The David Pakman Show - 5/10/24: Voter ID implosion, the value of jail for Trump

Episode Date: May 10, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Fox News host Sean Hannity wrongly links ID to vote with ID to buy alcohol -- Failed former President Donald Trump wildly attacks Jews on his way into court for cross-examination of Stormy Daniels at his criminal trial -- Karoline Leavitt, Donald Trump's spokesperson, is probably correct that being jailed for violating his gag order would likely help Trump -- Caller thinks David isn't accurately representing the right-wing view on abortion -- Caller has Trump-supporting family members who don't make any sense -- Caller asks what happens next after defeating Donald Trump -- Caller asks about maintenance on electric vehicles -- Caller is hearing complaints about undocumented immigrants staying in New York hotels -- The Friday Feedback segment 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman -- On the Bonus Show: The Friday Bonus Show with Producer Pat -- Become a Supporter: https://davidpakman.com/membership/ -- Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

We're only months from a major election, so of course, the usual suspects in the right wing media are once again talking about voter I.D., how voter I.D. should be universally required and listen, you need an I.D. to buy bread, as Donald Trump has said, which, of course, you don't. And Sean Hannity, the Fox News propagandist's latest wrinkle on this one is you need an idea to buy beer. So why wouldn't you need an idea to buy bread after? I'm sorry.

You need an idea to buy beer. Why wouldn't you need an idea to vote? Of course, ignoring a lot of realities about voting versus buying alcohol. Let's listen to what Hannity had to say. And then I want to dove into this a little bit. Why would anybody be against simple measures like this when you need an idea to buy? Let's see, a six pack of beer, a Juul pod, a pack of cigarettes. Give me a break.

You've got to be kidding me. OK, so a couple of different things. And I do think it's important for the left to understand the talking points here and for us to really know why this makes very little sense. First of all, the IDs that they say are free and easy to get often aren't free nor easy to get. And even if the ID itself may be free, you often need subsequent documents or we would call them sort of like precursor documents which themselves are not free to obtain or to get copies of and or which may require traveling to a state capital or far from where you live only during work hours in order to obtain it and deal with bureaucracy, et cetera. So as I've said before,

I don't have a problem in principle with requiring I.D. to vote. The reality is that it is a proxy for making it more difficult for those who less easily are able to take a day off from work or to obtain transportation or have or pay for those precursor documents. But let's go further than that. Let's put aside for a second that their talk about the IDs being free and easy to get is an exaggeration to put it charitably. Voting is a fundamental democratic right essential for participating as a citizen in government. Buying alcohol is a regulated privilege. It's just not a right. Buying cigarettes is a regulated privilege. It is not a right requiring an I.D. to vote. They know can disproportionately disenfranchise certain

groups, low income individuals, elderly minorities who may not have easy access either to the I.D. or to the precursor documents that you need to get the I.D. voting happens once or twice a year, and it's a national civic activity that impacts governance at the top level. Buying alcohol is a personal choice with no direct effect on national policies or rights. The type of fraud that we prevent with voter I.D. laws, meaning, I guess, impersonation at the polls or noncitizens voting we've researched and we know aren't really issues. They are extraordinarily rare, extraordinarily rare. Experts have studied it. They've looked for it. Ken Block was hired by Trump to find it, couldn't find it. ID checks for alcohol purchases address a real issue and a non constitutionally fraught issue,

underage drinking. That's it. The right to vote is protected under several amendments to the U.S. Constitution. And the framework is participating in a democratic society is really important. There is no similar constitutional protection for the purchase of alcohol or cigarettes. So this is a known line of propaganda. They've been doing it for a long time. Their talking points don't make any sense. We should really understand it. Entering court yesterday for his criminal trial, failed former President Donald Trump lashed out at Jewish people, saying if any Jewish person votes for Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. Here is Trump flanked by his lawyer,

who doesn't look thrilled with Trump's admonition of the Jewish American public. Thank you very much. What Biden is doing with respect to Israel is disgraceful. If any Jewish person voted for Joe Biden, they should be ashamed of themselves. He's totally abandoned Israel and nobody can believe it. I guess he feels good about it because he did it as a political decision. You have to do the right decision, not the political decision. But well, you know what? I'm a Jewish American, and I think that Joe Biden has not abandoned Israel.

Not that Israel is my country. I'm a citizen of the United States. And I think that Joe Biden is making some very, very modest requirements when it comes to the providing of funding and weaponry to Israel. And big picture has not abandoned Israel. And I'm not at all ashamed of the fact that I voted for Joe Biden. But Trump continuing to attack Jews.

