- Sup, you beautiful bastards.
Hope you had a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show.
Buckle up, hit that like button
and let's just jump into it.
And the first thing we're going to talk about today
is actually just a bunch of quickies.
In online entertainment slash business news,
we are seeing the reign of TikTok
reigning more and more supreme.
And this, not only because it,
as a platform continues to grow,
but also a lot of their key,
incredibly large talent are making massive moves.
We saw Morphe, who recently ended their relationship
with Jeffree Star,
teaming up with Charli and Dixie D'Amelio,
this for their Gen Z sub-brand Morphe 2.
Though, I think there's an incredibly easy argument
to be made that Dixie and Charli D'Amelio
are no longer just TikTokers.
They now make some of the most highly viewed content
on YouTube as well.
We all saw the likes of Addison Rae
joining the increasing number of celebrities
signing Spotify exclusive podcast deals.
Also, on the note of exclusives,
though not TikTok, we saw Twitch signing a seven-figure deal
with Logic, which I think is both
a big acquisition for Twitch and the further
mainstreamification of streaming.
Logic, if you don't know, he's a rapper,
but more notably,
he has also recently announced that with his newest album,
he is going to retire.
So this is a massive career pivot,
though it seems like one he's excited about.
Might be in part due to the seven figure deal,
with Logic saying to The Verge,
"I'm not this rapper guy, man.
I'm just a nerd.
I love video games.
I'm blessed enough to have millions of fans and followers,
so it is a great partnership."
And then I will say, my favorite line from this quote,
"I'm gonna bring new eyes to their service,
they're going to bring new money to my bank account."
And he then says I'm just kidding.
But I mean, yeah, it's facts.
As far as whatever that content will be,
he said he wants to
"help people after they've had a day of protesting
or political debates unwind and laugh and smile.
And it appears that there is at least some excitement
over this because even without going live yet,
he has over 83,000 followers over on Twitch now.
Then in celebrity slash pop culture news,
yes, I saw all this stuff with Kanye West.
Like I mentioned yesterday,
I always feel very uncomfortable
when talking about him
because he is very obviously not okay.
I have a ton of issues with the stuff
that he's been throwing out there
including anti-vaxxer stuff.
When he went on the tweet spree
that I think a lot of people have witnessed last night,
I think it confirmed for a lot more
that he is genuinely not okay.
Which is also why we saw the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears,
Halsey, Demi Lovato, and more
speaking out about mental health.
Lovato tweeting:
"It would be nice if for once,
people can put down the meme-making apps
and pray for someone who's struggling with mental illness.
What happened to compassion?"
Halsey tweeting,
"No jokes right now.
I've dedicated my career to offering education and insight
about bipolar disorder
and I'm so disturbed by what I'm seeing.
Personal opinions about someone aside a manic episode
isn't a joke.
If you can't offer understanding or sympathy,
offer your silence."
And adding, "A lot of people you know
probably have bipolar disorder and you aren't aware of it.
Taking this opportunity to make offensive remarks
and vilify people with mental illnesses
is really not the way to go.
This is the exact triggering shit
that causes people to keep quiet about it."
You know, personally, I very much agree with her.
I do think it's incredibly important,
whether it be a Kanye West or someone else,
that this situation doesn't mean
that they're shielded from just criticisms
over the things that they're saying to people,
the things that they're doing in this world
that are affecting others.
But, I do agree that we need to be more compassionate,
understanding, sympathetic.
That we make it a less intimidating place for people
to share the fact that they're struggling with stuff.
That we remember that no matter how famous or distant
or like we think oh, this person will never see this,
we still try to remember that that is an actual person.
A human being.
I don't know, and you'll never be perfect
when it comes to situations like this, you know.
Human beings are flawed.
But if there is something positive
that can come out of this whole thing,
maybe it's a teaching moment for a lot of people
on a lot of signs.
Or maybe not, I don't know.
I'm normally a cynic trying to be hopeful.
Then, I've had a lot of people
sending me this video of Dwight Howard.
- Do I believe in vaccinations?
No, I don't.
That's my personal opinion, but no, I don't.
- And I don't know what you want me to add to that clip.
If before I saw this you were like,
hey, you know Dwight Howard, LA Laker?
He's an anti-vaxxer,
my response wouldn't be,
What?!
