The David Pakman Show - 12/31/24: Right-wing infighting escalates as billionaires take over

Episode Date: December 31, 2024

-- On the Show: -- MAGA is suddenly furious with Donald Trump over his not-totally-disgusting post to Truth Social about the death of former President Jimmy Carter -- Total chaos builds as MAGA goes to war with Elon Musk -- Disgusting MAGA Laura Loomer happens to get it right about why Elon Musk's technocratic views are bad for the average American -- A deep dive into how billionaires have taken control of Donald Trump -- Donald Trump's most dangerous ally, Elon Musk, seems to be on the verge of turning on Trump -- David brings back live calls one more time before closing out 2024 -- On the Bonus Show: David and Pat's New Year's plans, the outlook for the show in 2025, and much more... 🥐 Wildgrain: Use code PAKMAN for $30 off & free baked goods at https://wildgrain.com/pakman  🛏️ Eight Sleep: Get $350 OFF the Pod 4 Ultra at https://eightsleep.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 👩‍🎓 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, to the final David Pakman show of 2024. The end of the year is really serving up a MAGA civil war, which I believe is clear is going to play a major role in the first hundred days of the Trump administration. And it's really going to play a major role in those first hundred days, no matter what happens. And what I mean by that is if indeed the Musk technocrat coalition, which has reached Trump and seized control to a degree of Trump ism, uh, if it remains simpatico with Trump, it's going to wield major power and to a degree direct the first hundred days of Trump's presidency. If it doesn't remain simpatico with Trump, it will be because this devolving into a civil

war that we're seeing gets so bad that the coalition implodes and it will then wreak havoc over the first hundred days of Trump's incoming administration. So either way, this is potentially going to be the defining aspect of the first hundred days of the second Trump term. And one of the things that's happening right now is that tensions are running really, really high. They're running high specifically because MAGA is now asking itself,? Or is Trump on the side of the technocratic anarcho capitalist, whatever, of which, you know, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and others consider themselves apart. And this now has led to them easily getting mad at anything Trump does. And the latest thing that they are mad about is Donald Trump's troth central post after the passing at 100 years of age of former president

Jimmy Carter. One of the things I noticed about the message and we'll look at it in a moment is that it wasn't particularly vicious or vindictive. It didn't ascribe, uh, uh, pejorative nicknames to Jimmy Carter, et cetera. It wasn't a new Trump, but it's this one time Trump opted not to hurl horrible insults. Here's the post that Trump made about Jimmy Carter, which has angered so many Magapatamians quote, I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter. Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as president understand this is a very exclusive club and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the greatest nation in history. The challenges Jimmy faced as president came at a pivotal time for our country,

and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude. Melania and I are thinking warmly of the Carter family and their loved ones during this difficult time. We urge everyone to keep them in their hearts and prayers. This is totally standard and milquetoast in every way. It's not what you would expect of Trump. And the fact that the MAGAs expected something different has now sent them for a loop. As the New Republic reports, Donald Trump's diehard MAGA fans are irritated by his recent statement on the passing of former President Jimmy Carter. A whole bunch of responses

that are angry. Theodore Winters, I know you're being nice, but you're tripping. Carter was a terrible president and damaged the United Shaysh of America to such an extent that we are still dealing with his horribly policy decisions and his inflation repercussions in 2024. I get it. He just passed and we have to be respectful and nice, but let's still keep it real. Commies kills. Sorry.

Commies kill puppies, said. I appreciate your graciousness toward him, but it won't win you any points from the leftists. They are soulless. And then John 55, who identifies as America first, complained that Carter pardoned draft dodgers during the Vietnam War without recognizing Trump is a draft dodger. Jimmy Carter pardoned all the Vietnam draft dodgers that forced other men to take their place. Many of these men did not come home. Personally, I think Carter lived a long life to suffer for the pardons to the draft dodgers. He pardoned a whole bunch of other ones as well. Imagine that you're angering your base because all you did is not viciously attack a recently deceased Christian former president, which whatever you think about Jimmy Carter, I don't care

about religion. But Jimmy Carter was a Christian. He was deeply religious, unlike Trump. The MAGA's claim to love that the MAGA's claim that Christianity is one of the great booing powers in society and culture. And yet many of them are angry that Trump didn't viciously attack the recently deceased hundred year old Christian. That's where we are today. And the chaos is visible elsewhere. I want to talk about that as well. We see MAGA in full blown chaos. And I'm going to admit it's glorious to watch.

Am I a bad person because I'm seeing a terrible political movement eat itself from the inside out? The latest feud involves Laura Loomer, far right conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. She's gone to war with none other than Elon Musk. We touched on this yesterday. That Elon Musk, the one who's been cozying up to Trump as part of the Department of Grifting Edgelords, DOJ. And I'm going to tell you that the knives are out in a way that we have not seen within MAGA for a long time.

Here's the setup. Laura Loomer, hardcore Trump loyalists known for Islamophobia, a little bit of racism, endless streams of unhinged takes. She is accusing Elon Musk of being a stage five clinger who's trying to worm his way into Trump's inner circle. She's calling Doge a vanity project and saying it's merely a cover for the pet projects of tech bro million billionaires. And I have to tell you, she's right about a lot of this. We're actually going to hear, we're going to hear from her directly and broken clocks are occasionally right, I guess is what I would say. But that's not all

because Laura Loomer's attacks are taking a turn to the absurd and the ugly. She's throwing out homophobic insults. She's accusing Elon Musk of being a pawn for China. She's dredging up Elon's past criticisms of Donald Trump. And one of her posts said, remember when you voted for Biden and said Trump was too old, which Elon Musk did post. It's sort of like watching a reality TV show, but everybody involved actually has too much influence. Now, Elon Musk, for his part, is calling Laura Loomer a troll and telling people to ignore her. He briefly suspended her account on X,

but the feud is quickly spiraling out of control. MAGA World is piling on Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who made the mistake of suggesting there are cultural issues in the United States that make foreign talent essential. A lot of the magas didn't like that. And so cue the outrage machine with Loomer and others accusing them both of betraying the MAGA cause. And the kicker is that Loomer is not just going after Musk and Vivek.