Trump also saying that the courthouse is closed down like Fort Knox. Part of this is his explanation as to why the protesters in favor of Trump aren't allowed there. Today, we have Rick Scott here, Senator Rick Scott. We have other politicians here. We have people, many people in support. The outside of this building is closed down like Fort Knox. Nobody's ever seen. We have so many police down here in New York's finest. They are New York's finest. They just told what to do, but they don't have them at Columbia. They don't have them at NYU or any other places. This is like an armed camp down here. The impetus for this is Trump wants to

make it clear that the reason he doesn't have more supporters outside the courthouses is because it's all closed down. It happens not to be closed down. Here is video from right outside the courthouse. As you see plenty of folks milling about. Yeah. And so there are anti-Trump protesters outside the courthouse. Interestingly enough, now, Trump mentioned the presence of Republican Senator Rick Scott in Yeah. And so there are anti-Trump protesters outside the courthouse, interestingly enough. Now, Trump mentioned the presence of Republican Senator Rick Scott in court yesterday. This seems to maybe have been a way to circumvent the gag order, get Rick Scott to say certain things that maybe Trump can't or shouldn't during the cross-examination of Stormy Daniels, which is what took place yesterday. Here is Rick Scott basically saying Trump's a victim, just like they made me a victim

when I was running a company. No, did it have anything to do with the gang? No, I'm fed up. I watched what happened to me and my company. I've watched what's happening. I've I've talked to business people over the years. What's happened to them when you have political persecution. And now what I've watched with President Trump is on with all these cases.

This is just simply they don't they don't want this guy on the ballot. Listen, if the persecution of Trump has anything in common with the persecution or prosecution of Rick Scott, then it's quite substantive because Rick Scott's company appeared to have been engaged in pretty serious fraud and paid a huge fine to settle that fraud claim. And Rick Scott pled the fifth. Endless times, which Trump has said is evidence of guilt previously, many, many times. Rick Scott also repeating the false notion that the gag order prevents Trump from campaigning. You know, they've got a gag order, so he can't go campaign.

They've got him holed up in a in a courtroom. Yeah, the gag order does not prevent Trump from campaigning and it doesn't prevent Trump from testifying. The gag order is limited to ensure a fair trial to prevent Trump or to try to prevent Trump from attacking witnesses or court personnel. And by the way, who would nor talk about a two tier justice system who would be allowed to violate a gag order 10 times and not to be put in jail?

Trump is certainly benefiting from that two tier just two tier justice system, that is for sure. And increasingly, I'm sort of of the mind that Trump actually going to jail might be quite good for fundraising, but not so good for Trump's ultimate election. Let's talk about that a little bit. Caroline Leavitt is Trump's current spokesperson, and she appeared earlier this week with Stuart Varney on Fox Business. And she is suggesting that if Trump were indeed jailed for his habitual violations of gag order after gag order, that it would actually be a good thing for him. There would be an uproar in his defense. And I have to tell you, I think Trump being jailed for violating the gag order

would probably be a good thing for him. I think a guilty conviction in the trial would be bad, but I think Trump being jailed for contempt might be good. Let's listen to what Caroline Levitt had to say. Then I'll explain. I get the impression that Mr. Trump will rather like the judge to put him in prison because the reaction against that would be very significant. What do you say? Well, certainly that would be a travesty of justice to watch the former president of the United States be incarcerated when he has never committed a crime. There would be an uproar across this country if that were to happen.

But as President Trump has said, the Constitution comes first. They are violating his First Amendment right to even speak about this case with the unconstitutional gag order. And he's fighting it every step of the way. Now, she's lying about a lot of things. There is nothing unconstitutional about limited gag orders in the context of a trial. The Supreme Court has adjudicated that it's a lie. Not true.

A lot of things there are completely untrue. But we have a statement from Trump earlier this week where he says he's ready to do it if that's what it takes to defend the Constitution. He'll go to jail if that's what he has to do. We have a report about Trump campaign staffers preparing. How do we capitalize on fundraising? How do we capitalize on outreach if indeed Trump were to be jailed? And I actually think that they are right to some degree. Those who are already convinced of Trump's lack of fitness and qualifications to be president, the danger of Trump becoming president again, people like me, I'm already not voting for Trump and I'm not already not donating to Trump. So Trump being jailed in that sense wouldn't hurt Trump for folks like me who

already say the ship has sailed. This is not a guy who should be president. On the other hand, there are probably some weaker supporters of Trump and more more casual supporters of Trump who sort of have a sense that they aren't totally sure about this New York case. They might think that the case is about whether Trump had an affair, which is, of course, not what it's about and not a crime. And they indeed may react to Trump being jailed for violating a gag order by saying, hey, you know what? They are treating this guy unfairly. I am going to go ahead and donate or maybe I was going to stay home, but I'm going to get out and vote. Now,

ultimately, if Trump is convicted, the polling suggests it wouldn't be good for him. And 80 percent of voters say they would not vote for a convicted Trump. I don't know that they're all telling the truth. I think that if Trump were to be convicted, but they are convinced that it was also unfair. Some of those who say I won't vote for a convicted Trump actually will vote for a convicted Trump. But that's more speculative and probably a conversation for a few months down the road. But I actually think Caroline Leavitt is right. I think Stuart Varney is right, although I don't know that Trump can really handle a few nights in jail and it's possible that they might be able to negotiate home confinement for that time, if so ordered. I do think that they all are more or less correct in that there would be a

benefit to Trump. He would be able to fundraise off of it. It they would have merchandise. They would have all sorts of fundraising emails and pushes, and it probably would help the guy. If you disagree with that, I want to hear from you. And ultimately, I still do not know. Let me put it a different way. I still don't have evidence that this is a judge who's actually willing to jail Trump. I think he's willing to threaten Trump with jail. We've seen that he's willing to find Trump in contempt. He's done that. He's willing to find Trump a thousand dollars for each violation of the gag order. He's done that. But I don't really think he's willing to go beyond that, or at least I haven't seen evidence of that. I hope he proves me wrong. And Trump is getting special treatment,

