The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 11.27 Why People Are Freaking Out On Cardi B, Apple's SCOTUS Problem, & Ukraine Russia Spiraling

Episode Date: November 27, 2018

Latest episode of The Philip DeFranco Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Tuesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is a story that has been blowing up more and more for slightly different reasons here and there. And I also question even talking about it, mainly because I hate the product in question and I'm aware that even when you talk about something and talk about the negatives of it, you also inadvertently advertise it to some. But also you have to kind of just push that to the side because otherwise how can you talk about anything? But the main thing here, the main thing that we are talking about today are detox companies. Right the likes of flat tummy Co or Timi which if you've ever used Instagram you've come across. You've got the likes of Kim Kardashian pimping out appetite suppressant

lollipops. You also have the likes of Khloe Kardashian advertising that same company's meal replacement shakes although apparently she couldn't even be bothered to shake up the shake for her sponsored posts. And just to keep the Kardashian trend going, we've seen the likes of Kourtney Kardashian advertising their detox tea, aka what I call diarrhea juice. But like I said before, it is more than one company, it is more than just the Kardashians.

And in fact, the reason people are talking about this today is you have Iggy Azalea, Cardi B, and Jameela Jamil. Jameela, who is an actress on The Good Place, has been outspoken against companies like this. And today, she took aim at both of them, and thus, both of the companies they are sponsored by. Iggy Azalea was promoting Flat Tummy's meal replacement shake,

saying it's given her more definition in her tummy without losing her ass, to which Jameela came out swinging and responded. "'When will these women who are covered in plastic surgery "'stop telling their followers to drink a laxative "'to look like them? "'It's so embarrassing and it's so encouraging of eating disordered behavior.

Be better allies. Then continuing from a place of experience, I was the teenager who starved herself for years, who spent all her money on these miracle cures and laxatives and tips from celebrities on how to maintain a weight that was lower than what my body wanted it to be. I was sick, I have had digestion

and metabolism problems for life. And adding, I'm not going to stop coming after all the people, men and women who Perpetuate this gross culture of forcing women to remain small and doll-like in order to be accepted by society Meal also taking aim at Cardi B who put out a video for Timmy Jamila writing They got Cardi B on the laxative nonsense detox tea God I hope all these celebrities all shit their pants in public the way the poor women who buy this nonsense upon their Recommendation do not that they actually take this shit

It is flog it because they need more money. Adding, don't drink these quote detox teas. You need fiber. Not something that honestly just makes you have diarrhea the day you take it and constipates you in the long run. Also pointing out separately, it's not FDA approved. No doctors are advising you to use this stuff. And there was a ton of support

for what Jameela was throwing out there. But also at the same time, you had some calling out Jameela. People that apparently still exist like Perez Hilton, tweeting, if the detox tea people offered me money to promote them, I'm taking that cash. I got kids. This Jameela Jamil and her holier than thou attitude. Also we saw Cardi B respond on Instagram with the comment,

I will never shit my pants cause there's public bathrooms everywhere. Oh and bushes. Which technically is a response. To which Jameela responded, she will never shit her pants, not because of bushes, but because she probably doesn't ever take the product she promotes. During her promotional video,

she keeps looking at the name of the product on the cup, almost as if she's never seen it. I wanna thank Timmy, and I just wanna say thank you Timmy. And as far as my personal reaction to this situation, I personally have a problem with people that promote these products. There's a reason why on their site, they say it's 100% natural, immediately followed by,

we don't recommend drinking it while you're pregnant or breastfeeding. Also, text that's been pulled from their site includes, if you are under 18 years old, please consult your parent before use. The cleanse tea may encourage bowel movements and in high doses can be toxic. Also, and I feel like this should be advertised

more heavily, if you are on a contraceptive pill in their FAQ, they actually write, there is a chance it could be affected, and adding, "'We suggest using extra protection "'while drinking flat tummy tea "'and have a chat to your doctor before use.'" Also with how disconnected so many of the celebrities

promoting these products seem when they're promoting it, it really calls into question if they actually back it or if they're just like cha-ching, motherfucker. I mean, I don't wanna make a blanket statement, but when you see pictures like Khloe's and sometimes some celebrities seemingly not knowing the name of the thing they're promoting. I want to say thank you, see me. That makes me feel like it's a disingenuous cash grab.

