The David Pakman Show - Fox sounds the alarm on Trump as deranged rally goes off the rails

Episode Date: October 15, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Josh Shapiro, Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania seeking reelection, joins us to discuss the campaign and how Trump's policies are harming Pennsylvanians -- Fox News personality Brit Hume highlights Donald Trump's low approval rating and warns Republicans could face sweeping midterm losses -- White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia misrepresents her legal credentials after records show she never passed the bar exam -- Donald Trump responds to Pope Leo's cancer diagnosis by boasting about MAGA supporters in the Pope's family -- Donald Trump claims he refrains from calling foreign leaders names while blaming Joe Biden for provoking the Ukraine war -- Donald Trump boasts about cognitive tests, suggests shooting leakers, and mocks crowd members during a lengthy speech -- Interviews at a Trump rally showcase supporters blaming Democrats for inflation and still focusing on their opposition to Joe Biden -- On the Bonus Show: Truth Social is collapsing, a graph claims attacks on Russian data centers reduced bot activity, and much more... 💳 PDS Debt: Get your free assessment & find the best option for you at https://pdsdebt.com/pakman 🩳 Quince: Get free shipping & 365-day returns at https://quince.com/pakman 😺 Smalls cat food: Use code PAKMAN for 60% off & free shipping at https://smalls.com 🩳 SHEATH Underwear: Code PAKMAN for 20% OFF at https://sheathunderwear.com/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Book: https://bit.ly/m/attention -- Send David a text: [phone] -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Start (01:09) Fox host warns of broad Republican midterm losses (08:33) Press Secretary Katie Zacharia never passed bar exam (21:10) Trump makes Pope's cancer diagnosis about himself (28:12) Trump claims he avoids insulting political figures (37:15) Josh Shapiro interview (56:21) Trump delivers erratic rant at campaign rally (1:06:19) Trump supporters shield him from accountability Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coming up today, Fox News is sounding the alarm about Republicans. A longtime conservative analyst is warning that Republicans could lose not just the competitive seats, but even races no one thought were in danger, which I agree with. Meanwhile, Trump's new White House press secretary, Katie Zachariah, has a real problem. Suspitions that she may not be an attorney appear to have been confirmed. She has never passed the bar exam as far as multiple investigations have found. When Trump was asked about it, it was really weird. Trump then spends eight minutes at a rally bragging about cognitive tests and suggests that those

who leak information should be shot dead. We also have extraordinary comments about the Pope's lung cancer, a remarkable interview about Vladimir Putin. And we will speak to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who's in the middle of a reelection campaign. All of that and more today, if we have time for it. Something fascinating is happening in Fox News. We now have longtime political analyst, Britt Hume, a right-wing guy, by all accounts, raising pretty serious concerns about Donald Trump's approval rating, what it means for Republicans in the midterms that are now just days

away. And what I think is most notable about this is Brit Hume isn't just talking. about, oh, Republicans might lose a few competitive races. It might just like, by a little bit, it might go in the direction of Democrats. He is saying we may be on the precipice here, on the cliff of a broader electoral shift, including races that Republicans would consider safe. It's not just toss-ups that might go a little bit to the Democrats. Safe Republican districts may go to Democrats. He's been covering politics for decades.

He is seen more, if you're not familiar with him, he's more like the traditional conservative analyst on Fox News. And when he starts openly questioning, you know, should Trump even be on the campaign trail? Is he helpful or is he hurting Republicans when he shows up? I think it's worth paying attention to if you're a Republican. Let's take a listen to what Britt Hume had to say. A big Senate races, also some governor's races.

if you look at our poll the new poll out tonight which party would be better to handle and you ask a list of questions foreign policy gas prices inflation and prices and you see democrats uh with pretty significant leads in places where republicans have been especially when it comes that's right policy leading yeah absolutely brett i mean you know those are the three major issues right there um and you know the republicans are are way underwater by you know any number of points there that you know that you the polls reflect. And, you know, the polling is similar about the president himself.

You know, he's out there saying he wants everybody to act like he's on the ballot. Well, that's fine if you're simply trying to turn out Republicans. But the polling that we now have show that his support among Republicans has diminished since election day. And they're also showing that his approval rating is, what, 36 percent? That means he might get 36% of the vote out, but look, 64% disapproved. That is really bad at this stage when he's out there front and center. And it may raise the question in the minds of some people whether he should be out there front and center the way he is given his standing.

That's exactly the question. This is an accurate analysis. Like I know it's Britt Hume on Fox News. He's basically right. Trump's approvals around 36% optimistically. There's one poll that has him at 29. That's bad, whether it's 29 or 36, it's bad. And then it's a question that George W. Bush faced back in 2008.

