- Sup, you beautiful bastards?
Welcome back to The Thursday Show.
Yes, I was actually troubled enough
to come into the office today because it's 2022.
Hit that like button to celebrate doing the least.
Y'all, first up, another day, another round of,
yeah, completely normal American political ads.
- [Jerone] Democrats like to say
that no one needs an AR-15 for self defense,
(hopeful music)
that no one could possibly need all 30 rounds,
(hopeful music)
but when this rifle is the only thing
standing between your family
(intense music)
and a dozen angry Democrats in Klan hoods,
you just might need that semiautomatic and all 30 rounds.
- Okay, so, that is an actual real campaign ad
from former NFL running back Jerone Davison,
who's running for Congress in Arizona,
and unsurprisingly, that went absolutely viral,
getting more than 4 million views as of recording this video
and earning a ton of responses.
Right? Because while we saw plenty of conservatives
praising the ad, there was of course a ton of backlash,
some just kind of joking that he should check
the political affiliation of those white supremacists.
Right? Because while it's completely true
that Democrats were heavily involved
in the early days of the Klan,
experts have long said that this idea
that Democrats are responsible for the KKK
and, historically, the party of white supremacy
ignores a ton of history.
First and foremost, it just papers over
more than half a century of political realignment.
Right? While the names of the party stayed the same,
they switched platforms in the mid 20th century,
with that due in large part to the fact
that white southerners,
many of whom were likely supportive of the Klan's ideals,
leaving the Democratic party to become Republicans
after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964,
as well as an increasing number of black individuals
realigning themselves with Democrats increasingly
through the early part of the 20th century.
And beyond that, it's abundantly clear
contemporary white supremacists
and white nationalist movements are more deeply rooted
in right wing politics,
and, unfortunately, have even increasingly found a home
in mainstream Republican politics,
especially after Trump took office.
And also with that, you had some accusing Davison
of inciting violence,
and doing so in a week of mass shootings,
including one in Highland Park where a shooter
murdered seven people and injured dozens more
literally using an AR style weapon.
But none of that, of course, seemed to matter to Davison,
who appeared to double down in another tweet
following the video, writing,
"I was born in 1970 in Mississippi.
When the KKK came to town,
I always felt safe because my father
had rifles to protect us.
The video is a cinematic depiction
of a situation I faced growing up.
Racist white liberals love to tell me
that my lived experience didn't happen."
Which, once again, I'm not sayin' that a black man
living through the seventies and eighties in Mississippi
did not deal with racism and the Klan.
I'm just sayin', if you check in on the Klan
or Patriot Front or the Proud Boys,
you might be shocked who they're voting for.
Like, it might just fuckin'
(explosion booms) blow your mind, Jerone.
And then we gotta talk about this wild story outta Georgia.
So, yesterday in an early morning bombing,
a famous rural Georgia monument
consisting of large granite slabs was heavily damaged,
but the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's saying
the monument, called the Georgia Guidestones,
was destroyed by unknown individuals
who detonated an explosive device,
and the remains were later knocked down for safety reasons.
And if you're wondering, "Well, why the hell
would someone wanna bomb a bunch of slabs?"
Well, it turns out this monument has a really interesting
and somewhat bizarre history.
Right, so the Guidestones,
which have been dubbed "America's Stonehenge"
were erected in 1980 in Elberton,
a small city over 100 miles outside of Atlanta,
but beyond that, not really anything else
is known about the monument, like why it was commissioned,
what it means, or even the identity of the person
who paid for it.
Right, according to the Elberton Granite Association,
a man identified only as R.C. Christian
commissioned the project for a group
of out-of-state Americans who asked to remain anonymous.
And as for the people who knew Christian's real identity,
they apparently took an oath of secrecy
and haven't broken it.
And as far as the slabs,
the Georgia Department of Economic Development
describes them as displaying
"a 10-part message espousing the conservation of mankind
and future generations in 12 languages."
And the monument was also an astronomical calendar.
Every day at noon, the sun comes through
a hole in the structure and it lights up the date.
Now, as far as the messages, many of them were kind of,
you know, what you'd expect from a slab.
Things like urging people to protect nature
and care for one another.
But, there were also a few odd ones,
including one that called for the global population
to be capped at 500 million
and another that urged reproduction
to improve fitness and diversity.
And, so, with all this secrecy
and weirdness with the monument, yes,
it attracted a lot of travelers.
It also attracted a lot of theories,
including a range of weird conspiracy theories.