She's hinting that Trump himself is ultimately going to turn on Musk, saying the divorce is coming. And I think she's completely right. As disgusting a person as she is, I believe she is right. Think about the irony. This is the same MAGA crowd that spent years championing billionaires as the saviors of America. And now they're eating their own because Musk isn't towing the ultra nationalist anti-immigration

line hard enough. I think Musk is also correct. I mean, what's funny is the people that are occasionally getting something right are being attacked for it. Musk is correct that if the United States wants to remain competitive because of the, he's not saying why, but I'm saying because of the educational crisis, the cultural crisis, the pseudo and anti-intellectualism and all this stuff, other countries are eating our lunch when it comes to a highly talented software engineers and others.

And Musk is correct that for a number of different reasons, the U.S. needs to import talent in order to remain competitive. He's right about that. He's being crushed for it. Now, Laura Loomer is also correct that as a general perspective, ceding power to technocratic billionaires is not going to be good for the average person that Trump claims to want to support. She's right about that. She's getting crushed for that. Every clock. It's like if you look at a wall of broken clocks and when they are occasionally correct,

you go, it's still wrong, even though they might actually be right. So that the bigger story is the real time fracturing of MAGA. And these factions are so extreme. Even Elon Musk, who is no progressive, is not far right enough. Loomer represents the hardcore xenophobic wing wing of MAGA. And any deviation is seen as a betrayal. So Musk is a traitor. And Ramashwami, as Trump used to call him, is a traitor. And they want the tech friendly, globalist, technocratic approach. And it's not sitting well with some people in the base. So what happens next? If the feud escalates,

Trump is going to have to choose sides. Does he stick with Elon and the Silicon Valley billionaires who are bankrolling his policies? And we'll talk later about the impact of billionaires on this campaign and this forthcoming administration? Or does Trump double down on the Loomer faction with its conspiratorial nonsense and abandon Elon? The only thing that's for sure is that these cracks are deepening quickly as we approach the inauguration of Donald Trump. They've thrived on division for years, but it was division either with so-called rhinos relegated to the margins of the Republican Party or with the left. And that's a much more politically safe for them sort of battle. The intramargin inward

energy of destruction is sort of a real grab your popcorn moment. And then we encounter Laura Loomer actually getting something right. And that's what I want to talk about next. The worst person you may have heard of recently, Laura Loomer is actually getting something right. I'm going to play a video of what Laura Loomer had to say about this growing tension between the technocratic billionaire wing of MAGA, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, and the pseudo and faux populist wing of the MAGA movement. Here's Laura Loomer, who I find despicable in just about every way, but she happens to stumble across some correct conclusions here. Take a listen. And what we need to have a conversation about is what is it going to mean for the future of

our country, our national security and the incoming Trump administration? If we have a conversation about is what is it going to mean for the future of our country, our national security and the incoming Trump administration? If we have a bunch of technocrats who are also essentially welfare queens because their companies are receiving government subsidies and they want to take over our defense industry. If you have a bunch of tech bros with billions of dollars and direct unfettered access to the vice president and the president of the United States, and then they are also, you know, very cordial with our adversaries as in China and Iran. We see that Elon Musk is having these meetings off the books with Iranian officials, with Chinese officials. What does that mean for us and the future of our constitutional republic? Hang on. Okay.

Hang on a second. Hang on a second. Hang on a second. I want to go back because I missed. She's to a great degree right about her analysis. Now, it's not for the right reasons. It's not that her ideology is any kind of beautiful ideology that will solve any problem we have. Aaron Ruppar wrote a great piece about this called Trumpers discover a type of bigotry they oppose

against themselves. The disagreement within MAGA here really highlights the incoherence of racism and bigotry as ideologies. Racists inevitably argue, xenophobes inevitably argue about who should be excluded or included. It's a fundamentally exclusive ideology. It's just a matter of whether you draw the line. It's sort of like old debates as to whether are the Irish white Europeans are the Italians white Europeans. And when they are, they then become part of the group deciding who else are we going to exclude? This reveals how arbitrary their beliefs are to a great degree. For example, should we be racist against American minorities? We perceive to be getting a late, a leg up due to affirmative action because we want to support American whites, or should we

be racist against foreign minorities because we want to support Americans or should we be nationalistic against any foreigners because we want to support? The point here is it's a question of where they draw the line on a lot of this stuff. And it exposes the complete intractability of such ideologies. Now, depending on your views, if you are economically, for example, a socialist, you might say none of this stuff matters. It's only about economic class. I'm not a class reductionist, but I'm telling you, there are those who say none of these other sort of identity based questions really matter. It's

debate for a different day. But the point here is that there is a disagreement now among those whose ideology is one of who's in and who's out as to who gets to be on which side of that line. And it seems to be destined to implode. Tomorrow, January 1st, we will be doing a one day membership special to kick off 2025. If you'd like to be notified about it, email info at davidpacman.com. Say, hey, please let me know about that special tomorrow. We'll add you to the list and let you know. Quick break and back after this. Winter is the perfect time to cozy up at home with some freshly baked treats like flaky

