The David Pakman Show - 4/19/24: They're cheering AZ abortion law, Clarence Thomas suddenly reappears

Episode Date: April 19, 2024

-- On the Show: -- David Farnsworth, a Trump-endorsed Republican State Senator in Arizona, says that the 1864 abortion law that is the law of the land is the best possible law -- A dismissed juror in Donald Trump's first criminal trial says that Trump looked yellow, not orange, in court -- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suddenly reappears at the Supreme Court with no explanation whatsoever for his recent absence -- Caller comments on when to tip and when not to -- Caller scrutinizes Trump's Truth Social stock "DJT" -- Caller asks about the "Genocide Joe" chant at a recent Trump rally -- Caller is concerned the left may have to do take action after the 2024 election -- Caller worries the 2024 election will be the last one -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Trump wants cut of candidates' fundraising, DeSantis backtracks on book ban, Kennedy family endorses Biden, and much more... 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman ⚠️ Try Ground News and get 40% OFF the Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🔊 Babbel language learning: Get up to 60% OFF at https://babbel.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- 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 We're continuing our conversation about the very concerning state of abortion rights around the country. Arizona has become a flashpoint in this discussion as now in the context of the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Arizona is putting back in force an 1864 abortion law that includes no exceptions for rape and incest and minimal exceptions for the life of the mother. Many Republicans even believe that this law goes too far, but not Trump endorsed Republican state Senator of Arizona, David Farnsworth.

David Farnsworth was interviewed by ABC News Republicans in total in Arizona, preventing any real discussion of maybe an 1864 law is not the law best suited for 2024. But David Farnsworth, Trump endorsed big rubber stamp on him, says this is the best law we could possibly have fending the law. We have the best law upon the books right now. The 1864 law is the best law possible. Yes.

A law that is makes abortion impossible for women in every circumstance except for to save a mother's life. Arizona is a pro-life state. That law was put into place by people that believe in the sanctity of life. Arizona one of 21 states to ban or severely restrict abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. All right. So David Farnsworth says this is a pro-life state and we have the perfect law for being

a pro-life state. I know many of my viewers in Arizona don't believe that that is the case. And indeed, not by a large margin, but in the 2020 election, Joe Biden won the state of Arizona by about 10,000 votes. The message that I believe needs to be sent as a non Arizona voter who is pro choice. The message I believe needs to be sent to people like David Farnsworth is that Arizona is a pro choice state. And the message would be sent with a very large margin of victory for Joe Biden in November, combined with voting out every last one of these

clowns who says that the best suited law for 2024 is one based on the opinions, beliefs and knowledge of elected officials in 1864. They deserve to lose and they deserve to lose big. And it's people like Farnsworth specifically who need to be removed and bring in someone who says we're going to make a 2024 law. Arizona is going to be governed not by the beliefs and knowledge of 1864, by the beliefs and knowledge of 2024. Instead, let's make it happen in November. This is just fascinating. A dismissed juror in the Trump criminal trial, number one of four in New York, announced that Trump looked far more yellow than he did orange while sitting in court.

We're going to talk about jury selection more seriously in a moment. This is one of my favorite clips of the week, if not the month. What could this mean? Let's take a listen. What was your impression of Donald Trump when you saw him? You know, he looked less orange, definitely like more yellow, yellow. Nothing else than that. He looks he doesn't look angry or I think he looks bored like he wants this to finish and go

do his stuff. So this is a dismissed juror who will not be part of the 12 and 612 jurors and six alternates that will decide Donald Trump's fate in this particular criminal trial. But as many of the medical professionals in the audience certainly know, orange is one thing. Yellow is very different. And we could be talking about liver disease, gallbladder disorders, pancreatic disease, hemolytic anemia, various genetic disorders, Trump looking a bit jaundiced.

But of course, it may have just been that the hue and saturation are different when Trump is under those lights in a courtroom. Color aside, color aside, there is already much controversy with regard to jury selection. We talked yesterday about Trump and his failed former lawyer, Alina Habas, view that you can't get a fair jury in Manhattan because there's too many Democrats. Trump's desire to be able to strike an unlimited, an unlimited number of jurors. We talked about that already. The biggest news is that two jurors after being selected have now been removed from the jury.

A couple different things took place. One individual indicated that people she knows figured out that she's on the jury and she's just simply not going to be able to do this and resist the influence and so on and so forth. Another individual was she said, basically, I can't be impartial. I just I just simply can't be impartial on this basis. And then there was an additional juror dismissed, apparently for some information that came to light about them after they were seated on the jury. So we're going to hopefully have a full unquestioned jury by the end of today.

And if we stay on schedule, opening arguments in this case are going to start on Monday. Trump continuing to be just wildly, wildly triggered by everything that's going on. He's the ultimate victim. Everything's so unfair. He shouldn't have to be there. They never should have brought this case. It's just he's no one's been treated as unfairly as Trump, probably in the history of homo sapiens, certainly in the history of the United States. So Monday, things are going to get very, very real. Assuming opening arguments start, we'll have the jury soon unless something goes dramatically wrong. Clarence Thomas is back and nobody knows why he was missing earlier this week. We go back to the Tuesday show.

Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justice, the oldest justice currently on the court, was missing with no explanation on Monday. He there was no announcement that he had taken ill. There was no announcement for why he wasn't there. And now that he has returned, there is still no explanation and speculation is running rampant. I'll tell you a few thoughts of what could be going on in a moment. Reuters says Judge Clarence Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas returns to U.S. Supreme Court after absence. No explanation has been offered by the court.

