Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome to this afternoon edition of Canadian
Speaker 1: keem Trends. That's a bit of an illusion to a
Speaker 1: story we will be doing later about chemtrails in Canada,
Speaker 1: because Kemp trails are we're still talking about mtrails like
Speaker 1: it's two thousand and eight or something. What's the first
Speaker 1: we'll get to that we'll get to. We'll get to
Speaker 1: the Kemp trail discussion because obviously we are arbiters of
Speaker 1: truth on this podcast. But the truth is in here,
Speaker 1: the truth is in here, the truth is in your ears.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Dailyeitgeist Trending episode.
Speaker 2: I'm Miles. I'm joined by Andrew T. Jack's a little
Speaker 2: bit under the weather, so I had to have had
Speaker 2: to tagging this up. He's okay, he's okay.
Speaker 1: We had to spray a bunch of chemicals above his
Speaker 1: house really just to really help you really up up
Speaker 1: the immune system. But obviously, the first thing that everyone's
Speaker 1: talking about is the vice presidential debate. We talk a
Speaker 1: little bit more in depth on that in tomorrow morning's episode,
Speaker 1: but I think a lot of people the gist of
Speaker 1: it is for those who didn't watch, like Andrew T,
Speaker 1: is that yeah, sure, Yeah, it's kind of like what
Speaker 1: the takeaway is, Yeah, I don't know yet.
Speaker 2: I would my my.
Speaker 1: Usually the way I handle these things is just I
Speaker 1: figure it'll be on Twitter, and and it.
Speaker 2: Was pretty much what I thought, which is like it
Speaker 2: was nothing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, everyone's like, yeah, Tim news flash, Tim Wall's too
Speaker 1: nice to get dirty on the debate stage and normal.
Speaker 1: It's probably a missed opportunity to just curbstop a freak. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that was that's probably bad for the Democrats that that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it should have been bad for could have
Speaker 1: could have put him, put him in the dirt. But hey,
Speaker 1: it's but also Ja d Vance did a pretty good
Speaker 1: job of that just with his weird answers. Look, and
Speaker 1: then we talked about it Tomorrow Show. I guess style
Speaker 1: points to Vance, but in the end his answers were
Speaker 1: so bad and chock full of lies that I think
Speaker 1: Tim Wallas just walks out of there unscathed.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's a.
Speaker 1: It's a vice presidential debate, you know, like considering that
Speaker 1: the highlight of last election cycles vice presidential debate it
Speaker 1: was that a fly was on Mike Pence's head. Gives
Speaker 1: you gives you an indication of like how much these
Speaker 1: things sort of matter in the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 1: or what we retained from it. Well, there was a
Speaker 1: chance that they could have bade Advance into saying some
Speaker 1: like insane like Catholic or just talk about his beliefs
Speaker 1: about women or anything, and that didn't happen enough. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean he made some he had some really was
Speaker 1: like I had a friend who got an abortion and
Speaker 1: she doesn't's like, well, yeah, okay, But it's also like,
Speaker 1: then if you're a walt that you got to turn
Speaker 1: around and be like is she in hell?
Speaker 2: JD? Do you think she does? She a murderer?
Speaker 1: Why isn't she in jail according to your beliefs? Why
Speaker 1: didn't you d her cat your life? Yeah, tell me
Speaker 1: about that, JD. But yeah, just got to do it.
Speaker 1: One thing that I think is relevant because you know,
Speaker 1: right now we are still talking about recovery efforts, like
Speaker 1: you know, just broadly that are in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: Hurricane Helen and JD. Vance's answer on climate change definitely
Speaker 1: caught the attention of most people because it was such
Speaker 1: a terrible answer. But just to sort of set this
Speaker 1: up right, like why just in the context of what's
Speaker 1: happening in the country right to Asheville, North Carolina was
Speaker 1: one of the hardest hit areas, and prior to that
Speaker 1: was being touted by like real estate agents and even
Speaker 1: people involved in climate research as like a potential place
Speaker 1: that could sort of dodge the chaos of climate change,
Speaker 1: as a climate sanctuary, if you will. It's because it's
Speaker 1: a place that's far enough off the coast and had
Speaker 1: consistent weather. It's it's like with these wonderful mountains, but
Speaker 1: you know again those are like that was sort of
Speaker 1: the environment in which people said, oh, you know, this
Speaker 1: could be a good place to move, aside from the
Speaker 1: people who already lived there, but that was like sort
Speaker 1: of you know, the outsider's perspective on Nashville.
