The David Pakman Show - 12/2/22: Madison Cawthorn's Farewell Address, Small Government MAGA Hypocrisy

Episode Date: December 2, 2022

-- On the Show: -- Colorado election officials are ordering a recount in the race between Lauren Boebert and Adam Frisch -- Republican Congressman Madison Cawthorn delivers a farewell address on the House floor and rails against "soft metrosexuals" -- Republican Congressman Jim Jordan wants to investigate Apple for deciding to not advertise on Twitter -- Caller asks if it's possible to truly be a good president -- Caller discusses being able to communicate with other drivers -- Caller talks about the right's obsession with trans women in women's sports -- Caller discusses campaign finance reform -- Caller suspects Ron DeSantis would beat Joe Biden in a 2024 presidential election -- Caller talks about the accuracy of polling -- David responds to viewer emails and social media messages -- On the Bonus Show: Kanye West storms off Tim Pool's show over mild pushback, and much more... 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman 🪒 Henson Shaving: Use code Pakman for FREE blades at https://hensonshaving.com/pakman 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman ⚠️ You can use Ground News for FREE at http://ground.news/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 -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanfinance -- 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

Speaker 1 I just absolutely love this story I'm starting with today. Colorado election officials are formally ordering a recount in Lauren Boebert's congressional race, which she won by five five hundred and fifty votes against challenger Adam Frisch. Now, if you look at the reporting, they say very clearly this is not expected to change the result. But this is so fascinating because these people on the right who just insist everything stolen, recount everything, audit everything, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now there is actually a legitimate reason for a recount to be ordered in a race that Lauren Boebert is, of course, extraordinarily relieved to have survived

because she almost went down after just one term in Congress to Adam Frisch. So there's an article from the Colorado Sun and it says Colorado elections officials formally order recount in race between Lauren Boebert and Adam Frisch. Boebert leads Frisch, who has already conceded by 550 votes. The recount is not expected to change the outcome of the third congressional district race. This is a mandatory recount and it was expected. This was a closely watched race. Boebert leads fresh. The margin is 550. But the law is that you must have a mandatory recount when the number of votes

separating the two leading candidates is less than half of a percentage point of the number of votes votes cast. The margin is zero point three percent, meaning that the recount must take place. The secretary of state, Jenna Griswold, who's a Democrat, added the results of the District three race reinforce the fact that every vote matters. Colorado voters have made their voices heard. I'm ordering the recount in accordance with Colorado law. This can begin immediately. Recounts rarely shift the margin beyond a few votes, which is why Frisch conceded in the closer than expected contest. The third district leans heavily in Republicans favor. This is this is just great. So I don't think it will change the outcome. I believe Lauren Boebert really won. This is still a fascinating race because as the article points out,

that third district in Colorado is quite a right leaning district. And the fact that it came down to zero point three between an incumbent Republican member of Congress, Lauren Boebert, and the challenger, Adam Frisch, means that MAGA really isn't safe. And we saw Madison Cawthorn defeated and removed from the House of Representatives. We'll talk about him in the next segment and his crazy outgoing speech. But there is a real question as to the viability of MAGA going into 2024. And just making Lauren Boebert have to wait a little bit longer is a really great thing that I can certainly get behind. Now, when it comes to 2024, we still don't know what is going to be the level of strength of these MAGA candidates.

I think it will be different if Donald Trump remains in the race and becomes the nominee versus if Trump remains in the race but loses the nomination versus if Donald Trump simply bails on the primaries because it's looking so terribly. We don't know which of those three scenarios ultimately will happen. But if it's the ones that are not so good for Trump, this may be it for these MAGA people. We will be years removed from MAGA in November of 2024. And it would be great if people like Boebert were removed and ended up being just sort of a blip in American political history. Cawthorn was removed. Marjorie Taylor Greene

won easily. Lauren Boebert won, but by a very small margin. Let's hope it keeps going in that direction. And listen, maybe the recount will find that actually Adam Frisch won, but not expected to. And I don't believe that that will be the case is if we needed any more confirmation that Madison Cawthorn being kicked out of the House of Representatives after just one term is a very, very good thing. I'm going to present to you today exhibit number 150 of why Cawthorn using his final speaking opportunity on the floor of the House to rail against. And I quote here, soft metro sexuals. Take a look at this clip. This is a guy who seems obsessed with gender stuff and even cultural issues that aren't big issues now. I think it's been 12 years since I heard the term metro sexual be used. Here is Madison Cawthorn delivering this final principled and defiant

speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Our young men are taught that weakness is strength, that delicacy is desirable, and that being a soft metrosexual is more valuable than training the mind, body and soul. Social media has weakened us, siphoning our men of their will to fight, to rise in a noble manner, square their jaws, and charge once more into the breach of life to defend what they love. So on this precipice of disaster,

I ask the young men of this nation a question. Will you sit behind a screen while the story tales of your forefathers become myth? Or will you stand resolute against the dying light of America's golden age? Will you reclaim your masculinity. Will you become a man to be feared, to be respected, to be looked up to? Or you let this nation's next generation be its final generation.