Also, out of all the ads I've seen, I don't know if I've ever seen one where the person is actually consuming the product. I mean, it's something that Jamila hit on. So many of the pictures are just of the packaging. But with all of that said, if I can hit a final note as someone that has been incredibly large and also pretty lean at times, not right now, as someone that has tried almost all things, good and bad, the best way to get to a healthy place is just to not eat garbage food

and don't do these kind of shortcut things like detoxes. It should not be used as a long-term sustainable thing. I have done damage to my body with bad life choices regarding nutrition. And the only thing that I've seen consistently work for myself and other people, and any trainer or nutritionist out there that's not trying to sell you something will say,

the balance of a proper everyday diet and activity, right? Exercise, right? That's the answer. And while I wanna give some of the people promoting this product the benefit of the doubt that some of them are maybe just ignorant. A combination of several factors around this story makes me feel like a lot of the time

it's a don't give a damn about your fan cash grab. And one that is predatory in nature given how insecure everyone is about their weight these days. But with all of that said, that is the story. That is my personal opinion. And I pass the question off to you. One, what do you think about products like this? And two, what do you think about the celebrities

that back them? Because I personally don't know if this is gonna stop anytime soon, because as more and more high profile celebrities involve themselves with these companies, there's a kind of safety in numbers situation. But main point, I'd love to know what you think. Also, I'd love to know if you have a personal experience

with these products or know someone who has. And then let's talk about why we had Apple and the Supreme Court in the news together. And this is gonna be something that doesn't end today, but it's very interesting. And that's because on Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in together, and this is gonna be something that doesn't end today, but it's very interesting. And that's because on Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Apple v. Pepper, which is a lawsuit seeking to pursue

an antitrust case against Apple. Robert Pepper and three others have been a part of a class action lawsuit against Apple since 2011, claiming that basically because Apple users must use the App Store and Apple takes a 30% commission on Apple Store sales, that this has caused developers to increase prices and therefore passing the commission cost to the customer without an alternative option.

The plaintiff's lawyer, David Frederick, saying, "'Apple directed anti-competitive restraints "'at iPhone owners to prevent them from buying apps "'anywhere other than Apple's monopoly App Store.' "'As a result, iPhone owners paid Apple more for apps "'than they would have paid in a competitive retail market.'" And later saying, "'Our assertion is that with multiple sellers,

"'multiple suppliers of the apps, "'we would be able to buy them, the apps, at a lower price. And they are seeking damages for those who have purchased apps from the App Store. Now the reason we're dealing with the Supreme Court today is that lower courts have actually disagreed over whether Pepper and others have the right to sue apps. And so that right is actually what the Supreme Court will be deciding on, not the antitrust case itself. And specifically they seek to answer, quote, whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices

set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense. So that's the situation, that is the case. What about Apple's defense? Well, Apple's argument is centered around the 1977 Illinois brick doctrine, which if you're one of those idiots that don't know your brick doctrines,

it found that customers could not sue the brick monopoly because they were purchasing from middlemen, meaning that only the direct purchaser, the middlemen who were mostly masons, were the only ones that could pursue an antitrust lawsuit. And so Apple has argued that in this case, they act as middlemen for developers who are the ones that set the prices,

meaning the app developers would be the only ones that could bring an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, and if customers did have issues with app costs, they would need to take it up with the developers themselves. So where does the Supreme Court stand? We saw that the four liberal justices were skeptical of Apple's argument along with at times three

of the conservative justices. Justice Sotomayor flat out disagreed with the characterization of Apple as the middleman. We also saw justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch suggesting that the Illinois brick doctrine should be revisited. And Gorsuch specifically said, "'Shouldn't we question Illinois brick,

"'perhaps given the fact that so many states have done so?' And what he's referring to there is a coalition of 31 states that filed an amicus brief in October with the court asking for that decision to be overturned. And it was actually Chief Justice John Roberts that seemed the most sympathetic to Apple's argument, saying, quote, to the extent it might be said

that Apple is a two-sided market. They're subject to suit on both sides of the market for a single antitrust price increase that they're alleged to have imposed. While that may sound like a green light to sue the hell out of Apple, it's actually a reference to the Brick Doctrine. One of the things that the Brick Doctrine was actually meant to prevent were double lawsuits over the same issue, one from the middlemen and one from the consumers.

And so if the Supreme Court sides with Pepper, Apple would be open to lawsuits from developers as well as consumers over the same price increase. However, you also have Justice Elena Kagan that does see it like a green light, saying that the argument is flawed because both of the parties would actually have separate damages that they are seeking. Saying on one side you have consumers who have paid too much, and on the other side you have developers who have lost profit. But with all of that said, that is ultimately where we are right now, and as far as when this will be decided, we have some time. Reportedly the actual decision from the Supreme Court isn't expected until late June. But still, I wanted to talk about this because it's a very fascinating case. One that obviously questions and challenges Apple's business model of the walled garden business model. And personally, I was interested in explaining the story

and then in hearing from you guys. What I would ask is if you do leave a comment on this specific topic, if you let me know if you are an Apple user or an Android user or whatever. Let me know in those comments down below. And then let's start about this really concerning situation between Russia and Ukraine. On Sunday, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia

got even worse. This after three Ukrainian naval vessels reportedly were stopped and attacked by Russian board patrol boats in the Black Sea. The three Ukrainian ships in question were a tugboat and two small artillery vessels. A video posted by a Russian sailor shows the commander ordering their considerably larger vessel to be rammed

into the tugboat while yelling and cursing the whole time. And after the ramming, the Russian ships also reportedly fired on the Ukrainian one, something that was confirmed by the FSB, Russia's security service, saying, "'Weapons were used with the aim "'of forcibly stopping the Ukrainian warships. "'As a result, all three Ukrainian naval vessels "'were seized in the Russian Federation's

