The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.6 $400k Question Has The Internet FURIOUS, Rihanna Backlash, & Marriage Equality in Jeopardy

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards. Hope you've had a fantastic Tuesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. And a quick thing before we get started, friendly reminder that you only have six days left. If you want to get the brand new one day will all be skeletons hoodie or shirt. But let's just say this is coffee mug.

Starting point is 00:00:14 And of course our Adam's don't be stupid, stupid masks. All available on shopdefranco.com for a limited time. But with that said, welcome to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first thing that we're gonna talk about today is a story and news that I'm kind of just gonna use as a way to poll you. Today, we saw CNBC tweet out an article writing,

Starting point is 00:00:34 "'Biden defines $400,000 a year as quote, wealthy. "'In big cities, it only makes you upper middle class.'" With one of their key points being, "'According to a financial planning analysis, "'families making $400,000 a year aren't exactly living large, especially in major cities. Which I would personally say, bullshit. As someone who grew up not having money

Starting point is 00:00:53 and now finding myself in the privileged position of being kind of top one, top 2% in America, yes, $400,000 a year makes you wealthy. As even noted in the article, by national measures, those making $400,000 belong to a rarefied group. Key word being rarefied, right? Top of the pyramid.

Starting point is 00:01:08 They represent the top 1.8% of taxpayers, earning about 25% of the nation's income. So I guess I just find it absolutely ludicrous that you could be in the top 2% of earners and be like, eh, I'm not wealthy though. What, because you decided to live somewhere incredibly expensive? Because you, an adult person who's responsible

Starting point is 00:01:26 for their own actions, made the choice of, I'm gonna live here rather than maybe live somewhere cheaper and yes, it'll do this to my transportation time, but I don't know, man, if you can't figure it out on $400,000 a year, I don't. Oof, friend, you are living in Disneyland. I hope the real world never catches up with you. Also, so you understand why this article is even being done,

Starting point is 00:01:45 Biden wants to tax wealthy people more with a marginal tax increase, meaning that the only taxpayers that would see tax increases are people making an income of over $400,000. But also, even the people making between 400,000 to 700,000, I think it's like a 1% increase. So the bulk of the revenue brought in from this marginal tax increase

Starting point is 00:02:01 expected from people making more than a million dollars a year, but yeah, that's why this article is even being done. But I guess the question I have, well, one, do you agree with me? It is fine if you disagree, just let me know why. But also if you agree that $400,000 is wealthy, right? $400,000 a year, what yearly amount of money brought in do you believe that means that person hits wealthy?

Starting point is 00:02:20 Let me know what you think there and why. I'm really fascinated here. And then let's talk about Rihanna being in the news because she was getting hit with an absolute ton of backlash. This over her second Savage Fenty show, which hit Amazon Prime on Friday. Which I think for a lot of people,

Starting point is 00:02:33 you hear Rihanna getting backlash for her show, why? I mean, normally she's just being praised for her line and her shows for featuring models of different races and sizes. But the reason Rihanna here was hit with this wave of criticism was because she used an Islamic Hadith in her lingerie show. And for those unfamiliar,

Starting point is 00:02:47 Hadith is a collection of traditional Muslim phrases from the prophet Muhammad used as guidance for those of the Islamic faith. And so essentially what happened here is during the show, a song titled Doom was played, which was created by London based producer, Cuckoo Chloe. That song samples Hadith narration about the end of times and judgment day mixed into a house beat.

Starting point is 00:03:03 And so when viewers recognize this, it prompted reactions like Rihanna is messed up for using a song with a Hadith narration about the end of times and judgment day mixed into a house beat. And so when viewers recognize this, it prompted reactions like Rihanna is messed up for using a song with a Hadith in it to play at her lingerie show. What is up with artists using Islam as an aesthetic? Have some respect. And as a Muslim, no words can describe how disappointed I am with Rihanna for letting her models dance to Hadith.

Starting point is 00:03:19 Hadith are the sacred words of our prophet. You can't just use it for your lingerie show. Disgusting and extremely disrespectful. Also, apparently after some digging, many pointed out that this song was actually used in the past during Rihanna's 2017 Fenty Puma show. Right, and so you had people pointing to that moment, also noting that people in the past had an issue with this, so maybe that shows that Rihanna does not care. Also here we eventually saw the song producer write an apology online, saying, I want to deeply apologize for the offense caused by the vocal sample used used in my song, Doom. "'The song was created using samples "'from Violet Funk tracks I found online.

