The David Pakman Show - 10/9/23: GOP primary is almost over, top staffers become trial witnesses (CLASSIC EPISODE FROM 8/8/23)

Episode Date: October 9, 2023

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' DAY / CLASSIC EPISODE FROM AUGUST 8, 2023 -- On the Show: -- Julia Keller, author of the book "Quitting: A Life Strategy: The Myth of Perseverance," joins David to discuss the history of quitting, social connotations, when quitting is the right thing to do, and much more. Get the book: https://amzn.to/44XCTvm -- The 2024 Republican primary remains all Donald Trump, as Ron DeSantis loses support, the Vivek Ramaswamy surge appears to have ended, and other candidates are failing -- Many viewers believe Donald Trump has absolutely no chance of being President again, and we examine the claims -- The top former staffer of Donald Trump might end up being the most important witnesses against him in his criminal trials -- Thrice-indicted Donald Trump may have landed himself in jail with his recent attacks on prosecutors and witnesses -- Donald Trump and his legal team want his latest criminal trial moved from Washington DC to West Virginia for a more "diverse" jury, despite WV being 92% white -- Radical Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says that the indictments of Donald Trump prove that Joe Biden's "regime" is communist -- Fox News host Brian Kilmeade doesn't like it when co-host Steve Doocy tells the truth about Donald Trump's latest indictment -- Shockingly, David's critical thinking book for kids has now sold nearly 10,000 copies -- On the Bonus Show: The upcoming website redesign, upcoming guest hosts, the future of the show, and much more 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 🛌 Go to https://helixsleep.com/pakman & use code HELIXPARTNER20 for 20% OFF + 2 free pillows ☕ Beam melatonin hot cocoa: Get up to 40% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://shopbeam.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Hey, this is David Pakman inviting you to enjoy a classic episode of The David Pakman Show today. We will return with new increasingly seems like the inevitability of Donald Trump winning the Republican primary. We're going to go through some of the stories that have been told about the path that Vivek Ramaswamy has to the nomination or the path that Ron DeSantis has to the nomination. And I think in looking at the numbers, you will come to the conclusion I have come to, which is that none of those storylines really seem to connect

to reality in any kind of serious way. First and foremost, the DeSantis campaign is rapidly collapsing. In fact, he recently did an event in Iowa and the pictures show an almost empty room. It's truly pathetic. There's a Newsweek article that we are going to link to. And as you scroll down the article, you get to these images and it's it's really bizarre stuff. I mean, you just look at what's going on and it looks like some kind of a school wrestling gym or something or no, it's it's a livestock auction building. It looked like a school wrestling gym or something or no, it's it's a livestock auction building.

It looked like a school wrestling building. In any case, there is almost no one there. DeSantis is talking to like 15 people. And I know some will write to me and say, David, early in the campaign, sometimes you only talk to 15 people or whatever the case may be. These events are pathetic and they're humiliating. He's lost more than 40 percent of his primary support. And so the DeSantis campaign really doesn't seem like it's the one that is soon to dominate.

And if you look at the latest numbers, DeSantis is now down to 15 percent, 15 percent. He was at 30. He has now lost half of his support. So the dissent, this story doesn't seem to be going very far. We then have the Vivek Ramaswamy surge story. That story was one in which Ramaswamy announced and came out at one point three percent. And then suddenly, more recently recently he was at six. He is at six. And it is absolutely the case that Rama Swami has roughly quadrupled his support.

And that is significant. He is now in third place with Mike Pence about a point behind. However, there is the question of what is Vivek's path to something that would approach a winning trajectory. And it's hard to find that as well. If we look at some of the early voting states, we look at South Carolina, for example, you see that Vivek Ramaswamy is polling two in South Carolina. That's an early primary. I don't know how to in South Carolina sets you up for anything significant. We look at New Hampshire, another early primary, and most recently, Rama Swamy is in fifth place.

There was the idea that New Hampshire is where Vivek or maybe even Chris Christie will make a stand. Chris Christie is tied for third with eight and then Vivek Ramaswamy in fifth place with six. Also not really a show of strength there. And then lastly, we have the early primary state of Nevada. We have a new national research poll from just about a week and a half ago. And that has Trump 52, DeSantimonious 22, Christie three, Haley three and Ramaswamy at two in fifth place. So we don't see any suggestion

right now that anybody but Trump has a shot at this thing. And so the question we then arrive at is, could what could happen that would really shake this up? Well, Trump could get indicted again and get pulled off the campaign trail. I mean, I've said this so many times. Even that, I don't know, would actually hurt Trump that much in the primary. Many Trump supporters seem almost defiantly emboldened by every one of Trump's alleged crimes. And they see it all as Trump's the victim and he must be defended and protected and all these sorts of things. So I don't know that that is really going to hurt Trump. What about someone else's performance? Could dissent this be so charismatic and

erudite at the first debate that Trump supporters just flock to DeSantis? DeSantis, if DeSantis is counting on charisma, then that's not really going to work. Could Vivek Ramaswamy perform so well at the debate that he gains a ton of support? Listen, Ramaswamy has more headroom in the sense that he's only at six. So Ramaswamy could perform well enough to double his support to 12, taking a point here, a point there. He would then build some momentum. How 12 gets him any states? I still don't know. So we want to be realistic about the fact that it's only August of 2023, that if you look back at prior primaries, often it happens that the winner in August of the

year before is not eventually the nominee. But we have some particular circumstances, unique circumstances this time around. A former president is a recent former president is leading. The other candidates seem to have no plausible even argument that is resonating with voters for why you should support them. So we should be realistic. It's not looking good for anybody but Trump. We then should discuss what about the general election? That's where I want to go next. I'm getting more and more emails from people saying, David, you're not so naive

that you really think Trump has a shot at defeating Joe Biden, are you you you're not that naive, are you? Let me give you some context. In 2016, two weeks before the election, a week before the election, I looked at the map and I said Trump has no path to this, not to this victory against Hillary Clinton. And I was wrong in 2020. I said Trump can win. He could get himself reelected. We all must vote. And I got some emails from viewers saying, David, you're being alarmist. You're understating Biden's chances.

