The David Pakman Show - 10/1/24: Hurricane response fiasco goes nuclear, VP debate TONIGHT

Episode Date: October 1, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Timothy Snyder, historian and author of the new book "On Freedom," joins David to discuss the book, freedom, liberty and much more. Get the book: https://amzn.to/3BooSgr -- Kamala Harris schools Trump on how to properly handle natural disaster response in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene -- Donald Trump stages a disgusting photo-op in Valdosta, Georgia after Hurricane Helene and it goes horribly wrong -- Donald Trump is caught in a series of lies about Hurricane Helene response by both MSNBC and Fox News -- CNN attempts to sane-wash Donald Trump's absurd hurricane speech -- Donald Trump is furious that the Biden-Harris administration delivered hurricane help quickly, something Donald Trump previously failed to do -- Donald Trump is preparing his followers for JD Vance to be destroyed in tonight's debate against Tim Walz -- Kamala Harris makes history and becomes the first major party nominee to call for the federal legalization of cannabis -- On the Bonus Show: How to know whether you can "trust the polls," Rudy Giuliani's daughter voting Kamala and mourning her dad's loss to Trumpism, Republicans increasingly worried that Trump's campaign is broken, much more... 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman ☕ Beam melatonin hot cocoa: Use code PAKMAN for up to 40% OFF at https://shopbeam.com/pakman ⚠️ Try Ground News and get 40% OFF the Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 👕 Sponsored by Printful: Build and grow your business at https://davidpakman.com/printful 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com  -- Become a Member: https://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- Pakman Discord: https://www.davidpakman.com/discord -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave a Voicemail: (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 3 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6 Speaker 7 Speaker 8 Speaker 9 Speaker 10 Speaker 11 Speaker 12 Speaker 13 Speaker 14 Speaker 15 Speaker 16 Speaker 17 Speaker 18 Speaker 21 Speaker 22 Speaker 23 Speaker 24

Speaker 24 Speaker 25 Speaker 26 Speaker 27 Speaker 28 Speaker 29 Speaker 30 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 32 Speaker 34 Speaker 34 Speaker 35 Speaker 36 Speaker 37 Speaker 38 Speaker 39 Speaker 41 Speaker 42 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 44 Speaker 45 Speaker 41 Speaker 42

Speaker 45 Speaker 41 Speaker 42 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 44 Speaker 42 Speaker 43 Speaker 45 Speaker 44 Speaker 46 Speaker 47 Speaker 47 Speaker 48 Speaker 49 Speaker 51 Speaker 51 Speaker 52 Speaker 52 Speaker 52 Speaker 53 Speaker 54 Speaker 53 Speaker 54 Speaker 56 Speaker 56 Speaker 57 Speaker 57 in the middle of hurricane season. And both of these, the election and hurricane season and specifically recovery from Hurricane Helene in the southeast of the United States, are coming together as MAGA and Republicans and Trump are alleging that the Biden Harris response to the hurricane has been inadequate. And on the other hand, Biden, Harris are alleging that Donald Trump's priority when it comes to the hurricane is just a photo op, particularly since he has no power at this point anyway, and that he is interfering and making it all about himself.

Well, we'll explore this and see if we can figure out which situation comports with reality, although I'm guessing you probably know which side I fall on. Kamala Harris spoke yesterday, not in the southeast of the United States, but in Washington, D.C. And she explained kind of like the adult in the room that her or Biden's personal visits to the affected areas right now might actually interfere with emergency operations. Let's listen to what she had to say over the past 24 hours. I have spoken with Governor Kemp of Georgia, Governor Cooper of North Carolina and many local officials. I have shared with them that we will do everything in our power to help communities respond and recover. And I've shared with them that I plan to be on the ground as soon as possible, but as

soon as possible without disrupting any emergency response operations, because that must be the highest priority in the first order of business. This has taken on sort of a controversial tone. But the reason that at most you would have someone like Biden or Harris do a flyover of the affected areas is that when you put people like the president or the vice president on the ground in these areas, it starts to suck up law enforcement resources, first responder resources. It can create and generate traffic. It can prevent aid from getting to the people who most need it. It can interrupt utility services from working as quickly as they safely can to get water and electricity

restored, which is not currently available in some of the affected areas. I know that it's always popular to second guess and to say, well, what if it was a Republican rather than a Democrat? If it were Trump, you'd be saying, why didn't he go? The problem with Trump's responses to natural disasters when he was president were not that he did or didn't go. It was that he clearly didn't care. He slow walked aid.

He politicized aid. Oh, they're from the other party, but now they want my help. That was the problem. The problem was not about going or not going. But while we're on the subject, when Trump did go, he made it all about himself. Remember shooting the paper towels like free throws in Puerto Rico? We'll get to that later. So I know that there's a lot of comments online and people even writing to me, well, Kamala is too busy campaigning to even do a flyover. Do you really care about that? Just honestly ask yourself, do you really care about

that? I have friends right now in the affected areas who are struggling to charge their phones. They have no electricity. They have no water. They're trying to figure out how do we even get out because now the streets are a mess. Do you think they really care about whether Kamala Harris flies over their house? Now, if you said to me, well, Kamala flying over would get them help more quickly. Maybe we would have something to talk about, but there's no evidence of that whatsoever. So Kamala Harris saying we're on the phones, we're providing aid quickly, which, by the way, Trump's furious about that Republican governors. Oh, my goodness.

They're accepting aid and they're getting help. And he is. Meanwhile, Trump is putting on a clown show in Georgia, which we will get to in a moment. One other clip from Kamala Harris about the reaction to everyone who has been impacted by this storm and to all of those of you who are rightly feeling overwhelmed by the destruction and the loss. Our nation is with you. And President Biden and I and all of the folks behind me are with you. We will continue to do everything we can to help you recover and to help you rebuild no matter how long it takes. This is simple. This is leadership. It's not you know,

you're not going to read in the history books about the Hurricane Helene response from Biden Harris because they're just doing what's to be expected. They're not going, oh, well, it was extremely wet from the standpoint of water. And here's a hurricane map that I drew with a Sharpie on. And I'm going to set up a lectern and podium with bricks from a destroyed house, which Trump did. And you'll see in a moment, it's just we're going to get you the aid. I will go as soon as I can go without disrupting what's going on. We're with you. We're on the phone with the governors. We're getting you what you need. This is just leadership. That's what it is. In contrast, we have what Trump's been up to. And I want to devote a few minutes to that. We know that Donald Trump is

not good at hurricane response or any natural disaster response. I will call your attention to when Donald Trump went to Puerto Rico after a hurricane and participated in shooting paper towels into the crowd. We have video of it right now, like they are free throws, making a game of it, totally meaningless staged photo op, tying up traffic, tying up resources, first responders, all of this stuff. That was not a great response from Donald Trump. Well, what he's been doing in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene is arguably even more despicable. Trump went to do a photo op in Valdosta, Georgia, where there is as as of the moment when Trump

was there yesterday, there was no power. And he actually built a spot for his little speech seemingly out of bricks from a destroyed building behind him. We have a picture of that up for our audience to see. And he also told lie after lie after self aggrandizing, egomaniacal, self-centered lie. When Trump was asked, have you spoken with President Biden about the relief efforts? Here's what he had to say. Have you reached out to President Biden about federal relief efforts? No, I haven't reached out to him. No, I think he's sleeping right now.

