The David Pakman Show - 12/26/24: They lose their minds on Christmas, lone liberal destroys MAGA panel

Episode Date: December 26, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Henry Giroux, Chaired Professor of Scholarship in the Public Interest at McMaster University, joins David to discuss neo-liberal fascism and whether fascism and authoritarian are valid descriptors of what Donald Trump has promised for his second term -- Elon Musk jokes to Benjamin Netanyahu about being the "unofficial" President of the United States, side Donald Trump -- Lone liberal Luke Beasley destroys a panel of 5 MAGAs in an unfair, lopsided debate on Tim Pool's show -- Donald Trump explodes in a manic post-explosion on Christmas, attacking Barack Obama and generally losing his mind -- Donald Trump's Christmas message is disturbing and riddled with lies -- Firefighters who supported Donald Trump and Republicans suddenly realize that Republicans are fine stripping funding for the 9/11 healthcare program -- Even CNBC is now realizing that Donald Trump's promises can't possible come true -- On the Bonus Show: Biden signs 50 bills on Christmas Eve, US business leaders set to break record on donations to Trump's inaugural fund, FDA has new definition for "healthy" on food labels, much more... 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 😁 Zippix Toothpicks: Code PAKMAN10 saves you 10% at https://zippixtoothpicks.com ⚠️ Ground News: Get 50% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 👩‍🎓 The 431 Exchange: Help us reach our goal by donating at https://431exchange.org/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- Pakman Discord: https://davidpakman.com/discord -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave a Voicemail: (219)-2DAVIDP

Welcome, everybody. Hope you had a good holiday. If you had one, we continue into night two of Hanukkah tonight. Very exciting. This interim period between Christmas and New Year's, it always feels sort of like a school half day, except we're doing the full show. You will be pleased to know the Elon, excuse me, the Elon Trump stuff continues and it now is rising to the level of international concern. And many are now extraordinarily disturbed over an exchange that took place between President-elect Elon Musk with no Trump present and everybody's having a grand old time. But the suggestion here in the video I'm about to play from Elon Musk that he can't officially be the president because, of course, he's a naturalized citizen like yours truly is another one of these allusions to the fact that it indeed seems to be Elon Musk who is in charge of much of what is going on behind the scenes. Let's take a listen to this video and then we will discuss.

So if you were, well, you can't be, you can't be president of the US last time I checked, right? But assume you are not officially, not officially. Okay. So you're the unofficial, unofficial president. Elon isn't that Elon can't officially be president of the United States. But what about unofficial now in a completely isolated world? if it was Elon Musk speaking to the Israeli prime minister, if it was, you know, fill in the blanks, right? Vivek Ramaswamy, if it was Hannity or if just

if a right wing figure is on a one off speaking to a foreign leader and it's known that this individual has a back channel to Trump and a joke like this is told, all right, it's really not a big deal, but that's not the environment in which this is taking place. This is taking place in an environment where Elon Musk is increasingly in the position of being one of the very unelected bureaucrats that Trump campaigned on pushing out of positions of power. Nobody electing Elon, despite increasingly hearing from Republicans that when people elected Trump, they voted for whatever the hell it is that Donald Trump does, which is, of course, a very silly argument to make. This is happening in an environment where Donald Trump has already

started to get a little irritated by this whole game. Speaking recently at Turning Point USA, as we talked about on the Monday show and saying, no, no, no. People are saying I'm ceding power to Elon. I'm not. He can't be president. He wasn't born in the United States. It's starting to get into Trump's psyche. And one of the things Trump really doesn't like is being upstaged or apparently

overpowered by someone else. So there's this whole environment here. And then Trump goes to France and Elon Musk is there. Trump is at Mar-a-Lago having high level meetings with people that, whether we like them or not, are sort of at the center of power right now. And Elon Musk is there. And recently, Trump's at Mar-a-Lago playing YMCA on his iPad for people in the dining room while they have the terrible overdone steaks and the crappy Caesar salads. And Elon is talking to MAGA Mike Johnson and whoever else in the Senate about policy and about shutdowns and about funding and what it is that they want. So in a complete vacuum, we would say,

oh, okay, he sat down with Netanyahu. They made a joke. Who cares? But it is not a complete vacuum. It is in fact, a very different situation. And this has, as I told you about earlier this week, this has every sign of ending very, very poorly. We will keep an eye on it, of course, into the new year. I have some unbelievable video to play for you. And I have to tell you, I'm pretty damn proud of what I'm about to play for you. Lone liberal Luke the Bees Knees Beasley, who started going to Trump rallies for us now, I guess years ago, right? How long has it been? Luke Beasley appeared on the Timcast Earl, that's IRL, the Tim cast Earl show. And he decimated five mega Potamians who brought the usual specious arguments out. This is re you know, when I saw Luke in DC last week,

he told me he was going to be doing this and he seemed very well prepared. You know, one of the great things about going to the White House last week was not only did I get to see Luke and the dollar mores and others. I also met folks like Dean Withers, for example, who I think are just doing such a great job in these confrontational debates. And I said to Dean and I said to Luke, I don't know if it's that I'm just too old for this crap, but I am too tired to go through the prep that's required to really seriously be prepared for these sorts of situations. They threw everything at Luke

and I'm going to play for you. This is, it's like a media literacy clinic. Really? I'm going to play for you. Um, some of what I think are the key moments. This was two and a half hours long, if you can believe that. Anyway, let's not even weigh in on that. But let's dive into it. A couple of different clips here. And one of the things that, well, let me play it first and then I'll explain what's interesting about this. Says from Antifa. Again, tell me. I think you have a great explanation. I certainly do. I'm wondering, as you've made an argument, if you know what you're talking about. How does that connect my argument? Do you know the difference between various ideologies among the right and the left? You've not been able to define it. I actually know.