Biden's got this thing wrapped up. Now, at the end of the day, Joe Biden did win in 2020 by many millions of votes in the popular vote. But we have an electoral college in the United States and it came down to about 100000 votes or even less in the Electoral College. So my concern in 2020 that every one vote was very much backed in reality. Now we get to 2024. I do think it's a personal opinion. I do think there's a real chance that Trump will be the Republican nominee and will be blown out of the water by Joe Biden. I'm talking about an absolute drubbing. Now it's important to mention before I go any further in my analysis, I am making a

political analysis, but then we have to vote as if this is not what I think. No one should be dissuaded from voting because of what I'm about to tell you. Let's discuss. You look at polling and it certainly seems really tight. You look at says the Michigan poll, but we'll start with the general election polls. You look at insider advantage and it's Biden 45, Trump 44. That is super tight. You look at morning consult and it's Biden 44, Trump 41. You look at morning consult and it's Biden 44, Trump 41. You look at all of these different polls and it's super tight. Maybe Biden's winning, but it's only a few points. But what do all of these polls have in common?

Trump plus Biden polling adds up to way less than 100. Some of these polls you add up the Biden and Trump support and it's missing 16 percent of the vote, 16 percent that would be decisive if it mostly went to one candidate or the other. And if you look at the details of these polls, that missing vote, that 12, 14, 16 percent, that's not for Biden and it's not for Trump. It's a combination of I plan to vote for someone else or I don't know. As we get closer to the election in November of twenty twenty four, that's going to diminish some of the I'm going to vote for someone else aren't actually going to vote for someone else if it's close. Some of the I don't know will know. And my belief is that much of the missing vote is not going to go to people who will ultimately

vote for Donald Trump. And this really gets to what if you say, David, put aside being careful because we need people to vote. Just tell us the way you really see it. The degree to which Trump on the ballot will inspire Democrats to come out and vote in record numbers to make sure that the multi indicted former president doesn't become president again should not be understated. I believe that if Trump is the Republican nominee, you may see historic record turnout as a percentage of the electorate

for Democrats. I believe it may be like something we have not seen in decades in the United States. If Trump has three, four or five cases against him and the polling seems close with a likely voter model in October of twenty twenty four, I believe that Democrats will see that and they will say, oh, hell no, no, no, no, no. Not again. Not this time. And that you will see explosive turnout from Democrats. So on a personal level, I think that if it is Biden versus Trump, Biden crushes Trump in a way not even remotely reflected in the polling. If you look at the polling today, but that's not how we plan our approach or our individual voting decisions. We must get out the vote. We must make sure people know the importance of voting because the risk is too high. The risk

is too high of Trump getting back in and getting more Supreme Court picks. Can you imagine? So, yeah, I'm not so naive that I don't see the writing on the wall. Joe Biden might have an incredible victory over Donald Trump that will be historic in nature and it will be the final chapter in Trump's political life. At the same time, we don't know that and things can change. And my opinion today may not be my opinion in six or 12 months. And so we all must vote. Let me know what you think about my thoughts on this. If I'm honest with you, right, we're going to go back to folks. Everybody must vote. If you don't vote, you're basically saying to a Trump is you get a free vote. I'm not even going to try to challenge.

OK, we're going to go back to that. But if I'm honest, this is the way I see it. Let me know what you think. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. Help us get to the two million. We'll take a quick break and be right back. One of our sponsors today is Zippix nicotine toothpicks. Zippix brings you a convenient alternative to smoking and vaping and the vape clouds, the ashtrays, the thing in your lip that people can see. I've seen that around. This is an easier and less messy way to curb the cravings. And you can use Zypix just about anywhere. Zypix is available in six flavors with two or three milligrams strength. The nicotine and the flavor are long lasting and ZypX has helped countless people kick the bad habits

and they are bad habits. ZipX toothpicks are FDA registered. Their customer service is second to none. It is one of the most cost effective alternatives. Also check out their B12 and caffeine toothpicks. See for yourself why so many people have switched to Zipix toothpicks. You can only get Zipix online. Quitting has never been easier with Zipix nicotine toothpicks. Go to Zipix dot com. Get 10 percent off with the code Pacman 10 at checkout. That's ZIPPX dot com. Use code Pacman one zero for 10 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Stop letting government and streaming sites control what you can and can't access online. The solution is using a VPN.

Our sponsor, Private Internet Access, is the only VPN that's proven multiple times in court that they are not logging your Internet activity. Something else that makes private Internet access unique is usability. It is lightning fast for streaming and for downloads. You won't have the lags you get with many other VPNs. Private Internet access also works with all major movie and TV streaming platforms, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon. You can change your country to access content not normally available in your country. Super useful for certain sporting events. Awesome Thank you so much, David. use the David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. David, the link is in the podcast notes. There's an absolutely delightful and awkward reality that we are currently exploring, which is that some of failed former President Donald Trump's top staffers may indeed end up being the top witnesses against him, the most devastating witnesses against him in one or many of his

upcoming clinical clinical trials, criminal trials that there should be. By the way, we probably should have some clinical trials as well. But we're sticking here with criminal trials that Trump is going to be involved in. Let me kind of weave the story for you. One of the things that many have noticed about the indictment so far, interviews, witness lists, unindicted co-conspirators and the like, is that there are certain names missing from those lists.

