The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 6.6 Is The New Adpocalypse Here?! VOX Crowder Chaos, Trump Republican Tariff Tussle, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're going to talk about today is the story about a 75-year-old woman in Phoenix. She was out on a hike. Reportedly, this woman was hiking Paisua Peak. She at some point fell, hit her head. She ended up having to be airlifted out by a helicopter. And this is, and I'm not joking, this is the real footage from Fox 10 of this woman being airlifted out.

Starting point is 00:00:25 Just spinning like someone's trying to untangle a yo-yo. Now, obviously the most important part of this story, yes, it is okay for you to laugh at that footage, the woman is alive. According to the firefighters, she felt dizzy and nauseous, but she was not injured from the spin. And as far as how did this happen? According to the chief pilot,

Starting point is 00:00:40 sometimes if we're in a canyon, it's a strong windy day, it will spin on us. It's not something that happens very often, but sometimes it just does, and when it does, we're trained to take care of it. According to pilot Derek Geisel, there's a line involved that is meant to keep the basket from windmilling like it did, but ultimately in this case that line broke. Adding, so we brought it back down again, brought it back up, hoping some of the spin would lessen, which it didn't, obviously. But also according to reports, the spin did eventually slow down so that they could actually hoist the woman up But ultimately the main points of this story one the woman's okay

Starting point is 00:01:08 Which is very important both for her and our ability to laugh at this video and two I know that there are people out there that are crapping on or making fun of the the rescuers in this situation But honestly accidents do happen given that you had an injured old woman out there and a Phoenix day with terrain That's hard to get to it's probably the best thing they could have done to get the helicopter out there in a Phoenix day with terrain that's hard to get to, it's probably the best thing they could have done to get the helicopter out there. And she's alive, and she got to go on a ride that I wish was a real thing. Can I pay to get on this? Yeah, there was that. And then let's talk about the big news and seemingly potential conclusion

Starting point is 00:01:35 of the Mazza-Crowder situation we covered earlier this week. And a quick oversimplified refresher for those that did not watch it, how dare you? Steven Crowder is a conservative commentator and comedian, and Carlos Mazza is a box journalist Last Friday Maza tweeted out a compilation of Crowder referring to him as a lispy queer gay Mexican and other comments that seem to be Aimed at Maza's nationality and sexual identity Maza also said that he was dox and received a flood of messages telling him to debate Steven Crowder and he complained that YouTube has refused To enforce their anti harassment policies by allowing this kind of content to remain up. Then in a response, Crowder said that these were just jokes

Starting point is 00:02:05 and that at no point was he calling for doxing or anything else, saying that he was simply responding to the strike through videos that Mozza makes on Vox and making jokes. He also ended up releasing a video called I'm Sorry, which was really just satire. It was about 20 minutes of him referencing what some would call kind of off-color jokes

Starting point is 00:02:20 that he's made about other people. But ultimately where we last left things off, YouTube said that they were looking into this matter. And all of that brings us to the big update we saw last night when YouTube finally responded tweeting back to Mazza stating, "'Thanks for taking the time "'to share all of this information with us.

Starting point is 00:02:32 "'We take allegations of harassment very seriously. "'We know this is important and impacts a lot of people. "'Our team spent the last few days "'conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us. "'And while we found language that was clearly hurtful, "'the videos as posted don't violate our policies. We've included more info below to explain this decision. As an open platform, it's crucial for us to allow everyone,

Starting point is 00:02:51 from creators to journalists to late night TV hosts, to express their opinions within the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don't violate our policies, they'll remain on our site. And then adding, even if a video remains on our site, it doesn't mean we endorse slash support that viewpoint there are Other aspects of the channel that we're still evaluating will be in touch with any further updates also in connection to this we got even more

Starting point is 00:03:12 Information thanks to gizmodo because reportedly YouTube gave a statement to gizmodo giving them the permission to paraphrase but not give the full statement However, gizmodo says they did not agree to that stipulation beforehand And so they just published the full statement, which reads, hello, potential suppression of this video. We take into consideration whether criticism is focused primarily on debating the opinions expressed or is solely malicious. We apply these policies consistently, regardless of how many views a video has.