He's 75, the oldest and the longest serving member of the court. He is part of the six three conservative majority and was appointed in 1991 by Bush. That's George H.W. Bush. A court spokesperson provided no information about his absence. The court often gives reasons, including illness. But no such explanation was given. So he's certainly alive. Right. Would I put it past Republicans to try to hide the death of a right wing justice so that Joe Biden wouldn't even know to appoint a replacement and maybe Trump wins and appoints a replacement in 2025?

You know, I think that that's a little bit much. I do think Republicans would be fine hiding illness, hiding. I'm not saying he's ill, hiding cognitive decline. I'm not saying he's experiencing cognitive decline, but I think Republicans would be very comfortable. It would be within their ethical and moral framework that the greater good benefits from them being dishonest if such a justice were in a situation like that in order to prevent pressure from being applied for retirement or to do their part to try to make it so that a Republican president rather than a Democratic president would get to replace Clarence Thomas. There's no doubt they would do that.

Would they be willing to? And maybe more importantly, would they be able to get away with hiding the death of a conservative Supreme Court justice? I just don't think they would be able to get away with it. I don't think it would be possible to cover that up. And I again, maybe I'm naive. I think that there would be someone on Clarence Thomas's staff who would know if he died and it was being covered up and would blow the whistle. Maybe I'm wrong about that. So what could this be about? It could be unexplained illness or illness that they don't want to talk about. It could be a family issue. It could be anything. We just don't know. In general, an explanation is given for the absences. No such explanation was given this time other than he is back. And even when he was gone,

he was participating remotely and digitally by reading transcripts of testimony in the trials. I don't know what else we can say, but he is back. Certainly more scrutiny has already been paid to Clarence Thomas and his wife for political reasons and reasons of suspected corruption and malfeasance and impropriety, even more attention is going to be paid now. And what we can absolutely know for sure, you can bet I'm not a betting man, but you can bet your money that if in the six and a half months that remain between now and the presidential election, if a vacancy were to open on the Supreme Court, Republicans would say it is too late in Joe Biden's presidential term to allow him to select a replacement. We must let the American people vote

and have a say, even though, as I've said before, Joe Biden is president until late January of 2025, no matter who wins in November. And during that time, he gets to select Supreme Court nominees. So they will try it. I don't know if this is going to come up. We don't have an answer about Clarence Thomas, but we'll keep an eye on it. Let's take a very quick break. We're going to hear from a sponsor or two, unless, of course, you're a David Pakman show member and get the commercial free version of the show. And then we will be right back with so much more today. Paper towels are one of the biggest contributors to deforestation in the United States. That's why I use bamboo paper towels from our sponsor, real paper, just like all of

real products. Their paper towels are free of inks, dyes and BPAs and are 100 percent tree free. All the packaging is plastic free, even down to the tape on the box. Before I discovered real paper, I tried a few different sustainable paper towel options over the years. They were either flimsy, had no absorption power. They felt cheap like something in airport bathrooms, yet somehow they were still outrageously expensive. Reel's paper towels are 50 percent thicker, more absorbent than the leading sustainable brand. The sheets are to ply for extra absorbency. And thanks to the strength of bamboo, they can hold the toughest messes. Real partners with the organization One Tree Planted with every box of real you buy.

They are funding reforestation efforts all across the country. So unlike the other paper towels that cut down the trees, real is actively helping to plant them. Go to real paper dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 30 percent off and free shipping. That's our EEL paper dot com slash Pacman coupon code. Pacman gets you 30 percent off plus free shipping. The info is in the podcast notes. Today's sponsor, Ground News, is an app and Web site that quickly shows you how news is being covered across the political spectrum, adding context and making it easy to understand the polarizing events like the

election season that we're in. If you're watching this on YouTube, Donald Trump and Joe Biden secured their party's nominations for a historic presidential rematch. So I'll be looking at Ground News's election page for minute to minute updates on the issues that matter most and the blind spots in the left and right's election coverage. So, for example, check out the breakdown on why the GOP's Biden impeachment appears to be falling apart. Ground News found more than 20 articles published on this, but I can see it's a near total blind spot for people only following right leaning news. I wonder why. And looking over here, many of these articles

come from reliable sources, with each giving me some new detail and reading their summary of this from each political viewpoint really just gets me up to speed in seconds on any issue. So make separating fact from noise easier this election by going to ground dot news slash Pacman. My viewers get 40 percent off their unlimited access vantage plan, making it just five dollars a month. That's ground dot news slash Pacman for 40 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show continues to be an audience supported program. We have something called the

membership program. You can find it at David Pakman dot com slash membership. And it's super simple. You pay a few bucks a month. You get extra content. You get the daily show earlier than everybody else without commercials. And you support the work that we're doing. We estimate somewhere between zero point five and zero point six percent of our audience supports us in this way. And if we could get that up to just one percent, it would be a major, major accomplishment. So help us do it.

