The David Pakman Show - 2/21/25: Pence turns on Trump as simpler explanation surfaces

Episode Date: February 21, 2025

-- On the Show: -- Amy Klobuchar, Democratic US Senator from Minnesota, joins David to discuss the early days of the Trump administration -- Donald Trump's approval in February of the first year of his term is worse than any other President, other than his own during his first term -- Finnish writer Mikko Marttinen has a simpler explanation for what is happening with Donald Trump, arguing he's simply not intelligence and declining quickly -- Former Vice President Mike Pence publicly turns on Donald Trump, attacking him over his claim that Ukraine started the war with Russia -- Donald Trump signs a terrifying order expanding presidential power -- What happens when red states, disproportionately the takers of federal funds, run out of money? -- Piers Morgan links antidepressant SSRI medications to mass shootings in his latest tirade -- This week's Friday Feedback -- On the Bonus Show: A third of Project 2025 has been implemented, and much more... 👅 Lucy tobacco-free nicotine: Get 20% OFF using code PAKMAN at https://lucy.co 👂 MDHearing: Use code PAKMAN to get a pair for just $297 at https://shopmdhearing.com/ 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 🤖 Sponsored by Venice: Use code PAKMAN for 20% off a Pro Account at https://venice.ai/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 💻 Sponsored by Aura: Try it free for 2 weeks! See if your data is safe at https://aura.com/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep: Get 27% OFF and 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow

. Welcome to the show everybody on a, probably on Monday we are going to be looking into an unavoidably obvious trend that is happening, which is that more Americans are leaving the country and at a faster rate than we have seen in a really long time. And the reason for this is not some vague, amorphous or unknowable reason. It's because of Donald Trump. And it's because of record low support already for what Donald Trump is doing and the reality that's hitting home for many Americans about what a fiasco this is and is going to continue being. Now, we've all heard, Oh, I'm moving to Canada. If X very few people do it,

especially because it's hard to move to Canada. Uh, but that doesn't mean you can't go anywhere. And many Americans can, and we're going to talk about that. But underlying that is new polling, which finds that Americans really do not approve of the job that Trump is doing. And they really don't like the initiatives that he is focusing in on so far. So we're going to link to the poll and you can look through it in detail. But some of the highlights, first and foremost, Trump approval currently 47%. This is below the February approval for any other presidency for which we have data other than Trump's

own first presidency. You might recall that in February of the first year of Trump's first term, he had an approval of 44% Trump's approval. Now in February of the first year of his second term is 47%. That's the worst out of anybody since we've had this data other than Trump himself who had an even slightly lower approval in 2017. If we look at demographic shifts, it's a disaster. Among 18 to 34 year olds, Trump is down from 57 in January to 41 in one month, 16% of 18 to 34 year olds, um, have said, I used to support what Trump was doing.

I no longer do Hispanic adults, 50% approval in January, 41% now black adults, 30% approval in January now down to 23. So just about every demographic group declining in approval of Trump record low numbers. Now what are the reasons, the reasons for the skepticism about what Trump has been up to so far responsible for this decline in approval are widespread. Number one, when it comes to high prices, and this is, this is so important because one of the questions we've been asking is our voters going to hold Trump accountable and blame Trump when, if, and when probably when, if, and when things don't go as Trump predicted, 62% of Americans say Trump has not

done enough to reduce prices. Forget about enough to reduce prices are sky high. Egg prices are higher than they've ever been. Gas prices are up. Grocery prices are up. Okay. 62% say he's not doing enough. Shockingly, even 47% of Republicans believe that Donald Trump is not doing enough when it comes to lowering prices, which he promised to do zoom out a little bit. What about more broadly when it comes to democracy? 52% of Americans say Trump is going too far in his use of presidential power. 52%. That's more than half.

You don't get to 52% just with left wingers and Democrats. Uh, the partisan breakdown of course is that Democrats are way more likely than Republicans to say, uh, that, that Trump is going too far, but more than half the country says Trump's going too far with presidential power. 48% say Trump has gone too far changing how the US government works. This includes Doge. 51% say he's doing too much cutting of federal programs. 53% say it was a bad idea to try to shut down USAID

and the consumer financial protection bureau. 54% say giving Elon a prominent role was a bad idea. 58% say they think Trump's plan to take over Gaza and kick out all the Palestinians and prevent them from coming back. 58% say that's a bad idea. So on the issues, it's not going well. Then we get to this kind of squishier metric. Do you feel the country is going the right direction or the wrong direction? Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic about what's happening? 54% of Americans feel pessimistic about Donald Trump's second term. 75% of Americans say Trump's handling of the presidency is aligning with expectations. So that's critical. 25% of the country is surprised by what Trump is doing. You and I might say, how the hell could you be

surprised? But many people don't really pay attention to campaigns or what's going on until it's actually people are in power and they're starting to do things. And then there was also some denial. But the fact that 25% of Americans are surprised by what Trump's done, it suggests maybe some of those people are reachable. 21% say it's a bad surprise. So that's, that's the critical thing. You could be surprised pleasantly. You could go, I'm surprised this is going so well with Trump.

Or you could be surprised pleasantly. You could go, I'm surprised this is going so well with Trump. Or you could be surprised negatively of the 25%, 4% are positively surprised. 21% are negatively surprised. That's a lot of people who were saying, this is not what I thought we were going to get. Um, what else is important here? Only 23% of Americans see that, uh, believe that democracy is under attack. So the takeaway to me is there are almost certainly reachable Americans whose views as to what they expected to get from this presidency and what they're getting. They are open to saying, I've got to revise my understanding. I've got to revise my opinion.

I need to do a rethink. At the same time, Americans have not come to believe in large numbers, majority numbers, 23 percent of the country, still a lot, but not not a majority that Trump represents an attack on democracy. So Democrats need to work with that. And what Democrats need to do is say, OK, we know there's opposition to what Trump is doing. We know there's disgust with the way this is going down, but let's focus to a degree as Elizabeth Warren said yesterday on the pragmatic realities economically and otherwise, and maybe not go to he's destroying democracy. Now, is he trying to destroy democracy?

It seems that he is, but we need to meet voters where they are. And if most Americans don't believe that that's what's going on, but they're concerned about Doge, they're concerned about Elon, they're concerned about economics, then that's where Democrats need to meet voters. Will they do it as we start to think about the midterm election? I don't know. We'll keep talking to senators and members of Congress and asking them, there's a very interesting piece written in finish by Miko Martin, a writer for ILTA Sonomat.