That line about will you become a man to be feared? You know, call me crazy, but I respect people who garner respect, not who make others afraid. And in fact, often those who make others afraid are quite cowardly people when it really comes down to it. And this is really, you know, it's easy to say, oh, it's Madison Cawthorn with another one of his wacky rants on his way out. Don't let the door hit you as you as you exit sort of thing. But he brings up an idea or a concept that is becoming increasingly common among the right, which is that fear is they just love fear in every sense. They see those who are feared as powerful and to be respected. They use fear

based politics and fear mongering to get people to vote from for them. Oh, the you've got to be afraid of the violent immigrants that are coming in and you've got to be afraid of the crazy communists that have taken over Congress. And of course, none of these things are true. Fear is a big part of their politics. And Madison Cawthorn just explaining an additional way in which that's the case. Now, as far as the metrosexual stuff, I don't know that I've heard anyone complain about metrosexuals since 2008, like very, very, very early in 2008, I would even say. And for people who maybe don't remember or never knew what that term meant. Metrosexual referred to a young, often urban, heterosexual male, often with left leaning political views, who's interested in

fashion and has what might be considered a refined sense of taste. And it was a way of criticizing heterosexuals who you can't just say, oh, they're gay by saying this is a brand of heterosexuality that is sort of less manly and less masculine. Again, I haven't heard metrosexual as a term used in a very, very long time, but we clearly know what is on Madison Cawthorn's mind. I want to play some clips for you of Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan is a Republican congressman. And Jim Jordan is interesting because he is sort of the epitome of the I say a lot of stuff, but when it comes down to it, I don't really stand behind the principles. And when it comes to Jim Jordan, often those principles have to do with a small government conservatism, so-called small government conservatism and the claim from the right that, oh, we

don't want to regulate. We don't we want to let businesses do what they want to do. Jim Jordan appeared last night, no, the night before last with Sean Hannity. And he seems to be saying here that Apple should be investigated because they've stopped advertising on Twitter. That's pretty that's pretty that's several levels deep when it comes to getting pretty involved in the decisions made by private businesses. Take a listen to this. I think there's some other critical questions, Sean, we got to ask. Like, why did Apple change the features on phones in China? Why do that for the CCP? And I think the other the other key point here is why? Why is Apple no longer advertising on Twitter?

Pulling back some of their ads. I mean, have they gone woke? So what I want to know is where was the apple? Where's the apple that a few years ago said, we're going to stand up for Americans' privacy? Where's the Tim Cook who told Jim Comey, there is no way we're giving the FBI backdoor access to people's phones? That's the apple we want to see. Because, again, right now we know one thing, Sean.

The left is at war with the First Amendment. The left doesn't want the First Amendment anymore. And that is that is the key concern here. The left now says this. If you don't agree with them, you're not allowed to speak. And if you think about how crazy that is, OK, these are people. Who want to tell businesses you're pulling advertising from Twitter because you don't like Elon Musk. We should investigate that.

That's their free speech, right? Those businesses have the right to express themselves by advertising or not advertising wherever the hell they want. And they have the gall and the audacity to say it's the left that's against speech. Understand that all of these actions being taken by people related to Twitter are protected by free speech. If someone wants to protest Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter by quitting Twitter, that is their constitutionally protected free speech right. Whether it's because they're woke or not doesn't really matter. If you want to lobby companies that you patronize to stop advertising on Twitter because you

don't like Twitter, that's your free speech, right? If I see that, you know, whatever, what company, you know, frameworks is advertising on Twitter. And I want to go to frameworks and say, hey, you shouldn't advertise on Twitter because of this, that, the other thing. That's my my free speech. Right. And if Gator works, frameworks are Gator frameworks. This is my mic stand. If Gator frameworks says, oh, we want to ignore what our customers are saying and keep advertising on Twitter, that's their right. And if they say that's that's kind of an interesting idea. Yeah, maybe some of our customers are right. We shouldn't advertise on Twitter.

That's also their free speech, right? This is all speech. And they claim it is the left that is suppressing speech. These people are pathetic. And by the way, this we should they should be worried if they start investigating Apple, what will happen with all of the investigations into Hunter Biden that they have planned? One other clip from this appearance two nights ago, continuing to talk about Twitter, take Twitter off the App Store. So that's good news there. Is it maybe because Elon Musk threatened to compete with with Apple? Yeah, well, I probably so. But it sounds like

that meeting went well today. We'll find out tomorrow. So let's hope they're not going to kick Apple out of the App Store. But I think they're. Imagine if 10 years ago, even eight years ago, I told you in 2022, almost 2023, Republicans are going to be on Fox News doing segments wherein they say, hey, you know what? We got to make sure that Twitter doesn't get kicked out of Apple's app store. And if they do, we might just have to investigate that. These people, they're truly something else. It's all small government. It's all small government. Make sure that you are subscribed to the YouTube channel at YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman show. We're going to take a quick break and be back right after this.

Good habits have to be sustainable in order to become habits. It has to be something you'll actually do. And when it comes to nutrition, some people have hours to plan out every meal, their exact vitamin intake. I'm not doing any of that. I don't have the time. Here's what's sustainable for me. I start my day with just a single scoop of AG1 from Athletic Greens. It gives me the entire day's worth of the 75 high quality vitamins, minerals and probiotics I want from whole food sources. It's just simple. It's just one scoop of AG1. I get all the nutrients I want. I don't have to do any math, use my protractor, my TI-83 or take a bunch of different capsules and pills. It's not some kind of wacky supplement making a bunch of crazy claims. You know, I would not

promote something like that. AG1 is just a simple product. It does what it says it does. It gives you the daily nutrients and vitamins you likely want. Vitamin A, C, E, magnesium, zinc, potassium in one simple scoop. You keep your body nourished. You'll also get a free year supply of vitamin D, which I take in the winter, plus five free travel packs at athletic greens dot com slash Pacman. That's athletic greens dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. I've had such trouble finding a great razor where I am not cutting myself or getting those nicks on my skin, which are so common with the cheap disposable razors. You have to meet our sponsor, Henson Shaving. Henson actually manufactures parts for the

