The David Pakman Show - 4/21/23: One of the most disturbing videos we've ever seen

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Newsmax hots Eric Bolling delivers a barely intelligible anti-transgender rant, falsely equating transphobia, racism, and disabilities -- A Christian woman claims that she falsely believed she had no clitoris, until a friend showed her what it is on her own baby girl, in an incredibly disturbing now-deleted video -- Caller talks about issues with the Supreme Court -- Caller discusses the state of Florida under Ron DeSantis's leadership -- Caller talks about fixing homelessness -- Caller discusses whether Republicans will ever move on from Donald Trump -- Caller asks if Trump is the one sabotaging Clarence Thomas and other right-wingers -- Caller asks about the role of higher education -- Caller makes the case for astrology being real -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: John Fetterman returns to the Senate, Alec Baldwin's criminal charges dropped, Ann Coulter's abortion compromise, and much more... ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF a year subscription at https://startmail.com/pakman 👩‍❤️‍👨 Try the Paired App FREE for 7 days and get 25% OFF at https://paired.com/pakman 📕 Pick up your copy of “EPP Method” at https://mpcauthor.com/ -- 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)-2DAVIDPApril 20, 2023

I want to start today showing you the mayonnaise brained, confusion that plagues the minds of many of these reflexive anti trans homophobic types. We're going to look at a video clip of Eric Balling on Newsmax. Is he on Newsmax? He used to be on Fox News. He got fired there, I believe, is on Newsmax now. He winds together confusion about transgenderism, people who have a handicap or disability and racism in a way that exposes at its core how clueless he is. And it's just beyond words. I'm like struggling to even explain it to you. Let me just play it and then we'll talk about it. The context is swimmer Leah Thomas and this new anti trans not new growing anti trans vendetta among the American right and MAGA. Take a listen to this and try to keep your head on straight during it if you can. Although my my head was spinning when I first heard this center. We leave there. But one thought for the

folks to take away. You know, there's a there's an MMA fighter that is a trans to a male, male to female. He's fighting. It's a trans fighting in the female division. And he fractured the skull of the other fighter. And then one more thought before we go. What if someone a man decided he wanted to identify as a handicapped person? Could they just win the Special Olympics because they're identifying? We're all supposed to go, OK, well, let's not be racist against trans because it I mean, it's insane. We've gone crazy.

Senator Tommy Tuberville, thank you for joining us. There you go. What if this completely implausible scenario came true? Then what would you do, Senator? Then what would the woke left say? This reminds me of a very astute statement once made by an Italian chef. If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle. But of course she didn't. She was a person. So what is being made? First of all, the phrase racist against trans is hilarious. What we're talking about is discrimination, not racist against trans. This guy's just he doesn't know what's going on. But the analogy is between gender expression and disability. And this is, quite frankly, idiotic. We're talking about

two completely different aspects of human experience, and you really can't liken one to the other. When we talk about gender expression, we're talking about the external manifestation of gender identity. It might align with your sex at birth or it might not. Trans aside, there is a spectrum where you would say here are biological females and they have varying levels of femininity. Here are biological males and they have varying levels of masculinity. Now if you imagine these as two overlapping bell curves, there is a point in the sort of tail regions of that curve where the biological women's expression would actually be more masculine than that of some men. OK, so the point is we're talking about that when we talk about trans people, we're not talking

about what disability is, a physical or mental impairment that might limit your ability to perform a certain task, engage in a certain activity. It's a completely different framework altogether. Trans people might express gender identity in different ways, clothing, hairstyles, mannerisms, other things. These are informed by cultural norms and expectations in society about what it means to be masculine or feminine. Feminine. They vary from person to person. They're very different in different cultures. Trans people are often experiencing distress or discomfort when their gender expression doesn't align with their internal sense of self. And there's all these other things when you claim to to identify as a handicapped person,

despite having no actual disability or limitation, it's not valid or legitimate as an expression of identity. It's disrespectful. It trivializes the experiences of people with disabilities who often, by the way, are facing all sorts of barriers to participating in society. This is similar to when the homophobes used to say, if two men can get married, can get married, what's to stop someone from marrying a horse? Then you go, wait a second. Does that make sense? What are you talking about? Horses can't enter into contracts. Marriages are based on two consenting adults understanding the agreement they're entering into. Horses can't do that.

Animals can't give informed consent. They can't enter legally binding agreements. It's at its core an argument that doesn't make any sense. And it was sort of an attempt to link homosexuality to bestiality, quite frankly. Similarly, Bolling's idea that a trans person is like someone lying about a disability is absurd and it's ridiculous. And this is the sort of analysis that we've come to expect from Newsmax, quite frankly. I am seriously going to suggest that you first watch or listen to this segment before letting children hear it, because it's that disturbing.

