Trump's Putin Problem is Humiliating & Getting Worse, Andrew Shulz Pete Buttigieg Controversy & More
PDS Published 04/24/2025
-
Was Pete Buttigieg able to move the needle for the Democratic party while on Andrew Schulz’s Flagrant podcast?
That has been a major talking point after he went on the show yesterday, with a lot of people impressed by his ability to talk to an audience seen as on the other side of the aisle, right, as Schulz is viewed at the very least as a sort of MAGA-friendly comedian and host.
Right, the episode was nearly 3 hours long, so we don’t have time to get into everything they talked about.
But there are some moments getting a lot of traction online, including this part barely 10 minutes in where Pete explained the necessity of government research.
“The federal government could not have invented the iPhone. I don’t think anyone would want a phone that was invented by the federal government.”(8:44-8:52)
“But what makes the iPhone work? Well, among other things, the Internet. The internet was literally invented by a federal research project. It never would have been possible to invent the internet with a private company.” (9:00-9:15)
“Companies can do multi-billion dollar ideas, but a trillion dollar idea like the internet, that requires basic research, and that is the kind of thing the government is supposed to do, among many other things.Basic research, what is that?Yeah, by basic research I mean things that are so fundamental, I mean things that for 50 or 100 years you don’t know if they’re gonna have a return, they might never work out.Ohh, you can’t look at it like, this thing is going to be profitable.” (9:21-9:47)
With Pete then noting it’s different from say, research a pharmaceutical company does to create drugs with the specific intent to make money on those drugs.
Right, it is not about that profit element, to which Andrew added:
“Public parks is another version of this, right, you can’t privatize a public park.Right, this is why we have public goods! This is why we have governments, and collect taxes.God, we’re turning into such libs already! (10:00-10:11)
“The war on academia, the cuts to cancer research, the cuts to science research, this kind of general anti-science atmosphere that I think is emanating from the administration, that costs us in ways that don’t show up on a corporate profits and loss statement six months from now, or a year from now. (10:31-10:48)
“That starts to really cost you over time, and if you’re shorting that, or if corporations or wealthy people don’t want to pay into that through taxes, that is a classic example of a short-term gain that causes long-term pain.” (10:55-11:10)
And even though it was a joke, you had a lot of people noting that it seemed significant that Schulz said he was libbing out for a second.
People writing things like:[]
“That is why these conversations matter. A lot of the hosts & audience would never hear a message like this one. But when they do, it makes sense.”
Others claiming:
“And like clockwork. Hasn't been 24 hours yet. One of my friends who voted for Trump, who listens to the Flagrant podcast all the time, texted me saying that he was surprised, never heard of Pete, likes him and if Dems nominated him, he ‘vote for Pete B in a heartbeat.’”[]
And that was far from the only clip getting attention.
Right, when talking about Democratic messaging compared to Republican messaging and where the left is failing to communicate policy ideas, Andrew had Pete kind of pitch what he wants for this country:
“I want every day life to be better.That’s what they want, too.I want, yeah, but all the controversies are what that’s like. I want you to be able to get up in the morning and the first thing you do is you commute to work, and by the way, if you're want an EV I want that to be affordable for you, or if you're on public transit, not to get back into the subway situation, but i want you to have good public transit to get to where you're going. And then when you get to that job i want you to be paid well. and if you're about to have a kid, i want you to know that you're going to have parental leave when you have that kid. and if you don't want to have a kid i want you to have the the right to choose whether to have a kid which means access to birth control and and abortion. Those things that give you the freedom to decide on that. And if you already have a kid, when you pick them up at school i want that school to be good, not having its funding slash while they set fire to the department of education.” (1:41:33-1:42:17)
That list went on, until they said:
“Cut that, yeah, that’s fire.” (1:42:55-1:42:58)
With that getting people to say things like:
“This. This. THIS. Every word of this. This is the way. This is how you talk to people.”[]
“Repositioning the left as the party of true and maximal freedom is possible if it is framed like this.”[]
“Aight screw it, @PeteButtigieg I’ve seen enough. Go ahead and run.”[]
“This is great. Any Dem who can’t go on a three-hour podcast where they get challenged by the hosts shouldn’t be the nominee in 2028.”[]
And now, not everyone thought Pete’s choice to go on the podcast was smart, right, some saying:
“Don’t do this shit. Pete shouldn’t have sat with this bigoted asshole. He doesn’t care. He returned to being a piece of shit immediately after.”[]
But some have pushed back against this, arguing things like:][
“Anybody mad about Pete Buttigieg going on Andrew Schulz's podcast is not serious about winning elections. You have to meet people where they are—not expect them to come to you. The question you should be asking is why your favorite Democrat isn't going into the lion's den and defending our values?”