Starting point is 00:03:48 "'At the time, I was not aware that these samples "'used text from an Islamic Hadith. "'I take full responsibility for the fact "'I did not research these words properly "'and want to thank those of you "'who have taken the time to explain this to me.'" And also noting, "'We have been in the process of having the song

Starting point is 00:04:00 "'urgently removed from all streaming platforms.'" And as far as Rihanna, we actually saw her come forward this morning with an apology of her own, saying, I'd like to thank the Muslim community for pointing out a huge oversight that was unintentionally offensive in our Savage Fenty show. I would more importantly like to apologize to you for this honest yet careless mistake.

Starting point is 00:04:15 We understand that we have hurt many of our Muslim brothers and sisters, and I'm incredibly disheartened by this. I do not play with any kind of disrespect toward God or any religion, and therefore, the use of this song in our project was completely irresponsible." Yeah, that's essentially the story as it is now. And ultimately it ends up being one of those stories

Starting point is 00:04:29 of now it's just in the court of public opinion. Right, well the people that were angry about this or even the people that were kind of just looking in, they see that as, yeah, it was an innocent mistake. She's owning up to it, it's acceptable. Or no, do you still have an issue with this? Is it still using a religion, a culture as an aesthetic? Yeah, if you have any thoughts on this one,

Starting point is 00:04:45 I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below. And then let's talk about the Supreme Court in the news. You know, with the passing away of RBG, the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, there has been a lot of talk about the Supreme Court and what might happen to, you know, the ACA, your healthcare. What's gonna happen with Roe v. Wade, reproductive rights. But I mean, in addition to that,

Starting point is 00:05:02 there is so much more at play. I mean, yesterday was the first day of the court's new term and already there are two really big stories that are coming out of it. First up actually deals with this election, what votes will or won't be counted, and it's specifically aimed at South Carolina. So what we saw was the Supreme Court siding

Starting point is 00:05:17 with Republicans, thus reinstating a mandate that requires voters to get a witness signature on their absentee ballots. And that was opposed by Democrats who thought that during a pandemic, requiring someone to get a witness signature would their absentee ballots. And that was opposed by Democrats who thought that during a pandemic, requiring someone to get a witness signature would be difficult and limiting for voters. And in fact, prior to the Supreme Court decision,

Starting point is 00:05:31 lower courts agreed with Democrats and they actually suspended the rule because of COVID-19, saying that it would interfere with a person's right to vote. But like we said, ultimately the Supreme Court decided that that rule should be reinstated with there being no noted dissents. And with this decision,

Starting point is 00:05:43 you had Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing, this court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election. Also adding that state election rules regarding the pandemic should not be subject to second guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence and expertise

Starting point is 00:05:59 to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. Now, notably as yes, it pertains to the story, but also if you are a South Carolina voter, the Supreme Court did make an exception saying that ballots that have already been cast or that are received within the next two days do not need a witness. Though it is worth noting here that justices,

Starting point is 00:06:14 Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have ordered that any ballot, regardless of when it had been sent, should not be counted if it did not have a witness signature. Yeah, this is an incredibly important story to note because as I hope you are well aware, we are actively in an election already.

Starting point is 00:06:28 We say election day, but voting is already actively happening, in fact, according to the Associated Press, in South Carolina, more than 200,000 absentee ballots have been mailed out already and 18,000 have already been returned in. So if you are a South Carolina voter who has not already mailed back, know that you now need to do this

Starting point is 00:06:45 or your vote will not count. And as far as the responses to this news, GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel saying, "'The Supreme Court just handed Republicans and the voters of South Carolina a huge victory for election integrity.'" You also had Chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, Drew McKissack, releasing a statement saying,

Starting point is 00:06:59 "'Despite the Democrats' efforts to hijack a pandemic and use it to meddle with our election laws, they've lost. We're pleased the Supreme Court reinstated the witness signature requirement and recognized its importance in helping to prevent election fraud But on the other hand you had some seeing this decision as voter suppression with a different name saying that not everyone may know that The rule is being reinstated and some may continue to vote without it with some saying things like the Supreme Court Just handed the South Carolina election to Trump and Lindsey Graham or at least made it a hell of a lot harder for Biden and Jamie Harrison to have all their votes counted. People will continue to mail in ballots not knowing this.

