants don't. Here's where it
gets personal and why the thread went megaviral very quickly
and was quickly noticed by the drum administration. The Menswear
Guy wrote, my family escaped Vietnam after the tet offensive
and went through an arduous journey that eventually landed them
(02:37):
in Canada. My father worked there for a time as
a janitor, my mother a secretary. When work fell through,
my dad was offered to work with his sister in
the United States, so he went as our family needed money.
He ended up staying in the US longer than he
was supposed to, not knowing immigration laws, and asked my
mom to come to be with him. Of course, she
went and carried me over the border while I was
(02:59):
still a baby. So this sounds like a pretty classic
case of some types of illegal immigration, a visa overstay,
where someone comes here legally it sounds like his father did,
and then stays past the expiration of their authority to work.
And then it sounds like his mother came to the
country without permission so illegally immigrated and brought him as
(03:20):
a very young child, which is something we've talked about
in the illegal immigration debate. For the so called dreamers,
the people who were brought here when they were very
young have've only lived in America, and they're typically one
of the groups that even you know immigration hawks are
open to giving some kind of legal status to rather
than deporting them. Back to a country they barely ever
even knew. His thread continues, I'm still unsure whether we
(03:42):
technically broke an immigration law. The border between Canada and
the United States was pretty porous as it is today
for the most part. Side note, I'm pretty sure he
broke an immigration law, or at least his parents did.
I don't know if a two year old can break laws,
but either way, since I came here without legal documentation,
event actually fell into the category of being an undocumented immigrant.
(04:03):
Yet I've been in the United States since I was
a baby. My identity and roots are very much based
in this country, no different from anyone else. So he
just confessed to being an illegal immigrant to one point
three million people on Twitter and then told his story
as part of this subgroup that a lot of people
think should receive some form of amnesty, to try to
(04:25):
explain that not all illegal immigrants are what you see
talked about on Fox News. There are millions of people
in my situation, he wrote, people who were brought here
as children, some babies, and were unable to raise their
hand during this process and say maybe we should hire
a lawyer. Parents may have crossed the border not knowing
about the law, as the law can be pretty confusing
(04:46):
and lawyers are expensive. Perhaps in the end they should
have hired a lawyer, but sometimes life is messy. In
the end, they cross for the same reason many people
rise every day to support their families. Okay, so the
menswear guy, this firol and well known on Twitter account,
is just like you said, one of millions of young
people that Democrats and other immigration supporters will tout as
(05:07):
examples of the kinds of people who are technically illegal
immigrants but really didn't do a lot wrong. They couldn't
help it that they were brought here as children and
shouldn't be deported in most people's minds, because America is
really their country, even though they technically weren't born as citizens.
They raised their whole life here and they're not harming
anyone by being here. They're contributing to society, and yet
(05:29):
the Trump administration is seeking to deport some of these people.
So Democrats and opponents of the Trump administration's immigration agenda
are highlighting people like this and others like him in
press conferences and congressional testimony. Here's another example.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I'm aid In, a college student studying computer engineering and
also a doctor recipient. I've lived my entire life here
in the DMV. I came to the US when I
was around two years old. I have known no other country,
accept America as my home now.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
The menswear guy connected his personal story to a broader
argument about immigration. Here's what he wrote. I think it's
unreasonable to deport millions of people who have contributed positively
to society. It's simply not true that the majority of
these people are violent criminals carrying drugs. Many owned small businesses,
Many work as skilled laborers, including garment workers. The vast
(06:23):
majority are good, honest people. For those of us who
grew up in the United States, sending us back to
our home country would mean sending someone to a foreign
land as they grew up in the United States. Tearing
families apart based on immigration status seems inhumane. Ultimately, I
hope me sharing this story helps push back against the
(06:44):
idea that all undocumented immigrants are m S thirteen members.
I know many people in my position, and they are
all like your neighbors, so listen. On one hand, I
am compelled by this man's story because I have always
supported some form of legal status or amnesty for people
in his situation the dreamers. I want to secure the border.
(07:06):
I want to deport illegal immigrants who come here and
commit crimes. So I support deporting several million people, But
I think the ones who remain and we need to
stop the flow. So we need to seal the border,
secure the border so this problem doesn't continue to accrue.
But I think we should have compassion, in some sympathy
and empathy for people like him who came here as kids.
(07:27):
I think they should be given some form of legal status,
not deported to a country they barely even knew about.
And that's not the Trump administration's position. Their position is
to deport everyone. They've been very explicit about it. So
on one hand, I'm sympathetic to the arguments he's raising here.
The other part of me, though, is like, listen, how
stupid are you? This is so dumb. You just put
(07:51):
a target on your back to millions of people. This
administration is monitoring Twitter. They're obsessed with Twitter, hyper online.
We have the most online Vice President of the United
States ever in jd. Vance. And that's not a criticism
or praise, that's just an observation. He stays up with
the news, he's a big user of X. He follows
(08:14):
memes and internet drama, and he, of course, was immediately
told about this situation. Someone quote tweeted this news and
said JD Vance, I know you're reading this, and you
have the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever, to
which he replied a gif. I don't know if it's
from a movie or something of a man like smiling
(08:34):
with a sinister look. Meanwhile, the official X account for
the Department of Homeland Security DHS go shared this news
and put a spy kids meme, suggesting that they are
on the case side. Note, I don't like this thing
where official accounts for government agencies are posting memes. Call
(08:55):
me a crabby old boomer if you want, but I
don't like this. The men's wear guy I responded to
all this by taunting jd Vance In a tweet. He
put two images of jd Van's informal wear and said,
I think I can outrun you in these clothes. He
might go down as the dumbest influencer of all time,
(09:18):
just in terms of like self preservation or basic instincts.
They're gonna deport him. I can just tell you right now,
I am quite confident that this will happen. I could
be wrong. Ice is going to roll up on this man.
It won't be hard to find him and send him
back to Canada where he can taunt jd vance about
(09:39):
his men's wear from a country he's never lived in.