Certainly Trump's own son in law, Jared Kushner, who was so involved with almost everything Trump did, is essentially nonexistent in any of these documents, which raises questions about what's the story with that. But that's a family member by marriage anyway. How much that matters to Trump, we don't know. But what about the name Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's last chief of staff, who was there front and center for January six for trying to steal the election, for trying to get the 11000 votes?

Give me a break. Mark Meadows name is conspicuously missing, particularly from the third overall second federal indictment against Donald Trump. And this is naturally leading to questions about whether Mark Meadows has flipped, whether Mark Meadows is cooperating, whether when it comes to the time for the trial, Mark Meadows himself is going to end up testifying against Trump. I found along these lines a very interesting Washington Post article, Awkwardness in Trump's Circle. This is from over the weekend. Top aides could be trial witnesses.

This is a Washington Post piece by Isaac Arnsdorf and Josh Dossi. And it explains at least seven currently serving advisers to former President Trump took actions that are mentioned prominently in one of his three criminal indictments or have been interviewed by prosecutors, potentially setting up an uncomfortable situation in which they are working for his 2024 presidential campaign while also serving as witnesses at one of his upcoming trials. There's a whole list of folks. This includes Walt Nauda, the close personal aide to Trump, who's a co-defendant in the first federal indictment and a whole bunch of other people.

But there's another layer to this, which is even people that aren't currently working for Donald Trump, but that at one point did, they also may end up figuring prominently in Trump's upcoming criminal trials. Reuters reports Mike Pence does not rule out being a witness for Trump's prosecution. William Barr was asked, would you testify? And although it wasn't completely clear whether Barr would testify in Trump's defense or for the prosecution, although different people who saw that had different opinions, William Barr said, although he doesn't want to get involved because he has, quote, better things to do, he, of course, would show up if indeed he was asked to testify. So this is an extraordinarily contentious moment for the failed former president.

And you truly may have a situation where, you know, we we've said for a long time, Trump doesn't really have friends in the way that most people have friends. Trump has people he associates with if they're sucking up to him in the right ways for the period of time that they are useful to him. This applies to Trump's voters. He was all buddy buddy with the voters in the lead up to the 2020 election. Then he lost and they weren't useful anymore. So Trump didn't care about his supporters. But then he figured I can grift them for money supposedly to try to overturn the election. My friends come in, donate, et cetera. And then they were useless to him again. And this applies to Trump staffers as well. You're my best friend while you're

sucking up to me. And then you're a terrible person when you're not. John Bolton, William Barr. The list is endless. It's dozens and dozens. And if you include Trump's business history and business career, it's certainly hundreds of people, if not thousands, that fit this sort of mold. So this is a reality when it comes down to it, when it comes down to the end of these trials and possibly the end of Trump's political career and even potentially the end of Trump's public life. The people that might at the end of the day really damage his defense most severely might well be some of his closest former and even potentially

current staffers. But in the immediate, Trump has bigger problems. Listen to this. Donald Trump may have just landed himself in jail for pretrial detention. What is going on here? Listen to this. Yesterday we spoke about Donald Trump's threats being made. Yes, to the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, but more generally to people who are involved in one way or another with Trump's prosecution. And Trump was told not to communicate

with witnesses, which he is now doing through social media in multiple ways. Let's remind ourselves of what was said. Donald Trump posting to Truth Social in all capital letters, quote, If you go after me, I'm coming after you. As I told you yesterday, this led to the Department of Justice filing for a protective order. There was an initial timeline for that. Trump asked for an extension. The judge said no, and we're still figuring out how that's going to finally get adjudicated. In the meantime, Donald Trump went back on Truth Social and this time talked about Mike Pence posting, quote, Wow, it's finally happened.

Little Mike Pence, a man who was about to be ousted as governor of Indiana until I came along and made him VP, has gone to the dark side. I never told a newly emboldened, not based on his two percent poll numbers, Pence to put me above the Constitution or that Mike was too honest. He's delusional. And now he wants to show he's a tough guy. I once read a major magazine article on Mike. It said he was not a very good person. I was surprised. But the article was right. Sad. This is related to reports that Pence's testimony

might be a big factor in Trump's trials. An article I just showed you in the last segment. This goes directly counter to what the judge told Trump to do as far as the pretrial conditions. The Washington Post has an extensive article about what happened in the courtroom last week, and it says, quote, Next, the judge tells Trump he may not communicate with any witness about the facts of the case without an attorney present. Quote from the judge. Now, I want to remind you, it is a crime to intimidate a witness or retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution or otherwise obstruct

justice. Do you understand these warnings, sir? And Trump nodded, but he didn't say anything, which led to the judge to say, having heard these conditions, are you prepared to comply with them? Trump stands right hand in the air, agrees to comply with the conditions of release. Trump is directly violating that instruction here. Trump is responding to Mike Pence on the basis of Mike Pence's believed previous and potential future participation in this case as a witness.

This is arguably a form of communicating with witnesses and I would argue even attempting to tamper with them or influence them. And for all of the talk from people around Donald Trump about freedom of speech, it's all about this exact type of thing. The charges, the indictments, they are not because Trump spoke, as it says in the indictment, Trump can say I won. Trump can lie and say I won. That is all perfectly legal. But the problem is that he actually tried to defraud and disenfranchise voters by virtue of the fake elector scheme, pressuring public officials, et cetera. This statement from Trump to Mike Pence, the one we talked about yesterday about if you come after me, I will come after you. These are all super clearly about the indictment.