Starting point is 00:07:28 He also had the African American Policy Forum saying, "'Republicans are waging a war on voting rights. "'In every state, they're fighting to make it harder to vote "'and easier to throw out ballots. "'John Roberts and the other conservatives "'on the Supreme Court will work overtime "'to help them succeed in their goal of suppressing votes. "'Today's SCO disorder concerning South Carolina's

Starting point is 00:07:44 "'absentee ballot witness requirement is one such example. Sadly, there will be many more such decisions between now and November. Also, with a situation you have people like Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, writing, this sends a strong signal that the Supreme Court is going to be wary of federal court order changes

Starting point is 00:07:59 close to the election, even those done to deal with burdens on voters created by the pandemic. This is a signal that this continues to be a court not willing to strongly protect voting rights. And stories like this are why I will continue to echo the point of, if you are someone that wants the Lindsey Graham's and Trump's of the world

Starting point is 00:08:14 out of office, do not get complacent and cocky when you see the state and the national poll. None of that matters if you're not staying informed, staying focused, getting the word out when news like this is happening, and you're voting like this may be the last time you ever get the chance to vote. You better be bringing that kind of energy

Starting point is 00:08:29 because who knows how many ballots are gonna try to get rejected. But yeah, that's where I'll leave that story for now. But then the next big Supreme Court story is one that actually starts with Kim Davis. That is probably a name that you're familiar with though, if not thought of in a long time. She was that Kentucky clerk who years ago made headlines

Starting point is 00:08:44 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying she wouldn't do this because it conflicted with her religious beliefs. Yesterday, what we saw was the court saying they would not hear an appeal in her case. But even though the Supreme Court is not taking up that case questions about a potential threat to Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that allows for same-sex marriage,

Starting point is 00:09:01 still came up because Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote an opinion about that decision and Kim Davis. With that opinion, saying that the decision could quote, "'Threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans "'who believe that marriage is a sacred institution "'between one man and one woman, "'and that Obergefell v. Hodges enables courts "'and governments to brand religious adherents

Starting point is 00:09:19 "'who believe that marriage is between one man "'and one woman as bigots, "'making their religious liberty concerns "'that much easier to dismiss. While Thomas said that he does agree with the decision to not take up Davis's appeal because it did not cleanly present the issues with the decision, he still spoke in defense

Starting point is 00:09:32 of her situation, writing, "'Davis may have been one of the first victims "'of the court's cavalier treatment of religion "'in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. "'Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held "'religious beliefs concerning marriage "'will find it increasingly difficult to participate "'in society without running afoul of Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws. And from all of that, we saw a lot of outrage.

Starting point is 00:09:53 To people like Chastin Buttigieg saying, just a reminder that overturning Obergefell gay marriage is in the Republican Party's official platform. Alito and Thomas just signaled their wishes to overturn it and we already know where Barrett stands on the issue. Please vote. Though regarding Amy Coney Barrett, it is worth noting that she has expressed her personal disagreement with gay marriage, but has written very little about it in a legal sense and has not specifically said she would overturn it.

Starting point is 00:10:15 Senator Ed Markey also saying, five years ago, the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states. It is the settled law of the land. The Senate must reject any nominee who would side with Justices Thomas and Alito to overturn Obergefell. But ultimately, that is where we are with the story. As far as would this actually get overturned?

Starting point is 00:10:31 I mean, we'd have to wait and see, but even the prospect, I understand that this change only happened about five years ago. I mean, it's genuinely alarming. Out of all the things that I was like, oh, that's something that they might take away or change, I didn't think that. But it also doesn't appear that it is something

Starting point is 00:10:44 that the American people want. According to a Gallup poll this year, two out of every three Americans supports gay marriage. While the support for that is obviously much higher with Democrats and Independents, I mean, Republicans are almost at 50%, which I mean is a big change. It's almost double than like 10 years ago.

Starting point is 00:10:58 But yeah, that is where the Supreme Court stories, and actually the show today will end. I of course give you the story, some of my personal takeaway, and then of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on either of these? Yeah, I'd really love to know your thoughts on this. And that is where I'm going to end today's show.

Starting point is 00:11:10 As always, thanks for being a part of these daily dives into the news. If you're new here, join the family, hit that subscribe button, maybe even text me at 813-213-4423. You get notifications for the big stuff, some behind the scenes, other cool stuff. Also, remember you only have six days left

Starting point is 00:11:24 if you wanna grab something at shopdefranco.com. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.6 $400k Question Has The Internet FURIOUS, Rihanna Backlash, & Marriage Equality in Jeopardy

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.