And so I'm of two minds of this because I'm
a big believer in the principles of faffo. Right, play
stupid games, wins stupid prizes. So I don't have a
ton of sympathy for him in this particular situation as
an individual if he gets deported because you break about
(10:00):
it online and taunted the Trump administration officials Like I
have a lot of sympathy for people in his situation broadly,
and I think we need to reach some kind of
compromise or middle ground solution, but him in particular, I'm
struggling to feel too bad for him if Ice rolls
up on him after all of this, And I will
(10:21):
just never cease to be amazed by how stupid some
people can be and how much they value getting attention
or getting noticed online or getting their message out there
at any cost. Like I'm not sure he's gonna feel
after this happens that it was worth it, when while
his story is interesting, it's not exactly unique. I played
(10:43):
a video of someone else like, there are tons of
people out there telling the dreamer story of the people
brought here illegally, super young. They did nothing wrong, it
just was done to them by their parents. They should
be allowed to stay. Lots of people can make that
sympathetic case publicly. So he didn't add a ton by
doing it, but he did put a massive target on
his back and I think they're going to come after him.
(11:04):
But what do you think? Can you believe influencers do
stuff like this? Let me know in the comments. Do
make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet, do hit
that like button. And guys, make sure you subscribe to
my second channel, where I'm uploading exclusive bonus content you
won't find on this main channel, like interviews like reacting
to cringe X rated Instagram reels, and just topics of
(11:28):
the day that I feel like yapping about but don't
want to dedicate a segment too on the podcast. All
of that's over on my second channel. Linked in the
descriptions or go subscribe. Remember to send in your voice
notes for my voicemail Friday episodes where I hear from
you guys, and listen to your wol car stories and
your personal life dilemmas and give you my thoughts and
(11:48):
my advice. The link to send in one of those
voice notes is in the description. We've also got merch
items they'r de Lulu is showing line and the on
my last brain cell merch. All of that linked in
the description. Check it out as well. I'll end now
more stupidity to discuss, because it's a day that ends
in why I've got to show you, guys a clip
from a congressional hearing involving a Democratic member of Congress
(12:10):
speaking to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, who is a Trump
official obviously, and she told something that was such a
terrible example of just like the worst kind of woke
cringe identity victim politics that honestly, this made me roll
my eyes so hard I gave myself a headache. Take
(12:32):
a listen.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
In fact, we've already seen that prices are rising on
many everyday goods.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
No Congress, congressan, please don't interrupt me, and time is mine.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
And time is mine, please don't interrupt me. I will
ask you questions and I will grant you an opportunity
to answer them, but please don't interrupt me during my
time with PLA. Okay, I know I'm a woman, but
please try to limit yourself to answering my questions. No,
I'm sorry, but we get talked over all the time,
and I don't want that to happen at this here.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
You have got to be kidding me. So they're having
a dispute here, which is have prices gone up a
lot under Trump so far? And the truth is the
answer is factually no, not really. The consumer Price index,
which measures inflation, is pretty low so far under Trump.
Now maybe some prices could get higher as some of
the terriff effects start to happen, but that's not the
point of this clip. The invocation of I'm a woman,
(13:25):
don't interrupt me is so obnoxious in this particular case.
And that's not to say that there's not some truth
to the idea that women are interrupted by men and
talked over a lot in life in general. I think
there is some truth to that, and men should be
more cognizant of it. But I'm sorry, let's be so
for real. If you watch congressional hearings, then I've been
(13:45):
a political reporter since like twenty eighteen. So if you've
watched hundreds of hours of this stuff like I have,
you know they always interrupt each other, male female witnesses,
men members of Congress, woman members of Congress. They interrupt
each other, and they argue with each other, and they
are rude and they are not particularly civil. And in
(14:06):
his case, he was actually he was interrupting, but he
wasn't being in civil he was just you know, being
assertive and trying to correct the record and make his point.
So you're not this victim of like a sexist verbal
microaggression or whatever if you're being treated exactly the same
way male members of Congress are treated. Okay, so spare
the victim script. And I love that the room literally
(14:26):
booed her and was like, ah, because this is exhausting,
and the American people are sick of it. They're sick
of the identity victim crap from Democrats. It's not working
and it's not going to work, but keep it up
if you enjoy losing. But there was another exchange between
Scott Bessant and another female Democratic member of Congress, and
this one ended up going completely off the rails into
(14:48):
truly unhinged territory. Here's that clip.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
We have seen since January twentieth that the Stark market
overall has gone down one point three percent and gas
has gone up.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Ma'am, that's incorrect.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Excuse me. Let me let me get something straight with
you first. Here, I've seen you interrupt everyone. When you
come to someone's house, you respect their rules, and in
this house, we don't interrupt individuals, and you're not going
to interrupt my time. I'm going to give you time
to respond. You may want to jot down some notes
(15:23):
about things that you don't agree with me on so
that you can respond to them at that time. But
while I'm speaking, as the person holding this time, you
will refrain from speaking, sir.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Until I am done.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Until I am done, and then I will give you
time to speak.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Okay, look forward to facts.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
Thank you. I'll look forward to your response, whether they're
factual or incorrect either.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
This is just laughable to me. In this house, we
don't interrupt people. Girl, in one house, in the House
of Representatives, have you never been to a congressional hearing before,
because they interrupt people all the time. And when she says,
I'll give you time to answer the questions. Well, in
fairness to Scott Besson, he probably anticipates not being given
(16:06):
much time to respond to any of it, because they're
usually not. These congressional hearings usually go like this. The
member reads a bunch of factortistics, asks the question, the
person speaks for like three seconds, and they cut them
off and they go, I'm reclaiming my time, and then
they move to their next point and they don't let
them speak. So it is totally understandable that he would
feel the need to interject to make his points because
(16:27):
they're often not given time to respond, and in this
very hearing that had happened to him many times before this,
so it's not a victim thing. And the idea that oh,
this is our house. First off, ma'am, it is the
tax bear's house. We pay for it. You don't, so
you work for us, so check the attitude a little bit.