I would say I'm not a master in the distinguishments between different ideologies within a side. Then how can you claim the right is more violent? Oh, how can you claim the left is more violent? Because I know many of these different factions. And your observations. From my field reporting expertise and and reading of the research. Well, then what research? So if we distinguish, say, anarcho libertarian, anarcho communism, anarcho syndicalism, we can talk about tankies.

We can talk about social liberals. We can talk about traditional liberals. Now, what Tim Pool is doing here is totally logically fallacious. It's fallacious, I should say. Oh, boy. It's the day after. OK. One of the things Tim Pool is doing here is he is trying to argue that if Luke can't define terms that Tim has arbitrarily put forward, Luke can't possibly evaluate data that shows that there is far more right-wing political violence in the United States than left-wing political violence. Now, these are two unrelated things that the thing that Tim asked Luke to define was what's

the difference between left-wing collectivism and right-wing collectivism. Luke said, I don't, I don't know. I mean, I can't define that, but that's a separate issue from crime. And of course there is a relatively simple answer to the difference between left and right-wing collectivism, which is that right-wing collectivism is often based in national identity, racial identity, et cetera. Whereas left-wing collectivism is more often based along class lines. That's what I would have said, but it doesn't matter because we know that when you look at politically motivated violence in the United States, the vast majority of it is right wing. I would even argue because they, they, they love to pull this game where they say any radical Islamist based violence is left wing. Even if you give them that most of the political violence is still right wing.

But I think if you look at the teachings of radical Islam, how can you argue that that's left wing? There's nothing left wing there. You do have the occasional eco terrorist, which I think could accurately be branded as left wing. And we don't want to fall into like a no true Scotsman thing where by definition, anyone who commits violence can't be left wing. No, that's not true. You've got some eco terrorism occasionally in the United States that we could say that's left wing. But certainly the white nationalist violence and all of that stuff is overtly right wing. And I would argue when you are committing violence in the name of a radical literal interpretation of religious doctrine, which you believe should should govern civil government, which is what a radical interpretation of Islam would would say, that seems fundamentally right

wing and authoritarian and fascistic. So anyway, the game that Tim Pool likes to play is saying define these terms. And then when the person can't, you go, oh, well, you couldn't possibly just look at the data about crime when, of course, you could. These are two completely different things. All right. We move ahead just briefly in this discussion. And this sort of thing just continue. Read a press release from University of Maryland. I'm asking you to define which groups. I dug and I dug and I could not find any research, even that came from a right wing institution that gave over the cross of which right wing institution. I'm saying I couldn't find one. I agree. You can't find a right wing institution that tracks.

There are right wing institutions that do studies and stuff. They don't track this. So, maybe because they're studying. Do you see what's happening, though? You haven't done the research, and so you're saying... Apparently you have even less than me. Sheesh. I have, what, 20 years of field reporting on the ground. And every

single time you come back to... Give me substance, bro. That's what I'm asking you. I'm saying I don't get caught up. Especially like – let me give you another example. Crime has been going down. I could go find instances of crimes taking place, right? The FBI lied about it.

The FBI lied about that, that crime is not going down. They actually altered and omitted those statements. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Crime didn't go down. It actually went up. You don't have the FBI revise didn't go down. It's not even an argument. It actually went up. You don't have the FBI revise the crime data. For 2022, not 2023 and 2024. Right.

We're seeing a really good trend on that front. Do you know why? Do you know why? In 2022, it was not a huge revision. Do you know why homicide is down? Tell me. I'm asking you not. Anyway, so he plays these games where he wants to set the terms.

Answer this question. Answer that question. And of course, this isn't really how we figure things out and get to reality. And I'll admit this, a very tough situation to be in for Luke. And he handled it as well as I also he he's around multiple of these people, multiple of these people. And Luke is the newest to this of any of these folks and really holding his own. Let's go to another moment from this discussion where a Tim Pool starts to get angry. He doesn't like what how Luke is handling this. And Tim starts to get very angry, specifically cited his speech.

My dude, you don't know what you're talking about. And it's fine. I get it. We try to be polite. We try to be nice. But there are so many young liberals who sit here and say the corporate press told me that these people are bad and the machine state government has decreed it by pen. So I don't care what crime they committed. I don't care what the jury said. I don't care who was on the jury. Enrique Tarrio, who was not there, should be in

prison for two decades. Tell me this now. Why is Enrique Tarrio in prison? Yeah. So they are uncovered with him, his plot to overthrow the government. Enrique Tarrio? Yeah. So they undercut or uncovered with him his plot to overthrow the government. Enrique Torres. Yeah. And his organization. What plot? Who's they? Give me some prosecutors. Give me some fucking data. Stop. Stop squinting at me and saying the prosecutors did a thing. You Luke squinting because Tim's losing his mind. He's coming at this with this indignant. How dare you come in here and say things? Why won't you do? Why won't you do dictionary and define every term I give you? Why won't you just tell me I'm right, Luke? This is so triggering, so triggering to Tim. No, you didn't read it. You didn't read the court papers. All you know is the fascist machine state told you he should be in prison and you're saying yes to them.

Tell me why. I understand that laws on the books have been there for a long time that I agree with that. If it's proven that you had a plan and you wanted to act on it days after the proof, say the proof by prosecutors, state communications. You know, the proof, say the proof, state communications. You know, the problem with everything that is being levied here is you could just as easily turn this around on Tim and say, OK, so it sounds like you're essentially saying you don't respect the way that the laws are written. You don't respect the conclusions of a jury within a trial. You're just saying none of it really matters.