10 gag order violations and no jail. You would know most defendants would be in jail if they did that. So let me know your thoughts. Is this judge even willing to jail Trump? Would Trump benefit from being jailed? We'll take a quick break. We're going to hear from a sponsor or two and then the show will continue. We've talked on the show about the various problems in the supplement industry, a major one being how the quality and freshness of what you're getting can vary, which is why for years I've turned to AG1. Our sponsor, AG1, conducts relentless testing to set the standard for purity and potency. Just a single daily scoop of AG1 has your daily vitamins, minerals and probiotics covered, conveniently replacing all your other

supplements. And AG1 is constantly searching for how to improve at 52 iterations of their formula and counting. Their team is always trying to find better ways to source and test ingredients. AG1 was researched and developed by an in-house team of scientists, doctors and nutritionists with decades of experience in their fields. AG1 is NSF certified for sport, one of the most rigorous independent quality and safety certification programs in the supplement The David Pakman Show is a production of the David Pakman Show is an audience supported program. It is different than many corporate media shows that you may watch or maybe you don't. We have a members only experience free of all commercials, including a bonus program every single day just for our members. You can get the member experience at join Pacman dot com and you can use the coupon code save democracy 24

to save about 50 percent off of the cost of a membership, which is a pretty good deal. Join Pacman dot com is the place to do it. Let's hear from some of our viewers and listeners as we do on the Friday show via discord. It is free to be on our discord. Of course, I have nothing to sell you other than a good time. You can find the discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Kevin from San Diego, welcome to the program. And last chance for Kevin from San Diego. Welcome. Oh, geez, I didn't realize I had to accept it on the thing that was I that was my bad.

What's going on? Well, yeah, I was just calling. I kind of had two questions, but I guess I can get your your your choice. Do you want the abortion related one or the Israel Palestine related one? Kevin, I'm going to let you pick and just go. Everybody feel free to just go right into your question. OK. All right. Fair enough. Um, okay. So, uh, I'll, I'll just do abortion. Uh, so the, the thing that always seems to happen on your show, whenever you're discussing abortion stuff, I'm a pro-choice guy. I definitely am in support of all that, that stuff. But whenever you're talking about the things you're generally representing

the conservative position as, Oh, they want to deny women their their right to choose. They are restricting women's medical rights and all this stuff. Whereas I would think that the conservatives would generally be representing their position, whether or not they actually believe this, but they represent their position as that they are against babies being killed before they're born. Right. Yes. So many of them would. I mean, I think the argument stands that effectively what they are saying is we decide what the women can do rather than the women. That still is effectively what they're doing. They would couch it as we're against murder or however such phraseology they would want to use. Sure. Right. Well, basically, what I'm asking is just like, why don't you more describe the or more like represent the thing whenever you're saying

this thing like, you know, they're saying we're against this this this child murder. But what basically like, you know, you're not representing the conservative position in a way that they would agree with that. That's all. Well, the the way that they want their position represented by its nature is absurd and ridiculous. And we can't allow them to have that as the definition. I mean, listen, abortion doesn't meet the definition of murder legally. So then you go to, well, this is what they believe morally or this is what they believe based on what their religion teaches them. And if we cede that ground in terms of what the law should be under civil government, we're already completely off track. So I understand

what you're saying. You're not wrong, Kevin, but it simply doesn't comport with reality. And in practice, what they are saying is they get to decide what medical procedures should be available to women rather than the women themselves. And so I think it's critical that we do represent it for what it empirically is. They say it's murder. Well, legally, it doesn't meet the definition of murder. And they're not really bringing anything to the table that has convinced me that that is the way it should be designated in practical terms. What they're doing is they're saying we decide not the women with their doctors. And so that's why that's what I call it, because it's what it is. Speaker 3

Yeah, I guess with without there being like a change to the definition of when life begins, they don't really have any ground to stand on. That makes sense. Yeah. And here's the thing. This debate is not won or lost on this basis. And this is the thing a lot of people have to understand. I've outlined this thought experiment before. Imagine that science determined that life by the definition we agree on, if we could even do that, starts at, I don't know,

16 weeks and three days into gestation. Do you think if science resolved that, that all of all of a sudden all of these anti choicers say I'm fine with abortion until 16 weeks and three days? Of course not. And so part of this also has to be that they will continue moving the goalposts no matter what science determines. And that's another reason not to get caught into in these philosophical black holes. Yeah, I I'm always the only reason I sort of bring it up is that it always seems like

it's a it's a position from which people will people won't take you seriously or engage with you if you're not representing the thing that they are at least purporting to think. Yeah, I know. I mean, listen, in longer form conversations about this, I think it's fine to acknowledge what their view is and to immediately say that there's no logical basis on which to engage with it as such. And thus we have to have different parameters for the conversation. is and to immediately say that there's no logical basis on which to engage with it as such. And thus we have to have different parameters for the conversation.

If we can't, there's really no conversation to have. That's fair. Well, that's that's about it. I'll catch you next time with my other question. All right. Kevin from San Diego. Great to hear from you. Let's go next to Dusty from the Dallas Fort Worth area.

