We have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because of course we do. Okay, Frankly, I don't even know if it makes sense for us to have the gender balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I want to focus on whoever's just best at the job. Great at this point, that's my own deal.

We have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because of course we do. Okay, Frankly, I don't even know if it makes sense for us to have the gender balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I want to focus on whoever's just best at the job. Great at this point, that's my own deal.

Pterraffic Day is the day that ends in why so the Democratic Party is collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity. We're going to break down the latest bizarre identity politics that are tearing the Democratic Party down from the inside, and so much more, including a bizarre CNN segment, an unhinged TikTok, and a strange move by a Republican governor in today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective. First, like I mentioned, we got to check in with the Democratic Party and spoiler alert, folks, they're not doing well. We talked about this a little while back, but they recently elected a guy named David Hogg to be one of several vice chairs for the Democratic National Committee that the NC the body that organizes the Democratic Party's political affairs. And David Hogg is an interesting character to say the least, because he was tragically involved in a school shooting while still in high school and then became a prominent gun control activist, but then kind of more broadly a liberal activist and commentator, and he was at one point kind of cartoonishly woke and absurd, but in the last couple of years has seemed to at least somewhat adjust his messaging and even in recent weeks since becoming DNC vice chair, has spoken a little bit of common sense and actually seemed to get it at least a tiny little bit, like he did in their recent appearance with Bill Maher.

Pterraffic Day is the day that ends in why so the Democratic Party is collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity. We're going to break down the latest bizarre identity politics that are tearing the Democratic Party down from the inside, and so much more, including a bizarre CNN segment, an unhinged TikTok, and a strange move by a Republican governor in today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective. First, like I mentioned, we got to check in with the Democratic Party and spoiler alert, folks, they're not doing well. We talked about this a little while back, but they recently elected a guy named David Hogg to be one of several vice chairs for the Democratic National Committee that the NC the body that organizes the Democratic Party's political affairs. And David Hogg is an interesting character to say the least, because he was tragically involved in a school shooting while still in high school and then became a prominent gun control activist, but then kind of more broadly a liberal activist and commentator, and he was at one point kind of cartoonishly woke and absurd, but in the last couple of years has seemed to at least somewhat adjust his messaging and even in recent weeks since becoming DNC vice chair, has spoken a little bit of common sense and actually seemed to get it at least a tiny little bit, like he did in their recent appearance with Bill Maher.

What I think hal in last election, as younger men, they would rather vote for somebody who feels who even if they don't completely agree with, they don't feel judged by it, than somebody who they do agree with that they feel like they have to walk on eggshells around constantly because going to be judged or ostracized or excommunicated. And what's interesting about this moment is it feels like the two parties in some senses have flipped where, you know, Republicans used to be the judgmental assholes in many ways, and since many Democrats, despite us, I would say for most of us coming from the right place of wanting to do the right thing, we've created a culture where we say, well, if you say the wrong thing, you're excommunicated. And that's just not how human beings work. Nobody is perfect. But ultimately what we have to do here is figure out how to bring people back in and work towards the bigger goal of advancing the future of this country and helping young people, especially get by so that they're able to focus on their lives and you know, getting with a young woman or something like that. Instead of how are they going to pay their rent, for example, or how are they working their two jobs? Young people should be able to focus on what young people should be focused on, which is how to get laid and how to go and have fun.

What I think hal in last election, as younger men, they would rather vote for somebody who feels who even if they don't completely agree with, they don't feel judged by it, than somebody who they do agree with that they feel like they have to walk on eggshells around constantly because going to be judged or ostracized or excommunicated. And what's interesting about this moment is it feels like the two parties in some senses have flipped where, you know, Republicans used to be the judgmental assholes in many ways, and since many Democrats, despite us, I would say for most of us coming from the right place of wanting to do the right thing, we've created a culture where we say, well, if you say the wrong thing, you're excommunicated. And that's just not how human beings work. Nobody is perfect. But ultimately what we have to do here is figure out how to bring people back in and work towards the bigger goal of advancing the future of this country and helping young people, especially get by so that they're able to focus on their lives and you know, getting with a young woman or something like that. Instead of how are they going to pay their rent, for example, or how are they working their two jobs? Young people should be able to focus on what young people should be focused on, which is how to get laid and how to go and have fun.

Rather David had for question.

Rather David had for question.

Hog has also rocked the boat by suggesting that even in his role as DNC vice chair, he will still work to support primary challenges to old Democrats who are establishment incumbits, and he will support challengers even potentially in safe seats. This has upset a lot of people in the Democratic Party, of course, but he's not wrong that they need new energy and need perhaps fewer octogenarians in party leadership and in important positions. But that hasn't gone overwhell with a lot of the rest of the party naturally, because you're going to ruffle feathers when you threaten to take people's jobs away or support challengers to their elections. And at the same time all of this is going on, there's been kind of an absurd saga playing out in the background that's sort of parallel to this that you can't totally separate it from all of this drama, but it is sort of separate. Where a losing candidate for the DNC vice chair, a female candidate, has been challenging the legitimacy of Hogg's election, not on the basis that the votes were fraudulent or anything like that, but on the basis that it violated their gender parity rules. Yes, seriously, the DNC has written into its rules absurd gender quotas that explicitly say they cannot simply elect the best candidates. They must do explicit balancing in the election process in terms of male, female, and press as shored non binary candidates. This led to tremendous confusion during the most recent selection process, as this sense infamous clip from former DNC chair Jamie Harrison showed when he was trying to figure out how the heck they could deal with this gender parity rule given that one of the candidates was non binary, or so they claim.