pastries, hearty breads, comforting pastas, and you can do it without any effort. Our sponsor, Wild Grain, is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, pastries, and pastas. Wild Grain simply takes the hassle out of baking. Everything bakes from frozen in 25 minutes or less, no mess or cleanup. Your family will be amazed thinking you've become a master bread baker all of a sudden. My favorite is the croissants. You throw them in the oven, 25 minutes. Wow. If you're ready to bring all your favorite breads, pastas, and pastries right to your doorstep, check out Wild Grain. You can build your box of artisanal pastries, breads, and everything Thank you so much for having me. in every box and thirty dollars off your first box. Go to wild grain dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. the David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. another. The pod will also monitor your sleep and check out the patterns of sleep to automatically

adjust the temperature to optimize rest. Snoring is no problem. The pod can gently elevate your head to reduce snoring when detected, leading to a better night's sleep for you and your partner. You can try the pod for ultra 30 nights with no risk. If it's not a good bit about billionaires. Use code Pacman for $350 off. The info is of the Trump machine. And it's time we talk about how this is really shaping Donald Trump's push here for what he's going to do in his second term. When you follow the money, the story becomes really clear. The people bankrolling Trump are buying control over his decisions. And it's even more blatant this time around. I know many of you say, David, money has always influenced politics. Yes, but it's doing it in a particularly visible and pernicious way. Let's break it down. Trump raised hundreds of millions of dollars during his previous campaigns, but the real power doesn't come from everyday donors. It's the ultra

wealthy. It's the billionaires with the corporate interests that really hold the keys. These donors write the checks big enough to influence not just policy, but Donald Trump's entire platform. And for his potential, uh, uh, uh, ideas for this second term, they are really doubling down. Elon Musk is an example. We'll talk more about him later. Musk has cozied up to Trump. He's leveraged influence through social media and financial backing. His recent control over platforms like X gives him a lot of sway in shaping public narratives. And Musk's interests are, of course, deregulation, government contracts, what's best for his various companies. And this really generally aligns well with Trump's plan to strip away what's left of federal oversight. It's not a coincidence that Trump's companies benefited from Trump era policies, and now he's investing. That's what it is to get more of the

same. We'll get back to Musk. You've got Warren Stevens, Linda McMahon, Jared Isaacman, Howard Lutnick, uh, billionaires who are going to be part of Trump's incoming administration. You've got people who are close to being billionaires, but they're not Vivek Ramaswamy, uh, Steven Witkoff, Doug Burgum is Doug Burgum is a billionaire. I actually, I don't remember. It doesn't really matter. Super rich guy. And then you've got Trump's actual, uh, uh, further choices, you know, people like, uh, Peter Thiel or Steven Schwartzman, or are they going to have a role? What sort of role are they going to have? These are not public servants. These are not people getting involved with the forthcoming Trump administration to help

people. These are business moguls with a direct financial stake in policies that would favor their industries. So this second Trump term is looking like it's going to be run by billionaires. This extends to Trump's donor base. During the first term, he had Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer, and the list is growing and growing into this coalition of ultra wealthy people who want to protect wealth and power. These are not people just funding Trump's campaign the way you might donate 50 bucks. They are buying seats at the table and they're making sure that their

priorities will become policy. You look at Trump's first term, the 2017 tax cuts sold as good for the middle class. Overwhelming beneficiaries were the top 1%. And you also have to consider foreign billionaires. Trump's relationship with Saudi Arabia did not come out of nowhere. You follow the money, you'll find billions in arms deals and business interests connecting Trump's inner circle to Saudi cash. Of course, Jared Kushner being one of the primary examples right now, Trump's out of office, although he'll be back soon. But the billionaires knew we got to pour money in and then we're going to get goodies. So as we talk about specific people, we'll talk about Musk in a bit. It's important to mention that this is not only about Donald Trump. Part of this is about the

system. And Bernie Sanders has talked about this quite a bit. A handful of billionaires, a dozen, couple dozen can effectively buy their way into dictating and influencing policy that affects hundreds of millions of people. Trump's the latest vehicle. He's a great vehicle because Trump is a billionaire and loves billionaires and sees being a billionaire, being a billionaire as a virtue in and of itself. Will the voters allow it to continue? Well, we'll see. So the next time you hear Trump talking about fighting for the people, just remember that the money behind the words is the money of these billionaires who at an unprecedented rate are going to be involved in his campaign. I'm sorry, in his administration. Now I want to focus in specifically on the

dangers of what's going on with Elon Musk. It's becoming clear that Donald Trump's most dangerous ally might turn on him before he knows it. Now I'm talking of course of a name I know you're sick of hearing of by now and that name is Elon Musk. If you make your bed, you have to lie in it. Now of course Trump I think has his bed made by someone else but the name is Elon Musk. If you make your bed, you have to lie in it. Now, of course, Trump, I think has his bed made by someone else, but the metaphor may not apply. I think you get the point that I'm making here. I hope that we don't have to talk about Elon Musk very much in 2025, but today we do find ourselves in a situation where we have to ask what happens when billionaires decide that Trump is more trouble than he's worth.

Trump's entire career, business and politics, has depended on support from the ultra wealthy. He's always needed their money, their influence, their platforms to survive. But the catch is that these aren't really loyal people. These are opportunists. And one of the most dangerous opportunists around Trump right now is Elon Musk, who by all accounts, by all predictions at some point is going to ditch Trump. Let's talk about why Trump is so beholden to these rich guys and why this Musk relationship could blow up. Trump's brand from the start has been about projecting power and wealth.