Help us do it at join Pakman dot com. And of course, you can use the code. Save democracy. Twenty four. Let's hear from some of the folks in our audience. You can find our discord through which we take calls at David Pakman dot com slash discord. And we are going to start today with. Oh, I hope I get this right. I know I've I've got. Is it Janice from Texas or Janice? I know that there's something

about the pronunciation. You got it. It's Janice Janice from Texas. Welcome back to the program. Thank you. Thank you. So I follow you on Instagram and a lot of the iced coffee hour stuff is coming up. Yes. And the one that got the, I guess, best feedback in the comment section, because it's very right leaning, was the conversation on the tipping industry. So I wanted to chime in because I'm somewhat sort of passionate about this. I used to be a bartender and in Texas you only make like two 15 an hour. So we do rely on tips. You are a tipped wage service worker in that role. Correct. And I have friends who are still in that industry and they like it because they make so much money in the tips. Uh, when it comes to taxes, you know, they have to pay a

little bit. Anywho. Uh, now,who, now you go to a coffee shop, you go to a smoothie bar or whatever, and they're like, hey, do you want to tip? And it's a little frustrating because I assume that they're making more than what I was making an hour. They might be making seven, nine, whatever. So I think tipping transparency, or I'm sorry, income or hourly wage transparency is the way to kind of segue into letting the consumer know whether or not to tip. In other words, if you knew, like, for example, that I know of cafes in Brooklyn that make a big deal out of we pay a living wage. We don't expect tips here. There's a couple of places that do this. They go, everybody here is making twenty one bucks an hour.

The prices already account for this. No tips. They don't even offer a mechanism. What you're saying is if you go somewhere and they turn the tablet around and it says, hey, 20, 25, 30 percent tip, you would like to know, is this a tipped wage role or is this a place that is paying a quote real wage or is it a real wage, but is it low? And then maybe that'll encourage you to tip more. Yeah. Every business is different. And, you know, I'm a massage therapist and I used to work in a place where we, you know, tipping was part of it. And now I work in a place where tipping is not required. And the consumer seems to really like that. We're upfront about it. We say, you know, tipping is not required. And the consumer seems to really like that. We're upfront about it. We say, you know, tipping's not necessary. We get paid a fair wage. We get benefits, yada, yada.

So there's that. It's just, you know, it's tough because the price is already kind of high and then tipping on top of it. So, you know, bartenders in Texas, we make $2.15 an hour, tip your bartender. Wait staff. Very similar. I waited tables. Food industry is horrible. Yada, yada. But yeah, anyway, that's kind of my vibe on it. I know it's probably not going to be something that comes about, but I like throwing random scenarios. I think the last conversation we had was about penalizing men and putting them in jail for getting women pregnant. So I definitely go overboard with my. That was edgy. Yeah. No, listen, I mean, I the the real issue I have is that a lot of this is just a way to rack up fees for Square and Stripe and the credit card processors and also to pass

additional cost directly onto the consumer rather than the business owner saying, I'm just going to pay a higher wage, saying that part of your wage is going to be dependent on the whims of who comes in here and their understanding of whether you are or aren't a tipped worker. I don't like the entire culture around it. Let's I would rather just pay people what they what they are worth paying and what they've earned. In Europe, it's like that when during South by Southwest, when a lot of people come into the States, they don't tip because they don't know the process. I would much rather get paid a living wage and then tipping is just out of the picture. But like I said, although although there are many places in Europe now where there is more

of a tipping culture and part of it is that Americans have imported it. Oh, well, I mean, tips are great. It's all, you know, extra money is good. But at the end of the day, we want to make a living wage. And if that's not being offered by the business, the consumer should know. And then maybe they can, you know, there's restaurants in Austin that are fair living wage programs, whatever. They're amazing. Great. All right. Janice from Texas. I always appreciate your insights. Speaker 3 Thanks, David. Have a great day. Speaker 1 All right.

There goes Janice. Let's go next to Heckler in New York City. Heckler in New York City. Welcome to the program. Speaker 4 David, how are you doing? I'm doing well. Speaker 1 Awesome. I had a question that pertains to Trump's company, the DJT company.

Yes. Based on the fact that, you know, this is a public stock that anyone could purchase, right, foreign or domestic. If someone were to take a large stake in the company, they could, in theory, right, have potentially a lot of influence over Trump's wealth. I'm wondering if you know what could be the implications of that now that it is a public stock? You know, I don't know that it would be that big of an influence over Trump's wealth in the sense that there are a lot. Trump

is, if I understand correctly, a majority shareholder in DJT, the Trump Media and Technology Group. But he doesn't own all of the stock. And of course, he can't sell any of it for six months. And even then, some may still be locked up. And also, it would only be a fraction of his net worth. And also, the more it declines, it's a smaller and smaller piece of his net worth. So you're making an absolutely correct point, which is there are just random people that could influence Trump's net worth. A lot of that isn't in cash. It's not money that he's using in the same way that he would money in a bank account. So I think it's true. And here's the here's the thing, the point I think you're making

that makes a lot of sense, which is Trump. We still don't know the full scope of who has Trump financially over a barrel and their speculation of Saudi Arabia, Russia, all these different things. The fact that there are even more players that can have an influence on Trump's net worth, even if it's not significant, should really concern us in the context of what he's willing and able to do as president if he were to become president again with Biden, despite the allegations of all of the stuff with China and Ukraine, none of it's been proven. He and his wife made six hundred and twenty thousand bucks last year. The vast majority of it was from his presidential salary. We don't have any specific reasons. We don't have weird deals for real estate with Saudis that reek of money laundering or there's just none

of that stuff. And that's that's a major concern with Trump overall. Yeah, I agree. I mean, in theory, it sounded like, you know, he went public with this company to put up a bond. So I guess in theory, someone could short this stock. You know, if the stock got intensely went down, he might not have enough money to come up with another bond or something. It's certainly possible. Certainly possible.

All right. Heckler, great to hear from you. Thank you, David. All right. There goes Heckler from New York City. Let's go next to Clarence from Singapore, whose calls have become the subject of much controversy over time. Clarence from Singapore,

welcome back to the program. What do you have for me today? Oh, David. Hello, David. Yes, I'm on. And I'm actually calling from Thailand. That's OK. That's allowed. loud by the way why politicians literally are cowards for not helping ukraine and not treating them like a joke alive like ukraine has the right to strike back and russia's oil refineries and electric breeds and uh hydro power electric deaths, even though Russia is going to collapse. I better believe. Why? Why are the U.S. not helping the Ukrainian? Oh, David, as far as I know, Clarence, the U.S. is helping Ukraine. I don't I don't.