It’s also worth noting that once you go to the comment section of the episode, you have tons of people very open to Pete and what he is saying.
Especially since this comes as there is just a much larger conversation happening about where the Democrats go next, right.
It’s no secret that the left is not doing so hot right now, and so someone needs to come up with some ideas on how to change that.
Another action we’ve seen some leaders take is AOC’s and Bernie Sanders’ Fighting Oligarchy tour.
Right, they have gotten massive crowds across the nation, some seeing this as especially huge for AOC because it kind of allows Sanders to pass the torch to her as a progressive leader. []
You also have Tim Walz launching a series of town halls in red districts, trying to meet people where they are at and be a trusted figure doing the work to hear people out in those areas.
And just today the DNC announced an effort to send more money to state Democratic parties, specifically focusing on red states.
Right, under this new program, every single state party will receive a baseline of over $17,000 monthly, but Republican controlled states will get an extra $5,000 through the DNC’s Red State Fund.[]
With the New York Times explaining that:
“While the cash infusion will not pay for expensive television ad campaigns or create robust Democratic successes in red states overnight, it will help state parties hire more staff members, open new field offices and invest in data and tech operations.”[]
So we will have to see what sticks, if these kinds of financial investments pay off, if these rallies pay off.
But in the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts on any aspect of this here, an Pete going on Flagrant, on his messaging and ability to reach that crowd.
And then more big picture, what should the Democratic party be doing right now? Following Pete’s lead? Doing something else, anything there.
-
Russia just launched its deadliest attack on the Ukrainian capital since last summer.
And Trump? He’s pissed – issuing a rare rebuke against Vladimir Putin for once, instead of Zelensky.
And with that, according to the Ukrainian president, Russia fired nearly 70 missiles, including ballistic ones, as well as roughly 150 attack drones at targets across Ukraine –
Injuring more than 80 people and killing at least 9 people in Kyiv alone. [] (BROLL: 0:01-0:06)
With Zelensky also claiming the Kremlin’s latest attack was “one of the most complex, most daring attacks coming from Russia.” []
This notably after Trump said yesterday he believes Russia is ready to reach an agreement, and further said he found it easier to deal with Putin than Zelensky. []
But then today, you had him taking social media to respond to the latest news, saying:
“I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing.”
“Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!” []
But notably, of course, as we talked about yesterday, the Trump-backed peace deal on the table? It’s reportedly heavily in Putin’s favor.
Right, among other concessions, it would reportedly involve the Kremlin getting nearly all of the territory it’s taken, as well as the U.S. formally recognizing Crimea as Russian –
Something Zelensky has unequivocally ruled out, saying: “There is nothing to talk about. This violates our constitution. This is our territory, the territory of the people of Ukraine.” []
And because of that, it was actually yesterday that Trump suggested Zelensky was the real obstacle to peace, claiming “inflammatory statements like [that] that makes it so difficult to settle this War.” []
Although, notably, as Zelensky pointed out, Trump’s own administration during his first term firmly opposed any recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. []
With him having also pointed out at various times that Ukraine actually already accepted a U.S. proposal for a 30-day cease-fire in March while Putin refused.
But ultimately, with neither side committing to the other U.S. proposal, the fate of the whole peace process is really up in the air, especially as continued American involvement in general is in question.
Right, over just the past week, the Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to walk away.
And yesterday, planned peace talks in London were downgraded because U.S. officials decided not to attend.