Not Dwight!
The Dwight Howard is an anti-vaxxer
and also said stupid stuff about masks?!
Obviously it's disconcerting to see anyone
with an audience pushing anti-vaxx bullshit,
but I don't know what to say at this point.
It feels like the stupid is spreading at the same rate,
if not, faster than COVID.
So, what I'll always say with stories like this:
Listen to the doctors that specialize in this.
It's simple.
Science over feelings or data
over dum-dums because I have and will say this consistently.
If you are an anti-vaxxer, I think you're a fucking moron.
I stopped having the patience a while ago
to be like I'm trying to be nice about it
so we can have a conversation
and maybe you can see the light because no,
I'll let my buddy, Dr. Mike, do that.
He's a much nicer person.
Yeah, that's where the story ends.
I don't know what else you want me to add to this.
Don't be stupid stupid?
Yeah, which also I will say
yes, I have been seeing your top comments.
I know a lot of you have been wanting
don't be stupid stupid masks.
We are now looking into it.
It would probably be something really simplistic like this.
If we do end up releasing them,
I'm going to make sure the profits
go to some sort of charity because
with how much I've been preaching,
please wear your damn mask.
I don't want it to be something
where I was like monetarily rewarded
for trying to preach that common sense.
But from that, I want to share some stuff.
I love today
and today in awesome
brought to you by Robinhood and more specifically,
robinhoodphil.com.
And if you don't know,
Robinhood is a fantastic investment app for beginners
and active traders with no commission fees.
When I say active, I really mean it with Robinhood.
You can buy and sell stock in real time
whenever the market is open and they even offer
extended hours trading so you don't have to wait to invest.
And Robinhood isn't just a new sponsor to me.
I've actually been using their app for several years now.
What's really awesome is if today,
you just want to check them out
and see what the app looks like,
see if this is for you.
If you sign up using Robinhoodphil.com,
you just click that link down below.
You'll link your bank account.
A surprise stock will appear in your account.
Certain limitations do apply,
but you don't even need money in your account
to get your free stuff.
And there's a good chance the stock
will have a value of like 250 to $10.
But also, if you have Robinhood saying
you have a one in 200 chance to get stocks
like Microsoft, Visa, Johnson and Johnson.
Main point, go to Robinhoodfill.com
or just click that link in the description down below.
Thanks, you're welcome and enjoy.
And the first bit of awesome today
is actually maybe somewhat connected to the sponsor.
Depending on the interest there might be
around investment and stock and stuff like that,
if it does exist with this group,
honestly I've never asked you so I have no idea.
I've been playing around with the idea
of doing a once a month video over at YouTube.com/FrancoDoes
which is my secondary channel
that I've just been throwing up random videos
that I wanna make.
Soft pitch idea in my head
is we take the money that we earn from the sponsorships
involving Robinhood and we...
Maybe there's an element of the audience
deciding where it goes,
but I also have to make sure everything's legal.
Yeah, if you're interested in that
and or if something like that exists
and you think that I'd enjoy watching it, let me know.
Then we got a happy ending special charity event.
Also here, I'll say I'm still so sad
that this show got canceled.
Also, it was canceled eight years ago
which I didn't realize it's been that long.
Then we got an episode of stir crazy with Josh Horowitz.
We got Joel Mchale's guest host monologue
on Jimmy Kimmel Live.
Binging with Babish gave us a sundae
from Spongebob Squarepants.
And if you want to see the full versions of everything
I just shared, the secret link of the day,
really anything at all,
links are always in the description down below.
And then let's talk about...
Actually, do you remember this video?
Now as that video went viral,
it drew a lot of different reactions
You saw some people supporting the couple,
others just outraged.
People concerned, they've got this couple
that were pointing firearms at protesters seemingly,
escalating a situation for no reason.
But you had supporters saying obviously,
this couple feared for their lives
and they were trying to protect themselves at their home.
But the reason we're talking about this today
is that that couple is now facing serious charges.
With St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Kimberly Gardner,
saying in a statement that they're looking at
a class E felony for unlawful use of a weapon
and also potentially fourth degree assault,
which is a class A misdemeanor.
But at the same time,
we're seeing the couple having some serious support
from the governor and the attorney general.
But all of that said,
let's talk about what we actually know about this situation.