Maybe I'm missing an element of your question. Oh, my. Why? Why are U.S. not allowing them to attack Russia's electric grids with their own weapons, like electric grids? Why is it called a fuel processing plant? The fossil fuel processing plants? I'm not aware of that. I'm just not aware of that. And I did a quick Google search and have not found any anything telling me that what you're saying is true. So I just don't know that to be true.

Clarence. Oh, where are you getting that information? Where are you getting that? There is a video of a YouTube. Did you create YouTube? That is never. Speaker 5 Speaker 6 Speaker 7 Speaker 8 Speaker 9 Speaker 10 Speaker 11 Speaker 12 Speaker 13 Speaker 14 Speaker 15 Speaker 16 Speaker 17 Speaker 18 Speaker 19 Speaker 20 Speaker 21 Speaker 22 Speaker 23 Speaker 24 Speaker 25 Speaker 26 Speaker 27 Speaker 28 Speaker 29 Speaker 30 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 34 Speaker 35 Speaker 36 Speaker dealing guns. Oh, Dylan Burns. Dylan Burns. Dylan Burns. Yes, I know Dylan. Yeah.

I'll check in with him. Clarence is that can I check in with Dylan about it? Is that fair? Oh, it's OK. You can check it with him. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Let me see what he has to say about it. Are you on vacation in Thailand? Yeah. Would you go to Thailand for vacation? I would love to go to Thailand. I would love to go. OK. OK, thanks, David. All right. Clarence from Singapore in Thailand today. Let's go next to Demoree from Texas. Demoree from Texas. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hi, David. I just wanted to ask if you had any comments and saw I think it was from this weekend at one of the rallies that Trump had.

There was a couple of people behind him. They had started the genocide, Joe Chang. And then I wouldn't say the whole crowd picked it up, but a good amount of people picked it up. And then, you know, Trump goes on and says, yeah, whatever, it's they're not wrong and I wrong stuff like that. And breaking points and. Another show covered, it's funny, wanted to see what you had to say. Yeah, you know, it didn't it wasn't obvious to me that Trump even understood what it was in reference to.

Like Trump seemed kind of confused to me about it. Now what's really funny is the whole genocide Joe thing, the genesis of it is the idea from some on the left that Biden is either supportive of or involved in a, quote, genocide committed against the Palestinians by Israel. That's the genesis of it. The really funny thing about it being chanted at a Trump rally is that and of Trump saying it's true is that both Trump and his followers all are much more interested in an even more laissez faire policy with regard to letting it Likud and Netanyahu and Israel do whatever the hell they want with Gaza. So it's really funny because if you believe in the genocide, Joe meme, then doubly so it would

be genocide Trump as well. So honestly, it didn't seem to me that the people chanting it even knew what it was about. And I wasn't even convinced that Trump understood it. So honestly, it didn't seem to me that the people chanting it even knew what it was about. And I wasn't even convinced that Trump understood it. It just sounded to him like an insult about Biden. So we went along with it. Yeah, it did. Yeah, they did. I thought they definitely don't know, you know, the fully aspect of and how you said

to us, like them kind of or to me, it's it's pretty on on brand of what they do. They just say things and not know really too much about it. So that's 100 percent. It could be an issue because the left or some people on the left has been screaming that. And if it starts to come from the other side and he uses it, then I thought that could be an issue. But 100 percent for your insight. All right. Demore from Texas. Great to hear from you. Why don't we go next to. Oh, I don't know. What about Quinn from Indiana? Quinn from Indiana. Welcome to the program. What's going on today? Can you hear me? Yes, I can. I had a question about a topic that I'm not sure if you've addressed it. So apologies if you have. But I saw it's about three weeks that I'm not sure if you've addressed it. So apologies if you have.

But I saw it's about three weeks old and it was the census adding Latino to the race category from ethnicity. And I was just curious if you thought that was a good decision as someone who is from Latin America. Do you think that is there's a collective Latino interest to necessitate that? Or do you think that decision ignores the complexities of race and racism in Latin America? Ah, you know, I really don't know. This is a very complicated thing. And it's interesting, Quinn, that you bring this up, because in my conversation earlier this week with Congressman

Richie Torres, I mentioned that I am both Hispanic by the old definition, which is you can be Hispanic regardless of race. Right. You could be white, Hispanic or brown old definition, which is you can be Hispanic regardless of race. Right. You could be white, Hispanic or brown, Hispanic, or there are what I guess we would consider black Hispanics in the Caribbean. OK, so there's that. And separately, ethnically, I'm Jewish. And we know that that is a distinct ethnicity from white, particularly due to the very dramatically different prevalence of certain diseases among

among those who are Jewish versus those who who are not. So anyway, a post popped up on the sub Reddit saying, David, you're just a white guy. You're the last thing from a minority. And it's exactly the sort of left wing gatekeeping around this issue that Richie and I were talking about, how how it really makes no no sense whatsoever. So it's really interesting that this comes up now. Now I am looking at the recent declaration from about a week ago about the updated race ethnicity standards, and I have not looked at them up until now. It seems that one, they are combining race slash ethnicity in some way.