Speaker 2: The storm showed us that there is no.
Speaker 1: Escaping the effects of climate change, no matter what people
Speaker 1: think is going to happen.
Speaker 2: Where the only solution and is truly like radical action.
Speaker 1: So when Vance gave this response on climate, it really
Speaker 1: cements the idea that these fucks are just banking on
Speaker 1: like dying before the flames and floodwaters consume them.
Speaker 2: That's all it is.
Speaker 1: It's like, I mean, yeah, that's gonna happen, Like, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to be here. So this is you, this
Speaker 1: is JD. Vance giving a really thoughtful answer on climate
Speaker 1: change and how we should be looking at it.
Speaker 3: And or you asked about climate change. I think this
Speaker 3: is a very important issue. Look, a lot of people
Speaker 3: are justifiably worried about all these crazy weather patterns.
Speaker 2: I think it's important for us, first.
Speaker 3: Of all, to say, Donald Trump and I support clean air,
Speaker 3: clean water. We want the environment to be cleaner and safer.
Speaker 3: But one of the things that I've noticed some of
Speaker 3: our Democratic friends talking a lot about is a concern
Speaker 3: about carbon emissions. This idea that carbon emissions drives all
Speaker 3: the climate change. Well, let's just say that's true, just
Speaker 3: for the sake of argument. Arguing about weird science, let's
Speaker 3: just say that's true.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, weird science.
Speaker 1: Let's yeah, let's just presume that the scientists whose expertise
Speaker 1: lands in this area is saying it's okay, let's presume
Speaker 1: that's true. Okay, go on, JD. Just completely knock this
Speaker 1: one out of the park. We're assuming that's true. Go on,
Speaker 1: So what's your solution.
Speaker 3: Well, if you believe that, what would you want to
Speaker 3: do the answer is that you'd want to reshore as
Speaker 3: much American manufacturing as possible, and you'd want to produce
Speaker 3: as much energy as possible in the United States of
Speaker 3: America because we're the cleanest economy in the entire world, which.
Speaker 1: Is odd because that is already kind of the Biden
Speaker 1: Harris's like administration sort of goals is to bring more
Speaker 1: of that manufacturing back to Like it's just weird, You're like, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, is this just another place where the fact
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are so right wing plays into the
Speaker 1: fucking Republican's hands. Would it just like, yeah, if you know,
Speaker 1: Biden Harris had a sensible, actual like cimate change carbon
Speaker 1: reduction policy, they wouldn't have to be like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're also doing the right wing thing like are you
Speaker 1: talking about bringing more er just bring bring well, you know,
Speaker 1: because then you get to say, like, we're bringing the
Speaker 1: manufacturing back, et cetera, et cetera. That's not the climate
Speaker 1: scientists aren't saying, well, we need to bring the manufacturing back. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're saying fucking cut down the carbon emissions dressed yeah,
Speaker 1: and yeah, and I get to like, obviously the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act definitely had like those elements. And because the
Speaker 1: bar is so low for American action on climate change,
Speaker 1: it is in hit, like verifiably in history, the most
Speaker 1: we've done, but there's still so much more to do.
Speaker 1: And like the other thing that's also like on the
Speaker 1: back of that too, just to raise another thing, like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump set up a GoFundMe to help people affected
Speaker 1: by the storm.
Speaker 2: And if your first question.
Speaker 1: Is is he's just gonna pocket the money, I would
Speaker 1: say you would be of average intelligence because of course
Speaker 1: this guy is scamming, Like as of this recording, it's
Speaker 1: raised over four million dollars and it has all the
Speaker 1: trappings of a Trump cruise, like for starters. He's not
Speaker 1: even appearing as one of the top donors, Like he'sn't
Speaker 1: even on there, like there's Dana White and Kid Rock
Speaker 1: and shit are coming out of their pet's over. Of course, No,
Speaker 1: he's a taker. He's he's the recipient of the donation. Second,
Speaker 1: the five dollars and the tip jar just to like
Speaker 1: get the get and if.
