The David Pakman Show - 11/6/23: New polls strike fear in sane people's minds, progressives turn on Bernie

Episode Date: November 6, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Misinformation rapidly spreads about President Joe Biden supposedly being abandoned by Democratic voters over his handling of the situation in Israel and Gaza -- A new poll says Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in five important swing states, and we take a deeper look at the poll -- Failed former President Donald Trump has a plan to immediately deploy the military to American streets if he is re-elected President -- Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders tells some obvious truths about Hamas and is still attacked by fellow so-called progressives -- A confused Donald Trump claims to have won 50 states in 2020 during a deranged speech in Kissimmee, Florida -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie lashes out at Trump MAGA supporters in a crowd as they boo him -- Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson will not explain, when asked, why he claims to have no bank accounts -- Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says that his own son monitors his pornography usage -- A loud and angry group of people are actively trying to get The David Pakman Show cancelled, and it's not impossible that they could succeed -- Voicemail caller who says she knows Marianne Williamson wants to know why no one is talking about Marianne Williamson -- On the Bonus Show: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy invites Donald Trump to Ukraine to explain why he can't end the war in 24 hours, Democrats criticize Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for "from the river to the sea" comment, e-cigarette use by US high school students falls, much more... 🔊 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription at https://babbel.com/pakman 👂 MDHearing: Use code PAKMAN to get a pair of hearing aids for $297 at https://mdhearing.com 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.com/pakman 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman 🛌 Go to https://helixsleep.com/pakman & use code HELIXPARTNER20 for 20% OFF + 2 free pillows 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.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

We start today with fact versus emotion on this program. I try to lean towards fact and many people in the audience wrote to me over the weekend about two different new polls, both seemingly spelling disaster for the potential reelection of Democratic President Joe Biden. Now, we're going to deal with each poll one by one. The first poll relates to whether Democrats are more or less likely to vote for Biden based on his handling of the Israeli Hamas conflict, whether voters in general are going towards Joe Biden or away from him on the basis of how he has responded to what is going on in the Middle East. The concern and I'm going to assume that it's the people emailing me genuinely haven't looked at the poll. And the concern from so many is Biden is screwing up this this Israel Hamas thing and he is now going to get

crushed because Democrats are abandoning him because they don't like how he's handling the situation. Now, that is interesting. If it's true, it's a real problem, especially since the right is even worse on this issue. If you don't like what Biden is doing on Israel, Hamas, you're really not going to like where a what a Trump or a dissent is or some Republican would do. But we need to start with what is the truth here. And this, I hope people understand, is totally separate from our opinions about how Joe Biden is doing. I might say Joe Biden is not doing well on this Israel Hamas issue. But what I care about is what does the polling say about how it is likely to influence voters? Now, what are they talking about?

What they're talking about is a poll that finds that people generically when they say people, they mean American voters. American voters are now saying they are less likely to vote for Joe Biden in November of twenty twenty four based on how he has handled this issue. Now, what they are often referring to and what they are showing you is this, which we're putting up on the screen. This is part of the poll. And this looks bad. When you look at this, you see that 31 percent say they are less likely to vote for Biden over his handling of this issue. But only 14 percent say they are more likely to vote for Biden. You handling of this issue, but only 14% say they are more

likely to vote for Biden. You look at those numbers and you go, oh my God, there is a 17 point negative differential of people who are no longer going to vote for Joe Biden because of his handling of this issue. But this piece of the puzzle alone doesn't distinguish between whether people were planning to vote for Biden to begin with or whether they would even consider voting for Joe Biden. Let me explain. This has made for some really nice, scary headlines. But rather than scary headlines, I want the numbers. So let's look at the full results of this poll by party. And then you look at these and wait a second. This reveals that Republicans say they are 58 percent less likely to vote for Joe Biden. Well, most of them weren't going to vote for Joe Biden anyway. According to the national election polls, exit polls, this was done by Edison Research. Only six percent of Republicans voted for Joe Biden in 2020. So

among Republicans, 94 percent of whom voted for Trump and six percent voted for Biden. That group, 58 percent say, oh, I'm less likely to vote for Biden based on his handling of what's happening in Israel. Well, they weren't going to vote for him anyway. It does not matter. Then you look at Democrats. Now look at this. Among Democrats, 60 percent say Joe Biden's handling of the Israeli Hamas crisis doesn't affect my vote one way or the other. Twenty eight percent of Democrats say I'm more likely to vote for Biden now, and 11 percent say less likely. Understand that among Democrats who are primarily the people that voted for Biden in the general election, Democrats are saying we are more likely to vote for Joe Biden in 2024 based on his handling of the Israeli Hamas crisis. Among Democrats,

95 percent of whom voted Biden in 2020. He is doing better based on his handling of this issue. It makes for a super hot headline, right? Dems abandoning Biden over Israel fiasco, except he's hemorrhaging support mostly with voters who weren't going to vote for him anyway. The poll didn't say, are you planning to vote for Biden or might you vote for Biden? And how does this issue change your vote? They just said, are you more or less likely to vote for Joe Biden? Republicans who had a one percent chance of maybe voting for Biden now have a zero percent chance of voting for Biden.

It does not make a difference. If you look at independence, it's sort of less remarkable. Biden's a little bit underwater on this issue with independence, but that was pretty 50 50 split in 2020. Here is the really important thing to consider as well. You might be less likely or more likely to vote for Biden based on his handling of this issue, but you might primarily be deciding whether to vote for Biden based on the economy of this issue. But you might primarily be deciding whether to vote for Biden based on the economy or something unrelated. Also not asked in this poll was which issues are the deciding issues for you. And so this is a poll that generated the exact sort of emotional, breathless, fear mongering headlines. And a lot of people, based on my email over the weekend, did not seem to want to think critically about this.