I think he's sleeping right now. Being responsive, the federal government is not being responsive. They're having a very hard time getting the getting the president on the phone. He won't get on it. Of course, the vice president is out someplace campaigning. It sounds like he said he about the vice president, Kamala Harris and Trump, lying that governors can't get can't get on the phone with Biden, that this is not what the governors are saying. And we'll get to that. Looking for money.

So they got to be they have to be focused over here. This is a really bad one. And the governor is doing a good job and he's having a hard time getting the president on the phone. That is completely and totally untrue. It is completely and totally untrue. It is completely and totally untrue. And we will hear from the governor of Georgia a little bit later. As always is the case, Trump has to inject his ignorance about everything into these

conversations and Trump saying it's shocking that around October 1st, you would have such an event. Speaker 4 Georgia, as well as North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Alabama and Tennessee. That's a big one. And the devastation wrought by this storm is incredible. It's so extensive. Nobody thought this would be happening, especially now. It's so late in the season for the hurricanes. And of course, it is not late in the season for hurricanes. We are in the middle of the hurricane season, hurricane season, roughly June one to November 30. We're right in the middle. We're in the thick. We're in the phase, the part of the bell curve where you would most expect to see such extreme weather events. Trump has to add ignorance to insensitivity. Then Trump once again claims

and I believe this is a different this is this is from the speech, not from the press conference. Here's Trump again claiming that Governor Brian Kemp, Republican of Georgia, is unable to get on the phone with Biden. And you will then hear from Kemp saying that's actually not the case. Ideally, with the governor, that governor needs to he's been trying to get them and I'm sure they're going to come through. But he's been calling. The president hasn't been able to get him. But I just spoke.

The president just called me yesterday afternoon. I missed him and called him right back. And he just said, hey, what do you need? And I told him, you know, we we got what we need. We'll work through the federal process. He he offered that if there's other things we need just to call him directly, which I appreciate that. So there's Trump line.

Governor Kemp just can't get Biden on the phone. He must be sleeping, he said earlier. And then Kemp says, we have everything we need. I spoke to him. No urgent requests right now. And he said, call me any time if you need anything else. Trump then unclear how to sort of wrap up. He just says that it's all going to be good in the end.

The region, our hearts are with you and we are going to be with you as long as you need it. It's called an hour of need. You're in our prayers and we pray to God. And throughout this long weeks, the long weeks that lay ahead, you're going to have a lot of work. But the end result is it's going to be good. We just wish so many people weren't so badly hurt and in many cases, sadly, no longer with us. We love you we love everyone everyone i mean to be honest we love everyone and we'll be back and we'll be back again soon we'll continue to help

until you're bigger i say bigger better stronger than ever before but again you can't ever discount the fact that people are lost. A lot of people have been lost in this terrible, this terrible storm, this terrible hurricane. Yes. So Trump kind of stumbling around how to rap. And then finally, Franklin Graham was there for reasons that aren't completely obvious. I guess maybe his ministry is in Georgia. I'm not sure. Franklin Graham wraps up with a prayer for Trump's strength. Father, we ask for help. Father, we pray that.

As we come to this election, that your will be done. And so, Father, we pray for the president, strengthen him, protect him. By the way, I'm going to be totally honest when Franklin Graham says we pray for the president. I don't know if he's talking about the actual President Joe Biden or if he's referring to Trump who's standing behind him wearing a MAGA hat during the prayer. I actually don't know who he means, but I think he means Trump. Father, we thank you.

And as in Jesus name, we pray this prayer. Amen. Thank you. Please take away this guy's tax exemption. Damn it. Can't the IRS get involved here? OK, disaster, just total disaster, diverting resources. It's all about himself creating traffic, making this disgusting sort of lectern, a podium, rather wall. I don't even know what to call it out of bricks from a destroyed building. I mean, just every aspect of this is despicable. And meanwhile, he is lying about what Harris and Joe Biden are doing. So let's take a break after the break. Got to give him credit.

MSNBC and Fox calling Trump out for his lies about the hurricane response here just about 30 days out from the presidential election. Make sure you've preordered my forthcoming book, The Echo Machine at David Pakman dot com slash echo and make sure you've subscribed on YouTube at YouTube dot com slash The David Pakman Show. cappuccino. I put just one scoop of AG1 in a glass of water every morning. I get my vitamins, my minerals, my pre and probiotics and more just filling the nutritional gaps supporting my gut. AG1 contains prebiotics, probiotics and gut supporting ingredients just to support digestion, reduce bloating. In a recent research study, AG1 was shown to double the healthy bacteria in the gut. These healthy bacteria work together, break down

food and alleviate bloating, promote digestive regularity, aid in digestive comfort long term. AG1 is made with bioavailable ingredients that work with your body. And what good is a supplement The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. vitamin D3 K2 plus five free AG1 travel packs with your first subscription order at drink AG1 dot com slash Pacman. That's drink AG the number one dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. Are you having trouble sleeping or staying asleep? Sleep is one of the most important foundations of mental and physical health. And our sponsor beams formulation called Dream is a delicious nighttime hot cocoa

drink with melatonin clinically proven to help you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. Melatonin can also help correct circadian rhythm disturbances. Get your sleep schedule back on track, for example, in jet lag situations. Dream comes in great tasting flavors like mint chocolate chip, chocolate, peanut butter, sea salt caramel. I love the cinnamon cocoa version. No sugar added, sweetened with monk fruit, just 15 calories per serving. Dream hot cocoa is it's just a nice way to wind down before bed. It's hot and flavorful. It's not overly sweet.