Starting point is 00:03:34 In videos flagged to YouTube, Crowder has not instructed his viewers to harass Mazza on YouTube or any other platform, and the main point of these videos was not to harass or threaten, but rather to respond to the opinion. There is certain behavior that is never okay. That includes encouraging viewers to harass others online and offline or revealing non-public personal information, doxing. But then adding, none of Maz's personal information was ever revealed in content uploaded by Crowder and flagged to our teams for review.

Starting point is 00:03:58 So that is what happened and of course, oh whoa, the responses have been huge. And we'll start off first with Maz's response. And Maz posted a lot, I'm gonna try and consolidate it, And of course, oh whoa, the responses have been huge. And we'll start off first with Maz's response. And Maz posted a lot, I'm gonna try and consolidate it, but in general it appears that it's a response and attempt to rally. Initially quote tweeting YouTube's response and saying, I don't know what to say.

Starting point is 00:04:13 Adding, YouTube has decided not to punish Crowder after he spent two years harassing me for being gay and Latino. Adding, to be crystal clear, YouTube has decided that targeted racist and homophobic harassment does not violate its policies against hate speech or harassment. That's an absolutely batshit policy that gives bigots free license.

Starting point is 00:04:26 Saying it's going to get so much worse now because YouTube has publicly stated that racist and homophobic abuse does not violate their anti-bullying policies. Crowder and his allies are going to be emboldened. In his thread of tweets, he also appeared to be trying to rally LGBT creators on the platform, writing, if you're an LGBT creator, YouTube is using you. They're trotting you out to convince advertisers that their platform hasn't become a breeding ground for hate speech and bigotry They're hoping you'll distract advertisers away from the monsters they're creating. Also saying if you're an LGBT employee at YouTube What the fuck are you doing? Helping a guy sell socialism is for slur t-shirts? That company isn't your friend It's arming the monsters that we've spent our lives trying to get away from. Walk out of there. Adding if you're a prominent

Starting point is 00:05:01 LGBT creator on YouTube you have an incredible opportunity to raise hell for a company that's been exploiting you for a while now. It's fucking Pride Month. Use your power. Other queer creators are counting on you. And adding, for fuck's sake, stop agreeing to participate in YouTube's pride and public relations packages. The company is exploiting you while arming your abusers. Don't let them use you in corporate branding shit. And very connected to this, he also took aim at YouTube as a company and monetization. In one tweet showcasing YouTube's rainbow logo and banner, calling them actual fucking ghouls. Retweeting the SVP of public policy at Yelp, who pointed out that Steven Crowder is making money via advertising. And to this thread and several different points, we saw a number of creators and YouTubers who supported Mazza.

Starting point is 00:05:39 That including the likes of Hank Green, who tweeted, hugs to all the queer YouTube employees who are very sad and frustrated today. Also referencing that the platform is being used to sell the socialism is for slur shirt, which on that note, once again, we've mentioned it in the last video, but people have defended it saying

Starting point is 00:05:51 that it's supposed to be figs and explaining a backstory where others have said, no, that's just a thinly veiled slur. But also on the other side of this, we saw a Crowder response saying, "'YouTube made the right decision. If they banned us, they'd have to ban.'" They included a video montage of TV personalities like Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee,

Starting point is 00:06:07 making jokes about Trump and his family, or racial stereotypes including a clip of Jimmy Kimmel in blackface. And you had a number of people celebrating YouTube's decision here. Also, interestingly enough, among those happy with YouTube's decision here, you had a former CNN producer who wrote, Stephen Crowder is an unfunny hack whose sophomoric sophomoric offensive excuses for jokes "'veer clearly into homophobic territory.'" But also adding, "'The idea that because of his comments "'he should be banned from YouTube

Starting point is 00:06:30 "'is so incredibly absurd and antithetical "'to the viewpoint journalists should have.'" So there's that, and then of course, because YouTube always has the worst timing ever, today, early this morning, YouTube released a blog post about new hate speech policies. Also before moving forward, I know that there are gonna be a lot of people