Do I help or hurt my party if I'm out there campaigning, campaigning for John McCain? And should Trump be as visible as he is? The argument is a very straightforward one. And it is a difficult one for Republican candidates to make because they have to decide in these final days of the campaign. How closely do we want to associate ourselves with Trump? Trump is a major figure in the Republican Party. There's no one more powerful than Trump, even as unpopular. as Trump is, you can't look at someone else and go, here's a more powerful person in the

Republican Party. He does get attention. He can bring in fundraising. He can generate enthusiasm among the slice of the Republican electorate that likes Trump. But the other side to the calculation is if a president is unpopular with the broader electorate, to make every race a referendum on that president is risky. And you could be creating problems for candidates who might actually do better if Trump doesn't get involved and they just focus on local issues. And what Brit Hume is acknowledging is that there

is attention there. But then he goes further. Listen to this warning about the possibility of a larger shift in the election. We're closing in, obviously on election day, where do you see things right now? Well, I think that the Republicans have to be concerned that this might turn out to be a little bit like first like 1980 for the where the Republicans won a landslide and nobody expected it. Ronald Reagan became president of 1994, where it looked like Bill Clinton was, he was campaigning much the way. He was president, of course, Democrat. He was campaigning much the way Trump has, triscrossing the country. The Republicans that year had a program called the contract for America. Clinton was calling it the contract on America, and I was covering the White House at the time.

I'll never forget it. I thought, well, maybe he's making headway here with this. You know, he had the biggest megaphone, as presidents always do and correct me. He got big crowds and the Democrats and the president's party absolutely got slaughtered in that race and got control of the house for the first time in decades. The Republicans have to worry there's something like that may happen to them in this race where Yes, they do. Yes, they do. That is a striking comparison.

Now, the examples that Brit Hume brings up when Republicans made huge gains in 80 or when Republicans captured control of Congress with Newt Gingrich, a speaker in 1994. By the way, I wrote about that in my first book, The Echo Machine. Both cases, the results went beyond what was expected. That's the point. And the concern that Britt Hume is bringing up is, you know, Republicans could have something very similar, but in the opposite direction, that they lose way more than they are expected to lose.

They lose seats. They were not even expecting to be competitive. Now, he's describing a scenario that Republicans need to consider. He's not saying it's going to happen. And I think that's an important distinction because these congressional elections really depend on individual candidates, how districts are drawn, turnout, local conditions, the political environment. What is interesting is that it's coming from Brit Hugh. If a Democratic campaign strategist were trying to get voters excited, Democratic voters, this is something

that they might say. We have this opportunity. But this is Brit Hume on Fox News kind of publicly questioning the full political consequences of Donald Trump's visibility, and it gets at a larger problem for political parties that are organized around one guy. If the guy's popular, it's great. Everybody's happy. When they are between 29 and 36% approval, candidates have to figure out, how do I appeal to the voters that are dissatisfied with the leader of my party? And there's not a real simple answer. You distance yourself from the president. Well, you know what he does. And it might anger the most loyal Trump supporters. You embrace him, it's tough to appeal to the growing number of voters who say we don't think he's doing

a good job. So Hume is identifying the very same dilemma I've identified now for a while. This is not that Fox is abandoning Trump. Britt Hume is one guy. Fox has a whole bunch of analysts, but there are concerns here among Maga Mike Johnson, among senators, among media analysts and others that Trump's approval is a drag on all of them. And they only have days. to figure out, well, what the hell are we going to do about that? Hopefully they don't figure it out. All right, listen, it seems she's just not an attorney and she's never been an attorney. I'm talking about Donald Trump's new, instantly beleaguered press secretary Katie Zachariah. And it is getting increasingly embarrassing for the Trump administration. We have now learned after a couple days of

speculation and questions. We have now learned that one of the credentials that Trump used to promote her is made up. Katie Zachariah just took over as White House press secretary. She has spent years presenting herself as a practicing lawyer and attorney. She has appeared on TV as lawyer. She describes herself as having been involved in legal representation. And Trump specifically said she's an attorney. And we have one little problem.

here. She's not an attorney and she never was and she never passed the bar exam. And the way that this has unraveled over the last couple of days is really something. Now, Jud Legum at popular information started looking into her background. And he discovered something a little, a little weird, which is that despite all of the claims about her being an attorney, there is no record of her being licensed to practice law in California, nor in Texas, nor in Washington, nor in Washington, D.C. Now, this is not an obscure piece of information that would be really difficult to verify. If someone is a licensed attorney, you typically have a public record of that. So reporters started asking questions. And on Tuesday, a New York Times reporter confronted Trump about it when

Katie Zachariah was right behind him and said, in which state has she passed the bar? Where is she a licensed attorney? Trump turned to her and goes where? And she says, shockingly, incredibly when I moved to China, which you will notice causes Trump to even do a double take. You see there, Trump, he was very good. He said she passed the bar exam. He said she's in attorney. Where did she pass the bar exam? Which state?