It's a soothing way to relax about an hour before going to bed. Go try beams best selling dream powder and get 40 percent off for a limited time. the David Pakman Show at David Pakman Show is an audience supported program. We fund our show, a plurality of the dollars that we use to do what we do come from individuals who listen to the podcast, watch the YouTube channel, watch videos on Tick Tock, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, etc., who go to join Pakman dot com and get themselves a membership. You'll get an extra show every day called The Bonus Show. You'll also get commercial free audio or video versions of the show every day, whichever you prefer. Audio, video, both hours before the show is released publicly and a bunch of other great perks that you can read about at join Pacman dot com. Get the full David Pakman show experience and sign up at join Pacman dot com.

I have to hand it to both MSNBC and Fox News. What they both pointed out that Donald Trump is lying about the Biden Harris response to Hurricane Helene in the United States southeast. We already looked at the top of the show at Kamala Harris's statements about the hurricane and at Donald Trump's statements about the hurricane. Trump's were deranged, unhinged, self-centered and incredibly dishonest. And one of the things we saw yesterday was both left and right leaning networks, MSNBC and Fox, respectively, call out the things that Donald Trump is saying

that aren't true. Here's Garrett Hake on MSNBC saying that the things that Trump is is saying on truth central. Hold on. Where's my truth? Here is truth central. There you go. The things that Trump is saying on truth central about aid being denied to red parts of the states that it is all untrue. Let's listen. He had been saying on truth social that he believes Democrats, specifically the governor of North Carolina and the federal government, had been intentionally denying aid to Republican parts of the Tar Heel state. I asked him what, if any, evidence he had to back that up. You can see what he said here. I'm so hungry.

Democrats intentionally not getting aid to Republican areas. What was that in reference to? Governor Kemp did call. Where is that coming from? Biden did call Governor Kemp yesterday. Do you have any evidence for that, Mr. President? You gotta vote Trump, people. Very difficult to hear his response there on that clip, Katie, but his answer was, take a look.

Essentially, I've got nothing to show you right now. Go find it yourself. Another from the kind of Trump staple of responses when pressed on something like this, I tried to let me explain to you what Trump means when he says Biden Harris are denying aid to the red parts of the states or to red states. What Trump means is when I was president, my instinct was to try to deny aid to blue states and blue parts of states that didn't like me or didn't vote for me. That's what Trump means, even though Trump's evidence for Biden doing that is that it's what Trump did when he was president, because he's a disgusting actor when it comes to natural disaster recovery. There's no evidence that Biden Harris are doing that.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. Governors like Republican Governor of Georgia Brian Kemp said, I spoke to Biden on the phone. We're getting everything we need from the federal system. He told me to give him a call if I need anything else. It's if there's no complaint whatsoever from the Republican governor of Georgia about how Biden Harris are handling this response. But it is not only MSNBC that is fact checking Trump's lies about hurricane aid. Even Fox News fact check Donald Trump's claim that Brian Kemp can't get Biden on the phone. The federal government is not being responsive, but they're having a very hard time getting the getting the president on the phone. But Governor Brian Kemp said earlier that he did speak with President Biden yesterday

after initially missing his call. As of this morning, he said that he and Vice President Harris were playing phone tag. There you go. So even Fox News says, actually, that's not the case. Trump cannot stop lying or he will not stop lying or whatever. And every single story, there is no story too small or too big, whether people's lives are at stake or whether it's nothing other than the size of his crowds. There is nothing too big or small, meaningful or insignificant that gets Trump to just stick to the truth. And it's disgusting in every sense of the word. All right. What about

CNN? We talked about MSNBC fact checking Donald Trump on his lies about the hurricane response. We talked about Fox News fact checking Trump about his lies about hurricane response. We talked about Fox News fact checking Trump about his lies about hurricane response. What did CNN do after Trump's borderline criminally insane speech, if you can even call it that in Valdosta, Georgia, after Hurricane Helene? What CNN did is they tried to say and wash it. We are continuing to see disgusting, sane washing from CNN, where Trump. Remember, we started our eyes kind of perked up, our ears perked up, maybe both. When Trump delivered a so-called economic speech during which he sounded like he had a serious cognitive issue. CNN comes on and

goes Trump very direct and very steadfast in this policy speech. What did you did you watch the speech direct and steadfast? And the same washing on CNN continues. Here is CNN correspondent Kristen Holmes saying, oh, Trump is clearly taking all of this very seriously and offering a message of unity. He is clearly taking this seriously as a politician is on the ground trying to show that he is there in support of the people on the ground in Georgia. And of course, this comes as well. He is, again, offering a message of unity. He has spent the last several days slamming Kamala Harris, his rival, for not being on the ground, for not helping with this storm. And I do. He's offering a message of unity at his event in Georgia. He said he didn't speak to the president because Biden is probably sleeping. How on earth is that a message of unity?

You what is she talking about now? I know she did say, well, despite the message of unity, he's been attacking Kamala Harris for not being on the ground. This is treating the speech as though it was even one percent normal. It was treating the speech as if it was anything other than another disgusting and childish tirade from Donald Trump, who's all about me, me, me. Why isn't the attention on me here? Well, you're not the president.

You're lying about what the president is actually doing. And even red state governors are saying we're working with President Biden and getting what we need and working to get our states back up and running after this. Your presence is not required nor useful here. My words, not theirs. And CNN continues with the same. I don't know what's going on, but it's getting very bad, very, very bad on CNN. All right. Let's get to the bottom line about the hurricane and then we're going to move on. Donald Trump is at the end of the day, furious that Joe Biden delivered hurricane help quickly, something Trump failed to do with when dealing with natural disasters. And Joe Biden did not play politics

with it. Joe Biden just said, hey, these are red states, blue states, governor, blue, red senators. But doesn't matter. Governor Kemp, what do you need? Call me if you need anything. And Governor Kemp saying I heard from him. We're getting everything we need. Everything's fine. So here's what's going on. I'm going to show you a series of three articles that tells the really the whole story. NJ dot com has the headline Georgians get fast hurricane ed from aid from Biden and Harris, and it's driving Trump crazy. Georgia's Republican governor praised Joe Biden for reaching out to him in the wake of Hurricane Helene's deadly devastation.

