The David Pakman Show - 1/27/23: Another Day, Another Santos Lie, Another MTG Conspiracy

Episode Date: January 27, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Congressman Adam Schiff announces he's running to be California's next US Senator -- Disgraced Congressman George Santos may have admitted to committing a campaign finance crime -- Marjorie Taylor Greene has a unique conspiracy theory about the Biden classified documents scandal -- Caller discusses the possibility of Mike Lindell being elected RNC Chairman -- Caller wonders why blue states don't come together and create a universal healthcare system -- Caller compares America today to pre-World War II Germany -- Caller wonders if Republican voters want their elected officials to do anything -- Caller questions whether Democrats could get back the House majority before the 2024 election -- Caller talks about Jim Breuer and right-wing comedy -- David responds to emails and social media messages from the audience -- On the Bonus Show: The Friday Bonus Show starring Producer Pat -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanfinance -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 Well, we are going to have a very interesting Senate race for the Democratic primary in California in twenty twenty four. Last week, we talked on the bonus show about Congresswoman Katie Porter announcing that she's running for Dianne Feinstein's Senate seat. Dianne Feinstein has been in the Senate about 30 years. She has not yet actually said she is not running in twenty twenty four. But Katie Porter has decided she is going to run. The latest news is that Adam Schiff is joining that very same race. NBC News reporting Adam Schiff running for Senate in California, joining a crowded twenty twenty four primary. So two members of Congress now at minimum are going to be

fighting against each other. Actually, three because of Barbara Lee. Adam Schiff announced Thursday he's running for Senate, joining what is expected to be a crowded race. Feinstein has not announced her plans, but already three prominent California Democrats have set their sights on replacing her Schiff and Congress representatives Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Schiff says Democrats need a fighter in the Senate who's been at the center of the struggle for our democracy and our economy. He looks forward to campaigning hard, meeting Californians where they are and listening to what they want from their next senator. You know, I got a few emails from many of you fine folks saying, David, isn't this

isn't this dangerous? Isn't this potentially going to lose a Senate seat for Democrats in California? I don't think that there's any risk of that. I really don't. I think a hard fought primary is fine and should be welcomed in most cases. And California is very blue. And in almost. For sure terms, we can say that the winner of that Democratic primary will be the next senator from California. For me, the more interesting question is, are these folks who are going to be running against Dianne Feinstein? And I think there's two dynamics at play that are going on now. Many of you. This is not the type of thing we make fun of. There is a reality that there have been real concerns tough to watch public situations where Feinstein will read a question to a witness during testimony, during a hearing, and then immediately read

the exact same question a second time with no recognition that she's already asked that question. There are real questions she's getting to, to just getting up there in age. And we want to be sensitive to all these things. Part of this may be an effort to push her out by saying, look, there's so many people running. There's not even really a guarantee you would win. This is a good time to maybe maybe move on. The other speculation about why we are seeing so much early announcement for the seat is that some of these folks, Katie Porter, Barbara Lee, Adam Schiff, they may hope that by announcing early, they will keep others from entering the race by showing,

look, I'm a strong candidate. I'm well known. I have a good shot at this thing. Don't even bother getting involved. And I don't know whether anyone has been dissuaded so far from entering that race because of the early announcements. But it is going to be a very interesting race. It's not going to be a race that will be material in terms of the balance. If Dianne Feinstein doesn't run, she's going to be replaced by by one of these Democrats because of California's voting demographics. And so in that sense, it won't be interesting to the balance, but it will be an interesting race to see the direction that Californians are leaning. I don't have a strong opinion about these three right now, nor do I vote in California. So I am not inclined to come out right now and say, here's the one of these three that should definitely

be supported. I'm actually interested in seeing how the campaign rolls on. George Santos is now admitting to another possible crime. And this one requires a bit of an explanation. Business Insider reports George Santos hints that the five hundred thousand dollar personal loan to his own campaign wasn't his own money. Now, that raises questions as to whether that violated campaign finance law. He may be effectively admitting to a crime. George Santos made significant. By the way, this is raises questions as to whether that violated campaign finance law. He may be effectively admitting to a crime. George Santos made significant. By the way, this is George Anthony Katara, Devolder Santos. That's the person we're talking about. George Santos made significant

revisions to campaign finances on Tuesday per The Daily Beast. The amended filings reveal that a five hundred thousand dollar personal loan to his twenty twenty two campaign wasn't personally funded. Experts say the amended filings add to the mystery of Santos's questionable financial disclosures. So the initial filing showed a box for personal funds of the candidate for that big loan. The amended filing did not check that. It also doesn't mention the source of the funds if there was a guarantor because there's very little information provided. Another revised filing disclosed that a separate hundred and twenty five thousand dollar loan

from Santos in October to his campaign is no longer listed as coming from his personal fund. So this is over six hundred thousand dollars that he previously said was my own money. And now it appears as though it is not unless, of course, this is just an error. Maybe the new filing is the erroneous one with George Santos. It's always hard to know. Was he lying then? Is he lying now? What's going on? So a couple of different things here. First of all, are we aware of anything about his campaign that isn't fraudulent? I guess it seems that he really is a gay man, even though even that was sort of question because he was married to a woman as recently as three years ago. But he says he was