I, I am convinced I'm mangling these finished pronunciations, but the article is fascinating and we're going to link to it. Most browsers will automatically translate it to English for you. And what Miko says is that there is way too much analysis being devoted to figuring out what's going on with Trump, what's going on with his speeches, and that his dejected, hunched over, impotent presentation at recent speeches, public events and in media interviews has a really simple explanation. Trump's not smart and he's getting old and he's significantly declining. And what Martin argues in this piece is that political analysts often look to complex strategic or

tactical reasons behind the weird stuff that Trump says, the strange way that he behaves. But what the author believes is that there's a really simple explanation, which is that Trump is the least intelligent president of the modern era. And with his advancing age, he is diminished cognitively with regard to his abilities. It started low and it's getting worse. And what Martin and ads is that Trump's narcissism combined with choosing advisors based only on loyalty results in policies and statements that lack any depth. They, they lack any informed insight and it leads to Trump frequently making foolish public statements. It's a worthwhile article to read because of some of the references. Martin talks about Linda got Fridson's definition of intelligence, which means you have the

ability to reason you have the ability to plan. You can solve problems. You can think abstractly and comprehend complex ideas and also learn from experience. So you don't make the same mistakes. Trump doesn't do any of that stuff. And what the author asserts is that the public appearances of Trump and the behavior of Trump demonstrates he can't understand complex issues. He can't think abstractly. And this, uh, uh, Martin has come to conclude is resp, this I love is responsible for Trump's confusion between seeking asylum

and a mental asylum. I love this because this is exactly what I've been suspecting for a year. Martin and believes that Trump's confusion about asylum and that they are emptying out mental institutions into the United States and talking about Hannibal Lecter. Martin and agrees with me. Trump's confused between I'm here to seek asylum and I'm in a mental asylum. And this is why Trump has been talking about Latin American psychiatric hospitals emptying out into the United States. He just doesn't understand this stuff.

And Martin and argues this goes to Trump's just lack of a basic comprehension with both written and audio visual content. Now, the article also argues that the notion of Trump's wealth proving his intelligence being completely bogus and it references the previous analyses that have been done, which suggests that if Trump had taken his inheritance and instead of doing real estate and Trump stakes and casinos that go bankrupt and all of it, if Trump had simply put all of his inheritance in an index fund, he would have done as well or better. And that does not really point to a genius businessman. Um, Trump is likely the only president recently that doesn't regularly read books.

Even George W. Bush was a big reader. And if you don't read, I believe it's difficult to understand complex issues. Miko Martin agrees it's difficult to understand complex issues if you don't read. We know that Trump's advisors have to create very short briefing memos. They have, you know, Trump's name at the top and a couple of visuals and charts just to try to keep Trump interested. So bottom line, is it overwrought to look deeply, more deeply than we have to to get an answer?

Should we favor the simplest answer for Trump's behavior and what Miko Martin believes in this article, which we will link to is Trump was never very smart. He's lost cognitive capacity as he has aged and he's also lost the ability to speak as coherently as he used to. You look at old Letterman appearances and Trump said some wacky stuff, but he was dramatically more coherent. And so Miko Martin says the explanation simple. Let's not keep looking for things we don't need to look for. Trump's not very smart and he's declining and that's all you need to know. What do you think is Miko Martin and right?

Mike Pence, Donald Trump's former vice president has called out his former boss over the war in Ukraine. Specifically Mike Pence responded to Donald Trump's claim that Ukraine started the war by clarifying that Russia chose to launch an unprovoked and brutal invasion. Now on the surface, this might sound like a basic acknowledgement of the facts. And of course it is, but that's actually newsworthy in and of itself. So let's first look at what Mike Pence tweeted, quote, Mr. President, Ukraine did not start this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives.

The road to peace must be built on the truth. So let's take this step by step. Is Pence right on the facts? He is undoubtedly Putin started this war. He chose to start it. That's who's responsible. If we zoom out a little bit, it's almost unheard of for a vice president to so openly and directly repudiate the president that they served under.

Historically, you see vice presidents follow the administration's line even after they leave office. The bigger point here is the transformation of the Republican Party itself. A lot of people who used to despise the old Republican party find themselves feeling a little bit nostalgic, right? They say, you know, I didn't like them back then, but I wish I could have them back because at least they aren't as bad as this MAGA movement, which is more extreme and it's more detached from facts. And in some cases, it's just openly antagonistic to basic democratic values.

There were Republicans who used to pride themselves on patriotism and supporting the troops and standing up to dictatorships. And it goes back to the cold war. Did it go too far in many cases? Absolutely. Did I agree with their perspectives on what patriotism was at the time? Yes, I did. But what we see right now is significantly more depraved because you see prominent figures in the mega movement praising authoritarian strong men, some dictators downplaying Russian aggression labeling anyone who says to them, you know, these aren't really democratic regimes that you're supporting. They say you're disloyal, you're unpatriotic and their definition of patriotism has shifted into something that embraces violence

and sometimes treasonous rhetoric. They used to fearmonger about communist dictators in the Soviet Union. They probably went too far with it. That was part of the Republican brand for decades. Now you have parts of the Maga wing almost in, in, in this, uh, that would they worship Vladimir Putin in some way. They praise him as a strong leader. And that brings us back to Mike Pence. It shouldn't really be heroic. What Mike Pence

is doing. It shouldn't really come off as brave. He's stating the obvious Ukraine didn't start the war. Russia invaded. That's what happened. And by MAGA standards today, it's almost considered a radical statement. How low have we fallen that Mike Pence who remember is extremely conservative by older definitions. He's extremely religious. He has policy policies that I vehemently oppose. He has started to look slightly more sane in contrast to the belligerence of Trump that captures the state of the Republican party.

You take a step away from blind loyalty to Trump. You are in the crosshairs for the GOP where they were demanding he be hanged. Uh, I don't want to romanticize Mike Pence's politics. His record is extraordinarily disturbing. His points of view and policy positions are disgusting on so many issues. The point is he's choosing not to follow the MAGA gaslighting playbook on this specific issue. And what I'm wondering is, are there more Republicans ready to follow Mike Pence's lead in calling out the misinformation? Putin started the war. That's it. I don't want to hear any more about Ukraine being responsible here. Or has the Republican Party permanently realigned under MAGA, making voices like Pence's the exception rather than the rule for the duration

of Trump's second term? I lean towards the latter. I don't know that especially people in power still I don't know that they're going to come forward and be willing to say the sort of stuff that Mike Pence is saying as basic and milk toast as it really should be considered. We are rapidly approaching three million YouTube subscribers. As I told you about on the show yesterday, I spoke to a couple of lawyers who believe that there is an appetite in the Trump administration to antagonize left wing independent media. The way we can be most protected from that for the duration of this presidency is to have the largest platform possible. We are a little over a hundred thousand subscribers away from 3 million on YouTube. I invite you with peace, love, and humility to help us get to that 3 million number quickly. Uh, I appreciate the

tens of thousands who have done it over the last week. You can go to davidpackman.com. Actually, I think davidpackman.com slash YouTube works. Um, if not just a search, David Pacman, YouTube hit the subscribe button. It is completely free and I will update you as to our progress on Monday. Let's take a quick break. It's, this is a good enough show that I think we should record it and publish it. That's kind of the way I'm feeling about today's show. Today's show is sponsored in part by Lucy Breakers. This is a tobacco free nicotine pouch with a capsule that can be broken to release extra flavor. Such a better option than smoke or vapor.