Trump told a different story saying that Governor Kemp is having a hard time getting a hold of Joe Biden. That is, of course, not true. The article explains, as I explained to you, that Brian Kemp had no issue whatsoever getting a hold of Joe Biden. And Trump is very much not happy with that. Second part of the of the story, Trump accuses Biden of what he himself did withholding aid to storm victims. This is from HuffPost, which says the coup attempting criminal former president also accused Biden and Harris

of having left Americans to drown in the south. This is the second part of the story. First part of the story is Trump says they're not getting what they need down here. The governor says, actually, we are. Trump next moves to their withholding aid to storm victims for political reasons. Biden isn't sending aid to red areas or whatever the case may be. And as the article points out, this is what Trump himself did. And that's why it occurs to Trump that maybe it's something that Joe Biden would do, even though he won't, even though he won't. The article reminds us of how Donald Trump previously

slow walked aid in a number of different situations. I encourage you to read the article and it argues here that Trump's claims mirror his precise behavior when he withheld 20 billion in congressionally approved aid to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria in 2017 and also threatened to withhold federal assistance to California to deal with wildfires. The reason Trump is obsessively talking about aid being withheld for political reasons is that Trump withheld aid for political reasons. That's always his instinct.

And he assumes it must be happening now, even though it isn't. And then finally, because it's always like this with Republicans Newsweek reports, Matt Gaetz voted against FEMA funding right before Hurricane Helene struck. This is a trend with Republicans. I'll remind you, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is sort of the venue through which money for such federal national natural disasters rather is administered, distributed, etc. Matt Gaetz and many Republicans regularly vote against properly funding FEMA. And in fact, Matt Gaetz, Republican congressman, did so right before the hurricane.

Money for FEMA helps get aid more quickly to the people that need it. So it's basically a story of three parts. It's they're lying about what Biden Harris are doing. They're projecting their own political handling of natural disasters onto Biden Harris, even though Biden Harris are not handling this in a politicized way. And whenever they get the opportunity, they vote against properly funding FEMA, which would only help aid to the people who need it more quickly. That's what's on the ballot to a great degree in November. Do you want the non politicized? Let's get aid to people

quickly version of federal disaster response. That's what you get from Biden Harris. It's what we've had from Joe Biden. It's what you'll get from Kamala Harris. Or do you want to go back to Trump withholding aid and then showing up in Puerto Rico shooting paper towels like he's shooting basketball free throws. That's what's on the ballot, as is women's bodily autonomy, as is a respect for democracy, as is an economic program that works for more people, including the middle class. These things are all on the ballot in November, in addition to two likely Supreme Court picks. A lot at stake here. A lot at stake.

If you run a business or organization and want to get your brand out there or even just have your own DIY project, like maybe helping a political candidate spread their message, Printful is the perfect way to do it. Our sponsor, Printful is the world's number one on demand print and fulfillment service. Printful empowers your business or personal projects by giving you a huge range of high quality products, easy to use design tools and seamless integration with your online store. So Printful can ship directly to and the David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. shipping. You can get your design printed or embroidered on just about anything, clothing, coffee mugs, magnets, even unusual ones like dog collars and puzzles. And it is election season. So if you want to help get the word out about your favorite candidate, Printful is the perfect place to do it. Get your political message printed on T-shirts, posters, flags, bumper stickers.

The possibilities are endless. Get started at David Pakman dot com slash printful. The link is in the podcast notes. That's David Pakman dot com slash P.R.I.N.T. F.U.L. With elections right around the corner and MAGA willing to do anything to secure his win. I can't recommend enough using ground news to stay up to date on debates and other issues that right wing outlets will try to skew or ignore. Our longtime sponsor, Ground News, adds clarity to every news story by putting together a multitude of sources in one place. And you can compare coverage and decide for

yourself. Like this story, the DNC is suing the Georgia Election Board over Republican supported rules that allow local election boards to question and withhold election certification, potentially causing chaos after Election Day. The summary of this story on Ground News is based on every article Ground News found reporting on it. And with a simple scroll, you can see how different outlets across the political spectrum are framing the story.

Voter suppression is real. And in this case, the perpetrators are elected officials who can be voted out, but only if the public understands the story from every angle. And that's where ground news comes in. Go to ground dot news slash Pacman for 40 percent off the vantage plan I use for unlimited access to all their features. That's ground dot news slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome to the program today, Timothy Snyder, historian, also author of the very interesting new book on freedom. I really appreciate you being here and the chance to talk about this today.

Looking forward to it. You know, there's been an interesting reversal. We'll start with right now and kind of work backwards. There's been this very interesting reversal in the rhetoric around this presidential campaign where Kamala Harris has, I would argue, succeeded rhetorically where other Democrats have filled in terms of taking back the narrative around what sorts of policies are really about freedom and liberty. And one of the things you talk about in the book is the responsibility that comes with freedom and kind of the contrast between the view of freedom as about individual

rights versus a view of freedom that is more about the freedom of those in a society not to be bound by health insurance to a job they hate as an example of the broader type of freedom. Do you think that this contrast in views about freedom that in the US plays out between Democrats and Republicans is fundamentally about individual versus maybe we describe them as societal rights or how would you couch that contrast? So I don't think there's a contrast. That's where I would start. I think that you can't become an individual without other people.

And like, that's the baseline, right? So if you think you can become an individual on your own, imagine what would happen if you just left a child outside. And we all start as children. We all start as babies. Everybody needs other people to become free, making it more political. We're all vulnerable to stories and we're all vulnerable to manipulation. And the only people who can help us with that are people we trust.

If we don't trust anybody to criticize our views, then we are going to fall into somebody or other's authoritarian narrative. That's just the way it is. So given that you can't be a free individual without other people, then the question becomes what kind of relationships are best for creating a society of free individuals? And so that's where government comes in. We don't need to have a welfare state, I don't think, because of equality, although equality is important for other reasons. We need to have a welfare state so that everybody has a chance

to think, everybody has a chance to go on vacation, make friends, raise their families, that we all have a chance to become the kind of people we can become otherwise. So I would start it a different way. I don't think there's a clash between individual rights or social rights. I don't even know what social rights are. I do think I know what a free person is and a free person can only become so with the help of other people. And then the job of government becomes creating the conditions in which we can help one another to become free.

The language that's often used to discuss this issue varies depending on what one's maybe priorities or biases are. I'll now analogize to some other political issues and then maybe you can talk to us about the language around freedom. There are political issues where I believe the language from the right is much more obviously appealing. Like, for example, unburdening people from taxes. Taxes are definitionally a burden. They restrict us because at the end of the day, it's our money and someone's taking it.

