The Taylor Swift Problem Is Bigger Than You Think, Trump Blasts Bezos Back In Line, Carney Libs Win
PDS Published 04/29/2025
-
Canadians went to the polls yesterday and the results were both predictable and shocking.
Predictable because it essentially turned out how we expected it to yesterday: the Liberals won big and maintained their position in power after seeming like they’d had a crushing defeat only a few months ago.
But shocking because it’s not like the Conservatives lost big or that there was a major turnout despite this election being considered one of the most important ever in Canada.
Looking at the numbers, about two-third of eligible Canadians turned out to vote
And with 99% of the votes counted it’s looking like the Liberals got 11% more of the national vote than in 2021 while the Conservatives gained 8%.[]
This difference came at the cost of Canada’s smaller parties, with the People’s Party and the New Democratic Party both getting particularly clobbered.
These shifts could be a sign that Canadians felt too much was at stake to vote for a party that didn’t have a chance at actually winning a majority in Parliament.
And you just need to look at a map of the 2021 election to see what I mean.
In 2021 parties like the NDP won big and secured 25 seats… but this time they only got 7 and now there’s almost no orange on the map because their votes almost all went to the Liberals.
Also if you're confused by the coloring keep in mind that the center-left Liberal party uses Red and the center-right Conservatives use Blue.
So that’s why all the cities are red in the 2025 map.
Areas like Quebec also saw some shifts.
Right, normally Bloc Keh-bek-kwa has free wins in the French-speaking area.[]
But this time the Liberals managed to siphon off some seats.
It wasn’t all wins for the Liberals though.
In areas like Toronto the Conservaties actually managed to make some ground in the suburbs surrounding it… although they lost a single seat right in the middle of the city in return.
What was possibly the most shocking thing in this election was that Pierre Pol-ee-ev -- the leader of the Conservatives -- actually lost his own seat to Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy.
And a similar thing happened to the NDP leader.
So taking all that into account, what does the actual political landscape look like now?
Well, it’s looking like the Liberals got 168 seats -- 4 shy of the 172 they need to outright have a majority in the House of Commons.
The Conservatives secured 144 seats, making them the biggest opposition party.
That being said, that split doesn’t show how close the election actually was.
Right, when looking at it as a percentage of the popular vote the two parties were neck-and-neck and just about 2% from each other.[]
If the Liberals want to be able to form a majority government it looks like they’ll need to work with either Bloc Quebecois or the NDP to make that happen.
If not, they’ll have to form a minority government, which can make passing legislation extremely difficult and possibly even lead to more elections.
As you probably expected, we’ve seen a lot of different takes about the results.
For his part, Pol-ee-ev pretty much just said this morning that his party "didn't quite get over the finish line."
But obviously Carney was pretty stoked and had a big speech at a victory rally last night.
During it, he asked:
“Who’s ready? Who’s ready to stand up for Canada with me?”
“And who’s ready to build Canada strong?” @0:55-1:09
He went on to make it clear that he means an independent Canada, saying:
“We are once again at one of those hinge moments in history. Our old relationship with the United States -- a relationship based on steadily increasing integration -- is over. @11:33-12:50ish
And then added:
“We are over the shock of the American betrayal. But we should never forget the lessons. We have to look out for ourselves and above all we have to take care of each other. @12:14 - 12:36
And he’s probably not going to be popular with Trump because Carney made it clear that future talks about trade or defense will be made as two sovereign nations and warned that Canada has:
“Many, many other options other than the United States to build prosperity for all Canadians.”
Internationally the reactions seemed to be pretty positive.
A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said:
"China stands ready to grow its relations with Canada on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit."
While the top EU official wrote on X:
"I look forward to working closely together, both bilaterally and within the G7.”
“We'll defend our shared democratic values, promote multilateralism, and champion free and fair trade." []
Australia’s Prime Minister added that "In a time of global uncertainty, I look forward to continuing to work with you to build on the enduring friendship between our nations, in the shared interests of all our citizens." []
Interestingly, as of recording, it doesn’t seem that senior US officials have reacted to the news at all.
Right, Trump’s only statement about the election was what we covered yesterday.
And all day today he’s been jerking himself off to the long list of “accomplishments” his administration has done in its first 100 days.
Instead we’ve seen a lot of MAGA accounts lamenting Pol-ee-ev’s lost and saying dramatic things like:
“Horrible news out of Canada. No other way to spin it.” []
And “Canadians, did you actually vote to self-euthanize to spite Trump? Seriously?”
So if you’re Canadian you tell me in the comments down below:
Did you vote the way you did because of Trump?
