The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.13 The End of the MrBeast Era, “TikTok Ban” Passes, What Happens Now, Kidnapping Misinfo is Growing, &

Episode Date: March 13, 2024

I’m going to sue Nancy. I almost died from cringing so hard…Step into Spring with Vessi at http://www.vessi.com/defranco for an automatic 15% off your first purchase at checkout + free shipping to CA, US, AU, JP, TW, KR, SGP.Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/PHIL   Daily Dip newsletter subscribers can win up to $1,000 in SeatGeek credit so make sure you’re subscribed: https://www.dailydip.co/  ===== Join the secret text line 813-213-4423 to get show and big announcement texts including the New https://BeautifulBastard.com Drop Access! –✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Man Accused of Blowing Up Ex’s Home 01:43 - Polygon Paints MrBeast As Overworked & “Warped” By YouTube  07:24 - Polaris Debunks Trafficking Misinformation 14:12 - Sponsored by Vessi 15:07 - TikTok Ban Bill Passes in House 18:00 - Federal Courts Move to Prevent Judge Shopping 20:09 - Republicans Scramble as Rep. Buck Announces Early Retirement 23:17 - Argentina President Facing Criticism Over 48% Pay Rise 26:01 - Your Thoughts on Yesterday’s Show ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Star Pralle, Chris Tolve, Jared Paolino Associate Producer on Trafficking Misinformation: Maddie Crichton ———————————— #DeFranco #MrBeast #TikTok ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards! You're watching the Philip DeFranco Show again, and there's a lot of news to talk about again. So just buckle up, hit that like button to let YouTube know you like these big daily dives into the news, and let's jump into it. Starting with... You know the crazy ex-girlfriend who keys your car, lights your clothes on fire, stalks you. It's a common trope in our culture. And those, you know, they do exist, but crazy goes both ways. Crazy goes all ways. And so with that said, let me introduce you to maybe one of the most batshit insane

crazy ex-boyfriends I've ever seen. 37-year-old Stephen Glosser from the great state of Georgia. And according to an ATF investigator, which you know the stories wild, the ATF is involved here, Glosser met a woman through an online dating app. But the so-called quasi-relationship, it didn't last that long, and they ended up blocking each other,

which is where it should have ended. But crazy persists, and Glosser goes, nah, I ain't having it. So he hits up his friend and roommate, Caleb Kinsey. And apparently, they're perfect roommates, because they happen to be the same level of crazy. Because in December of 2022, they begin stalking and harassing this woman, with them allegedly sending her online threats, asking if she wants to die, saying the demons will kill her. But then, according to authorities, Glosser using an image of her house that she had shared with him to track down the address. And that is when these two devise their plot for vengeance, which allegedly includes, here's the list, acquiring and shooting arrows into her front

door, getting and releasing a large python into her home to eat her young daughter, acquiring and mailing dog poop to her home, also mailing dead rats to her home, fucking scalping her, and finally blowing up her house. And actually, that last one, they allegedly went through with it, with authorities saying the men actually blew up her home with an improvised explosive while she and her daughter were inside. Though luckily for them, they somehow escaped the explosion unscathed. And so with this, we've seen the men quickly identified, arrested, and thrown in jail without bond.

And now a federal grand jury has indicted them on numerous felony charges. And if convicted, these guys are facing decades in prison. And then, in entertainment and social media news, we have Mr. Beast at the center of another story. Though this time it seems less about like backlash or controversy and more of a debate. And that's because a lot of people online have latched onto this story from Polygon titled The End of the Mr. Beast Era. Jimmy Donaldson warped YouTube in his image, but YouTube is warping him back. And the bastards, they got me and a lot of people to click. And this, it's not another profile. They didn't speak to Mr. Beast for this. Instead, they just me and a lot of people to click. Right, and this, it's not another profile. They didn't speak to Mr. Beast for this.