I'm just putting it out there. I want to tell you I'm about to play a clip that is extraordinarily disturbing. This might be the most disturbing Christian sex story of all time. This was unearthed by Hemant Mehta, who writes the friendly atheist sub stack. He's really good. I follow him on Twitter. OK, I am going to play a video for you here where Dr. Glenn Hill and his wife, Phyllis Hill, were interviewed by pro abstinence girl defined co-host Bethany Beal in this interview. OK, I'm sorry that we I just have to explain it in this way. There aren't there almost aren't words enough to describe what happens here. The wife of the couple, Ms. Hill, describes that for a long time. She believed she had no clitoris. And she oh, my God, she only found out specifically what it is when her friend showed her on her baby girl. I've never

seen anything like this. OK. Look, look at this. Like I was like, yeah, I'm broken. Like I didn't even think that that was a weird sentence, but she said, okay, what can you define broken? What, what are you saying? What does that mean? And, and then I just said, oh, well, I don't have a clitoris. Cause at this point, Glenn had read enough to know that a clitoris was involved and didn't know where he was as clueless as I was. But once he accidentally stumbled upon an issue of

the new England medical journal and was, but knew that that mattered and that had to do with an orgasm. And it's like, yeah, I've never orgasmed and there's no pleasure. I don't enjoy it. Matter of fact, I hate it. I just endure it. We just get through it as fast as possible. And, um, and so, yeah, we shared that openly and she was in the medical field and, uh, she was like, okay, well, what do you mean you don't have a clitoris? And our friend after a bit said, you, you know, I just feel like taking Phyllis in the back room and showing her what I'm talking about. Well, Phyllis started to stand up. And then this other woman said, but I just can't.

I can't do that. Our oldest child had been born, which is a little girl. And eventually Phyllis is changing our daughter's diaper and our friend showed her on our little girl where the Cluess is located, which is huge information for Phyllis. And again, it's stunning to me. That's pretty darn basic. Folks, this is the moral majority, right? Or something like that. This is I mean, cringe doesn't cover it.

This this is just. I'm struggling to find the words and maybe a different language would better have the words for this, but I'm struggling to find the words to explain and understand this bizarre turn. Now, this video, since him and found it. It was set to private and it looks like they're trying to kind of scrub this because this is so completely insane. Now, Glenn Hill. Is a, quote, clinical sexologist. That's what he describes himself as apparently with a Ph.D. How do these things happen? What is happening here where the people least able to actually work through and understand and explain? Also, I mean, listen to sexual dysfunction and a lack of sex ed, all these different things, you know. And these are the folks that say we are the

ones who can explain to you the right how things work and the right way. This it's borderline. You should just check in with Child Protective Services. And clearly they recognize that they're trying to scrub this video. It it has just it has creepy all over it. It has creepy all over it. And you don't have to think that anything inappropriate was going on with a baby to just see this and go, oh, it's just I'm cringing. It just doesn't feel right what's going on here. And they are now doing everything they can to make sure that this stuff is all removed. We may get hit with some kind of copyright violation for even surfacing this. I'll keep you posted if indeed that happens. But really, really vile stuff. Quick break back after this. By now, all of us know how creepy it is to talk to a friend about something and then

get ads that are related. When you use a free email service from a big tech corporation, your emails are scanned. Even if you're emailing your spouse or your doctor, which is why I recommend start mail, the email service that never scans or analyzes your email. Our sponsor start mail also lets you create unlimited email address aliases. So you don't even have to give out your real email address. This protects you from spam and phishing attacks. Phishing attacks are becoming way more sophisticated with the rise of chat GPT. By the way, start mail lets you encrypt any email you send, even if the recipient isn't using encryption. Unlike the

big tech email services who store even your deleted emails, when you delete an email and start mail, it is gone. Migrating from your current email service to start mail is just a few clicks. So what are you waiting for? Stop letting big tech corporations spy on your email. My audience gets 50 percent off your first year at start mail dot com slash Pacman. That's S.T.A.R.T. M.A.I.L. dot com slash Pacman for 50 percent off. You can find the link in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show depends on your support. We have a membership program which you can sign up for it. Join Pakman dot com.

It includes the show we do every day with no commercials made available to you hours earlier than we publish it to everybody else, as well as a daily bonus show, an extra show where we talk about more news stories, analysis, and a lot of crazy things happen on that bonus show. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can use the coupon code indicted. You can also use the coupon code indicated. Either one will work. The discounts are slightly different at join Pacman dot com. Let's hear from the most important people to the David Pakman show, the viewers and the listeners. We like to take calls via discord. You can join the discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. It's an incredible thing. We are going to start calls today.

How about Tristan from Washington? Tristan from Washington. Welcome to The David Pakman Show. What's on your mind today? Hello, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Oh, good heavens to Betsy on a rich track ride. Such an honor to start the show today.

The honor is all mine, sir. Thank you so much. So a couple of things. One, I've called your show a few times before, and one of the last times you called, I was in Oregon. I'm now moved to the Seattle area, and we had discussed on a previous call chocolate babka. And I am happy to report since I have moved here, I've found two different Jewish delis in the area and I'm very happy. I hope that I can compare the two and get back to you. Have you been to Seattle? Do you know about any of these places? Speaker 1 No, I haven't. But, you know, I follow very closely Jay Kenji Lopez Alt, who does now live

in Seattle, and he seems to post some great food spots in Seattle. The food scene seems to be quite lively there. Oh, it's it's very exquisite, I really can't wait to try everything that it has to offer. It's going to be a great experience and I can't wait to give you my report once I've experienced the culinary traditions of Seattle. Now, let me ask you one thing. The chocolate Bob that you've seen around there, they're not putting chocolate chips on top, are they? Well, I so I just moved here. I haven't gotten a chance to actually go down there. Like I

said last time, the only Bob guy I've tried was the Trader Joe's and they do put chocolate chips on there. It's very, very suspicious about chocolate chips on top of the Bob. OK, that's my advice. But report back when you know more. I will definitely do so. Can't wait to do it. Next question. I have a bit of a quirky guy.

I have quirky beliefs. And I've been I want to take you back to the founding of our country. 222 years ago, when judicial review was was established by the Supreme Court, basically, they gave themselves that power. And because the Supreme Court has been in the news so much, and I realize this isn't actually going to happen anytime soon, but I just kind of wanted to get your opinion. Do you think that overturning the precedent of judicial review would actually solve a lot of the problems that the court has caused for us? And following that, do you think what sort of system, if you, David Pakman, were the founding fathers of this country, what system for the court do you think you would establish? You know, I don't on the second question.