openly gay for a decade and blah, blah. I want to be sensitive to that because there are all sorts of different reasons why someone who is gay might not be living publicly as a gay person because of stigma, social pressure, family, whatever. The confusion is he says he was living publicly as a gay man for a decade. So it's all very confusing, but it at least appears that he really is a gay man and he has not lied about that. But beyond that, this is one of the most dishonest people in every sense. Volleyball star who ended up needing to have two knee replacements because of the wear and tear on his knees, where he worked. He was Jewish. I can't even give you the entire full list. There are some rumblings. And. I mean, we've heard this so many

times with Trump, right? This is it. This is the end of Trump. And then it never is. There are rumblings that if indeed it turns out that this was an illegal campaign contribution from someone else, because remember, there are different rules about you loaning your own campaign money versus accepting contributions this large from other people, which is not allowed. So there could be a crime here. There are rumblings that if it is determined that indeed he did receive an illegal contribution in this way, that this could finally be the last straw. This guy seems to have a similar resilience as Donald Trump. So I'm going to withhold judgment for the time being. The conspiracies about the Joe Biden and Mike Pence classified document situations are growing. Marjorie Taylor Greene is now suggesting that Joe Biden was set

up with the documents by Democrats because Democrats don't want Biden to run again. Let's start with this clip. Then I'll remind you of the one from two days ago where Tucker had his own conspiracy theory about this. Because this criticism from Democrats of Mr. Biden and his handling of classified documents. Well, they're they're right to say those things. But also makes me wonder something else that that other people have been wondering, are we seeing a setup for them to try to get Joe Biden not to run for president and perhaps make way for someone else to run for president in 2024? I think those are those are

interesting things to think about. But I'm glad to see, you know, Democrat senators and different Democrats just claiming what is absolutely true, how reckless and irresponsible it shows that he's not fit for office. I'll say it again, impeach Joe Biden. And now we just have more reasons to do so. Speaker 1 Yeah. So, of course, very, very quiet is Marjorie Taylor Greene on the Mike Pence thing. You know, sometimes when there's a conspiracy theory, you can plausibly come up with some kind of motive, but no further evidence. I don't even think the motive makes sense here. And what I mean by that is maybe I'm naive. There are many fair criticisms of Joe Biden. I don't think Joe Biden would be irrational if. The establishment, insiders, advisors,

trusted people came to him and said, listen, you shouldn't run for reelection. And here's why. I think if that was actually presented to Joe Biden because top Democrats believed it to be true, I really do believe Joe Biden would listen. I don't think you would need to try to push him out of running for reelection by creating a fake scandal by planting documents. I just don't see any reason why you would need to do that. Now, one of the other important things to consider is, is this a confession for Marjorie Taylor Greene? Because oftentimes allegations from Republicans about things Democrats supposedly did are actually confessions of things they did.

We found that out very quickly in the 2020 election. So maybe it did happen, but it's actually Republicans who did it. I don't know. But the very same people furious about what happened with Biden seem to be silent about what happened with Mike Pence. Now, as a reminder, this is not the only conspiracy theory regarding classified documents. Two days ago, I played this clip from you for you where Tucker Carlson had the idea that the Joe the it's hard to keep up now. The Mike Pence documents were set up to make Trump look bad and take attention away from Joe Biden.

He said that a few times. Then just days ago, Mike Pence sent his personal attorney to search his family's home in Carmel, Indiana, for classified documents. Right. Now, if Mike Pence didn't think he had classified documents, why would he send his lawyer to go look for classified documents? We can't say for certain, but it's entirely possible, in fact, it's likely, that Mike Pence was asked to do this by federal prosecutors who are trying to build a case against his old boss, Donald Trump.

Now, the point would be to show that not every federal official walks off with state secrets. Donald Trump was uniquely evil in that regard, as in so many others. See, Mike Pence didn't do it. So if that was the plan, and we suspect that it was, it backfired spectacularly because Mike Pence's lawyer. If this is actually what happened and we have no evidence for it, it is completely irresponsible conjecture that I just came up with five minutes ago and they put it on my teleprompter for

me. But let's assume that it's true just for the sake of arguably discovered classified documents. He immediately loaded these documents into his car and drove them back to Washington to hand them over to authorities. Yeah. He immediately loaded these documents into his car and drove them back to Washington to hand them over to authorities. Yeah. One of the things about most of these types of conspiracy theories is that they are either unfalsifiable or unlikely to ever be proven or disproven. And of course, we already know the difficulty of actually disproving some of these conspiracy

theories. That's a whole other question. And so these exact types of conspiracy theories are often used by the right to dupe and to propagandize their viewers. Also, unfalsifiable conspiracy theories often are self-reinforcing in the sense that conspiracy theories are often based on premises that can't be disproven. You can't prove a negative. And what that means is whether or not the theory is true, the people that follow it have absolutely no way to verify that. If you go with this one, right, the Tucker one, well, they this was all in order to help Donald Trump. Well, there's absolutely no communications that suggest that the Pence stuff was to help

to hurt Donald Trump. Rather, we found no communications, no documents. There's absolutely no proof. Law enforcement hasn't found anything. It's because they're in on it. The very people who did it covered up the evidence of the fact that they did it. Unfalsifiable, unfalsifiable. And that makes itself reinforcing in many ways. They're not stopping, folks. They're not stopping. And it is dangerous. We will have all of these clips. If you're a masochist and you actually were just listening today, but you want to see what Tucker and Marge look like while saying this horrible nonsense, you can find the clips on our YouTube channel at YouTube dot com slash The David Pakman Show or on our Instagram