Or were there domestic issues that actually mattered more to you?
-
Ya’ll, I have some absolutely MASSIVE news: Congress actually did a thing.
And it was an objective GOOD thing.
Right, yesterday, the House voted almost unanimously to pass a bill aimed at cracking down on revenge porn and deepfake nudes.
And specifically, the bill — called the Take It Down Act — would make it a federal crime to publish “intimate visual depictions” of people that are real or AI-generated without their consent.
And any violations are punishable by prison time, a fine, or both.
Additionally, the legislation also requires public-facing online forums to set up some kind of system where the subjects of these images can request that they be removed.
And once someone reports the imagery, the platforms will be required to remove it within 48 hours.
Right, and this proposal is super significant because, according to reports, if enacted, this would mark the first law in the U.S. that explicitly takes aim at nonconsensual intimate imagery — or NCII.
But it's really a matter of when, not if, this will go into effect — the Senate already passed the measure back in February.
And President Trump has indicated that he plans to sign the bill, which has been championed by his wife as part of her “Be Best” campaign against cyberbullying.
And her support actually made a difference — right, lawmakers have been working for years to address deepfake pornography.
In fact, the bipartisan Take It Down Act was actually introduced last year and passed by the Senate before dying in the GOP-led House.
But it seemed to gain momentum when it was reintroduced this year and gained the support of the first lady.
Additionally, another reason this legislation was successful is that, unlike several previous attempts to crack down on NCII, this particular measure received the backing of some major tech companies like Meta, Google, and Snap.
So, with the House passage yesterday, we saw many people cheering the move.
Including lawmakers, advocates for survivors of revenge porn and sextortion scams, and the first lady herself, who issued a statement saying:
“Today’s bipartisan passage of the Take It Down Act is a powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy, and safety of our children.”
But, on the other side, you also had some Free Speech advocates raising concerns about censorship and privacy.
With Becca Branum, the director of the Free Expression Project for the Center for Democracy and Technology, arguing:
“The best of intentions can’t make up for the bill’s dangerous implications for constitutional speech and privacy online.”
And adding that the act was “a recipe for weaponized enforcement that risks durable progress in the fight against image-based sexual abuse.”
But you also had legal experts pushing back on that, arguing that the bill was carefully designed to survive challenges on First Amendment grounds.
With others also saying that any potential downfalls are vastly outweighed by the benefits of this legislation.
And toting that this is a problem that has been ongoing for a while, but recently, it’s gotten SO much worse with the rapid proliferation of AI technology.
Right, according to The Washington Post, there are now hundreds of AI “undress” apps that let users make fake images of real people in a matter of seconds.
And some of those apps have even been advertised on major social networks like Instagram, despite the fact that they violate the platform’s rules.
With The Post also noting that female celebrities are among the most common targets.
This including Taylor Swift and Bobbi Althoff, both of whom were the subjects of explicit deepfakes that went viral on X last year.
Beyond that, a recent report by ExpressPR.org also found that there was a 550% increase in deepfakes since 2019.
And of those deepfakes, 96% involved women, and female celebrities were mainly impacted.
With Final Round AI also conducting a study that analyzed search volume data from September 2023 to 2024 to identify the celebrities most at-risk of deepfake scams.
And, unsurprisingly, Taylor Swift was at the top of the list, with the study finding that she was involved in 249,840 deefake-related searches from September 2023 to September 2024 globally.
That is more than double the number of the second-most at-risk star, which is Jenna Ortega, who was involved in 111,070 deepfake-related searches worldwide during the same period.
And, very notably, you also had Pokimane clocking in at third with 76,730 searches.
With other notable names in the top ten most at-risk celebrities including Billie Eilish, Addison Rae, Olivia Rodrigo, and Bobbi Althoff, among others.
What’s more, you also had Forbes reporting that celebrity deepfake incidents have already hit a record high just four months into 2025.
Right, according to the outlet, there have already been 179 incidents recorded — more than the 150 that were logged during ALL of 2024.
Now, notably here, Forbes’ accounting appeared to include ALL forms deepfakes, not just sexually explicit ones.
Which helps explain why the outlet found that Taylor Swift was the second-most faked celebrity when you account for other forms of fakes, including audio recordings.
With Elon Musk — who was involved in a quarter of all deepfakes recorded by Forbes — taking the top slot there.
Right, and to that point, the outlet also found that, despite the fact that the election is now over, political deepfakes are still going strong.
With incidents involving politicians already reaching 40 this year — nearly as many as the 50 during the 2024 election year.