"'territorial waters in the Black Sea. "'The incident even resulted in the Russians "'closing off the Kerch Strait "'by using a large civilian vessel "'to block off the passage to shipping, "'even scrambling aircraft and attack helicopters "'to patrol the area.'" Now, during the fighting,

allegedly six Ukrainians were injured, although Russia says only three were minorly injured and were taken to hospitals to be treated. Additionally, in total over two dozen sailors were captured and are being held. And with this situation, we've seen both sides pointing fingers. The FSB blamed the incident on the Ukrainian ships, saying that the ships had illegally entered Russian waters, attempted quote, illegal actions, and ignored warnings to stop while maneuvering dangerously. And on the other side, you have the Ukrainians claiming they were just attempting to cross the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. Something that is supposed to be a routine event when the Russians illegally stop them in violation of bilateral treaties between them that allows for the sharing and free navigation of the strait in the Sea of Azov. So why does the Kerch Strait matter says the same person who didn't know anything about brick doctrines?

Well first off you need to understand that the Kerch Strait is a narrow body of water connecting the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov. And Russia has been increasingly controlling the Kerch Strait despite treaties between the two countries that are supposed to allow for free travel through it. And of massive note here is that the Strait is straddled by Crimea and Russia itself. And like many of the recent tensions

between the two countries, Crimea has been at the center of the problem. Since 2014, Crimea has been occupied and annexed by Russia, and they even built a bridge across the street in May to cement their ties. And since that bridge was put into place, Russia has been increasingly hostile to ships crossing the street.

According to reports, nearly 150 merchant ships have been seized and searched trying to cross the street, with Russia claiming that they're doing this to protect the bridge because there have been, quote, "'terroristic threats against the structure.'" And it appears they've been so hostile that the Ukrainian Navy even put out a video report that followed two of their vessels crossing the strait in September.

And there we see, despite prior warning that they would be approaching the strait with a warship to cross into the Sea of Azov, that they were harassed and shadowed the entire way by Russian vessels and international waters. The Russian ships even radioed that a warning was issued to ships that the straits were closed because of navigational conditions, something that was actually never issued. And so essentially you have one side, Russia, that has slowly been putting into practice the claim that since both sides of the waterway are now their territory, that they get to control the strait and that it's part of Russia. But on the other side you have Ukraine,

where they don't recognize Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, and thus the waterway is still split between them. And on top of that, they also point to those bilateral treaties that regardless of who Crimea belongs to, says that the two countries should be allowed to freely travel through the Kerch strait.

Because otherwise, how is Ukraine supposed to keep up the economic shipping between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov? And so therein lies the question, is this just part of a larger plan? Disrupting economic activity and Ukrainian military presence might be one of Russia's goals. I mean, it's an open secret that Russia is fighting a proxy war against Ukraine in the region via separatists. There are even reports that Russian officers and soldiers are in the region, although Russia denies this, saying that any of its citizens fighting in the area are purely there as foreign volunteers.

And while this is in part a more localized situation because it cuts off shipping from one half of Ukraine to the other, it puts tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy, it's also an international situation. In part because shutting down the Kerch Strait cuts off one of the world's largest supplies of corn and grain.

Also, when you have less economic activity, you hurt the economy, you make the area more unstable. Also, from a military standpoint, if you have less Ukrainian warships, hurt the economy, you make the area more unstable. Also from a military standpoint, if you have less Ukrainian warships, that helps the pro-Russian separatists who are trying to take coastal areas. We've also already seen initial fallout from this incident. Reportedly upwards of 300 people in Kiev

went late Sunday night to the Russian embassy. They threw smoke bombs at the building, some even lighting a car with Russian diplomatic plates on fire in response to all of this. We've also seen the Ukrainian government and president demanding that their sailors and ships be released, which is something that Russia is unlikely to do since they believe or say they believe that they acted legally. It's also been reported that Russia has released some interviews from captured sailors who said that they knew that they were acting

belligerently and they will reportedly be held for upwards of two months. Also some of the biggest news for Ukraine was the implementation of martial law. Late Sunday we saw the Ukrainian president saying that he was seeking martial law because of this incident. Then meeting with his national security and defense council who demanded that he enact 60 days of martial law. After that meeting, parliament was supposed to meet on Monday to discuss the martial law and vote on it. But then at 3.30 PM on Monday,

everything got really confusing. The president of Ukraine announced that he signed a 60 day martial law, despite the fact that parliament hadn't even voted on the bill yet. This version outlined in broad strokes what would happen. More border guards would be sent to strengthen the border with Russia and Crimea. Security services would step up their efforts in counterintelligence, counterterrorism, info security and cyber security. It also instructed the Interior Minister to increase security around critical infrastructure.