They've created a Middle East and North Africa category. Now, I one of the things that's really interesting about that is there there has been an argument for a long time that and I'm going to get back to your question, Quinn, but just bear with me. There's been an argument from some that Jews should select Asian because arguably Jews originate from the Caucasus, which is technically Asia. And so Jews should select Asian, even though culturally it doesn't make any sense. Now I'm seeing that now that there's for ethnicity, there is Mina Middle East or North African that that's a more appropriate ethnic or racial designation for Jews. Anyway, the point here is this is very fraught and complex stuff. And it really doesn't seem to me that Hispanic is necessarily a race. But I do understand that often what we mean by the Hispanic race is not black people, not white people, as we understand them to be in terms of Germans and Dutch, and also

not what are sometimes considered folks of Arab origin. Like Hispanic has a certain racial element to it that is different than those three. And we and we understand what that is. So in some sense, that does make sense. But at the same time, it sort of gets out of the reality that I, as an Argentinian Jew, my ethnic identity is Jewish, which is distinct from white. But it wouldn't really make sense for me to check the racially or ethnically Hispanic.

So it's a mess. Quinn, that's where I'm landing on this. Yeah, it seems more like contextual, like some people in Latin America would say, oh, I was considered white, but now in the USA I'm considered like brown. So now here's the interesting thing that apparently the new definition of Hispanic or Latino is I'm going to read it from the designation individuals of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Salvadoran, Cuban, Dominican, Guatemalan and other Central or South American or Spanish culture or origin. By that I am Hispanic, but it's a race ethnicity category, which is the confusion because it's

my cultural origin, not my ethnic origin. Then you get to Middle Eastern or North African. This is the new one. And it says origins in any of the original peoples of the Middle East or North African. This is the new one. And it says origins in any of the original peoples of the Middle Eastern, North Africa, Africa, including Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Syrian, Iraqi, and Israeli. By that, I think the correct race for me would be Middle East and North Africa, right? I mean, it's sounding like that's what it would be. This is I think this just adds more confusion rather than clearing the meaning.

Speaker 3 Well, I mean, I don't honestly it's it's all very confusing and there are people on all sides of the political spectrum looking to cynically use this to continue discriminating one way or the other. That's the scariest part of all of it. But it's a mess. I'm going to devote a little more thought to it, Quinn, but I'm pretty sure that my new race, I have obtained a new race is now Middle Eastern or North Africa. All right, cool.

Thank you. I'm a big fan of the show, so keep up the good work. Thanks, Quinn. Quinn from Indiana helping me figure out my race in twenty twenty four, which is different, I guess, than it was last year. All right. Let's take a very quick break. Very quick break.

If you're holding on, hold on, because we're going right back to the phones in a moment. The weather is starting to warm up, which I love. But the downside of the warmer weather, as many of the guys know, is the sweating and the sticking that comes with traditional underwear. It's not pleasant. But our sponsor, Sheath, designs ergonomic underwear. They've solved the problem. Instead of letting everything mash together and chafe, Sheath underwear has separate compartments in the front, keeping everything separate. You stay dry and comfortable all day.

Once you finally feel the air being able to flow in between everything and the unique comfort that it provides. You'll know why everybody loves sheath. So many people were skeptical about sheath at the beginning, myself included, only to find it is something you never knew you needed. They have a ton of different colors and styles, something for everyone, for the ladies in the audience. Or if you're shopping for a wife or girlfriend, check out the line of women's underwear, which also provides superior comfort once and for all. Put an end to the sticking and the readjusting experience underwear comfort like you've never

felt before. Give sheath a try. Go to sheath underwear dot com slash Pacman and get 20 percent off with the code Pacman. That's S.H.E.A.T.H. Underwear dot com slash Pacman and get 20 percent off with the code Pacman. That's S.H.E.A.T.H. underwear dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman to save 20 percent. The info is in the podcast notes. One of the most disturbing news stories of the last year is how the FBI, NSA and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies are buying the Internet browsing histories of millions of Americans.

If they buy the data in bulk from data brokers who get it from Internet service providers, they don't even need a search warrant and the feds can know about everything you do online. That's why I use a service called Incogni. Our sponsor, Incogni, automatically goes to every major data broker and demands they remove your data from their records, which they are legally required to do. If asked, they will even follow up with each data broker to make sure your data is really gone. They'll keep you updated every step of the way with progress. But using Incogni doesn't just

keep your data safe from the government. Many other parties get your personal information from data brokers like hackers and spam callers, even X significant others or employers, ex employers. My audience gets 60 percent off. Super easy. Go to Incogni dot com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman. That's I N C O G N I dot com slash Pacman. Get 60 percent off with code Pacman. The info is in the podcast notes. All right. Let's hear from a few more

folks via discord. You can find our discord at David Pacman dot com slash discord. We are going to go next to. Oh, how about James from Austin, Texas? James from Austin, Texas. Welcome to the program. Hey, David, thanks so much for selecting me. My pleasure. But a long time. And I actually wanted to talk to you about how i first found you so bear with me a

minute while i build up to this so i first watched your show on january 5th 2021 and i'm sure you remember what happened the day after that yes i do yeah so i was i could see the powder keg that was being created with everything that Trump and his supporters were building to. And I thank you because you seem to be the only one at the time who was openly talking about what could happen on that day. And so when I watched your program on January 6th and your coverage of that event, you gained a lifelong supporter of me on that day for sure. So thank you for your ardent coverage of that situation. I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah. So what I wanted to talk about was they tried to steal it once. It didn't work. It is quite possible that they will try again. It's probably a certainty that they will try again. And quite a big possibility that they'll have a lot more success at it next time.