International Space Station and the Mars Rover. And they are bringing that exact same precision engineering to the shaving experience. It hurts when you shave because blades extend too far and thus they wobble slightly. But with their aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson is able to make metal razors that extend just zero point zero.0013 inches. That's less than the thickness of a human hair, which means a secure, stable blade with a vibration free shave. It also has built in channels to evacuate the hair and the cream. No more clogs, no more rubbing your thumb on the razor to get the hair out. I use Henson at home. Shaving is a great experience. Now, Henson wants to be the best razor, not the best razor business, which means

you only need to buy it once. And it's awesome. Go to Henson shaving dot com slash Pacman at a razor and a hundred pack of blades to your cart. Then enter the code Pacman to get the hundred blades for free. That is a three year supply. That's H.E.N.S.O.N. Shaving dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pacman show depends on your support. We are a viewer, listener, community audience supported program. We make it very, very easy to support the work we do. You just go to join Pacman dot com. That's really it. It's simple. It's quick. It's easy. And you can use the coupon code. Twenty four starts now. Twenty four starts now to get yourself a discount. We are going to hear from the most important people in our ecosystem, the viewers, the listeners, the audience.

If it weren't for you, there would be no show. I would probably still own a microphone, but I wouldn't be able to do anything interesting with it. That's for damn sure. We take calls via discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. The waiting lobby is where you go if you want to chat with me. And let's see the degree of technical problems that will plague us today. I want to start here with Alex from Baltimore. Alex from Baltimore. Welcome. What is on your mind today? Hey, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. All righty. So first question

I've been meaning to ask you, anyone who listens to your live calls and live streams knows you're very particular about your bagels. So as someone who's a little more bagel illiterate, for lack of a better term, what makes a David Pakman approved bagel? Well, you need the right ratio of crunchy on the outside and pillowy soft on the inside. It's it's almost an ethereal thing that's beyond description. You just need to bite into it and you know right away. And it doesn't matter, like the topping of bagel or is the same. I mean, listen, you're not going to see me with a French toast bagel anytime soon. Of course,

the topping matters. Absolutely. The really if you're looking for a sweet bagel, you go cinnamon raisin. But all of these, you know, strawberry bagels, French toast, oatmeal, pancake bagel, chocolate chip. No, no, no, no, no. It's not for me. I'm a purist. I agree. Savory bagels are better than sweet bagels, I would say. I would say so. OK. All right. Real question. So this is based off of a book I read recently. Would you say is do would you give any credence to the idea that. The president of the United States just flat out has too much to handle and that no matter who it is.

What their beliefs are, they're just going to have a hard time and they're not going to be particularly good at their job. Speaker 3 No, I don't agree with that. I mean, I think there's sort of two different questions here. There's the question of does the president of the United States have too many responsibilities in terms of delegation? And then there's the separate question of whether they're all going to be bad at their jobs. I think that there are lots of presidents who were good at their jobs. I mean, President Obama was good at his job. You never got the sense that he just couldn't keep up with all the different things that

were under his purview. I think the more interesting question or maybe the more accurate assessment that could be made is there. There simply need to be significantly more diplomats, because as we know, a lot of these issues, they touch the presidency, but then they're the details are sort of handled by the diplomatic corps, that the diplomatic corps should be bolstered and should be bigger. I think that's a fair assessment to make. But of course, the right says we need the smallest possible government. So by definition, they're against enlarging the diplomatic corps. Gotcha. And the book is The Hardest Job in the

World by John Dickerson, who's on CBS, actually. Yeah, it's actually it was actually an interesting book. That wasn't his only point. It was also like a mini history of the presidency and how even like mundane responsibilities like evolved and kind of pile up on on their day to day and make the job a little harder. Another slight thing he said was how the president also has to be a great campaigner and great at governing and that a lot of people can't aren't necessarily the best at doing both. Like I'm sure there's a bunch of senators who would be great presidents. I think of a Amy Klobuchar or a, um, an Elizabeth Warren, but who on the stump just don't seem to impress anybody. So, but they would be great once they got in the chair. I would go even further. There's there. I completely agree. There's people who would never even run because the idea of the political campaign is so off putting to them who would still be really good

presidents if they somehow ended up in that position. So I absolutely agree with that. Yeah. And that was just a. That was just a good point, I thought. with that. Speaker 5 Yeah, and that was just a. That was just a good point, I thought. All right. Well, that's all I had. I will talk to you next time. Speaker 1 All right. Thank you very much for the call.

I appreciate it. Let's go. Let's go next to Harry from Columbus, Ohio. Harry, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Speaker 6 David, it's excellent to be talking to you. Can you hear me all right? Speaker 1 I can hear you.