Hog has also rocked the boat by suggesting that even in his role as DNC vice chair, he will still work to support primary challenges to old Democrats who are establishment incumbits, and he will support challengers even potentially in safe seats. This has upset a lot of people in the Democratic Party, of course, but he's not wrong that they need new energy and need perhaps fewer octogenarians in party leadership and in important positions. But that hasn't gone overwhell with a lot of the rest of the party naturally, because you're going to ruffle feathers when you threaten to take people's jobs away or support challengers to their elections. And at the same time all of this is going on, there's been kind of an absurd saga playing out in the background that's sort of parallel to this that you can't totally separate it from all of this drama, but it is sort of separate. Where a losing candidate for the DNC vice chair, a female candidate, has been challenging the legitimacy of Hogg's election, not on the basis that the votes were fraudulent or anything like that, but on the basis that it violated their gender parity rules. Yes, seriously, the DNC has written into its rules absurd gender quotas that explicitly say they cannot simply elect the best candidates. They must do explicit balancing in the election process in terms of male, female, and press as shored non binary candidates. This led to tremendous confusion during the most recent selection process, as this sense infamous clip from former DNC chair Jamie Harrison showed when he was trying to figure out how the heck they could deal with this gender parity rule given that one of the candidates was non binary, or so they claim.

The rules specify that when we have a gender non binary candidate or officer, the non binary individual is counted as neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections, and officers are currently two male and too female. In order to be gender balanced, we must we must elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender. So again, this is what we have to do for this vice chair race.

The rules specify that when we have a gender non binary candidate or officer, the non binary individual is counted as neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices must be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections, and officers are currently two male and too female. In order to be gender balanced, we must we must elect one male, one female, and one person of any gender. So again, this is what we have to do for this vice chair race.

Now this is honestly all beyond parody at this point, but it did lead to serious problems that afterwards. After the election occurred and Hog as well as the other male candidate, Kenyata, were selected in addition to one female candidate who was also selected. They now are being challenged through the Procedural Rules Committee as part of the DNC to have that election overturned, and that committee just approved the challenge. NBC News reports DNC panel recommends redo a vote that elevated David Hogg to vice chair after procedural concerns. The recommendations could also affect the post held by Malcolm care, a Pennsylvania state legislator. A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February vice chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates. The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC votes to approve it, could open up new races for the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and Malcolm Knyada, a Pennsylvania state legislator. The challenge by Oklahoma Democratic Committee woman Caylin Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hog and Kenyada in the February race for vice chair, is not related to the ongoing tension between Hag and the National Party over his push to support primary challenges against incumbent Democrats. Instead, it was based off frieze claim that the handling of the vice chair vote gave the two men an unfair advantage amid the National Party's requirement that its executive committee achieved gender balance, that's right. This all stems back to the fact that they literally have gender quotas, and in the bizarre and very bureaucratic and confusing process that took place trying to account for those, this woman claims that these quotas weren't properly enforced. Here's what Hogg said when he was asked about this recently on Bill Maher's show.

Now this is honestly all beyond parody at this point, but it did lead to serious problems that afterwards. After the election occurred and Hog as well as the other male candidate, Kenyata, were selected in addition to one female candidate who was also selected. They now are being challenged through the Procedural Rules Committee as part of the DNC to have that election overturned, and that committee just approved the challenge. NBC News reports DNC panel recommends redo a vote that elevated David Hogg to vice chair after procedural concerns. The recommendations could also affect the post held by Malcolm care, a Pennsylvania state legislator. A Democratic National Committee subcommittee on Monday recommended that the organization invalidate one of its February vice chair votes over claims that it unfairly disadvantaged female candidates. The move, which won't be official unless the entire DNC votes to approve it, could open up new races for the positions held by David Hogg, a Florida activist, and Malcolm Knyada, a Pennsylvania state legislator. The challenge by Oklahoma Democratic Committee woman Caylin Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hog and Kenyada in the February race for vice chair, is not related to the ongoing tension between Hag and the National Party over his push to support primary challenges against incumbent Democrats. Instead, it was based off frieze claim that the handling of the vice chair vote gave the two men an unfair advantage amid the National Party's requirement that its executive committee achieved gender balance, that's right. This all stems back to the fact that they literally have gender quotas, and in the bizarre and very bureaucratic and confusing process that took place trying to account for those, this woman claims that these quotas weren't properly enforced. Here's what Hogg said when he was asked about this recently on Bill Maher's show.

