The David Pakman Show - 11/29/24: Biden picks judges, Trump picks lunatic staffers (CLASSIC EPISODE FROM 11/12/24)

Episode Date: November 29, 2024

THANKSGIVING WEEKEND / CLASSIC EPISODE FROM NOVEMBER 12, 2024 -- On the Show: -- President Joe Biden continues to fill judicial vacancies at a rapid pace -- Donald Trump selects Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State, who he previously called "clueless," a "lightweight," and a "choker" -- Donald Trump's selection for National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, wanted the US in Afghanistan forever -- Donald Trump select Kristi Noem to be his Secretary of Homeland Security, a dangerous and unhinged selection -- Based on Trump's cabinet picks so far, has there ever been a more dangerous group of people? -- Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's voters who also voted for Donald Trump -- A Latino Trump voter says he assumes Trump won't actually deport "good" Latinos who are "family-oriented" -- Exploring why 2025 could be the year MAGA crumbles -- A shirtless Alex Jones rants wildly about Infowars being auctioned off tomorrow -- On the Bonus Show: The truth about Democratic turnout in 2024, Chris Wallace already leaving CNN, Sonia Sotomayor will not retire despite pressure, much more... ⚠️ Ground News: Get 50% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🐶 Ollie dog food: Use code PAKMAN for 60% OFF your first box of meals at https://ollie.com -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- Pakman Discord: https://davidpakman.com/discord -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave a Voicemail: (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 shows before you know it. Hey everybody, welcome to the show. When we find ourselves in a situation like the one we are in right now, coming off of a very unpleasant election loss and facing potentially years of very bad stuff. We look for what we can control. We did that yesterday, looking at the ways that cities and states and municipalities and police departments are going to be resisting the coming scourge or scourge as Trump used to say it, uh, of the second Trump administration. But we also look at, Hey, what good can we get out of the remaining days, weeks

of the Biden administration? And at least potentially potentially, and I'll tell you why it is only a potentially thing right now. A president Biden is continuing his string of nominating and hopefully getting confirmed hundreds of judges to key roles where Trump will not be able to push them out. We've talked before about how presidents can influence the political space in many different ways. They can do it by working with the House and Senate on legislation. They can do it through executive orders. They can do it through setting the mood and tone in the country on particular issues. And of course, they can do it through

judicial selections. Donald Trump, we now know very famously, notoriously leading to the overturning of Roe v. Wade because of the three Supreme Court picks that he got to understand why he got three instead of two. You have to go back even further to the Obama administration and understanding that Republicans in the last year of Obama's presidency blocked Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the court. This left that seat open for Trump to fill when he became president.

Okay. So the point is we understand the significant impact that judicial nominations can have on the country. The news is that president Biden has named a, his 56th round of judicial nominees, two individuals for federal district courts. And this will push the number of announced federal nominees for Biden to 261. The individuals are Weinstein for the Southern District of New York and Chief Judge Francis Marie to Dinko Gatewood for the U.S. District Court of Guam to eminently qualified women who will probably be called D.I. hires by Republicans because right now their hammer is DEI. So everything looks like a nail to them. Ask them what DEI means and they probably don't know. Now I want to, the reason I

said potentially positive is that there is a question as to whether Joe Biden can get them confirmed. And the timing of this may be such that hearings would be held after the swearing in of the new Congress, but before Biden's term elapses in those kind of middle couple of weeks of January. And even if that is not the case, uh, I believe based on my reading of how these nominations work, Republicans could even potentially hold it up. If the confirmation hearings were held before the new Congress is sworn in, we, if it were up to Trump, if it were up to Trump, of course they would not get confirmed if it's up to marginally less unhinged Republicans. And it's only marginal.

I want to be clear. Uh, it's possible they might be confirmed or maybe not. One bit of good news in general, just looking, whatever happens with these two nominations, step back from that for a second, uh, a bit of sort of good news or something positive that we've seen during the Biden administration is that compared to the Obama, uh, uh, presidency, there were more as a percentage, more judicial nominees held up by Republicans during Obama's presidency than Republicans have been able to do during Biden's presidency. So that's a good thing.

We have a potentially good thing here. There are people calling for Joe Biden to do more in these last few weeks in office. There are people saying, you know, Biden should pardon Hunter Biden, even though Biden has said he will not. And the reason that some on the left are giving for saying Biden should do it now is even though we understand the principle that Biden's not getting involved with Trump's prosecutions and Biden's not getting involved with Hunter Biden's prosecutions because Republic, this is their argument because

Republicans have made it abundantly clear. They are going to go after Hunter Biden, uh, and the Biden family in a completely politicized and weaponized way, why wouldn't Joe Biden just preemptively pardon him? And I don't believe that Joe Biden will, but it is certainly something that that there are people saying now he should just do it and certainly don't pardon Donald Trump, something we spoke about in previous shows. So let's hope that Joe Biden is able to get two more, uh, judicial nominees confirmed. I don't know if he will, but one of the great successes of the Biden administration,

without a doubt, without a doubt has been the number of judicial nominees. He's gotten confirmed to lifetime appointments. I'm not even in favor necessarily of nighttime appointments, but that's what we have. And the fact that Biden's been able to get it, get it hundreds confirmed is a very good thing. We are starting to see the texture and the shape of Donald Trump's forthcoming administration. And it is a very ugly shape and it is a very abrasive texture. Some of these are humiliating, although I can't say I know exactly for whom they are humiliating and I want to start with Marco Rubio.

Donald Trump previously referred to Marco Rubio as clueless, as a lightweight and as a choker. Marco Rubio previously referred to Donald Trump as a con man and many worse things. And yet the New York Times is now reporting Donald Trump is expected to name Republican Senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state. I want you to consider as we go through this story, is this more humiliating for Marco Rubio or is it more humiliating for Donald Trump?