But also in this house it is extremely normal to
(16:49):
interrupt people, so you just come off as incredibly obnoxious
and condescending in this clip, at least to me. But
the really unhinged part of this came on Twitter after
the fact. Some anonymous MAGA account tweeted something contemptible. He tweeted,
do all these twats have their PMS cycle SYNCD? Someone
(17:11):
needs to ship a case of midel to the Capitol
this afternoon. So this is a very rude and ignorant
thing to say, but it's just some anonymous Twitter account,
So welcome to X. I guess what I was not
expecting was for Congresswoman Stacey Plasket, the Democrat from this exchange,
to respond to this at all, let alone, in this
(17:32):
incredibly unhinged manner. She wrote, excuse you, this twat, and
she just wrote the word, and she also wrote a
much worse word, c unt poom poom. I don't even
know what that means, whatever you want to call it
represents an organ that gives life and is resilier r
(17:55):
E s I L I E n R. I don't
think that's a word. So thanks for the compliment. I
can take one interruption. But Bessent was out of control,
and I know I look good for my age, But baby,
I'm postman apouzle and it still works. Cherry emoji, water emoji.
(18:16):
What the actual heck is going on in the United
States Congress. We need a complete and total shutdown of Washington,
DC and local Twitter access until we can figure out
what the heck is going on, because this is a
diabolical thing for a sitting member of Congress to tweet.
What do you mean you're tweeting out calling yourself the
(18:38):
C word? What do you mean you're talking about how
it still works, ma'am. No one asked why are you
even responding to these anonymous, random mega accounts in the
first place? And how do you think any of this
makes you or your side come off? Well, it does not.
(18:58):
I am sick of giving free advice to the Democratic
Party because the things that I say are so obvious.
But they pay consultants millions of dollars and then they
come up with this, and then they wonder why they
constantly lose and have an approval rating lower than the
approval rating of many sexually transmitted diseases. But keep it up, y'all.
(19:19):
You're doing amazing. Just it's working out great. This exact
approach is going over super well with most of the country,
and your party is just in tip top shape. It's
really not, though, And that brings us to the next
thing I want to bring up, which is something kind
of related to the big beautiful bill debate going on
in Congress right now, which is Democrats in particular Democratic
(19:40):
Senator Amy Klobuchar, are criticizing GOP proposals to make pretty
modest cuts to the SNAP program, that is, the supplemental
Nutritional Assistance program what's colloquially known as food stamps, and
the cuts that they're proposing are just a modest expansion
of work or volunteering requirements associated with the program and
(20:04):
requiring states to pick up some more of the funding
rather than the federal government to the tune of shaving
a couple hundred billion dollars off this massive program over
the next decade. Well, Democrats, as they are anytime anyone
tries to cut anything from the federal government's budget, even
though we are massively in debt and going bankrupt, they
are pulling at the heartstrings with a sob story, but
(20:25):
not one that they thought out to say the very least.
Watch this clip from a Senate hearing where A and
I don't say this to be mean it is it
is relevant. Rather rotund woman speaks about the need for
SNAP programs even though there's no reason to believe her
benefits would be cut under this proposal. Take a listen
(20:46):
to this clip that Amy Klovich are shared on x
with the caption this is who Republicans in Congress are
trying to take food away from. Listen to her story. Yes,
let's listen.
Speaker 5 (20:58):
I am a single mom of four who are ages
twenty one, seventeen, twelve, and eleven. I would like to
tell you my story on how Snap benefit has helped me.
Speaker 6 (21:10):
Sorry, go ahead, you're doing good.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Yes.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
When I had my oldest daughter twenty one years ago,
I was working three jobs. One job alone I had
a page healthcare, another one to pay food which wasn't enough,
and one bill or one to pay the bills, and
I still struggled alive. Moving forward, I am now working
(21:48):
a full time job as a.
Speaker 5 (21:49):
Bus monitor and I'm a driver who transports students to
specialized schools in Kansas City as an employee of the
school district. I only get paid once a month. By
time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left
to pay for food and other basic needs. If it
was a for Snap benefits, I wouldn't be able to
(22:12):
feed my children nor myself. I work, pay my bills,
and like every other mom, I want to be sure
that I have enough food to put on the table.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So listen. My heart goes out to this woman. She's
clearly struggled in life, and I don't want anyone to
bully her or make fun of her in the comments.
But you have to, as Democrats or Republicans, as people
in Congress, think about the optics of the people you're
having testified, because when you cut up these clips and
they go viral, people will be mean and putting up somebody.
(22:43):
I'm just saying this not to insult or demean her,
just to point out a fact was objectively, extremely morbidly obese.
As the poster child of why we can't possibly slightly
trim taxpayer funded free food programs, isn't going to go
over well on social media. And it's not going to
be fair to that woman to be mocked because you
(23:04):
tried to weaponize her story to attack Republicans in what's
a fundamentally pretty dishonest way. The cuts are the cuts
in the room with us. The modest cuts to snap
that Republicans are proposing are probably going to be dialed
back in the Senate, but even what's left will simply
be enforcing work requirements and this woman from her story
(23:25):
had three jobs when she was most relying on this
program and still has a job today, So as long
as she just provided proof, she wouldn't lose benefits. So
what is the relevance? Why is she here? Why is
she testifying other than as emotional blackmail and manipulation. And also,
I'm sorry, but like the fact that she has a
twenty one year old child is so irrelevant. I mean,
(23:48):
maybe she's saying that once upon a time he was
a kid and relied on food stamps, but like, presumably
she's still a current beneficiary, so her having grown adult
children is not relevant to that they're expected to take
care of themselves as adults. Anyway, I think most people
agree that we need to have some form of basic
(24:08):
social safety net for people who truly can't take care
of themselves or their kids. But there is no such
thing as a free lunch or of three free lunches.
And every time you're getting one of these programs or benefits,
it is coming from your neighbor's paychecks who do not
have a lot of money to spare. So it must
be a last resort, and it must be reserved for
(24:29):
people who truly need it, and expanding these work requirements
if that means millions of people will fall off of
the program because they can't meet these very basic requirements,
which I'll go over in a minute, are extremely easy
to meet, then I don't think they needed it that
bad in the first place, and I'm not going to
feel that bad about it. I keep seeing all these
(24:50):
scary statistics right about how millions of people will lose
their snap benefits because of this. So I wanted to
find the source of these claims, and I did find it.