That is the deal on the I'm the woman who attacked you because you beat her at that job?

That is the deal on the I'm the woman who attacked you because you beat her at that job?

Did you beat her far and square?

Did you beat her far and square?

Was there any fire there? There was? There was the election that the DNC held, and I was the person that was one of the people that won one of the three positions that they had for the the at large fight.

Was there any fire there? There was? There was the election that the DNC held, and I was the person that was one of the people that won one of the three positions that they had for the the at large fight.

So what was her claim?

So what was her claim?

Part of the claim? So, I don't not to bore people, but to get into the bureaucracy of the DNC. We have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because of course we do, okay right away, by the way, the Republican Party does too.

Part of the claim? So, I don't not to bore people, but to get into the bureaucracy of the DNC. We have a gender balance rule at the DNC, because of course we do, okay right away, by the way, the Republican Party does too.

If the chair is a male, then the vice chair has to be a female.

If the chair is a male, then the vice chair has to be a female.

Well, what's interesting is that's even more progressive than our vision, which is that the chair doesn't count towards the gender balance rule that we have. Frankly, I don't even know if it makes sense for us to have the gender balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I want to focus on whoever's just best at the job. Great at this point, that's my own deal.

Well, what's interesting is that's even more progressive than our vision, which is that the chair doesn't count towards the gender balance rule that we have. Frankly, I don't even know if it makes sense for us to have the gender balance rule anymore in this day and age, because I want to focus on whoever's just best at the job. Great at this point, that's my own deal.

Pratic What a crazy idea that they should just elect whoever's best for the job and not enforce bizarre gender quotas. Now it is rich to hear that coming from hag who had a long history until very recently of being the exact kind of woke activist that would have supported this kind of thing, including very famously now tweeting I'm one of the most politically toxic people in the country and I'm too radical for American politics. No, I'm not running for office. We have enough straight white men in power. It'd be nice to see some people who actually look like our country and not privilege. That's what he tweeted in twenty twenty two, so not all that long ago. But he's clearly had a change of heart and now sees the error of these woke identitarian ways, which I guess better late than never. But it is kind of funny to see him in this situation given his past comments. I'm so surprised and disappointed to hear that Republicans have these kinds of rules as well, as far as I'm concerned, Scrap all that nonsense, open up these party elections to anybody, regardless of their gender, and just elect the best person. But to me, this is really indicative of the problems facing the Democratic Party. They are trying, or at least some of the smarter voices inside of it, are trying to disentangle themselves from the woke, toxic, identitarian obsessions that have really dragged the party down. But so many high profile leaders like Biden and Tim Walls in recent comments, keep going back into this identitarian, victim obsessed territory and dragging the party back into this rather than presenting any sort of like moderate economics driven message or just pushing back on the extremes of the Trump administration and offering kind of a sane, sensible alternative. Rather than that, they keep getting pulled back into this stuff. And that's because the rot goes deep. As you can see, it is literally embedded into the rules of the party itself. You can't just flip a switch, especially when you're not willing to take on the radical activists that have bullied the Democrats in terms of this kind of issue to adopt these absurdities and these radical positions in the first place. I mean, they're literally about to remove their two male vice chairs over allegations that they're elections which they won by a lot of votes. By the way, it wasn't close violated their rules regarding gender parity quotas. It is not twenty twenty. And I don't know how they're still doing this, how these rules haven't been updated. To be clear, this woman, she may actually be correct in her procedural claim that this was in fact the rules, and it was. It gets very arcane and very complicated in the details essentially what happened, and I will try not to butcher this, but what happened was the first vote where they elected the first chair elected a female candidate. Then they had to elect two more chairs and they did it in one single vote, and they told everyone that you had to vote for one male in this vote because of those parity rules, and then one candidate of any gender. Now, the two that resulted from that vote were Kenyata and hog. This woman claims that because they were instructed that they had to pick one male, then therefore she was discriminated against even though everyone had the option to pick her and just didn't. Still, maybe that is technically true according to the rules. Maybe they were incorrect to add that stipulation. I don't know the Rules Committee voted that that was the case. But to me, it's the fact that they still have these absurd rules and they're still playing these stupid games. That is just beyond parity at this point. And I will say it is unlike what this NBC News article suggested to me, it is actually not possible to completely disentangle this mess from the ongoing feud that Hog is happy with the party where he's trying to take it in a different direction. And look, I'm not sure his direction is the right direction politically speaking or policy wise, certainly not, but at least it's different and what the Democrats have been doing isn't working. But obviously this ruling is not about that. It's about the technicalities of the rules. But it is an open question whether the members of this committee, who many of whom may have been very upset or offended or felt threatened by what Hag is doing, had that influence their decision. He has said publicly that he believes if there was someone else involved then it wasn't his name, they would not be redoing the election like this. They wouldn't have passed this procedural objection. They would have just said, Okay, next time, we'll do it differently. But this one stands. And so I don't know if that's true or not, but my hunches it's potentially at least a factor. And then you can't totally disentangle these two ongoing controversies. But I just find it funny how Democrats are going through all this soul searching right now about like how did we lose young men of all races, but especially young white men. It's actually not that deep. No one in these groups, really, no one in any groups, but especially in these groups, is interested in toxic identitarianism. And for years, you guys have been deeply, deeply intertwined with those exact ideas and philosophical approaches to politics, even at the core level of your party itself. If you want to stop the bleeding, if you want to win back some of these people, which I'm not sure it's even possible, but you've got to try something different and rip up these identitarian rules and obsessions. But what do you guys think of this mess? Do let me know in the comments. Do hit that leg button while you're at it, and make sure you're subscribed as well. Plus, guys, remember to send me voice notes at the link in the description with your woke car stories, your personal experiences, and other things you want me to respond to and give you advice in an upcoming episode. And remember to check out the new last brain Cell merch line that just dropped. Check it out in the description. Plus, subscribe to my second YouTube channel, where I will be uploading original bonus content and already did put out one story time about how I got fired from my woke college newspaper for a non binary microaggression and for supposedly old racist tweets. I told that whole story on my second channel. Go check it out at the link below after you finished this episode, because we are not done. There's so much more to talk about today. First, here's a TikTok that's going viral where a white woman is practically peeing herself with joy at the idea that Luigi Mangioni the alleged killer of a healthcare CEO may go free because of a theory she's concocted. Let's take a listen, Bro, Luigi MANGIONI my walk.