And then what I'm actually building towards is telling you that this entire humiliating affair, the Trump Rubio affair is maybe we will call it. Uh, it may be more representative of why Republicans win rather than of why they are pathetic. Although it arguably is both. Uh, so yes, it appears as though Trump will be naming Marco Rubio to secretary of state. Now previously, here are some of the things that Donald Trump tweeted about Marco Rubio. Quote, lightweight Marco Rubio was working hard last night.

The problem is he is a choker and once a choker, always a choker. Mr. Meltdown in 2015, Donald Trump tweeting Marco Rubio had no idea what he was doing on the Chris Wallace show said Iraq was not a mistake. He looked clueless. So choker clueless. Trump also in 2015, Marco Rubio couldn't even respond properly to President Obama's State of the Union speech without pouring sweat and chugging water. He choked.

And then finally, although we could do this all day, finally, Marco Rubio is a total lightweight who I wouldn't hire to run one of my smaller companies. A highly overrated politician. Trump previously said he wouldn't even hire Marco Rubio to run one of his smaller companies. And now he is hiring him to run the department of state. Maybe the most globally consequential representative of a president choker, lightweight, clueless, can't even run the smallest department. Sorry, the smallest business. Now he's going to run department of state. Now it's not just Donald Trump who previously hurled barbs at Marco Rubio.

It was also Marco Rubio going after Donald Trump. Here is Marco Rubio previously calling Trump a con artist among other things. There is no way we are going to allow a con artist to take over the conservative movement. And Donald Trump is a con artist. Well, you allowed him to do it, Marco. So what do you think a Trump government would look like, Senator? It would be chaos. No one knows, but it would look probably like the positions he's held for all these years on many of these issues. He is wholly unprepared to be president of the United States. By the way, everything Rubio is saying here is completely true. He refuses to answer questions on any specific public policy. He has no plan for health care, for example.

They asked him about the debt. He claimed he's going to cut the debt by cutting fraud and abuse, which everyone acknowledges. He didn't get any follow-up or any press on that. Nobody pressed him on that afterwards. I tried to get the moderators to ask him about it. This is the most important government job on the planet. We're about to turn over the conservative movement to a person that has no ideas of

any substance on the important issues. The nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual and the conservative movement to someone who has spent a career sticking it to working people. That is all 110% true. And Marco Rubio kissed the ring and denounced himself essentially by doing it. Here is Marco Rubio previously mocking Trump for his terrible spelling, true, his makeup, his failed businesses, and said he might actually have urinated in his own pants during a debate. OK. And once a chocker, always a choker. I guess that's what he meant to say. He spelled choker, C-H-O-K-E-R, chocker. He called me Mr. Meltdown. Let me tell you something. Last night in the debate, during one of the breaks, two of the breaks, he went backstage. He was

having a meltdown. First, he had this little makeup thing applying like makeup around his mustache because he had one of those sweat mustaches. Then, then he asked for a full length mirror. I don't know why, because the podium goes up to here, but he wanted a full length mirror. Maybe to make sure his pants weren't wet. I don't know then wow then i see him pacing back and forth and then he's huddled in the corner talking to somebody he's like waving his arms up and down and the person's trying to calm him down so anyway but i'm the i'm a chocker all right next tweet Leet weight chocker. Marco Rubio looks like a little boy on stage, not presidential material. He meant to say lightweight, but he spelled that E L E I G H T. So he got that wrong. All right. Anyway, you get the point. So listen, it's all humiliating,

right? This is a guy, Marco Rubio, who relentlessly made fun of Donald Trump. Trump's hiring him. This is a guy, Donald Trump, who has previously made fun of Marco Rubio. And Marco Rubio is saying, hey, I'll gladly go and work for you because I want power. And if you're going to give me secretary of state, I absolutely want that. We look at this from our perspective and we say, wow, two men who have and continue to completely compromise their values and their sincerely held beliefs to the extent that the things they said about each other were true. And they just throw it all out the window. How humiliating. But I want to put a different perspective forward. I actually would

would argue that this is why Republicans are succeeding here, which is they just forget about it all. Yes, I don't like you. You don't like me. Marco Rubio, I'm sure, still sees Donald Trump as completely incompetent, but they aren't going to let that get in the way of putting together a completely weaponized retrograde reactionary cabinet that will wreak havoc throughout the world. But it will embody the worldview and political philosophy and ideology that they are now putting forward. And it is one of owning everybody else above any other cost always and appearing to come out as the people strongly and in an alpha male way in charge of everything.

And so they let bygone be bygones be bygones and Trump hires Rubio. And they never mentioned the fact that they probably really dislike each other to some degree. Maybe this is a benefit of the way they do things rather than a bug. And I am very curious to see what it'll be like when Trump fires Marco Rubio. I'm sure that that'll be a good one. All right. Donald Trump's latest selection for NSA wanted us to stay in Afghanistan forever. Donald Trump has selected Mike Waltz, who was a counterterrorism advisor to Dick Cheney, by the way. You know, it's so funny

on every level. This is a hilarious selection for Donald Trump. First of all, Trump for eight years, nine years has forcefully denounced the sort of neoconservative pro-intervention Bush Cheney Republican ideology. And whether Trump has actually embodied that as president doesn't even really matter. The point is that he's paid lip service to Bush. Cheney were wrong. Iraq was wrong. Afghanistan maybe was right. Maybe it was wrong, but we stayed too long.