So could Trump be jailed for violating the conditions of his release? Absolutely. If Judge Chutkan were to do that, obviously it would completely implode both Trump's campaign and his ability to prepare for other trials. I at the same time believe that even though it would completely derail Trump's ability to campaign, most of his supporters would stick with him even if he was in jail, being held in pretrial detention. Sometimes when you get detained pretrial, you were there until the trial. And right now, Trump's lawyers are trying to delay all of these trials if and this is very hypothetical. If Trump were to be pretrial detained by virtue of his

violation of the orders of release, it may be the worst thing in the world for him. That is, lawyers are doing what they can to delay the trial because it will just lead to Trump sitting around in jail even longer. Do I think it's likely to happen? No. Is it possible? Absolutely. Does this meet the criteria violating what Judge Chutkin put out? One hundred percent. Here's a really funny thing that Trump and his lawyers are now doing. They want to move his D.C. trial to West Virginia so that the jury will be all white Trump supporters. I know it's you see this stuff and you go, David, this can't possibly be true. Can it? This can't possibly be what Trump is trying to do. And indeed, it is. Donald Trump posted to Truth Social. There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge

assigned to the ridiculous freedom of speech fair elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she. We will be immediately asking for recusal of this judge on very powerful, powerful grounds and likewise for venue change out of D.C.. So Trump wants two things. He wants a different judge and he wants to move the trial out of D.C.. So Trump wants two things. He wants a different judge and he wants to move the trial out of D.C.. Well, that's interesting. What about Trump's lawyer, John Lauro?

Here's what he had to say on CBS on Sunday morning. You still going to pursue a change of venue? Absolutely. We would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury. Do you have any expectation that will be granted? That reflects the the the characteristics of the American people. It's up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case. Speaking of the judge, you see in a much more diverse.

You still West Virginia. So listen, they want a diverse jury. West Virginia is 92 percent white and eight percent everything else. OK, everything else. There are only two states whiter than West Virginia. I believe it's Vermont and Maine. D.C., on the other hand, is genuinely diverse. It's almost evenly split between black and white people. Forty five, forty one, something like that. Six percent are multiracial. Four percent are Asian. Of those, many are Hispanic. What Trump and his lawyer mean is the ideal jury for us is white Trump supporters. White Trump supporters is what they want. They're not even hiding that this is what they want.

The other just incredible thing that's going on is if the prosecutor is black, that's apparently racist. Trump has talked about that when it comes to Letitia James. In this case, the judge, Judge Chutkin, isn't white and Fannie Willis in Georgia isn't white. That's all absolutely terrible. Racists can't do it. Diversity is an all white jury of Trump supporters from West Virginia. It is almost beyond parody.

Also on Meet the Press on Face the No, this is I meet the press now. Here is Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, saying that the defense is simple. Trump believed he won the election. And of course, he's still repeating this even after it was made clear this is not what the indictment is actually about. Start with this is the defense to this indictment. He didn't do it or he was allowed to do what he did? The defense is quite simple. Donald Trump, President Trump, believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election. And as any American citizen, he had a right to speak out

under the First Amendment. He had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments, based on his grievances that election irregularities had occurred. He had every right to speak about the important issues that were taking place after the election. Certainly, Mr. Pence, his vice president, agreed with him that there were anomalies and discrepancies in the election process. And Mr. Trump had every right to petition government and enforce his First Amendment rights.

That's why this indictment is an attack on the First Amendment. Again, this defense is DOA per legal experts. We can't actually tell right now. Do Trump's lawyers know that this defense is DOA, that Trump is not being prosecuted for what he said or even his belief, be it false or correct, that he actually won the election. Do they know that this is bogus or are they actually going to try this in court? And as is often the case, if you look at serious legal experts weighing in on this, they say this is one of those arguments that you make on TV when you're trying the case in the

court of public opinion. It is not an argument that will work in a court of law because it is right there in the indictment that this is not about curtailing Trump's speech. It is not an argument that will work in a court of law because it is right there in the indictment that this is not about curtailing Trump's speech. It is not about what Trump said. It is about what Donald Trump did. A DOA legal defense. Will they try it in a court of law? Let me know what you think in the comments. I love my Helix sleep mattress. I've been sleeping on Helix mattresses for years now, which is why I asked them to be a sponsor. You actually take their famous sleep quiz, takes just a few minutes to answer questions about your sleep preferences, body type, sleep position, whether you have back pain and Helix will match you with a mattress that's

perfect for you, which is really unique and helpful because a lot of people don't know the David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. phone. today. We're going to be speaking with Julia Keller, who's a Pulitzer Prize winning writer whose latest book is Quitting a Life Strategy, the Myth of Perseverance and How the New Science of Giving Up Can Set You Free. Really appreciate you being here today. I recently read the book and I'm looking forward to talking to you about it. Oh, very nice to be here, David. So I mean, maybe let's just start with some of the stories that are often told about quitting and grit and perseverance. I think in certainly in Western

American society, for sure, there's this idea that you stick to things, you don't start things and quit them halfway. There's virtue in seeing everything through to the end, et cetera, et cetera. Can you talk a little bit about where those stories originate culturally? I feel that they really began and really, really took hold in the culture and about the middle of the 19th century, when, as you know, that was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when great fortunes were being made by a very, very few people at the top of the economic ladder, while most people lived in pretty terrible squalor and misery and want. And we had to find a way, we as a culture had to find

a way to kind of justify this. The idea is, how do we be good people and allow this to happen? And one of the ways was to suggest that, well, it's all a matter of grit and perseverance. If you don't succeed, if you don't have a lot of money, if you don't live in a big house and have a coach and four, because this was mainly 19th century London where this really began, it meant you didn't work very hard. So we created this myth of perseverance, the idea that people at the very top of our socioeconomic ladder just worked harder and were better people. And we began to equate all of that with a kind of a moral virtue as well. And I think it was quite wrongheaded and really, really led us off and took in a very unfortunate direction.