But on this issue, based on this poll, Joe Biden is being helped by his handling. And let's be honest, Joe Biden has managed to point out. Obviously, Israel is going to defend itself after being attacked in a way that is the equivalent of 35000 people being killed in one event in the US population adjusted. And at the same time, Joe Biden has said Israel should not take actions that will worsen the situation. Israel must allow aid into Gaza, et cetera. Biden's core electorate likes it based on the very poll that many people are citing to say disaster for Joe Biden. So that's one poll. Let's now talk about the New York Times poll that many people wrote to me about.

There is a new New York Times poll released over the weekend and the big headline, and it is an accurate headline, is that Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden in major swing states, in five critical states, in fact. And dozens of people wrote to me and said, David, you've got to look at this poll. Should we be worried? Should we be worried about this poll? And so that's what we're going to look at. We are going to try to answer that question. Is this a poll that we should be concerned about? So here are the big results. If you look at this new poll from The New York Times, you find that in Nevada, a state that Biden won last time around, Trump is leading by 11. If you look at Georgia, a state that Biden won, Trump is leading by six. If you look at Arizona, a state that Biden won, Trump is leading by five.

If you look at Michigan, which Biden won, Trump is leading by five. If you look at Pennsylvania, which Biden won, Trump is leading by four. And if you look at Wisconsin, which Biden won, Biden is winning there, but by a relatively small margin. So is this a disastrous poll? Obviously, it's not good at any point that polling is taken. You would rather the person you want to win be leading in the polls. There is no doubt about that. We don't want to sugarcoat that. But there are a number of important caveats here. First of all, when you look at these numbers, a lot of the electorate is missing. What I mean by that is in Nevada, 41 plus 52 is 93.

A full 7 percent of the electorate is not yet in there. You look at Georgia, 43, 49. That adds up to 92. There is 8 percent of the electorate that is not yet there. You look at Georgia, forty three, forty nine. That adds up to ninety two. There is eight percent of the electorate that is not yet there. And part of this is that when you are a year out as we are right now, it can be difficult to get accurate data. Now, that doesn't mean that the polling isn't reflecting what people are saying based on how they were sampled three days ago. That's not what I mean. I just mean that not everything that will influence an election in a year is baked in here. If you look more broadly at polling, you see that it's

sort of a mixed bag. You've got Biden winning some Trump winning some. You can go state by state. You can look at general election polls. It's much closer. But the point here that is most important is Trump could win. Trump could win. So if we need a wake up call to say it doesn't matter what state you live in, you've got to be registered. You've got to vote. This is a reasonable wake up call. Now, it's important to also remember Trump's not even the official Republican candidate yet. We are following it really closely. And we know that Trump is the presumptive nominee because he's leading by so much. Sixty percent of the vote. Very hard to imagine anything changes that Trump is not yet officially the nominee. There are certainly left leaning voters who, if and when

Donald Trump becomes the nominee, will say, I'm getting out there to make sure Trump doesn't become president once again. Trump's talking now about deploying the military to police the streets on day one of his next presidency. We'll talk about that later. This is scary authoritarian stuff. Trump's also facing ninety one criminal charges. The trials haven't even started yet and it's already a disaster. We just don't know how that's going to affect things. Now,

I'm not saying the trials will dissuade MAGA hardcore voters from voting Trump, but the trials may well inspire many left leaning voters who maybe weren't planning to vote to say, I've got to vote. This guy can't be president again. The economy is clearly doing fine. And by some indicators, it's improving, not worsening. That's certainly good for the incumbent. And in in terms of this specific poll, there are arguments being made that the partisan split in this poll, in other words, the methodology is not great. I don't even feel the need to delve into that because then we're nitpicking. We should

just look at an average of polls. And if you look at an average of polls at minimum, this is a very close race. And worst case, Trump may be leading by a couple of points right now. What that means is we all need to activate and we all need to vote and we all need to be involved. That's why we're here. That's why we're doing the show. That's why we're talking about this. So this is politics. OK, if it were just our guy is leading all along and that's it and nobody worries, well, that's never the way that it is. So let's not see this as a reason to say we're throwing in the towel. We see this as a reason to say, oh, we've got a year to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't get back in office. And we need to understand why that would be a disaster. And we need to understand what will motivate people to go out and vote to prevent that disaster from taking place. This is politics.

We're engaging with the system. We're doing the thing. So let's all remain calm, whether or not the methodology on this New York Times poll is perfect or not, no matter what the situation is a year out, you cannot say with certainty that these polls will reflect the results in a year. The primaries aren't even over yet. We can say at this point with voting starting in a few weeks, Trump almost certainly has the nomination wrapped up unless something changes. But let's let's let's figure out who the Republican nominee is officially going to be first and in how many trials he will be embroiled at the time of the election before we start with the doom and gloom. So that's where I am right now. I hope that

you are subscribed on YouTube. We're going to be here through the election and beyond. We're very close to two million subscribers on YouTube. In fact, we're scheduled to get there in about a month. OK, about 30 something thousand away. Make sure two million subscribers on YouTube. In fact, we're scheduled to get there in about a month. OK, about 30 something thousand away. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. We're going to take a break and really a packed program today. If you or a parent are starting to lose your hearing, you're not alone. About 48 million Americans have some hearing loss and only about 20% of those who would benefit from

a hearing aid actually use one. Our sponsor MD hearing makes FDA registered rechargeable hearing aids that cost just a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost. MD hearings, new neo model costs less than 10% what you'll pay for traditional marked up hearing aids. I have a close family friend who's been using MD hearing for a long time now. I ran into her the other day having a great experience with MD hearing. She loves how MD hearing has audiologists on staff to help her calibrate the device. She says it works better than anything she's ever used.

MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw that many of his patients needed hearing aids, could not afford them. And so his mission was to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford. MD Hearing offers a forty five day risk free trial with a 100 percent money back guarantee. You can buy with confidence. And if you're still on the fence about MD hearing, they were just selected to be the hearing aid supplier for top Medicare Advantage plans. It's just a brand you can trust. Go to MD hearing dot com and use the code Pacman to get a pair for just two ninety seven. That's MD hearing dot com. If you live in the United States, did you know that anyone can access your most private information using people search sites.

These are sites populated with information from data brokers. They have access to your social security number, login credentials, addresses, location history, even your online activity. That is not information about yourself that you want floating around. And the solution is our sponsor, Incogni. With just a couple of clicks, you can grant Incogni permission to go to work for you. They contact the data brokers on your behalf. They say, remove this person's data and they ensure that your private data will stay private.

Incogni will also handle disputes on your behalf, keeps you updated on progress every step of the way. They tell you how many data search sites they've gotten your information removed from, which ones they're working on and other information. So this can protect you from identity theft. It can keep entities from looking up your information like insurance companies, financial institutions, your employer. It can cut down on spam and telemarketing calls. And the first hundred people to use the code Pacman get 60 percent off when you go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman. That's I.N.C. O.G.N.I dot com slash Pacman, which gives you 60 percent off. The link is in the

podcast notes. Remember that the David Pacman show is an audience supported program. Get the full experience, the daily commercial free show six hours sooner than everybody else gets it by signing up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code F Fox. Just a little reminder of our ongoing battle with Fox News. Use the coupon code F Fox at join Pacman dot com for a sizable discount off of the cost of a membership. I really, truly appreciate and I'm flattered by the record number of folks who signed up in October. We'll talk about that a little bit later. We are continuing our discussion of what is at stake in the twenty twenty four

election. Now, as I've told so many of you before, I don't do the thing that lots of corporate media does where they say the most important election of our times every single election. And I'll give you an example. In 2012, when Barack Obama was running for reelection against Mitt Romney, Right. I made it very clear that I supported Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's economic views, as well as his views on social issues, did not line up with mine. And the candidate that was closest to me was Barack Obama. And thus I voted for Obama and I supported Obama. And it was a good thing that Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney. But I certainly was not telling you this is the most important election of our time. And in fact, if Mitt Romney had become president, we would have had disagreements

on tax policy. We would have had some disagreements on foreign policy and all sorts of different policy. But it would not have been the existential threat to our democracy that Donald Trump, having been reelected in 2020, would have been. Thankfully, that didn't happen. And it would not have been the extraordinary threat to everything that many of us hold dear that it would be if Trump were to be reelected in 2024. So it is really important to understand what the stakes are as we now have a year almost to the day, a year left before the 2024 election. Here is another vignette. Of what this danger and threat is, there is now very good reporting that Trump and his team have the idea of immediately deploying the military to police

the streets of the United States on day one. If Donald Trump is elected, the Daily Beast reports the former president's allies are developing a plan that would immediately deploy the military to the streets against potential demonstrators. This is absolutely horrifying. According to a Washington Post report yesterday, the drafting of such plans has been largely unofficially outsourced to a coalition of right wing think tanks working under the title Project 2025. We've talked about Project 2025 and the authoritarian dictatorial nightmare that it is. It identified it was identified in his immediate priority for the hypothetical resurrected Trump administration to deploy to the streets.

In response to questions from the Post, Trump campaign spokesman Stephen Chung provided a statement. President Trump is focused on crushing his opponents, blah, blah, blah. However, citing people who have spoken to him, the Post also reported Trump remarked in private conversations he wants to use the Justice Department to go after his enemies, including former members of his own administration, like John Kelly, Bill Barr and Mark Milley. And importantly, there is the idea of this plan of also deploying military to the streets to police the streets against demonstrators.

Now, let's talk about that in some detail. It's crazy that there are people who will vote for this guy at all, but that's the country we have. And so sitting here lamenting, oh my goodness, how is it that anyone's willing to vote for this guy? The United States is in a dark place. There are tens of millions of people who are going to vote for this guy. There are people who will vote for this guy whether he's in prison or not.

And in fact, him being in prison might help him among some of his electorate. Nothing is going to sway his supporters. It is a cult. It's like Jim Jones in Jonestown. It's like, you know, pick whatever the Branch Davidians and David Koresh, whatever you want to pick. So what we have to hope for is that if and when he finally becomes the official Republican nominee, it will motivate the sane

people to go out and vote against him. That's the hope. We have to hope for that. There is a real legal question. We've talked before about using the military for domestic law enforcement. Why have we talked about it before? Because Trump always seems to love the idea. The ability to tell the military, go and police the

streets is limited by something called the Posse Cometatus Cometatus Act of 1878. The pronunciation really doesn't matter. What matters is you're not really allowed to do this. It's a federal statute and it says the federal government can really only in extraordinarily extenuating circumstances deploy military personnel to enforce domestic policy in the United States. There are a few exceptions. When can the federal government say we're sending the federal military to enforce the law? It's actually quite ironic. One of the exceptions to this act is the Insurrection Act of 1807. And I know you know where we're going with this. One of the situations where a president can deploy the military to enforce the law within

the United States is in the case of insurrection and rebellion. If what is happening on the streets of the country is so insane that it qualifies as an attempt at insurrection or rebellion, then you are allowed to deploy the military. So think about that. The only reasonable deployment of the military in this capacity for years would have been to quell the very Trump is insurrection that Trump incited after 2020 to try to steal an election that he actually lost. It's mind blowing that that is actually a legitimate exception, but it would be applied against Trump supporters when they tried their insurrection. Now, there's some other exceptions, national emergencies, certain other specific conditions where Congress can authorize military

action within the United States in extraordinary circumstances. And it's important to remember that the military is not trained for policing. Yes, there's a subsection of folks in the military who are military police. They are trained specifically to function as law enforcement within military contexts. But when you deploy a military for domestic law enforcement, it can have an escalate escalatory, escalatory effect. It can escalate the situation rather than calm the situation. Using the military against civilians can lead to excessive force. It can lead to human rights violations, and it can be an intimidating presence that only makes whatever problem you think you've identified worse. So we can look at some examples.