But of course, only time will tell, and we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
-
The Trump administration texted the personal phones of Barnard professors to ask them if they were Jewish.
Leading a lot of people to point out to Team Trump: Jewish people — generally not so huge on getting government correspondence asking them to identify themselves…
Right, according to The Intercept, which first reported the news, most staff at the Columbia-affiliated women’s college received text messages from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission —
Which said the EEOC was reviewing the school’s employment practices and asking them to complete a voluntary survey about their employment.
And according to a screenshot of the survey shared by The New York Times, when respondents clicked the link, they were asked to select from the following choices:
“I am Jewish”; “I am Israeli”; “I have shared Jewish/Israeli ancestry”; “I practice Judaism”; and “Other.”
With The Times also reporting that a later question asked staff whether they had experienced antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiments, as well as, quote:
“antisemitic or anti-Israeli protests, gatherings or demonstrations that made you feel threatened, harassed or were otherwise disruptive to your working environment.”
And, after that text message went out, Barnard’s general counsel sent an email to faculty — which was obtained by The Intercept — informing them that the survey was part of the EEOC’s ongoing investigation into alleged discrimination against Jewish employees.
With the email stating that the EEOC was “legally entitled to obtain the contact information of Barnard’s employees” to send out the option to “voluntarily participate in their investigatio n,” and that Barnard had complied with the request.
But, very notably here, you also had the Columbia student newspaper reporting that Columbia had warned faculty in an email that it would be sending their personal contact information to the federal government.
But Barnard faculty members said that they did not receive the same warning.
With one Barnard professor who spoke on the condition of anonymity telling The Intercept that they were not aware of any other professors at Columbia outside of Barnard receiving the text.
Though they did also say that several students had received it as well.
And, in her email, Barnard’s general counsel appeared to admit that administrators had failed to inform faculty that they were sharing their personal information with the government.
Writing that, in the future, the school would provide advanced notice when it was required to hand over contact information of employees unless they were legally prohibited from doing so.
And adding that the Trump administration had not given the school advance notice that it was sending the messages.
Right, but with all this, you had many faculty members expressing alarm about the texts and the fact that Barnard shared their personal information with the government without notifying them.
This including Nara Milanich (Mee-Lan-Nich), a history professor, who said that it reminded her of Italy in the 1930s, when local governments put together lists of Jews, adding:
“We’ve seen this movie before, and it ends with yellow stars.”
With her also going on to argue that the Trump administration appeared to be “fishing” for reports of antisemitism, saying:
“Evidently, they don’t have sufficient people to file lawsuits, so they have to go shake the trees to find people?”
You also had Debbie Becher, an associate professor who is Jewish and received the text, saying that, as a Jew, she found it “a bit terrifying” that the federal government:
“wants to know who the Jews are through some text message and Microsoft Office form.”
Becher also argued that, as a Jew, she does not believe that the Trump administration actually wants to combat antisemitism, but just crack down on pro-Palestine speech, saying:
“This administration of white nationalists has nev er been interested in antisemitism, an administration that is full of hate. It’s farcical to say that what this is actually doing is protecting us from antisemitism.”
And adding, “The government is weaponizing the EEOC in service of their own hatred and [in] service of their own desire to destroy higher education.”
And that last point was also echoed by other professors who told The Intercept they are concerned that the Trump administration is using EEOC as a weapon to attack faculty who have spoken out against Israel on college campuses.
With Becker arguing that, given these concerns, it’s especially alarming that Barnard shared the personal information of its staff with the government, adding:
“They’re providing us with absolutely no assurances that they are protecting us and even just protecting information about us that is private.”
But that’s where I’m gonna end this one, and with that, I’d really love to know your thoughts here — especially if you or someone you know works in higher education.
Thanks to Tecovas for sponsoring this video! Visit Tecovas to get your new favorite pair of boots today!
-
If anyone has some spare change and likes making risky decisions, I have some big news for you: the Fyre Festival brand is up for sale.
Right, this comes as there has been a ton of attention and controversy around Billy McFarland announcing Fyre Fest 2.