Instead, they just looked at a ton of his content and interviews that he's done and they talked about it. Both with how he has changed YouTube and YouTube has changed him. Noting that in the past, he said that all he does is YouTube, that he basically lives in his recording studio. Writing that he even tries to center his dating life around being with someone who will watch content

that enriches him. Or because he views his time as essentially too valuable to waste. Previously saying on a podcast. All I've ever wanted is someone to just read books with me, watch documentaries, and just like learn with me. Cause then if you're not learning, then it's like, I can make a hundred grand an hour or whatever. So it's like, how can I justify spending an hour of time with you? In the piece, noting that his time spent working, it's tedious. He's so focused on virality that he won't upload something unless he knows that it's going to be a hit. He'll spend

hours obsessing over something as small as the brightness of a thumbnail. That he always wants to be growing. That he always wants to be improving, which could be seen as a good thing. Then you have Polygon arguing that he has essentially lost sight of himself in the process. With that, noting that in the past, he said that personality can actually limit growth. And pointing to moments where he's essentially said that his personality is his work and content. Just because I'm all in. I'm crazy.

Like, people shouldn't be me. I don't have a life. I don't have work-life balance. I, my personality, my soul, my being is making the best videos possible, entertaining my fans as best as I can. Like that is what exists on this planet. And I don't recommend it. Mr. Beast even saying that he's miserable sometimes because he's always obsessing over his content. With that polygon noting that even though he has been open about how taxing this is on him, it's somehow still viewed positively. Saying Donaldson candidly reveals the tough conditions that make his videos possible, like building a

friend group that constantly criticizes his output and axing expensive, fully finished videos that he's unsure about. But because he's rich and famous, no matter how rocky it gets, his road is seen as aspirational. Right with this, the piece overall arguing that he's created this click-focused hustle culture on the platform. The outlet then even going on to talk about how there have been different eras on YouTube in the past, with the current one being defined by Mr. Beast. But also with that, noting we could be shifting to a new era where people want authenticity, to feel the other human on the other side of the screen. With that, strategist Zachary Smigel telling the outlet, the return to an authentic era on YouTube comes down to a growing fatigue with sensationalism.

I think we are witnessing a cultural shift and then wondering if that's something that Mr. Beast will pivot to. And so with all this, we've seen the article's focus kind of results in a ton of people having big reactions online saying, no amount of success is worth erasing your personality because you view it as a liability for optimal content, as well as chasing algorithms and pursuit of fame is an annihilation of self and should not be aspired to. And in general, it seemed like a lot of people just kind of found it to be a depressing read. But ultimately, here's what I'll say with this, even though there were a lot of different points and arguments and debates being had here. One, I don't think there's anything weird about him saying, like, I just want someone I can read books with and watch documentaries with. That just

sounds like a guy that wants a partner that's interested in similar things. Two, regarding him saying, you know, when I'm not working, he's thinking, you know, I could be making $100,000 an hour. So how do I justify this? Well, the rate per hour there is not something I can relate to. The idea in general is something I can relate to. I mean, I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's also something that a lot of self-employed people can relate to. I'm constantly thinking about the ROI of my time. What's the return on investment of my time? And I mean, it took me over a decade, probably like 15 years to realize you just got to look at things as different kinds of investment. Money is important. Livelihood is important. But you know, I don't think I'm going to be on my deathbed wishing I made an extra 50K. I'm probably

going to be wishing I spent more time with my kids. So I've just kind of expanded the idea of what kind of returns I can get on the investment of my time. Mental health and emotion when it comes to hanging out with my kids, my wife, my family, my friends. Being fulfilled there, I think it makes me also better at my job. Taking care of my health like I have over the past two years. Great for me physically, great for me mentally, and also in an ideal world, I live longer. I'm able to do what I want and love for even longer. Also, the idea of stressing out over a thumbnail, not stupid.

It's literally half, if not more, of the reason someone watches your video. Well, I know there is so much more here. The final thing that I'll touch on is regarding the idea that we're like shifting eras when it comes to creators and content creation. One, I think if you watch some of MrBeast's newer content, not all of it, but an increasing amount, we're kind of seeing a decrease in like the brain rot. There has to be a change every one and a half second kind of edits. We're focused on people, the storytelling, stuff like that. And this also, as there's been an increase of people, yes, wanting more connection to creators. Even though there is a valid point in who you are is both your best thing and your worst thing. Like

because I am who I am, there are going to be some people that naturally gravitate towards me and there are going to be other people that are like, I'm in no way interested. Which is why it's understandable that a lot of content creators focus specifically on like, what is the content? It's also part of the appeal of having faceless channels, right? Where you don't even see the creator. But one, I think with the rise of TikTok and like this increase of just people who are everyday people that have gotten an audience again, which is kind of old school YouTube, people absolutely love that. And then there are also people that kind of bridge that divide. With one of my favorite examples is always being Casey Neistat. He is a filmmaker.

