The David Pakman Show - 8/4/23: Fox begs Trump to debate, Sheriff determined to mugshot Trump

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Florida Republican Governor and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis agrees to debate Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom, making the announcement during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity -- Fox News executives reportedly had dinner with Donald Trump this week to effectively beg him to participate in their upcoming Republican presidential primary debates -- Georgia Sheriff Pat Labat says that if Donald Trump is indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, he will indeed get a mugshot, like any other defendant -- Caller asks if Donald Trump can serve as president from prison -- Caller talks about finding the middle ground between a sensible and a radical position -- Caller discusses the allegations against Joe Biden -- Caller has issues with her Trump-supporting parents -- Caller talks about Vivek Ramawamy's presidential candidacy -- Caller thinks neither Donald Trump nor Ron DeSantis have charisma -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Highlights from Trump's arrangement, Trump vs. DeSantis polling broken down, and much more... 🌎 Babbel: Get 55% off your subscription (rules & restrictions may apply): https://babbel.com/pakman 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.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

. I want to start today with an interesting little side story that has not been getting a ton of attention, but I think is super interesting. And it has to do with this California versus Florida, Gavin Newsom versus Ron DeSantis sort of rivalry, I guess you could say that has been going on now. There there is a lot of discussion of how Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California, really is gearing up to run for president in twenty twenty eight. It's a candidacy I would be extraordinarily interested in, as I've said before. But part of what Gavin Newsom is doing is not only starting to do small fundraising events and kind of glad handing with potential major donors that would pop up four years

from now for him were he to run. He's also trying to make the case on the national stage that the California story is a much more interesting story than the so-called Florida miracle that Ron DeSantis has been touting. Now, Gavin Newsom opened the challenge to Ron DeSantis for a debate two nights ago on Sean Hannity's Fox News program. Ron DeSantis accepted the challenge. The crowd cheered.

Obviously, this was precoordinated. Sean Hannity only asking about it because it was already determined that Ron DeSantis would say yes. But here's the moment. you heard Gavin make the offer. Your answer is. Absolutely, I'm game. Let's get it done. Just tell me when and where we'll do it.

And here's the thing, Sean. I mean, in one respect, the the debate between California and Florida has already been had. Has it? Well, we're going to talk about that. People have been voting on that. They've been voting on it with their feet. They have fled California on record numbers. Florida has been the number one state for net in-migration. We have the number one ranked economy, number one now in education, crime rate at a 50-year low. But in another sense, this is the debate for the future of our country, because you have people like Joe Biden. They would love to see the

California occasion of the United States. Biden may not even be the nominee. You could have Gavin Newsom. You could have Kamala Harris. All right. So what's the deal with Florida versus California? And now I want to be clear. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't live in either state. I like elements of both states. You might assume that because I like Gavin Newsom and I think Rhonda Santis is a clown that I have some interest in lying to you about California versus Florida. But the truth is, depending on what you value or prioritize, it's a pretty mixed bag. California is doing much better than Florida in terms of the economy, in terms of innovation and along many other metrics.

California has a more diverse. Forget about the fact that California's economy is much larger. California's economy is far more diverse. In California, you have a thriving tech industry, thriving entertainment industry, the heart of agricultural production of the United States, some of the top flight educational institutions in the country, all in California and more. Florida's economy is dramatically less dynamic tourism and agriculture, basically citrus fruit vegetables in Florida. It is a much less dynamic economy.

That's a reality. California's GDP per capita is almost 50 percent higher than that of Florida's. That suggests a higher standard of living overall. California has a GDP per capita of almost ninety six thousand dollars, the highest in the country. Florida's is significantly lower. Sixty five thousand ninety five thousand sixty five thousand. That's a dramatic difference in GDP per capita. Innovation is much more present in California, more patents per capita, more advanced research per capita, more development spending, more venture capital spending, more high tech companies, more top ranked universities, more top ranked colleges than Florida. Of course, California has a state income tax and Florida does not, which the low tax people often like. But Florida has a higher sales tax. Florida has a higher property tax on balance. Does California have more pollution? Absolutely. Larger population,

wildfires, jet stream is a factor. California has more pollution. That's true. California's homeless population has grown more quickly than what we have seen in Florida. That's true. Violent crime is higher in California than in Florida, although it's higher than the national average in both California and Florida. It's obviously also very localized in particular areas. So listen, it's a mixed bag. The idea that it's so obvious this that the other thing or that Florida has won this debate and therefore the DeSantis policy is more logical than the Newsom policy.

It's a mixed bag. It's bigger than just governors. The big picture, though, if you zoom out and ask the world, what do you think of the United States? What do you what is your instinct on California or Florida? The world knows the innovation is happening in California, not Florida. The standard of living overall is higher in California, not Florida. Infrastructure is better in California. The world knows that story. Important as far as this DeSantis versus Newsom debate, if it ever happens, is that actually the facts are arguably not as important as charisma and the presentation of the debaters.

We know that DeSantis doesn't exactly excel when it comes to charisma. We know that Gavin Newsom is very good in those situations. So I hope the debate happens. I don't know if it will. The first actual Republican primary debate is scheduled for August 23rd. My plan is to cover that debate live, depending on whether we're going to be able to do it without getting shut down by Fox News. As you may know, Donald Trump has been teasing the idea of not participating in that debate,

simply not showing up. We have a new report that recently Fox executives had dinner with Trump and essentially are begging him to participate in the debate. The reports is that it was cordial and they tried to explain to Trump why it would be good for him. He can present his vision and he doesn't want to let others perform well without him there. It could hurt him. But long story short, Fox News executives know that the ratings will be dramatically

better if Trump debates than if he doesn't. And they made a pilgrimage to Trump's Bedminster estate earlier this week, I believe, right, as we learned about the third indictment of Trump, in fact, and begged him to participate, Trump reportedly will link to this article to New York Times article Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman doing a really good job. The explaining what went on behind the scenes, it was reportedly cordial and Trump has been attacking Fox News publicly to some degree. Fox executives reportedly made a soft appeal for Trump to participate, saying you do well, you know, basically making him feel good.