by searching Instagram for David Pakman show. back a really long time and plenty of other awesome membership perks. Go to join Pacman dot com and use the coupon code better 21 for a huge discount. Join Pacman dot com. The David Pakman show, of course, continues to be a community supported program. That means you, you are part of the community, at least in my book. you are. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. We provide quite a suite of member benefits for our paid subscribers, including the daily bonus show. In addition to the daily podcast, commercial free audio and video streams of the show every day, you get them hours before everybody else. Invitations to the members only town halls and most recently a new member benefit, which is that you get access to an equivalent of my soundboard,

the soundboard from which I play all those exciting clips. We have made that a member benefit as well. Join Pacman dot com is the place to sign up. OK, let's speak to the audience. Welcome. Welcome. You can speak to me at David Pacman dot com slash discord. Very easy. You join the waiting lobby and you raise your hand and we are going to start today with. Oh, I don't know. How about Mark from Los Angeles? Mark from Los Angeles. Welcome to the program. What is on your mind today? I am thrilled to have you with us. Oh, boy. Mark from Los Angeles. I've invited you on, but you've got to accept or it is going to go bye bye. And there is Mark from Los Angeles losing the opportunity. That's

really too bad. Let's try Jack from Connecticut. Jack from Connecticut. What's going on, my friend? All right. Jack from Connecticut has accepted the invitation, but has the wrong audio device selected. Oh, fantastic. Welcome, Jack. Now I can hear you. OK, fantastic. You can hear me. Yes, I can. All right. Well, good afternoon, David. Thank you very much for having me on again. Pleasure. I wanted to bring up an interesting topic that's happening in about two days' time. Okay.

So in two days' time, the Republican National Committee will have its leadership election. Yes. And for the first time in about 10 years, there will be more than one candidate. Those candidates are incumbent Ronna McDaniel, Mike Lindell, unfortunately, and the former National Committee woman for California. And I just wanted to know if you've been following the story and if you had any thoughts to share. Well, I support Pillow in this race. I have absolutely no stake whatsoever and no involvement in Republican Party politics. But it just seems to me that Mike Pillow being RNC chair

would be the most humiliating thing to the Republican Party. So that's what I'm in favor of. Now, I couldn't tell you, Jack, because I haven't been following it, whether Pillow has any shot whatsoever, like from what you know, could he end up being RNC chair? I mean, given the fact that we all know the deep division that is running rampant in the Republican Party. Yeah, I my my personal guess is either McDaniel or Mike Lindell, honestly, at this point, because realistically, I don't think the national conference will select a committee woman from a deep blue state. Interesting. Well, we are going to see. I

hope it's pillow just for the memes and the lulls. And I know that that's a very inappropriate way to analyze it, but it's like I hope they destroy themselves, you know? Yeah, it's honestly something that the Republican Party needs to realize and wake up to, because if they really want to re reshape themselves, if they even had an image in the first place, they really need to think about things like they ever would. Speaker 1 Yeah. Pillow as your RNC chair is not exactly a signal that you're sort of searing that you're taking seriously the destruction that MAGA has done to your party.

Speaker 3 Yeah, exactly. But it was just it was just an interesting MAGA has done to your party. Yeah, exactly. But it was just it was just an interesting topic that I wanted to bring up. And thank you for taking my call. My pleasure. Jack from Connecticut. We will watch the election results very, very closely. Let's go to Ty from Iowa. Ty from Iowa. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hey, David, this is my second time calling in. Speaker 1 00 00 00 00 00 Speaker 1 All right. Well, let's make sure it's not the last. Okay. Speaker 4 00 00 00 00 00 Speaker 1 All right. So I just wanted to ask, do you think it's kind of weird that that so many people kind of list list countries like China or North Korea as communists when they really don't fit the the what is it like the the definition they would have to be the

definition they would have to be like, you know, a country of no class, money or state, you know, all that stuff. Speaker 1 Yeah. I mean, I don't know that I agree with you completely in the sense that communist and socialist countries, it's it's not uncommon that it's sort of like communistic or socialistic for most people. But then through corruption and cronyism, there actually is an upper class that battle. I don't think that alone makes it not actually communist or socialist. But, you know, for me, it's less about is North Korea actually communist than focusing in on the specific human rights

abuses and just completely insane familial passing of power that exists? I don't concern myself much with whether they really meet this or that. It's sort of like when you do the Jordan Peterson stuff where you try to criticize something that Jordan Peterson said and someone will come out and say, no, you're not completely accurately criticizing what he really said. You're criticizing something else. It's like, well, you shouldn't really criticize this as a communist country because here's a way in which it's not really communist. I don't know. I don't get too involved in that, really. Yeah, I understand that. I think people should just realize that, I mean, there are people on the left that can be bad and people on the right that can be bad, you know, and I just but I don't know, I just kind of if you really kind of look

into it, some people have argued that North Korea would actually be influenced by like Japanese fascism instead of something like, I don't know, like. Like modern communism. Yeah, listen, I it's mostly moot because I think for me, it's let's identify the things that are not going well and let's identify the things that are not going well and let's see if we can improve on them for the benefit of the people. And there are many of those things in North Korea, that's for sure. Yeah, that makes sense.