It's a liberal think tank, the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. They have an analysis that they put out
in May that the expanded work requirements in the House
Republican bill would take away food stamps from millions, and
(25:12):
then they have some estimates. They write one of the
harshest cuts would take food assistance away from people, including
for the first time ever, parents with children over the
age of six, and adults age fifty five to sixty
four who don't meet a red tape laden and ineffective
work requirement. Adults subject to the requirements would only be
(25:33):
able to receive food benefits for three months in a
three year period unless they show compliance with a twenty
hour per week work requirement, or prove that they qualify
for an exemption such as having a disability. I love
that they can still get three months benefits even if
they don't meet it, which surely is enough time to
find a new job if you get laid off or
(25:54):
come across hard times and get back on your feet
and start paying your own bills and guys. When we
say work require, it's not just about having a job
or being able to find a job. You can meet
the work requirement by doing any of these things. Working
at least eighty hours a month. That's twenty hours a week,
but work can be for pay, for goods or services,
(26:14):
for something other than money, unpaid, or as a volunteer.
You can also participate in a work program at least
eighty hours a month. A work program could be SNAP
Employment Training or another federal, state, or local work program.
You can participate in a combination of work and work
hour programs for a total of at least eighty hours
of a month. So the requirement doesn't require you to
(26:38):
find a job, it doesn't require you to make a
lot of money. It's like you can literally meet it
by volunteering. They're just asking you to give back in
some way, and frankly, I do not think that is
too much to ask. And I'm sick of these examples
like the clip we played, being used to weaponize anybody
who wants to write our fiscal house by making even
(26:58):
modest cuts to any program. But what do you guys think?
Do you sympathize with the woman that Amy Klobuchar put
on display? Do let me know in the comments. Please
be kind and respectful. Do not make fun of her.
I don't want to see that in my comments section.
And one final thing, we have to talk about this quickly,
because this is just beyond parody. The Washington Post put
out a headline that is laughable and reads like something
(27:21):
directly transported out of a time capsule from twenty twenty. Headline,
here are the people Trump doesn't want to exist. Women,
people of color and those in the LGBTQ plus community
are main targets. Then there's a little image with the
drawings or cartoons of all the different people. You've got
(27:42):
the dude with the ugly gay sweater, you've got a
woman with a jab, and old white people. I guess
I don't understand what the heck is going on in
this little graphic. Anyway, The Washington Post reports when the
Trump administration encounters a group it doesn't respect or care for,
oftentimes it just deletes them, specifically the very record of
(28:05):
their existence. Y'all, democracy dies in darkness. That's the slogan
of the Washington Post. How about democracy dies in do lulu?
Because gay people have not been erased, trans people have
not been deleted, People of color and women are not
being erased. In fact, Trump put many of these people
(28:27):
in his freaking cabinet. The journalist T Beckett Adams pointed
out the secretaries of State and Labor are Latinos, the
HUD secretary is black, The DNI is a female Pacific Islander.
The Treasury secretary is gay. The Education, Agricultural, and DHS
secretaries are women, as is the AG chief of staff
and head of a small business. And that's just the cabinet.
(28:50):
So this is absurd. Y'all sound deranged, and it doesn't
help you. I mean, there are valid criticisms to make
on some of the DEI or anti d DEI stuff,
maybe going too far, some of Trump's rhetoric about different
groups of people. But when you put out this deranged slop,
it totally undercuts any legitimate criticisms you might have. And
(29:12):
their only evidence for this trump erasing and deleting entire
demographics of people is basically them like taking down a
bunch of DEI related web pages from federal government websites.
Speaker 7 (29:24):
Right.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
For example, when the Defense Department was asked to cull
all DEI related content from its websites, it removed approximately
twenty six thousand images. A list of the deleted photos
was given to the Associated Press. About nineteen thousand of
them included descriptions, and our analysis found that four out
of five depicted women, people in the LGBTQ plus community,
(29:45):
and racial minorities. Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. They took down
the DEI stuff. Of course, it wasn't going to be
a bunch of smiling, straight white men. And it doesn't
mean there's not plenty of images left that aren't explicitly
on DEI pages showing all sorts of people serving in
the military and in different capacities in the federal government.
There are, and this idea that these couple thousand of
(30:10):
web pages on different federal government websites are somehow like, oh,
if you take those down, these people are erased or
deleted from society is just absurd. I have to read
you this last one quote from the Washington Post. This
is part of a broader campaign to delete the statistical
and visual evidence of undesirables, or at least those who
may not fit into President Donald Trump's conception of the
(30:32):
new American Golden Age. Entire demographics are being scrubbed from
records of both America's past and present, including people of color,
transgender people, women, immigrants, and people with disabilities. They are
now among America's missing persons. You have got to be
kidding me. That is so absurd, This idea that any
(30:53):
of these groups of people are missing persons now because
they took down a couple thousand web pages of YI stuff.
I mean, maybe, listen, maybe you can find examples of
things they took down that shouldn't have been taken down.
I'm totally open to that. But the idea that it
means that women are now missing in America, the people
of color have now been erased from America is laughable.
(31:14):
It is absurd, and it's actually also very offensive to
the families of people who actually have gone missing, have
been abducted, who truly have been removed from life or
from America through you know, horrific crimes or other tragedies
that have happened. You're making a mockery of it with
this absurd, woke nonsense, and then you wonder if people
(31:34):
don't take the mainstream media seriously. All right, guys, that's
going to be it for this episode of the Barad
Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you all so much for tuning in.
Please do make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet,
do hit that leg button point and go and comment
with your thoughts. I do take the time to read
the comments. Remember to send in your voice notes. Check
out the MERD, subscribe to the second channel, YadA YadA yah,
And with that we'll talk again real soon.
If you're in America illegally, maybe don't brag about it
to your one point three million followers. We're gonna talk
about the latest wild saga involving a prominent influencer who
might have gotten himself deported, and so much more on
(00:22):
today's episode of The Bread Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily
show where we take on the craziest ideas from across
the Internet, our politics, and our media, all from an
independent perspective. Up first, like I mentioned, we're going to
talk about somebody named Derek Guy. He's known as the
Menswear Guy on Twitter or I guess it's called x now,
(00:44):
but anyway, he's built up a huge social media following
by sometimes very harshly reviewing public figures menswear, you know,
like their suits, their ties, that kind of thing. He's
been pretty big, to the point where he's even been
featured by major media outlets like Politico, and he has
over one point three million followers on x his biggest platform.
(01:06):
But he decided to use that platform in a way
that well interesting, I have to give him credit, was
not advisable and may fall into the category of playing
stupid games and winning stupid prizes. Because as anybody who's awake, right,
as anybody who hasn't been hibernating for the last year knows.