Speaker 2: He does, they'd be like did you see what he
Speaker 2: put in? It was movie funny money. I was like
Speaker 2: fake money.
Speaker 1: Just so there's an appearance of a bill shaped from object. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then there's like there's all this warm and fuzzy language,
Speaker 1: but absolutely no talk, like there's no charity that's been
Speaker 1: designated as the recipient for all this money, or even
Speaker 1: a plan regarding how the money is spent.
Speaker 2: Hey, let's just help these people out, just get it.
Speaker 1: And I think the final nail in the coffin is
Speaker 1: that this thing is being ran by Trump's National Finance Director.
Speaker 2: So this is we'll see.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure he's just going to be like, well,
Speaker 1: the thing that would help the people of North Carolina
Speaker 1: and all Americans is if I was president. So that
Speaker 1: is where this money will go to. Exactly in an
Speaker 1: indirect way, I am the solution. I do want to
Speaker 1: go back to a little thing, the idea of a
Speaker 1: climate sanctuary, like just this fucking like thought that you
Speaker 1: could like go to like fucking Minneapolis or New Zealand
Speaker 1: or whatever and escape the exact limitation globe. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: guess what the world where the idea that this zone
Speaker 1: might still be temperate and like livable in some way
Speaker 1: is a world where our globe, in our society and
Speaker 1: our government has changed. So much like this isn't going
Speaker 1: to protect you. We are all in this together. You
Speaker 1: think if the other ninety whatever seven percent of the
Speaker 1: land mass of the United States is uninhabitable, that your
Speaker 1: quote climate sanctuary is going to be fine, that property
Speaker 1: laws will exist and whatever. Like, you don't want society
Speaker 1: to crumble to the point where a climate union or.
Speaker 2: Climate sanctuary exactly. You can't. You're not going to claim
Speaker 2: finders keepers, you know.
Speaker 1: I'm like, actually, guys, we bought this house like ten
Speaker 1: years ago, so I know, like this is existential for you,
Speaker 1: but like, do you mind, Like I'm trying to have
Speaker 1: my roses bloom this year and you guys are taking.
Speaker 2: Out the water that I have. It's just it's not
Speaker 2: how that's going to go.
Speaker 1: The other there's this other quote in this article in
Speaker 1: The Guardian about like this sort of idea of how
Speaker 1: these like like there are these cycles where people move
Speaker 1: into places that they think will be like better off
Speaker 1: for the future. This is from Jesse Keenan, who's an
Speaker 1: expert in climate adaptation at Tulane. So that this flood
Speaker 1: will likely accelerate development because clearly there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of damage because like in Ashville, right. For every one
Speaker 1: person who moves away from Ashville, three people move to Ashville, which.
Speaker 2: Is one of the highest ratios in the US.
Speaker 1: Goes on to say, quote, some people will not be
Speaker 1: inclined or unable to rebuild, and their properties will be
Speaker 1: bought up by wealthy people who can afford to build
Speaker 1: private infrastructure and buildings that have the engineering resilience to
Speaker 1: withstand floods.
Speaker 2: There is no truly safe place. This is a cycle
Speaker 2: that like, okay.
Speaker 1: Acknowledge there will be a post disaster boom, but this
Speaker 1: is a cycle that happened over and over again.
Speaker 2: In America on some level.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I think it's because we live in
Speaker 1: a world now where class and your socioeconomic standing insulates
Speaker 1: you to a certain degree from certain like ills of
Speaker 1: society that society has rocked on us. But it's like
Speaker 1: at that point, we're talking mad Max baby, you know what.
Speaker 2: I yeah, there was no like when people have to survive.
Speaker 1: It's a completely different, completely different world, and like to
Speaker 1: your point, we don't. My favorite image of this is
Speaker 1: just like Elon thinking he's still in charge of the
Speaker 1: Mars colony if the rest of the globe is gone, Like, yes.
Speaker 2: I have the key to the food locker and only
Speaker 2: I know the code. Well guess what next time you
Speaker 2: open that ship, it's on bro. Yeah, and we'll wedge.