He understands how to tug on the emotions, doing certain little things, but also in a really authentic and real way. Like his video from over a month ago, Sisyphus and the Impossible Dream, it's one of my favorite pieces of content on this platform. It's a fantastic personal story and a wild piece of content

that connects to pretty much anyone that has a dream. But again, to close this out, bringing it back to Mr. Beast, I think it's hard to have a fully locked in opinion on this because he's still just in the middle of his story. And he is at a height that's really not been seen in this online age. If he uploads a video to his main channel

and it only gets 100 million views, that video bomb. Like that's insane. That's 100 million YouTube views. This isn't like the fucking bullshit bloated stuff on Twitter slash X. This guy is regularly doing numbers that we really haven't seen since like in America, there were fewer than 10 channels. And I'm talking about TV channels like MASH, one of the most popular shows

of all time. It's finale got just under 106 million views. I really don't know if you can accomplish that without being uniquely and probably detrimentally obsessed. And then, what you think you know about human trafficking might actually be wrong. But also, it's not your fault, because it's a problem that's been severely impacted by misinformation over the last several years. And as we've seen, that misinformation can have serious consequences, right? It impacts efforts to combat actual trafficking, and it can also create setbacks for victims and survivors. Because we wanted to try to unpack all this, we spoke to Megan Cutter, the director of the National Human Trafficking Hotline. And one of the things she did is she explained that when a

piece of misinformation takes off, it can bog down the hotline and law enforcement and take them away from more pressing concerns. For example, in 2020, during the Wayfair conspiracy, we received a 400% increase in calls, texts and chats to the National Human Trafficking Hotline over a very short period of time, which made it harder for us to actually help people who needed assistance and who were trying to get through to get help versus people who I think generally very well intentioned were trying to report something that was both all the information was really publicly available and being reported in the media and also was law enforcement confirmed to be something that was not happening. The Wayfair example was one really big, elaborate conspiracy that blew up.

But there are also much smaller, more everyday pieces of misinformation that have taken off, and you've probably encountered some through TikTok. Videos about your car tagged by zip ties or menus are getting lured in by abandoned car seats. But the thing is, Polaris, the nonprofit that operates the National Human Trafficking Hotline, they've debunked these time and time again, noting that this image that we have of victims being kidnapped by random strangers is inaccurate, because most victims were actually coerced

by people they know, like their family or their romantic partner. The Department of Health and Human Services also noting that the image that we have of people being physically held or bonded, it's often inaccurate as well, as traffickers mostly use psychological means of control, with them explaining,

fear, trauma, drug addiction, threats against families, and a lack of options due to poverty and homelessness can all prevent someone from leaving. Some individuals who experience trafficking may also be manipulated or believe they're in love with their trafficker, which can make them resistant to seeking help. And adding that traffickers might isolate victims from their families and control their money, their ID, their documents, all to trap them. But the videos explaining these realities, they just don't always get as much traction as the ones with misinformation. And that can even impact a victim's perception of trafficking, right? It makes it harder for them to identify themselves

as a victim. And it can also make it harder for them to share their stories later on. Some of the things that we've seen online when there is a lot of misinformation happening about trafficking is that people who speak out and say, you know, I'm a survivor of trafficking, and this is how my situation happened, often face kind of backlash from other people online who say, that's not true. This is how this really happens. And so I think it can really impact the way people who are survivors of trafficking are able to tell their story and are believed and are seen in the public sphere. We also have Cutter noting that these people spreading these false ideas often have good

intentions, even if they're wrong. And it is important to note and understand that because shaming people actually doesn't do much to fight against misinformation. Most of the time, they're not intentionally trying to interfere with efforts to fight trafficking. But the videos that go viral are genuinely scary, right? They stoke a lot of panic. And maybe some of these people have encountered

a potentially threatening situation, right? If you think you're being followed or you see something odd in public, yeah, use those street smarts. If you feel unsafe, still assess the situation. But to label everything that looks potentially dangerous as a human trafficking ploy, it's just not productive. in control and that, you know, people are often in a trusting relationship with their trafficker. And so it switches the conversation to something that doesn't help us actually prevent or identify trafficking. And there are a lot of reasons that many people just inherently have a false image of

what trafficking looks like. For example, in the past, Polaris has called out the Liam Neeson film Taken as a piece of media that really drove those false images home. It created a lot of fear. Solid movie, though. I pretty much always buy a ticket to watch Liam Neeson punch people. But Polaris noting that all these years later, the hotline's still dealing with the consequences of that movie, which, you know, spread false narratives about kidnapping as well as stereotypes about it being like things that happen abroad and not stateside. Even when I'm just talking with folks about what my job is, nine times out of 10, someone brings up the movie Taken. So it's very much part of the way we talk about human trafficking, even though it's not how we see human trafficking happening inside in the United States.