And so we could turn that around and say, OK, so listen, the Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse is acquittal. I don't agree with the way that the self-defense law is written. I don't agree with the conclusions of the jury. I think the system was biased in his favor. This is sort of the conspiracy loophole or black hole I've talked about before where evidence for and evidence against or absence of evidence, it all points to the same conclusion because you've predetermined it. And this is, of course, another one of those examples where despite the recorded audio tapes of Enrique Tarrio, the proud boy leader, despite

prosecutors proving their case, despite everything that happened, Tim just doesn't agree with it. And so the thing that I, if I were to critique Luke here, I would say he should have more quickly recognized. It doesn't matter what he says. It almost in the two and a half hours, it almost doesn't matter what Luke says, because what this is really about, it seems to me is that Tim really didn't like that 20, whatever year old Luke Beasley came in and facedown five of these people and all they could do was blow up and yell at him. Let's look at a little bit more of this between communications. What did he say?

What did he do? Are you is this serious? Are you going to tell me why you think Enrique Tarrio should be in prison for 20 years or are you going to say the government decreed it? I just explained to you that the government said so. Is that it? It's usually law enforcement, which I guess is part So the government said so. Is that it? It's usually law enforcement, which I guess is a part of the government said so. Yep. Law enforcement that uncovers evidence

of communications, a memo that he it's sort of like, how does it how does law enforcement work crafted and sent to his organization saying what detailed each institutional government that they were going to try to overthrow? Then just days later, his organization is at the Capitol. Typing. I don't think we can even pull up Enrique Tarrio. I'm not quite. All right. So then about a minute goes by and then it's maybe like the absolute funniest moment where Luke is immediately proven right. And it makes Tim Pool's entire blow up seem really stupid. States that is true. Well, now we got a problem.

Let's try this again. Let's try a secondary source. Let's see. Sorry, let me back up because we actually missed it. Tim looks it up and it's exactly what Luke said in the article. So here's a citation. Proud boy and three other members of the fire groups were convicted. Threats and applied to attack the Capitol during Washington, D.C., found Tarrio and three lieutenants guilty of seditious conspiracy after hearing dozens of witnesses.

Jurors cleared a fifth defendant, Dominic Pizzola, and is in charge in a significant milestone of the Justice Department, which is now secure to conspiracy, blah, blah, blah. Uh-oh, it's exactly what Luke said. They will never stop. Okay, that's interesting. Wikipedia asserts that they did this, but there's actually nothing in the news article that actually states that it's true. Well, now we've got a problem. Let's try this again. Let's try a secondary source. Let's see.

Ah, there it is. They introduced evidence that Tarjo discussed with associates a plan to have a large crowd in Washington storm government buildings in a scheme they called 7076 Returns, in which the Winter Palace was used as an apparent code for the U.S. Capitol. In a message, he said, make no mistake, we did this. Do what must be done

and direct the Proud Boys to do it again. So the question then becomes, in the bigger picture, so are you going to at all acknowledge that you just blew up over something that I was absolutely citing fairly? I don't think you cited it fairly. I think people should be prosecuted for engaging in plans to overthrow our government. That's kind of that's very that's a very that's a very loose definition of plans to overthrow the government. Now the terms are too loose and it's all listen, this is really a masterclass from Luke put in a very difficult position. I'm not going to play this entire thing, but here's another moment where the topic of the deficit came up and this is really good. So you're not hearing me. The large spike was COVID.

I actually don't know if Trump's debt was in any way more egregious than any of the past president. It looks it looks rather linear. Yeah. I just think if you again, since this portrays it in a different visual Axios Trump Biden debt should pull it up. Trump does have I mean, he added more to the debt than any president. But again, this one says he ran up twice. I don't I don't know. Right, right.

That's that's COVID. No, no, exclude. Look, non-COVID. Oh, I see. I see. You're right. Yeah. Non-COVID relief.

Trump is more than double Biden. I don't see Trump's position. And I don't. Oh, quickly get that off the screen. Credit for this one is that you want to be under leveraged. His idea is that you want to maintain growth above spending. And then it doesn't matter if you're. But he failed to do that even before COVID. I think we agree. I don't know. I mean, the economy was doing fairly well regardless. But if you look at that,

so that's now he's changing that. This is a classic. Now he changes the topic. Now, Tim, from going from the debt and deficit issue, once that was proven wrong by Luke, Tim just goes, the economy kind of seemed to be doing fine, which is a different argument. That's a modern monetary theory argument, which is even despite deficit spending, if it's on the right stuff, the country and the economy could be doing fine, which I think is an important topic to engage with. But it's one they deny until Luke Beasley shoves it in their face. Really nice job by Luke here.

And two and a half hours exhausting to deal with these people, but very nicely done. All right. January 1, 2025, we are going to be doing a one day membership discount special. It will be a discount the likes of which no one has ever even heard of before. If you'd like to take advantage of this one day membership discount, get on our mailing list at davidpachman.com upper right of the website. You'll see where you can put in your email address. Get on our mailing list. On January 1, you'll get an email telling you how to take advantage of this great membership

discount. And number two, we have the rare occasional open position on the program. Okay. I'm going to tell you a little bit about it. If you're interested in applying, I'll give you the instructions in a second. Not following the instructions would instantly disqualify you. We have a full time, fully remote position opening on the show. This is going to be a blended position, which will include editing and tech stuff, social media stuff, guest booking, and also, uh, booking me on other shows, being backup producer to producer Pat and a bunch of other marketing and other, uh, tasks. If you are interested in this, the first step would be to email info at David Pakman dot com with the subject open position. Any other subject would get you disqualified.