Lucy Breakers come in four or eight milligram strength. You can choose mint, apple, ice, mango, berry, citrus. Also check out Lucy's regular nicotine pouches and nicotine gum, which come in their own varieties of flavors. And you can subscribe for convenient home delivery. If you're not completely satisfied, Lucy offers a 30 day money back guarantee. Try a tobacco free nicotine alternative. Join the countless people who Lucy has helped go to Lucy dot co use code Pacman for 20% off your first order. That's L U C Y dot C O. Then use code Pacman for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes. Lucy products are only for adults of legal age. Every order is age verified. Warning,

this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Things are still expensive, that we know. But one thing that doesn't have to be is your hearing aids. Hearing aids are famously overpriced at brick-and-mortar hearing clinics, but our sponsor, MD Hearing, makes high-quality, easy-to-use, rechargeable hearing aids with exceptional sound quality personalized to your hearing profile and shipped right to your door. MD Hearing just made their Neo rechargeable digital hearing aids only $297 a pair, less than 10% the price of clinic hearing aids, only $2.97 a pair, less than 10% the price of clinic hearing aids. MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but could not afford them and made it his mission to develop a quality hearing accessible to anyone. I have a

close family friend who uses hearing aids. And once I told her about MD Hearing, she gave them a try and has never used anything since. Loves the affordability, the quality. They're expert staff who are available to help calibrate the device anytime she needs. Get the high quality, affordable hearing aids you deserve with MD Hearing. Thank you. just two 97 and you'll get a free extra charging case. The link is in the podcast notes. If you're sick of the boxers that are too loose or the briefs that are too tight, sheath is for you. Sheath underwear is designed with two special pouches in the front. Keeps everything separate in its own compartment with extra confidence that you will feel throughout the day, keeping things separate and comfortable.

No more sticking and chafing. I was skeptical about the dual pouch. I admit it, but it is game changing. Everything stays where it is supposed to be extra useful when working out at the gym. And even if you don't want to use the pouches, you don't have to. It is still the most comfortable pair of underwear I have ever owned. It will blow your mind how soft and stretchy these are made with moisture wicking technology to keep you dry. If you were ready to take underwear comfort to a new place, a place you didn't even know it could go, head over to sheath underwear.com slash Pacman and get 20% off with the code Pacman.

That's S H E A T H underwear.com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show of course, continues to be supported directly by you. I want to thank the, let me be precise, 138 recent new members. I really appreciate you. Consider a membership at join pacman.com cheap, quick, packed with benefits, including the daily bonus show and commercial free audio and video streams and access to a members only soundboard. Read about all of it. Sign up in under a minute at join pacman.com. I will also mention we are in the final weeks of preorder for my forthcoming book, The Echo Machine. I have many podcast and TV appearances to announce

that will be happening in March. You can preorder the book at David Pacman dot com slash book. And if you would like a signed copy, order those exclusively at David Pakman dot com slash book Smith. Donald Trump has done something terrifying with regard to expanding presidential power. There was a time where Republicans would have forcefully opposed this. That time is not now. The executive order that Donald Trump has signed effectively dismantles the independence of federal regulatory agencies and it consolidates unprecedented power under the White House. This is not normal.

This is certainly not democracy. It is a Senator Bernie Sanders described it earlier this week. Authoritarianism. It's more than a temporary power grab. This is the biggest executive power grab in American history, and it fundamentally reshapes the balance of power in our government. And so many people are not understanding what is going on. Now, you may recall that earlier this week I played this clip for you. Lastly, we have another executive order that President Trump signed relating to independent agencies.

This executive order would establish important oversight functions in the Office of Management and Budget and its subsidiary office, OIRA, supervising independent agencies and many of their actions and also reestablishes the longstanding norm that only the president or the attorney general can speak for the United States when stating an opinion as to what the law is. The order titled ensuring accountability for all agencies claims to promote presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch. This is not about accountability. This is about control. It is about absolute unchecked control and it is a direct attack on the very foundations of our democratic system.

Now here's what this order does. The president now controls all regulatory agencies. We're talking about supposedly independent agencies like the FEC, the FCC, the FTC, the SEC. They are no longer independent. They are now subject to direct White House oversight. What on earth does Trump know about any of it? Now, the SEC, of course, regulates Wall Street. That's now under Trump's thumb. And that opens up the door to insider trading favoritism, the targeting of political opponents by the SEC for particular stock trades. The FTC enforces antitrust laws. They can now selectively target companies that oppose the administration and allow friendly

monopolies to flourish. Not that the FTC has a good track record of a monopoly busting anyway, but especially now elections, the FEC, which oversees campaign finance and election integrity, that is now under White House control, meaning the president can directly influence how elections are regulated and enforced. And it goes way further. Agencies like the FDA, the EPA responsible for drug approvals, food safety, protecting the environment.

They are overtly politicized. Now, you might be saying, David, weren't they kind of implicitly politicized anyway? Yes, they were. But now that is completely unrestrained by the overt politicization. Climate change regulations gone overnight. Scientific research subject to what Trump wants researched. And they can even say, OK, you did it. You did the research. I don't want it released to the public, not going public. The implication here is that there is no longer any neutral enforcement of economic, environmental or election laws. It's just dictated by Trump and political loyalty. That's number one. Secondly, budgets. The White House can block agency budgets or say we are going to send the funds elsewhere.

The OMB Office of Management and Budget is led by Trump loyalist Russell Vaught. We spoke about him on Monday. They now have the power to just adjust funding allocations for independent agencies. They can defund opposition if they don't like it. If an agency says we believe the law is counter to presidential policy, they can just be strangled by the White House. Agencies that fall in line will be fully funded, even if it is against the law. And here's the consequence that Congress no longer controls federal spending on regulatory

enforcement. That is a power that Congress had. The executive branch can just choke it out, choke out the funding, choke out opposition agencies and reward their allies. Number three, as Will Scharf mentioned in the video, the final legal interpretation comes from one of two people, Trump or Attorney General Pam Bondi. You're a federal employee. You've got to follow Trump's opinion about the law. Imagine that agency lawyers doesn't matter. Inspectors General Independent Counsel. It's Trump's opinion of the law that matters. And this effectively allows laws to be rewritten overnight.

Trump can unilaterally change how federal laws are interpreted and enforced and thus legal consistency disappears. Agencies can't push back against corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional directives because the president's interpretations are all that matter. Number four, installing White House liaisons at regulatory agencies, sort of like babysitters. The White House will have a liaison in every independent agency to enforce Trump's will be done within those agencies. And these liaisons are going to monitor daily operations. They're going to be in the bathrooms. Do we like

the kind of toilet paper you've got in here? Whatever the hell they want. The agency directors themselves will no longer have the ability to act without White House approval. This is now a way to directly enforce what Trump wants inside of agencies. Now if some of this sort of sounds familiar, if you're thinking a little bit about Steve Steve Bannon or was it Steven Miller?

