MAGA's Civil War Is Worse Than They Realize. The Dam Is Bursting.

Another dam just burst in this MAGA civil war. And this time it's between Candace Owens and FBI Director Akash Patel's girlfriend, the country singer Alexis Wilkins. when you know it, they are fighting over Israel and antisemitism, specifically the allegation that Wilkins is actually an Israeli intelligence agent who's using a relationship with Patel to manipulate the Trump administration. something that's been out there and also something that she denied on Megan Kelly Show last summer when the claims first started bubbling up. are you a spy for any government? Definitely not. That is a firm. No. On that front, Candace Owens, she's not buying that think they think I think your boyfriend's ugly. I don't know how. Say to. And so when they see you and they see him, they think this seems like a mismatch. Unless maybe he's super duper rich or super duper powerful and she's been sent as a honeypot. And I wasn't the one to put that out. So I'm not being sued by you, but I just want to help you connect. right. And the likely reason that she's hedging there is because Wilkins is, in fact, sued a couple of people for defamation over this, first, the conservative podcaster and former FBI agent Kyle Serafin, who claim that she's actually a former Mossad agent. anyway. I'm sure that that's totally just like love. That's what real love looks like. That's why Kash Patel's in his 40s and lives with a man in, in Las Vegas. Full time, totally regular. No big deal. then there was the right wing influencer, Elijah Schaefer, who reposted that same claim. then finally, at least for now, that the failed GOP Senate candidate, Sam Parker, who's accused her of being a mouthpiece for Prager U. And the Zionist agenda. if you have to sue to prove that your relationship is real, it's maybe not also Wilkins didn't stop with that because this week she dumped a crazy 13 post thread on Twitter. know, it's like I've spent the last few months learning to build programs to utilize publicly available information to prove that this is way bigger than me. This is about creating chaos in the Republican Party. about the organized effort to lose Republicans in midterms and subvert President Trump's agenda. her big finding, according to her, quote, a foreign linked influence network has been running coordinated operations against the Trump administration for 22 months. with her then providing a bunch of data that supposedly proves that it's happening. And she names names, claiming that Trump's former national security director, Michael Flynn, is, quote, the anchor of a digital infrastructure that has been repeatedly activated at every major Republican fracture point. Over 22 months of documented data. she then also goes after an organization called Catholics for Catholics that he's a part of, and then says that Russian state media amplified the honeypot claims about her. she then claims that all the same accounts in this supposed influence network immediately activated to boost Candace Owens conspiracy theories about the Charlie Kirk assassination. And Israel. she then connects even more dots pointing out that right after National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent resigned, Catholics were Catholics, announced that they'd have him at their event. Right. Which he says was followed by Tucker Carlson interviewing him, and then Kent appearing on stage next to Flynn and Owens. now, in response to all this, you had, Flynn posting a meme of two cats reading smartphones with the caption, me and my so-called Flynn network hard at work. Don't lose your sense of humor, folks. Stuff getting deep. and then kind of, funnily enough, when you think about it, you had the Queen conspiracy theorist herself making fun of Wilkins for being so conspiracy brained. There are accounts and you tweet something that they agree. They retweet it. So that's Jack Dorsey could have probably explain this to her in less time. In the months that it took her to come up with this theory. don't know how this jumps from the Catholics to there. You have to read it. It's too stupid for me to understand. So a news publication in Russia retweet it. And that's how she then realized that. Well, then there's got to be international conspiracy. It makes perfect sense. If you suspend rational thinking, So that's just a lot of the chapter three is just a lie. I was not naming Erica. I said nice things about Erica, Didn't start covering Erica until Erica lied to my face in December, but that doesn't matter. This is Kash Patel's girlfriend. The facts she can put whatever facts she wants there. I did go after Kash right away, so I went after her. Boy, that's what she's upset about. obviously Vladimir Putin is doing this. And she then shows that the data, clearly demonstrates that the same people that are interested in the Butler assassination are Joe Kent's resignation, and they Charlie Crist assassination by golly, guys, she has figured out that the MAGA voting bloc might be all interested in these topics. also like a big thing with this is this spat between Wilkins and Owens. It's not an isolated thing or the Republican Party. They are really beginning to notice that the next generation of conservatives, they're sliding more towards Candace Owens is end of the spectrum. you know, you might remember that leaked group chat from October with young Republican leaders in several states, apparently joking though maybe not joking about gas chambers, slavery, rape, black people being monkeys, loving Hitler and hating the Jews. or maybe when it was revealed that the Miami Republican Party made a group chat for students where within three weeks there were over 400 mentions of the N-word, as well as misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic slurs. And talk about Nazi heaven. Leaks that led to the resignation of a turning point USA chapter president who wrote, I would def not marry a Jew. meanwhile, the University of Florida's College Republicans chapter was disbanded after its members were accused of doing a Nazi salute. And then this month, the College Republicans of America