Much of that image is built on his reliance on actual billionaires, other billionaires. During his first term, the billionaires I mentioned earlier, Sheldon Adelson and others, funneled millions into Donald Trump's campaign in exchange for policies they liked, tax cuts, deregulation, trade deals, whatever. And Trump juiced this up on steroids in his 24 campaign. He still needs the ultra wealthy to fund what he's doing. The rallies amplify the message, dump money in. But the difference here is that billionaires only stick around as long as they are getting what they want. And if they decide that Donald Trump's chaos outweighs the usefulness,

they will move on. And if Trump decides that they Trump's chaos outweighs the usefulness, they will move on. And if Trump decides that they're getting too much attention rather than just giving him the money and shutting up, he will push them out, which gets us to Elon Musk. Musk has played both sides for years, but the relationship with Trump is kind of tricky because on the one hand, Musk loved Trump's deregulation during the first term. Musk loved the ways in which his companies benefited from much of what Donald Trump did. It aligned perfectly with Musk's goals. But on the other hand, Musk likes to be unpredictable. He likes not to be tied to any one brand necessarily the way some other billionaires are okay doing.

And so Musk's loyalty at the end of the day is Musk, his businesses and his brand. And the recent behavior is showing cracks in the relationship. Now, fortunately for Musk, Trump ultimately sided with Musk on a couple of key issues, including for now the H-1B visas. But there is a growing criticism here and reporting from behind the scenes that Trump is increasingly annoyed with Musk and that Musk is closer and closer to overstaying his welcome at Mar-a-Lago. And one of the potential risks here is that Musk controls a platform that while it's of diminished importance in the real world, X formerly known as Twitter in MAGA world is still really, really important.

Imagine that Musk ends up deprioritizing pro Trump content on X. Musk has already been accused of tweaking the algorithm in favor of his own tweets. If the rift starts with Trump and Musk says deprioritize Trump stuff, deprioritize the MAGA stuff, you could very quickly see this implode in spectacular fashion. If Musk decides Trump is actually bad for business, he could start amplifying alternatives, Ron DeSanctimonious or independent voices. The point is that Musk has a power here to level the playing field that people don't usually have when they're dealing with Donald Trump. And Musk has shown that he's willing to do whatever benefits him. The reason Trump can't afford to lose Musk right now is that unlike other billionaires that are operating only behind the scenes, Musk is out in the open. He's a donor, but he's also a cultural force.

His decisions about what gets amplified or buried on X could really affect Donald Trump's reception within MAGA world. And Trump seems to know it. He hasn't criticized Musk yet. He hasn't even done it when Musk takes subtle jabs at him because Trump seems to know he can't afford to alienate someone who controls such a massive piece of the communication pipeline. Musk does not need Donald Trump. And so there's a rare asymmetry here that is not typically present in a lot of these Trump billionaire relationships. If Musk pulls back the support, it doesn't really hurt Musk, but it could very much hurt Trump. Trump's entire political career has been built on his connections to the ultra wealthy, but those connections have never been as fragile as the

one to Musk is. Musk doesn't really do loyalty. He does self-interest. What's good for me? And in particular, Musk is a wild card because if he decides Trump's no longer good for business, he could bail and it won't just hurt Donald Trump's ego. It could really tank his administration's ability to get things done and convince even his base that he's doing the right thing. So we're going to watch this super closely. I hope that in 2025, we talk a lot less about Elon Musk. Let's hope it implodes and then he goes away. I'm unsure the direction that that's going to go. are super discreet. You can use them anytime, anywhere. Smoking and vaping aren't allowed, including flights, sporting events in restaurants. They're available in six different flavors with options of two and three milligrams of nicotine. If you're not a nicotine user, Zipix also offers caffeine and B12 infused toothpicks. Zpix has already helped tens of thousands of customers ditch the cigarettes,

ditch the vapes. They might be able to help you, too. If you're a smoker or a vapor, give Zypix toothpicks a try. Your lungs will thank you. Go to Zypix toothpicks dot com today. Save 10 percent with the code Pacman 10 at checkout. Just remember, you must be 21 or older to order. That's ZIPPIXtoothpicks.com. Use promo code Pacman 10 at checkout for 10 percent off. That's Pacman 1 0. The info is in the podcast notes. 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 rights attempt to so 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's 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. Go to ground dot news slash Pacman for 50 percent off their unlimited access vantage plan. It's their biggest sale of the year. And the link is in the description. You know, one of the big changes we made in 2024 is that we stopped accepting live phone calls on every week's Friday show. And there were a couple of reasons for this. It wasn't a particularly liked segment among many in the audience. And if I'm honest, uh, the vast majority of the calls were of relatively low quality people who did not have anything to ask or were completely unprepared or had a microphone that wasn't

working. So we relegated it to the dustbin of history. Okay. Like Ron DeSantis would say, however, the people who like the segment said, what about on special occasions, David? And I can think of no more special occasion than sending off, uh, sending off 2024, um, into the dustbin of history. And so today on the final show of the year, we're going to hear from a few people in the audience. I think it's only fair to allow the viewers to have some say, and you know what, if you don't want it, these are the last 20 minutes of the year of programming. You can tune out and we'll start fresh with the new content in the new year. So let's talk to some of these folks. Why don't we go to miles from Colorado miles? Let's see whether I'm making a huge mistake here. What's on your mind?

