The David Pakman Show - 8/25/23: Trump arrest and mugshotted, says jail was "terrible"

Episode Date: August 25, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Failed former President Donald Trump is arrested in Georgia, receives a mugshot, and delivers a lie-riddled speech before getting back on his plane home -- Donald Trump says jail was "terrible" in an insane post-arrest interview with Newsmax's Greg Kelly -- Donald Trump hilariously claims to weigh 215 pounds at his arrest in Atlanta, Georgia -- 2024 Green Party presidential candidate Cornel West is confronted about his owed taxes and child support payments, and his response is a total word salad which does not include a denial -- Caller is very worried about how David is picking up his daughter -- Caller wonders what Donald Trump's funeral will be like, and who would eulogize Trump at such an event -- Caller is worried about how and whether the US will ever redeem itself after unleashing Trump on the world -- Caller wonders whether left-wingers are more open to dissenting ideas than right-wingers -- Caller wonders whether psychoanalysis is merely nonsense -- Caller is concerned about Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott meddling in public education -- Caller is worried about Oregon initiative regarding legislator attendance policies -- Caller wonders why Republicans have become increasingly populist in their rhetoric -- Caller asks why right-wingers appear to love ad hominem attacks -- This week's Feedback Friday -- On the Bonus Show: COVID hospitalizations are up 22%, some mask mandates return, anti-Putin mercenary chief Yevgeny Progozhin killed in plane crash, is Vivek Ramaswamy the new Tulsi Gabbard, much more... 🪒 Henson Shaving: Use code PAKMAN for FREE blades at https://hensonshaving.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni: The first 100 people to use code PAKMAN will get 60% off at http://incogni.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

. Yesterday was a historic day in the United States of America. The failed former president, civilly liable rapist, twice impeached, now four times indicted Donald Trump, surrendered at Fulton County Jail in Georgia, flying from Newark to Atlanta on his private jet, making the 20 minute ride over to the jail, spending about 20 minutes at the jail, going back to the airport, making a brief 72nd statement and then lumbering hunched over with his head down back onto his plane and back up to his house.

Donald Trump will be embroiled in four criminal trials in addition to. A presidential campaign, a primary, which at least for now he is still winning easily. However, it is early. We do not yet know the effect on polling from his lack of appearance at Wednesday's first Republican presidential debate. But let's start with Donald Trump's statement upon his return to the airport. Georgia racketeering law can carry a penalty between five and 20 years in prison. Here is Donald Trump continuing to insist that this is all just because he elected, objected to the election results. Now, before I play the video, just a quick reminder, was a mugshot that mugshot released very quickly. And it is a posed and appearing to be defiant Donald Trump with a scowl and hunched over and bending forward. Make of the mugshot what you

will. Here is the statement from the failed former president, unable to even give a one minute statement without lying. Thank you very much for being here. I really believe this is a very sad day for America. This should never happen. If you challenge an election, you should be able to challenge an election. I thought the election was a rigged election, a stolen election. And I should have every right to do that. As you know, you have many people that you've been watching over the years do the same thing, whether it's Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams or many others.

When you have that great freedom to challenge, you have to be able to. Otherwise, you're going to have very dishonest elections. What has taken place here is a travesty of justice. We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. And everybody knows that I've never had such support. And that goes with the other ones, too. What they're doing is election interference. They're trying to interfere with an election.

There's never been anything like it in our country before. This is their way of campaigning. This is one instance, but you have three other instances. It's election interference. So I want to thank you for being here. We did nothing wrong at all. Thank you so much for coming to my fourth arrest. And we have every right, every single right to challenge an election that we think is dishonest, that we think it's very dishonest. So thank you all very much and I'll see you very soon.

Thank you very much. And off goes Trump declining to answer questions. If this is Donald Trump's legal defense to these charges, he should quit now. It's not even worth it. The indictment is not about objecting to the election results. The indictment is not about challenging the election results. The indictment is not even about the false claim. It's not about Trump lying that he won.

It is not about any of those things. It relates to the conspiracy in which Trump allegedly engaged to disenfranchise Georgia voters so that he rather than the rightful winner, Joe Biden, would be given the electoral votes. Trump no better in an interview given while flying back or riding back or who knows when he did this. Let's discuss that next. Donald Trump gave a post jail interview to Newsmax's Greg Kelly. The interview is truly something to behold. A sad Trump saying that jail was just terrible. And if it's terrible to be in Fulton County jail for 20 minutes as a former president with reams of Secret Service agents and a phalanx of different lines of security,

just imagine what it's like for normal people when they go to Fulton County jail, a place where, by the way, detainees have died. But here is Trump. It was just terrible for him. What was the experience like today in jail? Terrible experience. I came in, I was treated very nicely, but it is what it is. I took a mugshot, which I never heard the words mugshot. That wasn't, didn't teach me that at the Wharton School of Finance. And I have, you know, when I got into Wharton, thanks to nepotism, I never thought I'd ever be getting a mugshot through a process. It's election interference. You know that better than anybody. You covered so well. You did a fantastic job. I have to tell you, for the

first time, a fantastic job. But it's a very sad experience and it's a very sad day for our country. This is a there you go. Trump also adding that even though he never thought that he would go through what he went through yesterday, he did actually do the same thing three times. So it's a little bit of a muddled explanation. But you know, I went through an experience today that I never thought I'd have to go to. But I've gone through the same experience three other times in my whole life.

I didn't know anything about indictments. And now I've been indicted like four times and all by the radical left. And it's in coordination. Absolute. But of course, there's no evidence that there's any coordination taking place involving Joe Biden or Democrats or any of it. Simply not a shred of evidence. Despite all of this, Donald Trump says he's sleeping well at night.