I fear the same thing and am cautiously optimistic it won't happen. So just to place that and now you can kind of continue with the question part. Thanks. Okay, so. The January 6th rioters did not have the facts on their side. But if they try this again, and it goes their way, I know I don't support violence, except as an extreme last resort. So I'm not suggesting or implying that in any way. But if we have to do our own January 6th with the facts on our side, how do we approach that situation? Speaker 1 Well, by definition, we wouldn't have to do our own January 6th because we're

not going to try to steal an election. We didn't win. I think that's the critical aspect of this, James. Speaker 6 Well, absolutely, I agree. But if we're in a situation where they're trying to certify an election that they've in effect stolen, we can't just sit by and let them do that. We have to stand up against that. So how do we do that in a way?

If this situation comes to that, which I think is a strong possibility, how do we do that the right way? Well, the right way is what we did last time, except being more prepared for the different aspects of it. So, number one, we need to understand that they're going to make attempts through courts. Those did not succeed last time, but courts need to be better prepared for the sorts of arguments that are going to be made. Number two, there was a physical attempt to stop the process on January 6th. Security needs to be better prepared for the sorts of arguments that are going to be made. Number two, there was a physical attempt to stop the process on January 6th. Security needs to be significantly bolstered, probably need to build a perimeter even further

around the Capitol. Like if if you do that, Pence to Pence's credit. And I know this is such a low bar. Pence wasn't willing to do the thing Trump and John Eastman wanted him to do. So if you have a wider security perimeter and probably multiple security perimeters and you're more prepared, January 6th, as far as the proceedings in the Capitol go off with no interruption. So I think it's understanding the things they did and the things that they may do and being prepared.

It shouldn't be a situation where we have to resort to violence on our side in order simply to make the rightful winner the president. It should not come to that. And I don't believe that it will. Speaker 4 Speaker 5 certainly hope not. Speaker 1 All right, James from Austin, Texas. Great to hear from you. Appreciate it. Why don't we go next to Christie from Australia? Christie from Australia. Welcome to the program go next to Christy from Australia? Christy from Australia, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today?

Hi, David. I'm just thinking from an Australian perspective for a minute, so sort of shifting the focus a little bit from the American election. Sure. We've recently had our politicians in our parliament vote to, what's the word, lobby Biden to bring Assange back to Australia and to basically not follow through with trying to get him into America. And I was just wondering what your

thoughts are on that matter, if you have any at all. You know, I don't have a super strong feeling about the Julian Assange situation. And there are such extreme opinions on both sides, including those that believe he's done nothing wrong at all, ever. And every allegation against him is completely trumped up for political reasons. There are others who see Julian Assange as this evil figure. I know that now there is this discussion of, you know, is there going to be extradition to the United States or not? What about going to Australia? What about dropping the case against Julian Assange or

dropping some charges against Julian Assange? It has never to me been the case to champion that so that for some it has become that they believe so much is fundamentally caught up in the Assange case. What I can tell you is I've understood and learned that he is a far more political actor than he originally claimed to be with the original. You know, this is just about we just published documents with no respect to timing or content. We're basically just a conduit through which documents are published. And then we learned that there were actually many political and carefully timed decisions that were made. And so for me, I just I don't think a lot about Julian Assange, to be totally honest,

and I don't have a strong opinion about what should happen. Yeah, I normally don't either. It's just that it's been a thing where a whole of parliament voted on it and we've had reporting in australia that um we've been lobbying biden and biden has said he's considering yes what he will do i saw that yeah yeah and i i think it's interesting because it has always been quite a big issue for us in australia a lot of people here i I think, believe he is, you know, like a victim of all these things and so they want him back and think it's ridiculous how long it's gone on. So then I recently saw a post on a forum, the forum about it

on the subreddit and people were mentioning that, you know, he was involved with Russia and the Trump thing. And and so it's a lot more convoluted and complicated than some people here may realize. I think that that's absolutely the case. I think it is absolutely the case that it is far more complicated than some some acknowledge. Let's see what happens with it. I'm curious, although I'm not taking a strong position one way or the other on it. OK, thanks very much, David. All right. Christy from Australia. Great to hear from you.

Let's go next to Kitty from Denver, Colorado. Kitty, welcome to the program. Hi, is the microphone working? Yes, it is. Okay, great. Nice to talk to you. My question is on having a 2028 election. I've heard you say before that you think an election in 2028 would be possible if Trump is elected. And I kind of have a problem with agreeing with that, because if he goes into he becomes the president, then he's going to change everything, including how our government is organized. OK, but let's talk through it, Kitty. OK, Trump wins 2024. He's inaugurated in January of 2025. Twenty twenty seven comes around. It will be an open primary on both sides because Trump will be term limited. And so Republicans and Democrats start a primary. A bunch of people

run on the Democratic side, a bunch of people run on the Republican side. Tell me the first step for Trump canceling the election and staying in office? Just just declaring that there are no more elections. So Trump just comes out and makes a speech. Hold on. Trump comes out and says he makes a speech and he says there are no more elections. I'm staying in power. And then both the Republican and the Democratic Party and all of the states holding primaries say, no, there is an election and we're holding the primaries. OK, what's the next step that Trump takes? Speaker 4 Agree with that viewpoint right there, because how can there be two sides when

Republicans have completely taken over the government? How can there be? Speaker 1 So here's the thing I know, you know, on my appearance with Don Lemon, Brian, Tyler Cohen and Jenk did not agree with me. They are much more scared about this. I'm scared, too. I'm scared about what Trump will do during his four years. But I do believe that between the military and the federal government as it exists today, although Trump is going to install

loyalists and the states having their role to play in really the presidential election is 50 state elections put together. I still think that at the end of the day, an 80 something year old Trump who just says elections canceled is not going to succeed with that approach that I you know, it could be we might get to 2028 and I will be completely wrong. Call me naive. Call me. Call me stupid or whatever. I just don't think it's something Trump is going to be able to do.