What did she tell him? Pass the bar exam. You see there, Trump goes, what? He's about to come back. And he goes, what did you just say? Where did you pass the bar exam? And I got to tell you, I think Trump realizes here that he has a problem. I think Trump is understanding right here. Now, of course, China is not a state. You know, Canada's not a state.

Greenland is not a state. Venezuela is not a state. But also China is not a state. You're not really answering the question. And it is true that Katie Zachariah graduated from Pepperdine law school in in 2011. She did move to China. She worked at a Chinese law firm, but going to law school or working at a Chinese law firm do not make you a licensed attorney. Now, she seems to know this deep down. If you listen carefully, you see that she often says lawyer, not attorney, and many people may not understand the significance of that difference. To be able to take information, especially as a, as a lawyer and a former corporate lawyer in China for three years. And I mean, I am a lawyer and I'm a rigorous researcher and I spent the better part of 2020

and 2021 researching this because I lost friends and family. I would love to see justice as a lawyer. The procedural steps are absolutely critical. All right, you get it. Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer. We now have the ability to confirm what happened because the Wall Street Journal started looking into it, not a liberal rag by any sense. According to a person with direct knowledge of the situation, Katie Zachariah did take the

California bar exam in 2011, but she failed. And there's nothing particularly scandalous about failing the bar exam. It's difficult. I have many friends who ultimately passed and became licensed attorneys who failed on their first time through. It's not a big deal. Many intelligent people fail the first time. Many capable people don't pass the bar the first time.

But if you fail the bar and you never become licensed and then you speak. spend years going out there as a lawyer and people say this is an attorney, that's a different situation. It's not a one-time misunderstanding. She has described herself as a lawyer many times during television appearances and she has said, I worked as outside counsel to the World Bank. I worked as outside outside counsel to the International Finance Corporation. I was general counsel for a nonprofit called Fix California.

As recently as August, she went on Fox and said, as a lawyer. And here is the interesting and maybe important thing. There is a difference as far as I understand between saying I'm an attorney and I'm a lawyer. And if you say you're an attorney, you are definitely saying you have passed the bar and become licensed to be an attorney. If you say I am a lawyer, there are two interpretations. There are, there's one school of thought that says if you say I am a lawyer, you are implying that you are working as an attorney.

There is another interpretation that says saying you're a lawyer only means you have a legal degree. I don't know. There's a lot of lawyers in our audience. They can kind of tell us to me if you say I worked as a lawyer, I definitely think you're telling me you were licensed as an attorney. And she wasn't and that would be dishonest. Now someone who's familiar with the work she actually did was able to look more deeply and say, you know, as when she worked as a lawyer for Fix California, all she did. All she did was coordinate with outside attorneys.

She really wasn't doing legal work. If you work in a hospital and manage doctors, that doesn't make you a physician. You might be or you might not be. If you run an accounting firm, you are not a CPA. Those are specific professional qualifications. Now, I'll tell you, the fact that they've been lying about her being an attorney doesn't mean she's unqualified to be press secretary. She's unqualified to be press secretary because she's incompetent and she could barely read. That's why she's not qualified to be press secretary.

She might be qualified to have done the work she did in China, but like she just wasn't a licensed attorney. That's not really the issue. It's the presentation here. And it's especially ridiculous because number one, this is the person whose job it is to communicate accurate information to the American people on behalf of the president, which is it's kind of laughable. The first 14 minute press briefing was kind of a disaster. And it's also laughable the entire thing because one of Donald Trump's greatest claim to fame's going back to 2015 was he hires the best people. He knows how to hire the best people.

Now, of course, that claim has been debunked for about the last 11 years, but it is something that Donald Trump claims to be able to do. Now, Trump seemingly was caught off guard by this as well because he does this double take when she says, when I went to China, I passed the bar. And it is a recurring feature of Trump world. Credentials and expertise, qualifications, experience. It's whatever we need to get the person in the job we want to men. And if somebody checks and it turns out they've lied and everybody gets defensive,

they now go and they say, well, what can we say? The White House is now saying, we haven't hired her to do legal work so it's irrelevant. All right. If that's what you're going with, nobody said the press secretary has to be an attorney. But Trump chose to advertise her as one. And he repeatedly described her and she described herself as a lawyer. And now we know she failed the bar. So I don't care whether you need a law license to be press secretary. You don't.