So there are really two stories here that are interesting. There's the sort of like, you know, more self-help, self-improvement side of this. There's the socioeconomic critique. And certainly it fits into what I guess we could say the standard capitalist bootstrap story is. If indeed success is merely about perseverance, then it becomes much easier to tell the story that if you haven't succeeded, it's because of some kind of personal failing rather than maybe a structural or systemic one. That's maybe one side of this. There's also questions about, hey, you know what? Sometimes it's good to be aware of the sunk cost fallacy, but to realize it doesn't make

sense to keep going with a particular project. You may benefit from freeing up either your time or your resources and sort of reallocating. And maybe in many cases, quitting is actually a good thing rather than something to be criticized. Yes. Can you weave the two stories together to get us to maybe modern society's view on this? You know, I think that it would really benefit all of us to take this second look at quitting, as they call it, to look at it is really at the very center of the human endeavor, which is to decide when to go on and continue on a current path and when to take another path. And that's why I think that weaving the past and the kind of historical antecedent for some of these ideas with our present situation, we see a lot of

the profiles that are done and in some ways quite very positive profiles done of people who have achieved great wealth and success, always come back to this narrative of hard work. And that because the suggestion is, well, you can get that too. You too can have a half a billion dollar yacht, as Jeff Bezos does, if only you will work hard. And when we know, of course, that isn't true at all, that there are such things as luck in the world and good luck. So I like your notion of weaving together these two concepts, because I think it would be better for all of us if we recognized that things do just happen. Some of us are born with profound social and economic and, in many cases, intellectual and emotional disabilities. People are born black or brown in this predominantly white culture, be born female. All of these things we're born with that we have to reckon with as we try to

make a success of our lives. And of course, not just an economic success, but to use our gifts and talents along lines of excellence, which was the Greek definition of happiness. So I like your notion of weaving together those two. There is this kind of backstory of capitalism, which always says that it's a matter of grit and perseverance. And if you work hard, pull up your bootstraps, you will do well. And the opposite side of that, of course, is that if you haven't done well, then it's your fault. And it's that kind of blame mongering that we often indulge in, particularly in the current age, that really began to trouble me, which was a kind of part of the impulse for me to to write this book and to explore these ideas. It seems also that even in many of the stories that really are stories, at least kind of

punctually about perseverance, it's often missing from the story, the quitting that may have taken place before that last chapter, so to speak. I mean, if I were to tell the story of my podcast and how we grew it to what it is today, it could be a story of perseverance, but it also would be a story of a few things I first tried that didn't work and that I made the decision that it didn't make sense to continue investing time or resources in. So that's another aspect to this. Perfect.

Perfect. It's so true. You know, I was I was being interviewed on another podcast and this gentleman got very upset, very incensed at even the whole notion of quitting. And he said, my podcast is successful because I stuck to it. And I and he said, I had to try a lot of different things and I stuck to it. And I said, yes. And had you stayed with those things that did not work out for you, then this would

not have worked out. So it depends on the on the perspective from which we see it. And I would maintain that the reason we don't like to see quitting as being kind of the, the, the hidden signifier of success. And one of the things that can lead to success is because we have this grit and perseverance ethos. That's kind of, um, it's always in the background of our culture. And if you quit something, you're a loser, you're a bum, you didn't stick with it. And yet very often, as you say, the story could be told from that way around and it

would be it would be completely different. That decision of when to change and when not to change is really at the very heart of what we do. It's at the dynamic heart of what we do as human beings. There's an idea in in some business circles about fail quickly. In other words, it's information gathering is such that you might benefit from knowing more quickly whether something is not going to work, which seems to suggest more of an alignment maybe with what you're talking about.

You know, something I've always tried to do when we try a new project. We recently tried a dub to Spanish version of this show. I'm from Argentina and I thought there's some demand for this. I don't have time to redo every episode in Spanish. What if we dub the shows? We kind of calculated what's the potential audience in the U.S., outside of the U.S. We could have kind of labored over this for six or 12 or even longer months before we found the exact right way to test it. But my thought was I want to test the assumptions as quickly as possible, get some data and then bail on this if it doesn't work. And it didn't work. I mean, quite, quite literally, the numbers just weren't there. The dubbing was too expensive. I found it to be a success to quickly be able to identify this is not a good direction to

spread resources. We figured it out really quickly. We can now refocus in other areas. Fail quickly. Yes, yes. That's a that's a grand notion because it really is true. And that that sort of dovetails with the sunk cost fallacy idea. I mean, I examine some case studies in my book, like with Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes and WeWork and Adam Newman, that why didn't they just quit when it became clear that this wasn't working?

Why not? And I mean, you could argue that it was in their character not to quit. And I, you know, I can't psychoanalyze them. But I do think that it's very hard to do that failing quickly, just as you mentioned, because there's always that fear that someone's going to say, you quit too soon. And you quit too soon because you're lazy and you're short-sighted and you just don't get it. And yet the opposite can be true. I mean, I call Thomas Edison the greatest quitter of all time. Thomas Edison knew when to stop on all those experiments. I mean, he tried 19,000 different plants. He was trying to find a synthetic rubber and he would try again and again and again. And he knew when to quit. Had he not known when to quit, he would have been stuck in that laboratory for the next 20 years trying to make dandelions into rubber, which did not work,

by the way. You you tell stories in the book also that are maybe less about a business signal that it's time to quit, like the Theranos or the WeWork stories. But you talk about gymnast Simone Biles, who famously quit the Tokyo Olympics. And the idea was it's to focus on her mental health. And it seemed I mean, reactions were very mixed at the time that she made that decision. It seems that society views, at least in Western industrialized society, quitting for mental health reasons is seemingly viewed differently in some way and maybe may be viewed more and more negatively. Is that true? Oh, I think so.