It was set to take place at the end of May in Mexico, but then the host city said the event was not happening, then a second location fell through, leading to a massive scramble.
And last week, ABC News reported that ticketholders had received messages saying the fest was postponed and refunds would be issued. []
And yesterday, Billy put up a for sale sign, writing:
“This brand is bigger than any one person and bigger than what I’m able to lead on my own. It’s a movement. And it deserves a team with the scale, experience, and infrastructure to realize its potential.”[]
“We have decided the best way to accomplish our goals is to sell the FYRE Festival brand, including its trademarks, IP, digital assets, media reach, and cultural capital - to an operator that can fully realize its vision.”
Explaining that his goal in launching Fyre Festival 2 was “finishing what I started and making things right.”
And claiming that in his efforts to put this together, he proved that “FYRE is one of the most powerful attention engines in the world.”
And arguing that any interested entrepreneur who buys the totally not cursed brand has a strong path to become a leader in entertainment and media.
Also adding:
“following the challenges we faced in Mexico, we were approached by several Caribbean destinations eager to host FYRE Festival 2…we’re confident we've found the ideal location for the festival. While I'm incredibly excited, I can't risk a repeat of what happened in Playa Del Carmen, where support quickly turned into public distancing once media attention intensified. For FYRE Festival 2 to succeed, it’s clear that I need to step back and allow a new team to move forward.”
“The next chapter of FYRE will be bigger, better, and built to last without me at the helm.”
His statement also directed interested buyers to learn more at FYRE.MX, where you can see Fyre’s “brand asset package,” which includes the brand name, social media account, Caribbean festival location, documentary coverage, and more.
And in an “additional information” section, he touts that:
“FYRE Festival has been the most talked about US based music festival in the world since 2017.”
Which, yeah, I guess that could be true, but probably not the best thing to brag about considering what people were “talking about” was it being the most memed scam of all time, making the term “Fyre Fest” synonymous with disaster, and landing Billy a prison sentence for fraud.
But if that doesn’t raise any red flags for you, or if you want to be the subject of competing Netflix and Hulu documentaries, there is a form on that website to make an offer!
So I would love to know your thoughts on this, on if you think someone might just buy it, how much is such a tainted brand actually worth, and if it would even be possible to turn this ship around.
-
The Trump administration just dropped seven big education executive orders that we need to talk about.
Although, for the sake of time, we’re gonna be mostly focusing on just three of them.
Right, the first? It’s aimed at the accrediting bodies that set standards colleges and universities must meet to receive federal financial aid from students.
And notably, Trump talked about this issue during his 2024 presidential campaign –
And now, with that, you have this executive order claiming that accreditors have not only failed in their responsibility to determine which institutions provide a quality education, but also that they have, quote, “abused their enormous authority.” []
As far as what kind of abuse? Well, the order seems to mostly be aimed at DEI practices, which, notably, some accreditors have already dropped or stopped enforcing in the wake of the broader Trump crackdown.
But the order specifically asks the secretary of education to hold accreditors accountable for “unlawful discrimination” and other violations “through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition.” []
At the same time, however, the order calls for prioritizing “intellectual diversity” among faculty.[]
And on top of that, it also aims to get new accreditors recognized supposedly to encourage more competition.[]
Saying the process needs to be updated so it’s efficient and not unduly burdensome.[]
But with all that, and given Trump’s previous comments, we might expect to see even more action taken in this arena.
With the Associated Press, for example, noting that this order “is the opening salvo in what could be a lengthy battle to overhaul the accrediting industry.” []
But moving on, the next executive order? It calls on the Education Department and the attorney general to step up enforcement of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act –
Which requires colleges and universities to disclose foreign gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more. []
With the order claiming action needed to be taken because higher education institutions in the U.S. have routinely violated the law –
Also stating that noncompliance will result in “appropriate federal grant funds” not being provided. []
And case and point, just last week, the Education Department demanded records from Harvard on foreign financial ties spanning the past decade – []
Accusing the school of filing “incomplete and inaccurate disclosures.”
With this of course coming, one, after the Trump administration paused over $2 billion in grant money to the institution, and two, as this whole battle between the White House and the country’s oldest university is still playing out.