Speaker 6 to you. Can you hear me all right? I can hear you. Thank you. First, I wanted to mention that you said on a recent bonus show that you wanted to buy some sort of sign for the back of your car to talk to other drivers. And this is a fantasy I've had as well. But I would heavily advise against it because I cannot think of a faster way to get shot on the freeway. So definitely, definitely don't buy that if it's available, please. Yeah, my my idea was, you know, particularly the texting and driving is such a scourge to society from miles away on the highway. You know, you see someone going ten under in the fast lane, you know, they're on a phone. And so I have this fantasy that as I unfortunately have to pass them on the right because they give me no choice, you get behind, you know, it's like they don't even know how to use

a highway. As I pass them on the right, I would have in my window, I would just pull up next to them and have this led sign that would I could like type with a keyboard or something. And it would say, get off your phone, get out of the fast lane and that they would learn I'm acting like an idiot and then they would move over and everything would be great. But you're probably right that it wouldn't really work out in that way. I imagine, you know, people would buy these signs and there'd be like sort of a you know, a race war or a racing war between getting in front of each other to swap messages like, no, you during this. No, you're doing that. Well, I think it would be effective on the side window as much as in the back windshield, you know. OK, so to my real question, so do you have

any sort of advice for somebody who is currently at no reading of books? I never really got into reading in high school. I was into Reddit, into reading news articles. But like, do you have any sort of advice for like how to get started in reading? Because when I try to sit down and do it, it sounds like the issue is because you haven't regularly been reading for a while, you wouldn't even really know where to start in terms of what types of books you would enjoy. Yeah, I mean, that's a good way of putting it. Sure. OK, what topics are generally interesting to you or what what movies or TV shows or have you seen a documentary that that you liked? What sort of things are you into? I think the main thing is that I don't want it to be a waste of

time, right? Like I already I have such I such little time. I want it to be books where I'm taking in the maximum amount of learning about I think recent American political history would probably be like the greatest interest to me. Just like, OK, you know, you can't give any recommendations about because I don't read those types of books at all. So my suggestion would be go to a Web site like Goodreads and then just search through some of the recommendations and the highest rated stuff. I'm sure you'll find things that are interesting to you. Well, you don't have any sort of recommendations for like like what what types of maybe authors in general to look for, maybe for. Hello.

OK, we just lost them, OK? I don't read that genre, so I don't know, but there will absolutely be recommendations I would I would consider checking out Goodreads. OK, let's go to Daniel from Maine. Daniel from Maine, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? And I see that you are self muted. If you unmute yourself, you will be able to talk to me. Daniel from Maine. Welcome. Hear me? Yes. Excellent. First time caller. I'm actually shocked I was called on. I'm as shocked as you are, to be honest. Excellent. So I've actually been a viewer for a really long time, about 10 years now, actually. So pretty crazy. Yeah, I started watching when you still had Lewis on the show. I saw Lewis last night. You know, we played we went to trivia and we were second to last, unfortunately.

Oh, OK. Well, that's that cool. Uh, anyways, so I guess my question today is what, I guess, how do you keep yourself from not going insane with, with what you do? Um, you know, I, when I watch you break down clips of these insane, you know, MAGA Republicans and, you know, spouting their nonsense on Fox News and stuff like almost sometimes like I like hearing your input on those things. But when you replay the clips before you give your input, it's almost like sometimes sometimes I can't even listen to what these people have to say. Like, it's almost it makes me so sick sometimes that like sometimes I fast forward even their clips just so I can hear what you have to say about it. It's just that nauseating. You know what I mean? Like, well, listen, it's two things. It's basically

two things. One, I am to some degree desensitized by the insanity. And I admit that it's not a good thing. But when you're exposed to this type of insanity for a long time, there's a normalization that takes place and I'm working against it. But I know that I'm desensitized to it to a degree. And then, number two, I do think that taking a break from this every single week and then longer breaks every few months is important. And so when I'm done producing the Friday show, I don't even look at news until I start prepping the Monday show. So there's like multiple days there where people will say to me, did you see this? Did you see

that? I don't because I'm not even paying attention to the news on those days. So I think scheduling that and sticking to it is really important. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I guess that's just all it's, you know, for a viewer like me, it's, you know, I can, I can only take so much per day before I have to like literally shut it off because it's just so just bonkers. I totally understand that. I completely understand that. Nothing, no shame in that, you know? Yeah. You'll, you'll play a Herschel Walker clip and it's like I feel like I can only sit through 15 seconds because it's just so unbelievable. Speaker 1 No, those are those are pretty wacky. I don't blame you there, my friend.

Speaker 1 Yeah. All right. I think that's all. Speaker 1 OK, thank you so much for the call. Very much appreciate it. Extremely powerful, powerful stuff. Let's go to Ray from North Carolina. Ray, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Thank you, David, for having me. I was just asking someone who analyzes news articles or watches like rallies for MAGA candidates or Trump, for example, is that I noticed that there has been a focus on trans individuals in sports. Yes. So what I've noticed is that people mainly focus on male sport disciplines rather than

the female sport disciplines rather than the female sport disciplines and it kind of boggles my mind that I think maybe it could be it's an easier tactic to go after trans females in women's disciplines so it kind of how does that entail? Is it just an easier way for them to tear apart this topic or. Yeah. So here's the deal. You're bringing up a good question, which is they love to talk about someone born biologically male competing in women's weightlifting, as an example, or women's swimming. And there's a very specific reason for that. This is basically a contrived issue. So you take the entire think about these as concentric circles, Ray. OK, so you've got the biggest circle is every issue that's out there. Within that, you have issues

affecting American politics. Within that, you have social issues. Within that, you have LGBTQ. Within that, you have trans issues. Within that, you have trans sports to make that interesting, which, again, is it's it's such a niche issue. If you talk about, hey, you know what? This person who was born biologically female and identifies now as a man, they want to try out for men's ice hockey. All right. Who cares? Let them. I mean, it's like it's not a compelling story.