All of this is rooted in the unitary executive theory. This was a once fringe legal idea that the president has sole control over the entire executive branch. And it's a theory that has been championed by Russell Vaught and others. But here's the real irony with this. Some of you are old enough to remember and you don't have to be that old. Some of you are a 10 year old would be old enough to remember when conservatism and the Republican Party claimed to be the champions of limited government checks and

balances and restricting how much power the president has. They railed against executive overreach often when it was a Democratic president in office. But at one point they genuinely seemed sort of committed to it. Under Trump, they've abandoned that principle completely. This is another reminder that they have their stated principles, limited government, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it's meaningless as soon as they deem it inconvenient. If what's convenient is letting Trump control every aspect of every agency, forget about limited government. We don't care. So this is an executive order that doesn't just

expand presidential power. It erases some of the final restraints on it. The federal government no longer operates with checks and balances. Reg regulations and law is now are now dictated by the president. And if you leave it unchecked and this is what's terrifying. Functionally, we are no longer a democracy. This order will face legal challenges. The fact that it was even signed is a chilling escalation in Trump's efforts to consolidate power. And if it is appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, look at who's on the Supreme

Court. Another aspect to this disaster. And finally, don't forget when Trump recently said, if I'm saving my country, it's not against the law. Reminiscent of when Nixon said, if the president does it, it's not against the law. Trump believes that he is above the law. He has signed an executive order that reaffirms that. And the only check on it may end up being a Supreme Court that has three justices on it that were nominated by Trump and is one of the most extreme right wing courts, certainly in my lifetime, much longer than that

as well. Terrifying, absolutely terrifying stuff. Remember that we are now inching so close to three million YouTube subscribers in terms of left wing shows. You've got the Young Turks, you've got Midas Touch and you've got Brian Tyler Cohen above three million. We would be the fourth to enter that category. It feels like just months ago we were talking about two million subscribers and we are heading to three. Help us get there a little more quickly.

We've got some great stuff planned for when we reach that number. It's free. Just hit the subscribe button on YouTube. What happens when the red states run out of money? You know, Republican led states love to talk about low taxes and small government and fiscal responsibility. And it all sounds great, right? I mean, keep more of your money, attract businesses, live free and all of this stuff. There is one little problem with it, which is that cutting taxes means cutting revenue. And when the money runs out, who is going to pay the price?

Turns out it's not just red states. It's all of us, especially us in the blue states. Because when red states slash taxes and struggle to fund basics like schools and roads, they are quietly being propped up by us in the blue states, states like Texas and Florida and Tennessee. You know, they brag about there's no state income tax and it's so cheap to live here. And it sounds awesome until you realize that they still need to pay for stuff. How do they do it? Well, they shift the burden instead of income tax. They rely on sales taxes and property taxes and car registration fees. And on a percentage level, these hit low and middle income families the

hardest. For example, Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the country instead of a progressive state income tax, which disproportionately hits the wealthy. You've got a property taxes that as a share of the household budget are way more expensive for low income Texans than they are for high income Texans. You look at Florida, Florida leans on a sales tax, which takes a bigger chunk of income from poor people than from the wealthy as a share of their total household budget. So, you know, the no income tax slogan sounds okay sometimes, but it's really a shell game because the money's got to come from somewhere and usually it comes from those who can least

afford it. This brings us to the state of Kansas in 2012. We covered it at the time. Governor Sam Brownback, a Republican went all in on tax cuts, slashed income taxes and said that said the same thing as Trump. This will boost the economy so much that we're going to do awesome. And instead, the state got a fiscal disaster. Revenue crashed.

Schools were gutted. Roads fell apart. And by 2017, even Republicans had enough. And they said, we're going to roll back these tax cuts. Kansas is the prototypical cautionary tale in this entire thing. You cut taxes too much. You can't pay for basics. And Kansas is not alone.

States like Oklahoma and Louisiana have faced similar crises. The budget shortfalls lead to cuts in education and health care and infrastructure. Those cuts make the state less competitive. People are less able to get themselves good jobs. The economy is weaker. Quality of life goes down for everybody. It's really a vicious circle. And the sick irony is that many of these red states rely on federal money to stay afloat. That means that taxpayers in blue states like California and New York are subsidizing the red states. And if you look at the Rockefeller Institute

of Government, states like Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, they get way more in federal funds than they pay in federal taxes. They are taking more than they give. And it's so ironic, given that red states criticize blue states and they go big government taxes too high, but they are the ones depending on that big government to fund their budget. It's like cutting off a branch that you're sitting on and then asking someone to hold you up and go, we don't need these branches taking up space. Well, someone's holding you up and the consequences of the low tax policies don't disappear when the schools are no good and the education worsens.

It's worse for the state over the long term. Businesses and families don't just move to a state for low taxes. They want good schools. They want safe roads. They want reliable services. That's why when Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Arkansas is the best place to move to because it's so cheap, it's cheap partially because there's no demand. I'm so sorry to say it to people who live in Arkansas.

If red states can't provide basics, the low taxes and low cost of living don't really look that good. So it's another example of how low taxes sound great in theory. I'd love to keep more of my money. Why not? But then you see that red states can't pay the cost. They turn to the federal government. And by extension, they're turning to me. They are turning to taxpayers in blue states to bail them out. It's not really fiscal responsibility. It's just passing the buck to somebody else. There are people who argue that SSRI antidepressants lead to mass shootings.

One of those people seems to be Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan had this wacky panel that included Dr. Birx. Remember Dr. Birx from the covid days and peers is jumping on the there's a link here between the antidepressants and violent outbursts, mass shootings. This all seems to be couched in support of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s conspiracy theories. Let's take a listen to it. Then we will. America is ridiculously overmedicated, particularly in the area of antidepressant drugs and anxiety drugs and so on. And Britain is going the same way. No, I think it's great. I think it's great. There are millions, there are millions of young people.

You know what happened? Hang on, Francesca. Hang on. There's a shouting. Let me just put it. Let me put a question to you. I bet money that Francesca's on drugs right now. Francesca, let me put a question to you. I bet money that Francesca's on drugs right now. Francesca, let me put a question to you. Hang on, guys. Hang on. Can you both please hang on? Francesca! Let me make a point, please.

Let me make my point. Let him respond. Everyone stop talking for a moment. Francesca, the point I'm making is America has 80% of the world painkiller consumption. 80%, right? You have millions of young... Now we're talking about painkillers.