You do well when you're on center stage, you can show off your debate skills. If you don't show up, it might open the door for other candidates to perform well. Trump reportedly said to Fox executives, I haven't really made a decision yet. I'm going to keep an open mind. Sean Hannity was supposed to be at the dinner, but the scheduling of Hannity's program didn't allow him to be there. Spokesperson for Trump, Stephen Chung, declined to comment, saying I won't discuss a private meeting. Brett Baier will be co-hosting the debate with Martha McCallum. And part of the problem, apparently part of what is upsetting Trump, is that when Brett Baier interviewed Trump, what was it, a month or a

month and a half ago, something like that, a couple of months ago, he really made Trump look stupid. And, you know, it was not an unfair debate, an unfair interview. It's just that when Trump is even remotely pressed to actually defend his claims, He looks stupid because many of them are completely indefensible. So that upset Trump. Trump apparently calculating that the potential downside of the debate, if it doesn't go well, could harm him more than what he stands to gain from being there, given that he is in a commanding position in this Republican primary. Just as a reminder, if we look at the latest numbers, Trump polling about 54 percent, DeSantis stuck at 18, Vivek Ramaswamy at five, Pence bouncing between four and five. Trump has a commanding lead, and it is really hard to imagine a scenario where the debate goes so poorly that Trump loses the lead. It's also hard to imagine a scenario where Trump not debating makes him lose the lead.

I mean, he is in such a commanding lead that it seems like either way, it's probably going to be OK for him. But Fox executives want the ratings. And quite frankly, I think that it would be much more interesting to see all of the candidates relate to each other, not just everybody, but Trump. It would be an obvious missing elephant. It would be the invisible elephant, the elephant that's not there that everyone expects to be in the room.

So I hope Trump debates the debate and the discussion will be much more full. Trump has more than half of the support of the Republican Party. Not having him there means that only 45 percent support of the primary is even represented. That really doesn't make any sense. We don't yet know whether Donald Trump will be indicted and arrested a fourth time, presumably in Fulton County, Georgia. This is the Fannie Willis investigation. We are going to know soon, maybe next week, maybe the week after. One of the things that has not happened so far at Trump's arrests is that he gets a mugshot. However, the Fulton County sheriff says we will have a mugshot if he has anything to say about the way it goes. If indeed Trump is indicted in Fulton County,

WSB TV out of Georgia says Fulton County Sheriff Pat Labatt says his office is preparing for the possibility of Trump being indicted in Fulton County. He says that if indicted by a grand jury, the former president will be treated like anyone else accused of a crime, including fingerprints and a mugshot. Sheriff Labatt said, quote, Unless somebody tells me differently, we are following our normal practices. And so it doesn't matter your status. We'll have a mugshot ready for you. This was said to Channel 2's Richard Elliott on Tuesday related to security measures and different things. Listen, there's a couple of different things with this mugshot. I do think that Trump should get the

same treatment as everybody else. And he's already getting special treatment in that the average person, if accused of so many serious crimes in so many different jurisdictions, would not necessarily just be out without any pretrial detention. Trump's already getting special treatment in that sense. Beyond that, the mugshot wouldn't actually be bad for Trump. I mean, let's be honest. He'll put it on a T-shirt and sell it to the cult for 100 bucks a pop and use that money to pay his legal fees. So I don't even think the mugshot would be bad for Trump. And on that basis, I'm not trying to argue that they do something that will help Trump. It's just like enough with

the special treatment. People get a mugshot. People get fingerprinted, do the whole thing. I don't see any special reason not to do it. Yes, there are a mugshots floating around. We have looked at them in the past. I think that they're funny. I think they're interesting. Increasingly, it's impossible to distinguish between these images and real images. But I think it's enough with the no mug shot. Let's just do it and get it over with. The funny thing is there's a key line here from Sheriff Labatt. Unless somebody tells me differently, we are following our normal practices. It is completely plausible and maybe even likely that if Trump is indicted in Georgia

and Fulton County, that Sheriff Labatt will be told differently and is going to be told we're actually not doing the mugshot. Obviously, that's what what has happened so far with Trump's arrest. So is this the biggest deal in the world? No. Do I actually think it would be bad for Trump? No, I think it would energize his cult. It would allow him to raise money. Is it time to just treat Trump like any other defender, a defendant? I think the answer is yes. If you disagree with me that Trump should be mug shot. Let me know. Make sure to hit the subscribe button on YouTube. Approaching two million subscribers, an incredible number. We'll take a break. It's the Friday show.