It's not interesting. Let them try out. And most people would say if they're if they're strong enough and physically big enough and whatever to make the team, let let them play in the ice hockey. Who cares? So even within trans sports, you have to pick essentially women's sports in which physical size and strength makes a difference and only focus on those. There are states like in South Dakota where there is not even a single instance of this being

an issue, as Scott Galloway told us last week, and they want to pass laws about it. So you are exactly right. They are picking what they believe to be the most titillating based on the idea of this six foot five individual born biologically male weightlifting against a five foot tall woman or something like that, because they have to do that because most of the examples we would all kind of go, I don't know, it just seems fine. Who really cares? You know? Speaker 5 Yeah, I agree with that. But I think like it's the narrative of it could be kind of if somehow. If an individual that was born female and one in the male sports, for example, wouldn't

they themselves try to be outraged by it or they just maybe they would. I mean, that would be that would be super interesting. Like imagine a situation where a trans man competed in weightlifting in the men's weightlifting and won. I don't know what they would say. They probably would figure out a way to be outraged. I don't know. They would say, oh, I don't know, the performance enhancing drugs. I don't know what they would say. It's an interesting question. Speaker 5 Yes, something I've been looking into recently for the past few years and definitely taking notice to it with Trump saying no, no male and woman sports in a sense that they only highlight that issue in a lot of his rallies as he just exposes that all the time and is Speaker 1 women and men's sports sports they seem to be fine with.

Exactly. And I'm I'm curious to see how this develops over time. And thank you for your input on this. It's really helped me out a little bit more. Ray, it's been a pleasure. Ray from North Carolina. Great to speak to you. We're going to take a very quick break, but we're going right

back to discord and we're going to hear from more people in a moment. So don't go anywhere. Our sponsor, Magic Spoon, is the breakfast cereal that tastes amazing, but without the sugar carbs and the crazy ingredients. Magic Spoon has taken your favorite childhood cereals and brilliantly transformed them into something you can feel good about eating because each serving has zero grams of sugar under five net carbs and is packed with 13 grams of protein. So it'll work for keto and low carb, but it's really perfect for anyone who wants the occasional sweet crunchy treat without the sugar. Their portfolio of eight plus unique delicious flavors allow you to never get bored.

My favorite is maple waffle, but they've got the classics like cocoa, fruity, frosted, also cinnamon roll, blueberry muffin. Our entire team has been eating magic spoon for years. We love it. But if you don't, they send you all your right back. use the code Pacman. You can just tap the link in the podcast notes. Let's hear from a few more people via the David Pakman show discord, which you can find at David Pakman dot com slash discord. We are going to start right now, right away with no delay with Dylan from Kentucky. Dylan, what is on your mind today? Hey, David, I've been a longtime listener. This is the first time I've ever got to call and speak to you. So I'll be a little shaky here.

You're doing great so far, my friend. Thank you, friend. Hey, so I think for a long time, it's sort of been seen as the linchpin for what might fix, you know, our democracy here is the issue of campaign finance reform. And I wonder, I would like to get your thoughts on how that can and will relate to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on Moore versus Harper and thus giving state legislators more power over our elections in general. And I would like to just mute

and listen to you talk about that for a moment. So one of the things when people call in and they say, David, sir, you know, sometimes they have tears in their eyes and they say, what do you think are the most important issues facing American politics? The list that I have typically given over the last few years, as I say, campaign finance is one such issue. Media coverage of politics is another issue, and it's very much influenced by how we finance elections. Third is how we run our elections, meaning first past the post in most cases and also the Electoral College for the presidency. I would like to see that change. And fourth is climate change in the sense that if your city is under

water or the pollution in your city is so bad that it's going to be hard to be an activist for the issues that we care about unless we deal with climate change in a in a sensible way. And then sometimes we'll also talk about access to health care, because if you're sick and don't have access to health care, it's also hard to be an activist, whether you care about education or abortion or whatever. Access to health care would also be another issue. I still stand by that. But I think that we need to be much more sort of strategic when we simply say campaign finance reform, I almost think it's too broad for some people to understand what we mean. And so a much more specific but still understandable set of ideas should be there.

And I think within that, the most important ones would be public financing of elections rather than, you know, just unlimited spending, whatever you can raise, you can spend. So public financing of elections would be number one, doing everything we can to eliminate the ability of dark money to come in right now, even though there are quite strict limits in terms of contributions directly to candidates. I forget whether it's twenty seven hundred per cycle or exactly what the number is. There is the ability to donate huge amounts of money to PACs and the money can sort of be laundered and you don't know who's spending what, where the money's coming from in all cases necessarily. So that's really where I would would try to focus that conversation. And to be honest, and I know now I'm getting a little bit off the exact question. I would like to see us, the left, become way more specific and strategic

with all of these issues. So, like, for example, when we talk about climate change, OK, climate change, we should be more specific in terms of what we're talking about, because sometimes the things that are repeated about climate change aren't really the biggest concerns. There's a really good book called Precipice by Toby Ord, which both argues I recently read the book. It's a couple of years old. It both argues climate change is a massive issue that we have to deal with. And also some of the statements made about it are a little bit