Dusty, welcome to The David Pakman Show. What's on your mind today? Hi, good morning. Quick mic check. One, two, three. You're on the air. Great. A little bit older topic, but it was rehashed over the weekend when I had dinner with my Republican family and I just kind of drove home the the MAGA cult um so I had dinner with my MAGA parents my MAGA uncle his MAGA wife and their MAGA son yep so we are outnumbered um of course Biden has destroyed their lives um individually do they say how um uh no they never never uh expand on that it's always he just did it okay so yeah so, yeah, I can't get through them. So the covid vaccine gets brought up and it's but it's it's brought up as an example of Biden

being a failure. So so you're right. So this this is the failure. And also they call the vaccine Auschwitz water. And they know Trump takes credit for developing it, right? Well, so this is the thing. So when I when I confronted them about this, I said, you do realize warp speed operation warp speed was Trump's plan to roll out the vaccine as fast as possible. Yep. So they all start Googling it at the table, all start Googling it when they find out when they get facts, they they realize that they've, you know, that that that what I said was was true.

And then they all agreed that if Trump had remained president, they would have taken it. So by that logic, they must believe that the vaccine that the Biden administration distributed or oversaw the distribution of was modified from the one that Trump left them with. I mean, there's I can't think of any other logical reason why you would take the vaccine if Trump's president, but not if Biden's president, unless you believe the vaccine was changed. Do they believe the vaccine was changed? No, they don't know., it's just it just dear leader was not president and we are not taking it now. It really just drove home. I mean, I think we all knew this, but we this really drove home for me that, you know, half this country made a medical decision

based on on who occupied the White House at the time. Yeah, the vaccine is available, but not the guy who just left the White House and who was responsible for this damn thing in the first place. Speaker 1 Yeah, this doesn't make a lot of sense. So how does it ultimately get resolved? I don't know. No, I mean, how did the conversation get resolved? Oh, basically, I just sort of asked him, like, well, so depending on who who was president, that that would matter. And they were just kind of like, look, if you're not if you're

not voting for Trump, our country's dead. Be quiet, Lib. I mean, essentially, I mean, this is like, this is this is pretty bad. Like, this is really, really bad. I get that this is your family, but this is very, very bad. I mean, there's just no talking to these folks, it sounds like. No, no, they anytime we engage in any kind of, you know, and I'm not exactly totally Democrat myself, but things seem to be a little more common sense in that column. Yeah. You know, so but yeah, just just just beyond that. And there's there's tons of other things. They think he's the electric car. Biden has somehow, I guess, created it.

But then Elon is their buddy. I don't know, man. I don't know. I I just I just wanted to call in. And you know what I would do, Dusty? Honestly, from what you're telling me, I would say, hey, you know what? It's not it's this isn't even worth it because Trump's going to win Texas regardless. And I'm going to move on with my day and not frustrate myself with these conversations. That's probably what I would do if I were you. I think that's accurate. You're correct. Biden will not win the state. Not going to happen. My mega family will will win. But we just we plug along.

All right, my friend. Thanks for the call. The depressing stuff, I will admit. Thank you. All right. There you go. There goes Dusty from DFW. Let's go next to Matthew, who is a European living in North Carolina, also a website member.

Matthew, I really appreciate your support on the website. Thank you so much. Hi, David. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. So my question, I'm going straight in. My question is, can we do more step two content? What I mean is to. So What I mean is... Step two.

So what I mean is, I get it. Biden, we have to vote for Biden. That makes a lot of sense to me. But what are the policies that are going to come? Well, what should we be doing in years to come to avoid the disaster of previous years. I think that's a great thing to talk about. And it only matters if Biden wins, because if Trump wins, we're not going to be able to do anything to avoid those disasters. So I'm with you 100 percent. We're actually working on a white paper right now that sort of is going to deal with this, although it's also going to

deal with Project 2025 and some of the kind of framework of our democracy. We have some interviews upcoming that relate to the systems and structures that got us to where we are and how they can be fixed. So I think I think you're going to be happy with a bunch of the upcoming upcoming things we have. And I completely agree with you. And also, we are five months from deciding as a country, do we even get the opportunity to do what Matthew is suggesting we do or do we need to wait another four years and basically be in defensive mode? So I'm with you 100 percent and also a lot of being able to do it depends on who wins in November. So I guess I would say that it does matter regardless, because I feel like your audience or I assume your audience is largely pro Biden.

And it's like from a mental perspective, mental health perspective, it's too much to dwell on it all the time. And it would be nice to see the lights at the end of the tunnel and and feel like, you know, there is a solution that will eventually come. So more about what we're driving towards, it sounds like. Yes. Got it. All right. Well. Speaker 4 Yes. Speaker 1 Got it. All right. Well, point taken. I appreciate you making it. Speaker 4 You're welcome.

Keep up the good work. Speaker 1 All right. Matthew, the European in North Carolina. Great to hear from you. Let's go to let's go to Josh from New Jersey. Josh from New Jersey. Welcome to the program. What are you thinking about today?

Josh from New Jersey, welcome to the program. Please accept my invitation and then we'll be able to hear you and it'll be a great thing. And last chance here for Josh from New Jersey. And there he goes. Let's go instead to Sal from Massachusetts. Also a Web site member. Sal, appreciate your support on the Web site. Welcome to the show. What's going on? Sal, you've muted yourself. You've got to unmute yourself, my friend. Hi, David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hey, David, just wanted to get your quick views on owning an electric car and just your overall views on repairing. The only reason I bring it up is because I'm very green electric. I'm all for the green new deal.