Speaker 1: Nerds think fighters keeper is gonna is like is their
Speaker 1: defense against their greed?
Speaker 2: And I don't know, revolution or whatever.
Speaker 1: That's what the next case the Supreme Court is going
Speaker 1: to your finders v. Keepers and we'll see, we'll see
Speaker 1: where they land on that. Okay, chemtrails. Oh this feels
Speaker 1: just to start. When did you when did you first
Speaker 1: encounter someone talking that caem.
Speaker 2: Trail shit to you?
Speaker 1: Oh? Thank you for the tea up talking to my
Speaker 1: face wash. Any someone, anyone who's followed the through line
Speaker 1: of all my appearances on Daily Zeitgeist might have picked
Speaker 1: up that I don't have a ton of I have
Speaker 1: less respect for the medical profession than most people.
Speaker 2: Not because lab you wanted to start up. Yeah, exactly exact.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, Uh, doctors are not scientists, and neither
Speaker 1: are nurses. Like no one who has a medical education.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like the way that thinking a mechanical
Speaker 1: engineer as a physicist, they are sure yeah, yeah, yeah
Speaker 1: you're not. You're not denying the knowledge that they have,
Speaker 1: but it's not transposable in the way that they think
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's not.
Speaker 1: It's like like you can have doctors who are creationists
Speaker 1: who believe in you know, X or y thing, which
Speaker 1: if they were you know, purely logic logical beings, would
Speaker 1: be impossible.
Speaker 2: But whatever.
Speaker 1: So the first time I had someone pitch chempfells to
Speaker 1: my face, I had had I had walking pneumonia, and
Speaker 1: I was at the hospital getting essentially it was just
Speaker 1: like a big inhaler. It was it was you know
Speaker 1: what it was. It was like the gravity bond of inhalers.
Speaker 2: Okay, like an ebulizer kind of thing, I guess, so,
Speaker 2: I don't remember what it was called.
Speaker 1: But it was like a big s glass tube full
Speaker 1: of inhaler and they were just jamming it into my
Speaker 1: law okay. And the nurse who was administrating this therapy, uh.
Speaker 1: And I was a you know, fairly captive audience. Sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're sick and need dire medical attention was just like,
Speaker 1: you know, another reason you might be having these long difficulties.
Speaker 2: No, yo, stay in the lane.
Speaker 1: Crazy to have someone administering medical treatment to you talk
Speaker 1: about kemp trails that's fucking dark, which, by the way, yeah,
Speaker 1: so KEMP trails.
Speaker 2: I didn't.
Speaker 1: I kind of had a sense that it was just
Speaker 1: like a kook thing, but yeah, it's it's just like
Speaker 1: the idea that like jets can spray out various chemicals
Speaker 1: into the atmosphere, Is that right?
Speaker 2: Like I think, I mean yes, I think, you know,
Speaker 2: like mind control weather control type. I think.
Speaker 1: The thing that I really like about this and like
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories of this ILK is that like they always
Speaker 1: come up with like the most like patently transparently obvious
Speaker 1: like way, like if you're the government and you have
Speaker 1: a mind control chemical, right, why.
Speaker 2: Would you spray it invisible clouds? Right, has receipts And
Speaker 2: they're like yeah, yeah, there it is.
Speaker 1: Like it's the same shit, It's the same ship with
Speaker 1: all this like you know, like various democratic election fraud things. Right,
Speaker 1: if you thought these bozos could do this, why would
Speaker 1: they do it in this way? And why wouldn't do
Speaker 1: all the other alleged ship if they're if they're so powerful, Well,
Speaker 1: because that requires me to find actual evidence when I
Speaker 1: can just look for something very superficial and claim you
Speaker 1: know what, like why is there like a whole department
Speaker 1: devoted to then once the conspiracy is done, creating like
Speaker 1: numerological puzzles that they seed out into the world, right, like.
Speaker 2: Hey, hey, we just want to know who the real
Speaker 2: ones are? You know that? Get me? Like that's that's hard, right.