He sleeps soundly. This scenario, 40 points on top in the Republican field and crushing Biden by about seven points in the latest poll. How are you sleeping, by the way? In your book a long time ago, you said you slept four hours a night. Are you still a four-hour- night guy? What? You got a routine when it comes to that tough interview, huh? No, but more or less. But I do. I do sleep soundly and I don't let it bother me because it is what it is. It's a horrible thing. And really, it helps that, you know, when you have poll numbers like this, that means the people understand it. But

you mentioned Trump sleeps well despite four criminal indictments because of the poll numbers. The failed former president also went on to say sort of a I think this is a reference to the fact that he's been found civilly liable for raping and defaming E. Jean Carroll. Trump says that there are cases against him, including from women whose only contact with him was taking a picture 25 years ago. Very sad day for our country. This is a weaponized Justice Department.

And all of these indictments and cases, I have a couple of cases that are not indictments. It's just cases where you have these left lawyers suing like a woman that I never saw before, other than that, she took a picnic 25 years ago on a on a line, on a contributor's line or something or charity line. Everything is just like one thing after the the next. He's just the endless victim, the most poorly and unfairly treated guy. And lastly, Donald Trump bragging about the obviously misunderstood impression numbers of his interview with Tucker Carlson from Wednesday night.

Here's what he said about that. Really see somebody who might be eligible. And overall, what do you think? Well, first of all, I did a interview with Tucker Carlson. There's a terrific guy. Well, first of all, I did a interview with Tucker Carlson. He's a terrific guy. And I don't know if you saw the number of views, but it was a record-setting number. They say it could be close to 300 by the time it finishes.

And right now it's up to, I think, 257 million. And it is bigger than the – you know, the biggest ever interview was Oprah with Michael Jackson. I don't know if you know that, but that was that's the all time biggest. I think we've doubled it up. Yep. And of course, Donald Trump and many seemingly not understanding that that insane two hundred and thirty six million view number for Trump's interview with Tucker, any normal person would immediately know that two hundred and thirty six million people did not watch that interview.

But of course, that is impressions people scrolling by. The interview was, of course, promoted and so on and so forth. Realistically, the number of people who viewed any of it is 10 percent of that. And the number of people who got more than a minute in would be 10 percent of that. But that doesn't matter because in Trump's world, we're all just living in delusional fantasies. So Trump presenting the case that it was all terrible for him in jail. But this is only the beginning. Let's now talk a little bit more about the booking. Donald Trump did receive a mugshot yesterday in Fulton County Jail. He also was asked his height and weight.

And Donald Trump said that he weighs two hundred and fifteen pounds. Now, interestingly, at a previous arrest, Trump said he weighed two forty four. So he seems to have lost twenty nine pounds in very, very short order. This is, of course, not believable. Why do we care about Trump's weight? We're not fat shaming. It's nothing like that. Remember, Trump has a medical problem. Trump is obese. He doesn't exercise and eats a terrible diet. He's at significant risk of having a cardiovascular event. This is not about fat shaming. It's about Trump lies about everything, even demonstrable lies. Here is MSNBC sort of not not falling for Trump's claim about his weight. It's like, well, do they actually measure him? You know, do they put him on a scale? It's not like going to the veterinary

and they do not actually make you stand on the scale. But he's listed as a white male. His hair color is listed as blonde or strawberry. Is that a nice way to say orange? Blonde or strawberry. His eye color is listed as blue. His height is listed as six foot three. And his weight is listed as blue. His height is listed as six foot three and his weight is listed.

175 to 15, six, three, two 15. People pointed out as the exact dimensions of Lamar Jackson, the quarterback for the Baltimore Ravens. I don't know the control room. No. And more, more interestingly than that, our friend Rex Chapman, who's a former NBA player, he posted a picture of himself and he said, listen, I'm six, three to 15. And as you can see, if you're watching a very different physique than Trump, even Fox News hilariously is not buying that Trump weighs 215 is the mugshot that everyone is talking about. Mr. Trump seen scowling at the camera.

He was assigned an inmate number and he was listed at six three two hundred and fifteen pounds. But some aren't buying that. Given that in 2020 as president, the White House physician listed him at two hundred and forty four pounds report. Right. So everybody knows it's a lie. So listen, it's just about the dishonesty. It's not about fat shaming. It's about the dishonesty. And this guy is a liar all the way down. Best of luck. Innocent until proven guilty deserves his day in court. We believe in law and order here. Let me talk briefly about Cornel West. Earlier in the week, we talked about Green Party presidential contender Cornel West and reporting that he

owes half a million dollars in unpaid taxes and unpaid child support. And one of the questions we discussed was, is this relevant to his candidacy or not? Is this just personal gossip irrelevant to his potential presidential role? Or is it relevant? Is it relevant because unpaid taxes, if you're running on, everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and everyone should pay the taxes they owe. And here's my tax policy. Well, maybe your personal

unpaid taxes are relevant. If you're running on, we respect women and children and so on and so forth, and you don't pay your own child support. Maybe that is relevant. Well, it is now clearly becoming an issue because Cornel West appeared on Fox News's Laura Ingraham show. She asked him about it. He doesn't deny it, doesn't really answer the question and delivers this bizarre word salad, which to me suggests not only are the reports true, but he wants to obfuscate. They're coming after you. And I predicted that this was going to happen.

Dr. West Daily Beast, which is, you know, pretty much a, you know, attack website. They say that you owe the IRS more than a half million dollars in back taxes. You know, you do argue that the rich should pay their fair share. So what do the voters need to know about this? Is this correct? Is it correct is the question. Now, listen to what he says. Oh, they need to know that all of us need to pay our fair share of taxes. Now listen to what he says. They need to know that all of us need to pay our fair share of taxes. They need to know that I've always said that I'm broke the 10 commandments financially because I'm not concerned with money making.