Nineteen fifty seven, the Little Rock Nine situation where the military was deployed to ensure that when black kids were going to schools as as the integration of schools started that they weren't going to be attacked. You can look at the 68 Chicago riots, the 1992 L.A. riots, 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. Some governors used state national guards in 2020 when certain protests got out of hand. But that is not federal, the federal government deploying federal military. So this is an extraordinarily dangerous direction to go. And unfortunately, Trump seems to have a plan to do it. Yet another reason, yet another reason why we really have to make sure that this guy does not get another four years.

All right. Listen, how do I even do this? Bernie Sanders is now being attacked by the litmus test left. Progressive Bernie Sanders, the icon of so many American progressives, had the audacity to say, how do you do a ceasefire with Hamas when Hamas says it will never stop until Israel is destroyed. OK, this is Bernie Sanders saying this. And there are so-called leftists who now have turned on Bernie. Remember, I mean, how do we I don't even know how to do this. I don't I don't know how to do the segment because this this litmus test left is now, you know, for me, if I have an elected official who I find to be trustworthy and thoughtful.

And then they say something that surprises me, like what Bernie said, I guess, surprise some people rather than saying, well, now he's on my naughty list and Bernie is not even progressive enough. Maybe I would go, oh, you know what? Maybe I should listen to what Bernie is saying, because Bernie has been very good on this issue, both in saying that Israel's actions need to be constrained. But also, how do you do a cease fire when Hamas says they're never going to accept that they're going to keep trying to destroy the state of Israel?

Let's go to the video. This is Bernie yesterday on CNN. Eminently reasonable, eminently reasonable. Take a listen. I want to just clarify one thing, Senator, if I might. You support a humanitarian pause in Gaza. Some of your fellow progressives say that there should be a full on ceasefire, which would require an agreement on both sides to halt the fighting. Do you support a ceasefire? And if not, why not? Well, I don't know how you could have a ceasefire, permanent ceasefire with an organization like Hamas, which is dedicated to turmoil and chaos and destroying the state of Israel.

And I think what the Arab countries in the region understand that Hamas has got to go. So what we need right now, the immediate task right now is to end the bombing, to end the horrific humanitarian disaster, to build go forward with the entire world for a two tier two state solution to the crisis, to give the Palestinian people hope. All right. This is this. This is eminently reasonable. And I'm already seeing even in the comments here, people, I'm furious with Bernie. I can't believe Bernie. You know, at the end of the day, Bernie's a Jew. So we knew we ultimately weren't going

to be able to trust Bernie. But understand, he is calling for a humanitarian pause. Now, that's not a ceasefire, because, again, as he says, you need two sides for a ceasefire. We just had video of Hamas officials saying we're going to do October 7th again and again and again until Israel is no more. At the same time, Bernie is being clear. The bombing must stop. Let's listen. Four weeks ago, more than 1400 Israelis, mostly civilians, were slaughtered in their homes and at a festival. Let's listen. Hamas is an awful terrorist organization, is they slaughtered 1,400 people in cold blood.

Israel has a right to defend itself. But what Israel does not, in my view, have a right to do is to kill thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children who had nothing to do with that attack. So the immediate concern, to my mind, is we have got to stop the that attack. So the immediate concern that are, from my mind is we have got to stop the bombing. Now you had 600 over 600,000 people pushed out of their homes. Where are they going? They're saying in United Nations facilities overcrowded, there's not enough water, there's not enough food, there's not enough medicine. So what is Bernie saying that is wrong? This is getting super depressing. Bernie's being called a supporter of genocide for what he is saying. I don't see any support of genocide there. Now,

some are reacting by saying, how do you end the bombing but not a ceasefire? Well, I guess he means you pause the airstrikes. You continue to do special ops operations and other tactics to try to get individuals involved with Hamas, but no airstrikes or what? We should ask him that, right? Because he sounds eminently reasonable by expressing understandable, logical, human centered concern about Palestinians. And at the same time, he's saying something that's so obvious, which is how do you do a ceasefire when one side doesn't respect nor

would even agree to it because they state we will keep doing this until we destroy the country of Israel. So once again. When the litmus test left comes in and says we've lost Bernie, he used to be so good, but now he's depraved and bloodthirsty and a genocidal maniac. That sounds crazy. More reasonable would be to say, hey, you know what? Bernie's a guy who for decades I've trusted on so many issues. And by the way, none of this is new. Bernie has always had essentially this very balanced human centered view on this issue.

Maybe I should listen because Bernie is saying this and I like Bernie and trust Bernie and he's been right for so long. It's crazy to actually see on a dime how the anti-Semitism starts raining down on Bernie. Find these videos and look at the comments below if you don't believe me. So listen, Bernie is saying it exactly the way it needs to be said. As many in the audience know, despite claims to the contrary, I'm much closer. I'm 95. If you put me between Bernie and Biden, I'm 95 percent of the way towards Bernie right on the political spectrum. I think Bernie's making a lot of sense here. And I welcome your comments and your thoughts. Thanks, David. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. super easy with every box of real paper you buy. They are funding reforestation efforts across the country through their partnership with one tree planted. So unlike the toilet paper that cuts

down trees, real is helping to actively plant them. Go to real paper dot com slash Pacman and use code Pacman for 30 percent off your first order and free shipping. That's R.E.L. paper dot com slash Pacman and then use code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes. 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 where to start when buying a mattress. I certainly didn't. Their newest collection of mattresses We'll be right back. support and durability. All of their mattresses ship right to your door. Totally free. They come with a 10 or 15 year warranty and you get 100 nights to decide if you like it. My audience

also gets a whopping 20 percent off all orders, plus two free pillows. Go to Helix Sleep dot com slash Pacman and enter code Helix Partner 20 at checkout. That's Helix sleep dot com slash Pacman. Then use code Helix partner to zero to get 20 percent off and two free pillows. The info is in the podcast notes. Trump, very sweaty, spoke in Kissimmee, Florida over the weekend, and he is now claiming to have won some imaginary election by winning all 50 states. This election did not exist. There's two possibilities for what he's talking about. They're both bonkers and deranged.