With Cutter going on to say that even though it was just a movie, it spawned massive cultural ripple effects. Because these myths and these false narratives have become so pervasive and ingrained in our culture, there's a lot of work that has to be done to clear things up. And also with that, you had Cutter noting that social media platforms themselves should really make sure they combat misinformation that spreads on their platform. Also being able to think about how do we amplify the voices of people who've actually experienced trafficking, survivors who are out there sharing their stories to correct the narrative. I think that's a really meaningful way to be able to understand how trafficking really happens is to listen to the people who've been in those situations themselves and hear from them and amplify and share their stories.

With all this, Cutter also adding that discussing this issue requires a lot of sensitivity and no one should ever be forced to share their story. We make a real effort to share those stories on our own social media. We work in partnership with survivors to do that, making sure that they consent and are comfortable sharing. Also, something that is really important is when you're asking someone to share information about their experience to compensate them appropriately for their labor. And I think that's something that we've talked a lot about in the anti-trafficking field because trafficking is a crime that inherently exploits people.

And so making sure in that sharing of information, we're not re-exploiting anyone. And the compensation aspect is one that probably not a lot of people think about, right? How often are you watching a documentary or a show or you see an awareness ad about some kind of tragic situation and it feels really emotionally manipulative or exploitive of the source material. And this act of sort of vulturously capitalizing on someone's trauma could prevent people down the line from sharing their own stories, right? They might not want to be the next face out there. So that compensation element, obviously in combination with consent, it's possibly a step to balance the situation and make sure there's no further exploitation. But with all that said, at this point, you might be wondering what can actually

be done to prevent trafficking. And well, with that, I mean, you previously had the director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center explaining to HuffPost, some people are just more vulnerable than others. And we could do a lot more to prevent trafficking by addressing those vulnerabilities like family abuse, neglect, or foster care placement directly. And also just creating a better understanding of all this helps as well. If you see a well-intentioned person spreading misinformation, is there a way to try and turn that situation around? Harness those good intentions to help people see where in their communities they actually really could support victims and survivors of trafficking or where they may actually know and engage with people in sex

or labor trafficking situations and how they could help. So sort of turning that good intention into a good action and offering a correction on where that energy could be best used. And also, I'll just add, if you are someone who is concerned or you're further interested in this topic, look to reputable organizations and sources who have been in this field for years. See what those groups are saying. Use that information instead of just seeing a random thing on social media. This is a propaganda cartoon back in the day used to tell me correctly, knowing is half the battle.

But for now, where I'll leave you is by passing the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? And then, so a friend of mine actually thanked me the other day because she was in the snowy mountains. And long story short, she was without her snow boots and her dog needed to get walked. And she told me that she remembered her storm burst and she was shocked that through all the wet snow, they actually kept her feet dry and more importantly for her, warm. Because yeah, no dud, there's no exaggerating. Vessies are the real deal for making a great looking all-weather, all-terrain sneaker. Which on that note, she couldn't believe how lightweight they were, especially after wearing her snow boots.

And y'all know I wear my Vessie Storm Bursts for my muddy hikes as well as strolling the beach. I just hose those babies off and then I'm good to do just about anything else in the same shoes I was wearing out in the elements. Including taking my wife out on a date night. So thank you, Vessi, for being a fantastic partner of the PDS and for making great-looking shoes we can all wear in any weather. And again, they're ideal for any occasion that might find you around water, coastal walks, exploring outside the city, forests, camping, snow days, boating,

heading out early on a damp morning. Boom. The list just goes on and on. So what are you waiting for? Go get yourself a pair of Storm Bursts. Just go to Vessi.com slash DeFranco to get 15% off your first order. That's Vessi.com slash DeFranco. And then everything about this TikTok ban bill that's also, I guess, not a TikTok ban bill is so messy and chaotic.