OK, attach your resume, attach your resume. Don't paste it. Attach the resume and include a short note about why you feel you would be a good fit for this position. If you aren't sure what those three requirements are, just rewind this 30 seconds. Okay. Uh, info at davidpacman.com is the email. Um, and then we will respond. If you, uh, have, have followed the instructions, we will respond with a more formal position description. All right. We will take a quick break and be back right after this. Data brokers are continually collecting extensive details about your online behavior, address,

phone number, email, financial information, even political views. This sensitive information about you can easily be found on public data search sites by anybody. Could be an ex, could be an employer. And these brokers sell the data to other businesses and even government agencies like the FBI and NSA who can buy it in bulk to surveil Americans without a search warrant. Scammers and spammers also get your details from these lists. And that's why you get the text messages on the calls and the emails. But you can stop it. Our sponsor, Incogni, will send removal requests to data brokers who are legally obligated

to comply. If any of your information remains online, Incogni will follow up and ensure that it's taken down. Incogni keeps you informed every step of the way, and it just saves you countless hours of work that would be nearly impossible to do on your own. I use Incogni and what they've managed to do is remarkable. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 60 percent off. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman for a huge 60 percent discount.

The link is in the podcast notes. One of our sponsors today is Zipix nicotine toothpicks. Zipix brings you a convenient alternative to smoking and vaping and the vape clouds, the ashtrays, the thing in your lip that people can see. I've seen that around. This is an easier and less messy way to curb the cravings. And you can use Zypix just about anywhere. Zypix is available in six flavors with two or three milligrams strength. The nicotine and the flavor are long lasting and Zypex has helped countless people kick the bad habits and they are bad habits. Zypex toothpicks are FDA registered. Their customer service is second to none. It is one of the most cost

effective alternatives. Also check out their B12 and caffeine toothpicks. See for yourself why so many people have switched to ZipX toothpicks. You can only get ZipX online. Go to ZipX toothpicks.com today. Save 10% with the code Pacman 10 at checkout. Just remember, you must be 21 or older to order. That's ZIPPIXtoothpicks.com. Use promo code Pacman10 at checkout pacman.com. You can use the coupon code not again. And if you'd rather wait a few days on January 1st, we'll be doing a one day membership special, which you can be notified about. If you get on our newsletter at david pacman dot com on Christmas, Donald Trump did a few things, including exploding in an uncontrollable manic post spree where he went after former

President Barack Obama and generally speaking, lost his mind. Now, this is of particular interest to us right now for a couple of different reasons. One, it's that as Donald Trump is mostly posting and playing music, DJing at Mar-a-Lago, it seems as though Elon Musk is increasingly becoming a negotiator and a node of power and information for this incoming administration. It's also relevant because as the world is watching and waiting to see what sort of absurdity and pathetic presence Donald Trump brings back to the Oval Office, when Trump is posting dozens of unhinged screeds and conspiracy theories to Truth Central

on Christmas, it once again starts to push the United States back towards being the laughingstock of the world that we were during Donald Trump's first term. I'll just scroll through this where I want to dig into the Christmas message in a moment, but just to give you a sense, endless screenshotted posts, videos where Donald Trump reposted old Christmas messages, memes and animated images talking about how he was just hanging out with former hockey player Wayne Gretzky, who should run for prime minister of Canada, soon to be governor of Canada. Then Trump put out his Christmas message, which I want to get back to. So I'll skip that for now. Reposting messages from others.

Trump holding another one of these made up awards looking burnt umber, as is often the case. Other memes. And this is just within a few hours. It's important to mention threats about taking over the Panama Canal, Christmas cards and other memes, messages and articles from right wing leaning websites like Fox News and the Daily Signal, Wall Street Journal opinion pieces saying Kash Patel should become the director of the FBI. In fact, article after article about that, talking about how Pete Hegseth should absolutely become secretary of defense,

talking about, uh, uh, uh, reposting attack articles against president Joe Biden, posting a sort of Christmas card type message of he and, uh, Melania. And it just goes on and on and on. And this is all Christmas day folks. I'm still scrolling dozens and dozens of posts, articles from conspiracy site, the Gateway Pundit, from Newsmax, from Red State, from the New York Post. It keeps going and going, reposting Elon Musk. And he continues announcing a couple of nominations and it continues. This is all Christmas Day, all Christmas day, reposting messages from

Roger Stone, reposting lurid articles from the New York Post. And then finally, finally getting back to two days ago. This is not normal. This is not the behavior of a stable individual who is going to rationally, uh, discharge the duty of the president of the United States. You know, I recently read an article, a book rather want to make sure I get the name right. The book is called nuclear war or Nuclear, as some like to say, Nuclear War by Annie Jacobson. The book is essentially the arc of what would happen if we were to engage in a nuclear war globally. And the book, as I read it, as I saw it outline the calm and rationality that such a scenario would require of an American president. I couldn't help even though the book doesn't mention Trump.