Speaker 1: Well, the reason this is coming up because I know
Speaker 1: a lot of times as Americans really a Canada and like,
Speaker 1: oh mash, they got it all figured out up there
Speaker 1: is the premiere of Alberta, their conservative premier, Danielle Smith
Speaker 1: just recently, like in front of a bunch of people,
Speaker 1: was at a town hall talking about chemtries. Like seriously,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna play this clip where like you can
Speaker 1: actually even hear like her constituents groaning, because like, is
Speaker 1: this fool for real?
Speaker 2: Take it away, Danielle is.
Speaker 4: The best I have been able to do is talk
Speaker 4: to the woman who is responsible for controlling the air
Speaker 4: space and she says, no one is allowed to go
Speaker 4: up and spray anything in the air.
Speaker 3: We have a house like.
Speaker 1: The US Department of.
Speaker 4: Defense, and you know what, I have some limitations in
Speaker 4: my job.
Speaker 1: I don't know that I have power.
Speaker 4: That is the case of the US Department of Defense
Speaker 4: is as frames.
Speaker 2: So I'll do what I can, you know, to figure out.
Speaker 1: Power to prevent a foreign government from using chemical weapons
Speaker 1: on us. Like, right, she's accusing the United States of
Speaker 1: a war crime. Yeah, it's wow because like the thing
Speaker 1: was in response to a constituent's question, right, Like she
Speaker 1: was prompted by a chemtrail loving constituent. But then her
Speaker 1: answer is like, yeah, I don't know, man, like it
Speaker 1: could be dealed, like.
Speaker 2: Just shut that ship down.
Speaker 1: But you know what am I supposed to do? You
Speaker 1: know what I don't know if I have much power
Speaker 1: fit is the Department of Defense. But anyway, whether it
Speaker 1: was her or the constituent, the fact that it's like
Speaker 1: out there still is just like really funny to me.
Speaker 1: But the Pentagon even was like was forced to comment
Speaker 1: on the issue that they're like, we're not spraying chemicals
Speaker 1: on Alberta, Canada. But that also isn't that what they'd
Speaker 1: say if they were spraying chemicals on Alberta chemical on
Speaker 1: Alberta Chemical Alberta. But again, the chemtrails are just you know,
Speaker 1: contrails there. It's it's vapor trails made up of water.
Speaker 1: But too many people are like this is it? No,
Speaker 1: they're there, it's all population control. Which is interesting because
Speaker 1: back in the nineties, there was an Air Force research
Speaker 1: paper called Weather as a four Multiplier, Owning the Weather
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five, and that paper was like the
Speaker 1: beginning people like, oh yeah, because it was talking about
Speaker 1: a future weather modification system potentially for like military objectives,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people in the beginning. Again, like
Speaker 1: most conspiracy theories intersect with something that actually happened, because
Speaker 1: in the UK and the US, they really did spray
Speaker 1: their populations with dangerous chemicals during the Cold War in
Speaker 1: order to simulate a chemical warfare attack. So they used
Speaker 1: zinc cadmium sulfide, which could be traced with UV light
Speaker 1: and they're like, okay, good, we can track it. And
Speaker 1: they thought it was non toxic at the time. Learned
Speaker 1: out to be potentially carcinogenic.
Speaker 2: But that was like a thrill, right, That's like.
Speaker 1: That's all it takes, right, is like they did it
Speaker 1: before and that was bad. I mean also, I mean,
Speaker 1: look at that. There's plenty of history of the United
Speaker 1: States spraying chemicals down on people Agent Orange. But I
Speaker 1: think what's just so funny too, is like people can
Speaker 1: never kind of agree on what the chemtrails are for.
Speaker 1: And that's that's the hard bit about a conspiracy. Everybody's
Speaker 1: kind of got to be united on what they actually
Speaker 1: do because also it's like it's just like the worst
Speaker 1: way to do something like a just a cloud, like
Speaker 1: it's impossible to control. Oh, your big conspiracy got fucked
Speaker 1: up by the breeze, Like right right, if you're if
Speaker 1: you have the goal that these people are stating, this
Speaker 1: is not the way to do it. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: the government doesn't have these goals. I'm just saying this
Speaker 1: mechanism is absurd. Yeah, it's like, yeah, it comes way
Speaker 1: to do it. You want to get the most people
Speaker 1: at once, hit the water supply just an idea, c
Speaker 1: I A or FBI or and I said, whatever you
Speaker 1: talking about it help you know what, They've been fucking
Speaker 1: poisoning people for years and this is not a such
Speaker 1: a good way to do it. All right, let's take
Speaker 1: a quick break. We'll be right back to talk some
Speaker 1: more stories right after this.