We've got to get out. And the guy that he's hiring to be his NSA was a counterterrorism advisor to Dick Cheney. So that's already funny. But more funny is that Mike Waltz was talking about grandparents and grandchildren, Americans fighting in Afghanistan together as a multigenerational, essentially forever war. He wanted that, which is completely counter to what we were led to believe Trump values. Here is Mike Waltz himself in 2017 talking about this dream of a multi-generational Afghanistan war. He said, until you're prepared to commit your grandchildren, not your children, but your grandchildren to stand shoulder to shoulder with my grandchildren and fight Islamic extremism, then you will never be successful here. So are we 15 years in? Yes.

Are we in for a lot more fighting? And do we need a long-term strategy to undermine the ideology of Islamic extremism, just like we did fascism and just like we did communism. Yes, we do. And, you know, Gordon, I think we're in for a long haul. And I think our nation's leadership needs to begin telling the American people, I'm sorry, we don't have a choice. We are 15 years into what is going to be a multi-generational war because we're talking about defeating an idea. It's easy to bomb a tank, very difficult to defeat an idea. And that's exactly what we have to do. He is glowing at the idea of being in Afghanistan for multiple generations. Now, obviously to any

sane and rational observer, it's very difficult to reconcile Trump as the self-proclaimed anti-war candidate. He's an anti-war Republican. It's very hard to reconcile that with Mike Waltz as his national security advisor because Trump was against wars. He was going to keep us out of conflicts. And Mike Waltz loves wars. He loves conflicts. Now, as far as his role as NSA, this could all be fine, except at a certain point, Trump could end up bombing Iran. Trump could end up sending troops to Iran. Certainly possible, plausible.

My question to you is forget about Mike Waltz for a second. Do you believe that the people cheering Trump now and who have been cheering him for years as the supposed anti-war candidate, will they turn on him if he does that to Iran and say, well, now I don't support the guy? Of course not. People like Mike Waltz will slowly start getting more of a voice on military intervention if Trump decides that that's the direction he's going to go. The Trump supporters, the magas, the maga, the Tamians, the Macedonians, they will all fall in line and say, well, Trump is the antiwar candidate, but he's America first and he had

to do it and he had to do it and he had to go in. The point here is it is only as a matter of convenience that Trump's supporters support him because of the positions Trump claims to take. If the positions change, it will become convenient to support those new positions. And the idea that there's anything stable here or it in any way immovable about Trump's policies and political ideology is obviously laughable. The selection of Marco Rubio proves it to a degree. The selection of Mike Waltz proves it to a degree.

And after the break, after the break, we will talk about the role that Christie gnome is going to have in Donald Trump's administration. It is a doozy. It's whacked out. I'll tell you right now with Donald Trump being elected and the insane cabinet appointments and everything else he has planned for the next four years, right wing media is trying to create a new normal and convince us that the zeitgeist is changing.

So it's never been more important to be an engaged and savvy news consumer. And that's where our sponsor ground news comes in an independent app and website designed to help you navigate the chaos of today's current events. For every story circulating, round news will give you instant access to the sources reporting on it. Transparency on political bias and credibility. You can see who owns the news outlets, what are their narratives and special interests that might influence them.

This will ease the mental load of sorting through what we see in the media so you can decide where is the truth. We have to stay aware of what Republicans are up to. Ground News is a really valuable tool so that you can stay on top of it. Go to ground dot news slash Pacman to take advantage of their biggest sale of the year. You'll get 50 percent off their top tier vantage plan. That's ground dotnews slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pacman show is funded primarily by our audience. That's folks like you who listen to the podcast or watch on YouTube or Twitch or Facebook and say, Hey, I'm going to

support what you were doing. I am flattered and humbled by the more than 1000 new paid subscribers in the month of November. Yes, 550 people also canceled because they are despondent and horrified by what happened last week and want nothing more to do with it. But still, still forget about the 550 who are gone than a thousand new paid members. And I really appreciate every single one of you. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com and you can use the coupon code. Not again. Not again. All one word, all lowercase, no space. If you thought that Marco Rubio was a pathetic selection to Donald Trump's cabinet, I have what you're right, if that's what you thought. But I have one that is even more pathetic for you. Donald Trump has selected

Kristi Noem to serve as his homeland security secretary. This is the same Kristi Noem who completely debased and embarrassed herself with the unexplainable false claims in her memoir that she met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. We'll get to that in a moment. CNN reports Trump picks Kristi Noem to serve as his homeland Security secretary. Noam will be tapped to take over the agency as two key immigration hardliners, Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, are slated to serve in senior roles. We'll talk about them a little bit later. Kristi Noam is really clueless. She's painfully ignorant, horrible, horrible person to forget about when she killed a dog.

Remember when she appeared on Fox News and mentioned that Texas and the as one of the 13 original colonies would never have signed the Constitution of the United States? Well, only one problem with that, Christy. Texas was in a state at the time, so they wouldn't have been able to do it regardless. I, Texas and those 13 original colonies would have never signed the treaty that formed the first constitution of the United States if they didn't think that their right to protect themselves and defend their own people was protected.

So, well, I've got news for you, Christy, that has nothing to do with why Texas signed it. They didn't sign it because Texas was in a state until 1845. But this is nothing. This is nothing compared to the humiliating debacle in which her book contained an anecdote about her meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. This raised a lot of eyebrows because if she had met such a leader, that would have been of great interest to our intelligence agencies. They would have wanted to debrief her. It would have made news. Of course, there was no record of it. And as she

started to be asked about it, she simply would not provide a straight answer about why that was in the book and whether she is really claiming that she met Kim Jong-un. This debacle arguably single-handedly disqualified her from being in the running to be Donald Trump's VP person. Let's talk first, but we don't want to talk about a lot of topics that you address in the book, but the book is called no going back, but it sounds like the publisher center street is going back on a couple of the details in the book. I don't believe specifically when you write in the book. I remember when I met with North North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. I'm sure he underestimated me. That, as I understand, is now being removed from the book at your request. Yes. And I became aware of that.