Let's take a listen. And this this guy's brain is just not functioning. Take a look. We won in the last time 50 states. Think of it. 50 states. We won every state. We then did great in the election. We got 12 million more votes or so, 12 million more votes than we got the first time. So there's two possibilities for what he is saying. Both are untrue. Number one, Trump is claiming that he defeated Joe Biden in all 50 states in the general election of 2020. Obviously, that didn't happen. It's also possible that what Trump means is that in the 2020 Republican

primary, he won all 50 states. The only problem with that is there was no such actual primary. There was no actual primary election, much like now with a couple of people who are saying I'm running against Joe Biden in the primary. There's not an actual primary going on. And that is just I mean, Trump says he won something that didn't exist, that there was no such primary election, the brain having a problem. I think we are able to say Trump making a number of confused and deranged comments saying that windmills are breaking and destroying whales because of vibration and noise. Here is the failed former president looking confused, speaking, confused if they didn't subsidize it, that it because they lose a fortune every time they make a car, just like on the windmills. They subsidize every windmill. Speaking confused. You know, we had one whale in 10 years get washed up ashore in New Jersey.

Now they're coming up every week. They're having they're being destroyed because of the sound and the vibration. The sound and the vibration is just ripping whales apart from their core. Now, we've talked before in exquisite detail about the issues related to animals from wind farms. And as I've explained so many times, they are number one issues that can and will be dealt with. And number two, a fraction as problematic as the issues with fossil fuels. And if you think that a few whales having a problem due to wind farms is is something to be concerned about or some birds, then you should see what happens to our ecosystems and and our environments that hurt animals thanks to the refinement and drilling for all sorts of

different fossil fuels. Later in the show, we will look at Chris Christie getting booed badly, badly by a mega crowd. Trump continuing to attack Chris Christie now talking about Chris Christie not being a fat pig saying, no, no, no, he's not a fat pig. Oh, they virtually boot him off the stage because you know what? What's it all about? He's just doing it because I didn't give him a job in the administration. What's he doing? And why would I do a debate when Christie, sir, I'm sorry, he is not a fat pig, okay?

This man, he is not a fat pig. No, it's true. Right. And you can't use the term fat. You're allowed to use the word pig, but not fat. No, the man just said he's a fat pig. And I said, no, he's not a fat pig. So now the press can't kill me because all I'm doing is responding.

I'm responding. He is not a big. Speaker 1 There you go. So Trump making it clear, Chris Christie, not a fat pig. Trump, not one either. I guess Trump then once again, misstating, you know, you'd think someone between the last rally and this one would show Trump a map and say, sir, Hungary does not share a border with Russia. It's just not the way the map is. And Trump would go, give me a Sharpie. I'll fix that. No, Trump again saying that Hungary

shares a border with Russia. This is simply not true. These are not matters of opinion. You know, one of the strongest of all is Viktor Orban and Viktor Orban of, you know, that of Hungary. And he has the privilege of fronting on Ukraine and Russia. The only one he fronts on both knows very well. The only country with a border with Ukraine and Russia is Hungary, except Hungary does not have a border with Russia. Second time, at least that Trump has said that. And then Trump does adapt his tears in their eyes story to recount when Ron DeSantis came to him crying, begging for an endorsement.

I think I could tears flowing from his eyes. I need your endorsements. I need your endorsement, please. I need your freaking endorsement, please. Please. I just need it. I need that endorsement, sir. I still struggle to believe that Ron DeSantis went crying to Trump. But listen, stranger things have happened. So there's two sides here. OK, there's two sides to this one. Four more years of Trump is an authoritarian nightmare. OK, we're talking about he's earlier in the show deploying military to police the streets, directing the DOJ to prosecute his political

enemies, shutting down media outlets. And then forget about foreign policy. Just crazy, crazy on policy. Also, the guy's brain seems to be failing. He's totally emotionally dysregulated, makes no sense, often struggles to say simple words and just doesn't seem with it in any way, shape or form. So two different reasons why the combination would be potentially deadly if this guy becomes president again. Chris Christie is still technically running. I know many of you will be surprised to hear that given that.

Let's see, where is Chris Christie right now? Given that he's polling two point three percent, some of you would be understandably shocked to hear that former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, is still running for the Republican nomination. He's getting nowhere. He's the one sane person who's running and he's getting absolutely nowhere. He lashed out when Trump supporters booed him over the weekend. Check this out. Your anger against the truth is reprehensible, Chris Christie said to a crowd booing him at the Republican Freedom Summit. This is painful in a way to watch, but it's really important that we not romanticize where the Republican Party is right now. This is where the Republican Party is right now. This is where the Republican Party finds itself. It's booing the one sane guy who's willing to go up there and just tell some

uncontroversial truths. Listen to this. Yeah. Well, now it feels like home. Thank you all very much. Let me let me first thank the chairman and everyone here. Yep. Look. What a shock here for Trump. I'm going to fall over dead. Now look, now look, every one of those boos, every one of those catcalls, every one of those yells will not keep it. Yes, sure. Will not solve one problem we face in this country. Will not solve and will and will not and will not make this country better. Your anger, your anger, your anger against the truth is reprehensible. Wow. And this is when Chris Christie decided I am no longer really trying to win this nomination.