appointed a longtime fan of Nick Fuentes as their political director. people that pointing out that he's made comments many consider anti-Semitic saying that he promoted Fuentes his white boy summer tour in 2021. He was a special guest at Fuentes his conference next year. And he has a channel on Cozi TV, which is a platform founded by Fuentes and Alex Jones. Now with all this, you know, the Republican old guard like Ted Cruz, for example, they they've watched all this with dismay, I have seen more anti-Semitism on the right than at any point in my life. And it is dangerous. And it risks consuming our party. I don't want us to make the same mistake Democrat leaders made a decade ago of just to look the other way and to be seen. and also echoing that you had California's Republican Party circulating a memo last month warning that Fuentes fans were making their way into party positions and running for office, requiring a conscious effort to keep them out. though personally, I don't think they realize how much they've already been infiltrated. Which makes sense, because one time as a whole thing where he tells his viewers to hide their power level. even at times expressing frustration with his audience for doing things that kind of where they out themselves. but also with as you have others that are less concerned arguing instead that these are just kind of fringe weirdos trying to make themselves seem bigger than they really are. there, some saying that there's evidence to back that up. Right. At a TPU conference late last year, for example, an official straw poll found that 87% of attendees viewed Israel as an ally. and there was also a study published back in December that suggested that Fuentes, as rise to prominence, was artificially fueled by foreign bot farms. you've had the founding president of the foundation behind the annual National Conservatism conference, telling the Washington Post, migration of our politics online has created a perverse incentive structure. If you voice anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views, you get an instant reward in the form of clicks, likes, and follows. this was a fallacy that the activist base of the party shares these views. the with that I would warn them, you know, underestimate these people at your own risk. nick fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker carlson, people in this specific space with a certain kind of you, they are prepared for a world where Donald Trump is no longer the president or isn't around anymore. ends in the vacuum that is left when a leader like that who has his hooks into his supporters. So Hart is there. There's going to be a change. dimension, a straw poll about Israel at TPU as a way to go. Oh, Nick Fuentes and these people, they don't matter. That's it's that's a word. That's the word I don't use anymore. really dumb that those are different kinds of conservatives. in the rise of Donald Trump, I'm talking all the way back in like 2016. that shows what you can do with a really strong initial base of 15% of a party. so this MAGA civil war, the fights that we see, they're not like drama. They're not random sideshows. This is a war for the soul of the future of the party. then also with us talking about a drastically different future, we got to talk about how we may experience a completely different social media and tech landscape altogether in the future, and part of that, it's connected to why you're seeing parents and advocates celebrating the cracks that are forming and big tech shield of legal protections. Because specifically, we need to talk about how juries in two separate states dealt very, very big blows to both meta and YouTube this week. Just yesterday we saw a jury in LA fining both companies liable for harms to children using their services. because you're the plaintiff in that case going back. And her initial case included all the big social media companies TikTok, snap, YouTube and matter with TikTok and snap actually settling before the case went to trial. you arguing that meta and YouTube's platform features, they were designed intentionally to be addictive, especially to young users. specifically blaming them for the depression and anxiety that you faced as an adult, saying that the issues developed because of a compulsive use of their platforms as a child. and a huge thing is that this is far from the only case that has made this accusation. In fact, thousands of families across the country have filed similar lawsuits, and this was chosen as one of just a handful of bellwether trials. retest to see how both sides of this argument play out before a jury. this one, I mean, it seems to have worked out pretty great for them. With the jury awarding KDM $6 million in damages Meta, they're actually on the hook for the biggest chunk of that. and then a New Mexico. You saw a jury ordered meta to pay $375 million in damages for failing to protect young users from child predators. and finding the company responsible for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms. now, with all this, as you could probably guess, Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, they you know, they didn't take kindly to these rulings. companies promising to appeal the case in LA and meta statement argued that teen mental health is, quote, profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app, Google's spokesperson responded that the case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site. and also, you know, a big thing with this is that these are definitely different from previous cases against social media platforms. because they focused on deliberate design choices and product liability. And so they were able to skirt around section 230. which of course, having done this over the last two decades, we have talked about a lot. It's a chunk of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that generally exempts internet companies from liability for material that users post on their platforms. made it a major hurdle for previous lawsuits focusing on how the platforms actually distribute content. you have these companies successfully arguing for years that any harm potentially caused by their platforms, it's just a byproduct or the unintentional and inevitable consequence is a broader societal issues. Are bad actors taking advantage of safeguards? then also any cases that they've lost, they were pretty easily able to pay the penalty is the cost of just doing business and then able to move few million dollars. It's a rounding error in the eyes of these multibillion dollar companies. which is then actually why you have many people saying