The book's not about Trump. It's a hypothetical nuclear war scenario. What does the president do? What what does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs do? What is the SEC death do all? All I could think of is in a month, the people that would be in the positions to make these decisions if this scenario were to come to fruition would be Trump and J.D. Vance and Pete Hegseth, among others. And that is utterly terrifying. And as you scroll Trump's

troth central and see him selling guitars and all sorts of nonsense, that terror is only reinforced. Let's now get to the Christmas message. Ah, yes. The Christmas message from Donald Trump, an annual tradition where festive cheer and goodwill are nowhere to be found. This year's message manages to blend international diplomatic incompetence with revisionist history, bizarre insults and campaign rhetoric when there is no campaign in what I can really only describe as a stream of consciousness fever dream. Take a look at Donald Trump's Christmas message, quote, Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China who were lovingly but illegally operating, operating the Panama Canal, where we lost 38,000 people in its building 110 years ago, always making certain that the United States puts billions of dollars in repair money,

but will have absolutely nothing to say about anything. Also, to Governor Justin Trudeau of Canada, whose citizens' taxes are far too high, but if Canada was to become our 51st state, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world. Likewise, to the people of Greenland, which is needed by the United States for national security purposes, and who wants the U S to be there. And we will now, this is, this is part one. This is all classic Trump, a mix of fact, fiction and confusion. The idea that soldiers from China are running the Panama Canal is totally false.

The canal is operated by the Panama Canal Authority. It's a Panamanian government agency. The kernel of truth is that there are Chinese companies that have investments in Panama in the same way that there are Chinese companies that have investments in Panama in the same way that there are Chinese companies that have investments in the United States. That is not Chinese soldiers running the canal. Now, Trump references now 38,000 deaths that took place in the construction of the canal. It's completely irrelevant and inaccurate. It appears as though the number is 25,000 people. 25,000 people really did die around the construction of the Panama Canal, not 38,000. They mostly died from disease that at that point in time, humans had not figured out

how to deal with. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with anything about the building or the building quality or any, any of it. And of course, the cherry on top is the U S pays billions, but gets nothing. This is Trump's go-to America is paying and we're not getting what we deserve. We are being exploited globally. And then of course, Trump's obsession with Greenland comes up again, the sequel to his previous proposal to buy it. And it's neither here nor there. Now, here's part two of Trump's Christmas message. Page two. Merry Christmas to the radical left lunatics who are constantly trying to obstruct our court system

in our elections and are always going after the great citizens and patriots of the United States. But in particular, their political opponent, me, they know that their only chance of survival is Thank you. I refuse to wish Merry Christmas to those lucky souls, but instead will say go to hell. We had the greatest election in the history of our country. A bright light is now shining over the USA. And in 26 days, we will make America great again. Merry Christmas. Now, of course, you all know if you watched the show earlier this week, Biden didn't pardon violent criminals on death row. He commuted their sentences to life without the possibility of parole.

This is because Joe Biden, as am I, is fundamentally opposed to the death penalty at a structural, conceptual level. He didn't pardon those people. He commuted their death sentences. Trump's Christmas message, as as always not about Christmas. It's about Trump. It's an unfiltered stream of grievance, politics, revisionist history and propaganda wrapped up as a merry Christmas.

This is what we can expect for four years to come. As Trump's inauguration approaches, we're already seeing what the next four years are going to look like. A Trump campaign official said Pennsylvania election workers will face jail time for counting mail in ballots with technical errors like missing dates. Part of the right's attempt to sow election distrust and weaponize the courts. This story is almost exclusively being covered by right leaning news outlets, spinning the narrative to villainize the election workers. So the public probably has a skewed perspective on what's really happening. That is, unless you use ground news, which lets you see every side to every story like this one.

Ground news is an independent platform that exposes the biases of media outlets by showing you who owns them, what angle they're taking on each story and what hidden agendas might be lurking in the background. Ground news is daily briefings are a great way to stay informed without feeling overwhelmed. It gives a quick breakdown of the day's most critical stories from every angle. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. The link is in the description. You watch YouTube, you listen to podcasts, you've heard a ton of ads for VPNs, but all VPNs are pretty much the same except for one. Our sponsor, Private Internet Access, is the only VPN that can confirm your Internet activity is not being logged. Their software is fully open source so you can see the traffic isn't being logged. The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. and private Internet access is giving my audience 83 percent off comes out to just 203 a month plus

four extra months for free. Go to PIA VPN dot com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. It's great to welcome back to the program today, Henry Giroux, who is the chaired professor for scholarship in the public interest at McMaster University. Henry, it's so great to have you back on, although I guess I should say, unfortunately, under these circumstances in some sense. I think maybe to start with, one of the conversations I've been having with folks in the sort of political space, the overtly political space about authoritarianism, and sometimes people talk about fascism, et cetera, as concerns with this incoming administration,

is that a lot of people come to me and say, you know, yes, a lot of the rhetoric certainly was extraordinarily authoritarian and fascistic from Donald Trump during the pres during the presidential campaign. But we question his real interest or ability to implement to some degree some of these bad ideas and therefore it's not as concerning to me. What do you think about any aspect of that as an argument? I think it's a form of diversion. I think that we need to take what Trump says very seriously, especially in light of the changing nature of the administration.

He has surrounded himself with a bunch of ideological ghouls who it seems Stephen Miller in particular, who it seems to me are very dangerous and are very focused. And I think unlike the first presidency, he's quite serious about what he wants to do. I mean, when he talks about immediately deporting up to 20 million immigrants, or he talks about shutting down the Department of Education, or he consistently echoes sentiments around white supremacy and Christian fundamentalism, I think we need to be alert to the language. Language matters. And I think that people who don't take language seriously often find themselves in a space in which self-delusion turns into a form of self-sabotage. What do you make of, or let me put it a different way. Is it fair to make an assessment or come to a conclusion about the American people on the basis that he was able to get himself elected? In other words, is there a fair assessment to be made of the voters based on Trump's success on November 5th?