Speaker 2: And we're back. Amazon CEO Andy Jase.
Speaker 1: Now, he has been presiding over a very not controversial,
Speaker 1: just very standard like hellscape employer sort of policy which
Speaker 1: is like everyone now like that is working at Amazon Corporate,
Speaker 1: they must be.
Speaker 2: They're required for a full time return.
Speaker 1: To the office, even though from what I've seen, I
Speaker 1: think Amazon's been doing pretty well money wise with people
Speaker 1: working from home.
Speaker 2: But this has been a thing.
Speaker 1: It's like, come next year, everybody is back in the office.
Speaker 2: I don't want to hear shit about it.
Speaker 1: Well, it looks like he's hearing a lot of shit
Speaker 1: because there was a survey done just like asking the
Speaker 1: employees what they think, and about almost seventy three percent said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm probably gonna I'll probably quit if this is for real,
Speaker 1: to be fair, that feels like some real front mass shit.
Speaker 1: It's a way like like a real front ye, Like yeah,
Speaker 1: you know these people.
Speaker 2: I mean that's the heart.
Speaker 1: That's the hard part obviously about toiling is that, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like and go away and you're like.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, I mean you got me.
Speaker 1: But you've seen this has happened at plenty of other
Speaker 1: companies before instituting like full time return, and then they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: some people actually did quit because they realized they would
Speaker 1: take less money to have more flexibility for family time
Speaker 1: or just whatever else.
Speaker 2: I mean, people will quit, but also it will not
Speaker 2: help anything. It will simply make things worse.
Speaker 1: Like just yeah, everyone is presentful for having a commute,
Speaker 1: and like, yeah, this is like they have I guess
Speaker 1: a broader strategy because they want to quote streamline operations
Speaker 1: and reduce managerial layers. And that's how they'll do that
Speaker 1: by having people come more come in five days a week.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I we shall see. But the thing, the
Speaker 1: other thing that they're pissed off is like this isn't
Speaker 1: like across every Amazon company or subsidiary. So people who
Speaker 1: work at like one Medical, which is another subsidiary, they
Speaker 1: only have to come in three times a week, and
Speaker 1: they're like, yeah, that's it, that's it. Yeah, So it's
Speaker 1: pretty fractured. I totally understand like the hesitance for people
Speaker 1: to do that, and maybe who knows, maybe there will
Speaker 1: be enough outrage that they go, all right, like fucking
Speaker 1: twice a week.
Speaker 2: I don't know, please.
Speaker 1: I think the other thing we always talk about this
Speaker 1: is like so much of it is for managers to
Speaker 1: feel like they are managers and they are managing human beings.
Speaker 2: And then the other part is those commercial building leases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're playing a lot of money for that thing.
Speaker 1: To just look like a look Cinema Gundale if you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, if you catch my drift, find
Speaker 1: out more on that tomorrow. And then finally Uber shockingly,
Speaker 1: they're pulling a bit of a Disney Plus and by
Speaker 1: that I mean family friendly brand Uber. No, surely not,
Speaker 1: surely not Uber. When you're here, you're not family into
Speaker 1: MIDI one, John, I mean whoayy so here? A New
Speaker 1: Jersey appeals court has found that a couple cannot sue
Speaker 1: over a life altering car accident they were in in
Speaker 1: like during an Uber ride because and I think because
Speaker 1: I already said to Disney Plus the apps terms and
Speaker 1: conditions basically preclude them from doing so. The couple says,
Speaker 1: we didn't even agree to that. That was our daughter
Speaker 1: using Uber eats, and they're like, well, that's kind of
Speaker 1: It's sorry, it's a blanket fucking agreement. Man, Like you're
Speaker 1: you go into arbitration. That's it is what it is.
Speaker 1: This couple, John and Georgia McGuinty. They filed a lawsuit
Speaker 1: in February twenty twenty three. This was a year after
Speaker 1: they suffered quote serious physical, psychological, and financial damages when
Speaker 1: the Uber they were riding crashed into another car. There
Speaker 1: are physical scars, mental scars, and I don't think that
Speaker 1: they will ever be able to go back to their
Speaker 1: full capacity that they were at before, says their attorney.