The view on the left is not the opposite of that. It's well, taxes are supposed to be there because we believe that there are some minimum services that are best provided. We're already kind of in the weeds. We don't have a simple opposite to it's your money. That's it. Period. I'm curious whether you think that there's an advantage to conservatives and libertarians

with the language they use when they talk about freedom and liberty in contrast to how others might discuss it. Is the language part of maybe why Republicans have better convinced people over the last 20 years that freedom lies with their elected officials. Yeah, it's and it's all it's all a con and it's a good con. And the only way to deal with a good con is to think about the ideas and talk to people. So the con is, is that freedom is negative.

Freedom is just a matter of me doing what I want. And the only thing, the only possible problem would be a barrier. Like for example, a government that wants to take my money. And isn't that terrible, but that dodges the whole question because freedom is about who I really want to be and what I really care about and how I want to change the world. And so the moment that you say, well, freedom is just about bad government, then yeah, it's an easy, it's like an easy rhetorical victory, but it doesn't have anything to do with freedom. Like that's where, and that's where they have to lose. We can't have freedom without taxing rich people. It's just not possible. If you don't tax them, you're not going to have a free country. I mean, the, the history is a hundred percent on

one side of this question. If you let a few people get all the money and control all the wealth, you're not going to be in a free country. And one of the things that government is for is to make sure that the rich people get taxed. In America, it honestly doesn't really matter how much everybody else pays, right? That's another part of the scam. The real question is, are the oligarchs paying taxes? And the answer basically in one word is no. If they were, then the rest of us could have a lot of good stuff, which would lead to us being more free. So I think you have to start with it conceptually and say, well, being free is a matter of actually becoming yourself. And therefore it's cool to have healthcare. It's cool to have roads.

You're not gonna be very free without roads. It's cool to have clean water. It's cool to have clean air. It's cool to have a good public school for your kid because all those things make it possible for you to do the stuff you actually want to do and be the person you actually want to be. And for that, yeah, you have to pay some taxes. But what really has to happen is that the people who are telling you this story about taxes, those people really have to pay taxes. And if they did, they wouldn't notice the difference because they're so incredibly wealthy anyway. But you would because suddenly you'd be living in a world where we would all be a hell of

a lot freer. There have some of those stories that are told. For example, Senator Rand Paul has said that if you have health care for everybody, it's essentially a form of slavery to doctors. The individual doctor has lost their freedom if they are, in a sense, conscripted to have to provide people health care. Now, of course, this completely ignores that when we talk about providing everyone access to health care, we're not talking about forcing one doctor to treat any one patient or anything like

that. But the attempt he's making is to say the individual freedoms are challenged by the societal responsibility, which in the book, if I understand the book correctly, you argue is not actually a contrast. It's not actually a clash. How would we address such a seemingly appealing to some people argument from somebody like Rand Paul, who considers himself a libertarian? Yeah, I mean, libertarian, like if libertarianism really means that liberty is is the is the value

of values, then I'm a libertarian. But if you're going to really be a libertarian, that means you have to start with actual people and their actual lives. And actual people and their actual lives, they're all born and they all die and they all have health problems in the middle. And the health problems, as Jefferson and the founders and pretty much anybody with a head on their shoulders has recognized, are really, really inhibiting to freedom. So if you can create a world in which we are healthier, A, and less concerned about illness, B, you're creating a world in which we are all a lot more free. And frankly, this is palpable in countries which do have better health systems. It's palpable in places where you

can just walk in the door and get healthcare and you don't have to worry about pain. It's palpable in a country like Germany, where when the doctor says, I'm sorry, insurance doesn't cover this particular thing, you're going to have to pay 40 euros, right? That's a different world and people feel differently. And the way that difference is, what is that difference? It is freedom, man. That is freedom. If you're not worried about it, you are free. So what you're looking at isn't like a dumb story like Rand Paul's, which of course he doesn't believe in. But that story is an opportunity for us to imagine just how much more free we all could be if sources of anxiety and sources of illness were taken away

from us. We could live longer, richer, more relaxed, and therefore freer lives. As far as the individual doctors, there are plenty of cases around the world where healthcare is provided, and there are zero cases where doctors are made unfree by it, right? But there's a more fundamental thing here, which is that instead of thinking about weird abstractions, you have to start with thinking about what life is actually like, right? Because people like Rand Paul, like at the end of the day, they want you to think that freedom is not about people. They want you to think it's about the market. They want us to owe duties to the market, but we don't owe duties to the market. The market is an abstraction. We're a social creation. It's

not a person. We don't owe it any duties. We should organize the market so that we can be as free as possible. And it just so happens that that organization does not involve a situation in which investors are maximizing profits by monopolizing control of an ever smaller number of hospitals. That turns out to be a situation in which we're ever less free and live ever shorter lives. And once we know that, then we should act precisely in the name of freedom to make a better system. I'd love to get your thoughts a little bit on the role of populist rhetoric over the last 10 plus years in shaping or sometimes perverting some of these discussions. I recently interviewed Federico Finkelstein, and he has written a lot about populist rhetoric.

And one of the things I've talked about with my audience is that if you didn't know, for example, who Tucker Carlson and Bernie Sanders were, you could get a transcript of 60 percent of either of their speeches. And it would sound very similar in terms of the problem that they describe. You would then get to the other 40 percent, which might be how they would solve these problems or who they would blame for the problems. And all of a sudden you would have a very big contrast. And so it seems to me that part of what has.

Pulled in people to this populist rhetoric recently is that they really identify with some of what the problem is. But then all of a sudden they end up supporting folks where the solutions proposed are completely antithetical to the sorts of solutions they believe in. Do you think that that's accurate? Is there a lack of distinction in some sense between the rhetoric of populism, regardless of left right? And then how do you think it's shaped discussions of this issue that you talk about in the book

Freedom? I mean, as I'm listening to you, I'm imagining Bernie Sanders interviewing Vladimir Putin, and I can't help but think that like more than 60 percent of that would have been different had that. Yes, the interview would be different. I'm talking more the rhetoric about it. I know the middle. OK, yeah, yeah. I mean, I'm like I'm a Russianist and like that wonderful counterfactual has now conquered my mind.