...millions of young people who are taking completely unnecessary, mind-bending drugs for things like anxiety, depression, often self-diagnosed. And guess what happens? You then have a load of weirdo, loner kids running around with their brains scrambled who commit mass shootings and stuff like that. There is a direct correlation. And we're going the same way in Britain. Young people are getting massively over-medicated. So I am actually in favor of RFK trying to pull America away from its

addiction to mind bending drugs. So, of course, the phrase mind bending is being selectively and pejoratively used. I prefer to just stick to what we know. The criticism from some has been SSRIs can cause or they can contribute to violent behavior. Some people on SSRIs, they get aggressive. They might self-harm. They might harm others. Now, what is that claim based on? Three different things. Number one, we have anecdotal reports. There are cases where an individual on an SSRI committed a violent act that doesn't tell us anything about whether the SSRI caused it. But we have anecdotal reports. One of the things you have to consider is that if you have a large enough population, you know, it's sort of like saying everybody, every mass shooter drank water. And at some point you got to go, well, what's the

base rate? How many people are drinking water now? SSRIs are not like water much to the, to the dismay of peers who says everybody's on them, but SSRIs are widely enough prescribed that you're going to find people on SSRIs who have done all sorts of things. It's sort of like saying, Hey, you know, uh, uh, how, how many, um, I don't even know how many people who are driving recklessly are on a cholesterol medication and we would say, well, there's so many people on cholesterol medication. Is it really the medication? So we've got anecdotal reports.

Number two, we've got legal cases. There are lawsuits that allege the SSRI caused the violent behavior. As you all know, you can file a lawsuit saying anything. The fact that there are cases where that is asserted doesn't mean that it is true. Now, what do the studies say? This is what I care about. There are studies that have found some studies that have found a correlation between SSRI use and increased aggression. Now, there's a few critical things to understand there. First of all, a correlation does not mean a causation. And I'll give you one possible interpretation of this. People who are prescribed SSRIs, the population of people on SSRIs are more likely to have an underlying mental health condition

because that's what's being treated. The population on SSRIs is more likely to have some combination of depression, anxiety or a personality disorder that may independently explain the risk of violent behavior. In other words, the population on SSRIs might be more prone to violence regardless of whether they are on the SSRIs. It's sort of like the people that go to Harvard are really successful, but the people that get into Harvard are also really successful even if they don't go. How much of it is about Harvard? How much of it is about the people that get in? I think it's a pretty good analogy, although I'm not equating Harvard and SSRIs. When you look at

RCTs, randomly controlled trials, they do not find evidence that SSRIs cause violence. Now it is true that there are trials that have reported people on SSRIs on average are more agitated or might have suicidal ideation. That's a small subset of folks who get those as side effects from the SSRIs. Those are pretty rare. And also just because you, um, are agitated or are thinking about suicide doesn't mean you're going to go out and commit mass shootings or violent acts.

Now, then the third thing I think is important to consider is, is there a biological plausibility? Serotonin is involved in regulating mood and impulse control and aggression. So you could make the biological argument SSRIs selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They mess with serotonin. They could affect behavior. Sure. Plausible. The truth is that both low and high serotonin levels can be associated with aggression. And the relationship is extraordinarily complex. And we would not really be in a position to honestly make an assessment about that.

So it's very important to understand the potential side effects of any medication you're taking. People should be monitored when they are on these medications, just like they should be for most things that you're on long term. People on cholesterol medication like me, I think it's every six months or 12. I get a liver function test. Great. We want to understand what are the potential side effects. We want to we want to look at that. The benefit of SSRIs in treating depression and anxiety seems to outweigh the risks hugely, assuming that they are being properly prescribed and monitored. And we still this is a this is a classic SSRI is responsible for everything. The mass shootings, Alex Jones level stuff. We just don't have the evidence. And my opinion is we should be led by the evidence. By now, you've probably heard about DeepSeek. It's now

the number one app on most app stores, but every conversation you have with DeepSeek is stored on Chinese servers and subject to Chinese censorship. If you want to try DeepSeek without sharing all your conversations with Beijing, then let me recommend our sponsor venice ai venice.ai is a generative ai platform it's private and it's permissionless and they utilize leading open source ai models to deliver text code and image generation right to your web browser no downloads no installations of anything, and they offer a version of DeepSeek that's private and without censorship. China's not the only problem. ChatGPT has the former director of the NSA sitting on their board right now.

Do we think our conversations are private with American AI companies? we also know that these companies program their AIs to give only certain kinds of answers. I love that Venice.ai doesn't spy on you, doesn't censor anything. Messages are encrypted. Your conversation history is stored only on your browser. Enjoy private, uncensored AI. Go to Venice dot a I slash Pacman and use the code Pacman to get 20 percent off a pro plan. That's Venice dot a I slash Pacman for 20 percent off or use code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. financial information, even political views. Europe has laws that offer some protection. But in the US, the data is widely accessible. Even the FBI will buy this information from companies to spy on people without a search warrant. Our sponsor, Incogni, provides a solution.

It takes just seconds to sign up and Incogni will send removal requests to all of the major data brokers, legally compelling them to get rid of your data. Incogni keeps you informed Thank you, David. Very few people have the time or resources to do this on their own. This service can also reduce the number of spam calls and emails you get, since many solicitors and scammers get your information from these very same sources. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 60 percent off. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman for a huge 60 percent off. That's I.N.C. O.G. and I dot com slash Pacman for a huge 60 percent discount. The link is in the podcast notes. It is great to welcome to the program today Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is in the middle of somewhere between six and eight different sort of breaking stories that that we're following, including budget and eggs and so many different

things. Senator, I really appreciate your time. Thanks for being here. David. Well, it's great to be on. I'm excited. So to start with, I saw that a few days ago you said on CNN you think we're not quite there when it comes to a constitutional crisis. But you certainly sounded cautious and at least somewhat concerned that it could certainly go in that direction. We've seen, uh, this executive order from the president, which increases the power of the office of the presidency, despite it used to be the case that Republicans said they actually want to limit the power of the president. And everything seems to be backwards with regard to that. All of a sudden. Are you closer to this concern about a present and actual constitutional crisis?

And if not, what specifically are you sort of looking for before you would say that? Well, my concerns grow every day. You have, of course, the president this week tweeting out a picture of himself with the crown on. I think it's not real subtle what he's talking about there. You have both the vice president and the president basically saying they don't have to follow the law. And then you also have this horrific situation at the Justice Department where career prosecutors, and these are not exactly members of the resistance. Okay, they were not at the Women's March.

I'll put it that way. They are Federalist Society members. They are, one of them clerked for Justice Roberts and for Justice Kavanaugh when he was a circuit court judge. And the other one, of course, clerked for Justice Scalia. And they basically resigned. And one of them said, you've got to be, if they can find a fool or a coward to file this motion to remove the charges against Eric Adams, that person is not me, he said. That person is not me. And I could not believe how out there these conservative,

very conservative lawyers, prosecutors have been in terms of saying this is just wrong. This is wrong under the law, wrong under the Constitution. So, you know, that is what makes you realize this is a mounting, mounting crisis. But I just don't think to say it's a constitutional crisis. Well, that's the moment where, you know, Donald Trump says, no, I'm defying the court order. And that hasn't happened yet. It didn't happen in his first administration. And as we know, he can be a lot of bluster. I also find some solace in the fact that these judges, one on birthright citizenship and that people who are born in America are America. That's what the Constitution says.