But also at the same time, I find that I've gotten into repairing my own car. And I'm wondering, is it for somebody who wants to make electric cars available for more people? Do you find that electric cars are easier to maintain over the long term? I've not had to do any maintenance with either of the two electric vehicles I've had other than tire rotations and changing the air filter in the cabin, which I can do myself. I don't have

the equipment to do a tire rotation. So just like with an with a gas vehicle, I bring it in for that and then I can do the cabin air filter myself. But otherwise, my electric vehicles have needed no maintenance. So in that sense, I do find them easier to maintain. Oh, OK, awesome. Yeah, I just feel that a lot of people don't. I've been following a lot of car repair YouTube video channels and they make it seem like electric cars are these impossible things that are going to be hard to maintain. But well, I do think that as the cars get older and and, you know, I've not had an older electric vehicle. I do think that the I mean, you've got at least as far as Tesla goes, I don't know that you can do any real repairing of a Tesla yourself. I think you've got to

bring it in. And soon I'm going to be getting away from Tesla as a brand. But I assume this applies really to most or all electric vehicles right now. So I think that you're asking very good questions. I'm kind of the wrong person to ask because in their first three years, they need so little maintenance that it's just been convenience of never having to go in and get oil changes or any kind of maintenance. Speaker 3 Yeah, that's awesome. I think.

Yeah, I think more promoting that. Hey, it's maybe a little bit more cost up front, but typically maintaining a car, doing car repairs, they seem to be just about maybe even cheaper than a regular traditional car. Yes. With the way the prices are coming down, it seems like the additional the premium you pay for electric is diminishing rapidly, rapidly. I mean, look at the price dumps that tax Tesla's doing, you know.

Yeah, well, thank you so much, David. I just want to hear your thoughts on that. All right, Sal from Massachusetts. There he goes. Let's take a super quick break. If you're holding on to talk to me, just hang on because we'll go right back to discord and hear from some more people in a moment. Don't forget that the best way to support The David Pakman Show is by becoming a member,

which gives you access to The Daily Bonus show, the regular show with no commercials. You also get access to our entire archive of every episode dating back a really long time and plenty of other awesome membership perks. Go to join Pacman dot com, join Pacman dot com. All right. Let's go back to discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord and hear from some more people. Let's speak next to Ray from New York. Ray, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today?

Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 3 Speaker 3 Speaker 3 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 1 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 1 Speaker Hi, Dave. Big fan, member. Really like what you do.

Thank you. Most of my family is pretty conservative. I like to describe myself as left-leaning for social issues, maybe central for most other things. I am usually able to beat them down on arguments with most things, with the exception of immigration, and specifically coming from New York, issues with, what's the word, sanctuary cities such as New York, and taking in immigrants and housing them in hotels and putting them up, feeding them, stuff like that. And that's usually where I'm kind of caught dead and not really able to talk on it. I don't know where I could find good information or good arguments for it.

And I was hoping maybe you had some information and can maybe talk on that a little bit. Well, what what arguments are they making? I mean, it's I don't know that it's necessarily about just having information, but what is what's their argument? I mean, everything boils down to money. I mean, why are we spending money on on. Oh, boy. They're paid illegally. They're living here for free on our dime and being bused into New York, you know, to to to live in hotels that are would otherwise be. Yeah, I mean, listen, I would say I would say to them, first and foremost, that this is a country where we have endless great ideas about how to deal with this issue. And Republicans are the ones getting in the way.

They got in the way of their own bill. They demanded a bill. The bill was put together and then they blocked their own bill because they don't actually want to solve the problem. So the first thing I would do is check out my videos on the things we should do to deal with immigration. So then you'll be armed with a list of policy ideas and then you confront them with, hey, listen, I'm struggling to take seriously the concerns you claim to have and that your party

has because at every opportunity to actually deal with these issues, you either walk away from the negotiation or you straight up block the bill. So then you can say, OK, listen, I get it. You don't like that. Some people, while their asylum claims are being adjudicated, are given a hotel. OK, is your concern really the totality of the financial situation? Because if you look at documented and undocumented immigration, it is so good for the country economically that

the hotel costs are nothing. These are drops in a bucket. This is nothing if you consider the economic benefits that we derive from both legal and undocumented immigrants. And you know that the information is out there. But it's really a matter of pointing out that not only are they hypocrites, they don't even understand what's going on if their main issue is the money that's being spent. That's a fair point. I guess from my perspective, I was more looking for, I guess, just a good entering the city, how much money is being spent on them, stuff like that, just so I could see, you know. Yeah, I think New York, I think

New York City provides that data. I don't have the source in front of me, but I would just Google. I think New York City provides that data. All right. Ray from New York. Great to hear from you. Let's go next to Amy from Delaware. Amy, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? I only got you, David. I'm so happy. Welcome. OK. So I got a bad voice today. OK. I've been a fan of yours ever since I listened to your episode where you talked about the fall of Rome and how the gap between the rich and the poor led to that. I talked about the fall of Rome and inequality leading to that.