I am just going to attack these morons and tell them what it is. And he is accurate. When you think about the problems, when you think about the problems that our country and this world is facing. Yep. When you think about that, this type of pettiness, this type of pettiness is beneath, beneath the process of electing a president. He's right. Yeah. of electing a president. He's right. And as people watch today, if your arguments are so strong, if your arguments are so great and mine are so bad, then just keep quiet.

Let me make my awful arguments and then you can just reject them out of hand. But the problem is, the problem is, the problem is you fear the truth. Yeah. You know, he's not a guy that I'm like, oh, I love Chris Christie. I wish he could be the president. But he has correctly diagnosed the problem with these MAGA people. They deplore the truth and they just want to do their dog and pony show and support their cult leader. And they don't even have the willingness. I don't know about ability, but willingness to actually think about anything and make a decision based on facts. Instead,

choosing debunk talking points, emotional arguments, contrived cultural attacks and the like. So I don't know if this is the end of Chris Christie's political career. I'm hoping I actually don't know. He must be on the stage. I don't have in front of me whether Chris Christie has made the stage for this Wednesday night's debate, which we will be covering live. I hope that he's there and he's able to, you know, keep telling what should be really pretty comfortable truths. But I guess to Republicans at this point are uncomfortable truths. I hope all of it is able to happen. But this is likely the end of Chris Christie's political career, I would guess. And he is going down in part because he is the one who is willing to say things that the entire Republican Party should be saying, ready to say no more Trump.

That was a mistake. Let's do something different. Let's do something that doesn't put our democracy on the brink. So to that extent, I disagree with his view on abortion. I disagree with his view on abortion. I disagree with his view on taxation. But to that extent, I at least respect what Chris Christie is trying to do. And you really got the sense in this speech that he's like, it's over for me. I'm just going to go and attack these people in the crowd. And that's what he did. And he's right to do it. We're going

to take a quick break. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. Make sure you're following on Snapchat. I'm not kidding. Snapchat is exploding, particularly with a younger audience than we normally reach. It's a good thing. We need to reach more of these young voters. Find us on Snapchat. Find me on Tik Tok wherever it's to. The show is too available. It's too easy to find. All right. We'll be right back. stress management, immune system. And that's where our sponsor AG1 comes in. AG1 is a foundational nutrition supplement. It supports your body's universal needs with something that you can easily absorb and utilize. So instead of a multivitamin or fumbling around with 10 different vitamin bottles, I've just replaced all of it with one scoop of AG1. I get the vitamins, the minerals, the prebiotics,

the probiotics, all the stuff I'm looking for. It's delicious. It goes great in a smoothie. You can drink it straight with water like I do in the morning before my famous cappuccino. I've been doing it for years. You're just covering your nutritional basis for the whole day. It's simple. You don't have to buy a bunch of different vitamins. My audience knows I don't advertise miracle solutions and cures, and there's no miracle cure solution here. It's just a simple product that works, that replaces the clumsiness and the cost of a ton of different vitamins. Go to drink a G1 dot com slash Pacman. You'll get five free travel packs of a G1 and a free year's supply of vitamin D, which, as I've said, I take in the winter when there's a lot less sun

out that drink a is an atom G is in green. The number one dot com slash Pacman to get five free travel packs of a G1 and a free year's supply of vitamin D. The link is in the podcast notes. We're continuing to try to learn more about Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, who is the least vetted speaker of the House, I would argue, in modern American political history. One of the questions we continue to try to answer is why does this guy not disclose any bank accounts on seven years of financial disclosures as a member of the house? He has not disclosed a single bank account. How does a guy who's in his fifties not have any bank accounts to disclose? And there have been a number of different hypotheses about why this might be.

He was asked about this on Fox News yesterday morning on Fox News Sunday. I have to tell you, he he said words when he was asked about it, but they don't really clarify anything. Let's take a listen to this. But I have to ask you this because there's been so much made about it. Vanity Fair says this. What's up with Mike Johnson's very shady seeming financial disclosures? They say you've never reported a bank account or an asset on a financial disclosure form going back to 2016. Can you clear that up for us? Yes, look, I'm a man of modest means, okay? I was a lawyer, but I did constitutional law. And most of my career I spent in the nonprofit sector. We have-

Yeah, totally normal. Just about every lawyer I know doesn't have a bank account for kids five now that are very active and have kids in graduate school, law school, undergraduate. We have. Yeah. And if you're helping them pay for that stuff, it needs to come out of a bank account. It's very weird of expenses, but I can relate to everybody else. My father was a firefighter, right? I didn't grow up with great means, but I think that helps us be a better leader because we can relate to every hardworking American family. That's who we are. And I think it governs and helps govern my decisions and how I lead. Speaker 1 Well, majority of Americans now say they're living paycheck to paychecks. Speaker 2 Yeah, sir, you didn't actually answer the question in any way whatsoever. You've

clarified nothing at all and actually are only making this even more of a question. So there's a few different speculations that are going on. How does this guy, you know, longtime lawyer, 50s earns one hundred and seventy four thousand dollars a year now, more a speaker of the House, no bank account. And he has all these debts. He says he needs to pay grad school mortgage, all these different things. So a couple options. Number one, he's lying. That's it. He's lying. He the financial disclosures for whatever reason

he's hiding that he has bank accounts or the bank accounts or some kind of bank account that he thinks it would be disadvantageous to reveal. That's one possibility. He's just been filing false financial disclosures. All right. I mean, would be kind of weird. I don't know why he would be doing that, but that's one possibility. Number two, as he says, he's broke and he's not the first to suggest that others have said this guy seems to be genuinely terrible with money. Maybe he's just broke, but it doesn't really make sense because in order to pay his mortgage and to pay the college tuition and all these things, the money almost always comes out of a bank account. I guess you maybe can use a credit card, but it doesn't. Where's

the money? Where's the money coming from? It usually would come from a bank account unless you're paying cash. And usually people don't pay cash for mortgages and college tuition. Now, here's option number three. Last week, I said option number three is this is some kind of weird Christian thing because this guy is he's a Christian. He's a man of God. His wife was on her knees because of his speakership and praying and different things. So he's he's an extreme, extreme Christian, we could say. And let me explain what that might be. There is a provision in the financial disclosure rules that say if they are non interest bearing checking or savings accounts, they don't have to be disclosed if they earn zero interest. Now, you might say every account, I even get a few pennies in my checking account.