Yeah, no, that's that would be different. That would. But so I'm going to start with populism. Yeah, because I don't really know what it means. I don't really know what it means. I think I I think that a lot of like. Populism or maybe I'll just make your distinction in a different way like I think populists historically were people who said that government could do stuff for you

um which I think is a reasonable view I think that where you know our Tucker Carlson's and our Donald Trump's and our J.D. Vance's Vance is actually the best example their view is that government is here in order not to do anything. Like government is helpless. What Vance offers is a kind of deliberate politics of impotence where we can't do anything. The only thing that can be done is for you to get angry at one another. And then that becomes a substitute or a new form, I would say, of politics. I wouldn't use populism here. I would use fascism. I think you have to use the big words that actually get some purchase on reality. The people who want to do away with

government, except for government for their cronies and very rich people, and imagine that when in government, what they're going to do is get us to fight each other. And I mean that in a literal sense, like bloody violent fights. Those people are the fascists. And I think those people are different from the people who say, we all suffering, we could all do something about it together. So I've never made it through a Tucker Carlson transcript, so I can't really judge what you're saying. But I think there's a bit like the notion that something is wrong is, of course, correct. From my point of view, what's wrong is that we're headed towards we're headed towards a global hydrocarbon driven climate disaster, which is accelerated by incredible concentration

of wealth in a few hands and from which we are distracted by a very distorted social media setup in which we spend seven hours a day in front of screens learning stuff basically which isn't true. I think there are overall structures which are wrong. And then there's a question of how do you diagnose that? I would diagnose it positively in terms of a lack of freedom. And I think the way that you argue for how government can change those things is in terms of freedom, right? So going back to your earlier question about the kind of libertarian trap, the negative definition of freedom says, yes, there are problems, but the problems are fundamentally government. Or when you can't say that anymore, you say it's your immigrant neighbor, right? Whereas a positive definition of freedom says, hey, we can actually make things better.

We know what's better and we can use government to make things better. We can regulate social media. We can break up social media companies. We can you know, we can we can we can we can solve problems with government. And as a result, we end up more free. So those are the distinctions that I would make. But please feel free to press me further if I'm missing something important. No, no. I think you've you've addressed the main points of it. You also you mentioned the social media component of this. And I do want to drill down into that a little bit. Can how do you qualify exactly what it is about social media that's exacerbating this

problem? Because there's the view that it's the the format predisposes us to conflict over the five percent on which we disagree rather than the ninety five where we agree or the algorithms are the problem because they reward extreme views. And this shapes the Overton window or fill in the blanks. Right. There's all these different interpretations. What is it about social media that you think aggravates this problem?

Well, number one, it's dead and it's not alive. So I think we become we become freedom with the help of other people, other living people. We become freedom when we're we're challenged by their presence or we're interested by their ideas or we're attracted by their quirks or whatever it might be. That's how we become free is in the intersection between like the things that you actually care about and I actually care about. And then we have a conversation or whatever it might be. Where social media is dead. It's not alive. It's not, it's not another person. That's, that's for me is the fundamental thing that it's not alive. It's dead. And, and then the second thing would be, it's an educational choice.

So if we're spending, you know, seven hours a day in front of social media, that is seven hours a day we're not spending with real people or staring at trees or reading books or petting cats or whatever other interaction we might have, right? Like there's this huge opportunity cost of other interactions. And I think those things come before what you asked, which is how exactly does it us, and away from the thoughtful consideration, self-control, choose values parts of us. And it's designed to do that. It's based on behavioralist experiments, which demonstrate how humans and other animals can be driven towards fight or flight, which is you give us things that we like, and then you interrupt it with

things that we're afraid of, and then we like, and then afraid of. And that draws people in for whatever reason. And it changes them. It makes people more like that. It makes them, it reinforces a certain way of being human, which is conflictual and which is less capable of picking up on nuance and fact and being interested in difference. So for me, that would be, that would be the main, that would be the main thing. And it is, it's a big deal because the profit lines up with the behavioralism, lines up with the with with the with the authoritarianism or with the training of people to be authoritarian. How would you regulate social media platforms? Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has put a big focus on the the platform needs to know who you really are.

It doesn't mean you can't post under a handle, for example, that's not your name, but you shouldn't be anonymous completely so that there is some connection to responsibility. You're not just going to drive by and do horrible things. And if that was the case with everybody, it wouldn't fix everything. But that's like a specific thing that could be done to improve circumstances. What ideas do you have? I mean, I respectfully, I think that's good, but it's a little bit like picking the litter up from the lawn when the asteroid is about to destroy the earth. Um, it like you need some collective effort to destroy that asteroid.

It's not, it's not a kind of like picking up litter type problem. So that would be, I think I agree with that, but the 99.999% of the anonymous traffic on the internet is not Joe Schmo in, in, in, in Sioux city using a pseudonym. It's a billionaire, it's billionaires with, you know, using engines to drive this stuff out. Right. And so it's, it would be nice if, if Joe Schmo used his real name his real name, which happens to be whatever. I don't want to implicate any real people by using names. But it would be nice if people use their real names. But the real problem is centralized. And so the real problem can only admit of a centralized solution. I would start with the question of, does social media have to exist in the form that it does? I don't think it does.

We did just fine without it. In fact, we lived longer, happier, freer, better informed, more intelligent lives before it existed. And so I think that one should kind of start the question there rather than thinking of social media as like gravity. If you want to use a less radical analogy, one could think, well, what about the book and the printing press? The printing press almost tore us apart. A third of the people who lived in Europe died in a fairly direct series of events as a result of the printing press before we got to the book and copyright and all of that. So if it has to exist, let's imagine it existing in a form which is calming and which is useful and try to get to that form. But the third thing, and maybe the most important

thing, is that it's not enough to regulate social media. We have to have the others. We have to actually have positive sources of factuality. So social media trains us into believing the stories which make us comfortable. And those stories don't really depend on facts in the world. And meanwhile, social media has sucked up the advertising revenue, which used to keep local newspapers going. And the result is that most people, I mean, most counties in America are now news deserts. Most of the territory in the U. What kind of regulatory setup, what sort of incentives would there have to be so that the whole country is reported? So that there are facts, basic facts, like facts about whether the water is polluted or whether the city councilman is corrupt. Those kinds of things, because those are the things that people need. They need that more than national

news. They need that more than they need international news. They need it more than they need social media conspiracy theories. They need this sort of grounding. So the main thing for me would be to like to have some kind of mass rehabilitation of journalism, a bailout, right? Like we bailed out the banks and we're still paying for it. If we bailed out the journalists, the cost would be tiny compared to that. And the benefits would be tremendous. So that's a that's a start. In I have a couple of chapters in my forthcoming book about critical thinking and media literacy as sort of antidotes to this. There's a really in that I cite a study by Pew where they had people simply say this statement that you're putting in front of me is an opinion or it's a fact, right? Not evaluate the truth of the fact.