I don't know. That's really more of a question for a legal scholar. I'm sure you'll find all sorts of random political people who will weigh in. But I really would leave that to legal scholars. The judicial review, what what you're talking about with judicial review is essentially review by the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of legislative act. So it's sort of a melding of what our legislative acts carried out by the House and Senate and the president, and then comparing and contrasting that with the Constitution, the Constitution,

Bill of Rights and seeing whether it is coherent with that. And it is sort of like an ultimate final word, in a sense, on the decisions that are made by our legislators. And there are people who say, well, that's really a check and a balance that's not actually appropriate and it allows the Supreme Court to become even political than than we already know it's allowed to be. I don't have a strong position as to whether I would get rid of judicial review. What I'm more interested in is I think that there are reforms that can be

made to the Supreme Court, including term limits and creating a predetermined replacement schedule to take out the politicization and strategy around holding on for another year or not. There are other things that I would like to change about the Supreme Court, which I've outlined in content on the show previously, which for me would be lower hanging fruit than the judicial review question is really a bigger one. And I'd leave it to the constitutional law scholars. OK, I completely understand. And I agree with you on that. The only reason that I bring it up is it seems like, at least to me, in the time that I've spent on this earth, which is very short, it seems like we have sort of an ontological problem in this country where we think that because something happened a long time ago and it's been in place for a long time, that somehow it's better for it. That makes sense. Well, that's conservatism in a nutshell, you know? Yeah, it definitely is. And I've been reading about the French republics and the

different, you know, constitutional conventions that they've had over the years since they founded their first constitution. And I just it's just so refreshing to hear about how they've done it and the maturity of that country. And I just wish we could do that here. And so we wouldn't have to have conversations like this where it's like, well, is one big reform that's not going to happen good or is a small reform that also probably won't happen? Is that a good thing? You know, I completely agree with you. And I think one of the biggest problems in even having many serious political conversations in the United States is a huge contingent that says that just because it's what was done in the 18th century, we should, of course, assume that it's the right

way to do things today. You have to break through that before we can seriously talk about a lot of different things. But Tristan, I appreciate the call. Very important elements questioned today. Always great to hear from you, David. All right. There is Tristan from Washington with a very powerful series of declarations. Why don't we go next to is it safe or safe from Detroit? Am I saying that correctly? Safe. Yes, it's safe. Safe. Welcome to the program. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to ask about I don't know if you read recently a piece in Foreign Affairs about the Israel-Palestinian conflict and whether the two-state solution has even caused by this point.

I just wanted to ask you have any thoughts about that? I did not see the article. You said the article is about what? The two state solution and basically how we have to start thinking about the reality of just a one state solution at this point. Oh, I have not seen that article. No, I haven't seen it. I'm a two state solution guy and I have probably 20 clips on my YouTube channel about it, so

I don't have really any like new material about it. But I did not see that article. Yeah, OK. And I just was wondering. Hello. OK, safe disappeared. All right, let's continue next with how about Josh from Florida, Josh from Florida. Welcome to the program.

What's on your mind today? Speaker 5 Hello. Can you hear me? Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 5 Perfect. Yeah, with DeSantis going, you know, full crazy, I would say, what what can we do? You know, in upcoming elections to sort of curb his, you know, power grab. Are you saying power grab within Florida or the idea of a power grab by running and winning the Republican primary?

Speaker 3 Kind of both. But I I'm thinking less and less. He's actually going to run for president. And if he does, I'm thinking less and less that he has a shot to win. I mean, I tend to agree with you on that. I mean, here's the thing in Florida. Florida has become an idea in a sense. I don't know how else to say it. And it's quite a right wing idea. The thing, even though Florida

has millions and millions of Democrats and left leaning people and there are beautiful left leaning parts of Florida, Florida has become sort of the idea of we're going to do whatever the hell we want and we're going to be anti woke and we're going to be for freedom the way they describe it. Freedom to spread covid at UFC events, I guess, in the middle of a pandemic, whatever. So the problem in Florida, to me, is less about the political makeup, although it's quite plausible that there are more Republicans than Democrats. But it's about the strength that the right wing ideology has gained in Florida, where a lot of left leaning people are just disaffected and they're either thinking about leaving or they just

feel like they politically don't have a home or don't get involved in politics or whatever the case may be. So as a place where many people move to Florida, obviously one approach would be have more Democrats move to Florida and then change the balance. But it's not really clear that that's a strategy. I think it really has to be about Democrats rebuilding in Florida from the ground up in a more modern way. It's less about like Debbie Wasserman Schultz's and more about some new type of Democrat. I think there's going to have to be sort of like a rebranding of Florida Democrats in order to seize power back from the way DeSantis has grabbed it. Yeah. The problem I feel is that

so many people look at people who aren't, you know, progressives or Democrats, they look at a lot of stuff and they go, oh, that's too radical for me. And and I'm like, what's so radical? What's so radical about. Moving forward and progressing as a society. Yeah. I mean, here's the thing. This goes to what the caller earlier said.

Part of conservatism is conserving some prior state of things. Now if you ask them, where is the pin that you would drop in the timeline for what you want to conserve? Some might say the eighties, some might say the fifties, some might say right before women could vote, some could say there were there were still slaves. But fundamentally, it's the idea that we should do things the way we used to do them simply because it's the way we used to do them.