Like what accounts have no interest? Well, here's the interesting thing. There are interpretations in Christianity that earning interest on deposits is a sin. It's usury. So if his Christian beliefs are such that he believes interest is a sin, he might have his money in some kind of special non-interest bearing Christian bank account, which if I'm reading the rules correctly, would not require disclosure if it doesn't earn any interest. That's the best guess I have right now. It's still extraordinarily strange.

But this is a strange guy. And if you don't believe that this is strange, just wait until I tell you what else Mike Johnson's been up to. Mike Johnson has his own son monitoring his usage of pornography. This is so insane. These people are so weird. And it might actually be a national security risk. Let me explain. Mike Johnson admits that he and his son monitor each other's porn intake. He has. How do you even explain these things? Mike Johnson has what's called an accountability partner. He is the accountability partner of his son and his son is his accountability partner. They use technology, some kind of Christian covenant app, which will notify the other person about porn consumption. If Mike Johnson watches porn, his son will be notified through this service. And if Mike

Johnson's son watches porn, Mike Johnson will be notified. OK, he talked about this at some event. I guess this was a couple of years ago or something like that. Now, just as a reminder, this is a really weird dude. He's in what's called a covenant marriage, which exists in only a few states. It makes it harder to get a divorce. Louisiana is one of the states that offers that he's in such a marriage. So here he is talking about technology and and this tool that he uses. Covenant eyes within your home. And so why is that such an effective tool? It's called Covenant Eyes. Why do parents need to put this into their home? Yeah, that's great. Great question. We probably

could have called this more appropriately a war on the darkness of technology because there are some good things with technology, of course. I mean, you know, the Bible apps we all love. We broadcast our services, you know, on our social media. And there's some very positive things. But there's also, as Clint's pointed out aptly, some really dark things. So Covenant Eyes is the software that we've been using a long time in our household. Right.

I first learned about it at, I think, a Promise Keepers event in the early 2000s. I think it was developed in about the year 2000. But it's the largest accountability software that there is. And there's some paperwork out there on the table that I think everybody may have picked up on the way in. If not, you'll get it. It's a subscription-based. We don't make any money on this. I'm telling you, we use it, okay? I'm endorsing it because I'm a user. It's about $15 a month, $16 a month, something like that. And you get up to 10 devices. And what it is, it's accountability software.

So men in a church, you know, men's Bible study groups will do it. That's how it was presented at Promise Keepers. But they also mentioned, hey, when your kids become teenagers, especially if you have boys, dads, they're talking to the guys at this event, you might want to think about doing this with your sons. And so we've been doing that. And so what it does, real simply, is it has an algorithm and software. It's way above my head how it works. But it scans. You obviously opt into it, but it scans all the activity on your phone or your devices, your laptop, tablet, what have you.

We do all of it. And then it sends a report to your accountability partner. So my accountability partner right now there you go. My accountability partner right now is Jack, my son. Right. And so he's 17. So he and I get a report of all the things that are on our phones or all of our devices once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your accountability partner gets an immediate notice. I'm proud to tell you my son is, he's got a clean slate. All right. But, but we get, we get, he won't say speak for himself, but his son's got a clean slate report and

it says, hey, no, no activity of concern. And it's really, really sensitive. It'll pick up almost anything. It looks for keywords, search terms and also images. And it will send your accountability partner a blurred picture of the image. Right. It's not. So you get the images, but they've been blurred out.

Why are these people so damn bizarre? I mean, weird beyond belief. Now, this is on a social personal level. It's bonkers stuff. But there's another issue that's been brought up. He's allowing a third party tech company to scan all of his electronic devices daily and then sending reports about the content to his son about what he's watching or not watching. Who else gets access to that data? Potentially, is this a national security threat, given that he is the speaker of the House? I don't have the answers to these questions, but with most of these stories, there's the obvious, very weird thing. And then there's wait a second.

Is there a national security threat here as well? Should be investigated. Super strange stuff. All right. Listen, this is a tough segment to do. I want to tell you what we're up against right now. And this is much bigger than my show. We're just an example. We're going to use a Reddit thread as a catalyst for this conversation. Now, this is genuinely serious. We're just an example. We're going to use a Reddit thread as a catalyst for this conversation. Now, this is genuinely serious. We're talking about an existential threat to the left. So please allow me to lay it all out before you comment. The following post showed up on our subreddit over the weekend. It's from a user called higher than S. I can't even say their their full username because it wouldn't be appropriate for