But with that, the next executive order? It’s aimed at K-12 education, and it talks about getting back to, quote, “common sense school discipline policies” –
Alleging that discriminatory and unlawful “equity” ideology has posed a risk to children’s safety and well-being in the classroom. []
And as far as what it’s talking about there?
Well, to start, a key point is that in many schools around the country, Black students have been more likely to receive punishments that remove them from the classroom, including suspensions, expulsions and transfers to other schools.
Right, you may have heard about the so-called “school-to-prison” pipeline –
Which is basically the idea that not being in school, or facing other harsh punishment? It increases the likelihood of ending up incarcerated.
And with that, back in 2014, Obama unveiled federal guidelines urging schools not to suspend, expel or refer students to law enforcement except as a last resort – which Trump rolled back during his first term.
But now he’s taken it a step further, including by calling for a review of nonprofit organizations that have pushed equity-based discipline policies and making sure they don’t receive federal money.[]
And connected to that, in a fourth executive order, government agencies and departments are instructed to no longer rely on so-called “disparate impact rule,”
Which, simply put, is the idea that polices that appear neutral can still be challenged if they disproportionately impact minorities and other protected groups. []
But from there, the remaining executive orders?
One creates a federal task force focused on giving America’s students training on artificial intelligence as early as kindergarten.
Another is purportedly about promoting “excellence and innovation” at Historically Black Colleges and Universities –
With many of the proposed initiatives focusing on increasing private sector partnership and participation.
And the last one is about investing in education and workforce development for high-skilled trade jobs, including by expanding apprenticeships.
So with all this, there may be some good stuff in there, but a lot of it clearly seems about trying to really exert control over education at every level.
And on that note, already this week, more than 150 university presidents in the U.S. actually signed a statement condemning the Trump administration’s, quote, “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” in higher education.
But we’ll just have to wait and see where it all leads.
-
A new brain implant gave this woman her voice back after losing it to a stroke!
Right, this is Ann Johnson and when she was 30 years old in 2005, she had a stroke that left her paralyzed and unable to speak.
Nearly 2 decades later, at 47, she consented to doctors putting an experimental implant in her brain that connects to a computer - called a brain-computer interface or BCI. [B Roll 0:30-0:35]
Specifically, the implant was put into her motor cortex and it tracks her brain waves when she thinks of words she wants to say. []
And according to a recently published study, this implant, quote, “converts her intent to speak into fluent sentences.” []
As for how we got here, it was a long road.
According to the study, a team of researchers in California recorded Ann’s brainwaves while she silently spoke sentences in her head. []
With one of the study’s co-authors saying,
“This gave us a mapping between the chunked windows of neural activity that she generates and the target sentence that she’s trying to say, without her needing to vocalise at any point.” []
And then, using her voice from before her stroke, scientists built a synthesizer so when she spoke, it sounded like herself.
Now, this isn’t the first time that we’ve seen people be able to speak again thanks to a brain-computer interface.
But the big difference between this BCI and previous iterations is the use of artificial intelligence.
Where older systems had to decode full sentences at a time, this new one can continuously identify words from brain activity and translate them into speech within roughly three seconds. []
With one of this recent study’s authors saying that the new BCI works similar to something like Siri or Alexa - saying,
“Using a similar type of algorithm, we found that we could decode neural data and, for the first time, enable near-synchronous voice streaming. The result is more naturalistic, fluent speech synthesis.” []
Adding,
“It’s not waiting for a sentence to finish. It’s processing it on the fly.” []
Now, this is obviously a notable advancement in neuroprostheses but there is still a long way to go in order for this to sound like normal human speech.
As the Smithsonian Magazine points out, this new BCI can produce between 47 and 90 words per minute and humans usually speak somewhere around 160 words per minute. []
[Unless you’re Phil and that number is probably doubled.]
But as one of the study’s co-authors points out, this is just the beginning - saying,
“This is where we are right now. But you can imagine, with more sensors, with more precision and with enhanced signal processing, those things are only going to change and get better.” []
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes!