(01:27):
President Trump and his running mate JD. Vance ran on
a pretty explicit promise of mass deportation, of deporting all
illegal immigrants, not just some, not giving amnesty to some. Right,
what was traditionally the more moderate Republican position, deporting them all?
They said it over and over and over again. Well,
Derek Guya, the Menswear Guy, decided to use his platform
(01:53):
to openly talk about the fact that he's an illegal immigrant. Yeah, seriously,
that's what he did in a post on X that
we'll read. I debated whether to share my story on here,
but I guess I will. He wrote, I think there's
an idea out there that millions of violent criminals are
pouring across the border, carrying machetes and drugs, looking to
(02:14):
harm Americans. Certainly, while some people fall into that category,
the vast majority of undocumented immigrants don't. Here's where it
gets personal and why the thread went megaviral very quickly
and was quickly noticed by the drum administration. The Menswear
Guy wrote, my family escaped Vietnam after the tet offensive
and went through an arduous journey that eventually landed them
(02:37):
in Canada. My father worked there for a time as
a janitor, my mother a secretary. When work fell through,
my dad was offered to work with his sister in
the United States, so he went as our family needed money.
He ended up staying in the US longer than he
was supposed to, not knowing immigration laws, and asked my
mom to come to be with him. Of course, she
went and carried me over the border while I was
(02:59):
still a baby. So this sounds like a pretty classic
case of some types of illegal immigration, a visa overstay,
where someone comes here legally it sounds like his father did,
and then stays past the expiration of their authority to work.
And then it sounds like his mother came to the
country without permission so illegally immigrated and brought him as
(03:20):
a very young child, which is something we've talked about
in the illegal immigration debate. For the so called dreamers,
the people who were brought here when they were very
young have've only lived in America, and they're typically one
of the groups that even you know immigration hawks are
open to giving some kind of legal status to rather
than deporting them. Back to a country they barely ever
even knew. His thread continues, I'm still unsure whether we
(03:42):
technically broke an immigration law. The border between Canada and
the United States was pretty porous as it is today
for the most part. Side note, I'm pretty sure he
broke an immigration law, or at least his parents did.
I don't know if a two year old can break laws,
but either way, since I came here without legal documentation,
event actually fell into the category of being an undocumented immigrant.
(04:03):
Yet I've been in the United States since I was
a baby. My identity and roots are very much based
in this country, no different from anyone else. So he
just confessed to being an illegal immigrant to one point
three million people on Twitter and then told his story
as part of this subgroup that a lot of people
think should receive some form of amnesty, to try to
(04:25):
explain that not all illegal immigrants are what you see
talked about on Fox News. There are millions of people
in my situation, he wrote, people who were brought here
as children, some babies, and were unable to raise their
hand during this process and say maybe we should hire
a lawyer. Parents may have crossed the border not knowing
about the law, as the law can be pretty confusing
(04:46):
and lawyers are expensive. Perhaps in the end they should
have hired a lawyer, but sometimes life is messy. In
the end, they cross for the same reason many people
rise every day to support their families. Okay, so the
menswear guy, this firol and well known on Twitter account,
is just like you said, one of millions of young
people that Democrats and other immigration supporters will tout as
(05:07):
examples of the kinds of people who are technically illegal
immigrants but really didn't do a lot wrong. They couldn't
help it that they were brought here as children and
shouldn't be deported in most people's minds, because America is
really their country, even though they technically weren't born as citizens.
They raised their whole life here and they're not harming
anyone by being here. They're contributing to society, and yet
(05:29):
the Trump administration is seeking to deport some of these people.
So Democrats and opponents of the Trump administration's immigration agenda
are highlighting people like this and others like him in
press conferences and congressional testimony. Here's another example.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I'm aid In, a college student studying computer engineering and
also a doctor recipient. I've lived my entire life here
in the DMV. I came to the US when I
was around two years old. I have known no other country,
accept America as my home now.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
The menswear guy connected his personal story to a broader
argument about immigration. Here's what he wrote. I think it's
unreasonable to deport millions of people who have contributed positively
to society. It's simply not true that the majority of
these people are violent criminals carrying drugs. Many owned small businesses,
Many work as skilled laborers, including garment workers. The vast
(06:23):
majority are good, honest people. For those of us who
grew up in the United States, sending us back to
our home country would mean sending someone to a foreign
land as they grew up in the United States. Tearing
families apart based on immigration status seems inhumane. Ultimately, I
hope me sharing this story helps push back against the
(06:44):
idea that all undocumented immigrants are m S thirteen members.
I know many people in my position, and they are
all like your neighbors, so listen. On one hand, I
am compelled by this man's story because I have always
supported some form of legal status or amnesty for people
in his situation the dreamers. I want to secure the border.
(07:06):
I want to deport illegal immigrants who come here and
commit crimes. So I support deporting several million people, But
I think the ones who remain and we need to
stop the flow. So we need to seal the border,
secure the border so this problem doesn't continue to accrue.
But I think we should have compassion, in some sympathy
and empathy for people like him who came here as kids.
(07:27):
I think they should be given some form of legal status,
not deported to a country they barely even knew about.
And that's not the Trump administration's position. Their position is
to deport everyone. They've been very explicit about it. So
on one hand, I'm sympathetic to the arguments he's raising here.
The other part of me, though, is like, listen, how
stupid are you? This is so dumb. You just put
(07:51):
a target on your back to millions of people. This
administration is monitoring Twitter. They're obsessed with Twitter, hyper online.
We have the most online Vice President of the United
States ever in jd. Vance. And that's not a criticism
or praise, that's just an observation. He stays up with
the news, he's a big user of X. He follows
(08:14):
memes and internet drama, and he, of course, was immediately
told about this situation. Someone quote tweeted this news and
said JD Vance, I know you're reading this, and you
have the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever, to
which he replied a gif. I don't know if it's
from a movie or something of a man like smiling
(08:34):
with a sinister look. Meanwhile, the official X account for
the Department of Homeland Security DHS go shared this news
and put a spy kids meme, suggesting that they are
on the case side. Note, I don't like this thing
where official accounts for government agencies are posting memes. Call
(08:55):
me a crabby old boomer if you want, but I
don't like this. The men's wear guy I responded to
all this by taunting jd Vance In a tweet. He
put two images of jd Van's informal wear and said,
I think I can outrun you in these clothes. He
might go down as the dumbest influencer of all time,
(09:18):
just in terms of like self preservation or basic instincts.