Sometimes making the sustainable choice can kind of feel like a bummer. Many of us have experienced those soggy paper straws and have wondered, is this what I have to do? And of course, I'm sort of kidding. But this is why it's important to celebrate sustainable solutions that work really well, but also help the planet. And a great example is our sponsor, Real Paper. Thirty million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the U.S. alone. Real Paper makes toilet paper from bamboo. It keeps growing forever. No trees are cut down and real paper feels like an upgrade from most toilet paper. Super soft, fluffy, affordable. It's not going to feel like a sacrifice or a compromise. You can find real paper at most Target stores and

on Target dot com. Target carries a convenient 12 pack box, the perfect size to try out. Easy to find the only bamboo toilet paper, the only option in plastic free packaging. Real paper is a really easy way to fight climate change every day in your home. Make the switch today. The David Pakman show is, of course, made possible by you. The most important people for the show are the audience members. We do an extra show every day just for you. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. You can now use the new coupon code thrice indicted. You know what we're talking about. Let's hear from some of the people in the audience. We take calls on the Friday show via discord.

You can find our discord at David Pakman dot com slash discord. It's free. I'm selling you nothing but a good time. Let's start with Aiden from Watertown today. Aiden, welcome to the David Pakman show. What's on your mind today? David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. I have two quick questions for you. Sure. With the indictments coming closer and closer to the 2024 election. Yep. Do you believe that if Trump unfortunately would if he gets back to the White House, that he would be still enduring some of these legal troubles while president, if that were to happen. There is no way that all of these matters will be resolved before January of 2025, January of 2025, when the next presidential term starts is now what, 15, 17, 18 months from now. I don't see any way that three and potentially four or

even five complex cases, some at the state level, some at the federal level. I don't see how they all get resolved by then, even optimistically, the initial phase, like you're saying, get through sentencing if there would be such a phase on three major complex trials for a former president. I don't think so. I think this will go beyond January of twenty twenty five to some degree. Yeah, I agree. And do you think that if he were to be sentenced to that, it would be even possible for him

to be sentenced to any sort of prison time once he's if he were to be actually president? You know, I have I really have no idea. Everybody has some hot take, and that includes legal experts and also just random people on the Internet. Everybody seems to know, quote, the truth about whether Trump could end up actually serving, being president while being in prison. I don't think there's I'm pretty clear from the legal opinions I've read. There's nothing legally that would prevent Trump from being president in prison. The logistics of it and or the likelihood I genuinely have no idea. Right.

Well, that makes sense. And then my other question, it's kind of unrelated regarding these energy tax credits with a vehicle, electric vehicles, solar panels, e-bikes and energy efficient appliances. I think you would agree that they should be refundable tax credits so that people who are in the lower income in the United States could take advantage of those tax credits as well. Yeah. Are they not? When you say refundable, you mean a credit rather than a deduction?

So there's there's a nonrefundable tax credits and there's refundable tax credit. Oh, right. And remind me the difference between the two. Refundable tax credits are credits that if you don't owe any taxes, you can get that money back. So say if the tax credit for the EV is seventy five hundred dollars and you only owe a thousand dollars, you would get sixty five hundred dollars back. So they basically only really are available to offset taxes. Yeah, it should absolutely be available to everyone, regardless of taxes due 100 percent.

Right. Well, thank you, David. I appreciate your time. My pleasure. Aiden from Watertown. Very strong questions to start with. Let's go to Evan from New Hampshire. Evan, welcome to The David Pakman Show.

What's going on? Thank you. Can you hear me well? Yes, I can. I'm so a month or so back. I was having a dinner with some people that my mom's are friends with. And the man in a couple of the man, he was I don't know if he was a Trumpist, but he was a Republican. Okay.

And I was talking to him and it was really interesting because he seemed to have this idea if we all just sat down together and had a good talk, you know, we could work these things out. But he was also of the mindset that, you know, there's both sides and you should hear out both sides. And so one of the things we started off the conversation with was on climate change. He said, there are scientists on both sides, scientists that say 2050 and scientists that say it's not going to happen for hundreds of years. And it was just absolutely wild. Some of the things that he went on to say where it's like,

he's trying to, he thinks that the middle is the perfect place to be. Right. And the outrageous part is that when you have one extreme on the far, far end of it, and then you have something that's a moderate view, and then you find the middle ground, it's going to be extraordinarily extreme. And I think I noticed that with your interview with Ramaswamy. I believe that's how you pronounce his name. Yeah. Where he has the idea where, oh, you can just sit down and you can reason with people. I noticed that with your interview with Rana Swamy, I believe that's how you pronounce his name. Yeah. Where he like he has the idea where, oh, you can just sit down and you can reason with people and you know, there's a middle ground.

There's there's some truth to what they're saying, but like maybe there is some truth. But where that truth is located is like really far to the side. Yeah, this is called the middle ground fallacy. This is the middle ground fallacy. And oftentimes this is a fallacy that afflicts what I call enlightened centrists. And I do use the term enlightened as a sort of pejorative. I'm not really I don't really think that they're enlightened. And the idea would be like, OK, you know, someone says the earth is flat and someone says the earth is round. And then we go, well, the truth is somewhere in between those two sides.

And of course, we know that circle. Exactly. It's a flat circle or something like that, right? It's rather than a sphere. It doesn't really make sense. And the problem with middle ground fallacy is it just ignores the validity and the strength of each argument. It's not weighted. So, for example, if I were making economic predictions, I might say there might be a recession or there might not. Great. So right now we've just evenly weighted recession versus no recession. In theory, we could add information and then we might say, OK, there's an 85 percent chance

of a recession within the next five years versus a 15 percent chance of no recession. We've now weighted that probability in some way. And you could come that that probably actually isn't even the best example because we're notoriously terrible at making economic predictions. But the problem is too many enlightened centrists are happy to just pick the middle ground between whatever the positions that are out there. And the reason it doesn't work is the right has moved that right post further and further to the right, making the middle and increasingly extreme and sometimes nonsensical position. Yeah. And then it's also it's I don't want to take up too

much time, but it's also when one side doesn't even acknowledge the other side should have rights or should live as a human being makes it extraordinarily difficult. And just I find that tagline upsetting because it just adds way too much validity to views that are horrible and says, well, it's OK that they have these views if we can just sit down and talk about it. Yeah, that's the other issue when it comes to certain questions and we're talking about providing or denying rights to people. I'm also very uncomfortable using this find the middle idea there for particular reasons that you're pointing out. So all very well said, Evan.