The question is why was so much put into telling people she is something that she simply is not. And if the person responsible for answering questions for the White House, probably the most important spokesperson position in the country. If she can't even give a straight answer about a resume, why would we trust her about anything she says? The answer is, we don't trust her. A lot of people carrying debt don't think to themselves, I'm in trouble. They're not necessarily behind on payments. They're working. They're kind of managing. But if you're carrying credit card balances, personal loans, collections, medical bills, The question is whether your current plan is getting you out fast enough or just kind of keeping you busy.

That is what our sponsor PDS debt can help you figure out. PDS debt gives you a free 30 second assessment. You can compare your current path with their customized debt relief options. They will look at your unsecured debt. They'll use financial data to personalize a solution that will work for you and show you what you might qualify for before you have to decide anything. The programs really are designed to just reduce what you owe, simplify multiple payments into one lower monthly payment, and work towards being debt-free.

There's no minimum credit score, savings start the day you complete the assessment, and PDS debt is top rated in the industry with thousands of five-star reviews and an A-plus rating by the Better Business Bureau. Lots of people in my audience use PDS debt, and we looked at the numbers for people coming just from my show, it turns out the average David Pacman show viewer who uses PDS debt saves an average of $24,994. Get your free 30-second personalized assessment today at PDSdebt.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description.

You know those pieces in your closet you wear on repeat because the sweater fits perfectly or the pants are exactly right or it's the first t-shirt you grab after laundry. Those make getting dressed easy. And that's what our sponsor, Quince, does best by making high quality staples for your wardrobe with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, marino wool. These are timeless, versatile, made for everyday wear styles. Their 100% Mongolian cashmere sweater started at just $60 with luxury level soft and quality without the luxury price tag.

Quince also makes premium pants, fitted teas, polos, breathable active wear. Everything is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. Quince works directly with ethical factories. They cut out middlemen. You pay for quality, not markup. I have gotten phenomenal pants from quince that not only fit perfectly but are durable. They also offer hotel quality bedding and bath. kitchen essentials, thoughtfully designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince.

Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK as well. And when Quince asks you, where'd you hear about him? Let them know it was the David Packman show. It's the best way to support the show. The link is in the description. Tuesday is the day. We are doing a one-day membership drive to grow support for independent media in advance of what I believe are the most important midterm elections I have ever covered and certainly in advance of what I think are an incredibly important two years where we will have open seats. We will have open primaries, rather, for both Republicans and

Democrats. We want to be set up for that appropriately in a serious manner. And I would love for you to join the ranks of membership on Tuesday. We'll be discounting memberships bigly. And you can be notified about that by getting on my substack newsletter at substack. .davidpack.com or by texting me at 646. Hold on. What is that number? Now I don't even remember.

646-531-4333. Are you able to make everything about yourself? about yourself, even the health problems of others. If so, you might be Donald Trump. Donald Trump was asked about the health of Pope Leo, who we found out has lung cancer and had a procedure to remove part of one lung. And Donald Trump is asked about this. And you might think that when the president is discussing the pope's cancer, the focus

would be wishing him well and expressing concern and maybe saying something about the importance of recovery and medical treatment. Well, Trump barely says, yeah, I would like him to get well. But then he goes in a direction that is far more predictable for Trump, which is his brother is a big Trump guy. They've got MAGA all over their house. It all becomes about personal loyalty. I want to see Pope Leo get well.

I hear the prognosis for that type of a problem. cancer, it's big stuff anytime you have cancer. But the prognosis seems to be good. I've watched. And we just want to wish him our love and our best wishes. His brother's a friend of mine who's a great. He's a fantastic guy and his wife, you know, they're big Trump supporters. They have MAGA all over the house.

And I can say that his brother loves him a lot, loves the Pope a lot. And that's good. That's good enough for me. But I just want to wish him well, get better fast. It's good enough for Trump to wish him a lot. wish the Pope well because the Pope's brother and the Pope's brother's wife are big MAGA. They've got MAGA all over their house. Why are we talking? Why is Trump like this? Like, I don't even what would they have MAGA all over

their house and they are Trump supporters? What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about the health of the leader of the Catholic Church. Maybe you care about the Catholic Church. Maybe you don't, but needless to say, there's more than a billion Catholics who follow the Pope and we have an American Pope and that's sort of interesting in some superficial way. And Trump thinks the most important detail is someone related to the Pope has Trump merch at home. That sweet, sweet, made in China, Trump merch. Now then comes the really weird part. It's good in, excuse me, I'm almost choking over the absurdity of this. It's good enough for Trump that the Pope's brother likes him. What does that mean? Does that mean that the Pope's