Yeah. You don't remember that one? No, it was four or five years ago. Oh, OK. All right. Fair enough. All right. I mean, maybe I did. It's not it's not a segment I remember, Amy, but I have to say it sounds pretty good. I should go back and watch it. Yeah. I mean, I share with people all the time. Very cool. OK, I think so. Was this

part of like a bigger deep dive on inequality and why inequality is bad? Maybe. OK, I'm going to come in midstream of a series of them. I don't know for sure. Speaker 1 Sounds like good content. I should go back and watch it. Speaker 4 Oh, it really was. But I'm kind of and I saw that happening for so long, especially when COVID was here. But now Biden is turning the economy around so well and the you know, the wages are coming up for the poor and there's all these positive improvements. And so I was wondering, which you might not be able to answer now, if that is still something

you see our country headed for, or if you think that maybe now it's stabilizing a little bit more with the gap between the rich and the poor. Well, listen, here's the thing. I don't have the latest inequality numbers in front of me, although the how we measure inequality, we could do it in quintiles. We can do it poverty line versus there's a bunch of different ways to measure inequality. But I think inequality by most measures has declined subtly to some degree over the last few years. But putting that aside for a second, my general perspective on this is still that, you know, great empires have fallen in the past. And although we have not seen modern 21st century superpowers fall yet. It's certainly possible that it could happen,

but I don't know that there's a guarantee of that so far. I mean, things tend not to go on forever, I think, is the point that I continue going back to. And if indeed a superpower like the United States is to survive, let's not call it indefinite forever, but let's call it indefinitely. There are certainly some aspects of the of the status quo that are going to have to be dealt with. And I believe inequality is one of them. Now, countries can sustain significant levers, levels of inequality for a long time, but things start to break and you have to constantly be patching up other problems. So I my view hasn't changed insofar as most things don't last forever. And the assumption that the U.S. has gotten to a point where it is rock solid and that's it, that the U.S. will exist in perpetuity.

I'm certainly not there forever is a very long time, but I do still see inequality long term as a liability, a weakness of the country. Sorry, I still got that frog in my throat. All right. So that I think you've answered my question. I appreciate that very much. All right. Thanks, Amy. Good to talk to you. Good to talk to you, too. Thank you. All right. There goes Amy. Let's go next to Kieran from Canada. Kieran from Canada. Welcome to the program. Speaker 2 Speaker 1 05 David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Speaker 2

05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman

05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman

05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman

05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman 05 David Pakman your points of views of what's going on in the U.S. and kind of breaking down all the misinformation that gets spread around and just the chaos that's happening. I appreciate that.

But my question is I have for you is what do you think if a second Trump term were to happen, what do you think the foreign policy of a new Trump administration might be with in relation with Canada? Because in his first term, like he really hated like the North American Free Trade Agreement and he thought it was a terrible deal, as he said, multiple occasions. And he actually ended up making a new deal with Canada. But I'm kind of wondering, what do you think would be maybe the next sort of if it were to happen kind of thing? Speaker 1 I don't think Trump would prioritize Canada one way or the other, quite frankly, in terms of either trying to be antagonistic or to be more buddy buddy.

I do think your instinct about trade and these North American trade agreements, including Trump's very modest modification to NAFTA that he made. I think that would basically be the extent of it unless unless Canada starts getting on his nerves and interfering with something that he's trying to do, which is certainly plausible, at which point he'll start talking about communism and socialism and how it needs to be America first and MAGA and all this different stuff. But to be honest, I wouldn't be I wouldn't be particularly worried because Trump seems at least right now very much preoccupied with other shiny objects that I would be shocked if Canada played a major role. Speaker 1 OK, and I guess like another thing, too, like I guess I kind of want to mention as well is that I think not many people know, but we also have a federal election next year as well

coming up pretty quickly. so and there's a good chance like right now in canada uh liberal party leader justin trudeau prime minister he's not very popular at the moment like a lot of people are not very fan big fans of him so it'd be interesting to kind of see like as the result of the 2024 election for the united states and also canada's election results in 2025 and kind of well who could be the leader because it could be justin trudeau again. But even then, he's still having some issues within his own party where there is kind of a lack of confidence with his own leadership.

So it's kind of interesting because I'm thinking like, OK, well, this can go a million different ways. Well, now you're bringing up something that I am paying closer attention to. If the opposition leader remind me, it's Pierre. Oh, yes. Yeah. Yes. If he were to seize power and then Trump wins, I do think that then you are setting the stage

for some kind of collaboration that would be very concerning to those who support democracy and liberal values. That would be a concern to those who support democracy and liberal values. That would be a concern to me. Really? OK, interesting. What do you think? Yeah, he's actually like very popular. He's becoming more popular now because he has taken a bigger stand.

I'm sure, though. And I mean, I vote I'm a I'm a Green Party, actually a voter. But I you know, I still I voted for Trudeau in my first ever in 2021 when i first was able to vote but i still like i i look at what the conservative party is kind of offering and we're having you know similar issues in the u.s whether it be you know the housing crisis uh gas prices you know etc like that yeah um but it would be it would be interesting to kind of see if the conservative party were to take the majority uh in Canada and Puli would become the prime minister. Yeah, I think he might try and get along with Trump a little bit if Trump were to win as

well. So I think I think they would get along and it could be a real problem, as I guess the point I'm trying to make. Mm hmm. Yeah, I will. I will say this, though, like our Conservative Party leader, like he's not as extreme as Trump. Like, I mean, there are still some like kind of flaws, but without a doubt, I just know we're near as extreme as Trump. But there I'm on the. Oh, no, God, no.