And for a progressive, that's a fundamentally flawed idea. Right. I mean, listen, think about all of the areas in which we say it'd be crazy to do things the way we used to do them in medicine. We're going to do things the way we used to do them because that's how we used to do them in terms of transportation. We're going to get rid of planes and get rid of cars and go to horses in, you know, in all of these different things. We would say that's crazy. So why is it supposedly acceptable in certain other areas? I think it's a flawed idea at its core. Right.

Well, I'm with you. All right. Thank you for everything you do. Josh from Florida, thank you so very much for the call. I really do appreciate that. Why don't we go next to. Oh, I don't know. How about Adrian from San Francisco?

Adrian from San Francisco, welcome to the program. Thank you, David. I'm not in the one in South America. OK, right. You're in San Francisco, California. That's right. How are you, David? I'm doing well. David, one thing I wanted to discuss with you today was the problem of homelessness in California as a whole. I mean, our state, we've spent over $10 billion in the past four years on homelessness. And oftentimes, there's sort of this perceived dichotomy of, well, you have to sacrifice safety for compassion or the other way around. So given that we spend so much money, but programs seem to be extremely ineffective. What's your take on terms of, number one, the strategies to actually solve this problem?

Yeah. And number two, why do you think despite having spent so many resources today, we haven't really done anything to to help solve or fix this problem? Well, homelessness is such a complicated issue. So it's interesting you ask this on the Wednesday show. We covered Donald Trump's video where he says he will create mandatory tent cities which homeless people will be brought to on buses. And that's the couldn't couldn't have a worse solution to homelessness. You're further stigmatizing homeless people. You're taking them away from where the jobs are. Those tent camps

invariably become overpopulated and sanitation becomes an issue like that's the totally wrong approach. Now, what will work? There's no one thing that will work, but a few things that have to be done to deal effectively with homelessness. And part of, you know, that you're asking, why hasn't the money spent worked? If you only do like one or two of these things, it doesn't work because you're not actually solving the problem. So we really have to deal with why people become homeless to begin with. So number one, affordability of housing, housing is really expensive in California and in particular in the parts of California that have the jobs and the people where most people would try to be. So you've got to increase the availability of affordable housing, how you do it. OK, you got to figure that out to expand access to mental health and substance abuse

treatment. Have to do it. We hear about, oh, we're going to do it. But like, how exactly do you do it? What are the programs? Is it properly funded? And you have to make sure people know about them. Number three, you've got to provide job training and employment support, just getting you know, you create a housing place and you just give homeless people housing. Great. But are they actually at a place where they can get themselves a job and are they properly trained to have a job and reenter the workplace, particularly if they've been out of a job for a decade and have been homeless for a decade?

So you got to do the job training and employment support. You probably need to do something about folks kind of exiting the criminal justice system into homelessness. There's like kind of very mediocre halfway houses, but there's lack of stable housing for people when they exit the criminal justice system. So that would be number four. And then number five, you probably need more of a social safety net, which has, you know, temporary assistance, food stamps, different things need to expand it probably by getting services to more people like that's a

lot of stuff. And it's very easy to say, like, well, we've done some of that, but you really need to do all of it because homelessness is such a complicated problem. You're absolutely right. I agree on all five of your points, David. But, you know, one of the things that's frustrating to me as a resident is that, you know, the city of San Francisco spends one hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year per homeless person. And so, you know, the money is there. We have the money and the resources, but somehow it's not actually translating to anything

effective because those people still need help. Those people are still suffering on the streets. And so fundamentally, there is this disconnect where we see we're paying our taxpayer dollars to try to help these people. So now hold on a second, Adrian. I'm not finding that San Francisco spends one hundred and twenty grand a year per homeless person. What I am finding is that for the shelter beds, there are 70 grand a year per shelter

bed spent. Of course, not all homeless people are even participating in the shelter system. That's still a lot of money and it seems like there's waste there. But I'm not I'm not finding that number that you're you're pointing out. David, is there a way I can later on provide links or resources so we can email info at David Pakman dot com? I'll look into that. And listen, you're 100 percent correct with the general sentiment, Adrian, whatever the numbers are, that people's tax money is going into what you are told are programs meant to deal with an issue. The issue isn't being dealt with. And I'm right there with you on that, whatever the numbers are.

Great. Thanks so much, David. All right. Adrian from San Francisco. Important issue. Let's take a very quick break. We're going to continue with the phones in just a moment. Just hang on if you're waiting to talk to me and we'll be right back. One of our sponsors is paired the app for couples every day. Paired gives you and your partner questions, quizzes, games to have fun, to stay connected, to deepen your conversations and get to know each other better. What's great about it is you don't even have to be in the same room, especially with the baby right now. My girlfriend and I are quite busy and paired really helped us to stay connected. You get a daily question to answer. You can't see your partner's answer until you answer yourself. And there are questions about everything, relationship, life, intimacy, other things. And all of the exercises were developed by academic psychologists

and expert relationship therapists as well. Questions like what makes you feel lucky in your relationship? Great when you want to remember and have gratitude. Really great thing. What's an activity you could try together this month actually gets people thinking about things to do. It can go in really funny directions as well, but it just always feels like time well spent. Head over to paired dot com slash Pacman for a seven day free trial and 25 percent off a subscription. That's P.A.I.R.E.D. Dot com slash Pacman to try it free for a week and get 25 percent off.

The link is in the podcast notes. Let's go back to the phones, which are no longer phones. week. kingdom from where I have just returned. Mone, welcome to the program. Hi. How was your trip to the UK? Did you actually go to Brighton in the end? I did not. I ended up going to Bath in the end. OK, so nice place. Yeah, quite interesting. And you know, the weather was very shaky.