So you can see why politicians have an incentive to deal with this situation.
But, for now, we’ll just have to wait and see when Trump signs this bil — assuming he does — and if it actually can dramatically change the deepfake landscape.
-
The U.S. and China not only cavn’t make a deal to cut back on tariffs, they can’t even agree on whether talks to reach an agreement are actually underway.
This as major Chinese retailers are trying to make it crystal clear who’s paying for Trump’s trade war.
And that’s you, the consumer.
But with that, a quick reminder about the current status quo, Trump has imposed 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods with exemptions for electronics including smartphones and computers.
And in response, Beijing raised tariffs on US imports to 125 percent – similarly making some exceptions, in this case, in this case for a few types of American-made semiconductors.
And then, last week, after all its tough talk, the Trump administration seemingly softened its tone.
With Treasury Secretary Secretary Scott Bessent suggesting there would be a “de-escalation” in the trade war in the “very near future.”
And the next day, Trump himself indicating that tariffs on Chinese goods would “come down substantially.”
And since then, Trump, as well as members of his administration?
They’ve repeatedly claimed to be in talks with the Chinese government over a potential trade deal – only to have Chinese officials deny again and again that any talks are actually taking place.
With the line from Beijing being that if the U.S wants to negotiate, it first needs to get rid of all tariffs on China.
Last week, for example, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accusing the Trump administration of “misleading the public”about trade talks.
With Time Magazine only a few hours later publishing an interview with Trump in which he not only claimed there had been talks but that he himself had personally spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping (Shee Jin Ping) on the phone. []
With Trump also telling a CNN reporter that same day that the two leaders had spoken to each other “many times.” []
And so this week, we’ve again had Beijing clapping back, with a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that, as far as he knew “there has been no recent phone call between the two heads of state” – going on to say:
“I want to reiterate that China and the United States are not engaged in consultations or negotiations on the tariff issue.”
"If the U.S. really wants to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should stop threatening and blackmailing (China).”
But while we wait to find out which side is actually telling the truth, businesses are having to adjust to the new reality.
With the Chinese online retailer Shein raising its prices by an average of 51 percent, and in some cases, as much as 377 percent.
And then its competitor, Temu? It’s started adding “import charges” to customer orders that range between 130 and 150 percent – which is about as clear as you can make it that the cost of tariffs are being passed on to consumers.
And on that note, it’s also been reported that Amazon is planning to do something similar, essentially breaking down how much tariffs are adding to the price of each product listed on its website –
Something White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described today as a “hostile and political” act.
Though, notably, Amazon has now responded and said that this was only something being talked about for the company’s “ultra low cost Amazon haul store.”
With the statement also saying: "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties.” []
And so time will if anything more comes from that but in the meanwhile, connected to the topic of tariffs, one last piece of news is in connection to the 25 percent tariffs in place on vehicles imported to the U.S.
Right, the Trump administration is now reportedly announcing new measures to mitigate their impact and give automakers more time to relocate production to the U.S.
And so the 25 percent tariffs, they’ll technically remain in place, but they’ll be modified to make sure they’re not “stacked” with other existing tariffs, like the ones on steel and aluminum.
Additionally, automakers may be reimbursed for some portion of the tariffs they pay on imported auto parts – reportedly up to 3.75 percent of the value of a new car in the first year and up to 2.5 percent in the second year. []
So we’ll have to wait and see if, one, this policy can actually lessen the impact in any meaningful way, and two, if we see more efforts to shift production to the U.S.
I will say, there, a major drugmaker, Aztrazenece? It’s reportedly moving production of some medicines to the US in response to tariffs, so that’s sort of proof of concept for Trump.
It’s just that everything else about his tariff policy and its rollout has been so extreme, chaotic, and frankly, nonsensical.
Go to Ground News and subscribe for 40% off unlimited access & see beyond the headlines.
-
Donald Trump continued his assault on science Monday, killing a landmark climate report that nobody’s interrupted since 1990.
Right, because that’s when George H.W. Bush signed the Global Change Research Act. [B roll]
And one thing it did was mandate that starting in 2000, every five years or so the federal government would publish the National Climate Assessment.
A comprehensive, peer-reviewed report detailing how climate change affects the United States. [Image]v
With the point being to inform Congress and federal agencies, as well as state and local governments and anyone else who cares, about how to prepare for climate change and design climate policy. [B roll, 00:00 - 00:26]
And it’s big; right, since climate change impacts everything, it covers health, food, agriculture, air and water, energy, transportation, insurance markets, the weather, the economy — I could keep going.