Hi, can you hear me, David? Yes, I can. Also, I'm not sure if you remember me, but we have spoken a few times. I don't offhand, but I'd love to hear what's on your mind today. That is totally okay. Well, you know what? It's a little bit random and, well, maybe not so random because the media sphere, the progressive sphere, we're all looking at TYT these days. I think you know exactly what I'm speaking of, and I'd love to hear your opinion on it. And my question would be is, I want to keep this, you know, friendly. I am a little bit concerned about what's going on with, you know, Cenk Uygur and how he's

going on to right-wing media spheres because he is the biggest progressive channel that we know of these days. He's been around for decades. He is cozying up a little bit to the likes of Charlie Kirk, to Glenn Beck. And I believe you did speak to him recently, didn't you? He was on the show with Destiny a couple months ago, I guess, or a month ago, I guess it must have been. Oh, okay. I suppose. Yeah. I must've missed that one. I'll have to go and check that out as soon as I can. So listen, here's my thought about what's going on at TYT. Sure. What Cenk is doing is absolutely fine in principle. What do I mean by that? In principle, putting yourself

as a person on the left in front of people on the right and trying to say, here's some stuff we could work together on already. Here are disagreements, but here's my best argument for why you should consider coming to my side that I have no problem with at all. What I, Jenk's going to be on soon to talk about this. So I'm going to reserve some judgment miles until I talk to Jenk directly. I'm just so busy. I don't really watch any other shows like mine. So I can't pretend to know everything Cenk has said about this. What I want to talk to Cenk about is have any of his views on policy changed?

Or is he seeing this as an opportunity to woo the other side? Is he seeing this as an opportunity to take some low hanging fruit and accomplish something? Is this out of a cynical thirst for power and access that he's doing this? I want to know what his motivations are. I don't have a problem in principle with getting in front of right wing audiences. Why not? I do it too. Although I've not gone to any of these turning point USA things, I need to learn more to figure out what the hell's going on over there. Sure. And I understand that. I mean, because, you know, you're a very busy man. I myself have the time to, you know, take the videos as they are, see what he has to say. I mean, I watched him, you know, in Francesca Durantini and their debate that he had with Cenk Uygur. And I think that she really did the best job. I mean, as far

as I want to say calling him out, but having a very good faith conversation. I didn't see that. I didn't see that. No, that's fine. I mean, I'm just mentioning that this is something you can check out on your own free time. Maybe, you know, bring up to him maybe a little bit when you have that conversation soon here. I think the reason I'm asking this is because I think a lot of people are talking about this in the progressive sphere these days. And I think that it's something that a lot of us are curious to see or observation on. And, you know, like you said, you haven't gotten the chance to really check into it a lot, but I know that. Yeah, Miles, give me a, you know, give me another seven to 10 days and then I'm going to try to get to the

bottom of it by having Jenk on. So I appreciate the question. Let's go next to Brendan. Brendan from Boston. Brendan, welcome. I'm inviting you to join the discussion. Let's go next to Brendan. Brendan from Boston. Brendan, welcome. I'm inviting you to join the discussion. What's going on with you? I feel honored being on the final episode of the year, David. Thank you for having me on. My pleasure. So recently, basically since the election, I've been watching Kyle Kalinske talk a lot about what his ideal candidate going forward is because the era, as he puts it, the era of the polished politician, which is what Kamala is, is at least for now over. And he constantly talks about how we need someone who's charismatic,

controversial, wouldn't hurt to have a celebrity. He constantly talks about Jon Stewart, which I think is an interesting choice. I want to ask, I don't know if you've talked about it before, but what would you say your ideal candidate would be going forward? I laid this out in a recent video. I, you know, the, the celebrity aspect of it, I'm less sure about, I understand the appeal, you know, here's the thing. Just the first step is recognizing what are we doing incorrectly? The next step is not assuming that what our adversaries do would necessarily work for us. So am I with those who say we've been doing something very wrong here? The answer is absolutely. Is my assumption that doing what the right has done

will work for us? I don't know. I mean, I'll give you an example. I don't know that running a left wing billionaire is the answer to the right twice selecting this right wing billionaire as an example. Why? Well, because our values are different. What we value is completely different. The celebrity question is an interesting one. I think it just depends on who we're talking about. I'm taking your word that Kyle said that Jon Stewart would be an interesting candidate. I don't know that he said that, but let's assume he did. I think what's interesting about that is that he has the approach constitutionally that I think you need to deal with a lot of these folks.

But here's the thing. Sometimes you take somebody who in an informal setting is very good. You put them in a formal setting. Now I'm officially a campaign and very quickly the advisors and the focus group people and everybody runs in and they turn that person into a sort of shadow of their former selves. And they become just like what we're trying to get away from. I'm not saying that would happen with Jon Stewart. I'm just saying that's why you've got to be careful when you say this celebrity or that rich person or whatever.

But I think Jon Stewart is certainly an interesting choice and it's not someone I would dismiss out of hand. It's, it's interesting you bring that up because this is just reports that I've read before. It's nothing affirmed, but I had heard that, uh, the Kamala campaign, the Harris campaign, excuse me, actually told Tim walls, for example, to tone down the weird rhetoric, which I think wasn't a good move if that was the case, because it was working for a while. You know, it seemed to be working. Now, it's possible they had some signal that it was stopping being so good.