Because the way this bill is generally being presented is that it would lead to a ban if TikTok's Chinese parent company ByteDance fails to sell the app within six months. Or as Nancy Pelosi described in cringy fashion this morning. It won't take long to tell you app within six months. Or as Nancy Pelosi described in cringy fashion this morning, it won't take long to tell you neutrals ingredients, vodka, soda, natural flavors. So what should we talk about? No sugar added? Neutral. Refreshingly simple. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most?

When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver.

This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It's an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-tac-toe, a winner. Tic-tac-toe, Jesus fucking Christ. I mean, Nancy, you got the clip. Is it the clip that you wanted? But hey, let's dive into this. Because this morning, the House of Representatives did something that they rarely do. They generally agreed on something across party lines, voting yes on this bill by a massive bipartisan margin of 352 to 65. And something really notable here, while bipartisan, way more Republicans voted for it. And that's despite the very public flip-flop we've seen with Donald Trump, who actually came out in opposition of a full ban. And remember that even though he himself led that fight when he was in office. And like we talked about, you know, this legislation, it would ban the app from the US if

China doesn't agree to sell within six months. But with that, you know, China has previously opposed efforts to force the sale of the app. And it's unclear if this will actually push them over the edge. But the spokesperson for China's foreign ministry condemning the proposal ahead of its passage today, saying in recent years, though the United States has never found any evidence of TikTok posing a threat to U.S. national security, it has never stopped going after TikTok. And accusing lawmakers of making these moves because they can't succeed in fair competition. You know, to that point, experts say that this bill will likely make

relations with China worse, with a leading Wall Street tech sector analyst even writing that the restrictions could, quote, start a dangerous ripple effect for U.S.-China relations on the ongoing cold tech war. And with that, specifically arguing that China could retaliate against huge U.S. tech companies like Apple and Tesla. Also, they're noting that if this is passed fully, legal challenges are certain to come. And that's also been echoed by other opponents of the law, with both Democrats and Republicans who voted against it, raising concerns about free speech and economic impact. Right, AOC saying on Twitter, I'm voting no on the TikTok for sale bill, saying the bill was incredibly rushed from committee to vote in four days with little explanation, and adding there are serious antitrust and privacy

questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote. And Republican Representative Tom McClintock telling reporters, the answer to authoritarianism is not more authoritarianism. The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression. Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope. Also, while all this is going down, you have demonstrators gathering outside the Capitol this morning protesting the ban, with one TikToker present telling Axios,

this is my livelihood at stake. You know, with how big TikTok has gotten, yeah, a lot is at stake here. But as far as what actually happens next, the bill, you know, it'll have to be passed by the Senate where it said that there was a lot of uncertainty. Though very notably, in a huge move today, both Republican and Democrat leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out in favor of the bill, which definitely boosts the chances that this could be signed into law. And that development's also huge because the Democrat leader had been more on the fence about the proposal until the House passed it, signaling that other Dems who were maybe kind of more on the fence, they were wishy-washy, they might lean towards the ban now too. But also at the same time,

Chuck Schumer hasn't even said as of recording that he'll set a vote. We've seen that Senate Dems have also been floating alternative proposals. And then of course, as far as what happens next, even if Biden does sign the House's version into law, which you know he said he will, legal challenges will delay the whole process.

And then we need to talk about one of the most egregious practices in the US justice system, judge shopping. Which if you don't know what that is, I'll give you a quick explainer. So the most basic level, the United States is carved up into 94 federal district courts. Those districts themselves are carved up into several smaller divisions. Now with this, in most districts, when you file a case, it gets randomly assigned to a judge. But in other places, the rules are different. So instead, your case goes to a judge in the specific division where you filed. And importantly, some of those divisions, especially in rural ones, they only have one or two judges.

So if you're a plaintiff and you file your case in the right division, you could pretty much guarantee that you'll get a friendly judge. Hence the term judge shopping. And so, for example, when Biden does something that Republicans don't like, their state attorneys general, they get together and they strategize which of their courthouses would give them the best shot of blocking the policy. And that's exactly how an obscure Christian conservative judge in Amarillo, Texas, called Matthew Kasamarek became one of the most powerful government officials in the entire country. With him, among other things, ruling that a father had a constitutional right to limit his daughter's access to birth control. Also attempting to neutralize a federal law prohibiting health providers from discriminating against LGBTQ patients,

siding with Trump's controversial Remain in Mexico immigration policy, and most recently halting FDA approval of an abortion medication. Though there, notably, the federal Supreme Court struck down that ruling. But those and other high-profile cases where a hyper-partisan actor made decisions affecting the whole country put judge shopping in the spotlight. But now, after pressure from the White House, federal lawmakers, and even Chief Justice John Roberts, the practice is finally dead. At least until another workaround's figured out. With a policy-making body for the justice system known as the U.S. Judicial Conference announcing a new rule yesterday, saying that for civil suits that affect an entire state or the country, they have to be randomly assigned to a judge in the district.