They need to know I've always had plans in place because I, I'm already in process of ensuring that I stay in line and paying those taxes. So in that sense, again, it's just a matter of the foes. And I don't know whether it's Democratic Party, Republican Party is probably the Democrats. They are afraid. But you know what, sister Laura? They got good reason to be afraid. Right.

Why? Because we need to focus on poor and working people. So I guess he owes half a million in back taxes and unpaid child support. That's my takeaway. It is more of an issue after this insane non answer. Now, now it is clear to me this is an issue because he's also obfuscating and lying. Now, again, this is not a serious candidacy, so I'm kind of ready to close the book on it. But it is much more clear at this point that it is a valid thing to ask him about because he just straight up seems unwilling to tell the truth about it. Let's take a quick break.

We're going to be right back with much more. I've had such trouble finding a great razor where I am not cutting myself for getting those nicks on my skin, which are so common with the cheap disposable razors. You have to meet our sponsor, Henson Shaving. Henson actually manufactures parts for the International Space Station and the Mars Rover, and they are bringing that exact same precision engineering to the shaving experience. It hurts when you shave because blades extend too far and thus they wobble slightly. But with their aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson is able to make metal razors that extend just zero point zero zero one three inches.

That's less than the thickness of a human hair, which means a secure, stable blade with a vibration free shave. It also has built in channels to evacuate the hair and the cream. No more clogs, no more rubbing your thumb on the razor to get the hair out. I use Henson at home. Shaving is a great experience. Now, Henson wants to be the best razor, not the best razor business, which means you only need to buy it once. And it's awesome. Go to Henson shaving dot com slash Pacman at a razor and a hundred pack of blades to your cart. Then enter the code Pacman to get the hundred blades for free. That is a three year supply. That's H E N S O N shaving dot com slash Pacman. Use code Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show, of course, continues to depend

and primarily be funded by viewers and listeners, just random people. They're not random to me, but random people who say, hey, you know what? I kind of like what you're doing, David. I think I'm going to support it. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. That's the place to do it. And you can, of course, use the coupon code indicted again to get yourself a discount. Let's now hear not from random people, but from specific people in the audience. We take calls on the Friday show. Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Speaker 3 Speaker 1 Speaker 4 Speaker 5 Speaker 6 Speaker 7 Speaker 8 Speaker 9 Speaker 10 Speaker 11

Speaker 12 Speaker 13 Speaker 14 Speaker 15 Speaker 16 Speaker 17 Speaker 18 Speaker 19 Speaker 20 Speaker 21 Speaker 22 Speaker 23 Speaker 24 Speaker 25 Speaker 26 Speaker 27 Speaker 28 Speaker 31 Speaker 32 Speaker 32 Harry from Chicago, Illinois. Harry, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today?

Can you hear me this morning? Yes, I can. It's great to be on with you. I really hope you enjoyed your vacation. I saw the pictures that you posted. It might have been before your vacation. You were holding your baby in a kind of a precarious position, like well above your head. I just wanted to say that I think that you might want to reconsider holding the baby in such a position. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, it seems like although you do, you know, I have to say, your muscles in the photo, it looked like they'd had some development recently that you were able to hold the baby in such a position.

Are you still working out? Are you still lifting weights? I think you mentioned that. Absolutely. That's great. Sorry, I'm just catching my breath. I had to move to a different room real quickly to take the call. Oh, my God.

Just to get to my question real quickly. I'm sorry. You've recently talked about like a pyramid of knowledge or like a hierarchy of knowledge that you consider important for people to know, to understand. I wanted to ask like just a little bit more about that. Like, do you do you have have you had any updates to that sort of like philosophy of knowledge or like understanding? Cause like you say that your, you know, your opinion is that like your, your show, you know, that that's like at the top of the table and at the bottom is sort of like more general understanding, like critical thinking, media literacy, epistemology, philosophy in the middle, maybe some like, you know, like more academic knowledge, like, like history. Could you like expand on it? Maybe like the idea is that insight into it shows like I want to be clear. When I said my show is at the top, I meant my show is like the junk food.

OK, so to be totally clear for people not to misunderstand. So the idea here is what sorts of knowledge are what what types of knowledge are foundational versus informational versus something else. And in an ideal world, we would all be operating in the in the world with a baseline of why do I believe the things I believe, epistemology, critical thinking, media literacy, understanding how to think about the messages I get from media. That would sort of be our base. We would then go to, okay, now that I have a little bit of a sense of how to think and how to determine for myself what is worthy of my belief. Once I've explored that and I'm

comfortable there, uh, I would now go to some subject matter, knowledge, foundational subject matter knowledge, some economics, some about history and the biases of history, a little bit about the scientific method and, and, you know, some science reporting so we can when we see message claims about science or medicine, we know how to interpret them, some philosophy, etc. That would be like the second level. The third level would be, OK, let me now start to inform myself about current events. And so for that, I would include books as well as straight up news reporting related to so by books you could read philosophy that would be in a lower that lower down on the pyramid.