Over the years, we've seen people claiming
that the Guidestones are part of some evil global scheme,
this including, you guessed it, Alex Jones,
who argued in the 2008 documentary that the slabs
were evidence of a plot by global elites
to enslave the whole world.
The site was also the subject of recent attention
when Georgia gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor,
who placed a distant third place in the race,
pledged to demolish them as part of her campaign,
but they're claiming that getting rid of the monument
was necessary to fight the Luciferian Cabal
that she suggested was behind the slabs.
And, so, now that these slabs are gone,
possibly because of someone who
believed all these conspiracies,
experts have said that the bombing shows
that these dangerous theories have a real world impact.
Though, we've also seen a good chunk of the far right
cheering on the explosion
and continuing to spread conspiracy theories,
this including Taylor who called the Guidestones Satanic
and implied that she thought God had struck them down,
as well as Marjorie Taylor Greene,
who's always happy to jump on any conspiracy,
takin' a break from spreadin' lies
about mass shootings being false flags
to do an interview with Alex Jones,
where she claimed that the monument presented
a future of population control
that had been envisioned by the hard left.
But, ultimately, that is where we are
with this insanity right now,
and we're gonna have to wait to see
if any other information comes out about this bombing.
Then, we've got a new controversy in Hollywood
and it involves, like, every actor you maybe know,
and all this seeming to stem from the latest movie
from director David O. Russell. It's called Amsterdam.
The trailer was released yesterday
and has the likes of Margot Robbie, Robert De Niro,
Chris Rock, Christian Bale,
(echoing) every actor ever,
and even Taylor Swift, right? A super star-studded cast.
But now with this trailer coming out,
you have a ton of people wondering
why are all these big names working with Russell?
And this because, reportedly,
there have long been a slew of allegations against him
on multiple levels, right?
With people pointing to things
like he was verbally abusive on set,
including cursing out Lily Tomlin while throwing things.
- The fucking picture!
(papers clattering)
Hey, bitch, I'm not here gonna be fuckin' yelled at.
I worked on this fuckin' thing for three fuckin' years,
not to have some fuckin'
(foot thuds)
cunt yell at me.
- Then, he was apparently so cruel to Amy Adams
that co-stars had to intervene.
There's also that he's been accused of sexual abuse
with his transgender niece filing a complaint
around a decade ago, saying that he went up to her at a gym
and squeezed her breasts
while asking her about the transitioning process,
and Russell actually confirmed that the incident happened,
but said that his niece was acting very provocative
towards him and invited it to happen,
which is why he had people online saying things like,
"That David O. Russell has been allowed
to set foot on a film set so many times in the last 10 years
is one of the most significant abdications
of societal duty in history," and,
"People really are just going to promote and celebrate
a David O. Russell film like nothing happened, aren't they?
How disappointing considering so many want to claim
they promote and defend victims and reject terrible people."
And, so, with that, some calling out the actors themselves
for being in this movie,
saying that every interviewer should be asking the cast
why they decided to work with David O' Russell
after he admitted to sexually assaulting his niece.
With a lot of people seeming to specifically
express their frustrations with Margot Robbie
and also Taylor Swift,
and pointing to the fact that she has spoken out
against abuse that she has faced herself in the past,
with people saying this is her disregarding victims
and working with an abuser just so she can
try and attain accolades,
and more and more people arguing that really,
there's no excuse, noting that recently,
there have been things like Beyoncé running #MeToo checks
on potential collaborators for her upcoming album
just so she doesn't accidentally platform an abuser.
But at the same time,
there are some David O. Russell defenders out there.
With some saying regarding verbal abuse,
you know, sometimes that's just the way that it is on a set.
Regarding what happened with his 19 year old niece,
you had people saying, you know, it's a he said she said.
But also, 19 year old niece?
Like, am I reading this situation wrong?
That at the very least David O' Russel is
kind of intrigued by incest?
But, ultimately, that is where we are with this story,
and, of course, I wanna pass the question off to you:
What are your thoughts here?
Whether you're in the camp of people disgusted
that David O' Russell's getting movies
and big actors are working with him,
or if you're on the side where you're defending him,
what are you thinkin' and why? Let me know.
But from that, I wanna take a second to thank
the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Public.com.
Public is an investing platform that helps people
be better investors in the public markets,
and as some of you already know,
I personally switched over to public after I was,
let's say, not happy with one of their competitors.
I was definitely not alone in that.