Yeah, there's a there's a there's that sort of creeping idea around the edges of weakness of somehow you weren't able to tough it out. And I think hasn't this past week just really certainly validated Biles' decision, the fact that she has come back stronger than ever and has a magnificent performance. I compare her in the book. You know, one of the things I do is to talk about how quitting is a very natural thing in nature and the fact that from a neuroscience perspective, quitting is one of the most important things that we do in order to keep our brain cells nimble and active and flexible. And I talk about recent experiments in neuroscience that bear that out.

And in terms of Biles, I compare, of course, to a honeybee. A honeybee will stand down and not sting because stinging means death. Only the females sting, and they're eviscerated when they sting. So that honeybee has to make a pretty important decision. Is this worth my life? And the analogy I draw is Biles at the Tokyo Olympics when she decided to stand down. She knew she wasn't right. Her body didn't feel right. Her mind wasn't right. She made that decision. It was not worth the cost of her life. The same decision a honeybee makes. And then again,

I think this week has just meant that, boy, was she right. She knew her body. She knew her mind. And others may have wanted to call her a quitter. And she did. I mean, there was some you go girl, but she also came in for a great, great deal of criticism, particularly on Twitter and venues like that. Anonymous venues. You know, people are so bold when it's anonymous, aren't they? Yes, they very much are. I can tell you from experience when it comes to the decision to quit and this idea of like, is there a gut instinct or is this something I need to run a spreadsheet on or is it a pros and cons list? In the book you talk about you talk about bees, you talk about other experiments with animals, circumstances that are designed essentially to frustrate different species of animals

to measure at what point in one way what's going on in the brain when it is that they decide to abandon and, you know, the seed that's glued to the to the tabletop, they'll say, OK, I'm abandoning this one. I'm going to go for a different seed or whatever the case may be. Is there an analogy when it comes to human quitting to some kind of a chemical release or something that we can identify? Is it a gut instinct thing? What how do humans know when to quit or do they not necessarily know? You know, it's all of those things. We have about 86 billion neurons, each of us, and all of those neurons are engaged in even the simplest activity. If you decide to to whether

you're going to get the second cup of coffee today, to deciding to quit medical school or to go to medical school. They're all involved and they're all engaged. So what we know, and of course, we're at the very cusp of understanding this. As you know, neuroscience, that's a word that's thrown around all the time. But the reality is we know more than we ever have, but we still know very, very little about what happens in the brain. And we do know that there are specific chemical and electrical triggers in the brain when we make that decision to abandon one path and go on another. In our brains, the brains of crows and single-celled organisms and dolphins and whales and gymnasts, all of us together among those neurons. We're just at the very beginning, just at the very threshold of understanding that. But there are indeed those particular triggers. We know now, we generally think we know where in the brain and what happens in the brain. And the reason this is

a focus of study, of course, is because of addiction studies. That's one of the major ways that this is going to be used. What makes some people sit there and pull that slot machine again and again and again and not quit? Where, say, if you and I don't have a gambling problem, why are we able to maybe put a quarter in a slot machine and then walk away? What's the difference? Why are some people able to quit? What's happening in the brain that can quit? What's happening in the brain that can't quit? And if we're able to pinpoint these chemical and electrical triggers, the idea is that perhaps we'll be able to come up with perhaps some synthetic chemicals, some pharmaceuticals that could do this, or even from a therapy perspective, we may be able to do more once we understand how the brain quits,

why it quits, when it quits, how it makes that decision. To see it as a matter strictly of will and of willpower and of perseverance. We know that can't be right. And when that's often used just to to denigrate and to demonize people in your book and also Daniel Pink talks about this in his book about regret. If I recall correctly, it seems there's somewhat of a consensus that in general, people tend to regret not quitting more than they regret quitting overall. Is am I remembering that correctly? You know, I think that's true in terms of his work, but it certainly that's what I found

in my interviews. So when it comes to situations where people look back at decisions to quit and they feel that the decision was actually the wrong one to have quit something. Do we have some sense of what the mistake was? Was it following the wrong instinct? Was it something that was happening in the brain that sent the wrong signal? Was it merely circumstance or even chance or odds or something like that when the when the quit decision is wrong? You know, that's a that's a great question, because I'd have to say, instead of knowing it definitively, you know, from interviews with neuroscientists and evolutionary

biologists, just anecdotally from the people that I spoke with, often I think it's because it's an impulsive decision. I interviewed a physician who is in charge of physician retention at Northwestern University Hospitals. His job is when physicians and other healthcare professionals want to quit. And of course, in the wake of the pandemic, that happened a lot. His job was to sit down, kind of do the exit interview, right? After the stethoscope had been thrown into the trash can,

I'm out of here, after that. And it was often people who didn't think beyond the quitting moment. That was what I remember him telling me, that it was quit to what? He would say, if you're going to quit, what's going to be in the next moment after that. So often I would think that it would be a kind of an emotional and impulsive decision based on a fit of peak. And then we all know that that rarely works out, you know, just to say, so to be a little bit more thoughtful is generally what he would counsel people. He would never

counsel somebody to not do it if they wanted to, to another field, of course. But he would say, just give it maybe a couple of minutes more thought before you do that. So maybe that that impulsiveness would be if I had to pinpoint something based on on many hundreds of interviews. That's what it would be. That is very interesting. The book is quitting a life strategy, the myth of perseverance and how the new science of giving up can set you free. We've been speaking with the book's author, Julia Keller. Really appreciate your time and insights today. Oh, thank you, David. I appreciate your reading of the book. I can tell you've thought a lot about these ideas, as I have,

because they're so crucial. People in my audience who sometimes struggle with sleep. You know, you've got those habit forming prescription medications, which sometimes have side effects. You've got your herbal remedies that often do nothing. That's why the go to can be melatonin, which is clinically proven to work and without the side effects and the grogginess. Our sponsor beam makes delicious nighttime hot cocoa drinks called dream with melatonin to help you get to sleep. Melatonin can also help correct circadian rhythm disturbances to get your schedule back on track. Like for example, if you have jet lag beams, dream hot cocoa with melatonin comes in great tasting flavors like mint chocolate chip, chocolate peanut butter, sea salt, caramel or caramel. Come on. No sugar added. Sweetened with monk fruit.