All right. Ty from Iowa, thank you for the call. All right. Thank you for talking to you again. Pleasure. OK, let's go to Toppy from the Czech Republic.appi from the Czech Republic. Tappi from the Czech Republic. Welcome to the program.

Oh, nice to speak to you, David. I'm currently a student from India studying in Czech Republic. the blue states in the US sort of come come together and launch their own version of socialized health care instead of national. There's a couple of issues right now. I like the idea. I think it's more likely that the right way to launch some kind of socialized health care system is going to be within one state. Right now, the difficulty with

doing it in multiple states is that in the United States, health care is state by state. You it's not as the term that's often used. Toppy is health care isn't sold across state lines. If you're in New York state, you have to select from companies operating in New York state and that are offering plans in New York state. If you go to Florida, as I will be doing in a few days, hopefully, and if I live in Florida, I now need to choose from the plans made available in Florida by companies licensed in Florida. So it's difficult to immediately go across state lines. What I would like to see is one state to do a socialized health care system, and then maybe they can grow it into a consortium with neighboring states over

time. But where I'm 100 percent with you is states can start doing this. And there was a failed attempt to get it going in Vermont, which has its own kind of backstory. I would love to see this happen. No, I mean, like the way they did in the EU, state insurance from one country is recognized across the EU. Yes, absolutely. I would love to see that. It requires a bunch of regulatory and other changes. But I'm with you. I would love to see it. And quickly, a second question. Sure. If you you have been transferred that you invest in Amazon, but wouldn't you like push for something more sustainable, like instead of us progressives putting money in companies that we don't really align with? Oh, yeah. I mean, listen, it's so first of all, in terms of my individual stocks, I've divested myself from just about every individual

stock I had. So, you know, I previously invested in Alphabet and Live Nation and Tesla and Amazon and, you know, I've mostly sold almost all my individual stocks. But the truth is, like even through index funds, I am invested in little pieces of companies that I don't directly, you know, that I don't support whose business models I don't support. And that's an unfortunate reality. You know, Noam Chomsky was asked about this as well. And someone confronted him and said, you know, you criticize a lot of these fossil fuel companies, but you're invested in index funds and so you own a little bit of them. And Chomsky was kind of just flippantly like, well, what should I keep my money under my mattress instead or something like that? I think you bring up a totally fair point, but it there

are limits to what people can do. And not every action everyone takes is ever going to be 100 percent aligned with every moral principle. And, you know, the the simplest thing for me to be able to do the best show I can and to focus on the show is I keep my investments in really low cost index funds where I own the entire total stock market index. And there will be some companies in there I don't like, but I'm going to do more good by by leaving the money there and then simply focusing on the show. Does that make sense in any way? Yeah. No, I mean, last semester I took some courses and this university in Germany was incredibly left-wing and the way they do is they try and push their students to introduce students to companies that are more sustainable overall

so instead of investing in mainstream companies you invest there like in the US you have gravity payments the CEO was incredibly popular because he reduced his salary and is pretty much the same as his co-workers. So investing in companies like that, that is that is perfectly fair. That is absolutely fair. And I think that's completely reasonable what you're saying. I am guilty as charged. Yeah. OK. All right, my friend, Toppy, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Let's go next to Mike from Massachusetts. Mike from Massachusetts. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind? Mike from Massachusetts, you've got to accept my invitation to join the discussion. Sorry, I didn't know about the accept part. How are you doing, David?

Hey, I'm doing well thank you um i don't have so much of a question but just kind of like an observation and what your thoughts might be on it um i apologize if i sound kind of nasally getting over uh getting over cold but no problem uh so i actually watched recently while i was you know had some downtime on the couch getting over this cold. I watched a docuseries on Netflix called World War Two in Color. OK, pretty interesting. And there was an episode dedicated at least partly to the rise of the anti-Semitic policies in Germany and like how that just how that just kind of how that came to be. Because a lot of times people ask

themselves, you know, how did the German people not see this coming? Um, and what they just, what they described is, and I know people get tired of the comparison, but I mean, it is strikingly similar to narratives and things being said, not just about Jews, but other minorities in this country today, uh today by the right. And, you know, I mean, a lot of the a lot of the a lot of the argument as to why the German people never did anything is because a lot of them just assumed things would never go that far, quote unquote. You know, they would never actually legalize persecution and whatnot. And I just am curious, like how you think how you think the two situations

compared from today in America to them and to them in the 30s? You know, this is so tough because any time you delve into this, it's very hard to avoid either being not concerned enough or sounding hyperbolic and and and alarmist. Right. So it's very, very difficult. So I'm going to try to speak as precisely as possible. I don't think that circumstances for Jews in the U.S. today are anything like circumstances for Jews in pre-World War Two Germany. I think the starting points are very different. I also think that we are seeing a growth of a rhetoric about Jews in the US and that that rhetoric is more acceptable than it's been for a long time, as we can see, sort of like in the reactions to stuff Kanye said, where people going, listen, Kanye is just kind of

telling the truth or whatever the case may be. That scares me because it's the type of acceptance or or at least disregard for the concern that was present in pre-World War two Germany. So like I, I'm, I'm not equivocating, but I'm just sort of saying like the circumstances are different, but a lot of the flippant attitude does seem similar. And I do think we need to be very concerned about that. Speaker 1 Right. And it's based on what the documentary talked about. It was like that those attitudes people thought like we can have these attitudes like it's fine, but it's never going to become policy until it did become policy. Speaker 2 Absolutely.