But you could also say, well, I'm going to read a book specifically about, you know, a particular civil war or something like that. And also news reporting, not commentary, but news reporting. Then you are now well equipped to watch commentary like what I do or where someone on the right does, where you are bringing a previous understanding of how to think about things, of some history, some economic knowledge, et cetera. I think that what I do absent that foundation or what any of us do is dangerous in the sense that people may not be fully equipped to know how to parse through and interpret the sorts of messages that opinions show opinion shows give. So that's why I put myself at the junk food side of this pyramid and really encourage people to focus lower down. It's understandable that you

would you'd feel that way. I do think that, you know, some of the more direct reporting is must read like at the beginning of the day. I do so. But I really do appreciate how you're able to, you know, sort of symbolize these ideas like through the pyramid. And I believe you did a video a few months ago where you talked about here's the basic minimum things you should do to like, you know, see your general well-being improve. And one of them was actually one I took very close to heart. It's having more fiber in my life. Um, yeah, it's been, it's been a real game changer, to be honest. So, all right, Harry, listen, you've really said it all. We've touched so many issues and I hope to hear from you again. And, uh, Oh, and Harry is gone. Didn't even have to disconnect it. Very good. All right. Well, listen, let's continue. I want to remind everybody, if you would like to be called on, you have to have your name and location as your

nickname. There are people who just have like a single letter. You just get skipped over. OK, so just bear that in mind. Let's go next to Peter from Allentown. Peter, welcome to the David Pakman show. What's going on? What can I do for you today? David, it's an honor. My pleasure. My question is kind of kind of like a two parter, but they're related. OK. When Trump dies, do you think he'll be afforded the privilege other presidents have had lying in state in the Capitol? And if so, who would attend and what would the eulogies be like? So I have no idea who would attend, and I couldn't even imagine what the eulogies would be like. That's a really interesting question. I'd have to devote it some thought. I can assure you

it would be absolutely the best eulogy anybody has ever seen that would be given the strongest for sure. You know, there's an interesting question there, which is let's imagine Trump gets convicted of some of the crimes he's accused of. Would would he still get that same presidential funeral treatment or not? I don't know, because we've never had a convicted felon former president die. It's a super interesting question and maybe one for like a presidential historian or something like that. But I am I am fascinated to think of what that funeral would look like. It would be wonderful TV, I'm sure. Yeah, I mean, it would it would be compelling in a in a number of different ways. I just don't like who would speak, I guess, maybe his kids.

I don't know. But who would say anything good about him? I have his kids. No, I think I think his kids basically. Yeah. Wow. OK, thank you. Thank you, David. My pleasure. There is Peter from Allentown. Really something to think about. I mean, it is it is interesting. That would be quite a quite a funeral. I don't know. I'm going to devote some thought to that. Let's go next to Holmes in South K. I don't know if it's South Kentucky or South Korea. Oh, Holmes, welcome. Holmes from South Korea. What can I do for you today?

Holmes from South Korea. You probably have the wrong audio device selected. Please correct it and then we'll be able to hear you. And last chance for homes in South Korea, you've now muted yourself, which will certainly prevent us from hearing you. All right, well, that's too bad, Holmes unable to get configured correctly. Let's go to Nick from D.C. Nick, welcome to The David Pakman Show. What can I do for you today? David, first time listener here in the discord and just want to say, love your stuff. Thank you. I try to get everybody that I talk to about politics or star or even

dry humor to tune into your stuff. But I just have a quick question. I think it's something that you probably talked about several times, but it's just a simple question that has a complicated answer. But how can we come back as a country from just how much of a clown sideshow it's all become? And really, even me,

I was definitely a hard left liberal and you know have definitely have friends in my family and in my life that are towards the right side yeah how can we like is it possible that we're going to come back from all of this complete circus or is this the future of what politics is? And we just kind of have to adapt like we are with social media and AI and all of those. But again, thank you, David. Well, listen, I think that there is not one answer to your question, Nick. How do we sort of recover? Because it's it's more than just the joke that the US politically has become under Trump. It's also, as you're pointing out, the impact of the sorts of discourse that takes place on

social media, which is related to Trumpism, but not exclusively. There's so many different aspects to this from a political standpoint. It's not going to happen quickly. But once Trump is gone, if indeed we root out Trump ism, a period of sustained diplomacy and consistency in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world is going to help us recover. Now, when I say diplomacy and consistency, obviously, Republican presidents are going to do different foreign policy than Democratic presidents. It's not going to be exactly the same. But with Trump, one of the things that happened was we became completely unreliable even when we had treaties with other countries that they abided by. The Iran nuclear deal is an example. Trump would go, I just don't like that. So it's canceled. That's not consistency.

That doesn't make the U.S. taken get taken seriously. So diplomacy and consistency. Second, we have to somehow address the internal challenges of where half the country seems to be operating with a different set of facts that happen to not be facts, but just be opinions. I don't know how we do that, but to have the serious conversations with both sides that so many want to have. You have to have a shared basis in fact, and we don't have that right now. We need it in order to regain credibility. And then beyond that, OK, we've got to figure out different ways to engage with civil society and change the way that conversations are happening, because what's happening on social media is really not not productive in so many ways. When we look at, you know, climate leadership,

we're just not taken seriously on climate since Donald Trump. And we need to be. And it's such a long list. But I think my point is, Nick, it's always easier to break things than to build them. You know, think about how long it takes to build a building and then you just throw a wrecking ball or some dynamite at it and the thing is destroyed in 15 minutes. That applies to so much of what you're talking about, our reputation, diplomacy, et cetera, the discourse. So it's not going to be quick, unfortunately. Speaker 5 I appreciate it, David. Speaker 1

All right, Nick, from D.C., great to hear from you. Let's go next to Tony from Charlotte. Tony, welcome to The David Pakman Show. What can I do for you today? Hey, I just want to let you know, I've always appreciated your commentary in particular. You have a you seem to have a natural, calm and relaxed demeanor. So my question was more about the proclivity of public intellectuals from like a left right point of view because i noticed that people from the right they have a tendency to be very animated and offended by particular ideas where people on the left in my experience they tend to be open you know they don't get offended by certain topics there's not really a taboo so i contrast you to somebody like uh jordan peterson

who if you bring up the notion of post-modernism or marxism he gets so irritated and you know it's so obvious that he's not dissecting it with any particular interest so i wanted to get your opinion on whether or not you think there is like a proof that proclivity is more, you know, because left leaning people have a more. More like proclivity for openness, what your opinion on. I don't know that I totally agree with that. I mean, listen, what what is absolutely true is that for the right, the idea of wanting to hear all voices and not silence dissenting ideas and all of that, they say it, but it's really not true when it's inconvenient to them.