That case, when the judges have looked at that, that's heading to the Supreme Court. They have upheld judges looking at this, including Trump-appointed judges, have upheld the law. And then there's a number of other cases about freezing the funds or allowing Elon Musk to rifle through data where judges have intervened. And I know that's not solace when you look at that Supreme Court. I was ardently opposed to many of those justices. But it is the law. And they have consistently, through the lower courts courts been applying that law. So to me, we get to the real

constitutional crisis when he refuses, refuses to follow the law after a judge has said what he's doing is illegal. Another acute area of concern is what the newly minted FBI director, Kash Patel, plans to do. I watched with great interest the minutes that you got to ask questions. I would love for you to give us a little bit of a peek behind the scenes in terms of when you're preparing with your team and you're going to bring up all of these different things that he has previously said, which are there in black and white in the sense that there's either video, there's audio recordings, there's tweets. Do you anticipate that he will play this game of I don't have the quote in front of me. The date is a while ago and using that essentially as an escape hatch from having to deal with the substance. Do you and your team anticipate

that that's what he will do? And given that, is it still worth it because he refuses to engage with the substance? What's the strategy? The strategy is to show America who this person is, knowing that our Republican colleagues have been wimping out on this. They have not been fulfilling their constitutional duty. It says to advise and consent. They've been acqu fulfilling their constitutional duty, which says to advise and consent. They've been acquiescing and accepting, in my words, every step of the way with some exceptions. So the first thing you do in your mind is you say, OK, there are some exceptions

with Kash Patel this week when the vote finally happened. Yeah, we you know, the Republicans went lockstep, but not Lisa Murkowski, who tends to be a maverick and not Susan Collins. If only two more had joined them, we would have defeated Kash Patel. And so my first approach here is I've got to get out things that could potentially get Republican votes. And those are things like in my case, I asked about, so, you know, these officers who protected the Capitol, and when they testified, you actually said they were lying, that they should be prosecuted for lying when they told the truth about what had happened when the mob of insurrectionists invaded. I went after the fact that he had said they should close the FBI headquarters down and turn it into a museum. There's a lot of Republicans that think it's good to investigate cybercrime and terrorist activities. All that goes on in the headquarters.

I emphasized how he had repeatedly said that the FBI was corrupt because I think there were a lot of Republicans that know that's not true. And so I went through a number of things he'd done that might not be the things that maybe your listeners or even I would find most appalling about Kash Patel. But I was trying to find some of those sweet spots. And I guess it worked with two people. But I want to ask about them on the record. Get them on the record. OK, when I go ahead. Yeah. So important, because even if you're going to lose and you probably are with these Republicans right now, how they're acting, you know that. So you ask questions to get people on the record to say, no, I'm going to enforce this law. Those are that's actually record evidence in lawsuits. You know, if they don't do a certain thing and it's illegal, then the people that will bring a case are going to be able to point to when they said on the record that they would enforce a law.

Or you get them to actually do something because of what they said under oath. So there is a role here that isn't immediately satisfying. Right. Because you end up, the Republicans acquiesce and I'm sure some of your listeners are like, well, great. Like, what did you do? Well, you've gotten them on the record. And I've found, especially like an antitrust cases. I'm a geek on that. When you get this stuff on the record, it's evidenced using cases. And then they feel like maybe I'm going to have to do what I said I do when I was under oath. Do you think there's a degree to which the couple of senators that say, I'm thinking independently, I'm a no on this one. It's sort of a contrived veneer of independence

in this sense. A couple didn't vote for cash Patel and a couple didn't vote here and there. But the totality is cash. Patel got in. Hegseth got in. Tulsi got in. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in. Is it is it a game made to create the appearance of independence, but they don't really get in the way of any nominee? Now I see why you're so popular, because that is a very smart. I think about it all the time. And sometimes I actually not sure, you know, you don't know, are they playing a game or they not? But it certainly does seem weird that different people now I will say running through it is usually Susan and Lisa, who tend to be more independent. But you know, Mitch joins on one and someone and it's just and then we never get to the magic number of four.

And I said to them with Kash Patel in the Judiciary Committee, I'm like, could you just stand up for one of them? Just one of them? Because we have made independent decisions before. People have had to withdraw their names on the Democratic side. And sometimes they don't go for a vote, right? Sometimes they end up having to withdraw their names from consideration because of their objection. And the only one that really happened to in a big way was none other than Matt Gaetz in the last year. But I it really does bother me that they're not standing up and now they're going to have other opportunities to stand up right on some of these budget issues and some of this crazy stuff of giving these tax cuts to billionaires when people can't even afford their child care or can't buy their first house. Those are the things that some of the people that

voted for Donald Trump, I know because I had some voters that voted for me and him in the last election, right? Like 10% of them in my state. And they really want you to do something about costs, prescription drugs, all these things. And all signs are from accidentally firing the avian flu frontline workers. That was my favorite of the week, by the way. Oops, now we're going to have to rehire them. Or the 300 people that were watching the nuclear stockpile. Oh, that was a mistake. To the fact that they really haven't, everything they've done from the proposed tariffs to the workforce issues, some of these things, these are going to bring prices up, not down. So the way I look at it simply, corruption's up,

chaos is up, and yes, egg prices and basically the cost of living is up. That's what's happened since he's gotten in. Senator, you've talked a little bit about the limo ride, as we now maybe know it on Inauguration Day. And you've said, you know, the beast. It was the president's car. And I respect Joe Biden's car. I hitched a ride. Yes.

Joe Biden to the inauguration. And Donald Trump just happened to be in there, too. Well, it's interesting you frame it that way. And I know that you've said you're not going to betray confidences. And I understand that. But with all of the concern about the way Trump sort of sat hunched over and dejected in the Oval Office as Elon Musk held held court the way that the same thing played out on Fox news where Hannity is deferring to Musk rather than Trump.

And it's, it's all taking on this very strange kind of perspective. Did the now president in that limo ride to the extent that you're comfortable sharing, did he seem even interested in becoming president again? Because I don't know if it's exhaustion, age decline, or just he'd rather be golfing in Florida. What, what was your sense of that? Well, he was, I wish the way that he interacted with president Biden and vice president Harris when we were in the white house that we're also there for an hour with about 12, 15 of us, right?

Yeah. The speaker. And he was cordial with them. He was cordial with me. I think they would say the same thing. And we talked about everything from the football game that had been on the night before. I brought that up because it was Philadelphia. So I thought President Biden would, you know, he likes it.

And that was in the snowstorm with L.A. I brought up the L.A. fires because I thought that was a really important thing to do. I knew that President Trump was into the Olympics, and I thought it's important to talk about the fact that L.A. has to rise from the ashes here. We talked about a number of other things that they each brought up. And he was engaged. And then the minute he got behind that microphone, the minute we got there, it was like a different thing.