Speaker 1 It's just kind of interesting that people kind of feel like they could see these things coming. But really, it's easier for it to slip by than people like to think. Speaker 1 Yep, I completely agree with you. I completely agree. And the trick is, if you go to alarmist, people dismiss you. So what we need to do is find a way to communicate the alarm in a way that's accurate, but that doesn't get people to just tune it out. Speaker 4 Right. I mean, it's interesting, like something else, and this will be my last point, I'll let you move on. But it's interesting, like something else I learned from the documentary was like, you know, the narrative of World War Two is obviously, you know, America and Britain and

a few other allies fighting a courageous war against just pure evil, like good evil, all that, all that stuff. But something interesting I learned is that the Allies actually acquired a ton of evidence against tons of Nazi officers who participated in the Holocaust in exterminating the Jewish population as best they could. Yeah. And interestingly enough, there was actually, while the American population was outraged by it, there was actually a pretty large anti-Semitic voice in the U.S. government that pressured the rest of the allies to drop charges against these people in exchange for American financial aid following the war. Yes. So it's just interesting that there are things that – that's a significant piece of information I did not know until the other night.

And that's just like one of these things that. I feel like is important for Americans to learn, but the right would never want anyone to learn about that. Without a doubt. Without a doubt. Mike, I appreciate the call. OK. All right.

Everyone. All right. There's Mike from Massachusetts. Let's go next to Dan from Oregon. Dan from Oregon. Dan from Oregon. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today?

And Dan, you've got to accept my invitation to join me here on the show. All right. Well, it looks like we've got no Dan. Let's go instead to Brian from Ireland. Brian from Ireland. Welcome to the program. Hi, David. How are you? I'm doing well. Just before my question, I just wanted to tell you about a kind of a new initiative I've launched. It's basically an award and it's called the best way to make money. But whenever else makes money to fund themselves, it's bad. Right. I think the bonus show probably is deserving of this award.

Well, you know, I've got good news for you. Yeah. I'm officially presenting it to you. I couldn't. And from such a country as allied with us as Ireland, I couldn't be more glad. Very strong ally indeed. Thank you. I just wanted to, and sorry if this is something you've dealt with already in a previous show, but I haven't heard so much. The fact that the House and the Senate are now divided, you know, Republicans with the House

and Democrats with the Senate. And as you've said before, Republicans are basically just going to be obstructionist and not allow anything to get done for the next couple of years. Yeah. Do you think based on both your own opinion and based on historical evidence, will that be will that be good for the Republicans electoral chances going forward or will it be damaging? Is there is there data on this? I don't know that I've seen data and I don't know that I necessarily have an answer. I mean, what's your thought? Speaker 4

Well, I mean, I like to think it will be bad. I like to think that people would reward, you know, productive governance and getting things done for the good of the people. Speaker 1 It just doesn't always happen, you know, and particularly, you know, the other thing is Republicans have Republicans have really done something clever, which is they've trained many of their followers to reward exactly the opposite of what you and I would reward. Like when they train their followers that, hey, you know, actually government not doing stuff is good. They then can get rewarded for obstruction. Right. They say, you know, we we have done a really good job by keeping government small and not doing anything

and not letting Democrats do anything. They have cultivated a followers for a group of followers that would agree with that. And so it's very hard to make these assessments of what would be seen as good or bad by Republican voters. That's true. Yeah. And often those people that you're talking about that have been convinced to vote this way, you know, it's not in their interest at all. It's such a such a shame, really. It really is. And unfortunately, Democrats have not done a great job yet of figuring out their way around this. Yeah, 100 percent. Thanks for the answer. My pleasure. There is Brian from Ireland. Great to hear from you.

We are taking a very quick break. We're still taking calls, so there's no need to hang up. Very quick break and back right after this. If you value what we do at The David Pakman Show, remember to support us on Patreon. Go to Patreon dot com slash David Pakman show David Pakman show. Let's hear from a few more people taking calls today via discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Let's hear next from how about Rick from Southeast Texas? Rick from Southeast Texas. Welcome to the program. What is on your mind today?

Hey, David. Welcome. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you. So, hey, my question is regarding, well, of course, you know, the current state of U.S. politics. What else? What else could I talk about? So my question is, you know, with George Santos, I wrote a little something in my notes, but it's a little outdated now. I thought that he was going to resign, but of course he doesn't have a spine, so that doesn't work out. And so do you think that there is a possibility with the slim majority that, you know, whether it be through unintended deaths or resignations, do you think that the Democrats could retake the House by just that? Well, I don't know about that. So I mean, we've got the Santos resignation that is maybe going to happen. I don't know.