that the real victory here isn't necessarily that the companies have to cut a check, but rather there is a very real chance, a change. tech watchdogs, parents and children's advocates saying things like the era of big tech invincibility is over. After years of gaslighting from companies like Google and Meta, new evidence and testimony have pulled back the curtain and validated the harms young people and parents have been telling the world about for years. and saying for the parents whose children died as a result of social media harms, today's verdict is a huge step toward truth, justice, and accountability. and you've even got people comparing this to the cases that targeted Big Tobacco, saying this could be the beginning of a reckoning across the social media landscape, especially because, like I said, there are thousands of cases like Kagame's waiting in the wings. and so you're seeing people like an assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center saying, for the first time, courts have held social media platforms accountable for how their product design can harm users, this is a new legal territory that could reshape an industry long shielded by section 230. platforms, will have to rethink their focus on engagement at any cause which has outlived itself. in Jim Steyer, the chief executive of Common Sense Media, said that these rulings show that the courts are willing to align with state legislatures and foreign governments to reshape Silicon Valley. Right. Multiple states have enacted various social media laws aimed at protecting kids or saying they're protecting kids are launch investigations into platforms. then also with this, I say, well, lawmakers at the federal level have been slow to act, that the same is not true for other countries. Right. Both the European Union and individual countries within Europe, they've taken more aggressive actions to crack down on social media usage among younger kids. right. In addition to, you know, more robust laws in general, EU regulators have launched numerous investigations, issued a preliminary decision last month against TikTok for its addictive design, saying that it threatens the well-being of users, including minors. in fact, just today, you had officials announcing that they have launched an investigation into Snap for violations of a 2022 law that for social media companies to police illicit content more aggressively. specifically there, the EU is alleging that Snap's age verification system is ineffective at preventing children under 13 from using the app. And regulators also claiming that the algorithm regularly misclassified users age 13 to 17 as adults and then directs them toward explicit content, exposes them to dangerous contacts for sexual exploitation, and provides access to illegal products. there's also a say in addition to the excitement and declarations of accountability from the US rulings, it is very important to know that we do not know for sure what the real outcome or the ripple effects of this are going to be. where there are a number of things that are constantly labeled as, like a way to protect kids, but it really is cracking down on anonymity on the internet. People's rights in general. and some people have already sounded that alarm saying these rulings could be teeing up a serious blow to section 230 privacy and free speech, you have the foundation for individual rights and expression, saying if media companies must worry about liability whenever they're expressive outputs are thought to be harmful, the universe of available content would be reduced to the safest, blandest, and least engaging stuff imaginable. when it comes to social media, that affects what you're allowed to post to. not mention a potential gold rush for personal injury attorneys with for example, in our Street Institute policy analysts noting cases like this will likely unleash a trial lawyer bonanza via a much broader wave of mostly frivolous lawsuits. every tort lawyer in America is probably thinking about ripping down their been in a crash billboards right now and replacing them with addicted to the internet signs. and then was something you also saw echoed by the Wall Street Journal editorial board saying using a novel product liability theory to shakedown, companies won't help young people and isn't a good way to make law. then on top of that, you have many others pushing back on the argument that social media is addictive, saying, you know, these platforms aren't products like cigarets or alcohol, even making the comparison at times, similar concerns about comic books back in the 50s. so as far as how all of this is going to turn out, we probably aren't going to know for years and years. there's a very long way to go. I mean, just even with these two cases. an overall, whether it's a good change or a bad change or whatever change it's going to take. Court ruling, state legislatures, Congress and even international pressure like what we're seeing in the EU to truly make a difference or make some sort of change. But for many out there, at least for the, the time being, you see, them acting like this feels like a step in the right direction. The really time will tell. And in the meantime, of course, I'd love know your thoughts in those comments down below. then there's more we've got to dive into in just a minute. But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, as a parent, it is wild to me that kids today don't even have a choice when it comes to their digital identity. before you kid even knows how to manage their inbox, the internet can already start profiling them. It's insane. And yet it's the norm. that's what today's