I actually I had an insane situation where I was walking near kind of near Regent's Park in London, and it was so windy that my hotel umbrella reversed. You've seen an umbrella reverse, right? Oh, like every couple of weeks. Yeah. Yeah. So my umbrella reversed and it was I was trying to hold on to the baby stroller and the umbrella reversal was dragging me around. And these British girls walked by and were laughing hysterically. And I mean, but then five minutes later, it

was sunny, you know, they should have helped you. They should have helped me. I know they said beautiful day for a walk. That was their joke as I was wrestling to try to keep the stroller and the umbrella under control. Funny you should say that the weather here is awesome today. Yeah, I saw that the day I left, it got better. But anyway, what what can I do for you, sir? I just want to call in and say that in the last like few, I believe it's been a few weeks now, maybe a month have do you agree that i i think

that this is possibly the biggest movement for gun control in the u.s that i've seen really since the uh uh the two well they ended the 2004 2005 uh assault weapons ban i have never seen uproar like this coming out of I think it was the state of Tennessee, wasn't it? You know, it was. I want to feel the same way you're feeling, Mone, which is, wow, look at this, isn't it? We've never seen momentum like this before. It seems inevitable that something's going to be done. But every time we think that we're so disappointed, like after the Sandy Hook shooting about 11 years ago, it was like, wow, we're going to pass universal background checks. It's just going to happen.

And of course, it it didn't. And you can go all the way back to the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy when there were fewer guns in circulation. And it was like, wow, we're going to see change. And we did get the Gun Control Act of 1968 regulating the sale of firearms. And then we went on to have 400 million guns enter society in the United States. So I just am so cynical that we're really going to see change. I want to see it. And I hope that you're right. Yeah, me too, man. It's a bit crazy over there. We all see it. And I hope that you're right. Yeah, me too, man. It's a bit crazy over there. We all see it. It really is. The other thing I wanted to say, if I do have the time, of course. Yeah, I hope I do.

Yeah. Is that with all these issues that are going on recently with like the whole thing of the Democrats planning to, of course, put on the ballot supposedly that they are pro-abortion rights and all of the things we've seen from Donald Trump and all the things we've seen from Ron DeSantis currently abandoning Florida while it's underwater. Do you think that a lot less people are going to vote Republican in this next coming election? Speaker 1 now, when you say that fewer people will vote Republican, do you mean that some historical Republican voters will vote for a Democrat or that many Republicans will just stay home?

Well, either really. I don't know the answer to that. I mean, I do. I do think that if Trump is the nominee, which is looking quite likely based on today's polling, I do think that there is a contingent of the Republicans that are just so sick and tired of the insanity of Trump now under indictment, potentially with more indictments coming that they are going to throw their hands up, some of them and say, listen, I'm not voting for a Democrat, but I'm sick of this Trump crap. I'm just staying home. I do think there will be a contingent like that, Whether it will influence the results in any significant way. It's just so early to say. Speaker 4

Yeah, I agree. I had a friend from Georgia who voted Republican most of his life. He actually switched in 2022 because of the abortion rights stuff. So, yeah, we will see. I'll not take up any more of your time now, but thanks for answering my questions. All right. Mone from the UK. Good day. You too. Great to hear from you. Absolutely fantastic stuff.

Let's go next to Louis from New Brunswick. Louis from New Brunswick. Welcome to the program. Hey, David. So good to speak with you. Thanks for taking the call. My pleasure. Got a couple of questions I noticed on your show.

Could have been a couple of days ago. You mentioned that you're leasing a Tesla. So there's more of like a financial question. Do you generally recommend that people lease vehicles? I heard it's a bad financial decision overall. No, I recommend that people study the issue on their own and make their own decision based on how they tend to deal with vehicles in their lives. Leasing makes sense for some people in very specific situations.

One of the things about leases is that they can be fully tax deductible as a business expense depending on the use of the vehicle and how it's structured. And that is like a savings of whatever your effective tax rate is, which can be a significant savings. If you tend to replace your vehicle with some frequency, leasing can be a much simpler path than trying to sell a vehicle every few years, which you might be underwater on if you're financing it. And then you have to deal with

repairs or whatever. Like I like after three years being able to just walk away. For me in particular, I mean, I'll be honest. I've said before I'm a former Tesla shareholder, Tesla driver. The the build quality of my Tesla is not exactly something to write home about. And it's been in the shop a bunch of times. And quite frankly, I wouldn't want to own it. Like there's a particular reason with my Tesla. I don't want to own the thing. I want to be able to just walk away and it'll be Elon Musk or someone else's problem at

the end of three years. And that by then there will be so many other electric vehicles and the quality will likely have improved and the range that I'll sort of have like my pick of the litter is my is my hope. So for very specific reasons, leasing made sense for me. But that doesn't mean that it makes sense for any other particular person. Speaker 1 Got you. Thank you for the detailed response. All right. One more question if we have time. Sure. Do you think there's any chance that facing the threat or like high possibility of imprisonment

that Donald Trump will flee the country? No, I don't. I don't believe so. Speaker 2 Got you. Yeah. Speaker 1 David, it's been a pleasure. Thanks so much. Take care, Louis.

My pleasure. The pleasure is all on this side of the microphone, my friend. I really appreciate that. Let's go next to Jane from Hollywood. Jane from Hollywood. Welcome to the program. What is on your mind today? Jane from Hollywood, I've invited you to join us.