Pratic What a crazy idea that they should just elect whoever's best for the job and not enforce bizarre gender quotas. Now it is rich to hear that coming from hag who had a long history until very recently of being the exact kind of woke activist that would have supported this kind of thing, including very famously now tweeting I'm one of the most politically toxic people in the country and I'm too radical for American politics. No, I'm not running for office. We have enough straight white men in power. It'd be nice to see some people who actually look like our country and not privilege. That's what he tweeted in twenty twenty two, so not all that long ago. But he's clearly had a change of heart and now sees the error of these woke identitarian ways, which I guess better late than never. But it is kind of funny to see him in this situation given his past comments. I'm so surprised and disappointed to hear that Republicans have these kinds of rules as well, as far as I'm concerned, Scrap all that nonsense, open up these party elections to anybody, regardless of their gender, and just elect the best person. But to me, this is really indicative of the problems facing the Democratic Party. They are trying, or at least some of the smarter voices inside of it, are trying to disentangle themselves from the woke, toxic, identitarian obsessions that have really dragged the party down. But so many high profile leaders like Biden and Tim Walls in recent comments, keep going back into this identitarian, victim obsessed territory and dragging the party back into this rather than presenting any sort of like moderate economics driven message or just pushing back on the extremes of the Trump administration and offering kind of a sane, sensible alternative. Rather than that, they keep getting pulled back into this stuff. And that's because the rot goes deep. As you can see, it is literally embedded into the rules of the party itself. You can't just flip a switch, especially when you're not willing to take on the radical activists that have bullied the Democrats in terms of this kind of issue to adopt these absurdities and these radical positions in the first place. I mean, they're literally about to remove their two male vice chairs over allegations that they're elections which they won by a lot of votes. By the way, it wasn't close violated their rules regarding gender parity quotas. It is not twenty twenty. And I don't know how they're still doing this, how these rules haven't been updated. To be clear, this woman, she may actually be correct in her procedural claim that this was in fact the rules, and it was. It gets very arcane and very complicated in the details essentially what happened, and I will try not to butcher this, but what happened was the first vote where they elected the first chair elected a female candidate. Then they had to elect two more chairs and they did it in one single vote, and they told everyone that you had to vote for one male in this vote because of those parity rules, and then one candidate of any gender. Now, the two that resulted from that vote were Kenyata and hog. This woman claims that because they were instructed that they had to pick one male, then therefore she was discriminated against even though everyone had the option to pick her and just didn't. Still, maybe that is technically true according to the rules. Maybe they were incorrect to add that stipulation. I don't know the Rules Committee voted that that was the case. But to me, it's the fact that they still have these absurd rules and they're still playing these stupid games. That is just beyond parity at this point. And I will say it is unlike what this NBC News article suggested to me, it is actually not possible to completely disentangle this mess from the ongoing feud that Hog is happy with the party where he's trying to take it in a different direction. And look, I'm not sure his direction is the right direction politically speaking or policy wise, certainly not, but at least it's different and what the Democrats have been doing isn't working. But obviously this ruling is not about that. It's about the technicalities of the rules. But it is an open question whether the members of this committee, who many of whom may have been very upset or offended or felt threatened by what Hag is doing, had that influence their decision. He has said publicly that he believes if there was someone else involved then it wasn't his name, they would not be redoing the election like this. They wouldn't have passed this procedural objection. They would have just said, Okay, next time, we'll do it differently. But this one stands. And so I don't know if that's true or not, but my hunches it's potentially at least a factor. And then you can't totally disentangle these two ongoing controversies. But I just find it funny how Democrats are going through all this soul searching right now about like how did we lose young men of all races, but especially young white men. It's actually not that deep. No one in these groups, really, no one in any groups, but especially in these groups, is interested in toxic identitarianism. And for years, you guys have been deeply, deeply intertwined with those exact ideas and philosophical approaches to politics, even at the core level of your party itself. If you want to stop the bleeding, if you want to win back some of these people, which I'm not sure it's even possible, but you've got to try something different and rip up these identitarian rules and obsessions. But what do you guys think of this mess? Do let me know in the comments. Do hit that leg button while you're at it, and make sure you're subscribed as well. Plus, guys, remember to send me voice notes at the link in the description with your woke car stories, your personal experiences, and other things you want me to respond to and give you advice in an upcoming episode. And remember to check out the new last brain Cell merch line that just dropped. Check it out in the description. Plus, subscribe to my second YouTube channel, where I will be uploading original bonus content and already did put out one story time about how I got fired from my woke college newspaper for a non binary microaggression and for supposedly old racist tweets. I told that whole story on my second channel. Go check it out at the link below after you finished this episode, because we are not done. There's so much more to talk about today. First, here's a TikTok that's going viral where a white woman is practically peeing herself with joy at the idea that Luigi Mangioni the alleged killer of a healthcare CEO may go free because of a theory she's concocted. Let's take a listen, Bro, Luigi MANGIONI my walk.