Thank you. And then when you. Oh, sorry, I thought we were wrapping. I accidentally hung up on you there, Evan. But excellent call. All points very, very well made, which I really appreciate. Let's go next to Janelle from San Antonio. Janelle, welcome back to the program. What's on your mind today? Speaker 5 Hello, David. How are you? I'm doing well.

Speaker 1 OK, so my comment and question today is with this stuff now, I don't know, being more reported about, uh, Joe Biden and the Hunter Biden stuff. Um, and then it's come out more that, uh, that Joe, maybe I'm sorry, president Joe Biden, uh, maybe he was on the phone and said hi or something during some business meeting. Yes. And then somebody is saying that he was possibly at one of Hunter's meetings that happened in D.C. Now, I don't know what the truth is here, but if any of that is true, it at the very least seems a little unethical for Joe Biden to do that. So my question is, is how do you think all of this now more prominent in the news is going to affect the election. So it's it's too early to say how it will affect the election at this point. I think we have to wait a little bit. But I think the important

thing, you know, even in your recollection of it, Janelle, you're saying, you know, one point you said something like it now seems that maybe Joe Biden might have been at one meeting. There's a lot of ifs, ands and buts, even if that's the case. If he was, you know, if he was neither vice president or president at the time, then we would wonder, OK, is this even really anything actionable? Even in all of these different things, there's nothing actually linking Joe Biden to any crime, even if the vast majority of the allegations are true. And we don't even know if they're true. So here's my view on it, Janelle. I want everyone held accountable. If there's evidence of

criminality, I don't care what your title was or is your former president or current president or whatever. I want you held accountable. I don't. Period. We also have to remember many of the things they're accusing Joe Biden of. Not only are they not doing it with evidence, they're not actually crimes. Number two, many of the things they're accusing Hunter Biden of. Not only is there no evidence yet, Hunter Biden's not running for anything. Number three, they are increasingly incentivized to make a big deal about these, you know, nothing burger witnesses because there's so much evidence of actual Trump criminality and indictment after indictment. So my view is no one's above the law. I've said all along, go ahead and investigate Hunter, investigate Joe. If Hunter did something wrong, go through the

legal process. They did. Hunter Biden has reached an agreement related to I believe it's tax payments and having a gun he wasn't supposed to have. Do it. I'm not saying I'm not out there saying anything is unfair. Investigate anybody. But when it comes to Biden, they're misstating the importance of what witnesses have said. They it comes to Biden, they're misstating the importance of what witnesses have said. They are claiming to have evidence they don't have. They are asserting Joe Biden did things they don't yet have evidence he did. And many of those things they're asserting Joe Biden did aren't actually crimes. So let's keep an open mind. But a lot of this so far is really going nowhere. I agree. I agree 100 percent. And I just I worry, though, a little that people are going to be a fascist Trump or a fascist to Santa's. And I feel like we're going to be in big trouble.

Speaker 1 Well, that's the primary scenario that we really, really, really have to avoid. But all we can do on that is vote. We've got to make sure no matter what you think is happening with this election, you've got to make sure to vote. Speaker 5 I agree. Thank you, Speaker 1 from San Antonio. A pleasure, as always. Why don't we go next to. Oh, I don't know. How about surge from Newport News? Surge from Newport News. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? Serge, welcome, please accept my invitation. Oh, hello. You're on the air. Hey, how you doing, David? Doing well. Long time pleasure. Excellent. Now, I have a question. Have

you heard about this Patrick Brixton? I believe his name is in Alabama. Brixton. No. What did what did he do? Well, it's what's being done to him. He is the first black mayor of this town of I want to say is Ashburn, Alabama. I could be I think I'm butchering most of these details. Newborn, Newborn, Alabama. I apologize. He was duly elected and the town is pretty much turned against him because they have been controlled by just an all white council and all white mayor. Gotcha. So just to be it's Patrick Braxton. I was able to find it. Right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Patrick Braxton. Sorry, Mr. Braxton, for butchering your name. And yeah, they have locked him out of town hall and barred him from office. They have pretty

much said and someone said to him, they're not ready for a black mayor, even though the people have duly elected a black mayor. Speaker 1 What you're telling me, Serge, links up with exactly what I'm finding online about this, that he decided to run for mayor, volunteer firefighter, emergency responder. He was concerned that the black community's needs weren't being met, particularly during the pandemic. And later, he was allegedly given wrong information about how to even qualify. They tried to set him up to lose. He did win and now he seems to be getting blocked out. I need to research the details more.

It sounds absolutely insane. Speaker 4 Absolutely insane. And I just want to connect it to the dismantling of the Civil Rights Act that was perpetrated by the Supreme Court. And things like this have been happening all along the deep south. I'm originally from North Carolina. I live in V.A. and we see it within whenever someone says systematic racism is not a thing. CRT is is a is a hoax. All you have to do is present things like this to them and see them flounder. I'm going to research the story more. It sounds great.

Sounds really nuts. Yes, sir. Thank you again. All right. Serge from Newport News, Virginia. Let's take the quickest of quick breaks and then we'll go right back and hear from some more people. So if you're holding, keep holding on.