And with Public, stock ownership unlocks content
and education that's relevant to your portfolio
created by a 3 million+ plus strong community
of investors, creators, and analysts.
And one of my favorite things about Public
is that they put investors first
and they don't sell trades to market makers
and take money from payment for order flow.
They also offer 30 crypto offerings
alongside thousands of stocks, ETFs, art, and collectibles.
And for those of you crypto curious members
new to the space, Public added features
like educational slideshows and volatility reminders
to help educate you along your journey.
And amazingly, when you go to public.com/DeFranco,
you'll receive a slice of stock valued up to $1000
when you sign up.
It's public.com/DeFranco, because you should definitely
start investing in your future today.
And then let's talk about online bullying. Don't do it.
(bright music)
But, actually, starting today Japanese online users
need to be careful because a law meant to tackle
cyber bullying that was passed last month
has officially gone into effect,
with supporters of the law pushing forward
after the 2020 suicide of professional wrestler
and reality TV star Chanuka Mora,
where had been on the receiving end of extreme online abuse,
and so now, people who are found guilty
of breaking this law, yes, they can be fined for $2,200,
but also they can face up to a year in prison,
with the law having been prior to this just a $75
and up to 30 days in jail.
However, there have been concerns about this law.
Firstly, there aren't exact definitions as for
what counts as an insult,
with it only saying that it's something that's meant
to demean someone without a specific fact about them.
Otherwise, that would be defamation.
And, of course, this has prompted fears about free speech,
with at least one Japanese criminal lawyer saying,
"There needs to be a guideline that makes a distinction
on what qualifies as an insult.
At the moment, even if someone calls the leader of Japan
an idiot, then maybe under the revised law
that could be classed as an insult,"
and if you can't even call Prime Minister Fumio Kishida
an idiot, then why even go online in the first place?
Phil said, without knowing anything
about Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
But in fact, concerns about how much this could
stifle free speech was so big
that they actually agreed to include a provision
that would have the law reexamined after three years
to make sure it's being used to target cyber bullying,
while also giving room for other forms of free speech.
Though, I do wanna note that Japan is not
the only G7 country with such a law.
The UK, of course, infamously has one that criminalizes
"grossly offensive public messages,"
and just like in Japan, the definition is nebulous,
and, so, that's why with this story,
I do wanna pass the question off to you:
What are your thoughts here?
Where, like, in the United States, yes, we say free speech,
but we also know there are lines, right?
Incitement to violence, that's not really covered.
So, I guess the question is
where do you think that the line should be?
Do you think that it should be a free for all,
even with incitement to violence,
or do you think the line should be moved towards bullying?
If so, what kind of bullying?
Because I don't know if you've ever been on the internet.
What you sometimes mean and how people perceive it,
not the same thing, and for me personally,
you know, I look to stories in the past
where you had that one girl that drove that guy to suicide
and I'm like, yeah, fuck her,
do what you can with the law to punish her,
but also, that's an extreme situation,
and for the large majority of things,
there's a big question mark when you're saying, like,
"Yeah, it's bullying
and we're not gonna get into specifics."
With something that broad, I don't see how
that doesn't get abused by someone eventually.
And then we gotta talk about BoJo
havin' a no good, very bad day after a very bad week
(laughing) after very bad months,
but first, I do wanna make a small correction
regarding yesterday's show.
Yesterday, I said that the clips that we played
of Boris Johnson were from the Liaison Committee hearing
with lawmakers, when in fact it was from
a PM's Question session the same day,
which was also with lawmakers.
It doesn't really change the story,
but I always like to try to be 100% accurate.
But the committee hearing came later in the day
and, oh my God, did shit somehow get even crazier
for you Brits in the last 24 hours.
And, like, you knew it was gonna get good
when lawmaker Bob Neal started off with this question:
- [Bob] How important is the truth to you, Prime Minister?
- Very important, Bob.
- He then peppered Johnson with questions and quotes
about his knowledge of MP Chris Pincher's
sexual misconduct allegations,
with Johnson repeating what he's already said:
that the initial statements from his office
that he was never aware of the claims were false,
that he was briefed on them in 2019,
and that one was upheld
but didn't rise to the level of criminality.
He then had MP Chris Bryant hitting him with this question
about the allegation being upheld:
- I'm asking, have you been told about any other such events
relating to any other government minister?
Formally?
- Look, I'd have to get back to you.