Allegedly, the cops forgot to provide a warrant when they searched Luigi's backpack. Bro, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. They did not a warrant when searching Luigi's backpack. This man could walk.

Allegedly, the cops forgot to provide a warrant when they searched Luigi's backpack. Bro, they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. They did not a warrant when searching Luigi's backpack. This man could walk.

Imagine, imagine, Imagine.

Imagine, imagine, Imagine.

Luigi runs her office somewhere because he gets to walk on this case because of an administrative error by the from the cops not providing a warrant.

Luigi runs her office somewhere because he gets to walk on this case because of an administrative error by the from the cops not providing a warrant.

I haven't validated this for sure. I just got a text message from one.

I haven't validated this for sure. I just got a text message from one.

Of my friends.

Of my friends.

I haven't validated this entirely on my own yet, so I still have to do a little bit more research to find out if this is like legitimate. But this dude could walk, no charges, This guy could walk out of there. Stay tuned. I'm about to be home. I'll provide an update as soon as I can. This is insane. If this is real, this is literally insane. His legal defense fund has also reached over a million dollars, according to his lawyers.

I haven't validated this entirely on my own yet, so I still have to do a little bit more research to find out if this is like legitimate. But this dude could walk, no charges, This guy could walk out of there. Stay tuned. I'm about to be home. I'll provide an update as soon as I can. This is insane. If this is real, this is literally insane. His legal defense fund has also reached over a million dollars, according to his lawyers.

More to come, well, that's concerning that over a million dollars has been raised for somebody who's accused of murdering someone in cold blood. But a lot to unpack here. First of all, kind of insane to admit that you're just posting random information on the Internet that you haven't verified before even checking it. That's probably not great. That's probably not the best thing to do. Just my hot take. But she's just probably incorrect on the facts for a couple of reasons. One, there's a ton of evidence against Mangioni, so even if the backpack was excluded, the whole case wouldn't be dismissed. You wouldn't necessarily just walk. And also, they searched his backpack when he was arrested. And I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this, but I think if they have a warrant for your arrest, or they have probable cause to arrest you, they are allowed to search you and your belongings and don't need a separate warrant for that. I'm pretty sure she's just wrong about this whole thing. But the more important thing to me is the idea that this woman genuinely seems thrilled to the point of euphoria at the idea that somebody who allegedly track someone down, track down a father of two and killed him in cold blood would walk for that. Are y' all sure, because it's not just this one girl. We've gone over the polling, there is fairly widespread support among young people for Luigi Mangioni, for people who feel that his actions are justified by what they see as the horrors and harm caused by health insurance industry. But that is I've talked about this before. That is an insane perspective that literally threatens the foundations of our civilization because one I think that the claim that he's responsible for killing people with his insurance denials and all that is highly suspected. We could get into all the details of it. But even if he was, this man received no trial, He was accused of violating no law in a court. He received no sort of verdict from a jury of his peers to be sentenced to a death penalty. So what you are saying, if you support Luigi, if you want him free, even though you believe he did it, is that it's okay to go out and kill someone just based on a belief that they're doing harm in the world and they don't deserve a trial, they don't deserve charges anything. Vigilante justice is wonderful and to be supported to the tune of millions of dollars of fundraising and bizarre TikTok videos filmed in your car. All if you agree with the person's objections to the nature of the targeted person's work, that's a can of worms, that's a Pandora's box that, if you open it up, leads to outright violence in the streets and civil unrest and conflict. You will have people who will go after the CEO of Planned Parenthood by that exact same logic, and I would never support that. But there's no way to argue that someone like Luigi Mangioni's actions are justified, but that person in that situation wouldn't be by the same logic. Either you want to live in a civilized society with a rule of law or you want to live in anarchy. I know my answer, but these TikTokers really seem caught up, and maybe it's just them being thirsty for Luigi, but they really don't seem to have thought through any of the ramifications or consequences of this world view that they're adopting by just hopping on board with this extremist vigilante violence. What do you guys think are even surprised by these videos at this point or is it just kind of part of the course. Let me know in the comments. Up next, a CNN panel just crashed out and lost it because Kevin O'Leary, who I guess is sort of a Republican. He's of Shark Tank fame, but he's got more I think pro Trump, pro Republican perspectives. This CNN panel freaked out over a basic fact. Take a listen. Lastly, there's nothing about Kamala Harris that's a loser.