You do have to accept that invitation and then we'll be able to chat about whatever is on your mind. And last opportunity for Jane from Hollywood, please. All right. A failed attempt with Jane from Hollywood, that is that is sad. Why don't we try Ronald from Illinois? Ronald from Illinois. Welcome to the program. Ron, please save us from the tech troubles that are plaguing everyone. David, can you hear? Yes, I can. Good. All right. So first of all, I want to say, did you enjoy your vacation? I did enjoy it.

Thank you. All right, that's good. Well, this news with Claire Thomas and Claire Thomas and all the Republicans that's being, you know, like all he gets put out. Do you think that's Trump and I'm doing it? Sorry, you're saying, do I think it's Trump putting out these negative stories about Clarence Thomas? About Clarence Thomas, all the other Republicans, I mean, just because he's failing, do you

think that he's intentionally bringing them down with him? I don't think so. I mean, that's an interesting question, which is Trump gets arrested and indicted. Does he try to take attention away from himself by publishing all of this, you know, very sketchy financial activity by Clarence Thomas? I don't I have no reason to believe that's what's going on. Let me put it that way. All right, David, that was my question.

Thanks. All right. There is a Ronald from Illinois. Great to hear from you. Let's go next to Mark from San Antonio, Texas. Mark from San Antonio. Welcome to The David Pakman Show. Mark, please unmute yourself and then I'll be able to hear you.

Hey, David, quick question. You know, I know the the loan forgiveness thing is kind of sketchy right now and up in the air. But really, why do you think there's no appetite from Congress to have any kind of legislation around, you know, either capping the amount that tuition can be raised a year because it's exploding or even, you know, taxing, you know, these endowments. I mean, Harvard alone, I think, grew their endowment during COVID by $13 billion. And all of this is, you know, essentially tax money.

You know, the CEO of the Harvard Management Company is the highest paid person associated with the school. I mean, why do you think there's no appetite to go legislate that? I mean, I can understand the private loan side of it, you know, very much, you know, a lot with with Congress. But you know, you know, universities by and large really can't donate to any kind of, you know, political affiliation. So I don't want to be defeatist.

And I know when I give you the reasons why we aren't seeing those things, people will write to me and they'll say, David, if you don't believe it can be done, then of course it won't happen. You're going to, you know, take the wind out of the sails. I'm going to tell you why it hasn't been done for now and why it's a difficult thing to do. Putting a limit on how much tuition can be increased. I don't see how you could possibly pass that. Republicans would say you're you're telling institutions how they need to, you know, price their product or service, which, of course, is done. There are there are industries that are price regulated, but the opposition to that would be absolutely off the charts in order to tax the endowments of these institutions, essentially what you're talking about is a

wealth tax. I mean, remember that we already have different types of taxes for different types of financial transactions and some have no tax. But to say we're simply going to tax the holdings is a sort of wealth tax. And I just don't see any way in hell that right now you get something like that passed doesn't mean that these are bad ideas or we shouldn't try. I'm not saying activists shouldn't be calling for these things, but to answer the question of why hasn't it happened, it's because these would be

such difficult things to get consensus for from the current House and Senate of the United States. Right. Well, thank you. Quick drummer question. I'm a drummer myself. I know you're a big fan of Josh Rees, but as far as a player, you know, who do you try to emulate the most stylistically? Speaker 2 I don't think I have any particular drummer I'm trying to emulate. I mean, I think I, you know, study so many different drummers from so many different genres and time periods. But I couldn't really say there's any any one any one person.

I mean, you know, it's sort of like you're going to learn things from like Carter Beaufort from Dave Matthews band that are unique to Carter. And they're going to be completely different from the things that you'll pick up from, like a Steve Gadd or, you know, from watching old Buddy Rich videos or whatever the case may be. So I think it's a sort of consume everything sort of approach. Yeah, I mean, I started off as a punk rock drummer, took a break from it for a while. When I came back, I was like, oh, I can't play that fast anymore. And so then I started kind of listening to some, you know, like you mentioned Steve Gadd and Kurt Boffert and all those guys.

Oh, that's interesting. So after a little more after a break, like you think physically you can no longer play as fast. Correct. Yeah. How old were you when you took a break and how old were you when you restarted? Oh, boy, you just cut out. I heard 30. So I start I started around 12 years old and I played up until I was 18, 19, you know, sold my gear, went to college and then picked it back up. I want to say 27. Wow. And then you had a diminished, diminished physical capacity. Right. Geez. I mean, foot speed was kind of gone. And I'm sure if I committed to it and, you know, really tried, I could get some of those chops back. But there also was just like

a complete disinterest in it. Fair, fair. All right. Well, we're going to look into it strongly. OK, thanks very much. Appreciate the call real quick. Let's go to Aubrey from Wisconsin. Many said do not speak to Aubrey again on the show, but I'm just I'm tempted to hear what Aubrey has to say. Aubrey, I don't have a ton of time, but what's on your mind today? Wait, that is so disrespectful. I do.

OK, real quick. The first thing you said is, like, Travis Brecker from Blank 182 because he married a Kardashian, and Kardashians are the best. Anyways, I wanted to know your opinion on that settlement that Fox News came up with with, like, Dominion.

Do you think they're going to stop, like, you know, absolutely lying? No. Or is, like, Tucker Carlson going to be like, hey, I'm still, like, an entertainer, so, So like I could say whatever the shiznit I want. Absolutely. Listen, Aubrey, it's not only that the settlement between Dominion and Fox doesn't even require Fox to apologize or say anything on air in a written statement. They said, yeah, the stuff we aired wasn't true. They're not even going to take it

back on air. And so Tucker is going to keep doing his thing. They'll talk about Hunter Biden. They'll talk about, you know, low birth rates with Elon Musk or whatever else that they want. It is good. It's not. Is Fox going to stop lying now is a hilarious question. No, they are not going to stop lying. OK. Yeah. OK. So they're not even going to admit that they were just a clown. OK, cool. Real quick. I'm completely offended that people said don't talk to me anymore.