sponsor, ProtonMail and they're born private campaign. Come in just a dollar, you can reserve your child's email address and keep it protected for up to 15 years. now that symbolic dollar goes directly to the proton foundation, and it gives your kid a clean start before the tracking, profiling and digital baggage start piling up. It's a smarter way to protect your kid's digital identity from day one. know, email isn't this temporary thing anymore. It's how your kid access accesses school services and opportunities. guess what? All of that data might be tracked, profiled, and sold to sketchy third party websites before your kid even gets a say in the matter. proton gives your kid a fresh, clean slate, free from ads tracking and data mining from the big tech providers. With proton. Only your kid can read their emails. Not even proton itself. it's a no one's snooping. No ads again. That and no data is getting sold. say hey head to proton dot me slash DeFranco to protect your digital identity. Today. Protect your child's privacy while you still can. then diving right back into the news. The white House is threatening to unleash hell on Iran. The Pentagon's getting ready to deliver one massive final blow. And Donald Trump, he continues to insist that actually, Iran, they're the one that's begging for a deal. depending on, you know, whether he's actually telling the truth

we may be inching toward an end to this war or a brand new chapter with even graver consequences. and in the meantime, what's happening with this conflict? It's already shaping what's going on with another Russia's war in Ukraine. but we're I want to start with you is with the situation between the U. S. and Iran, because Trump says, you know, they're talking Iran says they're not. And the truth might actually be somewhere in the middle, because the administration data center on a 15 point plan to end the war, a plan which reportedly called for the country to dismantle its nuclear sites, halt uranium enrichment, suspend its ballistic missile program, curb support for its regional allies, and fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, they publicly rejected that plan, and they laid out their own conditions for ending the war, including an end to sanctions, compensation for damages, a wider cease fire for the region that protects Hezbollah, and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. you had Iran's foreign minister telling state media that Iran had no intention to hold talks with the United States. But then despite that, you had the U. S. and Israel temporarily removing him and Iran's speaker of parliament from their hitlist, even as an Israeli airstrike allegedly killed the naval commander, who played a key role in shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. and you've also reportedly had some Iranian officials speaking to The New York Times suggesting that they're opening negotiations and they're even considering meeting with Trump administration officials in Pakistan over the next week. they want more than a temporary pause to the fighting, which they fear that Israel and the US would only use as an opportunity to build up their forces before launching strikes again. and well, they're apparently willing to discuss limitations on nuclear enrichment, they're not open to limitations on the country's missile program. and they also won't reopen the Strait of Hormuz without a peace deal in place. And if it is open, they still are hoping to charge ships that pass through it. to the available information? It might suggest that the gap between the two sides is still massive, but also there is a real desire to find a diplomatic solution. but this very slight chance of a diplomatic breakthrough. It's apparently led Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to direct his country's military to increase strikes on Iran's arms industry as much as possible, that order apparently coming after his government got a copy of Trump's 15 point plan, which was reportedly detailed enough to alarm Netanyahu, his staff and Israel's defense chiefs, who felt it didn't go far enough to keep Iran's nuclear program or missile capabilities in check. but then also understand the U. S. is preparing to ramp up with white House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt claiming yesterday that, yes, talks were ongoing and productive, but also saying that if Iran doesn't make a deal, the US will hit Iran harder than they have ever been hit before. And adding President Trump does not bluff and he is prepared to unleash hell. and so then also with at you at Trump following up on social media this morning writing, Iranian negotiators are very different and strange. They are begging us to make a deal, which they should be doing since they have been militarily obliterated with zero chance of a comeback. And yet they publicly state that they are only looking at our proposal wrong. better get serious soon before it is too late. Because once that happens, there is no turning back and it won't be pretty. of course, you know, it's clear that the US is at least positioning itself to follow through on Trump's threats. With thousands more troops on their way to the region and a $200 billion funding request potentially soon on his way to Congress, then on top of that, the Pentagon is reportedly developing military options for a final blow solution that could involve the use of ground forces in a massive bombing campaign, including invading or blockading Kharg Island, which is Iran's main oil export. Taking over other strategic islands that help Iran maintain control over the strait, and blocking or seizing ships that are exporting Iranian oil on the eastern side of the strait. you have some American officials, reportedly of the mind that inadequate display of force, it would give the US more leverage in peace talks, or at least give Trump something to point to. And declare victory. then with this, you had Iran's speaker of Parliament suggesting that they were aware of the Pentagon's preparations in a post on Twitter yesterday, writing Iran's enemies, with the support of one of the regional countries, are