Right, so for cases in Amarillo, instead of automatically going to Casamarek, they will go to one of 11 active judges or six senior judges who sit in the Northern District of Texas. Very notably, this new rule doesn't apply to cases seeking only local action, nor does it stop a similar practice known as forum shopping. Right, that's when plaintiffs deliberately file their case in a district with a friendly court of appeals. So then even if the initial ruling doesn't favor them, they know they can just kick it up to a higher court. And I think it's very important to know that both parties have taken advantage of this. With Republicans throwing their cases to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Democrats aiming for the Ninth. And although Republican lawsuits,

they've gotten the most attention recently, Democrats have also taken advantage of judge shopping to hamstring Trump too. Which is why people saying this new ban, it's not likely to benefit one side more than the other. Though for me, the constant cynic, I will believe it when I see it over a long enough period of time. And then, the news we're seeing right now has got some people saying even Republicans don't want to hang out with Republicans. Right, and that for two big reasons. The first being that we're seeing reports saying that many Republicans plan to skip the House GOP retreat as they grumble about location and spending time with one another. And that House GOP retreat's an annual event taking place this week in West Virginia, where they're described as offering Republicans a chance to reset after a chaotic year marked by

internal bickering. But so far, fewer than 100 Republicans have reportedly RSVP'd for the event. And while many have said, you know, they have scheduling conflicts or they're just busy running their campaign, some Republicans have reportedly said in private that, quote, they were simply not enthusiastic about the idea of having to huddle with the rest of their party at a time when Republican infighting has prevented them from even passing procedural votes. Which then brings us to reason number two, why this is the talk of the town. You've got Ken Buck, a Republican congressman for Colorado, announcing that he's leaving Congress at the end of next week. And with that, I think you're going to really appreciate the contrast between these two statements. Right, in one statement, you had Ken

Buck saying, it's been an honor to serve the people of Colorado's fourth district in Congress for the past nine years, and saying that he looks forward to both staying involved in our political process as well as spending more time in Colorado with his family. Okay, nice, clean cut, makes sense. But then we also saw Buck being a little less formal when speaking to CNN. I think this place is dysfunctional. Instead of operating in a professional manner, this place has just evolved into this bickering and nonsense and not not really doing the job for the American people. It is the worst year of the nine years and three months that I've been in Congress and having talked to former members, it's the worst year in 40, 50 years to be in Congress. And the thing is, Buck actually announced

his retirement last fall and he said then too "- Too many Republican leaders are lying to America, claiming that the 2020 election was stolen." But at that time, he had Buck simply saying he wasn't gonna seek reelection. So this decision to cut his final term several months short reportedly caught House Republican leaders by surprise. And notably, this trims down the majority even more, having just 218 out of the chamber's 435 seats.

Which means for the foreseeable future, Republicans will need almost all of their members to secure the 217 votes needed to pass partisan legislation. But it's also hard to get everyone in one place at one time because, you know, life happens. Personal emergencies, illness, travel delays, all things that we've actually seen play out. And notably, this also specifically fucks with Lauren Boebert,

who actually called Buck's resignation a swampy backroom deal to try to rig an election. You see, Boebert's district is pretty evenly split between Democrat and Republican voters. And in 2022, she was reelected by a margin of only 600 votes. Ken Buck, on the other hand, he won his district by almost 100,000 votes. So Boebert, you know, rather than trying to convince the people in her district, you know, she is actually a good Congresswoman. She just switches districts so she can run for Buck's reliably Republican seat.