He was doing the, you know, going after them, doing the same political thing that you see at the rallies, maybe a little different tone. And it was just I think that that's who he is. He does what it what he thinks is going to work with the people that support him instead of being that leader that reaches out beyond those people to try to get do something for the good of this nation.

Is there a real Trump in that case? Because you know what? I had the privilege in December of meeting with former President Biden in a small group at the White House, and it was exactly the same guy that I had come to know over decades through the media. There was just there was no daylight. It was it was the real guy. Which is the real Trump in this sense? I think the real Trump is what it's

sort of don't judge someone by what they say behind, you know, when you're there judging by what their actions are, right? By their actions. And it's just so unbelievably more course than it was even in the first Trump presidency in terms of just making these decisions to let Elon Musk, a billionaire, the richest man in the country, just make these decisions about who's going to get fired. That's one of the things that bothers me. Like if a business comes in and wants to make cuts, this happens all the time, right? It's capitalism. They come in, new CEO or sold to something, they're going to make some cuts or they're going to make some changes. And this is true in government as well. So you

look at what your purposes are. Do you need a certain division? Do you need a certain job function? What's the merit of a person in the job? And then you make decisions. It's not easy, but you make decisions. And that you can do that on a large scale. Major companies have done this. And yes, they offer buyouts and all those things. But what these guys did is they came in without regard to the job function or the merits of a person and just said, you know what, we're getting rid of all this, all the probationary people, which are the younger people for the most part who've come in or people who've just been promoted. And then they do that. And so, okay, even if you have no

empathy for the federal employees, and I'm not saying you, David, but let's just say someone has no, they want to see a change and they want to see, I agree, we can make things more efficient. But what's missing here is you taking some incredibly important job functions or some incredibly high performing employees. And you're just like, no, we don't want you. And so many people go into public service for reasons other than money. Duh. They go in there because they really care about something and they want to use their skills. And so what bothers me just from moving this big ship is you want to have that kind of person in the government that's making these hard decisions or

deciding what we're going to do about foreign aid in a country or deciding what we're going to do when someone's benefits gets messed up. And it just bothers me the coarseness and meanness of that. And Elon Musk just seems to just love it. You know, he's tweeting every day about this. And then what's going to be the effect on people when you get rid of air traffic controllers and you say you don't value their service? Well, I think we know what the effect is going to be on people.

Some of this stuff is dangerous. This avian flu issue, I do a lot with ag. You know, this is real spreading the cattle and everything else. And so then they accidentally fire the people working on it. So I think you've got that issue. And then you have to ask yourself why. And I think this is so key, because we can talk about this all we want about Elon Musk did this, Elon Musk did this, Donald Trump letting Elon Musk as well. Well, why are they doing it? Well, right before us is the answer. Their tax plan, which is literally over $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest people

in this country, including Elon Musk. So that's what they're looking at. And how do they get the money? They know that with some of their conservatives, they're not just going to add on that much more debt. They're going to add a lot of debt, but they're like, well, we got to make cuts somewhere. So they're making the cuts on the backs of regular people. They should be helping people making it easier, as I said, to buy a new house or get mortgages or child care or pay your rent. There's all these kinds of cool things we could be doing right now on that with algorithms that Elon Musk is well aware of, where people are getting ripped off on their rents. And instead, they're going this direction of let's just take a sledgehammer and let's piss

off all our allies and let's go meet with Russia and some kind of weird, you know, Putin shock and awe and we'll go meet with him and diss Zelensky, who's put his whole country on the line and they're losing people's lives every day to fight for freedom so that the Russians don't march right into a NATO country and then we're sending our own troops over. All of these things are just, just to me, it's not what our country's about. And for the people that did vote for him, and I know, like I said, I share some of the voters with them. They vote for him because they want to change. They want to bring costs down. It was a change election. I get all that. And we were ready to say, OK, if you guys want to find some common ground in these really gnarly problems of people getting their health care denied and

claims denied, we really do want to work with you. But that's not where they're headed at all. They're just trying to dismantle and get a bunch of tax cuts for the wealthiest. And so that's what's been the most, most, I think, for people that voted for him. They're starting to say, even within only a month, they're like, wait a minute. I think one poll showed 66% of Americans, CBS poll, that he wasn't doing enough on costs and that he wasn't doing enough to bring inflation down. And I don't you know, the fact that they voted for him on that basis, that that makes some sense for them. I didn't agree with it, but I get why they did it. But now they're going to see what he's really up to. Senator Amy Klobuchar, really appreciate your time.

And we will follow all of it and be in touch with you. Thank you so much. We can, I can go on again. I'll always wear a scarf to match wetter. That's kind of my plan. And it is the gophers maroon for the university of Minnesota gophers. I'm sure you were thinking that it's the UMass colors as well. So that's why I wore it. Yeah. Thank you so much. Really great to talk to you. It was really fun. Thanks. Our sponsor aura gives me peace of mind by providing some critical layers of security. They continuously monitor the dark web and let me know if information has been exposed, logins, social security numbers, et cetera. They tell me quickly if anybody tries to use that information to access credit or bank accounts. And Dora also gives me up to $5

million in identity theft insurance. Should the worst case scenario happen. And Dora also helps me stay safe from getting hacked in the first place with their award-winning anti-malware software, which I can use on all of my devices. And aura has parental controls for kids devices to restrict apps or manage screen time, set focus time. A lot of these things all packaged together in a super easy to use format. Try or a free for two weeks at aura.com slash Pacman. It only takes a few seconds using the free trial to see if your usernames and passwords are already on the dark web. That's a u r a.com slash Pacman

to try or a free for two weeks. The link is in the podcast notes. I've been sleeping on a Helix sleep mattress for years now. Couldn't love it more before Helix. I just buy whatever generic mattress from a store thinking they're all basically the same. Turns out I was very wrong since switching to Helix. My sleep has improved. Helix I just buy whatever generic mattress from a store thinking they're all basically the same. Turns out I was very wrong. Since switching to Helix, my sleep has improved. Helix mattresses are customized to your needs. I took the one minute sleep quiz where I gave input like my height, my real height, not like you know who my weight, my real weight, not like you know who my sleeping position, firmness, preference, whether I have back pain, whether I run hot or cold and Helix matched me with the right mattress for my preferences. And it's been

a total game changer. My favorite part is it stays cool while I sleep. Most people don't even know what they need in a mattress and all Helix mattresses come with a 10 year warranty. You also get a hundred nights to test it out. If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free and refund your money. And they'll even remove your old mattress if you want. When you go to Helix Sleep Dotcom Slash Pacman, you'll get 27 percent off site wide, plus two free dream pillows with every mattress order, plus a free bedding bundle with any Lux or elite mattress order. All right. your mattress order or a free bedding bundle with a Lux or elite mattress. The link is in the podcast notes. All right, let's get into Friday feedback for the week.