Speaker 1: So they tried to sue Ubers like noah, nah, look
Speaker 1: at the terms and conditions, and a court was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I guess not. And now they are like this couple
Speaker 1: is fighting back because like, our kid is a minor
Speaker 1: and still it's so, what the how the fuck does
Speaker 1: any of this work? Now? I think the difference here
Speaker 1: is the outrage around the Disney Plus thing was because
Speaker 1: Disney the whole brand is about being familial and family friendly.
Speaker 2: And shit like that.
Speaker 1: So they're like, shit, all right, never mind, whereas this
Speaker 1: is like all we've seen is like, oh, yeah, write
Speaker 1: your companies, like we'll pay the alter of state labor
Speaker 1: laws to They're a lion ass campaign during the last
Speaker 1: referendum for to like like enshrine that basically California drivers
Speaker 1: will never have any kind of rights. Yeah, yeah, seriously
Speaker 1: fucking disgusting. It was most lion asked shit I've seen
Speaker 1: in quite a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, clips only by all these anti don't even other proposition. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that are sponsored Apartment Association to California. Now, this is
Speaker 1: a little bit of California inside baseball, because you know,
Speaker 1: not every state has like voter initiated ballots.
Speaker 2: California baseball has never been stronger. Bro, Yeah, ay, shout
Speaker 2: out show Hey.
Speaker 1: But there's a proposition Prop thirty three that's about like
Speaker 1: actually creating affordable housing. And the realtors and landlwered like groups,
Speaker 1: they have so much money that they have an all
Speaker 1: out pressure campaign now like this like single black mom,
Speaker 1: she's like, I'm a single mom. Yeah, And I thought
Speaker 1: when I heard about Prop thirty three it would be
Speaker 1: a good thing. But then when I read the finer print,
Speaker 1: I realized this is actually bad for affordable housing.
Speaker 2: And they have so many versions of this ad.
Speaker 1: They have like a former Broadly professor, Yeah, with his
Speaker 1: like landlord ys in the ad you were say, they
Speaker 1: very clearly it's like this bill would alter existing red
Speaker 1: control laws and it's just like like they couldn't be
Speaker 1: able to leave out like in favor of tenants, Like yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: It's basically it expands the municipality's ability to enact rent control.
Speaker 1: That's what it's doing to expand the ability. It's going
Speaker 1: to get rid of laws. Yeah, the backwards ones that
Speaker 1: were exacerbating the problem.
Speaker 2: Not to be like.
Speaker 1: It is truly like comical. The list of evil people
Speaker 1: at the end of this is.
Speaker 2: Fine almost not going to see it.
Speaker 1: No, I just want to just read up because like
Speaker 1: when you because every time you just have to look
Speaker 1: at the like you know, the fine print on who
Speaker 1: is actually paying for this and No. One thirty three
Speaker 1: let's see, uh, businesses, landlords, realtors.
Speaker 2: It's like the National Realtors associations. There's no no clearer.
Speaker 2: Like sometimes you're at the ballot box. Sometimes you're at
Speaker 2: the thing and you're like, oh fuck, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Try to at least find out who's pushing for this,
Speaker 1: because pops and landlords are always on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of making your life better.
Speaker 2: If I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: If you see chamber of commerce, that's really the one
Speaker 1: that's pretty much goes across like look at the endorsement. Yes,
Speaker 1: if you see that, if if multiple chambers of commerce
Speaker 1: are like, yeah, hey man, we got to get behind
Speaker 1: this thing that's saying that's the rich people saying they're
Speaker 1: going to come far back for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, the normal person.
Speaker 1: So anyway, a bit of what is happening here anyway,
Speaker 1: that's going to do it for us today. We'll be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow with a brand new episode. We hope you
Speaker 1: like it. Until then, take care yourselves, take care of
Speaker 1: each other, get the vaccine, get your flu shots. No
Speaker 1: know nothing about white supremacy, Keep Palace time free and
Speaker 1: we will talk to y'all later. Bye.