Point is, it’s really valuable, but even during his first term, Trump opposed it.
Right, when the fourth report wrapped up in 2018, Trump’s administration released it on Black Friday, which many interpreted as them trying to slide it under the rug. [Headline]
Then, the fifth one was in 2023, and the sixth one is set to finish in 2028. [Report]
Or at least it’s supposed to, but second-term Trump is acting much more aggressively to smother it before it’s even born.
So after scientists submitted a detailed outline of the report in February, the White House put the usual review of it on hold and postponed the comment period. [Quote, find “postponed”]
And then on Monday, the administration dismissed literally everybody who was working on the report, all at once. [Headline]
That’s nearly 400 scientists, experts and contributors, suddenly taken off this project they’d been working on for the benefit of everyone else.
And in the way of an explanation, the email they received simply stated:
“At this time, the scope of the NCA6 is being evaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990.” [Quote]
Now this comes after the White House also canceled its contract with the firm that hires most of the staff for the Global Change Research Program, the agency that oversees the reports, earlier this month. [Headline]
Which already hamstrung the process, since that program coordinated input from 14 federal agencies and hundreds of external scientists.
But now it appears there’s just nobody working on the report at all, coordination or not.
With a co-author on the last climate assessment telling The New York Times: [Image]
“This is as close as it gets to a termination of the assessment. If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing’s moving forward.” [Quote and same image]
Now it’s doubtful whether this will stand in the courts, since the report is legally mandated by Congress.
And even the White House itself suggested some form of it may resume later, with the same email concluding:
“As plans develop for the assessment, there may be future opportunities to contribute or engage. Thank you for your service.” [Quote]
But many scientists fear that whatever report does come out in 2028, it won’t be the report they were preparing.
Right, because Russell Vought [vote], Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote before the election that the next president should “reshape” the Global Change Research Program. [Quote, find “reshape”]
With him arguing that the agency’s scientific reports on climate change were often used as the basis for environmental lawsuits that constrained federal government actions. [Same quote]
And of course, Trump himself doesn’t believe climate change is real.
So many are concerned that Trump’s people will write their own report from scratch, contradicting the well-established science showing that human-caused climate change is a real and dire threat.
And as you’re well aware if you watch this show, this move is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Trump’s war on science.
Right, we’ve seen drastic cuts, chaos and censorship at NOAA [Noah], the EPA, the CDC, the NIH and many other agencies that produce valuable government research.
-
Donald Trump is gearing up to go after state and local officials who deny him, and maybe use the military to do it.
At least, that’s one way of looking at two executive orders he just signed.
Right, the first order directs AG Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions that the Trump administration considers “sanctuary jurisdictions.” []
And then, with that list, the head of each executive department or agency is supposed to help identify “appropriate Federal funds…including grants and contracts” that can be suspended or terminated. []
Though, notably, this is less than a week since a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government from enforcing part of an ANOTHER executive order directing agencies to withhold funds from jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
So we’ll have to wait and see where that case ends up as well as whatever cases are likely to result from this on.
But with that, this week's order also aims to make sure unauthorized immigrants don’t get federal benefits from private entities, which could mean, for example, nonprofits running federally-funded housing, food, or employment programs. []
The order could also hinder unauthorized immigrants from getting more affordable tuition for higher education.
With it directing federal agencies to stop the enforcement of state and local laws “that provide in-state higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-state American citizens.” []
And finally, on top of all that, for cities and states that remain defiant?
Bondi and Noem are supposed to, quote, “pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such jurisdictions into compliance with the laws of the United States.” []
And on that note, we’ve already started to see what this might look like.
In just the past week, for example, the Trump administration has sued the city of Rochester, New York for allegedly illegally impeding immigration enforcement.
As well as arrested and brought charges against a Milwaukee judge for obstruction allegedly after she allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest.
And that actually brings us to the second executive order, which broadly directs the AG to use enforcement measures against state and local officials, quote, “unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties…”
Or who, quote, “unlawfully engage in discrimination or civil-rights violations under the guise of DEI.” []
And with that, this second executive order? It’s all about law enforcement, you have some saying its potential implications are worrying at the least, and downright terrifying at most.
Right, for one, the order instructs the AG to provide legal resources to police officers accused of wrongdoing – []
This after suggesting police officers are often wrongly “accused and abused” by State or local officials who impose “legal and political handcuffs” on law enforcement “that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible.” []
And with that, the order also directs the AG to review and modify existing restraints on law enforcement, such as federal consent decrees –
Which are essentially legally binding reform plans that often end up in place after investigations find a specific police department has patterns of unconstitutional policing. []
So that on its own is all pretty alarming but it’s potentially this next part that has the most people freaking out.