It seems like pressure is sort of starting to to loosen on Santos a little bit. But I don't know the math of the other stuff. You're saying there could be way more unintended deaths among Republican members of the House than Democrats, and maybe that could shift the balance back to Democrats. Because remember, with a lot of those, if someone dies in office, I don't remember, is it the governors that get to appoint a temporary replacement, in which case red state governors would just appoint Republicans again? I just don't know that that makes sense. I'm not sure I'm understanding how it would work. Yeah, I guess I wanted to relate it kind of what you've

been talking about episodes where obviously Republicans are less prone to get vaccines, although we know congressmen, congresspeople are probably smart enough to lie to people that get the vaccine behind their back, which, you know, we know what's going on. And so I was thinking maybe that could play a factor. I was just thinking, you know, you're more educated than a Stern graduate. And so I just want to – so I just wanted to – you know, that's all I wanted to say. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, I was just kind of thinking about that. And I don't know. I that's what I say. Speaker 1 All of these things. I think the issue with all of these things is that they often become a replacement for just figuring out how to win elections. And to that extent, they are a

distraction. You know, if some Republicans are going to die and somehow it'll make Democrats in the majority for some brief period until the next election. You can't do anything about that unless your suggestion is to go out and kill Republicans, which obviously you're not doing. And neither am I. I just think it's like there's no point in even really wasting too much time thinking about it. Let's focus on winning the next election, you know?

Speaker 4 Absolutely. No, I'm right there with you. Thank you so much for having me, David. Speaker 1 All right. There is Rick from Southeast Texas. Great to have you. Thank you so much for having me, David. All right. There is Rick from southeast Texas. Great to have you. Why don't we go? Why don't we go next to Sal from Malden, Massachusetts? Sal, welcome to the program. Oh, David, how are you? I'm doing well. Thank you for asking. Hi. So I was just calling just to see if you had any or if you knew anything about this current case about an Angie Diaz murder case.

No. Have you heard? Have not heard of it. about a woman who was married with a citizen, a United States citizen. There's a lot of background where it looks like they may have done it due to immigration purposes. So relating this to just immigration policy, I find it that there's a lot of issues going on with immigration that seems to stem from United States intervention. be proposed to give those coming from Central America affected by U.S. policy, basically providing amnesty for people affected from United States intervention. You're saying the U.S. takes some action that, for example, affects people in Guatemala. As a result, the U.S. bears a responsibility and should then offer amnesty to Guatemalans who are in the U.S. illegally. Yes. And and is it to all Guatemalans in the U.S. illegally or only Guatemalans in the U.S. illegally as a direct result of the

American intervention in Guatemala? The second the second thing. I mean, listen, I don't know how you actually do something like that. The truth is. So the U.S. already has a process for asylum seeking based on the circumstances in one's home country. And those requests are adjudicated through a process. It sounds like what you're saying is if the reason for the asylum can be shown to be a direct result of American policy, then a sort of priority is given. And like they are definitely granted asylum. I mean, I think it's interesting. I think it's completely impractical and unlikely to happen. But I do think that morally it's a very interesting issue that you bring up. Yeah, I tend to lean more on the

blind amnesty just because I've read a lot about Latin America, but that's a definitely interesting take, David. And I just had a second quick question. More on the production of The David Pakman Show. Sure. Is that okay? Yeah. So just random, the music that you used to have in between segments. Yeah. Have you ever thought of bringing that back? Speaker 3 You know, not really. And mostly the reason is that music generally causes copyright issues. We also needed more time. That was when we needed to fill time for affiliates for a particular

reason that the kind of right now what we've done over time is instead of having 40 minutes of content per hour, we now have 55 minutes of content per hour. And part of that is that we got rid of that music. So it would only come back in in in lieu of content. And I don't think most people want that. Oh, OK. Yeah. But some people would rather 12 minutes of music instead of me talking. By all means, let me know. You know, maybe you should really say David Pakman album. Maybe so. Maybe so. All right, Sal.

Good to hear from you. Thank you. All right. There we go. Let's go next to David from Philadelphia. David from Philadelphia. Welcome, sir. What is on your mind today?

How are you doing, David? I'm a longtime listener. Thank you. Great to hear from you. I think you're better than better than pretty much every other podcaster. I think the young Turks, they're on a pedestal too much. You're very pragmatic, which is why I listen to you. I appreciate all compliments. Okay. So something I want to bring up because it does strike, it's a little bit personal. I grew up with parents who, well, a mother and a stepfather who became MAGA.

But you were talking about how Jim Brewer would put on that crappy comedy routine and everybody's laughing hysterically just because he's making jokes at the expense of who they don't like. I don't think they really find it funny. Oh, really? So let me just make sure before you give me your commentary, what David's referring to is we've played these clips from the reawaken America tour. It's like a right wing religious anti-vax. It's almost like a revival type thing. They do it in a circus tent sometimes or a church tent. And Jim Brewer does these routines where he jokes. He like walks around what he pretends to be like a parakeet or something. I don't know. And he makes stupid faces. And in the most recent one, he fell down on the ground, kind of mocking DeMar Hamlin and the idea that DeMar Hamlin actually

suffered a cardiac arrest from the covid vaccine. And one of the things I commented on, as David is pointing out, is people in the audience are laughing hysterically like they've never seen, you know, a comedy movie like somehow this is funny to them. They must be incredibly sheltered. You're saying, David, they don't really find it funny. They're pretending. I think they are trying to laugh at it. They're forcing the laughter out of themselves. And I'll explain why.