But now, a special election to fill Buck's seat is planned for late June. And Boebert's confirmed that she is not going to participate, calling Buck's decision weak sauce and saying that doing so would further imperil the already very slim House Republican majority. And that's because if she ran for a seat in the special election, she'd have to vacate her current seat. So while Boebert's still running in the Republican primary to be the nominee in Buck's district for the regularly scheduled election in November, whoever the Colorado GOP picks to be the candidate for the special election, they'll potentially have a big advantage in the full-term primary because they'll already have that name recognition. To make all this even more concerning for Republicans is that Ken

Buck himself kind of speculated that his resignation might not be the only one, telling Axios, I think it's the next three people that leave that they're going to be worried about. But as far as if that's real or not, we're going to have to wait to see. But interesting, interesting times. And then in big international news, we should talk about Argentina and President Javier Millet. Because since he was elected, there's just been so much going on. And among the actual changes has been a lot of pushback, backlash, and just controversy. With us most recently seeing that Millet fired a cabinet member this week after it was revealed that Millet was getting a 48% pay raise.

And adding insult to injury there, the pay raise was revealed just days after he asked allied lawmakers to cancel a proposed 30% pay raise for themselves. And so that alone was a bad enough look, but it was made even worse by the fact that Millet's whole shtick is that he needs to cut almost all government spending to save the economy. And so all of this actually started late last week, with Millet initially trying to offer an explanation on Saturday, saying, I have just been informed that as a result of a decree signed by former President Christina Kirchner in 2010, which established that political officials should always earn more than public administration employees, an automatic increase was granted to the political staff of this

government. Every day that passes, we find a new rule that favored politicians and harmed Argentines. With us, the losers are going to be the politicians, with a man going on to say that the pay raise would be repealed and that the difference in pay would be given back. But with that, the former president that he was blaming didn't see it that way. She had signed a decree that automatically raised the pay of certain lower elected offices to be higher than salaried government employees. And that decree specifically exempted the president from other executive branch members. And she shared screenshots of the decree was changed in February from the salary increase will not extend to higher offices to the salary

increase will extend to higher offices. And with that, she added, admit that you signed, got paid, and got caught. And other lawmakers showed that Millay had signed the decree, leading the people to say things like, I don't understand. The president signed a decree without looking at it. And so on Monday, we saw Millay going into full damage control mode, going on national TV to say things like, I don't understand, the president signed a decree without looking at it? And so on Monday, we saw Millet going into full damage control mode, going on national TV to say that the pay increases were an error that should not have been made, with the men blaming the situation on Labor Secretary Omar Yassin, then firing him as well. Although with this, many see Yassin as just a scapegoat because this doesn't explain how Millet's signature was used. But with that, it's been pointing out that Millet slash the president's office, it doesn't actually

sign everything themselves, right? Their team controls it. But also, it's not like they sign things without the president knowing. So it's widely believed that he knew about this, at least at some level. And so this entire scandal has been a major PR hit for Millet, especially as he's been facing setbacks to pass legislation that would widely cut spending across the government. And this specifically could also be especially devastating for him since he's such a political outsider. And the whole thing's made even more weird by the fact that, you know, that money wouldn't be a massive difference for multimillionaire Millet. This pay change means that the president's now getting paid just over $7,000 a month or $85,000-ish a year. Though, with all of this, it's not all bad news for the

president lately. Since taking office, inflation has gone down considerably, though understand gone down for Argentina. Their inflation in February was still the insane amount of 13.2%, but notably that is a hell of a lot better than the 20.5% in January and the 25.5% in December. However, yearly, it's still outrageously high at over 275%. You know, so they still have a long, long way to go before things are even remotely okay. But for now, it remains to be seen if this is going to be kind of just a small little stumble for Millet or the first of several before he lands on his face. But time will tell and the world will be watching. And then finally today, we have announcements and yesterday today.

As far as the announcement, I am further giving in to your demands because on Monday at 8 a.m. Pacific time, I will be unvaulting four more designs. With this including tees, crews, hoodies, and now even tanks split across sports. One day we'll all be skeletons. I love naps.