They're gonna deport him. I can just tell you right now,
I am quite confident that this will happen. I could
be wrong. Ice is going to roll up on this man.
It won't be hard to find him and send him
back to Canada where he can taunt jd vance about
(09:39):
his men's wear from a country he's never lived in.
And so I'm of two minds of this because I'm
a big believer in the principles of faffo. Right, play
stupid games, wins stupid prizes. So I don't have a
ton of sympathy for him in this particular situation as
an individual if he gets deported because you break about
(10:00):
it online and taunted the Trump administration officials Like I
have a lot of sympathy for people in his situation broadly,
and I think we need to reach some kind of
compromise or middle ground solution, but him in particular, I'm
struggling to feel too bad for him if Ice rolls
up on him after all of this, And I will
(10:21):
just never cease to be amazed by how stupid some
people can be and how much they value getting attention
or getting noticed online or getting their message out there
at any cost. Like I'm not sure he's gonna feel
after this happens that it was worth it, when while
his story is interesting, it's not exactly unique. I played
(10:43):
a video of someone else like, there are tons of
people out there telling the dreamer story of the people
brought here illegally, super young. They did nothing wrong, it
just was done to them by their parents. They should
be allowed to stay. Lots of people can make that
sympathetic case publicly. So he didn't add a ton by
doing it, but he did put a massive target on
his back and I think they're going to come after him.
(11:04):
But what do you think? Can you believe influencers do
stuff like this? Let me know in the comments. Do
make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet, do hit
that like button. And guys, make sure you subscribe to
my second channel, where I'm uploading exclusive bonus content you
won't find on this main channel, like interviews like reacting
to cringe X rated Instagram reels, and just topics of
(11:28):
the day that I feel like yapping about but don't
want to dedicate a segment too on the podcast. All
of that's over on my second channel. Linked in the
descriptions or go subscribe. Remember to send in your voice
notes for my voicemail Friday episodes where I hear from
you guys, and listen to your wol car stories and
your personal life dilemmas and give you my thoughts and
(11:48):
my advice. The link to send in one of those
voice notes is in the description. We've also got merch
items they'r de Lulu is showing line and the on
my last brain cell merch. All of that linked in
the description. Check it out as well. I'll end now
more stupidity to discuss, because it's a day that ends
in why I've got to show you, guys a clip
from a congressional hearing involving a Democratic member of Congress
(12:10):
speaking to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, who is a Trump
official obviously, and she told something that was such a
terrible example of just like the worst kind of woke
cringe identity victim politics that honestly, this made me roll
my eyes so hard I gave myself a headache. Take
(12:32):
a listen.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
In fact, we've already seen that prices are rising on
many everyday goods.
Speaker 1 (12:38):
No Congress, congressan, please don't interrupt me, and time is mine.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
And time is mine, please don't interrupt me. I will
ask you questions and I will grant you an opportunity
to answer them, but please don't interrupt me during my
time with PLA. Okay, I know I'm a woman, but
please try to limit yourself to answering my questions. No,
I'm sorry, but we get talked over all the time,
and I don't want that to happen at this here.
Speaker 1 (13:03):
You have got to be kidding me. So they're having
a dispute here, which is have prices gone up a
lot under Trump so far? And the truth is the
answer is factually no, not really. The consumer Price index,
which measures inflation, is pretty low so far under Trump.
Now maybe some prices could get higher as some of
the terriff effects start to happen, but that's not the
point of this clip. The invocation of I'm a woman,
(13:25):
don't interrupt me is so obnoxious in this particular case.
And that's not to say that there's not some truth
to the idea that women are interrupted by men and
talked over a lot in life in general. I think
there is some truth to that, and men should be
more cognizant of it. But I'm sorry, let's be so
for real. If you watch congressional hearings, then I've been
(13:45):
a political reporter since like twenty eighteen. So if you've
watched hundreds of hours of this stuff like I have,
you know they always interrupt each other, male female witnesses,
men members of Congress, woman members of Congress. They interrupt
each other, and they argue with each other, and they
are rude and they are not particularly civil. And in
(14:06):
his case, he was actually he was interrupting, but he
wasn't being in civil he was just you know, being
assertive and trying to correct the record and make his point.
So you're not this victim of like a sexist verbal
microaggression or whatever if you're being treated exactly the same
way male members of Congress are treated. Okay, so spare
the victim script. And I love that the room literally
(14:26):
booed her and was like, ah, because this is exhausting,
and the American people are sick of it. They're sick
of the identity victim crap from Democrats. It's not working
and it's not going to work, but keep it up
if you enjoy losing. But there was another exchange between
Scott Bessant and another female Democratic member of Congress, and
this one ended up going completely off the rails into
(14:48):
truly unhinged territory. Here's that clip.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
We have seen since January twentieth that the Stark market
overall has gone down one point three percent and gas
has gone up.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Ma'am, that's incorrect.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Excuse me. Let me let me get something straight with
you first. Here, I've seen you interrupt everyone. When you
come to someone's house, you respect their rules, and in
this house, we don't interrupt individuals, and you're not going
to interrupt my time. I'm going to give you time
to respond. You may want to jot down some notes
(15:23):
about things that you don't agree with me on so
that you can respond to them at that time. But
while I'm speaking, as the person holding this time, you
will refrain from speaking, sir.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Until I am done.
Speaker 4 (15:36):
Until I am done, and then I will give you
time to speak.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Okay, look forward to facts.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
Thank you. I'll look forward to your response, whether they're
factual or incorrect either.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
This is just laughable to me. In this house, we
don't interrupt people. Girl, in one house, in the House
of Representatives, have you never been to a congressional hearing before,
because they interrupt people all the time. And when she says,
I'll give you time to answer the questions. Well, in
fairness to Scott Besson, he probably anticipates not being given
(16:06):
much time to respond to any of it, because they're
usually not. These congressional hearings usually go like this. The
member reads a bunch of factortistics, asks the question, the
person speaks for like three seconds, and they cut them
off and they go, I'm reclaiming my time, and then
they move to their next point and they don't let
them speak. So it is totally understandable that he would
feel the need to interject to make his points because
(16:27):
they're often not given time to respond, and in this
very hearing that had happened to him many times before this,
so it's not a victim thing. And the idea that oh,
this is our house. First off, ma'am, it is the
tax bear's house. We pay for it. You don't, so
you work for us, so check the attitude a little bit.