This is why I brought up my parents. I'll try to keep make this anecdote as short as possible. OK, me and my mom, back when we were closer, we watched this TV show called Supernatural. The two brothers who go, you know, travel across the country killing demons and ghosts and all this stuff. Well, one of the main characters, he had to, you know, con a bunch of demons or lie to him or something. And the other main character is like, well, why are you going to lie to him? And then the main character says, well, that's how you become president. And this was during Obama, when Obama was president. And this was during Obama when Obama was president.

So this gets a laugh out of my mother. Yep. Just because she thinks it's making fun of Obama. Right. Then the next week, this same main character, he gets transported into a future where everything is apocalyptic. And then you see on the newspapers, President Sarah Palin. My mother is completely silent. And there's other anecdotes like this.

But this is the one that sticks out in my head the most. They don't really think the stuff's funny. They just want to they want to laugh. They want to they see themselves as being team players by laughing at the stuff that for political reasons they think they're supposed to be laughing at. Correct. Gotcha. It's a perfectly plausible hypothesis.

Yeah, but that's I've noticed you've had two videos about Jim Brewer doing that stupid bad comedy as well as Gutfeld. You're saying like this is what this is what these right wingers find funny. You know, you're actually making me think I actually wouldn't be surprised if to some degree a lot of these right wingers don't actually understand comedy and satire at all, whether it's left or right wing. And they're really just taking social cues where they are aware that Brewer is a comedian and they are sort of like in the idea this is supposed to be funny, but they they they don't

get his comedy and they wouldn't get Chris Rock's comedy either. They just don't get comedy. And they're just laughing based on the social expectations that they identify. No, I think, yeah, there's that actually reminds me of when what you were showing me from Brewer. It's like you hear the obnoxious voices he's making and you know that this is supposed to be the funny part. Right. Like I know that his obnoxious voices, they're supposed to laugh at that. Yeah. They laugh even harder because it's, you know, it's they know that that's what sometimes you know when you're supposed to clap. And what sometimes you know when you're supposed to clap. And so you can know when you're supposed to laugh, too. Yes, exactly.

Interesting. Interesting. I think I think there's a lot to what you're saying, quite frankly. Thank you. Thank you. All right. David from Philadelphia, thank you very much for the call. I appreciate it.

Let's go to Logan from Seattle. Logan, welcome to the program. Logan, welcome to the program. Logan, welcome to the program. Logan from Seattle. And last chance for Logan from Seattle. Welcome to the program. No, Logan, that is really too bad. And that was going to have to be a short call anyway, because I'm at the end of our time for today. We will take calls again. I appreciate everybody that I was able to speak to today. We'll take a quick break and continue with the Friday show right after this.

Follow us on social media. Interact with the David Pakman show community. See exclusive content. See when we're taking calls live and stay up to date on other big show announcements. We post daily. Find us on Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Discord and tick tock. All right, it is mailbag time. Well into the depths of the mailbag. As you can imagine now towards the end of January, you can email info at David Pakman dot com if you would like. You can also sometimes be featured in

the mailbag based on YouTube comments, Facebook messages, tweets, not typically tick tock posts or responses, but maybe someday. In any case, let's just jump right in because there is so much meaty substance this week. Jeremy wrote in to me about critical race theory. And Jeremy says, David, I've been listening to your show for a while now, and you are so triggered about critical race theory. You were in a meltdown talking about Arkansas banning CRT in their schools. Honestly, why are you so upset about this if they supposedly don't teach it in the first place? It seems like you support CRT in schools. I seriously want to know if you do listen. Um, I am not melting down about what's happening in Arkansas. I'm worried that a disastrous state

is just wasting money, time and resources on things that won't help them improve education. Arkansas is a disaster on education. I gave you all of the statistics in my segment last week about Sarah Huckabee Sanders banning critical race theory. What upsets me about it is that the people of Arkansas voted for someone who was clearly being selected to do this type of nonsense virtue signaling rather than fixing the economy or getting jobs there or dealing with the horrible educational numbers or any of it. She bans something that just isn't happening. And she claims to be a small government conservative. So I have no plans to live in Arkansas. I feel bad for the people that that do in the sense that it's not even just that culturally I couldn't take it. They have had

a string of leaders that just waste their taxpayer money, of which they don't really have that much, quite frankly, Arkansas, very much depending on the federal dole and do things that are just a waste of time and money. So it's not that I'm melting down. It's that it's a terrible thing for the people of Arkansas. And I feel bad for them. I feel very, very bad for them. Trump DL wrote in about Trump and says, why are you so obsessed with Trump? Get over it. You never talk about the Biden crime family. They have been corrupt for over 40 years, maybe because of your age. You didn't know this, but you could educate yourself now.