We know that we know it's just something they say and they don't mean. It also does exist on the left that some folks are offended by the mere mention of certain ideas. I was recently on the Josh Zeps podcast and we talked about when Larry Summers said, hey, you know, if there were a difference in the brains of men and women with regard to mathematical abilities, wouldn't we want to know? And that's one of those things where, like, there were many people on the left who were really offended by it.

And they said, you're not even really supposed you shouldn't even be asking about that. And my view is if we're really asking in good faith and you're not just saying we should ask that question because you're actually looking to discriminate against someone, I would want to know if there was something about the brains of men and women that gave different mathematical abilities. It's been looked at. So you could argue that when it gets brought up, it's in bad faith. But the idea of just being offended and saying we can't have that conversation, sometimes that does

happen on the left. I'll give you another example. I got a call once from someone who said, David, you know that black people can't be racist. And I said, what do you what do you mean by that? They said black people can't be racist. And of course, this refers to the idea of racism as prejudice plus power versus just prejudice. And so there's two versions of this. One is racism would be here's a group that is bad based on their racial characteristics. And others would say that's only racist if you can also have the power to act on it in some way. And my view is that it's racism either way. There's a question of whether it's racism that you can put into power

in some way. There were people who were offended by me saying that by me saying, no, black people can be racist. White people can be racist. Hispanic. Everybody can be racist. And we might have different abilities to put that those prejudices into into effect. So I've run into the left also not being totally open minded on some of these questions. But I think the more interesting question maybe is, is there an ideology that at its core is against the exploration of some of these things? And I think that in the modern American political sphere, it's more so the right than the left that doesn't want to have some of these conversations. They've proven it on vaccines. They've proven it on, you know, drag shows.

They've proven it on book bands and all of this stuff. Yeah, I think you make a very good point. I guess I think that's absolutely true in terms of political commentators. You totally have certain left-wing commentators who, if you bring up certain topics, they're going to be very hyper-reactive and they have their bets in one particular camp. I guess I just meant more from my anecdotal experiences dealing with academics. I've seen many academics who have a tendency to be you know more left left-leaning and i have you know run into right-wing academics and i noticed that you know and this is like a very 2000s things where you know you bring up like the economic principle communism and you see this nowadays they'll tie in identity politics really things that have nothing to do with the, you know, the economic case for communism.

But that's an interesting take for sure. All right, Tony. Very interesting. I appreciate the question. All right, there goes Tony. Let's take the quickest break. We're going right back to discord and we're going to hear from more people. So if you're holding on to chat with me, don't hang up. There's something really disturbing we've been seeing in the news lately. The FBI

is now gathering huge amounts of data on everything people do on phones and computers. And here is how data brokers collect information about what you look at online, where you go, your political views. The FBI then buys that data to keep track of you. It is a legal gray area that the government will happily take advantage of. They don't need a court order. They just do it. But it's not just the government, because criminals can end up accessing that data and

use it to target you for phishing or identity theft. Big tech companies, political campaigns can buy the data to try to influence you. But here is the solution. Our sponsor, Incogni, automatically sends data removal requests to the major data brokers who are required by law to remove your information upon request. If any of your information stays online, Incogni will even on the ground. I'm David Pakman, the David Pakman dot com slash discord. Let's go to Josh from Los Angeles. Josh, welcome to the David Pakman show. Josh, welcome to the David Pakman show. And Josh, last chance to fix your audio. Welcome to the David Pakman show. you're now on embarrassing my apologies I mean I'm just curious about your thoughts on psychoanalysis given that I think you've said some of your family members

are therapists my opinion is that some of it is kind of in the same vein of woo that you would get from like Deepak Chopra in terms of theories about like anal retentive versus anal expulsive and like people causing their own pain. It just seems a bit like some white dudes in France made it up a hundred years ago and like kind of unclear if there's any scientific backing behind it. Well, a lot of interesting stuff you mentioned there, you know, white dudes in France made it up. The psychoanalysis was founded by Sigmund Freud, who, of course, as a Jewish gentleman, was not considered white, particularly at that time by by many people, as I'm sure you know. But that's sort of an aside to this. I think there's a couple of different things here. And

I'm not by any means an expert on psychoanalysis, but I've sort of been like around this in my life since I was a kid. It depends on really what the goals are. You are right that there is a lack of some empirical support and testability for psychoanalysis. I think that that's true. I think it's a fair critique that there's maybe an overemphasis on sexuality. There's probably a cultural bias in terms of at least the traditional form of psychoanalysis in the sense that it's based in the context where Sigmund Freud lived. And you could even say that there's the potential for the therapist to misuse a psychoanalytic setting in some way. Now, that all being said, with so many of the other, you know, systems theory and there's so many different CBT, DBT, all of these other forms of therapy. I do think that one of the strengths of psychoanalysis is the depth of exploration really going deep

in one area or the other. That as an element combined with other forms of therapy can be super useful. The idea of psychoanalysis requires a long term commitment. Sometimes therapy doesn't work for people because they just bail too soon. And so maybe the influence of psychoanalysis saying we've got to be here for we've really got to do this for a while can be useful. So I think it's a mixed bag in a lot of different ways. You know, that's my total layperson view on it. Yeah, I'm not trying to discount the value of therapy overall, but I've been reading some of Chomsky's opinions on it recently, who describes what I've felt, which is that some books, foundational books by people like Lacan are just completely unintelligible from like even a grammatical perspective.