And a color swirl on our classic emotionally exhausted gear. And of course that'll be in addition to all of our new bestsellers that we've been releasing this year. And of course, with that, if you want to be the first to know when it drops, because of course, it's first come first serve, you can go to beautifulbastard.com, sign up for the mailing list there, or of course, join the text line at 813-213-4423. Also, a fantastic announcement. Congrats to Vincent O. The Beautiful Bastard just won our weekly $500 giveaway towards his choice of SeatGeek tickets. As you heard, he's ever used it to surprise his husband with a night out on the town and a show, so have fun. And finally, a

reminder here, SeatGeek and my newsletter team at The Daily Dip are giving away up to $1,000 in SeatGeek tickets every single week for the next few months. And all you got to do is add code PDS to your SeatGeek app profile. No purchase necessary. And when $1,000 prizes are available to Daily Dip subscribers, just add code PDS newsletter as well to double your entries and winnings. With that said, let's jump into those comments on yesterday's show, where honestly, a lot of the conversation was just y'all being absolutely fucking tickled over the Aiden Ross situation, right? Aiden publicly leaking Andrew Tate's supposed escape plan, with Mainly Mundane saying, I can't tell if Andrew Tate is dumber for telling Aiden Ross or if Aiden Ross is dumber for telling

everyone, to which the true Ethan said, yes. Though others said, definitely Tate. You don't yell at a blind man for being blind. You just don't let him drive your car. Pivot Research saying Aiden being the downfall of Tate really reminds you that we live in the funniest timeline. Yeah, uh, funny. Also horrible, but yeah, funny. And the more you try not to care about things, the funnier it gets, I guess. So, I mean, the stuff being talked about here is serious, and I hate, I hate caring. I still do, but I wish that there was a switch I could flip. Like, because then everything could just be game theory, and you don't have to think about the emotional and actual livelihood things that are at stake here. So finally, on this story, we had Tef saying,

Aiden also showed the entire world that he isn't playing a character or hamming it up for the cameras. He's a genuine, real-life, bona fide dunce. And soaring lettuce, I'm glad you love the description of Aiden Ross as a weapons-grade moron. Also, in the comments, there were a lot of conversations around the bands and the hoops that are being put in place for lab-grown meat or anything that's like kind of fake meat. But Tyler Smiler sharing, I'm the daughter of cattle farmers, grass-fed, not mass market. And I think banning lab-grown meat is absurd. It needs to be studied so we know it's safe and should be regulated by agencies like the FDA. But if it's safe and as healthy as the beef we raise on our farm, then why ban it? To which Cameron Cook responded, because the ranchers and

corporations that make money from selling the beef and cattle are worried slash pissy that lab-grown beef is going to put them out of a job. Also, Living Life sharing, The lab-grown meat mess reminds me of how when margarine was first made, the dairy industry got laws passed that made it mandatory for margarine to be dyed pink in order to distinguish it from butter. Also, Greed059 saying, Ah yes, the age old, this competes with my job, therefore we must ban it. Banning competition is always the way to a healthy economy.

Right, and also kind of intermingled in that there was a lot of talk about America's systems in general, both because we had the Elon Musk charity controversy and scandal and that big story about Medicaid helping people with rent. Right, so we had people like abbreviated reviews saying, America is a strange place. We have a tax system where we allow the richest people to eliminate large portions of their tax burden by donating to charities that they have created and controlled rather than just collecting taxes and building social programs that actually help people. When Nicholas named and Cooper adding, say thanks to Ronald Reagan for that one. It really always is Reagan. And also folks like Kyle sharing, as someone that used to be homeless, I will say that I became less obese

and more healthy mentally and physically when I was housed than when I wasn't homeless. When I was homeless, it was either paying nine plus dollars for a healthier meal or pay four dollars for something way unhealthy. I applaud any efforts to actually help with those falling through social and systemic cracks. And finally, Courtney Cooper sharing, hey Phil, I work at a federally qualified health center in Maryland, and this is the norm for us. Finding resources for the underprivileged population and using it as diagnoses to help patients with food, transportation, housing, technology, and prescription. We've helped so many patients this way and gathering them resources while also utilizing their Medicaid services. Where I work offers mental health, primary care, OBGYN, and dental services to three counties. It's

heartbreaking the stories we hear on the daily to try and help, especially when the majority of our population is homeless or on the verge of it. We even offer free diabetes classes since we have an increasing population being diagnosed with that as well. Not to mention the migraCAMs that come in the summer, we offer free healthcare too. We try to help, but the needs are only increasing day by day, and I've been here for five years. And the final thing I'll say here, and it's really just for you most dedicated, is I was happy to see a lot of people agreeing

with Guess Who Asks, who wrote, yesterday, today has become my favorite part of the news. Being able to follow up on or get a different perspective on something after having time to personally digest it can be very helpful. And yeah, I'm really glad y'all like it. And that is actually where today's show is gonna end.

But don't worry, I'll see you soon enough, because my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.