Just simply are we talking about the category opinions or are we talking about the category facts? Republicans did worse than Democrats, but neither did particularly well and wrongly assessed opinions, a statement of fact and and vice versa. And it seems that at the educational level, we have a problem. I recently saw a video of critic of media literacy class in Finland in Spanish. OK, so we're two layers here where they've learned Spanish in the classroom to a degree that they can discuss media literacy in that language. It's mind blowing if you see what what isn't happening in fifth and sixth grade

classrooms here that should be. And it seems that that's a higher order problem than Twitter's algorithm. It's yeah, it's all I think it's I do think it's all related, though. I mean, it's like when I think of the Finns, like they they benefit from that because in the real like it's this is a real world issue. So Finns who go through the real, like, this is a real world issue. So Finns who go through the Finnish educational system, they do much better. I mean, I just know this, like, as somebody who works on Eastern Europe. They do much better with the mess of disinformation around critical issues like the Russo-Ukrainian war than the rest of us do. But, I mean, it bears, I mean, a simple way these things overlap is screens in the classroom. Why do we do it? Why did we do that exactly? The people who invented social media went to schools without screens in general. And in general, almost to a person, they keep their kids out of schools with screens and send their own kids to schools without screens. So why is it that we think that moving screens into schools was a good idea? Or maybe like, if you don't want to be so radical, why wouldn't we limit screens in schools to say computer programming class so that it's about the person gaining mastery over

a thing rather than the thing gaining mastery over the person? We've let ourselves slip into this world where it just seems normal that there would be a screen everywhere um and uh and and we had we have to fight our way out i mean as a you know like i i'm a university teacher and so like i see that i i don't and i'm in a very privileged position but i see the difference every year and you have to fight more and more to kind of create a little monastery type situation around your students so that they can actually learn and this it goes to an even deeper thing which is what freedom is because if you just think freedom is negative like it's just around your students so that they can actually learn. And this, it goes to an even deeper thing, which is what freedom is. Because if you just think freedom is negative, like it's just a matter of me, like doing what I feel like in the moment, then staring at the screen for 24 hours a day and

just kind of being bounced around emotionally or neurologically, that's freedom because you're following your impulses the whole time. Reflecting, criticizing yourself, having independent, unpredictable reactions to things. That's freedom. But you can't get that just by following your impulses. You can only get it from friends, family, education, other types of experiences, which then have to be consciously built into early life. So I'm kind of circling back to your point on education. We've been speaking with Timothy Snyder. The new book is on freedom. I really appreciate your time today and your insights and really appreciate the book as well. Thanks for saying so. you stopped putting smoke and vape oils in your lungs. Zippix toothpicks are a convenient way to

curb the nicotine cravings. Zippix toothpicks are super discreet. You can use them anytime, anywhere. Smoking and vaping aren't allowed, including flights, sporting events in restaurants. They're available in six different flavors with options of two and three milligrams of nicotine. If you're not a nicotine user, Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 infused toothpicks. Zipix has already helped tens of thousands of customers ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vapes. They might be able to help you, too. If you're a smoker or a vapor, give Zippix toothpicks a try. Your lungs will thank you. Go to Zippix toothpicks dot com today. Save 10 percent with the code Pacman 10 at checkout. Just remember, you must be 21 or older to order. That's ZIPPIX toothpicks dot com. Use promo code Pacman 10 at checkout for 10 percent off.

That's Pacman 1 0. The info is in the podcast notes. I hope that you will join me tonight for the vice presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walls. I believe the most anticipated vice presidential debate certainly that I can remember covering. Now, I also want to let you know that Donald Trump is preparing Maga. Donald Trump is preparing his base. Donald Trump is preparing himself and Fox Fox News as well for J.D. Vance to completely

bomb tonight and get completely and totally destroyed. How do I know this? Well, because he's telling Kellyanne Conway during a very strange Fox Nation interview that it's all stacked against him. It's all unfair. It's rigged, just like the debates with Kamala Harris would have been rigged if he had agreed to more. He is preparing everyone so that when they see J.D. Vance get crushed, they say, well, it was because of the moderators

or it was because of something that has nothing to do with the actual substance. Here's what he had to say. And I just believe when you see the end of that debate, are you going to let that be the last word of presidential debates of this season and of your career? Are you going to want one more? I would love to have two or three more debates. I like it. I enjoy it. By the way. None of us believe that he got brutalized in that debate. I would love to have two or three more. He's being hyperbolic. He's going too far.

We have 30 days until the election, two or three more debates. Just one more. What we want is one more debate. And he's scared because it went so horribly wrong to have two or three more debates. I like it. I enjoy it. But they're so rigged and so stacked. You'll see it tomorrow with J.D. It'll be stacked. Yeah, it's going to be a stacked debate against J.D. tomorrow. Trump is preparing MAGA for J.D. Vance to fail so humiliatingly tonight and or and or setting expectations low. So if he survives without making a complete fool of

himself, I am J.D. Vance and I am a member of Homo sapiens and women have biological processes that give them value. Right. If he just can stay at five percent during this thing, he's setting expectations zero so that you go, hey, I don't know. He did pretty well. He did it. I was expecting zero and he did five. This is all nonsense.

Now, the rules are quite fair. I want to take just to prepare everybody a quick look at the rules. This is from CBS, who's hosting the debate. Both candidates agreed it will be 90 minutes to four minute commercial breaks during the breaks. Campaign staff are not allowed to interact with the candidates during the breaks. I don't know how they police that, but I assume that they do. There will be no audience.

The moderators will introduce the candidates in order of incumbent party. So walls will be first. There will be no opening statements. Walls will stand on the left side of the stage. And that means that it will be on the right side of the screen. That's interesting that they say it that way. So looking out by the candidates, walls will be on the left, but that on our screen will be on the right. Vance will be at a podium on the right of the stage,

meaning the left of the screen. OK, there's probably a simple, simpler way to explain that candidates cannot bring prewritten notes nor props. They will have two minutes to answer questions and two minutes to respond. One minute for rebuttals. And there could be additional time at moderator's discretion. I still say that this is not a format that lends itself to deeper discussion. But I have to tell you, two minutes and two minutes is better than what we've seen. We've seen at a lot of these debates, 90 seconds each or 90 seconds for the main person responding and then 60 seconds for the response. That's not good.