And honestly, it mirrors some of Jordan Peterson's longer books in the way that people seem to talk in circles or being very consumed with their own theories. Yeah, that's just my perception. I've never known Chomsky necessarily to be an expert on that per se, but I do think that that specific thing you're saying resonates with me. OK, cool. Yeah, just curious. And last quick question. Have you seen have you seen Immigration Nation on Netflix, the series?

No, I have not. I firmly recommend it. There's documentarians who went behind the lines at ICE and filmed things that they really didn't want to get out, but they had a contract with Netflix. I did see it. It's three years old. That's why it rang a bell. I saw it when it first came out a few years ago. OK, awesome.

I don't know if there's a new season or something. Now, I just wanted to make sure that your audience was very interesting. Very interesting. Yeah. Cool. Thanks so much. All right. Josh, from Los Angeles. Great to hear from you. Why don't we go next to Demoree from Texas? Demoree from Texas. Welcome to the David Pakman show. What's on your mind today? Hey, David, a big fan. Thank you. So I had a question or if you had heard about or your thoughts on Greg Abbott's takeover of Houston Independent School District, the biggest one in Texas. And of course, most of them are Mexican and black people. So I just want to know if you heard about that.

I mean, listen, I haven't looked at it super specifically. This is a that's a couple of months old, right? Like this was going on kind of in like the first quarter of the year, was it? Yeah. But I think, yeah, of course, schools getting right back into it. And yeah, over the summer they were having things going on down there. Speaker 1 My view on it in general is these right wingers love to talk about all of their actions as based in freedom. So they talk about school choice, for example, which really means the freedom to strip public schools of even more money to make them even

crappier, to then justify shutting down more of them and moving things in the direction of privatization. So it's really a very strange freedom that they refer to. Similarly, when it comes to takeovers, when it comes to curricula, it's we want freedom for children to develop by restricting and limiting what we allow teachers to teach, even though they are the experts, not us. But we're still going to tell them what the curriculum is going to be. With all of these, my main critique is it's another perversion of a stated principle of

the American right wing, which is they claim to actually be about openness and freedom. But what they do in practice is to try to impose only their version of those things on others. And it is very much limiting, actually. It is not freedom. And I think the takeovers of school districts all over the country and including the one you're talking about are basically examples of that. They want to decide. That's it. Yes. Thanks. Appreciate it. My pleasure. There's Demore from Texas. Good to hear from you. Why don't we go next to Melwood from Oregon? Melwood from Oregon. What's going on? Melwood, please. What's going on? Hi, David. Hi hi hi so um my connection's a little precarious because i'm out running wildfire smoke on the road here oh no but hey i wanted to ask you about um in oregon

last year we passed a measure i believe it was measure 114, which would preclude state senators for running for reelection if they had more than I think it was eight unexcused absences, which they've used to, you know, delay votes and that sort of thing. And so we've got several like more than a handful of state senators that are now going to be precluded from running for reelection. Speaker 1 And Mel would just in the interest of accuracy, what measure one one four was about guns. But you're talking about measure one one three. So you were almost spot on there. Speaker 4 Oh, sorry about that. Sorry about that. So yeah, so I'm a little mixed on it because I know that it has been used to the advantage of Democrats in the past to delay or to avoid votes. But I don't know. What is your opinion on that? You know, I don't know enough about it specifically to intelligently comment.

What I will say is that the main critique I've seen of the measure, because it sounds like, hey, let's hold people accountable for absenteeism. Like it sounds good, right? Why would we be opposed to that? One of the things I saw as a critique is it gives power to the majority party and takes it from voters in the sense of if you put in rules about absenteeism being disqualifying, voters maybe don't care about that. Right. So you're basically saying to voters in certain cases, even if you want some of these people representing you, we are going to pass a law where we're not going to let you make that decision. So it is it is the legislature taking potentially power from voters.

That's the criticism I've seen of the measure. All right. But it was voted on by the people. Yes. So there's that. Yeah. So like I said, I'm a little mixed on it. I appreciate you giving me your two cents. Great to hear from you as always. Thank you. All right. There goes Melwood from Oregon. Let's go to Alaska. Cole from Alaska is our next caller at David Pakman dot com slash discord. Cole, welcome to the program. Hello, can you can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hey, so have you ever been to Alaska? Never. You know, I almost went. Let's see. I guess it would have been March of 2021. Instead, I went to Aruba and sat on the beach. Oh, wow. Yeah. I'd love to go to Alaska. I really would. Yeah. Yeah. If if you if you if you ever come in the winter, make sure to cross country ski. That sounds that that sounds good. Now, how cold where in Alaska are you?