And it also did the things that you would expect from martial law. It suppresses many basic freedoms like the right to free speech, political protests, harsh curfews. But even though the law was signed, it still needed to be approved by MPs because the Ukrainian president did things backwards. However, because of heavy snows when the vote was supposed to start, there weren't enough MPs present, so they had to wait. And during that wait, groups started coming out opposed to the law. The opposition was opposed because they were largely seen as pro-Russian, but even pro-government coalition members were against it. This seemingly because of the time length and because martial law would severely curtail many rights. And they were especially worried that the law

would be used to cancel upcoming elections in March. An election where many believe the president of Ukraine would actually get kicked out of power since he's fairly unpopular right now. And so the most common demands we saw here were that martial law be enacted for only 30 days and certain rights be maintained. But then the next thing we see is Poroshenko

announces on national TV and Twitter that he had intelligence that Russia was preparing a general ground attack against Ukraine and that martial law was necessary and saying that he would be using his power as president and a supreme commander of Ukraine to enact martial law starting November 28 and seemingly doing so without the consent of Parliament or looking for the consent after the fact However with this move he did concede that the law would only be for 30 days not 60 and that he would introduce a bill to protect the election in March and after all of, even though the way that everything happened was incredibly, uh, unorthodox, the Ukrainian parliament ended up approving a 30-day martial law across 10 provinces, the ones specifically bordering Russia, Crimea, and the seas, as well as protections for the March 31st elections,

and as part of the martial law, all reservists can be called up and mobilized. But still, some, notably Russia, have tried to frame this incident as a chance for Poroshenko to declare martial law and stop the elections. And seeing the international reaction to this whole situation has been very interesting, with leaders throughout the world coming out to condemn Russia's aggression. France's foreign ministry saying nothing appears to justify this use of force by Russia, calling on Russia to respect the freedom of passage, reaffirming France's commitment to their support of Ukraine. We also saw former Soviet satellites critical of Russia with Poland and Estonia making it clear that new sanctions from Europe and the United States should be on the table. With the president of Estonia even saying that the incident constitutes war in Europe. But on the note of sanctions Russia doesn't seem all that concerned. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov saying, sanctions don't concern us anymore. Of course having sanctions is always a bad thing, but according to Sunday's accident

we can't understand the politics of it when the country whose sovereignty was violated can be considered as an object of new sanctions again. And it's very hard to change people's minds who only want to find new reasons for putting pressure on Russia. And as far as the US response to all of this, we kind of saw two different levels which has become the norm when it comes to the United States and Russia. And for the two different levels, you of course had President Donald Trump and Ambassador Nikki Haley. President Trump on Monday saying, "'It's not good. We're not happy about it at all. Not at all. We've let our position be known and we're not happy about it. We do not like what's happening either way.

We don't like what's happening. And hopefully it'll get straightened out. I know Europe is not, they're not thrilled. They're working on it too. We're all working on it together.'" And so there we saw some outlets and some people criticize the president for not just outright condemning Russia.

Although separately on Monday at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, we saw Nikki Haley condemn Russia's actions. Impeding Ukraine's lawful transit through the Kerch Strait is a violation under international law. It is an arrogant act that the international community must condemn and will never accept. In May, the United States condemned Russia's construction and opening of the Kerch Strait Bridge between Russia and occupied Crimea. In August, the United States condemned Russia's harassment of international shipping in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. In the name of international peace and security, Russia must immediately cease its unlawful conduct and respect the navigational rights and freedoms of all states."

Also a big thing to keep in mind is the timing of all of this. This week we have the G20 summit in Argentina. Both Putin and Trump, along with nearly every leader of every other major US ally, will be there. So there's the big question of, well what the hell happens there either in public or in private? Will we see a handling of the situation, a negotiation, a calming down, or an escalation? Are we about to witness the shifting of a proxy war to a just full out, blown out war with who is the participants?

There are a lot of big, scary question marks with this situation, but ultimately, that is where we are today. And that's where I'm going to end today's show. And remember, if you like this video, you wanna support it, hit that like button. If you're new here, you want more, hit that subscribe button to get more of these daily news videos. Which actually, on that note, if you missed the last, you want to support it, hit that like button. If you're new here, you want more, hit that subscribe button to get more

of these daily news videos. Which actually on that note, if you missed the last two Philip DeFranco shows, you want to catch up, all you have to do is click or tap right there to watch those. 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.