Right, it’s the part talking about increasing the provision of “excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.”
With it saying the Secretary of Defense should be consulted to determine how these assets, as well as training and personnel, “can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.” []
And so you have a lot of conversation about this being an order meant to pave the way for Trump to deploy the military domestically, with people talking about martial law and the possibility of living in an “actual fascist police state” or “military state.”
So yeah, that’s where we’re at…
-
For your daily dose of good news, we’ve got this new cancer treatment that doctors have called stunning, amazing, and groundbreaking.
Right, so to start, this is relevant for a particular type of cancer, one with a genetic mutation known as mismatch repair deficiency. [Image]
Basically, that means the tumour can’t repair damaged DNA, which causes abnormal proteins to build up inside of them.
Now for doctors, that’s really convenient, because it means the tumour carries a natural biomarker that the body’s immune system can target.
Thing is, the mutation also gives the tumour a kind of shield against the immune system, allowing it to grow.
But that’s where Dostarlimab [Pronounce 01:25] comes in.
Right, this drug breaks down that shield, unleashing the body’s immune system on the tumour.
At least in theory, and if it works, it’ll be a game changer.
Right, because right now, this type of cancer is treated with a combination of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
Or in other words, a really shit ass time.
Right, depending on where the tumour is, those procedures could leave lasting damage.
Anything from removal of the stomach or bladder, or a permanent colostomy bag, to infertility and problems with bowel, bladder and sexual function.
So for this clinical trial, 103 patients filed into the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and rolled the dice. [Image]
With nearly half suffering from rectal cancer, and the rest having it everywhere from the stomach, esophagus and liver to the endometrium, urinary tract and prostate. [Same image]
But all of them had solid tumours with the mutation, and were in stages one, two or three. [Same image]
So each of them received the immunotherapy, which consisted of periodic injections, and the results were shocking.
92% of the patients had no detectable cancer at all after two years. [Quote, find “92”]
With that number rising to 100% for the 49 who had rectal cancer, and lowering to 65% for the rest, which is still huge. [Quote, find “49 of whom”]
But even for the five patients whose cancer recurred, four of them wiped out their tumours too, either by undergoing another round of immunotherapy or removing a lymph node. [Quote, find “three got”]
And the fifth still shrank their tumour with more immunotherapy. [Same quote]
With the study’s lead author telling Time Magazine: [Image]
“The bottom line is that everyone did benefit. No one was harmed. It takes home the message that therapy like this can lead to significant clinical complete responses, tumor downstaging, and significant improvement in the quality of life of patients.” [Quote and same image]
And it’s especially startling when you realize how quickly it works.
Right, the treatment only takes six months, but some tumours disappeared in as little as half that time.
So you have an oncologist at Johns Hopkins telling the New York Times: [Screenshot, 00:09]
“Twenty or 30 years ago, the idea that you could take large tumors of many different organs and treat them without doing surgery would seem like science fiction.” [Quote and same screenshot]
Now to be fair, there are a couple of caveats that make this breakthrough a little less exciting.
Right, first of all, this particular mutation is only present in two to three percent of early stage solid tumors. [Quote, find “3%”]
And secondly, the drug costs about 11,000 dollars per dose, and there are nine doses. [Quote, find “11,000”]
So most people probably won’t be eligible, and it’ll be very expensive for those who are.
But let me also give a caveat to the caveat.
Which is that if the drug gets included in clinical guidelines, it could be covered by insurance.
And thanks to an earlier, smaller study, it has already been put in the guidelines for rectal cancer, and it’s approved for uterine cancers as well. [Quote same link, find “uterine cancers”]
So now the next step is to expand those guidelines to include other cancers, and to further develop the drug with a cocktail of other treatments.
But I also want to add, this story isn’t just about Dostarlimab.
I mean, it is, but it’s also about how fucking amazing and surprising the field of cancer research is right now.
Right, the American Cancer Society just published data showing that the overall cancer mortality rate in the U.S. from 1991 to 2022 declined by 34%. [Quote, find “34”]
Right, that translates to approximately 4.5 million people whose lives were saved. [Same quote]
So if you have cancer, or your loved one has cancer, my heart goes out to you, but also, don’t give up hope.
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at NordVPN. Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(701x356:703x358)/bobbi-althoff-2024-chainfest-los-angeles-vip-night-012125-1-5646424edf484f1e98005956c869de6c.jpg){kind=link}