Starting point is 00:06:47 and outlets kind of framing this as a response to this situation. According to my sources at YouTube, these have been changes that have been in the works for a long while now, which is why I'm framing this as the worst timing ever for YouTube. And in this update they say,

Starting point is 00:06:59 they'll be removing more hateful and supremacist content from YouTube, specifically citing they will remove content denying that well-documented violent events like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took place, also reducing borderline content, raising up authoritative voices, and continuing to reward trusted creators

Starting point is 00:07:13 and enforce our monetization policies. But of course, in response to that, you have Maza and others saying, well, what are the point of these rules if you're not enforcing them? With Maza specifically tweeting that it's all a smokescreen. They don't enforce any of it. Don't fall for fall for it and ultimately that is where we are with this situation

Starting point is 00:07:27 And I'd love to know your thoughts on this are you happy to see this current conclusion with the Crowder Mazza situation You see this as a defense of free speech, or do you see this as horrible? Do you see this as YouTube leaving the door open for constant harassment? Are you kind of in the middle where you're you're conflicted or torn where maybe kind of like that tweet that we showcased earlier someone That does not like Crowder or what they do you think banning someone for those words? That's incredibly absurd and actually wow one last update as we were finishing up this story It appears that the focus on money and advertisers may have proven effective because YouTube responded update on our continued review We have suspended this channels monetization

Starting point is 00:08:01 We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube partner program policies. More here. And so it appears, whether it just be policy internally or if the kind of public push about the advertisers and the money, that has proven successful. And so it appears that YouTube's kind of middle ground here is that the content in question what was happening,

Starting point is 00:08:19 it's not, and this is just me paraphrasing their words, it's not harmful enough to remove from the platform, but it is harmful enough to not monetize.'m I'm so interested to see what the response from the community is gonna be for This I think obviously there's gonna be a large part of the community that rejoices part of the community that is just completely worried by This I personally think and this is probably less of the community at large, but specifically for Crowder I think YouTube actually just gave him a gift here I can't even imagine how much money Crowder is gonna be able to raise from this. And while it's likely that there are gonna be

Starting point is 00:08:46 other channels included, an interesting twist right before the end is YouTube issued another statement on Crowder's channel responding to clarify, "'In order to reinstate monetization on this channel, "'he will need to remove the link to his T-shirt.'" So it appears that in this situation, unless there's more, YouTube appears to be saying

Starting point is 00:09:02 that the only issue is the T-shirts. But previously, they noted multiple egregious actions and honestly, I'm just lost at this point. Are they fucking okay? So, uh Another update to this story YouTube has now responded. Sorry for the confusion We were responding to your tweets about the t-shirt again This channel is demonetized due to continued egregious actions that have harmed the broader community to be reinstated He will need to address all of the issues with his channel. I know it's so many individuals in so many departments, how are you guys so consistently horrible at communication? It's all the things, it's one thing, it's all the things. Yeah, let's just get this to the question portion. What do you think about this whole mess?

Starting point is 00:09:38 And then let's talk about the arrest of Deputy Scott Peterson. And if that name sounds familiar, it's because he was the resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School back in February of 2018, when a gunman killed 17 people at the school. Peterson was the only armed officer at the school at the time of the shooting, but when he heard those bullets fire, he hid in a safe place for 45 minutes

Starting point is 00:09:55 instead of confronting and trying to stop the shooter. And he is now in the news because he is now being charged with 11 counts, including seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence, and one count of perjury. He was booked into county jail and had a hearing this morning where his bond was set at $102,000.