I certainly hope you're right, because it scares me half to death that he becomes president. I'm with you. I'm with you, Kitty. All right. Great to hear from you, Kitty from Denver, Colorado. Let's stay in Colorado and go to Boaz from Colorado. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Hey, Jay. Hey, David. I just wanted to ask you real quick, what's your take on space industry and, you know, the push for space and all these space initiatives? Because my experience seems like progressives are very hesitant to say they support this sort of funding for space initiatives when there's so many problems on Earth. And I just wanted to get your perspective. So here's my view. And I've read a bunch of books on this, including I'm actually in a sort of like a I guess I'd call it like a like

a men's pseudo book. It's like a men's group that also includes topical discussions. And we've got one on the space, the new space race coming up, and I've been reading a bunch of books about it. I am very much in favor of space exploration. And I also think we need to be very realistic that we are not going to start a colony on Mars that we're that will do anything anytime soon to make it so that we don't have to worry about climate change. When we talk about the global population issue of Earth, it's not going to be solved by sending a bunch of people to Mars anytime soon. There are insane problems that still need to be solved. We don't even know

if humans can reproduce on Mars. We did. So I think that it is a very worthy if eventually humanity will continue after the sun swells to engulf the earth. At some point, we need to go to some other place. But the idea of in the next 10, 15, 50, I don't know, years, we're going to solve problems for Homo sapiens by going to a different planet. I don't think that's realistic, but I am in favor of continued space exploration. Well, I'm happy to hear that. Thank you for, uh, for sharing your perspective. All right. Boaz from Colorado. Great to hear from you. Great to hear from everybody. That'll do it for today. Let's go to a quick word from our sponsors and then we will hear from more people if we're lucky next week.

I love exploring new countries. If you follow me on Instagram, you see me in Italy or France or Denmark, Spain. I do speak English and Spanish fluently, but if I'm going somewhere where there is a different language spoken, I turned to an app called Babbel. Our sponsor Babbel is the app that can help you start speaking a new language in as little as three weeks. I'm busy running a business. My daughter is running around. So Babbel's bite sized 10 minute lessons are just perfect for me. I can do it on the go, do it during a lunch break. It's only a little bit of a time commitment each time. And you end up with a surprising level of comfort with the language after just a few weeks, which was perfect before my recent trip to Italy. Studies from Yale, Michigan State University and

others continue to prove Babel is better and Babel is faster. One study found that using Babel for 15 hours is equivalent to a semester at college in a language class. Here's a special limited time deal for my audience right now. Get up to 60 percent off your Babel subscription, but only for my audience at Babel dot com slash Pacman. Rules and restrictions may apply. Let's get into Friday feedback for the week. I hear from you and I respond and I react. You can email info at David Pakman dot com. Many,

many important and relevant topics covered in this week's Friday feedback. Not the new website, though. I am keeping all new website discussions elsewhere. Some people love it. Some people hate it. But we're I'm deliberately not including website stuff here since some people don't visit the website and it could be pedantic and boring. Jerry wrote in and Jerry said, you're a grifter, David. What are you going to do when Trump is your president? I'll do the show and the show will probably do well. You know, I don't know that much like woke. I don't know that people are really using the term grifter correctly. To me, I would be a grifter if I actually wanted Trump to win, but argued in favor of Joe Biden or if my actual political views were different than those I espouse on the show in order to make the show more interesting or something like that. I genuinely believe Biden would be a better

president than Trump for 2025 to 2029. All I can do is say that vote and talk about it on my show. And then if Trump wins, then I'll do my show. Now, the interesting part about the grifter piece is I've said before, the show will do better if Trump is president. When Trump became president, this show and progressive independent media in general exploded because all of a sudden people who were not political said, this seems nuts. Let's see if there's any voice online that agrees with me and let me find a community with with with which I can commiserate. And that's the mechanism through which progressive shows grew when Trump was president. If Trump is president, I'll do the show and the show will do really well. So the the the grifter allegation, very misplaced and all of these. What are you

going to do when Trump's president? I'll just do the show. I mean, what what else can I do? Unshifted, says Trump. Twenty twenty four. So sad to see where America is today and which party brought us here. And yet y'all want to vote in the old man again. When one candidate 78 and the other one is 81 referring to the old man is not as clear as unshifted might think. And as is always the case, I ask you, where is America today and which Democrats democratic policies got us here? These people are never specific. And if you sit them down and they are welcome to call in, I hope you call in and talk to me. I will ask you, tell me exactly the Democratic policies that have caused problems and tell

me what those problems are. And then we can have a real conversation about it. Over on the Reddit, the question was asked, do you guys think Republicans honestly seek out to have the most controversial and least favorable policies out there? Do they wake up in the morning and say and think, hmm, how can we make the majority U.S. population hate us even more today? For example, what is up with them wanting to raise the retirement age? It's like they honestly seek out unfavorable policies. It's two different things. There's two components here.

Why? The question is a good one. How do Republicans end up with these absurd policies opposing abortion when most Americans now favor it or suggesting we raise the retirement age or selecting Trump as their nominee. There's two aspects to this. There are path dependent monopolies, which is a term that may be worthy of researching, which explains to us, yeah, Trump 2024 is crazy.