We'll get to you. 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. Let's go back to discord and hear from some more folks. David Pacman dot com slash discord. Let's go to Ali from Boston next. Ali, welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? David, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Hi, it's great to hear you. I am a new listener. I found you from TikTok, actually. I love it. It's incredible. You know, I'm I'm getting recognized from TikTok as much as from YouTube, which is insane. Oh, yeah, I think I started seeing your TikToks maybe a couple months ago and just started listening more and more, seeing you pop up on my For You page and then

actually started listening to the podcast, I'd say maybe a couple of weeks back. I appreciate that. I've been listening to you pretty regularly from there on out, but I just want to ask you, and I apologize if you maybe already talked about this before. Like I said, I'm kind of new, so trying to catch up on everything. You have a of content which i appreciate but um so i moved to boston about a year ago i'm originally from georgia born and raised um my parents are pretty much trumpies um i would say just short of maybe the q anon lizard overlords oh wow as far as how far right they are. So I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh every day. We had the merch. I was taught liberalism is evil.

Conservatism is the only way, this, that, and the other. And just through that, growing up, obviously, voted for Trump the first time around. I was 18 when the 2016 election happened. Wow. And, you know, through my education, actually, you know, went to Georgia Southern, got a degree, got my master's from there, did a lot of research just on leadership through my master's program, and just kind of came to my own conclusion that this is not good. Like, I just can't support this.

You know, I'm a young woman. I've got to support women's rights. I am an advocate for LGBT people. I just, you know, just realizing everything that the far right has been doing. It's like, I just can't continue to support this. And so, you know, like deprogrammed yourself in a sense. Yes, essentially. Yeah. And I did it kind of in secret. Like it was honestly like I was in the closet. It's the best way I can describe it. And essentially I was outed to my parents and my mom called me crying, finding out that I voted for Joe Biden in the last election. Speaker 1 OK, so. So now talk to talk to me about the logistics of that. You were outed to your parents who someone called your parents and said, hey, I just found out Ali now is not on the right

anymore. What how did that happen? Yeah, I think it was. I mean, we just have a close, you know, knit group. My parents, you know, are family friends. You know, I've got a couple of them that are, you know, liberal. And so I think just through talking through them, I don't know exactly who ended up telling them, hey, you know, sorry, I hate to break it to you. But

anyways, somehow they found out. And you know, that caused a couple years where it really just was very difficult to even have a conversation with my parents, because they were trying to convert me back, you know, and it just was like, every conversation ended in crying, or some sort of just like blow up my dad's from out of the room, like we couldn't communicate to each other for, like I said, it was a of years before it got to where, you know, we could be around each other without it turning into some sort of political argument. Now, I know you might be biased on this, but do you feel that the difficulty communicating was more was it 50 50 or was it more because of them or because of you? I think it was, you know, they would, it's hard to have a conversation when you can't agree on

what a fact is and what is a source of truth. Yes. And so they would just, I would come in with, you know, especially when this was all around the vaccines and COVID, I was living with them during the time. So that made it tough. But, you know, it was like we would try to have a conversation and I would pull data and research and they would say, well, that's just, you know, bias. Yeah. And so it would just then start spiraling. And, you know, my dad would just say something like CRT is communism. You know, it would hit the fan. Yeah. But anyway, producer, make a note. We got to believe that. All right. Good. No. So I understand the context now. So I interrupted you, but this is

all building to a question. So I think I'm ready for the question now. Yes. So my question is, you know, after what are we on the second, third, fourth indictment at this point? I just realized that my parents, they're never going to let it go. They're never going to stop supporting Trump. It's just kind of a lost cause. Yep. So I've personally made the decision that I put the boundary up, like we're just not talking politics anymore in our family. And that's just what's worked for us as of late. So my question is, I want to know, you know, my boyfriend and I, we just kind of agreed that it's a lost cause. You know, we were just hoping that at some point when the boomers, you know, make their exit, if they ever do, and millennials, Gen Z, we can kind of take over. Hopefully we can get somewhere to where we're making progress in this country. But I'm really

curious to know your opinion on like, what's next? Like after Trump is gone, you know, is it DeSantis? Is it, you know, what, what's on the horizon? You know, once the boomers are out of power, if they ever give it up, I swear, like it wouldn't surprise me if they somehow figure out how to live forever. But, you know, what do you see on the horizon? And, you know, just what is their hope? I guess is what I'm really asking. There's it's really unclear. There's a couple different paths. One possibility is that after after Trump, whatever that means, there is a return to sort of like McCain Romney type republicanism. The reason I'm hesitant to assume that is because, listen, John McCain already passed away. Mitt Romney is in his mid 70s. It's I don't know that the next generation of Republican leaders is going back

to the group that's now 75 or 80. So it's like, I don't know that that's going to happen. So then you get into, OK, well, when you look at the younger people, you've got people like Matt Gaetz and those types. They're completely out of their minds. You've got people like Vivek Ramaswamy, who certainly is dramatically more polished, but seems from my interview with him earlier this week, seems to believe about 80 percent of the crazy stuff. Also, it's just packaged in a more kind of sane way. And then you have the Republicans who are sort of like, let's say, 45 to 60 right now, who I think are less insane than MAGA, but have been having a difficulty really denouncing MAGA because they see it as necessary in order to maintain their seats.