hyperbolic. For example, if climate goes, if it gets if the climate gets warmer by two degrees on average, we're going to starve because we're not going to be able to grow food. When you look into that, actually, it being a little warmer would probably make it easier to grow food in more parts of the world. The issues are different ones. And we should try to be more specific in all of these all of these issues. I hope to some degree I'm answering the question, Dylan. And I hope to hear from you again very, very soon. Let's go to Richard from Jersey. Richard, welcome to the program. Hello, David. Pleasure to be speaking with you. The pleasure is all mine. So the thing on my mind right now, I think the thing on a lot of people's mind right

now is thinking ahead to the twenty twenty four election. And it seems to me that the writing is on the wall. I love the status is more than likely going to be the Republican nomination. And I keep thinking about the prospect of Biden. I think that just seems to me like we're starting to lose you. The audio wasn't great to start with. It started at like a six and a half, but you're quite literally just fading and cutting out now. So I heard you say you think DeSantis will be the nominee for the Republicans.

It's certainly possible. I don't know yet. It's too early for me to say that you were then starting to talk about Biden and I just couldn't hear a word you were saying. OK, does that sound better? Yes, it does. Beautiful. So my main thing is I don't think Biden is going to win against Ron DeSantis, but he's still toting the line of saying that he is going to run. And the more time that goes on, it seems that he's going to. So I'm wondering what your thoughts are on. Is it possible for him to change vice presidency choice? Because Kamala Harris herself isn't very popular either. Is it possible to get a more exciting, younger, progressive candidate on the ticket with him that could possibly bolster his chances? OK, this is a good question. If Biden runs, could he and should he replace Kamala Harris,

his current VP, with someone else? He absolutely could. I think the problem with that is whatever benefit Biden might get from, as you say, a more exciting or likable VP running made in 24 could very easily be canceled out by the fact that bailing on your VP for consecutive terms might be seen as a sign of trouble in paradise, for lack of a better term. So I don't know if I were advising Biden that I would say to do that. I think you want to project stability. You want to project a steady hand. And part of that would be this. This is a good team. And even if people are changing behind the scenes, you go with the with the person who is currently VP.

Also, it would be very strange and difficult and awkward to be campaigning for several months while Kamala Harris is still president with somebody else as the running mate. I think it raises I think it creates problems for Biden to do that. OK, I take your point that it would be awkward, but. My main thing with Biden, as always, is that he's very low energy, and even though we were able to get past the midterms pretty well. I think it would have been better if we had had a president and a vice president that inspires people to vote for something instead of voting against the greater evil. And I just I'm looking for things that Democrats can do to do that

for younger voters and voters in general. I agree with you generally. I don't know that replacing Kamala is that thing general. I agree with you. Generally, I don't know that replacing Kamala is that thing, but I appreciate the idea. Fair enough. Thanks for speaking with me, David. All right. Thank you for calling in. That's Richard from Jersey. Very, very powerful declarations there. Let's go to Jeff from Pennsylvania. Jeff, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hey, first time caller. This is awesome to be on. Thanks for picking me. Thank you. I was wondering, with all the talk about polling that we always hear, this might be a dumb question, but where do people get pulled to collect this info? Speaker 1

You look at the methodology of each poll and it will tell you that and it will tell you the combination. You know, typically it's landlines, cell phones. Sometimes there are online elements to the poll, but there's not one answer to that. And it's in the methodology. Okay. Cause I was thinking, you know, if people are getting reached out to on landlines and phones and I don't know, most people at this point don't pick up for calls that are, you know, suspicious or they don't recognize, then I don't know how much stock can you put into polling in that case. Yeah. Your skepticism isn't new. This is an issue that people have talked about for a while, which is especially if it's only landlines. Most polls are

not only landlines at this point in time. I think the bigger and more accurate concern around polling is only certain people are even going to entertain a call from pollsters. I mean, listen, I'm I'm so busy. For example, I don't really talk on the phone. I don't even use my I barely use my phone. I have periods of time where for hours I'm just away from my phone. I rarely pick it up. I don't often I don't even listen to voicemails. I'm basically like conducting business via email for most of the things that I have going on. So it's true that there are only some people who are even willing to get on the phone with a pollster. The way pollsters deal with that is they adjust their sample to account for that. But it's a fair

question to say to what degree can they really accurately and fairly adjust the sample? I think it's fair. Polling has, by and large, still been pretty accurate in most cases over the last four years, although we certainly saw some specific instances in which it was not. So all good questions and important things to ask. All right. Well, that's what I had for today. Thanks so much. Very much appreciate the call. Let's see. Let's go to Elias from Texas. Elias, welcome. What's on your mind today? Speaker 5 Hey, David, thanks for calling on me. How could a fifty fifty fifty Senate differ from a fifty one to forty nine Senate? Will Biden be able to get more done with a simple majority? Speaker 1

I think that he will not get more done, but it will become irrelevant whether both Manchin and Sinema want to go with what Democrats are trying to do. I've got a couple of clips about this. Right. Basically, the gist of it is when it's 50 50, you need all 50 Democrats in order to enable Kamala Harris to break the tie. If it's fifty one forty nine, if Manchin doesn't want to go with it, it doesn't matter anymore. Or if Sinema doesn't want to go with it, it doesn't matter anymore. You still get to fifty fifty and Kamala is the tiebreaker.