I kind of just wanted your perspective on that, because I think I mean, we're we're the U.S.'s largest trading partner. And it's always, you know, we have a close relationship with you guys and we want to you know we'll be honest with you for me personally and a lot of people in like my neighborhood because i'm like in the outer reaches of toronto we're not a huge fan of him you know uh just because he didn't he didn't treat us well when he was president he just he did not like us it seemed for many different reasons so but and then with biden it's kind of just like that you know oh it's kind of normal you know it's the way it's supposed to be. It's not controversial. So it's more boring in the best of ways. All right. Kieran from Canada. I appreciate the call.

Thank you very, very much. And on that note, we will go to a break. I will take calls again, just not today. So if you didn't get on, please call in next week and I look forward to talking to you. Let's take a very quick break and we'll be back right after this. If you value what we do at The David Pakman Show, remember to support us on Patreon. Go to Patreon dot com slash David Pakman show where you can get access to behind the scenes videos, the daily bonus show, the commercial free daily show. You can support the show for as little as two dollars a month.

Check it out at Patriot dot com slash David Pakman show. All right. Let's do a Friday feedback on the Friday show. We will look at emails, YouTube comments, Twitter replies, Facebook replies. Anything goes, really. Sometimes these are substantive. Sometimes they are not. Let's just jump right in. comments, Twitter replies, Facebook replies, anything goes really. Sometimes these are substantive, sometimes they are not. Let's just jump right in.

Blake wrote in, commented on YouTube. In fact, how can people vote for Biden knowing that he's the cause of the decline of our country? Serious question. Do people still vote for Biden because they actually believe he can do it? Or do they vote for Biden simply because they hate Trump so much? And if that's the case, why not vote for Vivek? Well, Vivek isn't even the Republican nominee, so I don't even understand where that comes

from. Here's the way I think about it. Imagine a timeline and you have Trump and you have Biden. One end of the time of the timeline is closer to my politics and one end of the timeline is further away from my politics. Or one end of the timeline is better for the country. The other end of the timeline is worse for the country. You me, everybody would put Trump and Biden at different places on that timeline. But if you put Biden closer to better for the country, more aligned with my views than you put Trump, it doesn't really matter whether it's I think these guys are both mediocre, but Biden's slightly less mediocre.

Or I think both of these guys are great, but Biden is slightly better than Trump. It doesn't really matter if on the timeline Biden is closer to where your politics lie and you believe Biden is better for the country than Donald Trump, then a pragmatic approach, a harm reduction approach, a what's best for the country approach, which is what I take means you vote for Biden. So some of these questions, you what's best for the country approach, which is what I take, means you vote for Biden. So some of these questions, you know, Biden is the cause of the decline of our country. You've got to defend that. You have to tell me what exactly did Biden do or do you actually who actually thinks

Biden can do it? I think this goes to the Biden dementia story. You've got to demonstrate that to me and also contend with the endless medical professionals who say the real cognitive concern is Trump, not Biden. But if we abstract ourselves from that, I think what you will find to the extent that Blake really wants to know is that for people like me and many in my audience, although we would put Biden at different places on the political spectrum in terms of how he aligns with our individual views or whatever. We agree that Trump is far, far worse and a greater danger to the country.

And thus you do the obvious thing. You live your life and then in November you go and you vote for Biden and then you go back to living your life. That's the way I approach it. OK. Marianne Zimmerman wrote in Denmark, we have much more freedom than in America. We do not need to worry about getting sick, old or disabled. We pay taxes to cover that. So that compulsion through paying taxes gives us much more freedom.

Yeah, this is this is not a new debate. There's freedom from and freedom to. But there's also the apparent conflict, which I don't think really is a conflict. Once you understand human psychology and sociology and anthropology, there's the conflict between if you tax me and you don't give me a choice, if I work, I must pay the taxes, even if I don't want the stuff you're offering me. If you tax me, you are taking away my freedom to decide what happens with the money I earn. I don't have a choice. If I work, I must pay some taxes to you. Contrast that with taxes allow us to have far more freedom. The fact that we have police, fire, education, health care in some places, right? Denmark has it in the United States. In some states we have it. In some states we don't.

But the idea is through the compulsion of paying taxes, if you choose to work, you get these things which dramatically escalate the amount of freedom you have. Hey, you know what? I don't have to worry about losing health care if I quit this job. So I have the freedom to really pursue whatever I want to pursue. I don't have to worry. Oh, if I quit my job, I lose my health insurance. That is a great amount of freedom that in many countries people have. And in much of the United States, we do not have. So this is a very extensive political debate that involves a variety of types of libertarianism. Social democracy has things to say about this. Traditional conservatism has things to say about this. But what I think is the most important takeaway is when someone tells you,

listen, here's how we evaluate freedom. The freedom not to pay taxes is the most important freedom. Well, every civilized society disagrees. And if you understand, read Robin Dunbar, for example, read others who write about the same issues. There is no way to organize societies or groups of people with greater than even a few hundred people, never mind thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions without there having to be some centralized decision making in order to fund that, you have to tax people. My argument and the argument of social democracy is that in so doing, you actually dramatically increase freedom rather than restrict it. Marianne Zimmerman is absolutely

right. Catherine Drescher commented on Facebook sitting here laughing so hard. I love how you take these whack jobs in stride. Never get angry. I wish I had your calm manner. Nothing seems to upset you. You know, I get this a lot. It's not that that these whack jobs don't upset me. I actually am terrified at if they were in charge. Think about how insanely bad the situation would be in this country. It'd be even worse than it is. It's that I'm sort of desensitized to it to some degree, for better or worse. I am somewhat desensitized because I've been following the political space for so long. And it's just like this is the way the United States is.