More to come, well, that's concerning that over a million dollars has been raised for somebody who's accused of murdering someone in cold blood. But a lot to unpack here. First of all, kind of insane to admit that you're just posting random information on the Internet that you haven't verified before even checking it. That's probably not great. That's probably not the best thing to do. Just my hot take. But she's just probably incorrect on the facts for a couple of reasons. One, there's a ton of evidence against Mangioni, so even if the backpack was excluded, the whole case wouldn't be dismissed. You wouldn't necessarily just walk. And also, they searched his backpack when he was arrested. And I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on this, but I think if they have a warrant for your arrest, or they have probable cause to arrest you, they are allowed to search you and your belongings and don't need a separate warrant for that. I'm pretty sure she's just wrong about this whole thing. But the more important thing to me is the idea that this woman genuinely seems thrilled to the point of euphoria at the idea that somebody who allegedly track someone down, track down a father of two and killed him in cold blood would walk for that. Are y' all sure, because it's not just this one girl. We've gone over the polling, there is fairly widespread support among young people for Luigi Mangioni, for people who feel that his actions are justified by what they see as the horrors and harm caused by health insurance industry. But that is I've talked about this before. That is an insane perspective that literally threatens the foundations of our civilization because one I think that the claim that he's responsible for killing people with his insurance denials and all that is highly suspected. We could get into all the details of it. But even if he was, this man received no trial, He was accused of violating no law in a court. He received no sort of verdict from a jury of his peers to be sentenced to a death penalty. So what you are saying, if you support Luigi, if you want him free, even though you believe he did it, is that it's okay to go out and kill someone just based on a belief that they're doing harm in the world and they don't deserve a trial, they don't deserve charges anything. Vigilante justice is wonderful and to be supported to the tune of millions of dollars of fundraising and bizarre TikTok videos filmed in your car. All if you agree with the person's objections to the nature of the targeted person's work, that's a can of worms, that's a Pandora's box that, if you open it up, leads to outright violence in the streets and civil unrest and conflict. You will have people who will go after the CEO of Planned Parenthood by that exact same logic, and I would never support that. But there's no way to argue that someone like Luigi Mangioni's actions are justified, but that person in that situation wouldn't be by the same logic. Either you want to live in a civilized society with a rule of law or you want to live in anarchy. I know my answer, but these TikTokers really seem caught up, and maybe it's just them being thirsty for Luigi, but they really don't seem to have thought through any of the ramifications or consequences of this world view that they're adopting by just hopping on board with this extremist vigilante violence. What do you guys think are even surprised by these videos at this point or is it just kind of part of the course. Let me know in the comments. Up next, a CNN panel just crashed out and lost it because Kevin O'Leary, who I guess is sort of a Republican. He's of Shark Tank fame, but he's got more I think pro Trump, pro Republican perspectives. This CNN panel freaked out over a basic fact. Take a listen. Lastly, there's nothing about Kamala Harris that's a loser.

Let's just put it.

Let's just put it.

Oh, I think there is. She lost big times.

Oh, I think there is. She lost big times.

Listen, we are not gonna hold on.

Listen, we are not gonna hold on.

Hold on, I'm talking. She got slaughtered because they disabled the process.

Hold on, I'm talking. She got slaughtered because they disabled the process.

They have anointed her and she got slat.

They have anointed her and she got slat.

I just want that we don't have to bake oncond We do not have to bake some Hold on a second, Kevin, just clarification. She was elected in the twenty twenty election. Joe Biden. She she was elected in twenty twenty on the same ticket as Joe Biden. So there's that. We got to leave it there for this conversation.

I just want that we don't have to bake oncond We do not have to bake some Hold on a second, Kevin, just clarification. She was elected in the twenty twenty election. Joe Biden. She she was elected in twenty twenty on the same ticket as Joe Biden. So there's that. We got to leave it there for this conversation.