Republicans would be better off with someone else. But Trump 2024 took place in the environment generated by the previous four years, which was generated by Trump being president the four years before that. And the fact that Republicans, some who have opposed Trump, have ended up doing it at personal peril when it comes to their political careers. So there's a we don't just drop in. And it's sort of the same reason Biden is the nominee. Right. I mean, as I've said before, if it were up to me and you said there's no incumbent Democratic president, who would you like to see be the nominee? I don't name Biden.

But given the circumstances that Biden defeated, Trump has done a reasonably good job as president, has a strong economy. Presidents tend to get reelected in general when the economy is good. Presidents tend to get reelected in general when the economy is good. Presidents tend to get reelected even more. Once you do all that analysis, you say, OK, I probably make sense for Biden to be the nominee. So part of it is that the other part is in order to distinguish yourself in the Republican Party of today.

You need to be extreme because being moderate is seen as placating the left. And by moderate, I mean Trump did lose 2020. You say that there is a slice of the Republican Party that says you're really just a Democrat. You're a Republican in name only. And that sort of environment pushes the party to select more and more extreme candidates and push out moderates to the extent that they exist. Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, folks who are retiring and and folks who have lost. All right. Let's look at a poll from the David Pakman show YouTube community page. Who will Robert F. Kennedy Jr. help more Trump or Biden? Fifty four thousand.

That's right. Fifty four thousand of you voted. Sixty nine percent believe RFK helps Trump and 31 percent believe RFK helps Joe Biden. I agree with the majority on this one. I think RFK does help Trump, but by a much smaller margin than he once did, because there are more people, Democrats, center left independents who are waking up to the reality that a vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is effectively a vote for Donald Trump. So I do expect that that margin to tighten. But I do still think Biden is the one more hurt by RFK Jr. Kenny Buckner says everyone that says bad stuff about Trump is ignorant. Trump is trying to save this country. Some people don't have the brains to see it. I would love for Kenny to call into my show. Kenny, please call in.

I want to talk to you. I want to know what policies Trump wants to save the country. I want to know what the country needs to be saved from. Because when you really do an honest accounting, violent crime continuing down for 30 decades, record low homicide rates, a level of dynamism in the American economy with sustained low unemployment, wages rising faster than inflation, which has come down reasonable GDP, a number of patents and trademarks per capita that continues to see the U.S. at the forefront when it comes to business and entrepreneurship, reasonable relationships with our allies around the world.

You know, I want to know what are we trying to be saved from? And why is it you think Trump is going to be able to save us? Please call in, my ass. Just look at how many likes and comments on this guy's stuff. I don't really know what I'm supposed to glean from this, but it is always the case that only a fraction of your subscribers see any one video. And so it is very common that channels with two million subscribers have several videos a month with half a million to 700. Sorry, half. Yes. Half a million to 700000 views, a bunch around 250000 dozens around a hundred thousand. And then a bunch of videos that don't do that. Well, sort of a normal distribution, um, 2 million subscribers. We get about 45 or 50 million views a month. The numbers are pretty reasonable, but understand that the implication

here always is we've paid for YouTube subscribers who you pay. I don't know the YouTube subscribers. We have our bots. I don't really know what that means. I guess by bots they mean what? I don't know. You create a fake Google account to then subscribe and you're not really a person. What I can tell you is it seems like a very complicated way to build a YouTube channel rather than just putting out content people want and building your subscriber base over many years, which is what I did. John Blanderson says, when David said, I do a beautiful miso salmon, I had a vision of my grandfather saying the same thing in his condo in Boca. Great show, David. The dry humor is the cherry on top of your excellent, excellent

continuing analysis of the conservative machine. I sincerely appreciate your earnest and integrity and also your sweater collection. I wasn't Joe. I do a beautiful miso salmon. It's like a regular. I've got a white chicken chili that is on repeat. I have a beautiful I call it my orange salmon. It's like a regular, I've got a white chicken chili that is on repeat. I have a beautiful, I call it my orange soup. It's actually a Dina Sussman's recipe. It's a squash carrot and wait, what's the other orange vegetable? Squash carrot and sweet potato. Beautiful soup. We've got that on rotation. And then I have an absolutely phenomenal one sheet miso salmon. You get yourself some, I prefer the multicolored fingerling potatoes. Those purple fingerlings thrown in with the yellow is beautiful, but you can use any kind of small potato. Um, and then you saute big,

big package of spinach. Okay. I'm talking like if you can get a 10 ounce or big package of spinach and you've got your miso salmon with your beautiful fingerling potatoes and the sauteed spinach, it's a beautiful dinner. None of that was a joke. All of the all of those comments are real. I take culinary elements very, very seriously, John. OK, and then one more here. One other poll from the YouTube channel.

One hundred and nine thousand of you voted in this one. The question was Donald Trump recently said restrictions on abortion should be left up to states. Will this make a difference in the 2024 election? Fifty five percent of you said yes. Trump's recent abortion statements will make a difference. But 45 percent of you said no. Now I understand both sides.

Trump's dilly dallying and riding the fence now on abortion is transparently angering lots of people. You would think it will make a difference. However, the counterpoint is voters vote mostly at the federal level on the economy and they will have forgotten about it by November and or Trump is pissing off the same number of people on the left is on the right. So it'll be a wash. I can see both sides.

I lean towards on the margins. Yes. Trump's recent comments on abortion will make a difference. Let me know what you think. Info at David Pakman dot com. If you have things you'd like to contribute to Friday feedback, remember, the new website is live at join Pakman dot com. I would love for you to be our newest member and you can use the coupon code. Save democracy 24. The premium newsletter subscription now includes weekend

written opinion pieces. Check that out on our sub stack. And lastly, the three children's Thank you.