Starting point is 00:10:10 And this isn't coming out of nowhere. This arrest comes after a 15-month long investigation into the incident where 184 witnesses to the shooting were interviewed, hours of footage were reviewed, and 212 reports were written. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Rick Swearingen released a statement

Starting point is 00:10:23 about the investigation saying, "'The FDLE investigation shows former deputy Peterson "'did absolutely nothing to mitigate the MSD shooting "'that killed 17 children, teachers, and staff, "'and injured 17 others. "'There can be no excuse for his complete inaction "'and no question that his inaction cost lives.'" And in addition to those 11 charges,

Starting point is 00:10:41 Peterson has also been terminated from the Broward Sheriff's Office. Now on that note note you might remember That Peterson had actually retired from his role after the shooting But it actually looks like kind of an important note because according to reports this termination means that he's no longer eligible to receive A pension now on the other side of the story Peterson's attorney did release a statement saying that they would fight the charges brought against Him they claim that the child neglect and culpable negligence charges are unsuitable because quote mr. Peterson cannot reasonably be prosecuted because he was not a caregiver caregiver, "'which is defined as a parent, adult, household member,

Starting point is 00:11:07 "'or other person responsible for a child's welfare.'" And also adding further, "'Mr. Peterson was not criminally negligent in his actions "'as no police officer has ever been prosecuted "'for his slash her actions "'in responding to an active shooter incident.'" But still, in general, it appeared that the Parkland community as well as other officials

Starting point is 00:11:22 have largely applauded Peterson's arrest. With Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tweeting Despite pledging an oath to protect and serve others former Broward Sheriff's deputy Scott Peterson did nothing to protect the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during their hour of need. Scott Peterson's gross dereliction of duty cost lives I hope the charges brought against him lead to justice for the victims and their families. Which on that note We've also seen the families of the victims responding. With Fred Guttenberg who lost his daughter Jamie in the shooting tweeting, I have no comment except to say rot in hell Scott Peterson. You could have saved some of the 17.

Starting point is 00:11:51 You could have saved my daughter. You did not and then you lied about it and you deserve the misery coming your way. And we also heard from Hunter Pollack who lost his sister Meadow tweeting, He cowered in Parkland while my sister died defenseless and lied about his failure to confront the shooter. I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison." Which actually on that note, according to reports, Peterson could end up in jail for 96 years if found guilty on all of these charges.

Starting point is 00:12:11 Also of note here, this is not the only legal situation in Florida around the shooting. In fact, as of April, there were at least 22 lawsuits filed by Parkland families against the school board, sheriff's office, and more, each alleging negligence. So it's going to be interesting to see how these charges and case against Peterson could impact those cases. Ultimately that is where we are with this story and I really do want to pass the question off to you. What are

Starting point is 00:12:30 your thoughts on the charges against this now former deputy? Right, do you think that it's good that he's being charged? He should be found guilty, throw the book at it? Or no, do you think that it's more complicated or more nuanced? Any and all thoughts you have on this I'd love to hear because I feel like I'm just still digesting the situation. I definitely know based off of my feelings if I was one of the family members involved I would want him punished to the fullest extent I can understand the argument of he wasn't technically a caregiver But it does feel like he was responsible for the safety of the people on that campus But also at the same time if I remove my personal feelings out of it

Starting point is 00:12:59 I wonder how much of this is potentially being done for kind of political points There's been a lot of criticism since this shooting that the state has done so little or done the wrong things regarding gun safety. And so is this a political move to make the deputy the example made look we're trying to show that we're doing something? But also then even if that's the case, should he still be held accountable and punished to the fullest extent of the law? And so like I said, I'm still digesting this and so I'd love to know your thoughts on this. And then let's talk about President Donald Trump, tariffs, Mexico, the president's relationship with Republicans right now. A large part of this story started on Thursday when Trump tweeted that the United States would be imposing tariffs on all Mexican goods, writing, On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% tariff on all goods coming into our country from Mexico until such time as illegal migrants

Starting point is 00:13:39 coming through Mexico and into our country stop. The tariff will gradually increase until the illegal immigration problem is remedied, at which time the tariffs will be removed. Details from the White House to follow. And a little while later, the White House issued a statement saying that the tariffs would rise by 5% every month after June, increasing to 10% in July, 15% in August, and so on, until they became 25% in October,

Starting point is 00:13:58 at which point tariffs will permanently remain at the 25% level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory. Following this announcement, wouldn't you know it, those damn liberals, they came out and they lived it up and they said they did not support our president. Liberals like Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz. I'm joking, obviously the Democrats had a problem with this,

Starting point is 00:14:16 but there also didn't seem to be a lot of Republican support. In fact, just yesterday there were reports that a group of Republican senators told administration officials in a closed door meeting that they were all opposed to the tariffs. After that meeting, we saw a Senate Majority Leader and Republican Mitch McConnell say, Well, there is not much support in my conference for tariffs, that's for sure.