I think the real question here is what is the role of culture in basically either enabling or disempowering people? What are the institutions that basically undermine an individual's perception of himself or herself in a society that is basically increasingly marked by inequality, white supremacy, a number of ecological, the assaults on the planet. What is it that limits the ability of people to basically be insightful or to be critical, to be informed citizens? You know, democracy doesn't exist without informed citizens. So I don't want to blame people or blame the populace. I want to ask myself the question, you know, what happens in a democracy when the truth basically is sublimated or substituted

for ignorance, when reason collapses? And what are the institutions responsible for that? And what are the conditions that are being overlooked that basically mobilize people towards the the appeal of a strong man? That's a pedagogical question. It's not just a political question. And I think the pedagogical question is enormously missing, it seems to me, from these debates about Trump, about fascism, about a whole range of issues that really speak to the emergence of a very dark moment in our history. There are some who say, yes, I am concerned in the way that you are outlining about Trump,

but I felt that the dishonesty came from being told the economy was good when it really didn't seem good to me being told that I didn't need to worry about immigration or crime by Kamala Harris. And I believed I did need to worry about that. Right. I mean, my point is there's a movement that would agree with the principles you're giving us, but would argue they felt the darkness and deception came from the democratic candidate and the current president. What do we say to folks who make that claim?

No, I think it's a terrific point. And I think that I want to make clear that when I talk about Trump and I talk about fascism, I'm not just talking about Trump, the individual. I'm talking about two parties, one of which is much worse. But in some ways, the Democratic Party simply failed to address the issues that most working class people live out every day. There's a language in both instances that it seems to me disassociates themselves from a language in which people can recognize themselves and recognize the problems that they're facing. And to say that Trump and Trumpism, Trump and Trumpism just took advantage of that.

But the Democrats, I mean, from Clinton on, have almost nothing to say to working class people in ways that would suggest that the future is being, that they're being written out of the script of democracy. They're being written out of the script of prosperity. They're being written out of the script of social mobility They're being written out of the script of social mobility. These are the issues that people want to know where they're getting food from. They want to know why they have to make a choice between medicine and it seems to me

health care or food or putting their kids to school. So, no, I think the everyday issues, the issues of everyday life were simply not addressed by the Democratic Party. That's for sure. I don't believe the solution is by saying that I don't think the solution is, is Trump. Right. I think that's a mistake. Yeah. Well, that was going to be sort of where I wanted to go with this, which was, it seems that if we're honest, even though the solutions proposed by Trump were sometimes barely even qualifying as solutions and sometimes they really wouldn't fix the problems on some level, it does seem like people, some voters saw Trump's rhetoric as more genuine than the sort of Kamala Harris, same speech three times

a day, tax deduction for small business owners and this stuff that like, I don't know, there seemed to be something that even though Trump seems to me completely disingenuous in the sense of he'll say anything if he thinks it'll help him get elected, regardless of his personal belief or ability to implement it. But for some people, it seemed genuine based on what I'm hearing from them. Is that possible? No, I think that's possible. What I what I where I have trouble with that argument is that it doesn't go far enough. I mean, at one level, there's the argument that there are basic democratic, economic,

political and personal needs that characterize a democracy that need to be addressed. At another level, there are people, and particularly authoritarians, who make an appeal to those concerns, but in a sense, want nothing to do with them. And they actually do see them as a threat. I mean, Trump is not going to, in some way, address questions of inequality. That's for sure. At another level, the Democrats who basically have aligned themselves with Wall Street in ways that are unmentionable and have ignored the war in Gaza. It seems to me they've been enormously disingenuous and out of touch. And I think in both instances, what we're talking about is not that Trump had something to say that mattered or the Democrats ignored it. David, we need a third party in this country. You need a third party. You need a party about

democracy, not a party about oligarchy or not a party about simply in some way reinforcing the interests of Wall Street bankers. You know, and that's that's that that argument has been ignored, except for some. It's a marginal argument. There are a couple of specific policies that I'm curious to get your thoughts militarized mass deportations, which would necessitate the construction of some kinds of facilities. Some are calling them camps, detention centers, whatever. That's one policy. The other is the potential targeting criminally of journalists and political opponents for obvious reasons of retribution or revenge, whether he could get away with it in terms of whether he can hire the people

that will do it or not. You can weigh in on that. But really what I'm interested in is, do you have a sense of how the American and global people would react to such policies? I think the first question for me is the answer to that lies in the fact that Trump and his core and his allies are certainly concerned about that. And that's why they ban books. That's why they destroy any sense of history that matters, because the last thing that they want to see when the when the trains go running through these towns with immigrants packed in them, there are certain memories there that correlate with something in the past that speaks of something horrendous.

And that's true for journalists. Remember, the first sign of authoritarianism is to eliminate the critics that basically hold it accountable. And I think that as bad as the legacy press can be, those assaults will be so visible, so obvious, so horrendous, David, so at odds with even the weakest notion of what a democracy is about. I think there's going to be an enormous pushback around these issues. So it sounds if I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're saying that would be a bridge too far for too many people for them to get away with that.