preparing to occupy one of the Iranian islands. all enemy movements are under the full surveillance of our armed forces. If they step out of line, all the vital infrastructure of that regional country will, without restriction, become the target of relentless attacks. so it seems likely he was referring to an island that's near the western entrance of the strait controlled by Iran, but claimed by the UAE, which is likely the regional country that he's mentioning there. because along with Saudi Arabia, the UAE reportedly pushed Trump to keep the war going and even considered getting directly involved. also, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal that Trump may be most concerned with, is ending this war quickly. the problem with that is Iran also gets a say in how the war ends, and the options that are being discussed, I mean, they could actually drag the fighting out and make it worse instead of pushing things towards a clear finish. Right. People close to Trump reportedly warning that it is very hard to guess what he might do next, saying that, you know, he has often gone back and forth between diplomacy and escalation. very notably some of his allies are apparently encouraging him to escalate, saying that regime change in Iran, it could be legacy defining, and he's reportedly willing to put boots on the ground, but is also reluctant to do so, at least partly because it could undermine his goal of bringing the conflict to a swift end. written then he's also concerned that the number of troops killed or injured will rise if the war continues. With so far 13 Americans having been killed and nearly 300 wounded. with that, you know, cracks may be starting to show among Republicans when it comes to support for this war. with several of them leaving classified Pentagon briefings yesterday, expressing frustration at the lack of detailed information that they're getting, especially related to the possibility of sending ground troops into Iran. you'd one lawmaker saying boots on the ground, maybe a red line for some indicating that's the time that they're going to abandon the effort. There was concern that this is not being ruled out. with that, you had Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace saying she will not support troops on the ground in Iran, even more so after this briefing and adding, justifications presented to the American public for the war in Iran were not the same military objectives we were briefed on today in the House

Armed Services Committee. saying this gap is deeply troubling. The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people. we then also seen frustration being expressed by European leaders with, for example, Germany's defense minister saying at a meeting of the G7 today to make it crystal clear this war is a catastrophe for the world's economies. European partners in Germany highlighted from the beginning that we have not been consulted before. Nobody asked us before. It's not our war. then in a cabinet meeting today, Trump appeared focused on projecting confidence with him, repeatedly insisting that Iran is desperate for a deal. In fact, not him They are begging to make it deal. Not me. They're begging to make it. Yeah. And anybody that saw what was happening over there would understand why they want to make a deal. are begging to work out a deal. I don't know if we'll be able to do that. I don't know if we're willing to do that. They should have done that four weeks ago. it two years ago, or when we first came into office, They are begging to make a deal. but also revealed that his so-called mysterious gift that he was talking about, that he received from Iran, it was, claiming it had allowed several oil tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz to show that it was serious about negotiating. then also speaking of oil tankers, you had British Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorizing the UK's military to board and detain Russian shadow fleet tankers in British waters today. so joining other countries, including France, Belgium and Sweden, who have taken similar measures. they also mention it in a story about Iran because Starmer, he specifically claimed that his decision was driven at least partly by the fact that Russia is benefiting from rising oil prices that are linked to the Iran war. which also is just especially the case since the US partially lifted sanctions on Russian oil exports, helping bring its daily oil revenues to their highest levels in years. then also, this is not the only way that the two conflicts are connected. Pentagon is now also considering whether to divert weapons originally intended for Ukraine, now to the Middle East. that includes some of the systems that Ukraine needs most, like high end missile interceptors, the same equipment that the U. S. has already been redirecting from Europe and East Asia to reinforce its forces in the Middle East, raising concerns there as well. then Russia, they may also be trying to use the war in Iran to undermine U. S. support for Ukraine in other ways as well. with, for example, Zelensky claiming that Russia offered to stop sharing military intelligence with Iran if the US cut off intelligence support to Ukraine in return. in the meantime, with so much attention on Iran, Putin's only been ramping up his attacks on the country, launching a new spring offensive that's involved the largest single day drone assault since Russia launched its full scale invasion more than four years ago. then, of course, you have to remember that both of these wars, they've had massive economic impacts as well. but also, you know, while the conflict, it may be driving up prices, the affordability crisis. It's been a long time in the making. and also affordability. It might be about to be an even bigger issue is economists sound the alarm. Right. Politicians are about to make life way more expensive for you, because their approach to the problem is fundamentally flawed. that's because they're listening to big business instead of the experts who actually know what they're doing. Right. Since affordability is become a buzzword in our political