The country is filled with people who are completely disconnected from reality, advocate for ideas and candidates that make no sense, that know nothing whatsoever. And so it honestly it's probably a sign that I'm too desensitized, that I'm kind of like, yep, here's another here's another crazy person. Gloria wrote in and said not about Trump and sleeping. Not funny, because when he loses the case, he'll say they put something over on him while he was asleep and it may be calculated so he doesn't inflame the judge and get put in jail with his constant whining. I don't actually think this is what's going on at all.

I think Trump can't stay awake. And I do not think there is any chance whatsoever that Trump appeals a conviction on the basis that while he was sleeping, they did things that were against the law. His lawyers are awake. And I see Gloria is trying to apply some kind of logic to a situation that makes no sense. Most people would be so terrified by the prospect of what their lives will become if they are convicted that they wouldn't be able to fall asleep, particularly in a cold courtroom, the way that Trump is falling asleep. So we're trying to figure out why is it happening? I don't really know why it's happening. There's a bunch of hypotheses. But if I were a betting man, I would bet Trump does not successfully appeal because they did

something unfair while he was sleeping. Jennifer Manoni Magnone says if there's a federal legalization of marijuana by Biden, that would significantly change his status in the polls. Several of the blue states have already legalized marijuana. There has been a significant change to my state's financial status since the legalization. And Sean responds by saying everyone will see their car insurance prices go way up if you legalize cannabis. It hasn't happened in the states that have done it. You know, these sort of little quips from the anti legalization people, you don't have to be in favor personally. You don't have to be a personal user of cannabis to realize that the way it's been regulated

and still is criminalized in so many places makes no sense whatsoever. I am not a user of cannabis, but when I see what we've done with the war on drugs and criminalization and making it so difficult even for these dispensaries to have bank accounts, none of this makes any sense whatsoever. And to counteract Sean's claim that because of intoxicated or under the influence driving when you legalize car insurance rates will go way up. All you have to do is look at the states that have done it and see that that hasn't happened. Colorado, Massachusetts and so many other different states. Very silly argument. Very, very silly argument. OK, from the subreddit Ping, Vinnie says, how likely is it for David to interview Donald

Trump and should he even bother? Trump's not going to do an interview with me. And I know that the right wingers love to call in and go, hey, did you see who got to interview Trump? Trump would never do your show. That's right. Trump would never do this show. Yeah, but I mean, why would he?

There is zero upside whatsoever. Trump tends to do bigger shows than mine or extremely friendly shows. So it's very unlikely that Trump would agree to an interview with me. I don't know what that really proves about anything. But of course, given the opportunity to interview any sitting or former president, of course, I would do it. Should I even bother? Absolutely. It would be a very big deal for the show. More from the subreddit Louisiana Pelican says if the Supreme Court declares that presidents are immune from being prosecuted for official actions, what would stop Biden from simply

arresting Trump by fiat? Since the argument that Trump is making is that presidents cannot be held accountable even for political assassinations, couldn't Biden then use this newfound immunity to simply arrest Trump by executive decree? What are they going to do? Prosecute him. He's immune. 100 percent correct. This is this is part of the core of the absurdity of this argument, because if you accept Trump's claim about any even remotely official act is completely protected by presidential immunity. Biden could say, hey, you know what? Trump merely being the candidate represents an existential threat to the United States. He's a national security risk. I sincerely believe it as an

official action. We must have Trump arrested or we must have Trump killed official act as president, not a personal act. By Trump's own logic, that would be an immune action by Joe Biden at its face, at its face. It's completely and totally absurd. Many of you have noticed that there have been some glitches on the member show lately. And we have a couple instances that people screenshotted, one in which something very strange is going on with the video, another in which the video is completely and totally garbled. I look garbled and pixelated, almost transparent. Another one in which I seem to have an extremely long face and a big face. Even there is some kind of there is some kind of gremlin in one of our technical elements. We're trying to sort out what it is. We've determined it's not with the inputs.

Everything with our cameras is working fine. Something about the export process of the videos is causing some of these glitches. And we are we are working. Wow. Look at that. My face extremely long. We are working to correct these as soon as possible. It may just be time for a new editing computer, to be honest. That's what producer Pat and I have been talking about. The current one is six years old. It's a work horse. It has exported thousands and thousands of hours of video. It may have run its course and it may be time for a new computer. But if it's not resolved this week, rest assured we will make the necessary investments and improvements and everything is going to be fixed. Make sure you get my newest or all of my children's books. The newest, of course, being think like a voter,

a great book to explain to kids what is it we will be doing in November. Most of us. And why is it so important? And remember that they get instant access to the bonus show. You need only sign up at join Pacman dot com. If you believe that the work we are doing is important, understand that we have no large corporate donors. We depend on your support through the membership program, which you can find at join Packman dot com.