But I do appreciate it. You are an air sign. So I feel like we get to those energies. But wait, I'm a what? What was that? I'm an air aside. So you're an Aquarius and I'm a Libra rising. So like we get each other's energies in that way.

And I really appreciate that. But you're kind of the weird air sign, which like you're kind of like kind of snooty intellectual, which I respect. But like, that's fine. And this is because I'm an Aquarius, you're saying. Yeah. So essentially, you're saying that the perceived but possibly inaccurate positions of stars and planets at the time of my birth determine my personality. Well, I get you don't have time, but I will start screaming about this.

Astrology is absolutely real. So I'm a Libra rising by my Sagittarius side, which is why people think I'm a Leo, just like some kind of conceited. But I will assess this because I'm a Libra rising. Only Aries men have ever tried it really hard with me, right? Like Pisces dudes I've been with before, but they're like really pussy. Aries men have tried it super hard because I'm. Excuse me. I just I just let me ask. We'll end on this note, OK? I want a yes or no. And let me ask the full question. Is that OK? OK. Is your belief that the perceived but possibly inaccurate determination about the position of stars and planets at the time of my birth dictates my personality today? Yes or no? Absolutely. All right. There you go. Aubrey from Wisconsin. Great to hear from you.

Bye bye. There is Aubrey from Wisconsin. I can't think of any better note than that to end on. Thank you to everyone who called in. We will take calls again if I have anything to say about it. If they let me. Are you tired of using words like very all the time? Very good. Very busy. Very tired.

Words can get monotonous. And if you're a non-native English speaker who finds it tough to learn new words and remember them and use them in the right way in context, maybe you just need to change your learning approach. I am a non-native English speaker. I learned English very young. But when I moved to the United States from Argentina at the time, speaking only Spanish and the right approach to learning new words is really useful for communicating in any context. You should look into a book by Michael Cavallaro called The EPP Method, three super simple steps to build and retain essential vocabulary for adults.

They're sponsoring today's show and you can find it at MPC author dot com. This book will help you improve your English vocabulary tremendously, even potentially improve verbal scores on standardized tests. It's full of retention exercises, words arranged by themes, examples in context, antonyms, synonyms. My favorite chapter is called An Exploration of The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. start growing your vocabulary by picking up a copy of the EPP method. Go to MPC author dot com. That's Amazon. Mary P is in Paul C as in Charles author dot com. The link is in the podcast notes.

All right. Let's look at some of your feedback from the last week. Friday feedback featuring emails, YouTube comments, Twitter replies, subreddit posts, and all sorts of other ways that people communicate with us. You can always email info at David Pakman dot com. But your posts and commentary on any of our platforms might be selected. We'll start with some criticisms. These are not exactly the most classy criticisms.

John wrote in and said, Do Alvin Bragg and David Pakman watch three or four hours of porn every day of their miserable lives? Get woke, go broke. Let's go, Brandon. Now, many of you would say, David, there's nothing here to actually address. You're not you're not right, though. Get woke, go broke. As Farron Cousins so beautifully explained last week, this idea that, quote, getting woke makes you go broke really doesn't seem to be accurate. campaign by Ron DeSantis and other Republicans against wokeness. Most Floridians and most Americans actually agree with the fundamental underlying reality of wokeness, which is I'm aware of problems in society and that it would be great to fix them and this sort of thing. So that it actually does seem that wokeness is winning. I address that in a segment a few weeks ago as well. As far as the other stuff, let's go, Brandon and Alvin Bragg's

habits or whatever. I don't know. Maybe go ask someone who cares about that stuff. Next, the email is from Mauricio, who wrote in about progressives and firearms. This is a very interesting email says, Hey, David, I'm a U.S. Air Force veteran with experience with a variety of firearms. I own a few guns mainly for recreational purposes, although there is a self-defense element. I consider myself a progressive, although I try to be rational and like to hear other perspectives to get to the root of issues. There are a few things I'm interested in your perspective on. What is your perception of progressive gun owners? Is this something you would encourage, discourage or are neutral about? Is there any message you have for liberal gun owners? Well, I have many liberal gun owning

friends. As I've said before on the show, I don't really talk about my ownership or lack thereof of firearms. I just I just don't I don't see any reason to necessarily talk about it. I've opted not to mention whether I do or don't own firearms. But one of the things I have said before is I would like the entire situation around firearms to be different. It should be much more expensive. Training and licensing should be much more extensive. You should be required to have insurance. If you have firearms, there should be limits on more limits on what firearms people can buy and in particular people under age 25. I've given all that list. And if I were a firearm owner myself, I would be more than willing to subject myself to all of those requirements as well. I would prefer there

be way fewer guns in circulation and dramatically so. Given the status quo today, I don't love the idea of the right wingers being the only ones with the firearms like that doesn't sound good either. And it's not about government tyranny, because I think that that's quite a silly argument. But it's if you zoom out and you say there's 400 million firearms in this country, do I want three hundred and seventy million of them in the hands of right wingers, including a lot of right wing nuts? No, that doesn't sound particularly good. So I get that this is sort of like a race to the bottom type thing. Well, so if the liberals get the guns, then I get it. Believe me, I get it. Given where things are. I don't want the right wingers to be the only ones with the guns. Call