So, on June 28th, protesters entered
a private gated community to protest
in front of the mayor of St. Louis's house.
And when the protesters were on their way
to the mayor's house, Mark and Patricia McCloskey
ended up calling the police and during that call,
Patricia reportedly said I've got to get a gun
and after that, the couple went outside
with an AR-15 platform rifle and a small pistol
which results in the now infamous viral video.
Now with this situation,
one of the things we don't know for sure
is how the protesters got into the community.
If the protesters claiming
they were able to just enter through an open gate,
whereas you have the McCloskey saying
that they feared for their home
and their lives after the protesters
allegedly broke open a closed gate
and that distinction there is very likely to be important
if this case does go to trial.
As of right now, there is a video circulating of protesters
entering an already opened gate.
However, it is unclear how that gate was opened,
but it could hurt the couple's argument.
Now eventually, that situation de-escalated
and what we ended up seeing a few days later
is Gardner saying in a press conference.
- I am disturbed by the events that occurred
over this weekend where there were peaceful protesters
who were met with guns and a violent assault.
We must protect the rights
to peacefully protest and any attempts
to chill it through intimidation
or use of force will not be tolerated.
- So, that brings us back to Monday and Gardner
filing charges against the couple
with Gardner saying in a statement:
"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner
at those participating in non-violent protest
and while we are fortunate,
this situation did not escalate into deadly force.
This type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis.
However, it is an important note here
that it doesn't even look like she's necessarily
looking to place this couple in prison,
but rather that this couple
would be a part of one of her office's diversion programs
that are intended to keep the courts moving
and people out of prison after they admit guilt.
But it also appears unlikely
that they will admit guilt because after the charges
were announced, McCloskey's lawyers said in a statement:
"The charges filed today against my clients
are disheartening as I unequivocally believe
no crime was committed.
I, along with my clients,
support the first amendment right
of every citizen to have their voice and opinion heard.
This right, however, must be balanced
with the second amendment
and Missouri law, which entitle each of us
to protect our home and family from potential threats."
Like I mentioned, those charges also face backlash
from people like Missouri governor, Mike Parson,
who bash Gardner in a series of tweets
writing Kim Gardner's action
toward the McCloskeys is outrageous
Even worse, the circuit attorney's office
has admitted there is a backlog of cases
and dozens of homicides that haven't been prosecuted yet.
She has accelerated this case forward
We must prioritize laws
that keep our citizens safe over political motivations.
Kim Gardner owes every single family
who has had a loved one murdered
an explanation on why she has acted
on the McCloskey case instead of theirs.
Also, even President Trump has gotten involved
with his press secretary telling reporters.
- He said it is absolutely absurd
what is happening to the McCloskeys.
He noted that this is an extreme abuse of power
by the prosecutor
However, Gardner's actions also received support
both during her initial investigation into the incident
and after the charges were filed with many activists
happy that the McCloskies
could be facing repercussions for their actions.
But as far as the law here,
the law is probably
going to be a massive hurdle for Gardner.
And the reason for that,
as some have pointed out,
is that the Missouri laws on this are complicated.
State law defines felony unlawful use of a weapon
as when a person exhibits in the presence
of one or more persons any weapon readily capable
of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.
So, that sounds like something that the McCloskeys did.
But, and it is a very big but,
Missouri has what is known as the castle doctrine.
Generally speaking, it allows for someone
to defend themselves
and their home from unlawful intruders.
So, the general thing is if someone breaks into your home,
you do not have a duty to retreat
and that's the legal doctrine that says a threatened person
can't act in self-defense if they can retreat.
Now obviously, other states
do have versions of the castle doctrine,
but Missouri has one of the most extreme versions.
Under Missouri law, you can use deadly force
to not only protect yourself or your home,
but it also allows force to be used
if someone believes it is necessary to stop
what they think is stealing,
property damage or tampering in any degree,
but it also expands from there
because Missouri allows someone to protect
any kind of residence, vehicle, other private property
or any other location where they have the right to be.
So here, the McCloskies will likely claim
that they feared for their lives
and their property was in danger
and thus protected by the castle doctrine.
But if this did go to trial,
it's possible that a jury might not buy that defense.
The argument against that is the protesters
were not going to their home,
but rather to the mayor's residence.