I'm I'm in Anchorage, but my family comes from a native village in southeast called Metlakatla, Alaska, near Ketchikan. Uh-huh. And you like it there, or what's the story? I do, but I kind of want to move to maybe Pennsylvania or Georgia. Okay. Why, why there? Um, I really like Pennsylvania because I really like the woods there and the, and the, you know, all the history. Interesting. All right. Well, it all, it all sounds great. Did you have any other questions for me today? Yeah. So so do do you think. So remember how conservatives used to. Used to used to. Like be opposed to populism. Yes. What do what do you think happened and why do you think they became more populist? Trump happened and Trump realized that because populism is a rhetoric rather than a political ideology, Trump came in, used very similar populist rhetoric to what we would sometimes

hear from the left, but offered outrageous reactionary authoritarian solutions to the problems he identified. And some Republicans realized, hey, we can use this populist rhetoric as a grift. So they realized how advantageous it was to them in some ways. Yeah. And and in fact, in fact, in fact, the Democrats are. Well, not all Democrats, but a large amount of the Democratic Party is basically now the not very populist party anymore. Yeah. You know, I have been critical of populist rhetoric from left and right. And I think to some degree you might be right.

Cole, listen, great to hear from you again. And I'll look you up if I'm in Alaska. Okay. Okay. All right. There goes Cole from Alaska. Great to hear from him. Let's go next to grant from Iowa city grant. Welcome to the David Pakman show. Hi, David. Uh, great to speak with you again. Thank you. So there's so many ad hominem attacks that are made today in politics. And to me, it seems like a lot of people accept them as being substantive, especially if they're made against people they don't like. Do you think this is something that is because they don't recognize it's a fallacy or do you think they are clearly aware of that, but they are just so eager to see their opponents get quote unquote owned?

We'll give me an example. What is it? What's a recent ad hominem attack that people aren't realizing is an ad hominem? I mean, it's very prevalent with like mega for sure. You know, things Trump says about people, um, you know, even calling like you're saying like Trump will say this guy's a loser. That guy's low energy, lightweight, that sort of stuff. He's absolutely right.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, listen, I think I think generally what you're saying is true. Ad hominem attacks as a general principle are used often because to some degree they are effective. I think the more interesting question is like there was recently a story about Cornel West and how Cornel West owes half a million dollars in child support and unpaid taxes. And there are people saying that's ad hominem because it's not really about his policy. But I think that there is a counterpoint to that, which is, well, tax policy is very much related to what one would do as president.

And also when you're talking about not paying child support and not meeting the requirements that have been put in place to, in his case, a woman that was, you know, the mother of one of his children and to the child themselves. I think it is relevant to one claiming, hey, I want to make law about a lot of these different things or at least propose policy, if not make laws more accurately as said. So I think the more interesting cases are the edge cases where it's there's not necessarily agreement as to whether they are at hominins. Yeah, yeah, I think I saw you break that down on the Monday show, I think it was indeed.

Yeah, indeed. I think it is hard to sometimes pick it out, which what is and what's not that hominid. But yeah, yeah, I guess I was kind of referring to the ones that are pretty blatantly obvious. The ones that are blatantly obvious, of course. I wonder why people just I into them or if they they know that their logical fallacies what they just are so interested in winning the argument, you know, as it were. I don't know that everybody's thinking in the in the vocabulary of logical fallacy, but certainly if they find some way to attack their political opponents, they'll go for it. All right. Great to hear from you, Grant. Appreciate the call. Let's take a break. I will take calls again if I have anything to say about it. And I hope to

hear from you next time. All right. let's dip into Friday feedback on Friday. We'll go through YouTube comments, emails, Reddit posts. And, uh, that came in over the last week and see what is on people's minds. See what people are up to. We start with a YouTube comment from Robert Mills who says simply Pacman, we are onto you you. Yeah. You know why this one, David? Why this message? This is a super common thing where I get messages from people on the right or see comments from people on the right who come to believe for whatever reason that my entire presence in Internet media and social media, et cetera, is somehow actually motivated by some secret desire to really do X. Well, I know it just sounds like you're giving your

opinion about different political issues, but the reason you're actually doing all this is because you're part of an effort to convert the country into some kind of Marxist something, something you really don't have to come up with this stuff. It's very obvious what I'm doing. Okay. There's basically two main motivations. I would say three for doing what I do. Number one, I just want to give what I think are good ideas to as many people as possible. OK, I just want to communicate what I believe would be better ways to go about organizing societies and economies. I want to tell what I really think.

There's no calculation. There's no. Well, let me figure out how is everybody going to react if I say it is. Here's what I think. I want to say that to people. That's number one. Number two, it's to build a community of people and the community that we've built. And that includes YouTube and the discord and the subreddit and all these different things.

Incredibly valuable. Build the community. Number two. And then number three, hopefully avoid having to get a, quote, real job, as so many in my audience love to refer to it, a real job in which I have to have a boss and that sort of thing. Those are really the three priorities. There's nothing else. I don't know what you mean that you're on to me, but this is a super common thing, as silly and nonsensical as it seems to be. The idea that there's some actual motivation beneath the surface for what I'm trying to do here.

Sorry to bore you, but it doesn't exist. Ellen Bodle says Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has never said one thing that is untrue. Prove it. Sure. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that it is an undeniable fact that vaccines cause autism and there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. That thing he said is untrue. Now, you could say, well, maybe we haven't found the evidence yet, but that's not what he said. He said there is evidence vaccines cause autism. He pointed to the so-called 100 studies. Of course, we looked at the 100 studies. Many of them have nothing to do with vaccines. Many of them don't actually link vaccines to autism, and many of them just are extraordinarily flawed, just methodologically

flawed. They're not even really studies. Some of them are just opinion pieces. So there's one thing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that is not true. Neon Arlecchino on the subreddit asked, did David kill the forward party? I haven't heard anything about them since David got Andrew Yang to say he'd welcome a white supremacist into the party. Are they running anyone for anything? Do they have any presidential hopefuls? Well, I think you're giving me too much credit.

I certainly didn't kill the forward party, but I do think it became super clear that there was really no there there with the forward party. I was like, well, what are your policy issues? Well, we're just kind of like everybody's welcome. We're a centrist party. Oh, all right. But so like, what's your view on abortion? Well, I don't know.