Only 15 calories per serving. My favorite is cinnamon cocoa. I'll just be up front. It's great to have before bed sometimes. It's hot, very flavorful, but not overly sweet. It's just a soothing way to wind down like an hour before going to bed for a limited time. You'll get up to 40 percent off when you go to shop beam dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman at checkout. That's shop B.A.M. dot com slash Pacman using code Pacman saves you up to 40 percent. The info is in the podcast notes. All right, let's take a little bit of a trip through what has happened over the last few days with regard to reactions with the state of play, criminal justice system, Republican

primary Biden, crime, family nonsense and all of this sort of thing. Sunday morning, Maria Bartiromo on Fox News welcomed radical and repugnant reactionary Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Marjorie Taylor Greene is making the case that with every new indictment against the failed former president, it is more proof that the Biden regime I don't know what regime means sounds very scary that the Biden regime. I don't know what regime means. Sounds very scary that the Biden regime is communist. Here is Marjorie Taylor Greene making the case. And you can tell from the expression on Maria Bartiromo's face, she finds this very interesting.

Speaker 4 Bidenomics is failing America. People can hardly afford gas. They can hardly afford groceries. And many seniors on a fixed income are choosing between paying rent and being able to buy their medications. People are drowning in inflation and America's failing under Bidenomics. They have no policies to run on. The only thing they can run on is to continue smearing President Trump's name. And I just want to follow up and say, Maria, the more times they indict President Trump, the more people realize that the Biden administration is a communist regime. And for the first time, Americans are actually seeing what communism really looks like. And we have to see. This is what communism really looks like. And up to this. This is why Republicans in the House, when we come back in September, we have to vote for an impeachment inquiry because it's the right

thing to do. Whether Joe Biden took five dollars to his name for corrupt business deals or whether he took 40 million dollars, it does not matter. It's up to Republicans to do the right thing and not allow the Department of Justice to win the 2024 presidential election for Joe Biden. There is. And Maria now takes off her glasses because we're really going to get down to business here. There are so many layers here. First of all, imagine being so ignorant or disconnected from reality that you hear this and you think to yourself, you know, yeah, we really are in a communist country now. We really, really are. So several layers to this. First of all, as I have said before, the indictment of a former president at the very top level is a signal that at least in theory, no one is above the law and everyone is accountable. Now,

Trump's already getting special privileges. And what will ultimately happen with sentencing and the adjudication of these cases, we don't know. But saying if a former president is indicted, it's communism is both strange because they clearly don't know what communism is. And it also is a complete distraction from the fact that it should be a good thing to be reminded no one is above the law. Now, let's, of course, get to these next layers about by dynamics is communism and everything that's going on is communism and all these different things. When you look, listen, Marjorie Taylor Greene's not wrong that there are people who today

in twenty twenty three struggle to afford medication. That is a true thing. That's real. There are people today who struggle to afford gas, even though gas has come down significantly. You could say, well, people are struggling to afford rent or whatever the case may be. That is absolutely true. And it is happening at a slightly lower rate than it used to, thanks to some things that Joe Biden has done and thanks to some broader economic environmental realities that impact not just the United States, but

all Western industrialized wealthy nations. There are many ways that we could make those problems less severe. Marjorie Taylor Greene is against all of them and not thanks to Marjorie Taylor Greene. But despite her opposition, there have been a bunch of little things that Joe Biden has done little and sometimes medium and larger Chips, Inflation Reduction Act, a bunch of changes to how student loan repayment is calculated. And I could give you a list of 50 different things. These are all actions that help a little with the problems Marjorie Taylor Greene is describing

and all things that she is against and actually is now arguing Joe Biden should be impeached over, which is really incredible. So the fact that Maria Bartiromo with a straight face continues to host this stuff really tells us a lot about what's going on over there at Fox News. But the real tragedy is the fact that there is a lot of people in this country who watch this stuff and go, that makes sense. Yeah, it's I don't know. It sounds like communism. It's like gas is more than I remember it being. And Trump's under indictment. It's Biden communism. This is what communism looks like. And whatever your view about communism, this is not communism. And this is this

goes back to the fact that we can't start with a shared basis. In fact, we can discuss the pros and cons of indicting a former president. We can discuss the pros and cons of Bidenomics. But if we're starting at this is communism, there's very little conversation that can actually be had. The the conflict. Speaking of conflict, the conflict on Fox and Friends between co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade is taking on awkward and epic proportions. This has been going on for a while. And I've told you before that Steve Doocy has been increasingly interjecting some facts, some reality into the discussions on Fox and Friends. And Brian Kilmeade really doesn't like it. And

here is yet another example where they're sort of arguing like a like an old couple of sorts. Here is Steve Doocy talking about the latest Trump indictment and kill me doesn't like it. This clip is from our friend over at Decoding Fox News. Take a listen. He got a bunch of bad advice from his lawyers. He was doing what his lawyers, who Mike Pence referred to a couple of days ago as his crackpot lawyers, or three, he believed he actually had won. Now, here's the problem with that. Ty Cobb, who actually was employed by Donald Trump during the Mueller investigation, he was one of Trump's lawyers said that he tweeted this or he put this on Facebook he said there will be evidence from several witnesses in

this case that Donald Trump knew he lost he said I lost and then Ty Cobb goes on to say it's gonna be a DC jury and this is the last line of Ty Cobb he said Donald Trump he's toast. Well, Steve, that's the way he's been. But I will say this. Who cares what Ty Cobb says? He was his lawyer. Yeah, but he was his lawyer, but he wasn't around him for the last year and a half of the Mueller investigation.