There's also been the argument that these protesters,
they were just in the street,
they were just in the road.
But in this community,
both are completely private
which is why many legal experts in Missouri
think that the protesters didn't have a right to be there
in the first place whether or not
they entered peacefully.
Also in this instance,
if you're hoping to look back to previous legal cases,
there's not much help there.
Missouri's castle doctrine was heavily expanded in 2017,
meaning there's not a ton of case law to fall back on here.
But either way, what we ended up seeing
is Missouri attorney general, Eric Schmidt,
asking the courts to dismiss the charges
- As Missouri's chief law enforcement officer,
I simply will not stand by
while Missouri law is being ignored.
That's why I'm entering this case
and seeking the dismissal of this case
to protect the rights of Missourians to defend themselves
and their property under Missouri's castle doctrine
- Although we've also seen him get pushed back
from state representatives like Rasheen Aldridge Jr
who tweeted, "The AG is wrong on this issue.
This isn't about the second amendment right
to self-defense, especially when we wasn't even heading
to the McCloskey's home.
They purposely came out their homes
and pointed loaded firearms at unarmed
and non-violent protesters.
This isn't fairness but politics."
But all of that said,
as far as what the McCloskeys could face here
if this went to trial and let's say they were found guilty.
Each of them technically could get up to four years
in prison for the felony
and 15 days in jail for the assault
and thousands upon thousands of fines.
Not to mention the possible civil litigation against them.
But also, if that ended up happening,
Governor Parson has already said
that he would step in and pardon the couple.
Ultimately that is where we are with this story
and I do want to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts on this?
Do you agree or disagree
with the couple facing charges here?
Or are you on the side
of they were worried about their own safety,
their home safety?
So yes, they were well within their rights or no,
do you think this was the use of deadly weapons
to intimidate peaceful protesters who were just walking by.
Any and all thoughts you have on this,
I'd love to hear in those comments down below.
Next up, let's talk about the European Union
because they just agreed to a massive Coronavirus
stimulus package that's been described as so important,
it's expected to help Europe avoid
what could be the worst economic blow
it's received since World War II.
But also, if you've seen any reports
thus far about this stimulus,
you might be a little confused about it.
That's because some reports are calling this
a 2.1 trillion dollar deal
whereas you have others describing it
as an 859 billion dollar agreement
and it seems to be a very large
and thus possibly important discrepancy.
But there's a simple explanation.
2.1 trillion dollars,
that is the general overall amount.
Right about 1.3 trillion dollars of it
will actually go to the EU's budget for 2021 to 2027.
In that specific length of time because this is something
that's negotiated every seven years,
covering a wide range of things everything from road repairs
to agricultural subsidies.
Then, the rest of the money, the 859 billion amount,
that is the stimulus package.
And that is tied directly to the COVID-19 pandemic
and according to the final agreement,
this package will largely be spent over the next four years.
It'll include both loans and grants meant to be sent
to member nations and it will focus
on providing funding across three main pillars:
One, helping businesses rebound from the pandemic.
Two, rolling out new measures to reform economies
over the long haul and three,
investing to help protect against future crises.
It's a very big deal this agreement was reached
because for a time,
there were concerns if it was even possible.
You had talks running along this
in part because you had a handful
of rich northern countries slowing down the talk.
Those countries being the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria,
and Sweden, which are also known as the Frugal Four,
which is the most disgustingly responsible nickname
I've ever heard.
Their main objection here was how much should be given
to countries like Italy and Spain,
countries that have been hit very hard by the virus.
Also concerned over how much control those countries
should have over how the funds distributed to them
will be spent for.
For example, you had Dutch leaders
arguing that Italy and Spain were to blame
for pre-pandemic economic difficulties
that left them struggling to pay their way
out of this crisis, also arguing they'll want to send money
to those countries if they have no guarantees
of economic reform in return.
And incredibly important
to this debate was how much should be given in grants
and how much should be given in loans.
There's obviously a big distinction there.
Loan, you have to pay back.
Grant, that money is just given to you
and that was an incredibly important point
in this debate because especially in times of crisis,
the EU has typically only offered loans, not grants.
But one of the biggest arguments here
is that we are in extraordinary times.
This is a massive, massive crisis
on a completely different level
which is why we saw a lot of EU countries
pushing for a mix of grants and loans.