Maybe it'll be the less crazy 45 to 60 year old Republicans who kind of take the helm of the Republican Party if and when we get beyond MAGA. But this is I don't know the answer. It's very speculative and it's going to to some degree. We first need to know whether Trump wins again in 24. Only once we know that, can we start to think about what comes next for this party? Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense.

It's just, you know, personally, I'm the oldest Gen Z. That's even a thing. And I feel like from all of my friends and just, you know, the discourse I hear from my generation, we're fairly left leaning. And I don't know if that's just me being in my own echo chamber, if that's... No, Gen Z is left leaning. Absolutely. we can get to a point where it's like, you know, the social issues of you can, you know, marry whoever you want to marry. You can do whatever's best for you and your body that your doctor says, like that's what, if we could just get rid of that, I feel like we could actually get to the meat of what's going on in this country. And, you know, my boyfriend and I, we both make six figures and we can't afford a home. Like, it's just like, this is insane. And it's just so frustrating seeing my parents and, you know, that generation is having these culture wars when it's like, what are what are we doing?

Who is this benefiting? And it's just, you know, getting frustrating. And we just keep hoping, well, once the boomers are gone, which is terrible, say, because those are my parents. But it's like that's the reality of the situation we're at. Like, well, listen, to answer the question, it benefits the Republicans who want to stay in power. That's who benefits from the culture war stuff and all of this doesn't benefit any of the

people. And it seems like you're sort of pointing that out. Ali, listen, thank you for explaining it all. It sounds complicated, but very well said. Yeah. Thank you, David. I appreciate it. All right.

Ali from Boston. Great to hear from you. Let's go to Tal from Georgia. Speaking of you. Let's go to Tal from Georgia. Speaking of Georgia, let's go to Tal from Georgia. Welcome to the program. What's on your mind today? And Tal, you've got to unmute so that we can hear you. Tal, please unmute so we can hear you or we will have to move on to someone else. And final opportunity to tell from Georgia to unmute yourself, please. All right.

Well, that's too bad. I was hoping to hear from tall. Let's go to Lucas from Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Lucas, welcome to The David Pakman Show. Hey, thanks for taking the call. How you doing? Doing well. Yeah, good to hear you can hear me. So, yeah, I've been listening again a couple of years, similar to the past caller. I think I've been a member probably for about a year or so. Appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, so I guess I'd get right to it instead of wasting time here.

But with regards to my question, one, I listened to the interview with Vivek this week. And one thing to me that concerns me with him is he seems like he's got some good critical thinking skills, if you want to put it that way. But at the same time, he's seemingly now fully on board with dropping charges and pardoning Trump should he be found guilty. Yes. You know, given that interview with him, do you think that he's somebody that would be loyal to his word of dropping the charges? Or do you think he would, if nominated, flip on that? You know, it's so difficult to know the answer to that.

As a general thing, I think that Vivek is saying what he believes, although he denies any time he's asked whether he's making a political calculation, he always denies it. And I'm a little skeptical of that. I think all of these candidates would be stupid not to make some political calculation. I also don't think he has any shot. I know that there's this narrative about he's surging. He got to six in the polls.

Now he's back down to five or four point something. I I just don't honestly know that he's going to be in a position where any of it's going to matter. But that being said, your question is interesting because there are issues where during a campaign, a candidate may genuinely believe I am going to do X if I ever get the opportunity. And then if they get the opportunity, people who may know more about that subject come to them and they go, hey, listen, here's what you need to consider. And then they end up realizing, oh, actually, I shouldn't do

that. That's not a good idea. I'm not going to do it. I don't know that that would happen when it comes to pardoning Trump. I think it's totally plausible and realistic that if Vivek Ramaswamy says I will pardon Trump, that he will do it and that no one will get in the way. But we're really left to guess. I mean, it's not like I know this guy in any real way beyond just the one conversation I had in the interviews. I've looked at him do so. I don't I can't say for sure.

Yeah, that makes sense. I have no reason to doubt that his genuine intention is to pardon Trump. Yeah, I agree. And on that topic, I guess you think it's the approach taken where it's really not focusing on the violence, but more so on the, you know, fake electors and the political aspect of it was the best way to go about it. I do think so, because it's less about speech. You know, a lot of these mega people, as soon as the third indictment came out,

they started saying it. Giuliani said it and others said it. Trump's being indicted for speaking. And that's a violation of his free speech rights and the First Amendment. And of course, that's not it at all. If you actually look at paragraph three of the indictment, it says Trump has every right to talk about the election results. And he even has every right to lie about the election results. Even if Trump knows he didn't win, it is still protected for him to say, I won. But the indictment goes beyond that. And it goes to the attempts to disenfranchise voters with the fake electors scheme and all of that. I do think that from the legal opinions I've read, it's very logical that the indictment goes after him in that way.

Yeah, I agree. I think it was really well done. And to that point, reading that paragraph, like I think it's it's pretty bulletproof, although, of course, we never know what could happen, you know, but he's entitled to due process and we'll see how it goes. Exactly. Awesome. Well, thank you, Lucas. Thank you so much. Great to hear from you. Let's go next to Ryan from Milwaukee. Ryan from Milwaukee. Welcome to the program. Ryan from Milwaukee, you're on the air, please.