We changed the content. Remember, when I became aware, she wrote it, at least in theory, and she recorded it for the audio book. What does that mean? When I became aware, even if you didn't write it, even if your ghostwriter wrote it, you read it for the audio book. So what you became aware of it at this point in time, incoherent. And the future editions will be adjusted. And, you know, I appreciate that. I've met with many, many world leaders. I've traveled around the world. I should not have put that anecdote in

the book. And at my request, they have. That specific meeting didn't happen? I'm saying that I'm not talking about that meeting. I'm not talking about my meetings with world leaders. But you do talk about meetings with world leaders. There's some that are in the book and then there's some that's not in the book. Many of them, actually. But why are there two specific mentions of meeting Kim Jong-un and talking about him? And a specific memory, I'm sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants. Did you tell your ghostwriter to write that?

I specifically have worked on policy for over 30 years. If you're wondering why this is so absurd, it's because she's completely obfuscating. For that time, I have traveled around the world and I have met with leaders around the world. And that anecdote, I've asked them to change the content and it will be removed. It's a simple question. Did you or did you not? That's the answer that I have for you, and it will be removed. It's a simple question. Did you, or did you not? That's, that's, that's the answer that I have for you is that I'm, it will be, I'm giving you an answer that makes no sense that this is the, if you are someone who lives in the United States, she is going to be your secretary of Homeland security. The preservation and maintenance of your national security

will depend on this woman, Kristi Noem, who time and again would not answer simple questions. Typically, when you write in the book, I remember when I met with North North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. I'm sure he underestimated me. That, as I understand, is now being removed from the book at your request. Yes. And I became aware of that. We changed the content and the future editions will be adjusted. And, you know, I appreciate that. I've met with many, many world leaders. I've traveled around the world. This is so absurd, so absurd. And the next day, Peter Alexander from ABC, he tried it and it didn't go any better. Your incoming secretary of Homeland Security, I present to you. So let's talk about the book, having gone through much of it right now. This week,

Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to North Korea to meet with Kim Jong-un. In the first release of your book, you wrote, I remember when I met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. There was no evidence that that meeting happened. So how did it make it into your book? I'm not going to talk about that. You're not going to talk about it? I took that line out of my book and I'm not going to talk about it. I guess my question is, you wrote the book, though. So why was that line ever in your book? I wrote the book and I hope people will read it. It's a good book about how the American citizen can get involved in their government again and what she really is this despicable. It can do and how the most powerful person in government is them. It's the people who show up,

who get engaged in the stories of what they can do to take this country back and how Donald Trump's policies work for the American people. And understood then just to put it to bed once and for all, did you or did you not meet with Kim Jong-un? I am not going to talk about this. Wouldn't it be any, why is that such a difficult one to say publicly? Because I've taken that. Because it just is. Cause just cause Peter, please. Rapidly becoming a clown car cabinet. It's worse than I thought it would be.

And I thought it would be really bad. I mean, you all know, I told you it will be really bad and it is already shaping up to be worse than I expected. Let's zoom out and talk about the Trump staff incoming more generally. Has there ever been a more dangerous and unhinged cabinet and set of staffers for an American president than those who are set up to be working for Donald Trump in this second term. I want to go through what we now know. We've covered a lot of them individually. I want you to sit back. And by the way, I say this to our Trump supporting friends as well. Later in the show, we're going to have some

regretful already. They're already regretting it. Yes. Regretful Trump supporters already. Is this a group of people that you would want even in a menial role, nevermind running the country. Marco Rubio, secretary of state who said horrible things about Trump and about whom Trump said horrible things. All has been forgiven and Marco is going to be our secretary of state. Christie Noem is going to be secretary of Homeland Security and it is going to increasingly be one of these situations where we all say, wait a second, are we even theoretically safe with Christie Noem in charge or is it going to be the Homeland Security equivalent of I killed the dog and I won't tell you why my book says I met with Kim Jong Un, which

is exactly what how her political career ended. Project 2025 contributor Tom Homan is going to be Donald Trump's border czar who wants to do more deportations than you've ever seen before. Stephen Miller is going to be Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy. Stephen Miller, the architect of some of Trump's most most depraved and xenophobic policy ideas. Former Congressman Lee Zeldin is going to be the administrator of the EPA. And when you put someone in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency who doesn't really care very much about environmental protection, you know it's not going to go

well. Mike Waltz, who daydreamed, as I told you earlier in the show in twenty seventeen, Waltz was daydreaming about being in Afghanistan essentially forever. He was talking about grandparents, parents and their children, grandparents and grandchildren fighting together over generations in Afghanistan. That's who's going to be the national security advisor. Donald Trump has offered Elise Stefanik the position of United States ambassador to the U.N. She doesn't even respect the concept of international agreements. She will be ambassador to the United Nations whose premise is we make global commitments and we keep them.

She was also a purveyor of Donald Trump, 2020 election fraud stories. Susan Wiles, the former co-chair of Donald Trump's presidential campaign is going to be as white house chief of staff, a true brown nosing sycophant loyalist. And then, of course, we have the presumption that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will be able to do something related to health. It sounds very scary. I guess he'll get rid of fluoride and give us raw milk and then presumed position for Elon Musk as well, who has spent the last week hanging out at Mar-a-Lago, pictured having dinner with Trump, Melania and Melania's dad a few days ago.