But also in this house it is extremely normal to
(16:49):
interrupt people, so you just come off as incredibly obnoxious
and condescending in this clip, at least to me. But
the really unhinged part of this came on Twitter after
the fact. Some anonymous MAGA account tweeted something contemptible. He tweeted,
do all these twats have their PMS cycle SYNCD? Someone
(17:11):
needs to ship a case of midel to the Capitol
this afternoon. So this is a very rude and ignorant
thing to say, but it's just some anonymous Twitter account,
So welcome to X. I guess what I was not
expecting was for Congresswoman Stacey Plasket, the Democrat from this exchange,
to respond to this at all, let alone, in this
(17:32):
incredibly unhinged manner. She wrote, excuse you, this twat, and
she just wrote the word, and she also wrote a
much worse word, c unt poom poom. I don't even
know what that means, whatever you want to call it
represents an organ that gives life and is resilier r
(17:55):
E s I L I E n R. I don't
think that's a word. So thanks for the compliment. I
can take one interruption. But Bessent was out of control,
and I know I look good for my age, But baby,
I'm postman apouzle and it still works. Cherry emoji, water emoji.
(18:16):
What the actual heck is going on in the United
States Congress. We need a complete and total shutdown of Washington,
DC and local Twitter access until we can figure out
what the heck is going on, because this is a
diabolical thing for a sitting member of Congress to tweet.
What do you mean you're tweeting out calling yourself the
(18:38):
C word? What do you mean you're talking about how
it still works, ma'am. No one asked why are you
even responding to these anonymous, random mega accounts in the
first place? And how do you think any of this
makes you or your side come off? Well, it does not.
(18:58):
I am sick of giving free advice to the Democratic
Party because the things that I say are so obvious.
But they pay consultants millions of dollars and then they
come up with this, and then they wonder why they
constantly lose and have an approval rating lower than the
approval rating of many sexually transmitted diseases. But keep it up, y'all.
(19:19):
You're doing amazing. Just it's working out great. This exact
approach is going over super well with most of the country,
and your party is just in tip top shape. It's
really not, though, And that brings us to the next
thing I want to bring up, which is something kind
of related to the big beautiful bill debate going on
in Congress right now, which is Democrats in particular Democratic
(19:40):
Senator Amy Klobuchar, are criticizing GOP proposals to make pretty
modest cuts to the SNAP program, that is, the supplemental
Nutritional Assistance program what's colloquially known as food stamps, and
the cuts that they're proposing are just a modest expansion
of work or volunteering requirements associated with the program and
(20:04):
requiring states to pick up some more of the funding
rather than the federal government to the tune of shaving
a couple hundred billion dollars off this massive program over
the next decade. Well, Democrats, as they are anytime anyone
tries to cut anything from the federal government's budget, even
though we are massively in debt and going bankrupt, they
are pulling at the heartstrings with a sob story, but
(20:25):
not one that they thought out to say the very least.
Watch this clip from a Senate hearing where A and
I don't say this to be mean it is it
is relevant. Rather rotund woman speaks about the need for
SNAP programs even though there's no reason to believe her
benefits would be cut under this proposal. Take a listen
(20:46):
to this clip that Amy Klovich are shared on x
with the caption this is who Republicans in Congress are
trying to take food away from. Listen to her story. Yes,
let's listen.
Speaker 5 (20:58):
I am a single mom of four who are ages
twenty one, seventeen, twelve, and eleven. I would like to
tell you my story on how Snap benefit has helped me.
Speaker 6 (21:10):
Sorry, go ahead, you're doing good.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
Yes.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
When I had my oldest daughter twenty one years ago,
I was working three jobs. One job alone I had
a page healthcare, another one to pay food which wasn't enough,
and one bill or one to pay the bills, and
I still struggled alive. Moving forward, I am now working
(21:48):
a full time job as a.
Speaker 5 (21:49):
Bus monitor and I'm a driver who transports students to
specialized schools in Kansas City as an employee of the
school district. I only get paid once a month. By
time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left
to pay for food and other basic needs. If it
was a for Snap benefits, I wouldn't be able to
(22:12):
feed my children nor myself. I work, pay my bills,
and like every other mom, I want to be sure
that I have enough food to put on the table.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So listen. My heart goes out to this woman. She's
clearly struggled in life, and I don't want anyone to
bully her or make fun of her in the comments.
But you have to, as Democrats or Republicans, as people
in Congress, think about the optics of the people you're
having testified, because when you cut up these clips and
they go viral, people will be mean and putting up somebody.
(22:43):
I'm just saying this not to insult or demean her,
just to point out a fact was objectively, extremely morbidly obese.
As the poster child of why we can't possibly slightly
trim taxpayer funded free food programs, isn't going to go
over well on social media. And it's not going to
be fair to that woman to be mocked because you
(23:04):
tried to weaponize her story to attack Republicans in what's
a fundamentally pretty dishonest way. The cuts are the cuts
in the room with us. The modest cuts to snap
that Republicans are proposing are probably going to be dialed
back in the Senate, but even what's left will simply
be enforcing work requirements and this woman from her story
(23:25):
had three jobs when she was most relying on this
program and still has a job today, So as long
as she just provided proof, she wouldn't lose benefits. So
what is the relevance? Why is she here? Why is
she testifying other than as emotional blackmail and manipulation. And also,
I'm sorry, but like the fact that she has a
twenty one year old child is so irrelevant. I mean,
(23:48):
maybe she's saying that once upon a time he was
a kid and relied on food stamps, but like, presumably
she's still a current beneficiary, so her having grown adult
children is not relevant to that they're expected to take
care of themselves as adults. Anyway, I think most people
agree that we need to have some form of basic
(24:08):
social safety net for people who truly can't take care
of themselves or their kids. But there is no such
thing as a free lunch or of three free lunches.