Now, the original proposal
would have given out 500 billion euros in grants,
but the Frugal Four pretty much immediately shot that down,.
This, because it would have required them
to pay in more and so they suggested only handing out
375 billion euros in grants.
But then on the other side of the negotiating table,
you had Spain arguing that the EU
couldn't afford to give out less than 400 billion euros
in grants.
Also, arguing that a failure
to reach an agreement here would result
in a two-speed economic recovery meaning richer countries
would bounce back faster than struggling countries
and so in return, it would place further strain
on the EU as a whole.
And ultimately, what we ended up seeing
was a compromise being made.
390 billion euros in grant money
with the rest of the money in the stimulus deal
going to low-interest loans and on top of that,
this compromise also includes billions in rebates
to the Frugal Four for their contribution
to the shared EU budget.
Following this deal being made,
we saw a lot of different reactions.
In general, we saw happiness like that
of European Council President Charles Michelle.
- We did it!
We have reached a deal on the week of repackage
and the European budget.
A marathon which ended in success for all 27 member states,
but especially for the people.
This is a good deal.
This is a strong deal
This is the right deal for Europe right now.
French President Emmanuel Macron
calling it a historic day for Europe.
Hard-hit countries like Spain, Italy,
and even Portugal also appear to be content with the grants.
But also, you did have others less pleased
like one anonymous official
calling it a bittersweet victory.
Yes, because to reach this compromise,
cuts were made to projects covering health and refugees.
Also, the finished deal does not include
expenditure on many research and climate projects.
There are also those concerned
that there's no language in this.
That makes it so countries have to stick to democratic norm.
This, likely because Hungary and Poland had threatened
to block any deal that specifically tied funding
to upholding democratic norms.
For example, Poland has been accused
of eroding the independence of its courts,
but is now expected to be one of the biggest beneficiaries
of these funds.
And while in its own right,
it is important to talk about what is happening in Europe.
It's also helpful to see what's happening there,
what they're doing,
and then compare it to what's happening here.
Because, you know, we here in the United States,
we already saw one round of stimulus checks
being sent to Americans and for the past four months,
people in unemployment should have been receiving
an extra $600 a week on top of state benefits
thanks to measures passed under the Cares Act.
However, and this is very important,
that support is set to expire on July 31st.
That is just 10 days away, and it comes at a time
when temporary bans on evictions
in some states are also expiring.
And this is going to impact a ton of people
because as of right now,
more than 17 million Americans
are still drawing unemployment.
But even with that being the case,
there appears to be a ton of opposition
to extending those temporary benefits.
In fact, just yesterday,
we saw broad resistance from Republicans
at a Senate meeting with them arguing
the benefits are too generous
and the people are refusing to return to work
because they're making more on unemployment.
And so instead, Senate Republicans
are expected to lay out a plan later this week
that will reduce the $600 per week enhancement
with that plan also expected to include things
like liability protections for businesses,
health care providers and others.
So there's gonna be stuff in there
that Democrats do not like
and as far as what will actually happen, I don't know.
You have a Republican controlled Senate
and the Democrats have the House.
Will we see what we saw in the EU, compromise?
Maybe, I mean, you have Treasury Secretary
Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
set to meet today with Democratic and Republican leaders
for bipartisan talk.
Today, we've also seen Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell saying he supports another round
of stimulus checks.
But ultimately, that is where we are right now.
It's kind of a waiting game to see what happened.
And you know, all that's in the balance
is the lives of millions and millions of American families.
No pressure.
But with that story, I would love to know your thoughts.
Do you want to see another round happen?
Yes, no, why?
Why not?
Really, any and all thoughts on on today's topics
and that is where I'm going to end today's show.
And the three of you still here once again,
thank you for being a part of this.
Watching the videos, supporting them however you do,
like and sharing, being a part of the conversation
down below.
It probably all helps at this point.
Honestly, I have no idea how the algorithm works.
Also, if you're looking for to watch,
maybe you missed yesterday's show
or you want to catch up on the newest bonus channel,
Click or tap right there to watch that.
Also, another thank you to Robinhoodfill.com
for sponsoring today's episode.
Definitely go click that link, check it out.
But with that said of course,
as always, my name is Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.
- I hope you like this video, subscribe if you like it.