Of all of these people, I do think that Trump would enjoy firing Marco Rubio the most. They are doing Project 2025. They are replacing career bureaucrats who don't work in a political fashion with weaponized, biased loyalists. They're doing all of it. And so we have a list of things we can do to resist. We've already talked about some of them and we'll certainly talk about more after the break. The AOC supporters who also voted Trump. This is very interesting. Those who follow me on social media may be familiar with my dad's dog, Nemo Pacman. Like me, Nemo Pacman has no middle name. And that's why I love our sponsor, Ollie. It's clean, fresh nutrition for your dog in five flavors your dog will love. You don't need to be a veterinary nutritionist to know that feeding your dog real whole foods with minimal processing is one of the best choices

for their health. No harmful fillers, preservatives. Ollie is made in the U.S. in American kitchens Thank you. Considerations for first time customers. Ollie sends your dog's first box with two weeks of meals and a guide for switching them gradually to the new food. Ollie offers three plans to choose from. There's the fresh plan, the fresh topper plan or the mixed plan. Right now, you'll get 60 percent off your first box when you go to Ollie dot com and enter the code Pacman. They even offer a clean bowl guarantee. If you're not completely satisfied with the first box, you get your money back.

That's OLL IE dot com and enter the code Pacman for 60 percent off your first box of meals. The link is in the podcast notes. I have a close family friend who uses hearing aids. And once I told her about hearing aids from our sponsor, MD Hearing, she gave them a try and she's been with them ever since. She told me she loves the affordability, the quality, the expert staff available to help her calibrate the device anytime she needs. If you're still paying thousands for hearing aids, check out MD Hearing. MD Hearing is an Thank you, David. What you'll pay for a marked up hearing aid at a brick and mortar clinic. And MD hearing just launched the Neo XS, their smallest hearing aid ever. MD hearing has sold over one point five million hearing aids and offer a 45 day risk free trial with a 100 percent money back guarantee.

You can buy with confidence. Get the hearing you deserve. Go to shop MD hearing dot com and use code Pacman to get a pair of hearing aids for just two ninety seven. Plus you'll get a charging case for free. An additional hundred dollar value. That's shop MD hearing dot com. Then use code Pacman to pay just two ninety seven when you buy a pair.

Plus you'll get a free charging case. The link is in the podcast notes. Why would someone vote for Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and also vote for Donald Trump? It would seem not to make sense except if you understand the way that a growing number of Americans, certainly millions, really tens of millions are voting right now. And that's what we're going to explore.

We've talked about various types of split ticket voters. So for example, there were people about 100,000 Republicans at last count in Arizona, went to the polls, voted for Donald Trump and did not vote for Carrie Lake. Had those hundred thousand Trump voters voted for Carrie Lake, she would have won rather than lost her Senate race. So Republicans who said yes to Trump, no to Carrie Lake. What's that about? It seems to mostly be about Carrie Lake in Florida. You had people who went to the polls and they said, I'm voting Trump and I'm voting to enshrine abortion rights at the state level, which because of a 60 percent threshold in Florida actually failed to pass, even though it got more than 50 percent of the vote.

That's not the topic today. But you have voters who say, I want there to be abortion rights, but I just don't want what Kamala Harris is offering. I want Trump. And we talked about that on the bonus show as well. We now get to an interesting sort of vignette of AOC voters who also voted for Donald Trump in her district. This is a BuzzFeed article that sort of summarizes the question that AOC asked on her Instagram

and some of the responses that she got. And the trends are very, very interesting. So AOC went live on Instagram. She said, I want to know from the people who voted for me, but also for Donald Trump, why did you do it? And some of the replies are interesting. I'll tell you about some of them. These are all quotes that she got in response. It's real simple. Trump and you

care for the working class. This is confirmation that populist rhetoric from left and right starts to sound the same, even if the way that they would implement policy around that rhetoric is completely different. AOC has a populist rhetoric about the middle class. Trump has a populist rhetoric about the middle class. AOC's rhetoric seems genuine, whereas Trump seems contrived just to get votes. AOC would solve that issue of the middle class getting screwed is the word that's often used differently than Trump would. But the rhetoric is very similar. Okay.

Uh, another example, Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice. You're brilliant and have amazing passion. Another one, but wanted change. So I went with Trump and blue for the rest of the ballot to put some breaks. The idea being you keep things under control with Republicans and Democrats sharing power. Okay. I feel like Trump and you are both real, said another voter voted Trump, but I like you and Bernie. I don't trust either party establishment politicians. The idea being AOC isn't establishment and Trump isn't establishment. Another response voted for Trump in Arizona, but voted for Dem Rubin instead of Carrie Lake because thought he's good handling war. OK, another voter action and progress is

better than stagnation and excuses. Both of you, meaning Trump and AOC, push boundaries and force growth. Another one. I feel that you both are outsiders compared to the rest of D.C. and less establishment. So if you zoom out a little bit, what this really points to, the reason people would go to the ballot and say, OK, whatever my party designation is, forget about that for a moment. I like Trump and I like AOC, even though they couldn't be more different on policy. It points to it's not really about policy. It's more about who do I believe is the underdog or outsider? Who do I believe has the passion? Who do I believe has my best interests in mind? Who brings the energy that I

like? Uh, and who is successfully executing for lack of a better term, the populist rhetoric that is appealing to me right now. It's a combination of populist sentiment. Outsider appeal, whether it's real or not, does not matter. That's the critical thing. It's just perception. Outsider appeal, populist setter set of sentiment, disillusionment with the traditional party lines. Yes, I'm pro choice, but I want Trump in Florida,

even though traditionally maybe that would be a more likely Democratic presidential vote. So we're seeing this breakage of party lines as well. And the big themes we're going to talk about later in the show, I might not get to it. We might get to it next week, later in the week. We'll see. But I'm going to talk about the search in the Democratic Party for the heir apparent. And it would be important to properly diagnose the problem in order to carry out that search correctly. And so what we're seeing is authenticity. The perception of authenticity is really important. Voters are saying Trump and AOC seem real and genuine. Um, uh, Carrie Lake doesn't seem real and genuine. Kamala Harris doesn't seem real and genuine, but AOC does. And Trump does.