David, how do I sound? You sound good. All right. So the stereotype about politicians is that they are charismatic people. How do you explain Ron DeSantis and Trump, who are painfully socially awkward and have these bizarre personalities? Speaker 3 Well, I think that they're two different animals. DeSantis is straight up bizarre and uncharismatic in just about every way. Trump is weird and he has a lot

of these traits about germophobia and physical contact and different things. But Trump is definitely more charismatic than DeSantis in the way that the Republican electorate would welcome. So I don't know that there's really an explanation per se. I think, number one, I've met a bunch of different elected officials in private settings, and many of them are really awkward and sometimes antisocial. What it comes down to for a lot of them is even if they're not genuinely charismatic, they sort of learned or been trained or taught or figured out how to seem charismatic, at least. And Trump has put together a public character which resonates with a lot of Americans in

different ways, the big, strong, rich dude sort of stuff. And even though we know that it's it's really all sort of pathetic, he's obese and unathletic. And he figured out a way to get out of having to do military service and all these things that are not traditionally seen as rewarding or virtuous traits, I guess I would say. So I do understand what you're saying. I think it's a different situation with Trump and DeSantis. And listen, Trump, DeSantis is charismatic, seeming enough that he's been multiple times a winner of the Florida gubernatorial race. Now, governors races are a little different than national presidential campaigns, where it's more of like a doing a sort of thing than it is a idea. It's more of like an administrative type

thing. But regardless, charisma still matters. I think Trump is charismatic in a very particular way that does appeal to a lot of the country. Speaker 1 OK, are you still playing chess? I'm when I have time, I'm still playing chess with the baby. It's tough, but I've been playing some games lately. You use do you want to weigh in on the lead chess versus chess dot com? I'm a fan of both. I know that it's sort of like you're not supposed to do this and you're supposed to take one side. I like both platforms. I think they both have their virtues. Speaker 1 All right. Well, thank you. Speaker 2

Sorry, I'm not willing to take a more controversial position on that, Ryan, but I appreciate the call very much. That's Ryan from Milwaukee. All right, everybody, let's go to a break. As always, we will get to more callers the next time we take calls. Thank you. to the show, as well as special discounts on merch, including hats, hoodies, mugs and T-shirts. You can support the show for as little as two dollars a month. Check it out at Patreon dot com slash David Pakman show. All right. Let's get to feedback Friday, Friday feedback, the Friday feed bag, or basically I look at some of the things you find folks have said to me over the last week and respond to them. You can email info at David Pakman dot com.

You can make a comment on YouTube. You can respond to me on threads or Facebook, whatever. Just be nice. OK, here's a very interesting post I want to address from Falcon Thrust on the David Pakman show subreddit. And it's about my commentary on the economy. This let's really let's do this justice. OK, Falcon Thrust says the following. I feel that David, like many politicians and media personalities, are detached from the actual economic reality the average person is living in.

Housing is the most unaffordable it's ever been. Groceries are way more expensive. Everything in general is way more expensive. My wages haven't gone up 30 percent over the past two years to compensate for all of these increases. I personally feel like my buying power is at an all time low. I know the indicators say the economy is doing good, but it doesn't feel that way from my personal day to day viewpoint. Does anyone else feel this way? I feel like I'm going crazy when David says the economy is great. Maybe I'm completely detached, but I'm curious as to other people's feelings. To be clear, I know it isn't necessarily Biden's fault.

This is a problem that's compounded, but it's crazy to me that we're accepting this reality. Why has the Biden administration not done more to break up monopolies gone after companies who are price gouging, implemented a wealth tax to get back the money given during the pandemic to the top 1%. Am I wrong here? Curious as to what others are experiencing. Here's the thing about this. OK. If I am the economy is one of the most important topics in terms of dictating how elections go. This is a political show. We evaluate how how presidents are doing, how our elected officials are doing, what's likely to happen in an election, how people are likely to vote. OK. I have choices for what I use as evidence. I could go and ask Falcon Thrust how

they are doing, but that would be what we call anecdotal. Or I can say, what are the metrics that we have used for decades to measure how the economy is doing and understand their limitations? And so when I say by all traditional measures, the economy is doing well, we're talking about GDP, unemployment, wages, job creation, inflation, consumer confidence, et cetera, et cetera. Are there limits to these measures? Of course. Of course. Is it also the case that if instead of looking at those measures, I ask five people if they

are doing well, we will even be further from the reality of the economy. Absolutely. It would be a disservice. So what I think is important to do is to say, listen, whether there are Republicans or Democrats, we need some basic number of facts or metrics we can use to think about the economy. Here's the six or seven things that we look at by those standards, the same standards that the Trump is used to judge the economy under Trump and under Obama, et cetera.

By those standards, the economy is doing quite well. Did prices come down? Of course not. Inflation has slowed. Prices are still going up. They're just going up more slowly. Have wages gone up in line with inflation dating back 20 years? They have not. But are we seeing

relatively rapid wage increases compared to previous periods? Yes, we are. So it's not about me being disconnected. It's that if we're actually going to make an analysis of what is going on, we have to start with some shared. You know, if I go to Falcon Thrust and go, how were you doing eight years ago? He might be. I don't know Falcon Thrust Sage, but he might say, oh, I was in high school, so we don't really have anything to compare to. That's why we use these metrics. There are problems with the economy. We do need to break up monopolies. Corporations have disproportionate power. They aren't paying enough in taxes. All of that applies. But we have to start with something that we can track over

time that doesn't depend on just a few people in my audience telling me how they are personally doing. I don't know how else to explain that, and it's not to write off anyone's personal experience. I hope I'm being clear. Let's continue. Tenacious, the sketcher says it's not over till it's actually over, folks. In 2024, vote, get to the polls, convince the people who are apathetic why DeSantis should never be able to sniff the seat of the Oval Office until we're actually declaring the next president is Biden or another Democrat. We can never let our foot off the pedal. It's so satisfying to watch him implode. But to assume he doesn't have a chance still is 2016 all over again.