You're not going to get anything out of them. And the other thing I like about two minutes is that you actually saw in the Trump Harris debate that Trump was running out of things to say. And this is because on a lot of issues, Trump can only go one talking point deep. It's a trash talking point. It's a it's a horrible talking point, barely functional, but he only has one talking point on a lot of these issues. He's got 30 seconds, maybe 45.

If you give him two minutes, he's either going to have to fill time with nonsense or he's going to start not using all of his time and then being asked, you still have 30 seconds left. You want to say more? My hope is that the same thing happens to J.D. Vance when he's given two minutes. He'll only have a minute of nonsense to spout and that it will be even even clearer, even more clear that he doesn't really have anything. Anything else here that I want to go over? Candidates microphones will not be muted when their opponent is speaking. But CBS News reserves the right to turn off microphones. Vance won a virtual coin toss. He's going to go second with his closing statement. Closing statements will be two minutes. Candidates will not have topics or questions. But of course, of course, we I believe know that there will be questions about economic issues, presumably inflation, something about

foreign policy, something about bodily autonomy. You can kind of predict what there's going to be. So Trump preparing his followers for J.D. to fail now. Hilariously, last night, I don't know if this was before or after her interview with Trump, probably after Kellyanne Conway hilariously appeared on Fox News and said she expects J.D. Walls to win the debate. So I have high expectations for J.D. Waltz tomorrow.

Yes. The winner tonight is likely to be J.D. Walls. Why can't they get J.D. V tomorrow. Yes. The winner tonight is likely to be J.D. Wells. Why can't they get J.D. Vance's name right? We've endorsed J.P. right. J.D. Mandel. Trump also mentioning during this odd interview with Kellyanne Conway that women love what he did with Roe v. Wade. And so the women thing, I did a great thing long term. And I think I think they'll understand on the Roe v. Wade. I did a great thing long term.

And I think I think they'll understand on the Roe v. Wade. I did a great thing. OK, most women and most Americans do not agree with that at all. In fact, there was more support for the framework established by Roe v. Wade and abortion usually being legal in the United States. There was more support for that than at any time in history when Trump's three Supreme Court justices move the needle enough to be able to overturn Roe v. Wade. And remember, if Trump's president, he'll probably get two more Supreme Court picks. And then finally, Donald Trump saying Maga is really great. Maga is just awesome that this happens.

I have a lot of enemies because I'm doing the right thing. This Maga is a great thing because it says it better than anything anybody can say. I want to make America great again. And that's what we're doing. We have more support, I think, than anybody's ever had. And I think we're going to have a great election. Well, there you go. So Trump saying, why is anybody coming after Maga?

Maga is an absolutely great thing. Trump is lowering expectations for J.D. and preparing you for him to fail bigly. Kamala Harris has made history on the critical issue of cannabis legalization, and Donald Trump doesn't know how to handle it. And he is crashing out. Kamala Harris is running now to Joe Biden's left on cannabis. Joe Biden expressing support for decriminalization. Kamala Harris is now straight up saying we should legalize. This is the furthest left major party nominee when it comes to cannabis ever.

You might not like it. You might not think she'll get it done. You might claim she flip flopped and she did change her opinion. And I will talk about that in a moment. But this is Kamala Harris staking out the furthest left position on this issue we've ever seen. Oh, cannabis. Your views on cannabis. I just feel strongly people should not be going to jail for smoking weed. taking out the furthest left position on this issue we've ever seen. Oh, cannabis?

I just feel strongly people should not be going to jail for smoking weed. And we know historically what that has meant and who has gone to jail. Second, I just think we have come to a point where we have to understand that we need to legalize it and stop criminalizing this behavior. And so and I've actually this is not a new position for me. I have felt for a long time we need to legalize it. So that's where I am on that now. What does it mean that she has felt this for a long time? It is absolutely true that there are videos of her being asked, what about legalization?

And she said, no, no, no, no, I don't agree with that. And she is getting attacked because she used to have a different position. But she did ultimately come to the correct position. This is like the people who said during President Obama's presidency, at one point he was against legal gay marriage. Yeah, that's true. At one point he was against legal gay marriage and he eventually came around to the right position, in particular at a time where his opinion mattered the most. So I'm with you that Kamala Harris had the wrong view on this issue

at one point. I mean, yeah, that's true. And she did change her position. But if she hadn't changed her position, the very same people would think she's against legalization. Well, do you want her to continue having the wrong position so that you attack her for that? Or do you want her to change her mind to the correct position? And then you attack her for changing her mind. Her position right now as the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 2024 is she supports the legalization of cannabis.

We have never had a major party nominee with that position. Now Trump is desperate to jump into this. He realizes it's potentially yet another winning issue for Kamala Harris, especially among young people. And so he posted the truth social with regard to an amendment in Florida, quote, as I have previously stated, I believe it is time to end needless arrests and incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use. We must also implement smart regulations while providing access for adults to safe tested product. As a Floridian, I will be voting yes on Amendment three this November.

As president, we will continue to focus on research to unlock the medical uses of marijuana to a schedule three drug and work with Congress to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies and supporting states rights to pass common sense laws, including safe banking for state authorized companies and supporting states rights to pass marijuana laws like in Florida that work so well for their citizens. So Trump is jumping in and saying we're going to fix a lot of the littler problems. I'm not for federal legalization, but I want to respect states who decide that that's what they want to do. Now, obviously, Trump didn't write this statement. We know that when Trump writes true social statements, they are mostly caps, random capital letters, exclamation points all over the place and usually ad hominems

and personal attacks. So Trump posted this, but someone else wrote it for him. But even Trump now is being pushed to the left by the fact that Harris is saying I'm for legalization, period. I think that this is a great thing. She's come around to the right position and we will see where it lands if she gets that opportunity on today's bonus show. We are going to talk about which polling can you trust? Many people write to me whenever I talk about polls and they say, David, how dare you cite this poll when this poll is such a problem? You should only ever cite that other poll. We're going to talk about various polling paradigms and what can be, quote, trusted.

We will discuss Rudy Giuliani's daughter voting for Kamala Harris in November. But not only that, saying that she mourns the loss of her dad to Trump ism. Very scary and sad stuff. And finally, Republicans are now making it clear they believe Trump's campaign ground game is broken. It is just functionally not working. Of course, they're right. But what took them so long to figure it out?