Doesn't matter if this stuff is true. I'm not going to repeat it, but with all of these, it's perception, the outsider appeal. Some people see Trump and AOC as outsiders. AOC, maybe because of her, you know, upbringing and bartending history and whatnot. Trump, because he was historically a business person, whether he was good or not, doesn't matter. Not not a politician. They like the idea that Trump and AOC as outsiders challenge the status quo in D.C. It's very for all the good things about Kamala Harris. You don't get the feeling that she challenges the status quo. That's for sure. Policy priorities.

There aren't that many, but there's this generic idea that Trump's policy will be good for the working class and that AOC's policy, to the extent a congressperson has policy, will be good for the working class and that AOC's policy to the extent a congressperson has policy will be good for the working class. Doesn't matter if it's real, but a lot of voters felt most Democrats, including people like Kamala Harris, don't really have the working class as their priority. AOC does and Trump does. And that's why they voted for both of them. Very interesting. Um,ulism in general, as I've said before, populism is a rhetoric. It's not a set of policy ideas. Populist Bernie Sanders and populist Tucker Carlson would have very different solutions

to the housing crisis, for example. But they'll both use populist rhetoric when talking about housing. Trump and AOC's approaches are described certainly as populist sounding, um, and discontent with democratic leadership. There are people who voted AOC who don't like democratic leadership because they see her as an outsider to that. And there are people who voted Trump because they don't like democratic leadership in the context of Harris versus Trump. So the, those are all important things to

keep in mind. It does also seem like people kind of want a celebrity. I don't know. I'm thinking about this now, but I'm just spit balling with you. But to some degree, I kind of think Jon Stewart, if he ran would do better than a lot of these Democratic politicians, because the country does seem I'm not saying it's good. But the country seems to have gone in the direction of wanting a big, famous personality in some sense. Maybe it's a bully alpha male type, even if Trump's not really an alpha male, he pretends to be.

Maybe it's an attractive woman who speaks in a way that they like. Maybe it's a former host of The Daily Show. I know he's hosting Mondays. So that's very interesting. One other really interesting little note. AOC asked her followers, where do you get your news? And multiple people, She featured them. OK, multiple people she featured said David Pakman. This is very cool. So I'm putting this up on the screen in the left column. The third one down said Destiny, David Pakman, Brian Tyler Cohen, Jon Stewart. And then the fourth one down on the left said ProPublica, the intercept David Pakman majority report.

So that's super interesting. As you all know, AOC is welcome on the show anytime. And I'd be interested in talking about a lot of this stuff with her. But these these split ticket anecdotes, you know, sometimes we say the broader data is what's important. Wow. Latino voters voted more for Trump than in any previous election for another Republican. Broad data. Sometimes we say, let's hear from individuals who made the individual

decision. I'm voting Trump and I'm voting AOC. In this case, those anecdotes, very, very interesting. All right. I'm going to play a video for you of a Latino for Trump who thinks and expects that the good Latinos aren't going to be deported even if they are undocumented, that the family oriented Latinos aren't going to be deported by Trump, uh, because they are family oriented even if they are undocumented. And this is a perfect example of what he what we've been talking about. There is a disconnect between what Trump's plans really are and what some of his voters tell themselves in order to say to themselves, it's OK to go and vote for this guy.

So here is a Latino Trump voter who says, no, no, no, no, no. They're not just going to deport anybody. Take a listen to this. If they let in hundreds of thousands of people already have criminal records, if deporting them creates a mass deportation, I'm all for it. But what if rounded up in all of that are people who work on a farm, they're doing the jobs that Americans don't want to do. Does that worry you? That wouldn't be fair. Of course, you know, they need to make sure that they don't throw away. They don't kick out.

They don't be poor people that are family oriented, family oriented. They're just, you know, they shouldn't kick out the family oriented people. This is not what is going to happen over the last 48 hours. Multiple interviews with Trump's forthcoming voters are, uh, borders are voters are borders are Tom Homan who is saying everybody's get, we're getting them all out. We're getting them all out. I'll go even further. Trump has expressed a desire to deport legal immigrants. Trump wants to revoke the temporary protected status of legal Haitian migrants, for example, in Springfield, Ohio, and get them out even though they are here legally. Now he hopefully won't get to that.

But if you think Trump won't deport the good family oriented, hardworking Latinos, that's almost all of them. And that's exactly who he's going to deport. Now that they're in for a surprise. Here is maybe a more realistic reaction. Here is Anna Navarro on the view. So in the last few days I got a call from a couple of people, friends of mine, people very close to me in Miami, big Trumpers who are worried

now about what's going to happen to their undocumented nannies. And they should be that help them raise their children. So I told them that I suggested they learn how to clean their kids ass. That is a far more realistic view than this pie in the sky. Well, if you're a family oriented, hardworking, undocumented Latino, you shouldn't be deported. You should be given special treatment of some kind by Donald Trump. Well, it's not going to happen. And this is part of the rude awakening that may be forthcoming. We talked about it yesterday. After the break, I kind of want to dig more into what 2025 might be like for MAGA.