You can always email info at David Pakman dot com. If you have anything you'd like to say, we will look at discord comments, YouTube replies, Reddit posts and so much more. Let's start today with a message from Facebook where cultilators says cultist doesn't question their cult leader. Yes, Pacman, by definition, you're a cult. You divert of from facts. You gaslight people. Pacman never explain when it's against his belief. Pacman is cult,

period. You know, I know that this doesn't deserve a serious response because it's so unhinged. But one of the things that distinguishes this show from the cultish nonsense we see in Maga is that I tell you I am not the ultimate source of truth. I tell you, fact check me. And sometimes the fact checking finds that I got something wrong. And when I do, I make every effort to correct it right away. Cults claim that the leader is the ultimate source of truth. Trump claims to be the ultimate source of truth

I don't do that and in fact, I would tell you there is no one-person show media outlet or anything That is the ultimate source of truth I'm trying to get as close to the truth as I can every day you help to keep me accountable among other processes we have and That is very much not like a cult. But when Trump tells you I alone can solve it, I'm I'm more knowledgeable than the scientists and the pilots and the engineers and the doctors and the epidemiologists. And that's starting to sound a little bit like a cult. Big Chungus asked, does hiring an African like Elon Musk count as a DEI hire? You know, I know it's a joke.

I know it's a tongue in cheek thing. But what's really interesting about the Trump cabinet in general is that there is a sort of affirmative action there. Pete Hegseth is not qualified to be secretary of defense, but he was given the job despite being unqualified for reasons that have nothing to do with merit. He was on Fox News and said nice things about Donald Trump. It's the epitome of using characteristics other than merit, skill and knowledge for hiring, which they claim to be against. But when when it's Pete Hegseth, I guess it's OK. When it's Tulsi Gabbard, I guess it's OK. That's where we are right now. Far abbreviations asks,

what did David replace his Tesla with? Sir, with tears in my eyes, I haven't been listening as much recently, but would like to know what you replaced his Tesla with. Many thanks, Mr. Sir. Well, that is absolutely correct. I am completely out of the Tesla world. I'm done. I was an investor in Tesla starting in 2015. I had two different

Tesla vehicles, the Model three, followed by the Model Y. I didn't like the build quality. I became increasingly uncomfortable driving a car associated with Elon Musk. Now, some people go, oh, well, you know what? What about Volkswagen? Who knows if some of their the point is Tesla as a brand is Elon Musk. And I just didn't want it anymore. And quite frankly, now, with all of the other options, there's really no need. Whereas at one point, if you wanted a electric vehicle with a reasonable range, you had no choice but Tesla. Now you have many options. And I have dipped into Rivian, Rivian, where I have not found

concerning aspects to the CEO's beliefs or whatever. And so far, the car is fantastic. I have to say, I like it much better than I liked any of my Tesla's. A space penguin asks, David, do you check this subreddit because it has become overrun with trolls and bad faith actors? And it probably isn't good for your show either. Like there's hardly any intelligent discussion happening here. The sheer ignorance about how government even works is stunning. The subreddit is practically dead about what is happening right now.

And when news is posted, it's just mostly stupid comments and rage bait trolls. Yeah, I checked the subreddit. There's a mix of stuff on there. Any subreddit when it grows to a certain size is going to have a mix of different sorts of content. We source some of it for this segment. We are following it. We have moderators. I think the subreddit is basically fine. Srikai asked, where is David? The show is unwatchable without David, not because the other commentators are bad. I'm just too used to David's voice that I can't listen to the show without it. Well, I was on vacation and I'm now back. And I know that every time I take a vacation, it's very triggering to some. It's very angering to others who say, how dare you take a vacation?

How dare you? Well, the vacations will continue until the morale improves. No, but I'm back now. And I'm so sorry that the show was unwatchable when I was gone. One more message here from cultal aiders who says Elon Musk is the smartest person there is. He is almost the most generous and giving person. He is very nice, very fair. I wish the left wing media, especially small timers like the David Pakman show, can stop talking about him. But they can't because Republicans are living rent free inside liberals head. This is another sad day for liberals because Republicans are winning for America. This is great day for Republicans

because our economy economy is on its way to victory. Co-parter liberals. You know, there's this thing that happens whenever someone is doing stuff and therefore in the news, we talk about them and then we are told, oh, you're obsessed with that person. We never talked about Elon Musk until he became relevant to the global and national political sphere. Trump put him inside the Oval Office. So we're talking about it. And now he's living rent free in our heads. Sometimes it's called following those who are having an influence. That's what we're doing. Jotham Hasty asks on the subreddit, is David an incrementalist on all political issues? David has said many times he believes in incrementalist approaches

to policy changes. I'm curious if he favors that approach for every single issue or if he has ever stated an accelerationist approach would work better for certain things. Normally, I would agree with him, but I'm worried incrementalism wouldn't be capable of salvaging whatever is left after this administration. I don't want to be doom and gloom, but the approach could be much more difficult depending on how broken the system in place is. So listen, I am not an accelerationist in any area. However, I would. There are many areas in which I would accept incremental improvements, but would also accept bigger improvements. I'll give you an example. The tax code, the tax code is nuts. Would I accept incremental improvements if they are proposed? Of course,

every year that the tax code can be slightly better as defined by my priorities and values, I would accept it. But if someone came and said, here's a broader reorg of the tax code, I would also go for that. I don't call that accelerationism. Here's the key distinction. Incrementalism as opposed to accelerationism means we are better off improving a system than allowing it to be completely destroyed with the idea of rebuilding it from the ground up because often the rebuild is worse. People we don't want in power are the ones who do the rebuild. Okay. So acceleration ism, not good when it's about destroying a system to then rebuild it. When it comes to just improving stuff without allowing it to be destroyed, I'm all for bigger improvements rather than smaller

ones when we can make them. Sometimes we can only get small improvements. And in those cases, I say I will take the small improvements. Hopefully that's clear. James Brown's hair says this is Jenks moment of truth. Jenks said the right would abandon Trump when it comes to war. Trump is now on record as saying he will send troops to Gaza to clean it up. If this happens and virtually no one on the right protests, do you think Jenk will admit he was wrong? Great question. I hope he will. I told Jenk Uyghur from the Young Turks, I believe that you were being naive when you say, oh, here's what MAGA now wants. Here's what MAGA is now willing to do. I don't I don't think it's I don't think they're willing to do any of it. We are now seeing Trump already go backwards and a lot of a lot of the things that he said he would

do and run counter to what people like Cenk were saying. I hope Cenk acknowledges, you know what, guys, I was wrong. If he wants to do it on this show, it's absolutely a conversation I welcome. Will it happen? I don't know. I hope Cenk is honest enough to acknowledge it. We've got a fantastic bonus show for you today. We also are down to just four and a half weeks until my forthcoming book, The Echo Machine, goes live. Help us get the best possible shot at landing on New York Times bestseller list. I don't know if we will be able to do it. I hope we will. It would be a big win for independent media. Preorder the book at David Pakman dot com in the world. We will see you on the bonus show, and I will see you on Monday.