Starting point is 00:14:32 Our hope is that the tariffs will be avoided and we'll not have to answer any hypotheticals. We also saw Ted Cruz coming out against the tariffs and telling reporters, I will yield to nobody in passion and seriousness and commitment for securing the border, but there's no reason for Texas farmers and ranchers and manufacturers and small businesses to pay the price of massive new taxes. Senator John Kennedy telling reporters, I think it's a mistake. I'm not saying we don't have a crisis on the border.

Starting point is 00:14:57 We do, clearly. Senator Mitt Romney saying, I do not favor tariffs being applied to friends like Mexico. Other Republican senators have also warned that they would try to block the tariffs, with some even arguing that they would get enough support among Republicans to get a veto-proof majority. Senator Ron Johnson telling reporters, the administration ought to be concerned

Starting point is 00:15:12 about another vote of disapproval on another national emergency act, this time trying to implement tariffs. Tariffs are not real popular in the Republican conference. And other Republicans have backed this claim, including senators like Rand Paul and Kevin Cramer. Now as far as if they would actually oppose the president, that remains to be seen. As far as Trump's opinion, he was asked by a reporter if he thought Republicans would block the tariffs,

Starting point is 00:15:30 and he does not appear to believe they would. Oh, I don't think they will do that. I think if they do, it's foolish. Although, I do want to point out, it's not like all Republicans are against this. There are definitely key Senate Republicans who back Trump here. For example, we saw Marco Rubio tweet, The law provides POTUS broad authority to control transactions with other nations if there is an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and or economy of the U.S. Unlawful migration and drug flow transiting through Mexico into U.S. clearly poses such a threat. And we saw Senator Tom Tillis also expressing support for the tariffs, telling reporters, I think Mexico could help us solve the crisis down at the border.

Starting point is 00:16:00 And adding, what's the tax on handling 80,000 additional illegal immigrants coming across the border, housing them, adjudicating them? You've got to look at the total cost of the prices. And on the note of tariffs, I wanted to kind of take a moment to talk about the money involved. I think for some, when I've talked with them, there's a confusion about what's actually happening. And it also helps answer the question of, well, why are Republicans so against the tariffs? And it ultimately comes down to two key points. The first is the economic impact. Because while President Trump claims that these tariffs are a punishment for Mexico,

Starting point is 00:16:25 many economists argue that the cost will largely be the burden of US businesses and consumers. That's because tariffs are paid by the companies that import products. You have US businesses that are required to pay the import penalty, and so it's just basic business that the extra cost is then often passed along to the consumer. And understand, this is a broad consensus among experts, not just liberals versus conservatives. According to Dan Eichenson, who leads trade studies at the conservative Cato Institute think tank, US tariffs are taxes on American households and businesses, so imposing them will always be an act of self-destruction. Economists also agree that because tariffs function

Starting point is 00:16:53 like a regressive tax, the negative impacts are far more likely to impact lower income communities. And in addition to consumers being hit, the two biggest business sectors that are gonna be hit are the auto industry and the agriculture sector. And specifically, according to Eikenson, motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts accounted for one-third of the value of all US imports from Mexico and much of that cross-border trade was an unfinished product. Further explaining, in other

Starting point is 00:17:13 words, the factory floor spans the US-Mexican border. So imposing tariffs is akin to erecting a concrete wall through the middle of that factory. And in fact, on that note, just yesterday we saw the news that Toyota told Reuters that the tariffs on Mexico could cost its major suppliers $1 billion. And it's not just higher costs, tariffs also cause job losses as well. And according to a new report from the Perryman Group, an economic research firm, the overall job loss would be about 406,000. And adding, the proposed tariffs would lead to an increase

Starting point is 00:17:38 in direct costs of about $28.1 billion each year. And the second reason we're seeing some Republicans oppose the tariffs is because they worry that this could derail ongoing negotiations with the US-Mexico-Canada agreement. Right, which if you don't remember is Trump's replacement for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Efforts to negotiate this new deal