I believe that. Yes, I do. I do. I think it'll be a bridge to front. I think the third bridge will come with the tariffs and all of a sudden people find themselves actually in a worse condition economically than they had been in the past. One of the things that seems to have been prevalent in American politics, let's say at least for the last 20 years is that often when bad things happen, the blame is placed along partisan

lines. I'll give you a couple of examples. When Obamacare included the state Medicaid expansion and a bunch of red states opted not to do it, it was the decision of Republican governors. You did have voters who said Obama didn't give me my health care. And of course, Obama offered the expansion. Some states didn't do it. It was the governor's fault why they didn't have health care, not Obama. But if you wanted to see Obama as the villain, you saw Obama as the villain. You can probably see where I'm going with this, which is some of these tariffs will certainly make products more expensive. Uh, a lot of the economic policy that Trump has outlined would make life more expensive for

Americans. I have this idea, the right people will be blamed, but I'm not confident based on history that that's the case. You know, look, I mean we're in a period when we're engaging in a massive historical struggle, it seems to me, over democracy and the institutions that support it. And I think when you disengage that kind of question from a crisis of consciousness, a crisis of morality, and a crisis of education, and a crisis of critical thought, and a crisis of morality and a crisis of education and a crisis of critical thought and a crisis of truth itself, we get into a space in which we say, can we blame, how are we going to figure out how the red states are lying about Obamacare, right? What we really need to ask is what is it

that's happened in the culture that makes ignorance so profound that it becomes difficult for people to address questions like this and make the obvious obvious. And that is, this is not just about healthcare. It's an attack on the public good. It's an attack on education. It's an attack on the critical functions of agency. It's an attack on a collective struggle. These are the issues. The other stuff is just simply, it's detritus. I mean, it's a consequence of those problems, but we tend not to get to the source of the problem itself. People should be able to immediately recognize that when in the red states, governments say, no, we're not going to accept federal aid for healthcare. Hello? I mean,

that's not exactly a profoundly complex issue, is it? What's complex is the culture of ignorance that mobilizes that possibility for not being able to see through what's going on politically. We don't know how to hold power accountable anymore because the institutions that are supposed to do it are under enormous attack, whether it's your program, whether it's the media or whether it's education. These are all pedagogical institutions. These are all institutions that operate off the assumption. The truth matters. History matters. Politics matters and collective struggle and critical thinking matter.

And they're being destroyed precisely for those reasons. I want to ask you a little bit about for those who are motivated to resist or oppose. Mark Elias had an interesting article saying the resistance of the first Trump term is not going to cut it. There needs to be sort of a more durable opposition of sorts. And I think he makes the case that this is more than just a semantic distinction. He kind of lays it out. What does history tell us about in these cultural moments? What are the effective ways to robustly oppose what may be coming? I think the first thing is to make power visible and to make

the problems that we face invisible. They need to be visible. They need to be put into a comprehensive narrative in which people can recognize themselves. We need a language that is some way contextual, that touches people's lives. I mean, the left has failed on this. You know, we need to get away from the abstractions and we need to talk about issues in which people can say, that's me. I understand that. And not only understand it, recognize that they need to talk about issues in which people can say, that's me. I understand that. And not only understand it, recognize that they need to go further in some way to address those problems. Thirdly, we need a comprehensive understanding of the problems that we face. We need to be able to translate, David, personal issues into larger systemic issues. Not to do that is to privatize

everything, including the assumption that all social problems are problems of character, problems of individual morality. That is the most depoliticizing moment, it seems to me, in neoliberal ideology. It's worse than medieval ideology. I mean, it just makes people powerless. Lastly, we need a unified party. We need to bring these groups together under a comprehensive narrative by oligarchs if you believe in democracy. And we need to bring those moments together in which people can work together for that larger narrative outside of the individual narratives that are often driving an oppositional politics. We have been speaking with Henry Giroux, chaired professor for scholarship in the public interest at McMaster University. Always a pleasure having you on. Thanks so much for your time. Okay, David, thank you for having me.

This holiday season. Let's remember how powerful it is to have someone in your corner. Have you ever taken a big step as an adult going back to school, changing careers. Think back to who encouraged you along the way. That's what the 431 exchange is for. For so many adult learners. Our sponsor, the 431 exchange is a nonprofit that provides scholarships to adults 18 to 75 who were working to transform their lives and support families. The four 31 exchange fills a vital need in Louisiana, which ranks 40th in K through 12 education.

We've talked about that and that means opportunities are limited from an early age. One scholar studying agricultural engineering says over the past four years, I've felt so much love from you all. Words can't express my gratitude. Another scholar at an Ivy League school calls this the most impactful scholarship he's ever received. Inspired by 431 women who integrated secretarial offices in the 1960s, the 431 exchange allocates 80 cents of every dollar directly to scholarships. They're

a 501 C three. So donations are tax deductible. Help the David Pakman show reach our goal of $15,000 in donations by year end at 431 exchange.org slash Pakman. A generous donor Well, they effed around and now they are very quickly finding out. I have been talking to you now for several weeks about the various constituencies that confidently and proudly and defiantly and courageously as they side endorsed Donald J. Trump for president of the United Shaysh, uh, as well as many Republicans, despite the fact that Republicans have shown an antipathy to all organized labor to all unions. And that includes, yes, even first responder unions like firefighters and police and others. And we now have video Christmas video of New York city firefighter unions that supported Trump and supported Republicans who are furious that the house is deciding to strip funding for the 9-11 health care program.

This shouldn't be news to them. Jon Stewart has talked about this and covered this for years, despite claiming that they support first responders and back the blue and you know all of it. Time and time again, we find Republicans wherever we look who say, I don't know, it's been a while since 9-11. It's time to cut some of this funding. Take a listen to this. Calling on the administration that's coming in. We're calling on the senators and congresspeople that have made their promises to honor the honor. What everyone said, to never forget. New York City Fire Department unions are calling for the restoration of funding

to the James Zadroga 9-11 Health and Compensation Act after it was left out of Congress's funding on Friday. The act guarantees medical treatment for first responders, firefighters, and survivors who helped with their recovery efforts following the World Trade Center attack. There you have it. They effed around and they found out. And what is the underlying principle here? The underlying principle is a reminder that they have no principles. The underlying principle is a reminder that the principle of supporting first responders applies when it is convenient.