But I agree with you. It very much seemed to be working. It seemed to be working. And also, you know, to your point of what is the right doing that is working, what can we be doing that is working? And I think, you know, as chronically online as I found the Trump campaign to be this time around, it worked. I mean, he went on every podcast under the sun. And you brought this up, as you said, when you met with the Biden administration a few weeks ago, Kamala's online game was just not as

strong, whereas you see someone like Bernie Sanders, he was going on Theo Vaughn, who clearly is somebody who steers much more towards the right so i think there's a lot of lessons to be learned and i do think that kyle again he's repeated it several times of you know john stewart john stewart john stewart but also uh someone who is charismatic who has a spine isn't afraid to call these people out whereas well yes i and i speak for a lot of people and I say unity is important. You also have to stand up for what you believe in and also not betray your supporters at the same time. Agree very much. Brendan from Boston, thank you so much for the

call. Great to hear from you. Let's go to Ray from Arizona. Ray, welcome to the show. What's on your mind to close out the year here? Yes, I've been a longtime listener, but I also listen to like a lot of other leftist platforms. And one thing that I've noticed is the inviting. Obviously, we've all seen it. I personally think that it doesn't help. And I've been trying to do all I can to get people to stay together more and to just listen to other leftist voices. Now, my question to you is, how would you advise

leftists to broaden their horizons, open their minds and be a little bit more empathetic? Because I know with when we want to be critical, leftists tend to attack the hardest. So how would you advise listeners to be kinder and to use more empathy and to maybe, you know, let people have their own opinions that are nuanced? I saw Tim Pool literally doing that. And I'm like, that's what we need to do. But anyway, that's that's my question. Well, listen, I think that there is a fundamental question of what is your goal. And I say this when people call me and say, how should I deal with my crazy uncle at Thanksgiving? And the question is, what is the goal?

If the goal is to win and to grow the coalition, then you need to act in a way that makes that a possibility. And that means you don't attack people when you agree on 95% of stuff. You don't exclude, you don't say you're the reason that we're losing. You bring them in, you become inclusive instead of exclusive. If your goal is to have purity tests such that what is left is a coalition that agrees with you on 100 percent of stuff, then you would attack and you would make people feel like they shouldn't be part of the movement. And you exclude and you say, I don't need your vote and I don't need your vote.

It's just a matter of what you want. Now, I want to win. So I'm with you, Ray, where I think we need to go with the inclusive empathetic. And this is something that, you know, I'm, I, I don't, I don't agree with 99% of what the right stands for, but one of the things that they do that is effective, I'm not saying it's morally good or bad. I'm not saying it's, I'm just saying that it's effective is as soon as someone says, Hey, you know what? I'm starting to rethink some of my views on some of this stuff, or I don't agree with you guys on a lot of this stuff, but I think that you're better than the alternative and I think you should win.

They welcome them. They still behind their back, I'm sure, talking shit, you know, and all this stuff. But they welcome them and they say, this is someone who's going to help us win. And so I think that the fundamental question that people on the left need to ask is, what is my goal? And act accordingly based on that. Thank you. All right.

Ray from Arizona. Great to hear from you. Let's see. Why don't we go next to. Oh, I don't know. Wow. The phone lines are packed. Let's go to Tiki Tony from Southern California.

Ticky Tony, welcome. What's on your mind today? Hi, Pac-Man. Happy holidays. Happy New Year to everybody. I was thinking watching the dumpster fire of whatever is going on on the social medias this week just leads me to believe that we're walking into a dumpster fire

or watching the train go off the cliff and it's on fire and everything. How long do we sit here and just watch it before we have to just raise the alarm bells to go, OK, that's enough of this crap. My thought is that they are going to destroy themselves. I don't know that we're going to need to do anything on this, Tiki Tony. It seems to me that over the first hundred days of Trump's looming presidency, either a lot of this stuff naturally implodes and sets Trump back three months or it doesn't implode, uh, in front of the cameras, but behind the scenes, there's a major realignment and shift, which is also going to damage MAGA. I think sitting on the

sidelines makes a lot of sense. And the more that they can destroy themselves without our involvement, I think the better. And with that and watching them destroy themselves, we're hearing a lot of, I want to say, warnings or threats from the likes of Gates or MTG or Laura Loomer saying that they know stuff and they're going to release stuff. Do you see them releasing anything of use? You know, if I were a betting man, I would say no. I think that anything they release will primarily be self-serving. Like is Gates more likely to release bombshell materials of national significance? Or is Gates more likely to release something that helps him look slightly less bad in the context of these recent, you know, sex trafficking scandals?

I think it's obviously the latter. And it's primarily self-serving what they're going to do. All right. Thank you, David. Happy New Year. And everyone, go check out Tony Michaels. Have a great day. All right. Ticky Tony. There he New Year. And everyone go check out Tony Michaels. Have a great day. All right.

Tiki, Tony. There he goes. Let's take a very quick break. We're still taking calls. It's the final show of the year. Quick break and back right after this. 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 four thirty one exchange dot org slash Pacman. A generous donor will match all donations up to fifteen thousand dollars so you can double your impact, maybe even give a donation in someone else's name as a holiday gift. That's four three one exchange dot org slash Pacman help make educational equality possible. One student at a time.

The link is in the podcast notes. Let's go back to discord. It's the last show of the year. It's the last segment of the year. We're going to hear from a few people in the audience and see what everybody has to say why don't we go next to brandon from illinois brandon welcome to the david packman show what do you have going on today hi david thanks for having me on pleasure um you know my question here is about kind of around the Luigi Mangione story and just the general discontent for the status quo.