Brian, I'm just reporting the facts. No, but think about this. Everybody around Trump in casual conversation, in serious conversation, on tour and beyond, will not go five seconds without him saying he won the election. He was down Sean Hannity's throat for not defending him for the January 6th. I said Ty Cobb says they have several people who were told by Trump, I know I lost. That's fine. He says, you know what, wait a second.

Isn't this great? So they believe that there's going to be traction in a courtroom because Ty Cobb and a few other people said he lost when almost everybody else said he won? Why is that even part of this legal case? Because he sincerely believed that he lost the election. I didn't even think that was going to be even brought up. A lot of people just said to him, drop it. I know how you feel. Change the subject. So Attorney General Bill Barr has. There you go. Not going super well between Brian Kilmeade and Steve Ducey. And of course,

as always, many of the facts get mistaken or misstated or lost in these discussions. The issue of whether Trump believed he had won or lost is not actually at issue here. The idea that if this is why it's important, OK, Trump and others around him seem to think that if they can demonstrate in his heart of hearts, Trump thought he won, that it makes the attempts at strong arming state election officials and the conspiracy to set up fake elector slates, that if Trump thought he won, none of that stuff is criminal. The problem is that is not what is in the indictment and that is not what the law says.

So if that's the approach that they are going to take legally, you know, kill me. It says, I don't even know why this is being mentioned as a legal argument. I don't even know why there's this obsession as to what Trump really thought, because it says right in the indictment, this is not about what Trump really thought, whether Trump said I actually won truthfully or whether Trump said I actually won knowing it was untrue, does not actually have a bearing on the criminality of the actions for which Trump has been indicted. So we'll obviously follow whether that legal argument is made in court, as I said last segment. But I'm also really interested in how there seems to be trouble in paradise over there at Fox and Friends. We're going to keep an eye on it.

All right. I have something incredibly exciting to tell you about today. About a month ago, we published a children's book that I wrote. The children's book is about critical thinking. Why? I'm putting my money where my mouth is or my time where my keyboard is. I guess we might better say I've been saying for so long we need to start teaching critical children thinking to children at an early age. Kids who know how to think critically and think for themselves and figure out why do

I believe what I believe when someone else tells me something? How do I determine for myself whether it's true and whether I should believe it? It's not being taught in so many schools. I wanted to do something to try to make it easier and more accessible for kids to get this material. So I wrote a book on critical thinking. Great. Made it available on Amazon. David Pakman dot com slash book going into this thing again because I don't know what on earth I'm doing. I thought if we sell 500 copies of this thing, it would be great. And I don't mean 500 copies in the first month. I mean, 500 copies ever wondering, is there really a demand for this? Is this really something that parents are going to want? I am stunned, flattered and floored by what I am about to tell you. The book came out a month ago, almost to the day, and we have already shipped ninety one hundred copies, nine thousand one hundred ninety one copies of this book. This is insane. The top countries, of course, are the US, Canada, UK and Australia.

But we've actually shipped copies of the book to 12 countries in total. The book continues to be the number one top new release for children's school and education books. Amazon wide. One great review that came in says Think Like a Detective by David Pakman beautifully sets up young children to win in our digital world of misinformation. This is such a nice review in our digital world of misinformation. It's so important to teach children how to examine evidence in order to figure out what's

true and what's not. I like the section regarding the difference between opinion and fact as well. The illustrations are beautiful and poor little Ronald was the bonus for adults with critical thinking skills. Congratulations to David on such an excellent reception for his first book. I've been a fan and member for years, was delighted to give a little boost by purchasing three copies, one for myself and two for my professor daughter. I do come to you with tears in my eyes, sir, and ask you to write more books. So listen, the immediate goal now we were thinking 500 copies. We're now thinking 10000.

OK, get a copy of the book, gift it, donate it, send it to libraries, request your local library, get a copy. A lot of libraries will just buy what's requested. If you let them know, please buy this book. You can get it. All right. Let's go for ten thousand. David Pakman dot com slash book is where the book is available, available in Kindle, available in paperback. Ninety percent of the copies are paperback. It seems with this people want something tangible. So let's get to the ten thousand. If you've purchased it, please leave a review. It's so important. The reviews really help us. Yes, the sequel is already in the works. The sequel is going to be think like

a scientist. That's the next concept. We've got think like a detective. We're going to do think like a scientist. Think like an astronaut is already on the on the list of possible future books in the series. Thank you to everyone. I had no idea that this was going to be that there was such a need for something like this. And I'm just insanely flattered at ninety one hundred copies in the first month. Truly, truly incredible. All right. We have a

fantastic bonus show for you today. It's from what I'm hearing and reading, it's going to be one of the best bonus shows, quite frankly. And I'm thinking we'll actually record this one. We're going to talk about what is going on in Oregon with the gas pumps. You you might not believe it. We have an advanced placement psychology class that may be made available to all Florida students after all, which would be a great thing. And we are also going to talk about how some states are trying to boost youth voter registration. Every election, you always have someone saying, listen, if we can just boost 18 to 29 turnout by 5 percent, we win.

And then, of course, it never happens. What are some states doing to boost youth voter registration? All of it and more on today's bonus show. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. All right. We'll make a little we'll make a little money on the bonus show. You can sign up at joinpacman.com.

I'll see you then.