The principle of keeping the debt low, the deficit low rather, is relevant when there is no politically expedient alternative that includes raising the deficit. For example, if Donald Trump wants to cut taxes for the rich, all of a sudden that becomes the priority rather than keeping the deficit low. And so they have found it out. They found out and now they are going to have to deal with at least two years, right? We don't know what will happen in 2026, but at least two years of a president who is willing to do whatever he believes will be most convenient and flattering to him. A Republican party that supports first responders, except when they don't, except when it comes

to a lot of these 9-11 medical bills or when it came to the January 6th riots or when it came to the FBI and intelligence agencies, when what they were concluding was not convenient to Donald Trump, the principle at play that they are very quickly finding out about is that none of their stated principles matter if they are inconvenient. If you've been watching this show, you already know that I've been saying for months that the Trump economic agenda agenda is a disaster waiting to happen. It can't work as promised. So it either fails or Trump abandons it. Well now even CNBC is starting to catch up.

CNBC had an article this morning laying out exactly how Donald Trump's big promises are going to run headfirst into reality. I want to break this down piece by piece because every economic promise Trump made is poised to backfire in spectacular fashion. Ending the war in Ukraine before taking office. Trump said that it was after getting, uh, winning the election, not after being inaugurated after winning the election, he would have the Russia Ukraine war solved. He set it to his base.

And of course now he's saying it's a tough one. He's hedging his bets. The confidence is gone. Imagine campaigning on the idea that you can single handedly end a war without any plan, only to realize that it's a little bit complicated. Once you win the markets and global stability, don't run on Trump's slogans and even Trump's own comments show he's totally unprepared for the real world fallout of this. Blanket tariffs on the world, China, Mexico, Canada. Trump's promise for tariffs on everyone sounds very tough.

And then you remember what happened last time. Countries like China retaliated. They cut off U.S. agriculture imports. They left farmers in a bind. And now world leaders and policymakers in D.C. are having to scramble to figure out how do we prevent Trump from doing the blanket tariffs because they know it would be terrible for the economy. It would drive prices up for consumers and it would be a disaster. Tariffs maybe make a great soundbite. Strong man. Oh, what an alpha. Very tough. They don't pay off when the retaliation

costs more than the revenue they bring in. The largest tax cuts in American history. Trump's plan, I guess you could say, is one for the ages. It'll age badly, but it's one for the ages. Trump wants, again, massive individual and corporate tax cuts, promising they will stimulate so much growth that they will pay for themselves. If it sounds familiar, it's because we saw the movie before I read part one of this book and we have a spoiler, which is it ends with ballooning deficits, just like it did in Trump's first term. Independent estimates say it'll cost about nine trillion over the next decade. And with a thirty six trillion dollar national debt. There are even Republicans saying we're not so sure about this.

Trump said he would pay down the debt with the tariffs and with oil. You might be laughing because it's laughable. Trump says tariffs and expanded oil drilling will reduce the debt. The US is already the largest producer of oil in the world and prices are expected to stay low. That's not a recipe for using oil to pay off the debt. The oil companies are not going to flood the market because Trump is asking them to do it.

Not only that, but basic economics prevents it. And then the tariffs, history shows us that tariffs do not work to bring in the sort of money Trump is talking about, especially when countries retaliate. Rebecca Babin is a senior energy expert, and she said, quote, if energy prices are halved, remember, Trump said he would cut energy by 50 percent prices by 50 percent. She said something is terribly wrong. And as I've explained before, if somehow energy prices declined by 50 percent, it would be an economically disastrous inflationary spiral, deflationary spiral, the likes of which I don't know that we've ever seen. And then finally, you have the reality that Trump would have to ignore the national debt

to do all of this. That's the elephant in the room. Servicing the debt itself will become an even bigger strain. And Trump's agenda completely ignores that. So the effect is that even some Republicans in Congress are starting to rebel. We saw that during the debt limit fight. Trump says, I've got all the answers. I know everything. I'm going to do it all. Even his party doesn't trust him. Forget about the Democrats. His party doesn't trust him. So Trump's promises, as usual, they sound very bold. They fall apart the second they meet reality. The Ukraine rhetoric,

total bluster. The tariff plan, proven failure. The tax cuts just going to lead to more more of a deficit. The real irony here is that none of these are new problems. We've seen this playbook before. We have examples of all of these actions. And we can say, oh, it doesn't work. It always ends the exact same way. The average American pays more for bad policy. They pay more for products. They pay more for energy. They pay more sometimes in terms of sacrifice when it comes to the military, when presidents get us wrapped up in engagements we shouldn't be in. So Trump says it's all going to make us so prosperous.

We're all bracing for the fallout. And if you've been watching this show, you already saw it coming. I want to remind you, we have an open full-time, fully remote position on the show. These rarely come available. If you are interested, it is a production, editing, social media, and marketing role. Please write to info at davidpachman.com with the subject open position, attach your resume and write a couple of paragraphs in the body, hit the body of the email with a couple of paragraphs about why you think you'd be a good fit for the show. And we will follow up with candidates with a formal job description. And finally, remember that on January 1st,

we'll be doing a one day membership special to kick off 2025. If you'd like to be notified about that, just get on my newsletter, which you can sign up for at davidpachman.com. We've got a great Thank you. healthy. Now the FDA has a new definition. It's sort of what you would expect all of those stories and more on today's bonus show. I'll see you then.