I mean, I would not want to-
- It seems extraordinary-
- Extemporize those. - that you wouldn't know
whether there are allegations outstanding
against government- your government ministers
of sexual impropriety, such that they might constitute
potentially criminal offenses apart from anything else.
- Look, nothing that springs to mind, okay?
- He also asked Johnson whether he had said
that Pincher was a bit handsy,
and Johnson replied that "handsy" isn't a word
that he'd used, but refused to give a definitive no.
He's then asked whether he made the comment,
"Pincher by name, pincher by nature,"
with Johnson replying that he won't get into
a trivializing discussion of what he may
or may not have said.
With Johnson also going on to refuse to say
whether Pincher should resign from Parliament,
only saying that's a matter for him.
And finally, we saw this:
- Now how much consideration are you giving
to the prospect of your resignation?
- I'm happy to tell you that I'm getting on
with the job that I was elected to do,
and that is what I'm gonna do.
- But, as we now know today, Johnson is eating those words.
Right? Because apparently a ton
of his conservative allies disagree.
Right, understand when the hearing started,
28 government ministers had resigned.
By the time that it ended,
and literally, the number was being updated live on TV
while Johnson was talking,
32 had resigned with many more to follow.
And understand that 32 number is a very special number,
because back when he survived a no confidence vote
last month, more than 40% of his party voted against him,
meaning that only 32 more of his supporters
would need to change sides to defeat him.
And, so, that meant by the end of yesterday,
it looked like the majority of conservatives
may no longer back Johnson,
leading many to fear that he might dissolve Parliament
and call a snap election to avoid being ousted from power,
especially because during the hearing,
lawmakers pressed him on whether he might try to do that
and he repeatedly danced around the question.
But this morning, Johnson made his decision
and drum roll, please.
(drum roll) - It is clearly, now,
the will of the Parliamentary Conservative party,
that there should be a new leader of that party
and therefore a new prime minister,
(drum roll stops) and I've agreed
with Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of our back bench MPs,
that the process of choosing that new leader
should begin now.
- And during his goodbye speech
in front of his office on Downing Street,
he thanks people who voted for him,
celebrating his policies on Brexit,
the pandemic, and Ukraine,
also going on to blame the herd instinct at Westminster,
saying, "When the herd moves, it moves,"
and adding the quote, "Our brilliant and Darwinian system
will produce another leader,"
whom he says that he will support.
With Johnson then closing
while people were booing and shouting in the background.
- I know that there will be many people who are relieved
(audience member yelling) and perhaps
quite a few who will also be disappointed,
and I want you to know how sad I am
to be giving up the best job in the world,
but them's the breaks.
- But here's the thing, Johnson resigned,
but also not really.
Johnson isn't updating his LinkedIn yet.
Right now, he is still prime minister.
There's no caretaker PM.
Johnson is remaining in office until a new leader is chosen,
and he said that the timetable for that contest
will be announced next week.
So, what we may have actually seen
was Johnson putting in his two week,
maybe three month notice.
So, that's why you have many not satisfied
with what we just saw, like, most prominently,
former conservative prime minister, Sir John Major,
who said that either the timetable should be sped up
or Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab
should take over as caretaker PM immediately.
But, let's say the process continues
uninterrupted as expected,
and as far as who the next leader might be,
Raab has ruled out running,
but you have Attorney General Suella Braverman
declaring that she'll run for the post,
as well as MP Steve Baker saying
he's seriously considering it.
Though, understand this is still a developing situation.
More names are sure to emerge over the next several days.
And then on the other side,
you have labor leader Sir Keir Starmer
threatening to hold a vote of no confidence
if Johnson does not step down immediately,
which would also trigger a general election,
but he'd also need a large number of conservatives
to join him on that.
But, I mean, whatever happens now,
conservative lawmakers will eventually vote
on candidates for the party leadership
until only two remain,
at which point party members across the country
will decide the winner.
And also, now you have many people wondering
whether the conservatives' electoral coalition
for gender Johnson will even be able to hold
after his personality is gone.
Also, with the way Boris said some of the things,
I wonder if he's just gonna start his own party,
the Party Pincher party.
But, as we wait to see what the fuck
is actually gonna happen there,
I wanna pass the question off to you once again.
It's for everyone, but especially for the Brits
out there watching: What are your thoughts here?
But ultimately, that is where that story
and today's show ends.
As always with these daily dives into the news,
yes, thanks for watching,
but also thanks for being a part
of that conversation down below.
If you're lookin' for more news,
I got you covered right here.
My name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in,
I love yo faces, and I'll see you next time.