It's kind of complicated. I think there's just nothing there. And I think Andrew Yang's super nice guy and he's been on several times and he's welcome any time. If you look at the trajectory of the forward party since the big announcement, it's basically been flat. There's no trajectory. So I take no credit nor blame for what's going on with the forward party. But I do think it became clear after the initial hubbub that there's really just not much like going on there. And the lack of interest is simply a reflection of that. H to the cool commented on YouTube.

I really resent that it's mostly men talking about women's pregnancies and abortion. Most men can't even buy tampons without supervision. It is ridiculous. You know, three times I've been sent to the pharmacy to buy tampons for my girlfriend. Two out of the three, I got the wrong thing. And I really take detailed, copious notes of what it is I'm supposed to buy. And I only one in three times actually got it right. So I agree it is. I do need supervision to buy tampons. But more importantly, you know, we've talked before. There were people during the Iraq war, supporters of the Iraq war, who would say to anybody who was against that war, if you don't serve in the military,

you don't get to have an opinion that didn't really make sense. Why not? Just because I'm not in the military doesn't mean I can't analyze whether a war makes sense or whether we're even invading the country that did something to us. You can have an opinion on that. Similarly, when sometimes people say, well, you're biased on the issue of gay rights because you're gay. And then the counterpoint to that would be, well, then aren't you also biased because you're not gay? Just sort of like doesn't really make sense. So sometimes these

sorts of arguments are a little bit either farcical or fallacious, depending on the specific example. However. It is crazy when you see a panel on abortion and it's six men over age 65 that are the ones weighing in on abortion. It doesn't make any sense. So I think we need to be careful with the who gets to have an opinion sort of argument. But I believe that it is completely true that it simply at its core makes no sense to have in some cases only older men making policy or weighing in about what abortion law should be. I completely agree with that. In response to the argument that the charges against Trump are politically motivated.

This is a really interesting comment. These are politically motivated charges. It was a politically motivated crime, and it's hard to say it more succinctly than that. Is there a political angle? Is there a political element? Is there a political context to the charges against Donald Trump? Of course, these are all politically motivated crimes. This is Trump trying to stay in power after losing an election. This is Trump taking classified documents to then use them to impress people or maybe for even worse things. Everything about what Trump did was politically motivated. So there are going to be aspects of the charges

that are politically involved because we're talking about politics. It's not really the gotcha that so many of these right wingers like to pretend it is to say these are politically motivated charges. They're charges related to politically motivated crimes. That's where we are. User Super Bung on the subreddit asks, what do you disagree with David on? And writes the following. David will frequently talk about how his viewers will call or email in and say, but David and explains their issue with some position he has. So what's yours? I feel like capitalism and Israel are frequently issues that come up, but I'm interested to see what people on the subreddit think. For me, it's how David

seems to believe that electric cars are going to solve some or many of our environmental problems. I see public transportation and active transportation as the things that will solve more of our issues. And I wish he would be a bigger advocate for that. He does advocate for them somewhat. But I think electric cars are a way for car manufacturers to stay relevant and not a way for true environmental change to occur. There's two sides to this. Are there millions of situations in which someone is driving a car and instead of driving an electric car, the right move is actually, hey, get a bike. Most or all of the year you can bike. There's bike lanes and it's just a few miles or use public transit. Of course, are there huge gaps in public transit in the United States, both within cities and also longer distance train? Hundred percent. Is it also the case that in much of the country,

because of the population density, we're just not going to get the public transit that we would love to have? And having someone using an electric vehicle whose energy can come from the sun would be a far better thing than an internal combustion engine, of course. So point taken, I do think I'm an advocate for all of those things. We also have to be realistic. There are large swaths of the country that at least for decades are not going to get people off of driving vehicles by virtue of their population density and other factors. And for those, it would be a great thing to have them switch from burning gasoline and releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere to an electric vehicle. I would love to see it. Here's a YouTube comment about the Ron DeSantis campaign. Yelling woke, woke, woke, trans,

trans, trans will only get so far. Yeah. And it seems as though DeSantis has found the limits of where that will get you. And it seems that it'll get you 14 percent of the Republican primary vote. I mean, that's where it seems like in his defense, DeSantis topped out at about 30 percent. And it's been quite a decline ever since. DeSantis has also tried to move away from the woke, woke, trans, trans stuff. It does feel like it's too late. I don't want to say the campaign is dead, but it seems to be very close. And here's another YouTube comment that seems to agree, saying the Ron DeSantis campaign where woke and your political career come to die.

Listen, I don't know that DeSantis failing to be the Republican nominee, which he almost certainly will fail to do. I don't know that that will kill his political career in Florida. He does seem generally well liked in Florida, not by everybody, but by enough people to win by 19 in the last election. I don't know that DeSantis is killing his whole political career. I just don't know that DeSantis plan to run for reelection for governor anyway. And that's part of the timing here. I think there are a bunch of different elements going wrong for DeSantis, but the destruction of his

future political career, I don't know that it's at the top of the list of his concerns. I think if this presidential thing doesn't work, he's looking to go back into private industry anyway. So we will follow it. We will see. Always welcome your comments. Leave a comment on YouTube. Send an email to info at David Pakman dot com. Reply to me on threads. Reply on Facebook. We're like basically off Twitter. We're nominally on there, but it's it's really nonsense, guys. It's really, really nonsense. We've got a fantastic bonus show coming up for you today. Thank your lucky stars every day. You're not Dave Pakman. Well, that may be Alex Jones position. Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Join me in making money on the bonus show

today. Sign up at David Pakman show host.