It seems like there's real appetite out there for some real change on both sides of the political spectrum. But it doesn't seem like it's very organized. My question is, what kind of what kind of movement do you see coming out and the kind of changes you see coming forward? And do you think there's a way that the Democratic left can kind of guide that into excuse me, into a. Into good policies that we can push going forward, you know, whether the Democratic left can guide this, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The Democratic left is hurting in a lot of ways and organizationally is one of those ways. I think that if we're going to see real systemic change when it comes to health insurance and

the kind of health insurance, medical, industrial complex, I struggle to believe that it will result from anything other than creating an environment in which the health insurance companies have to do something different. And when I think about that and I think about the size of the health insurance industry, my mind goes to it's got to be regulatory, right? It's got to be something on the scope and scale of Obamacare, but it has to go further. Is it state starting single payer systems the way Vermont tried to do, but ultimately failed to do?

Maybe, maybe that would shock some of these companies into saying we've got to do something different. Is it, you know, a robust public option, a real not not these, you know, marketplace plans that are still for profit, a real public option? Is it regulations that say, OK, Obamacare said you can stay on parents insurance since 26. You can't be rejected for preexisting conditions. There's this list of stuff. But, you know, statins for cholesterol have to be free at the point of purchase going

further. And here's the next 10 things that we're going to do. I think it has to be something of regulatory and legal scale. Now, I know that there are some people who are like, oh, if you just kill the CEOs of all the companies, it would all change. Aside from the absurd kind of vigilante nature of that, I don't even think that that would change the system. I just have no reason to think that that would.

So I think that this has to be approached legislatively, legally and in a regulatory way. Yeah, I would agree with you that I think that the vigilante justice is really just more of an emotional response. It's not going to lead to any big change. Do you think that campaigning and focusing more on the populace health care message would lead to more change and also lead to more success for the left? I would say yes, but it can't be a health care only campaign. I think it needs to address all of the issues that Kamala Harris left unaddressed in a way that makes people feel like, OK, my concerns are being heard. And we talked about economic issues. We talked about

immigration. We talked about crime. Many voters just didn't hear what they wanted to hear. It doesn't matter what the facts are. I said, I tell the facts every day on the show, but it doesn't really matter what the facts are at the end of the day. I think yes, on the healthcare message, but it's got to be coupled with, uh, with all of that other stuff. All right, Brandon, uh, very much appreciate the call from Illinois. Let's go next to Gerald from Miami. Gerald, welcome to this final show of the year. What's on your mind today? David, sir.

Yes. I'm curious. I was having this conversation with my dad the other day and it was kind of like jokingly, but more and more, I think it might, it might actually, they might try and do it. Do you think Trump would try and like get his face on like a, some sort of bill? You know, um, Trump is extremely self-centered

and egotistical. My prediction is as while he is president, Trump is not going to try to put his face on a bill or on a coin. Now, after he's out of office, if he survives that long, I think it's plausible that he would support a movement to do that. But I do not think that while he's in office, Trump will try to do that. I got you. Got you. Okay. I was just curious what you thought, because he does seem like the type to try, you know,

100 percent. But I think he would wait until he's out of office. Yeah, it might even create like a, you know, like a 47 bill or something weird, you know. The $47 bill with Trump's face on it. Yeah, it would make calculating change a little difficult. But Gerald, thank you for the question. All right, there goes Gerald. Let's go next to Nick from Texas. Nick, welcome to the show.

What's going on with you? Not much. Trying to enjoy the holidays. Yeah. So my I guess my question for you is. So, OK, now this is a big assumption, but assuming that, you know, after his four years, Trump does leave office. Yep. I'm curious what you expect his role to be in the Republican Party, because I mean, I think the immediate assumption is that he's going to be sort of like a kingmaker and, you know, like basically appoint the next basically appoint the next Republican to run for office. Right. But he's a little, he's a little old at this point. I think everybody knows that. So I'm just curious on your thoughts about, I mean, four years down the line in 2020, 2028, yeah, 2028, what is his role going to be? I think it depends on two things. Number one,

you're getting, you're sort of alluding to one of those things, which is what is Trump's health at the time? Trump does seem to have deteriorated significantly over the last four and eight years. So what sort of shape is he going to be in when he's 82, 83 in 2028, 2029? Secondly, does he leave seemingly successfully based on what Republicans see of this forthcoming second term, or is the second term an obvious humiliating fiasco? That's really going to determine Trump's power at the end of his forthcoming term and beyond that. Now, there are rumors that this entire thing is to set up JD Vance to run for president in 2028 with Don Jr. as his running mate. Obviously, if that happens, that will be seen as Trump succeeding as kingmaker and then all bets are off. He may well continue having power if he's fit enough to have it

into his 80s. Right. And I will say the thing that you touched upon, I think I think the reason he's going to end up being a kingmaker is twofold. One, the Republicans don't really seem to care that much about his health. No. Like, I think we've seen that. Yeah. And then the second thing as well is that, OK, obviously, if he has a disaster of a second term, then OK, yeah, then this is all a moot point. But currently, he has the Supreme Court under Republican control, the House and the Senate for this upcoming session. I really fail to see how I mean, the Republic, maybe I'll be surprised. I mean, the Republicans tend to do, you know, tend to do surprising things. But I just fail to see how what could even remotely like, stop them.

Here's what you're forgetting. Here's what you're forgetting, Nick. That is all true for the next two years. But Republicans historically should do pretty poorly in 2026. And if the second half of Trump's term doesn't include control of the House and Senate and achievements slow to a crawl and he takes some political losses. Things could look very different in 2028 than in 2026. That's what I would keep in mind. Okay. I mean, well, I got, maybe I'm, you know, glass half full glass half empty, I guess. Yeah. All right. Nick from Texas. Great to hear from you. Very much appreciate it. Let's go next to Carter from Vermont. Carter from Vermont. Welcome to the show.