FCC. Here's what he writes. Just unsubscribed after five years. I'm deeply embarrassed for the majority of people on this subreddit. You clearly didn't listen when David explained what epistemology means and why it's important. Enjoy your backing of the IDF. I'm sure it won't bite you in the ass. And then he goes on to explain, David, I love you, but you were clearly taking the wrong stance on the Israeli Hamas war. Now, first of all, and then says, to my knowledge, you have not condemned anything Israel has done except to push it aside as collateral damage. Now, the reality is I have been condemning settlements, Likud, Benjamin Netanyahu for decades without any equivocation,

no if and or but just condemnation. He continues. I don't think you've yet brought on a pro-Palestinian voice, nor have you addressed the appearances of those on shows like Piers Morgan. You know, I haven't brought on pro-Palestinian voices nor Israeli voices. We don't do interviews on this show about breaking news. The interview segments for a long time have been other content, psychology professors or authors, stuff that's booked weeks, if not longer in advance. I've brought the same number of pro Palestinian as pro Israeli voices, which is zero because that's not what the interview segments are for on this show. The fact that other people do shows where that's what they do doesn't mean

that that's what we do here. Goes on to say, talks about a conversation on Piers Morgan. OK, hopefully you don't see this as anti-Semitic, but I feel like if you can easily condemn Hamas for their atrocities, then you should just as easily condemn Israel for theirs. And I'm not just talking 2006 to 2023. Well, OK, I mean, tell me exactly what you want me to condemn and then we can talk about it. None are named here. And I've called out dozens of things that Israel has done over the last years that I think are not good. Condemn. I condemn is not really a word I use in any format on this show. So I don't even I don't really know what even what what is meant here. Then goes on to say, farewell. I look forward to your appearances on

other shows, but yours has become repetitive because you don't want to take a side. But you also only want to condemn Hamas and sometimes slip up and say you condemn Palestinians again at the start, says I'm taking the wrong stance and then says I don't want to take a stance. So is it that I'm I'm not taking a stance or I'm taking the wrong stance? The real issue is that I'm not saying exactly what this person wants me to say. Now, this person is telling the truth. They were a paid member for five years. They've now canceled their membership. OK, this is a left wing purity test. And honestly, I don't even know if it's left wing when someone is this authoritarian. But ignore that for a second. This is a sort of

left wing purity test. Now, let's look at the critical next part. OK, someone responded to this guy and said he's criticized Israel three times just in the last week. He did an entire segment criticizing Israel on Thursday. Do you even listen to the show? And the person says not anymore. Not anymore. The entire criticism of what I am and am not doing and the cancellation of a five year membership is made with the admission that he's not even listening to what I'm saying. He doesn't even know. He says, you haven't condemned this or that. Have you watched because he did? No, I don't watch the show. Then how on earth would you know what I'm saying on this program? Now, I'm not going to lie. Last month was really rough.

OK, we had 500 people cancel paid memberships last month. OK, we have never had that happen before. And many of those cancellations came with some pretty vile messages. Some of them, some of them overtly anti-Semitic, not most, but some even came with that little cherry on top. But we're going to be here. We're going to continue being here. And I'll tell you why. Because a record 500 people last month canceled their membership, but over a thousand signed up. And many wrote to me and said, you know, David, I was sitting on the sidelines for a long time, just enjoying your show.

I now realize the stakes. I now realize the stakes because at the end of the day, think of what I did to generate this reaction. I don't do emotional explosions on the show. That's true. I try to just stick to facts. That's absolutely true. When stories were unclear, I waited to have information. Tons of media humiliated themselves reporting on the Gaza hospital attack. We got it right. We got it right. And there are people who write to me punishing me, saying that I should have reported on it sooner and I should have said that it was Israel. Why? Why? Why is that something I should have done when it wasn't the truth? So the truth at the end of the day

about our show is that October, the month that just finished, was our best month, not just of the year, not just since 2022, not just since 2021. It was our best month since December of 2020. Yes, a record number of people canceled, but even more people signed up. We had the most audio podcast downloads in the history of this show last month, October. And so I know that we're losing people. I know that we are. I see it. I see it in the bottom line and the numbers of people canceling. Don't don't do it. It's absolutely happening. And the really scary part is losing 500, even if we gain a thousand, it still shows that the support of so many for shows like this is quite literally hanging by a thread and is often cut based on incorrect

assessments of what's happening on this program. So I'm with folks like Bernie, who, as we played earlier in the show, has called for a humanitarian pause in the bombing, but also says, how do you do a ceasefire with Hamas when Hamas says we won't stop till Israel's done and every Jew is dead? Right. How do you I'm with I'm with people like Bernie on this issue. So if that's not for you, I get it. It's clearly not for at least 500 people.

And it's it's really sad that they've pulled their support. But if this is for you, if you appreciate being careful about what I report and tell you to try to avoid then having to come back with my hat in my hands and say, I got it completely wrong. If you appreciate that, please do consider getting a membership at join Pacman dot com. You can use any number of coupon codes, F-Box or 24 starts now. There's a bunch of codes. You can get a discount pay full price. Doesn't matter. Okay. Uh, this is a critical time. This is an absolutely critical time for the show. We have a little bit of time left for a voicemail. The voicemail number is two one nine two David P here is someone who knows Marianne Williamson. Who's not happy

that nobody's talking about Marianne Williamson. Hi David. My name's Barry. And I'm just wondering why there's still a media blackout on Marianne Williamson. I don't see her mentioned on your show or on any of the other shows. Right. Her numbers are coming up and she's an amazing candidate. I would love to see you do something about her and not just dip into the pool of people who think there's just no way because I know her personally and she's amazing. OK, listen, there's just no way. All right. The Marianne's polling is not coming up. She's been stuck at four percent since the start. It's actually I think she got up to nine percent at one point. She's down to four percent. Her numbers are going down. There's a guy named Dean Phillips who announced that he's also running against Biden, announced it like

three days ago. He's already at four percent, just like Marianne Williamson. OK, so I think the reason nobody's talking about Marianne Williamson is she made a little bit of a splash at the beginning. A lot of people looked at what she had to say. They looked at her chances. And I believe most people are recognizing that right now, Marianne Williamson is not going to be the Democratic nominee. It's going to be Joe Biden unless he dies. I mean, quite literally, unless he dies or steps aside for some unforeseen reason. And the most important thing is ensuring that Donald Trump is not the next president of

the United States, that Ron DeSantis or whoever, because the things they will do would be horrifying. OK, so that's why I think you're not hearing a lot about Marianne Williamson.