Starting point is 00:17:52 were advanced just last week. Officials in both Mexico and the United States started pushing their congressional arms to ratify the treaty. We even saw Vice President Mike Pence going to the Canadian capital to promote the deal. Trump had also recently agreed to lift the tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Starting point is 00:18:03 Canada and Mexico then responded by lifting tariffs on US products. So now you have experts and lawmakers worrying that the new wave of tariffs could send a contradictory message. And this was echoed in a statement by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who notably chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which notably is one of the bodies

Starting point is 00:18:16 responsible for overseeing this agreement, saying, "'I support nearly every one of President Trump's "'immigration policies, but this is not one of them.'" But main point, we are where we are right now. What happens next? What can Mexico do? Well, I mean, right now it's a little bit unclear. I mean, today Mexico's foreign minister is set to meet

Starting point is 00:18:31 with Vice President Mike Pence in Washington to discuss the tariffs. Mexican authorities have said that they are willing to cooperate, but to push for talks rather than economic retaliation. In a letter to President Trump, Mexican President AMLO said that he did not want a confrontation and emphasized the need for dialogue writing.

Starting point is 00:18:44 Social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures. There's also been the question of how much Mexico can really do to stop the migrant flows. Because according to reports, Mexico has actually dramatically stepped up immigration enforcement recently. They have tripled their monthly deportations since the beginning of 2019.

Starting point is 00:18:57 I mean, just last month, they reportedly apprehended more than 22,000 unauthorized migrants, which is the highest monthly number in Mexico's history. But also experts in reports say that Mexico actually largely lacks the resources to deal with the influx of migrants coming from Central America. With a big part of it reportedly being that Mexico uses a lot of its police and military resources combating organized crime. And so they don't have those extra resources and their immigration authorities are already completely overwhelmed. Also as far as what happens next, we're seeing a fight for power between Congress and the President. And the reason for that is you have congressional leaders who have been questioning Trump's efforts to unilaterally impose the tariffs.

Starting point is 00:19:25 Usually it is the authority of Congress and not the President who raise taxes and tariffs. However, as has been previously mentioned by people in the story, the President can access the power by declaring that certain circumstances amount to a threat to national security. So that's exactly what Trump has done. But you've had people push back on this, like Grassley,

Starting point is 00:19:39 who has criticized Trump's efforts as a misuse of presidential tariff authority, saying that it is counter to congressional intent, continuing, trade policy and border security are separate issues. Which, I mean, we've already talked about this so much, but there's also another fight happening in Congress. Just today, we saw a bipartisan group of senators

Starting point is 00:19:53 saying that they would pass resolutions to block Trump's $8 billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And if that's news to you, last month, the Trump administration declared that the threats posed by Iran were an emergency that required the administration to approve a massive arms deal

Starting point is 00:20:05 Notably without congressional approval and the pushback against Trump here even includes key Trump allies like Senator Lindsey Graham And according to Reuters Graham said in a statement I understand that Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally behavior of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman cannot be ignored now is not the time To do business as usual with Saudi Arabia And so obviously these are separate stories, but there is a theme here. And that is that there might be a bipartisan effort in Congress to crack down on President Trump taking more power by just kind of declaring emergencies. But ultimately that is where we are right now.

Starting point is 00:20:35 I know that, you know, talking tariffs and the battle for power in Congress, it's not a sexy story, but it's a very important story. And one that of course, like with everything, I'd love to know your thoughts on. And that's where we're going to end today's show. And remember, if you like this video, I'd love if you took a second to hit that like button. Also, if you're new here, definitely be sure to subscribe and click that bell to turn on notifications. That way, it's less likely you miss these daily dives into the news. Which, actually, if you did miss the last two Philip DeFranco shows you want to catch up,

Starting point is 00:20:59 you can click or tap right there to watch those now. But, with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces, and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 6.6 Is The New Adpocalypse Here?! VOX Crowder Chaos, Trump Republican Tariff Tussle, & More

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