Obviously, if both Manchin and Sinema are resisting, that's a different story, but it just gives you breathing room. Yeah. And I was just curious about what your efforts are in Georgia. If you went down there to go help out with Warnock personally, I'm helping with tax banking tomorrow. So, yeah, I am not going to be able to make it down to Georgia, but we are going to be in these last few days pushing hard, making sure everybody knows about early voting. We're going to do some, you know, uniting around phone and text banking events. And we're pushing as hard as we can there. So appreciate the questions. And we let's hope

that's hope that Walker is defeated there. Right. Thank you, David. We're looking for massive dumps of votes for Warnock. All right, my friend. Thank you very much. OK, Elias is gone there. Very good. All right. Let's go to Boz from the Netherlands. Boz, welcome to the program. Hello. Hello. I had a question because I was somewhat furious with a politician in my own country. A politician of my own party, let's say. And I got an email in which he explained that

currently in our country our judges have the possibility to prohibit organizations if they're dangerous to the country but that law excludes

political parties from being outlawed he said that he would like to see that changed and for me that was like it made something lose in me. Like, I got really mad over that. Because I think that's like the opposite of democracy. Even if, like, even if democratically it's decided

you want to end democracy, I think that's the purest form of democracy um even though it's weird um boss i'm sorry i don't know that i'm totally understanding what what you're saying i'm i'm i certainly am not following uh politics in netherlands as closely as maybe i would have to to answer this question. Did you have a question for me today? No, not really, then, I guess. No, boss. Listen, I appreciate the call. I just am not as I'm not well versed enough in Dutch politics and I'm not sure. And it sounds like you don't really have a question. So let me look into what you're mentioning, OK? Thank you. Thank you. All right. There is boss from the Netherlands with a very, very powerful declaration. Let's go to Nate from Rhode Island. Nate, welcome. What's on your mind today?

Hey, David, how you doing? Doing well. So I have a question. So with regards to the calls in the discord, may I make a suggestion for future calls, please? So there's something called stage channels. It's a new feature. And basically it's just what you said. It sounds like you have you. Yeah, we're familiar with it, Nate. Thank you. We've looked into it and it was not obvious from what we had and the moderators determined that it really was going to be an improvement in there. It raised a couple of new issues, but we will look into it again. We're familiar with stages. Speaker 1 All right. And then just one other thing. So to add to what you were talking with Elias earlier

about with regards to the Senate. So in addition, with 51 Senate seats, we have subpoena power so we can start our own investigations and also makes it easier to fast track judges. Yes, absolutely. When it comes to when it comes to judges in particular now on subpoena, doesn't that depend on having a majority in particular committees? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not too sure about it. I just read up on it. Yeah, because my understanding was and I could be wrong, Nate, that the subpoenas tend to come not from the Senate at large, but rather from specific committees like the judiciary. And even with a 50 50 majority, they would still have the majority in the committees. So that was my understanding.

But I could be wrong. Yeah, I'm not sure I'd have to look into that. Thank you for bringing that up. I'll have to research that momentarily. All right. All right. Nate, great to hear from you. Appreciate it.

Thank you so much for taking my call. Have a. Oh, and then he is gone. All right. Thank you, everybody, for calling in. We're going to go to a break. We will take more calls next week and it's going to be a beautiful thing. You know how tough it can be to navigate the online news constantly being thrown at us. And that's why I love our sponsor, Ground News, which is an app and website that allows you to

easily compare how any individual story is being covered by different sources. Every story comes with a bias bar showing the distribution of reporting from left, right and center. You can flip through the headlines to see how a word or a detail completely changes the interpretation of a story. You can even see each news outlets parent corporation. So I can distinguish between independent and corporate owned sources. Right now, I'm looking at a story about Iran helping Russia build drones for Ukraine. And I can see it was covered by 35 sources. 17 percent are government owned like RT and Ukrainian media. Interestingly, it looks like the majority of the coverage is coming from the center

and the right, making it a potential blind spot for the left. Subscribe to Ground News before December 2nd. You'll get their top tier Vantage subscription for 40% off. Go to ground.news slash Pacman. Try it for free or subscribe to get unlimited access to all of their news analysis tools. That's ground dot news slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. All right, let's get to emails. The Friday mailbag, you can email info at David Pacman dot com. Sometimes we'll include a tweet or a YouTube

comment or whatever. Today, we're starting with a Facebook message and it is a pretty ugly one. This one is from James. James writes, You're a very misinformed moron. Now, your is why you are. It's almost a requirement if you write Trump is hate mail that you use the wrong your. OK, you're a very misinformed moron. I have never seen Trump shocked about anything Democrats have tried. The Democrats are scared of Trump because they can't control him as they control Biden. That's because he doesn't want the truth is their response to a message saying, by the way, David can't respond to you individually. This is a really common thing we see for many of these MAGA people, which is Democrats are scared of Trump. The problem with

dealing with Democrats are scared of Trump is, of course, you know and I know it's not scared of Trump. It's horrified at what a disaster he is. And the truth is. It is scary the things Trump would do if allowed to do them. They use the word scared in a very different way. They use scared to mean intimidated by just overwhelmed with Trump's masculinity and intelligence and drive and all these things that make absolutely no sense to feel about Donald Trump. No, we're horrified in the way that you're scared of