And every time you're getting one of these programs or benefits,
it is coming from your neighbor's paychecks who do not
have a lot of money to spare. So it must
be a last resort, and it must be reserved for
(24:29):
people who truly need it, and expanding these work requirements
if that means millions of people will fall off of
the program because they can't meet these very basic requirements,
which I'll go over in a minute, are extremely easy
to meet, then I don't think they needed it that
bad in the first place, and I'm not going to
feel that bad about it. I keep seeing all these
(24:50):
scary statistics right about how millions of people will lose
their snap benefits because of this. So I wanted to
find the source of these claims, and I did find it.
It's a liberal think tank, the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. They have an analysis that they put out
in May that the expanded work requirements in the House
Republican bill would take away food stamps from millions, and
(25:12):
then they have some estimates. They write one of the
harshest cuts would take food assistance away from people, including
for the first time ever, parents with children over the
age of six, and adults age fifty five to sixty
four who don't meet a red tape laden and ineffective
work requirement. Adults subject to the requirements would only be
(25:33):
able to receive food benefits for three months in a
three year period unless they show compliance with a twenty
hour per week work requirement, or prove that they qualify
for an exemption such as having a disability. I love
that they can still get three months benefits even if
they don't meet it, which surely is enough time to
find a new job if you get laid off or
(25:54):
come across hard times and get back on your feet
and start paying your own bills and guys. When we
say work require, it's not just about having a job
or being able to find a job. You can meet
the work requirement by doing any of these things. Working
at least eighty hours a month. That's twenty hours a week,
but work can be for pay, for goods or services,
(26:14):
for something other than money, unpaid, or as a volunteer.
You can also participate in a work program at least
eighty hours a month. A work program could be SNAP
Employment Training or another federal, state, or local work program.
You can participate in a combination of work and work
hour programs for a total of at least eighty hours
of a month. So the requirement doesn't require you to
(26:38):
find a job, it doesn't require you to make a
lot of money. It's like you can literally meet it
by volunteering. They're just asking you to give back in
some way, and frankly, I do not think that is
too much to ask. And I'm sick of these examples
like the clip we played, being used to weaponize anybody
who wants to write our fiscal house by making even
(26:58):
modest cuts to any program. But what do you guys think?
Do you sympathize with the woman that Amy Klobuchar put
on display? Do let me know in the comments. Please
be kind and respectful. Do not make fun of her.
I don't want to see that in my comments section.
And one final thing, we have to talk about this quickly,
because this is just beyond parody. The Washington Post put
out a headline that is laughable and reads like something
(27:21):
directly transported out of a time capsule from twenty twenty. Headline,
here are the people Trump doesn't want to exist. Women,
people of color and those in the LGBTQ plus community
are main targets. Then there's a little image with the
drawings or cartoons of all the different people. You've got
(27:42):
the dude with the ugly gay sweater, you've got a
woman with a jab, and old white people. I guess
I don't understand what the heck is going on in
this little graphic. Anyway, The Washington Post reports when the
Trump administration encounters a group it doesn't respect or care for,
oftentimes it just deletes them, specifically the very record of
(28:05):
their existence. Y'all, democracy dies in darkness. That's the slogan
of the Washington Post. How about democracy dies in do lulu?
Because gay people have not been erased, trans people have
not been deleted, People of color and women are not
being erased. In fact, Trump put many of these people
(28:27):
in his freaking cabinet. The journalist T Beckett Adams pointed
out the secretaries of State and Labor are Latinos, the
HUD secretary is black, The DNI is a female Pacific Islander.
The Treasury secretary is gay. The Education, Agricultural, and DHS
secretaries are women, as is the AG chief of staff
and head of a small business. And that's just the cabinet.
(28:50):
So this is absurd. Y'all sound deranged, and it doesn't
help you. I mean, there are valid criticisms to make
on some of the DEI or anti d DEI stuff,
maybe going too far, some of Trump's rhetoric about different
groups of people. But when you put out this deranged slop,
it totally undercuts any legitimate criticisms you might have. And
(29:12):
their only evidence for this trump erasing and deleting entire
demographics of people is basically them like taking down a
bunch of DEI related web pages from federal government websites.
Speaker 7 (29:24):
Right.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
For example, when the Defense Department was asked to cull
all DEI related content from its websites, it removed approximately
twenty six thousand images. A list of the deleted photos
was given to the Associated Press. About nineteen thousand of
them included descriptions, and our analysis found that four out
of five depicted women, people in the LGBTQ plus community,
(29:45):
and racial minorities. Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. They took down
the DEI stuff. Of course, it wasn't going to be
a bunch of smiling, straight white men. And it doesn't
mean there's not plenty of images left that aren't explicitly
on DEI pages showing all sorts of people serving in
the military and in different capacities in the federal government.
There are, and this idea that these couple thousand of
(30:10):
web pages on different federal government websites are somehow like, oh,
if you take those down, these people are erased or
deleted from society is just absurd. I have to read
you this last one quote from the Washington Post. This
is part of a broader campaign to delete the statistical
and visual evidence of undesirables, or at least those who
may not fit into President Donald Trump's conception of the
(30:32):
new American Golden Age. Entire demographics are being scrubbed from
records of both America's past and present, including people of color,
transgender people, women, immigrants, and people with disabilities. They are
now among America's missing persons. You have got to be
kidding me. That is so absurd, This idea that any
(30:53):
of these groups of people are missing persons now because
they took down a couple thousand web pages of YI stuff.
I mean, maybe, listen, maybe you can find examples of
things they took down that shouldn't have been taken down.
I'm totally open to that. But the idea that it
means that women are now missing in America, the people
of color have now been erased from America is laughable.
(31:14):
It is absurd, and it's actually also very offensive to
the families of people who actually have gone missing, have
been abducted, who truly have been removed from life or
from America through you know, horrific crimes or other tragedies
that have happened. You're making a mockery of it with
this absurd, woke nonsense, and then you wonder if people
(31:34):
don't take the mainstream media seriously. All right, guys, that's
going to be it for this episode of the Barad
Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you all so much for tuning in.
Please do make sure you're subscribed. If you aren't yet,
do hit that leg button point and go and comment
with your thoughts. I do take the time to read
the comments. Remember to send in your voice notes. Check
out the MERD, subscribe to the second channel, YadA YadA yah,
And with that we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.