Come on, true, Wow, the cope is off the charts. They just lost their minds because he stated basic facts. Kamala Harris is a huge political loser. She's won a bunch of safe elections in a deep blue state like California. Sure, but when she ran for president in twenty twenty four, she did terribly. She lost by a huge margin to Donald Trump. And sure, the host Aabby Phillip, who I like as a person, says that she well, she won his vice president in twenty twenty. No one votes based on the vice president. She's at the bottom of the ticket. They were voting on Biden versus Trump. Okay, so technically, yes, she won, but that you can't really cite that to suggest she's some sort of political winner. And in fact, when she ran her own Democratic presidential primary campaign in twenty twenty, she crashed and burned, despite having a lot of liberal mainstream media outlets openly supporting her and simping for her. So when Kevin O'Leary says Kamala Harris is a loser politically speaking, he's kind of just stating a fact, and it is astounding that I agree to which these other panelists just lost it over this, and how much cope and denial they're still somehow in. That's the thing that kind of concerns me about this. How are you going to learn? How are you going to construct and form a better approach for next time when you're still in denial about the fact that you even messed up in the first place. Finally, I want to talk about something that a Republican governor just did that making some serious waves. Here's the latest news out of Montana.

Come on, true, Wow, the cope is off the charts. They just lost their minds because he stated basic facts. Kamala Harris is a huge political loser. She's won a bunch of safe elections in a deep blue state like California. Sure, but when she ran for president in twenty twenty four, she did terribly. She lost by a huge margin to Donald Trump. And sure, the host Aabby Phillip, who I like as a person, says that she well, she won his vice president in twenty twenty. No one votes based on the vice president. She's at the bottom of the ticket. They were voting on Biden versus Trump. Okay, so technically, yes, she won, but that you can't really cite that to suggest she's some sort of political winner. And in fact, when she ran her own Democratic presidential primary campaign in twenty twenty, she crashed and burned, despite having a lot of liberal mainstream media outlets openly supporting her and simping for her. So when Kevin O'Leary says Kamala Harris is a loser politically speaking, he's kind of just stating a fact, and it is astounding that I agree to which these other panelists just lost it over this, and how much cope and denial they're still somehow in. That's the thing that kind of concerns me about this. How are you going to learn? How are you going to construct and form a better approach for next time when you're still in denial about the fact that you even messed up in the first place. Finally, I want to talk about something that a Republican governor just did that making some serious waves. Here's the latest news out of Montana.

Well, Montana has become the fourth state to pass legislation banning lab grown meat after Governor Greg Ganfte signed HB four oh one into law earlier this month, and the governor says he's proud to support Montana's ranchers.

Well, Montana has become the fourth state to pass legislation banning lab grown meat after Governor Greg Ganfte signed HB four oh one into law earlier this month, and the governor says he's proud to support Montana's ranchers.

There's nothing better than Montana beef. The world knows that. I don't know why anybody would want something out of a petri dish, So I was proud to sign this bill into law.

There's nothing better than Montana beef. The world knows that. I don't know why anybody would want something out of a petri dish, So I was proud to sign this bill into law.

We don't need lab grown meat here in the state of Montana.

We don't need lab grown meat here in the state of Montana.

The governor is publicly bragging about what he just did. He posted a tweet that says so called lab grown meat has no place in Montana. By signing HB four oh one into law, I am proud to defend our way of life and the hard working Montana ranchers who produce the best beef in the world. He attached a press release that has more details. Sponsored by Rep. Braxton Mitchell, Republican from Columbia, Falls, House Bill four oh one prohibits the manufacture, for sale, or distribution of cell cultured edible product. The bill defines cell cultured edible product as the concept of meat, including but not limited to muscle cells, fat cells, connective tissue, blood, and other components produced via cell culture rather than from a whole slaughtered animal. Darting October first, any retail food establishment in Montana that manufactures, sells, or distributes cell cultured edible product is subject to suspension of their license and could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and face with fines and imprisonment if convicted. So Governor Ganforte is not the only one to do this. Others like Republican Governor Ron De Santis in the Free State of Florida have done something similar and also banned lab grown meat. From their states. We have a huge problem with this because what you're essentially doing is substituting the government's judgment for what individuals can buy and consume, with absolutely none of the normal legitimate justifications that would justify such an intervention. These meat products have to be approved by the FDA and their extensive safety testing process, and there's a lot of research showing it's not harmful for you, so there is no safety reason to be doing this. They're simply saying this isn't real meat and it's not our way of life to eat stuff like this. That's fine, though, then don't eat it, don't purchase it, use your dollars, and in your community, support ranchers locally. But some people might want to eat lab grown meat. They might be concerned about reducing carbon emissions because there's a lot of COTO emissions they involved in traditional meat production. They might be concerned about ending cruelty and suffering towards animals, but still want to consume meat. That's one reason I would personally be very interested in trying lab grown meat. I'm very bothered by the points that vegetarians raise about how animals are treated in kind of our meat production system. But I'm pretty attached to eating meat, so something like this should be a great option for me that I should be free to try. It's not your business to tell me, with no valid safety justification, what I can and can't eat, or what businesses should win and lose in a market. And that's what they're doing here. They're open about it. They're picking winners and losers. They're saying, we're going to use the force of the law to legally ban competition from traditional farmers, which will potentially stop price reductions that would come from competition, and it will stop people from actually getting to choose what kind of business and what kind of product they want to support. I thought Republicans were all about freedom and about choices and about personal responsibility and being free and not having overreaching government. Well now y'all want the government to reach into my grocery cart. Seriously, there's a blatantly crony capitalist nature to this as well. They're blatantly and openly doing this, saying we're doing this to protect the cattle ranchers from competition from this other product and meat source. They're not being shy about it. These are groups that donate a lot of money to these politicians and lobby them, and they are rewarding them by using the power of government, which is supposed to simply be used to uphold the public's safety and rights, to benefit these specific businesses by legally prohibiting their competition and taking choices away from consumers so that these traditional cattle farmers don't have to compete but instead just get the market kind of skewed in their balance into perpetuity by the government. That's ironically enough, almost a form of dei for cattle ranchers. Like, it's not equality, it's not competition, it's not meritocracy made the best approach and product win. It's special privileges for groups that the institution wants to promote. You can't claim to be the party of meritocracy while pulling stunts like this. I find this ridiculous and deeply hypocritical. But you guys, let me know what you think. Maybe you support it, let me know in the comments. All right, guys, that'll be for this episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast. Thank you all so much for tuning in. Please do make sure you subscribed. If you aren't yet, do hit that like button. Before you go, remember to send me some voice notes. Check out the merch and subscribe to my second channel, and with that we'll talk again real soon.