Oh, hey, David. Thanks for having me on. Pleasure. So I'm not sure if you're following what's going on with bird flu over in Louisiana, but I'm wondering, is Trump going to botch the response to bird flu if it develops into another pandemic? Almost certainly. Would that lead to Republicans getting wiped out in the midterms? Yeah.

I have a segment from a few weeks ago, something like, you know, Trump could have three or even four pandemics to deal with. We saw the first severe human case of bird flu in Louisiana just a few days ago. It shows what's being called a concerning mutation concerning in the sense of apparently getting more fitness to be in humans. And especially because Trump in retrospect thinks that he handled COVID beautifully, especially because of that. I do think that he is very much set up to fail on on on bird flu. He's set up to fail if anti-vax stuff leads to a resurgence in measles. I think he's just set up to fail.

My hope for humanity is Trump doesn't end up in the position of having to deal with that because the consequences could be disastrous. Right. I'm also worried that there will be no federal response and it'll just be every state for themselves and a valid concern. And it would be another reason to sort of favor blue states run by sane people. But if this really goes nuclear, you're not gonna be saved by going from, you're not gonna be saved by going from Pennsylvania to New York State.

I think it's good, these things don't respect state lines. Yeah, I mean, where I am, I might be a little more insulated than the average joe but in vermont maybe so right i mean it's sort of like the more rurally you live at least theoretically the more protected you might be oh yeah but i mean it doesn't help that all my neighbors are poultry farmers so exactly exactly all right carter well listen let's hope it doesn't come to that but we need to be worried that it will all right thank. Thank you. All right. There goes Carter.

Why don't we go next to John from Philly, John from Philly. Welcome to the show. What's going on with you? John from Philly, please accept. And there goes John from Philly. Let's try instead. Tommy, Tommy from Oregon. Tommy, welcome to The David Pakman Show. a dead strategy in politics. It seems like people are kind of drawn towards abrasive bean figures. And there's also this, uh, seemingly a benefit for being abrasive in the sense that people don't see you as corporate and you sort of win the bean economy where you're constantly being talked about. Is there a way that Democrats can actually accomplish this without the base splittering? And do you think we should? I do think that to a degree, it is something the left needs to do. Part of it is we have to understand, though, Tommy,

not every candidate can do it. Kamala Harris came off as inauthentic to a degree, and this was something we saw in exit polls and it hurt her. But at the same time, becoming the full blown abrasive meme candidate, it probably wouldn't have suited her either. And so I think, I think the, the reason it works with Trump, when Trump says I'm here for the average person, we all know that that's not genuine. He was born as a rich guy in Queens and Manhattan and grew up basically trying to stay isolated from the people he now claims to champion. A lot of the stuff Trump does is totally disingenuous, but he comes off as authentic in the way he talks to people and he's brash and he says whatever's on his mind. And it's he has turned it into a benefit because it really seems like he is this sort of kind of crass guy.

It has to be authentic for the person doing it. I don't think you can take, uh, you know, think of some candidate with like a goody two shoes type image. And if all of a sudden they become the, the brash and whatever, I think that comes off as inauthentic as well. So I do think there needs to be a different set sort of candidate for whom that sort of communication maybe is genuinely authentic, but I don't think you can force it onto any candidate just because you decide it's what we need, the meme candidate or whatever. Right. That makes sense. All right, Tommy from Oregon. Thank you so much for the call. Let's go to Braden from Nebraska. Braden, welcome to the show. Please unmute yourself.

Braden, you're on the air, but you're muted. Hello. Hello. I'm on here. Sorry. Hey, David. What's going on? We are rumored.

We are rumored to receive another negative job growth revision for 2023. It's around 500,000 jobs lost. This is in addition to a negative 800,000 from the last quarter's revisions. Full-time jobs for 2023 is also flat for growth. My question is, is that enough negative job number revisions for 2023 for us to say the economy is negative under Biden, or do we need more evidence for that to be the case? Braden, you're saying that there's going to be job revisions for last year, not this year, for 2023. And this will be revised down to net job loss in 2023. That's what you're saying. Correct. Yeah, I'm saying I'm not seeing that anywhere. Where are you're saying? Correct. Yep. I'm saying that- I'm not seeing that anywhere.

Where are you seeing that? Well, the BLS revised their data in August for quarter one of 2023, and then we'll be receiving the quarter two 2023 revisions. And then obviously in the future quarters, we'll be seeing quarter three and quarter four of 2023. So those final numbers aren't all in for the year. But my question is, as those revisions come in, at what point do we admit that the economy was negative? Um, I, I don't know because I'm just unable to find that data. I'm going to look for

it, but I, I'm just not seeing that. I'm looking at the BLS data here and I'm not seeing net job loss in 2023. Let's let's wait to see if that happens and then call me back. It's just so out of left field that I'm not even sure I know how to react to it. I'm just not finding that anywhere. Yep. As long as it's on your radar. Thanks. All right. Thanks, Braden. Braden from Nebraska. All right, everybody. Listen, unless you're a member and you're going to get the bonus show, that's the end for 2024. I appreciate those who called in. Uh, I appreciate everybody who participated this year, watched, listened, the whole thing, all of our new members, past members, renewed members, the whole thing. We will see you in the new year. I hope if you're staying up till midnight, uh, that it's exciting. I don't think I will be, but I'll expand on that a little bit on the bonus show.

We will see you in 2025.