Looks like the Dems want him out. He's a fool. Even Obama mentioned it on tape. Obama. I don't know what DL is talking about. I have no idea what he's talking about. And remember, Biden crime family. Investigate Biden for the classified document stuff. There was wrongdoing. Do whatever you need to do, but keep investigating Trump as well, because the situations are very different. Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden did something criminal or potentially criminal. Law enforcement and the Justice Department should investigate, charge the guy

he's guilty, throw him in jail. I don't care. But for Republicans to make Hunter Biden the foremost political issue is disgusting. Hunter Biden has nothing to do with the Biden administration, unlike Ivanka and Jared and so on, and to take up congressional time as they plan to do investigating Hunter. Give me a break. It's pathetic. So I don't know what DL is talking about, but DL seems very, very triggered. Justin wrote in. Justin says,

I treat your show like the news because I'm not particularly fond of TV news, though I do watch other TV commentary like Chris Hayes, that Lawrence guy, Ari and others from MSNBC. I actually listen to all of them through clips on YouTube. You should have a segment on your show where you cover multiple recent headlining national and international stories, five to seven, offer quick commentary and move on to the next thing. You'd pick up people looking for quick news. You know, we tried this and nobody watched it. There's this interesting thing that happens. And I don't know if it's a blessing or a curse. I really don't, Justin. But sometimes when you do your show a certain way for a while and you build an audience based on that,

it's easy to think, hey, you know, if I did this other thing that other people have success with, I would just double my success. I would do so, so, so well. But oftentimes when you test those things, it doesn't happen. And I don't know the reason why. Maybe it's because I've been pigeonholed into doing the type of show I do. Maybe it's because I wouldn't be good at doing a five to seven story new segment back for whatever reason. When we tried it, nobody watched it. I am always interested in trying new formats and ideas, but that particular one didn't work when we tried it in the past. Dave wrote in and says, I enjoy watching your YouTube posts. That said, it is

quite distracting when you're playing back things and pause to make comments. I'd rather hear more of the video and then hear your take on it. So listen, this has been a disagreement among some of my audience for a long time. I have taken the position based on what I do and the emails that I've received that most people are watching this, listening to this to hear my commentary. Now you could say, well, fine, but keep your commentary for after the clip. When I did that, we tested doing that. I got a ton of emails from people saying, David, you know, I get that news stations will often just play a clip in its entirety and then like say something later. But the reason I'm watching you is actually for you to pause and

break down, break it down piece by piece. So, David, this is just a preference. And with peace and love, I appreciate that you don't like it. Every time we've adjudicated this, every time we've investigated this, the consensus is the majority, not everybody, but the majority is David. Keep doing it the way you do it. When you want to pause and tell us something about the clip, let us know. Zachary wrote in. Now, this one, this is tongue in cheek. OK, Zachary says, David, I've been listening to your show for years and the last few weeks you've been talking about George Santos and his supposed lies. To think somebody would spread such horrible claims about the first man on the moon is sickening. Not only that, he is the president of the United States, the king of England and the world's tallest man.

So have some respect. You should be ashamed of yourself, David. Do better. The king of England thing is funny. I once interviewed a guy named David Wynn Miller, who's since passed away. May he rest in peace. And he David Wynn Miller was known for I believe he did anyway. If he's still alive, then I apologize. David when Miller was known for, quote, teaching people to stuff their names full of punctuation marks like semicolons and dashes and stuff, which he said would make you nontaxable. It didn't work. People would get thrown in jail for contempt when they tried it. But he claimed that he was the king of Hawaii. It was it was quite a ride, I have to tell you. But in any case, George Santos, yes, a very, very honest man. Jeff wrote in and says, Good morning. I find it hypocritical that the people questioning vaccines due to some athletes having health issues are so fast to dismiss why we are seeing once in a

generation weather events that seem to be occurring monthly. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks for the great content. So here's the deal. This is a very common thing in politics. Left and right do it. But right now it's being weaponized much more by the right. If you find an anomaly and you want to use it to claim that it is the status quo, you do it. And if you find an anomaly and it is useful for it to be merely an anomaly, then you say it's just an anecdote. It's just an anomaly. And so although climate science tells us that we should expect exactly what we've been seeing, extreme high temperatures, extreme low temperatures, weather events being more serious, more frequent hurricanes, all these different things. That's not the story that

works. So they say this is just whether it's not climate. Forget about it, whatever. On the other hand, when it comes to an expected number of young people dying, remember, we went through the numbers. There has not actually been an increase. They want to tell the story that it's an epidemic because of the vaccine. They just do it. The facts and the science simply do not matter. Andrew wrote in and says Marjorie Taylor Greene on the Homeland Security Committee with Marjorie Taylor Greene on this committee asks Andrew, should I as a Jew be concerned about the investigation of our space lasers. Listen, Andrew. If they want to come and take the space lasers, that's one thing. But if Marjorie Taylor Greene comes for my chocolate babka, she will take it from my cold, dead hands that I guarantee you, sir. Michelle wrote in about trolls. Speaking of which, more comments tonight

from listeners who scorn you, David. I find it astounding and sad that there are so many people who have nothing better to do than listen to podcasters they dislike. Personally, I struggle to find time to keep up with the podcasters and news sources that I like. I can't imagine wasting time following anyone I disliked. I guess some people just aren't happy unless they're hating someone, hating on someone. So sad. This is a really good point. I don't have the time to watch the shows I want to watch to keep up with the podcasts. I don't have time for it to read the books I want to read. The idea that I would waste any time with the stuff I don't like is is laughable. But again, these people have no lives, Michelle. That's what you have to remember. Info at David Pakman dot com. If you have something to say to me. Say it to my face, and I mean that by email info at David Pakman dot com. We have such a great week of programs coming up for you next week.

But we have the bonus show for the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Thank your lucky stars every day. You're not Dave Pakman. Well, many in our audience do, Alex. You can sign up at join Pakman dot com. Let's make it a thing. We'll see you then.