Couldn't agree more. Doesn't matter what the polls say. Doesn't matter what's going on. Everyone must vote. Kay's said, does no labels mean no policies? Yeah, I mean, listen, I think the idea of a third party is great. No labels specifically is not it. For me, I gave you an extensive breakdown of no labels, including this idea that just

the right place to end up is kind of in the middle between the crazy right and the same left. I don't think that's the case either. And also no labels is not bringing forward any interesting policy package. I think the forward party, Andrew Yang's thing also wasn't particularly impressive. I told you that at the time. I think that party's totally dead. I haven't heard a word about it for months at this point in time. Yes, to third parties. But let's start with policy, not with this sort of weird coalition of donors and candidates who are already kind of do.A. not the way to do it.

A bunch of non-U.S. viewers have had similar thoughts about Trump and the state of MAGA over the last few months. Fred Kite commented on YouTube as an observer outside the U.S., Trump sounds seriously deranged. Yeah. Andrew Fisher said, I am not from America and no, we have problems with our politicians. But the fact that anyone listens to Trump and believes a single word he says is scary. Yeah, this is you know, I know that a lot of MAGA people respond to this stuff by writing to me and saying, David, I don't care what European sissies say or Australians who have no guns or whatever. I know that I know MAGA, in a sense, is happy when other countries think that what's going on with Trump is just crazy and that they're crazy for supporting him.

But this is the reality. OK, I get hundreds of messages like this every month. People from other countries who go this is not about whether you think the top tax rate should be 37 or 39 percent or 35 percent. Trump is deranged. We don't understand how it's even conceivably possible that someone like Trump gets himself into a position of power. I don't have an answer for them, but this is the right loves to talk about. You're suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. You're obsessed with Trump to people who go, hey, this guy's a risk. This guy's a threat. It seems the derangement is that anyone is willing to vote for Trump. That's really the derangement. Eric Reynolds talks about some of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s people have said it has been asserted

and says the following. It's a classic tactic to preface false information with there's an argument that or I have sources telling me RFK Jr. is copying the Donald Trump strategy to blurt out nonsense with key prefaces that allow them to claim they didn't actually say what they said is factual, even though they clearly intended for the audience to accept mysterious authenticity. Rochelle said, for what purpose would they do this? And Eric says it's a common manipulation tactic to transmit lies and information while having the excuse that they aren't lying because they're just telling you what the mysterious others are saying. It's a safety net for when their lies are called out, such as in follow

up clarifications. Yeah. And I think it's also important to know that sometimes are saying it's a safety net for when their lives are called out, such as in follow up clarifications. Yeah. And I think it's also important to know that sometimes when when it's said, hey, you know, it's been reported that X and then you react to that. If it's really uncontroversial that it's been reported that X, it's not, strictly speaking, a problem to say that if I go listen, it's been reported, it's widely been reported that DeSantis is firing a third of his campaign staff. All right. You know, I'll cite sources. But if I don't, if we don't have any real reason to question that, it's not the end of the world, not to every single

time cite your sources. At the same time, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says it's been widely studied that vaccines cause autism, there's no way to look at the studies and come away with any other opinion. It's actually quite the opposite. And certainly in those cases, we have to be aware of what's sometimes called the weasel language. Weasel language is often used. And Eric is 100 percent correct. Brad wrote in about Chris Christie and says, I don't like Chris Christie, but screw it. I do like Chris Christie. I like him a lot. Actually, he's standing up against the rampant malice and lunacy of his party. That's absolutely commendable. And though we have different opinions on government, I absolutely like the guy. Listen, you don't have

to like Chris Christie and also Chris Christie. There's certainly some corruption in Chris Christie's past. You can recognize that Chris Christie has deficits and also realize in the context of the twenty twenty four Republican primary, he is obviously the most honest actor, obviously the most honest actor. It doesn't mean you agree with him on policy. It doesn't even mean you have to like him. You're just saying this is the guy who's actually telling the truth right now and you don't have to go any further. Straight Bolin is reacting to the comment from some mega types that Trump runs America like a business and says, yeah, like Trump Airlines, Trump Stakes, Trump Water, Trump Casinos, many of which have filed bankruptcy. Yeah. You know,

I actually would would take a step back from that. You don't even need to point to Trump's personal business failings to question the wisdom of believing that we need a president who runs the country like a business. The country isn't a business in the sense that businesses are businesses. Now you can say, well, we should be revenue neutral. We shouldn't have debt. And that's something. Sure, we can look at elements where we might say it would be good if this was thought of in a more for profit mode or not. And we can debate that. I'm not even saying we should do that. I'm just saying that's a debate you can have. We don't have evidence from looking at past presidents that business people make good presidents. So the starting point should

be. Do we have a basis, in fact, to assume that business people are what we need running the country? And the answer is clearly no. There is not evidence that the country is best run by business people. Michael wrote in and said any anytime Trump tells a story where people are either crying or calling him, sir, you can safely assume he's lying. Yeah, I want to get your opinion on this. OK, when Trump tells the tears in my eyes stories, is it obviously a lie? Or are there some stories where people did come up to Trump crying and if they were crying, is it possible that they were tears of sadness and not tears of joy because of the fact that they were horrified by Trump himself?

Let me know what you think of the tears in their eyes. Stories are any of them true? I don't know. Someone probably cried in Trump's presence, but it might have been because of something Trump did to them rather than because they were so overtaken with emotion by Trump. We've got a great bonus show for you today. Sign up at join Pacman dot com. Coupon code is rice.