me crazy. Next email is from James writing about twenty twenty four and says, given both Biden's and Trump's ages come the next election, there's a real possibility that either one or both could have to pull out due to ill health or worse pass away last minute. What chaos do you feel could follow? Thanks, Jim from Ireland. Yeah, listen, statistically speaking, it is more likely that people in their late 70s or early 80s will die than someone who's 45. Statistically, that is absolutely the case. Whether this is likely,

we looked at actuarial tables looking at Joe Biden and Donald Trump's ages, and it is still it is still more likely than not that they will survive to the next election. But there is no doubt that if either if either is or both were the nominees and if either were to die close to the time of the election or even imagine between the election and the inauguration, it would be chaotic. And this is less about the law and more about me. Listen, if Trump's winning by four. And November 1st, 2024, he dies and Republicans scramble and they put in, I don't know who hard to imagine a scenario where I don't know who actually wins.

Same thing would apply to Joe Biden. So I think that that would be the most likely outcome that if one of the candidates, if a nominee were to die at a very late stage of the campaign, it's unlikely that whoever replaces them is going to win. That that I think is the most likely outcome. Vemit wrote in and said, sorry to hear that you don't have a channel anymore about the YouTube channel. I also heard about this from John, who says, is it true you got kicked off YouTube? No. So several weeks ago now we did an April Fool's joke saying the right wing mob won and I lost

my YouTube channel. Now, the truth is, you can't really lose your YouTube channel or get kicked off. You could get banned from YouTube for publishing content repeatedly. That's in violation of YouTube's terms and conditions. But it's an important thing to remember that they can't really take your YouTube channel from you or shut it down. And I am really thrilled to be able to say that actually the channel had its best month in a really long time in March. April is looking incredible. You know, not long ago, I had the goal of saying I want to steadily get a million views a day on YouTube steadily, not just like, oh, here's a good day. We got a million, but we're averaging way fewer.

We've recently been averaging close to one point five million views per day on the YouTube channel, which is stunning. And I have only you to thank. So fortunately, the YouTube channel is alive and well. Let's look at a YouTube comment. This one's from Thar CX for UK UQ, who says about the North Carolina elected official who switched party from Democratic to Republican. As a politician, you shouldn't be allowed to switch parties midterm. You should only be allowed to do it

when running for reelection. That way, the voters know who they are voting for. It's an interesting idea. Understand that you would, of course, have to announce that. You could be a Democrat if you announced that you're running for reelection a year before the election, you would be announcing then I'm running as a Republican. So you're still sort of making it known just as early and you could still vote however you wanted. So while it's an interesting idea from a thar, I don't know that in practical terms it really solves the issue that I think they're getting at feedback about last week's guest hosts. The good news, as I mentioned on the bonus show on Monday, is that almost everybody who wrote in about last week's guest hosts, which included

producer Pat Luke Beasley and Farron Cousins, almost everybody who wrote in said, I liked at least one of them. And that's a really great thing. Michael says Pat and Luke did the best jobs of handling the show hands down, Pat being the better of the two. But both were more true to your demeanor. I would much rather see these two guest hosts alternate alternate days, assuming it's difficult to prepare daily. So that's Michael. Stephen wrote in and said, providing feedback that I much prefer Luke as a host.

The reason for this is that I watch your show for political commentary with a progressive touch for Ron Cousins comes off as a left wing preacher. And it's very off putting. His vibe just doesn't match the show. You or Pat with two T's. So a lot going on spelling wise, but a very interesting bit of feedback. And then other people wrote in and said, Farron's the only one that I watched. Other people wrote in and said, you know, the problem with Farron and Luke is they have their own channels. So then I end up seeing they cover the stories and then they cover them for you. And it doesn't make sense. But the whole idea was something for everyone. And I would call it an unmitigated success. But we'll keep trying different formulations in the future. Lastly, a post from Reflex Point on the sub Reddit who says, I was impressed with Gavin

Newsom. I get the feeling he's gearing up to be in line for a 2028 run or even 2024 if something were to happen to Biden before the election. I think this interview he had with Brian Tyler Cohen was very good and worth watching. He has a fighting spirit that I think Dems need, and he's not afraid to take the fight to the right and put him on the defensive. Even if it's not him, we need someone that is not afraid to be confrontational with Republicans. Brian Tyler Cohen's interview with Gavin Newsom was excellent. I recommend you check that out. And I tend to agree. And as I've said before, I don't think Gavin Newsom is the be all

end all of the progressive politician of the future. I think he has policy areas where I agree policy areas where he's sort of like, OK, but the critical thing about Newsom is he is willing to be ruthless in the way that the left should be ruthless when it comes to these Republicans. That's a very good thing. Not everybody's willing to do it. So I think Newsom is a very interesting guy, although I don't think he is the uber progressive. But there are many considerations when we think about who would make a good nominee, how they would handle attacks from Republicans is an important part of that.

How what would their demeanor be in debates? Important part of that. All of those things. Very, very interesting candidate, potential candidate. He's not he hasn't announced that he's running. Send me your thoughts. Info at David Pakman dot com post to the subreddit or leave a comment on YouTube or whatever the case may be. Please remember to ensure that you are subscribed to the YouTube channel. Hit that subscribe button. We are pushing our way slowly to two million subscribers. And also remember that much of our content is available in Spanish at David Pakman dot com slash Spanish. If you know anyone who would like or benefit from this content but would better consume it in Spanish rather than English, let them know about David Pakman dot com slash Spanish.

We will see you on the bonus show.