Data brokers are continually collecting extensive details about your online behavior, address, phone number, email, financial information, even political views. This sensitive information about you can easily be found on public data search sites by anybody. Could be an ex, could be an employer. And these brokers sell the data to other businesses and even government agencies like the FBI and NSA who can buy it in bulk to surveil Americans without a search warrant. Scammers and spammers also get your details from these lists. in online. Incogni will follow up and ensure that it's taken down. Incogni keeps you informed every step of the way, and it just saves you countless hours of work that would be nearly impossible to

do on your own. I use Incogni and what they've managed to do is remarkable. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 60 percent off. That's I.N.C.O.G.N.I. dot com slash Well, soon it will be 2025 and MAGA Trump ism really should be riding high. But I want to tell you why 2025 could be the year that Maga crumbles. Now I want to be clear, this isn't another one of these. There's no way Trump can survive this one. This is really not about Trump. It's about Trump ism. They're going to have Trump back in office.

They're going to have the Republican Senate red States firmly in their grip. But 2025 really has to the, the, uh, the potential to be the year that MAGA falls apart. Trump's second term is not shaping up to be the victory lap that his supporters were promised and we're hoping for. We're seeing the cracks. They're coming from within the MAGA camp. And it's not just that Donald Trump is making hires that he is almost certainly going to have to fire if not 2025 and 2026 because it's going to implode. And I want to go through some of what we might see next year. Now first of all, there's the economic reality check that's heading their way and that's

going to hit hard. We talked about it on yesterday's show, the economic policies that Trump plans to implement, the tariffs, the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. They're not new, but they are as dangerous as ever. And in particular, when you do those, when the economy is otherwise doing pretty well, I know that many voters perceived it wasn't, and that's why they voted Trump. But by metrics, there are a lot of metrics where if you throw tax cuts for the rich and corporations and tariffs at it, your metrics are going to get worse and it's going to be difficult to defend.

And economists are warning that his tariff plans really could end up driving prices up again. So the inflation numbers are going to get going. Will they blame Biden for new inflation in summer of 2025? They probably will, to be honest. But will it work? At least I hope not. Now, remember last time under Trump before covid, an economy that by many metrics was fine, but manufacturing costs went up. Small businesses got hit. The American consumer started paying more and more at the store. But the difference this time is that the red state governors are getting nervous. And I alluded to this yesterday. They are not looking forward to defending economic downturns to their own constituents. After all, when you have a tanking local economy,

it's not a winning platform for those in the red states. If you're a red state governor who helped elect Trump, think Sununu in New Hampshire, and then all of a sudden the New Hampshire economy is struggling because of Trump's what Trump's doing, you're not going to be thrilled. Now, the upside for some of these governors is Trump can't run for reelection. So they don't have to say, no, of course, I'm still supporting him into what it, because this is the last run. Businesses have already started to adjust for it. Companies are setting up price hikes, anticipating Trump's policies going into effect. And then there's the internal MAGA split that's

been bubbling up for a while, which is that Trump might have united the base to win. He did unite the base to win, but within his coalition, there are some pretty significant differences. We're talking about factions that are not on the same page at all when it comes to policy. And this is going to come into stark relief next year. It's very easy when you're out and it's 2023 and Joe Biden's president to just join hands and sing Kumbaya with people that really disagree with you on policy. But when you're governing, that's actually going to become an issue. You've got the ultra right crowd who just wants to go hardcore on immigration and on law enforcement.

You've got the libertarian side, the MAGA supporters who just don't want any more government control over their lives and businesses. And these groups are already clashing. They've just been looking the other way when the real enemy was Joe Biden and Trump's administration is going to end up caught in the middle and what will probably be spectacularly backfiring fashion. Trump also is going to have to contend with the reality that his authoritarian streak is not really sitting that well with everybody. It's

true that you go to a MAGA rally and you ask them, oh, what about Trump being dictator for a day? And they go, that's fine. We need a dictator for a day. The hardcore supporters cheer it. They love it. They want the authoritarianism. They want the dictatorship. But there is a growing unease in large swaths of Trump's support base. And Trump's pledge to do the Project 2025 thing of appointing loyalists to the DOJ and other agencies is already causing a stir. One insider said, you weaponize the DOJ. There is no guarantee you'll be safe from it.

And that's also a concern for some of these folks, which is they may be all for Trump weaponizing the DOJ against Democrats, but then if that really becomes the trend, it could be turned back against them. So what does this all mean at the end of the day? Well, the very thing that MAGA supporters thought would solidify their movement, which is having a bunch of people in it with very different views when it actually gets down to policy that could end up tearing the movement apart, the economic fallout, the internal divisions, the unchecked power that could end up in power grabs gone wrong in 2025. And so instead of make America great again, you could have MAGA breaking

from the inside out. Now, from the perspective of the left and of Democrats, what should be the priority? Well, I'm going to, I'm going to outline that later this week. Um, and one of the priorities, it doesn't have to be done now. In fact, I think the end of 2025 into 2026 is the better time to do it. There has to be some kind of an evaluation of who were the likely heir apparent to Democratic leadership. And I don't mean leading the DNC. I mean, just being the sort of obvious choices to be presidential candidate in 2028. Later in the week, we'll talk about Gavin Newsom.