The governor is publicly bragging about what he just did. He posted a tweet that says so called lab grown meat has no place in Montana. By signing HB four oh one into law, I am proud to defend our way of life and the hard working Montana ranchers who produce the best beef in the world. He attached a press release that has more details. Sponsored by Rep. Braxton Mitchell, Republican from Columbia, Falls, House Bill four oh one prohibits the manufacture, for sale, or distribution of cell cultured edible product. The bill defines cell cultured edible product as the concept of meat, including but not limited to muscle cells, fat cells, connective tissue, blood, and other components produced via cell culture rather than from a whole slaughtered animal. Darting October first, any retail food establishment in Montana that manufactures, sells, or distributes cell cultured edible product is subject to suspension of their license and could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and face with fines and imprisonment if convicted. So Governor Ganforte is not the only one to do this. Others like Republican Governor Ron De Santis in the Free State of Florida have done something similar and also banned lab grown meat. From their states. We have a huge problem with this because what you're essentially doing is substituting the government's judgment for what individuals can buy and consume, with absolutely none of the normal legitimate justifications that would justify such an intervention. These meat products have to be approved by the FDA and their extensive safety testing process, and there's a lot of research showing it's not harmful for you, so there is no safety reason to be doing this. They're simply saying this isn't real meat and it's not our way of life to eat stuff like this. That's fine, though, then don't eat it, don't purchase it, use your dollars, and in your community, support ranchers locally. But some people might want to eat lab grown meat. They might be concerned about reducing carbon emissions because there's a lot of COTO emissions they involved in traditional meat production. They might be concerned about ending cruelty and suffering towards animals, but still want to consume meat. That's one reason I would personally be very interested in trying lab grown meat. I'm very bothered by the points that vegetarians raise about how animals are treated in kind of our meat production system. But I'm pretty attached to eating meat, so something like this should be a great option for me that I should be free to try. It's not your business to tell me, with no valid safety justification, what I can and can't eat, or what businesses should win and lose in a market. And that's what they're doing here. They're open about it. They're picking winners and losers. They're saying, we're going to use the force of the law to legally ban competition from traditional farmers, which will potentially stop price reductions that would come from competition, and it will stop people from actually getting to choose what kind of business and what kind of product they want to support. I thought Republicans were all about freedom and about choices and about personal responsibility and being free and not having overreaching government. Well now y'all want the government to reach into my grocery cart. Seriously, there's a blatantly crony capitalist nature to this as well. They're blatantly and openly doing this, saying we're doing this to protect the cattle ranchers from competition from this other product and meat source. They're not being shy about it. These are groups that donate a lot of money to these politicians and lobby them, and they are rewarding them by using the power of government, which is supposed to simply be used to uphold the public's safety and rights, to benefit these specific businesses by legally prohibiting their competition and taking choices away from consumers so that these traditional cattle farmers don't have to compete but instead just get the market kind of skewed in their balance into perpetuity by the government. That's ironically enough, almost a form of dei for cattle ranchers. Like, it's not equality, it's not competition, it's not meritocracy made the best approach and product win. It's special privileges for groups that the institution wants to promote. You can't claim to be the party of meritocracy while pulling stunts like this. I find this ridiculous and deeply hypocritical. But you guys, let me know what you think. Maybe you support it, let me know in the comments. All right, guys, that'll be for this episode of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast. Thank you all so much for tuning in. Please do make sure you subscribed. If you aren't yet, do hit that like button. Before you go, remember to send me some voice notes. Check out the merch and subscribe to my second channel, and with that we'll talk again real soon.