landscape, both sides of the aisle have offered their own solutions. Some have suggested putting a cap on credit card interest rates and extending mortgages to 50 year terms, or axing taxes on tips, car loan interest and overtime pay. others have been pushing for freezing rent and utility rates and putting caps on grocery prices, while also tossing around ideas to suspend seniors property taxes and the gas tax, which sounds pretty enticing right now. And both sides have even found some common ground in forcing some institutional investors out of the housing market. And all of this, again, is in the name of making life cheaper for you. However, it is also left economists scared shitless. Scotland's Again, for example, vice president of general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute, said you can come up with a laundry list of these things that are very attractive to normal humans, but that repulse economists. and politicians may write economic policies, but the ones who actually know the science behind it, they say that you know their solutions. They often cause other problems. now, the catch 22 here is that politicians, you know, they're at the back and calling their voters, or at least they're supposed to be often leading to economic solutions that Lincecum says are eternally seductive because they communicate to a political audience that you are stopping the price increases. however, the solutions, they also lead to other issues that have the opposite effect in the long run. so. For example, when you look at things like grocery prices, you have Josh Bivens, the chief economist of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, saying if you try to push down grocery prices, you could actually start reducing supply. People might start going out of business or grocery stores, clothes. also another example is the, the push for rent control that we've seen from people like Zoran Mamdani. there you've actually got economists warning, you know, this could make landlords reluctant to invest in their properties, either out of retaliation or genuine financial strain, leading to degraded housing and less livable spaces. though I will say from both personal experience and just talking to friends, there's a lot of shitty landlords out there that are going to kind of. Not make the best choices either way. But, you know, we don't want to paint everyone with a broad brush. you know, all of these concerns, they exist for almost all the ways that politicians have offered to help with affordability. Right. So reports say that freezing seniors property taxes, it could lead to higher tax bills for everyone else, capping credit card interest rates. It could make it harder for low income consumers to be approved for credit cards. But we as average citizens don't always see these risks, because politicians only present the most instantly gratifying parts of these policies to save their seats and office. so you have economists saying that the issues in these policies are all because Congress is working from the wrong end to the problem, which is why they suggest that we need more income. experts say that the affordability issues. It would be better solved if we focused on things

like reducing unemployment and strengthening unions. and the idea is that you know, we should be adapting to a problem that's here to stay, rather than trying to pretend we can snuff it out. Jason Furman, for example, a Harvard economist who led President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. He said, I think we are seeing more bad economic ideas. And before, because people are trying to solve a problem that doesn't have a solution. and yeah, that's very tough to hear as many Americans become one issue, voters only concerned with the economy. what many Americans may not realize is that we may be fighting a losing battle if we don't start to see more of a separation between our politicians and big business. right. Cash sitting high or getting slung at Capitol Hill. You know that. That's just been the thing That's to say it's not new. This has been happening. rowboat with this president and particular report show that even using the most conservative estimates, the Trumps have made almost $4 billion off of the presidency in just about a year. tariffs. Those have been weaponized causing businesses to nosedive. He's led unprecedented interventions into companies like Intel and we've seen his billionaire buddies in high places with an oligarch level of influence in our government. Neera Tanden, a top Biden advisor and head of the center for American Progress. You had her saying, haven't seen in my lifetime a president use the powers of the federal government to interfere with the market more than Trump. but also, like when you look at our capitalist system, you look at the way things have happened. It's not surprising that it's happened. it's not to take any of the blame or the weight off of Trump, but like, we can't have big business funding campaign trails and cuddling up to politicians if we expect to see, you know, economics centered around real people. then also we can have politicians placating the public with quick fix economic solutions. That just plans another problem for us to find five years later. is now foreign conflicts are continuing to drive up prices for American citizens. And you got people continuing to search high and low for any job at all. Let alone, you know, one with a livable wage. You have to wonder at what point is this affordability crisis going to come to a head? and what will it look like when, you know, we show up to vote in the fall and in 2028. But that, my friends, you beautiful bastards, is the end of your Thursday Philip DeFranco show. Dive into the news. so let me just say thank you for watching. I love your faces. And hopefully I'll see you right back here on Monday, because there will have not been a reason that I need to make an emergency episode Friday, Saturday or Sunday. even though I feel like we are probably going to have to possibly have an emergency episode based off of what I think is going to happen. we'll see. Stay safe, stay sane. I'll see you soon.