We're going to talk about, you know, there are people talking about Josh Shapiro. Some people are saying J.B. Pritzker. We're going to go about Gavin Newsom. We're going to talk about, you know, there are people talking about Josh Shapiro. Some people are saying J.B. Pritzker. We're going to go through a whole list. And at some point you have to identify those individuals. But maybe more importantly, for twenty five and twenty six, it's really having a plan for allowing Republicans to get in their own way and to have that be the reason that they failed to get stuff done, but really being ready to point the finger because what you can't have is imagine inflation does start to tick up. The stock market declines, unemployment goes up. To

be clear, just on the record, I don't hope any of these things happen. I always am rooting for a strong economy. I don't care who's president. I always want what's best for the American people. But if we start to see those metrics tick in the wrong direction, we can't have another situation where somehow they blame Democrats. Now, you might say, well, why would they? If Trump has the White House and Republicans have the Senate and if they have the House where they're still counting votes, obviously Democrats aren't getting blamed, right?

And you would be very wrong. Republicans regularly in that scenario say, well, we don't have a super majority in the Senate and we do need to build consensus and Democrats have obstructed everything. They will still try to blame Democrats if they're unable to get anything done. Democrats need to really be sure that they know how they're going to counteract that. So we'll talk about that a little bit later on. But 2025 could be could be the year that MAGA starts to crumble. Trump will be fine. He'll be president. He'll do his thing. But the movement is what will hopefully suffer. A shirtless Alex Jones wildly triggered that tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, the auction of InfoWars will begin.

Hold on a second. That is a frickin predator right there. Right. Thank your lucky stars every day. You're not Dave Packman. Well, at least for now, Alex, I don't have auditors coming in to auction off my equipment because I owe a billion dollars to people I defamed. So here's Alex Jones responding to the people that are celebrating. I was getting ready to go to bed early. We've got a big day tomorrow. Info Wars fighting to get Donald Trump inaugurated because the deep

state's publicly trying to stop that right now and got a lot of great tricks up their sleeves. And I noticed trending on the top of X was InfoWars shutdown Wednesday. And I was clear in the video that if good guys buy it, InfoWars will continue on, but if bad guys buy it, it won't. And I saw a lot of leftists running around, you know, celebrating and all the rest of it. Celebrate all you want.

I've got offers all over the country, huge networks. We've got sponsors, backup studios. We're reaching 70, 80 million people a day on X. You know what's funny about we're reaching 80 million people a day? He seems to have fallen for the Twitter traffic numbers where they force Alex's content onto the for you page. And if you just scroll by it and one second of a video plays, it counts as a view and he's completely fallen for it. It's actually very funny. Or he's lying to his audience, both of which are completely plausible. We're all over more radio stations than ever. We're almost a 400 stations. We've gained

like 50 in the last few months. The truth's exploding. The world's waking up. The globalists are in trouble. I didn't do any of the things they said in those fake lawsuits where I was found guilty by judges. The Democratic Party runs the whole thing. The FBI, they don't understand that they cooked the whole thing up with the CIA. That's all come out. And they never wanted money.

They said no to money. They don't want money. There's no money at InfoWars. There's no money in the equipment and the stuff like that. It's all a giant power grab. It's all lawfare, just like against President Trump. And so this is quite the rant. They've spent upwards of $80 million the last seven years suing me and coming after me and

claiming I'm a crook and saying I had all this hidden money and none of it was true. New York Times had a report a few months ago. Jones had meager assets, never had a bunch of money. It's all lies, ladies and gentlemen. I hardly ever even talked about that story. It was true. New York Times report a few months ago, Jones had me your assets never had a bunch of money. It's all lies. Ladies and gentlemen, I hardly ever even talked about that story. The Internet didn't believe it. I covered it a few times.

Many years later, they dig it up. PR firms claim I did. All right. I'm not going to subject you to the rest of his shirtless rant. But then then earlier today on his I guess it's I don't even know what it is. I guess it's a radio show. I don't even know what it is. I guess it's a radio show. I don't even know really what he has. He says that as he is recording this segment,

oh, can you imagine being a fly on the wall? As he was recording this segment, auctioneers were walking through making a list of stuff that they're going to be auctioning off. Day, afternoon, InfoWars, the equipment, InfoWars.com, InfoWarsowarsstore.com and a whole bunch of other stuff globalist is at a federal bankruptcy auction from the fake judgments of the rigged trials where i was found guilty beforehand it's funny because all of the judgments trials and lawsuits

were fake but it sounds like the seizure of assets is going to be very real literal show trials out of the soviet union or nazi germany rob and i walked in here during the break after getting a glass of water saw the auctioneers in inside the building going around surveying from the last time they were here to make sure all the stuff's here everything tagged everything marked this day afternoon. Yep. So listen, this is going to be a tough day for Alex Jones. At the end of the day, we're going to beat these people. Yep.

I'm not trying to be dramatic here, but it's been a hard fight. So listen, it is not my instinct to take pleasure at the misfortune of others. When it comes to Alex Jones, it's not pleasure at misfortune. It's that if you believe in personal responsibility as I do, there have to be consequences to your actions. And Alex Jones has really proactively damaged the lives of the families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting now, 12, almost 13 years in the in the past. And there has to be some accountability.

And it seems as though we are getting there now, as Alex Jones says, he's he's using bankruptcy, of course, to try to circumvent some of this stuff. He has backup studios. He has offers. Alex Jones is going to survive this, but hopefully there will be some degree. And how can you ever even say, but some degree to which, at least in the eyes of the law, some of the victims of Jones will be made partially whole, more whole than they are right now. So we'll follow it. The auctions tomorrow. Maybe I'll try to pick up a camera or some of

that drinkable silver or something like that. We've got a great bonus show for you for you today. We're going to address the alleged drop off in Democratic turnout, and we're going to talk about the numbers and what they mean. Chris Wallace is already leaving CNN. Where is he going next? And despite some pressure, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says she will stay on the court. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. I'll see you then, and I'll be back here tomorrow.