really serious illness or a fascist dictator or, you know, whatever the case may be. But of course, good luck explaining that to them. And why is it always the wrong york? Can someone explain to me why that is? I would love to understand it. Michael wrote in. Michael wrote about coverage of the Colorado shooting and said, hey, David, I've been a listener for a while, but I'm curious about why you haven't covered the Colorado shooting. I've listened to both Monday and Tuesday shows following the weekend shooting, and I cannot recall your coverage of this. Thanks, Mike. So there's there's two things going on with my coverage of shootings, and I'm glad to sort of change my perspective if it makes sense to change it. Number one is there are so many shootings in the United States and so many of them are mass

shootings and so many of them are happening in ways that are motivated by the certain identity factors, which is sort of what we call hate crimes, right? Targeting LGBTQ people or Jewish people or whatever the case may be, that it's sometimes hard to find something new to say about them. And. I sometimes feel like I don't have anything to say about these shootings because they are so common. That's one thing. Second thing is, in particular, when there are some of the really big shootings that get a lot of media attention. A lot of the early information is often wrong. And with certain breaking stories, you still report on them early. Because they are unique stories. And while, of course, every single one of the

victims of a mass shooting is unique, we don't go, well, there have been other people killed in mass shootings, so the victims don't matter. No, that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that because the circumstances repeat themselves time and time again, uh, I find it less useful to just report what we know three hours in or whatever the case may be. So we ended up talking about the shooting on Wednesday. This email came in about Monday, Tuesday. We talked about the shooting on Wednesday. That's why I sometimes am deliberately slower in reporting on some of these mass shootings. People want them reported on more quickly.

I'm willing to do it. I just don't know how much I have to add, particularly when we don't yet have the full story. Michael wrote in about evidence based medicine and says, David, great start to Monday's show explaining the risks of cardiac complications from vaccines compared to risks from covid. You explain things clearly, calmly and with a high level of expertise. Thanks. Sadly, the people who would most benefit from your charitable sharing either won't understand it or won't listen. Yes, that is often the case. On another note, it is unfortunate you have to waste your time answering critics on your show. But on the other hand, you do acknowledge your critics. And that is more than But on the other hand, you do acknowledge your critics. And that is more than Hannity, Carlson, Jones, O'Reilly or the others on the right will

do. Keep up the good work. It really matters. Thank you, Michael. No comment. Just presented without comment. Very much appreciate that message. Teresa wrote in with a request that I've gotten from many people. Teresa said, hey, David, can you give members access to your soundboard? Pretty please. Best Teresa. Speaker 3 Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Yeah, you all know the soundboard.

So here's the deal with the soundboard. I would love to set up as a feature for our members. That's a great bonus feature, an extra feature access to the soundboard that I have here for the show. I don't know how to achieve that from a technical perspective. I guess we need some kind of a web based soundboard system that is maybe password protected or unlisted in some way. So here's my thought. If anybody out there knows how I can do what Teresa is asking, which is make access to my soundboard, a premium member feature, if you can tell me how to do it, I will do it. And I think that that would be a really cool thing to be able to offer. Melissa wrote in about YouTube and Melissa says we watch your program every night in our home. Well,

thank you, Melissa. Melissa adds, I've blocked out when you talk about subscribing to your YouTube channel only because we don't watch you on YouTube. We watch your program on free speech TV. I have since come to my senses and subscribed. Thank you for all the work you and your team do to keep us informed. Melissa from Wisconsin. Thank you, Melissa. Yeah, listen, even if you watch on another platform, if you want to do us a very small and completely free favor, if you have any kind of account with Google, YouTube, et cetera, subscribe to the channel. It really helps us.

We're working to two million subscribers. You go to YouTube dot com slash the David Pakman show. Quick, easy and very important. Justin wrote in about this idea of executing drug dealers that some in the MAGA right, including the failed former President Donald Trump, have started fixating on. Justin writes, I find it interesting. Trump is saying all convicted drug dealers should be executed and not specifying what drugs you need to be caught dealing or trafficking in order to get executed. Is he saying people convicted of dealing cannabis should be executed? Serious question. I think he is saying that, quite frankly. I think

he is saying that because he's not making any distinction. And I mean, listen, I guess we have to ask him. It's often very hard to know what it is exactly that Trump is suggesting, but he doesn't seem to be making any distinction. As far as which drugs the dealing of should get you executed. But the most important thing is it's completely hypocritical, because remember that even though Donald Trump is now saying drug dealers are such a scourge or scourge, as he used to say during the COVID era, that they should be killed. He also pardoned a bunch of drug dealers on his way out of office. So maybe not a shock to some of you that he's a bit of a hypocrite. OK, last thing. Dylan wrote to me a message called On Judgment and tells me that in the

following text, he will attempt to explain the principle of nonjudgment and why he believes it to be a just tenet on which to base our relations with others. He then sent pages and pages of all sorts of biblical talk that is so long winded that I couldn't even fit it on the screen. Do not send me this stuff. It is not being read by anybody. We have a message on our website on the contact page which says email in your message will be read. But me, David, I can't necessarily read every email and I certainly can't respond to them. But someone's going to read it. No one is reading this stuff. Dylan, no one is reading pages and pages of biblical mumbo jumbo about nonjudgment. It's just not getting read. It's not relevant to the show. Please, please, please just don't

bother because you're wasting your time. And now you've wasted my time and the audience's time with me explaining. That it's not going to be dealt with. OK, so please no more other emails. Info at David Pakman dot com. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Sign up at join Pakman dot com. Get instant access. And of course, the coupon code 24 starts now is available. Also, the free white paper on arguing politics and changing minds is available at David Pakman dot com slash guide. I will update you next week on the number of downloads, but I am quite ready to call it a success.