the Pope's brother's affection for him is a factor in Trump deciding, do I wish the Pope well? And I think the answer is, yes, that's exactly how Trump sees it. If it weren't the case that the Pope's brother liked Trump, maybe Trump wouldn't be wishing him so well. Everyone must be evaluated based on proximity to Trump and whether they support Trump. And we've seen this for a decade, guys. He has, Trump has this remarkable tendency to take virtually any subject and make it about himself. Is it a tragedy? Is it a diplomatic meeting? Is it the personal circumstances of something? Someone had a kid. An international crisis, a conversation. It's all about Trump. And in this case, we're talking about someone dealing with cancer. There are moments when a little bit of restraint would be a

bit more appropriate, but Trump can't do it. He immediately has to remind people the family is MAGA. And in another exchange, Trump turns to the economy. Listen to what he says about inflation and ask yourselves, does that comport with my understanding of the issue? But I just want to wish him well, get better fast. Thank you. Mr. President, did you discuss the inflation report today with Kevin Moore? The market is increasingly betting on a rate. Yeah, we're doing well. Look, we're at 1.7% inflation for the last three months. We inherited a terrible inflation from Biden. the worst in the history of our country. And we have for the last three months, 1.7, 1.8 percent, very low.

We're doing great. We're doing great. And Iran will end very shortly. It's going to be over very shortly. And your energy prices will fall very rapidly, very fast. And remember, oil is less now under Trump with us taking away the nuclear chance of them destroying, frankly, the world than it was under Biden. was higher under Biden than it is under Trump. And I had to make an excursion down to Iran to take

away the nuclear weapon. Have we done that? They won't have a nuclear weapon. He took away the nuclear weapon. So 1.7% inflation over three months. That's really bad. Let me explain to you what Trump is doing here. Why is Trump talking about a three month figure at all? Well, the reason is that 3.7 annualized inflation. is the number we got yesterday. That's not a great number. We inflation targets are between 2 and 3%. And so when inflation goes up under Trump to 3.7, that's not a number Trump wants to talk about.

So Trump thinks he's being clever. He goes, well, inflation's only been 1.7% over the last three months. Now, is that an annualized three month rate or is that that prices went up 1.7% over the last three months? Is it a particular inflation index? Is it a selected category? If you take 1.7 over three months and annualize it, that's actually really, really high. It would be crazy inflation. It'd be in the 5.6 is something like that.

So Trump seems to be hoping people think it's been 1.7% annualized over three months. But what does that even mean? It's impossible to know what Trump is even talking about. But the goal is to give people a completely misleading impression. What's interesting is how Trump presents the information. Anything positive is evidence that he's doing a great job. Anything negative was inherited from Biden. And that brings us back to what I see as the larger pattern.

When discussing the Pope, Trump emphasizes the Pope's family is MAGA. When discussing inflation, Trump concocts a number that he believes is favorable to him and attacks Biden. Different subjects, but the gravitational center of it is Trump. And the simplest question is, can the president discuss a single important issue without immediately redirecting the attention towards himself? Because wishing someone a recovery from cancer shouldn't require mentioning MAGA decorations. They just should we, these are two separate things. Explaining inflation shouldn't require talking about Biden when it's almost year three of your

second term. Sometimes we can just talk about the subject. of the conversation, or at least normal people can. Trump seems unable to do it. And he ended up even more confused as he arrived at his rally. Donald Trump made one of the most spectacularly hypocritical statements I think I've ever heard from him. And we're talking about Trump. Like, that's really saying something. It stunned the interviewer. He was asked about Russian president Vladimir Putin. And he was asked, why do you disagree with Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, not a Democrat, Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, who described Putin as a dictator. Now, this is a perfectly reasonable question.

Putin's been in power more than two decades. His government imprisons political opponents. He's an authoritarian autocrat suppresses media, launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Why won't Trump call him a dictator? Trump's explanation, you've just got to hear this for yourself. Inflation. You and Senator Sullivan, you see eye to eye on virtually everything, almost to 100 percent, voting record that Senator Sullivan has with you. You don't see eye to eye on one issue in particular,

Mr. President, and that is the issue of Russia and President Putin. Senator Sullivan is called President Putin, a dictator, an authoritarian, a mafia regime leader. He's against that diesel deal that you announced last week. Why, Mr. President, are you right and Senator Sullivan is wrong on this? Well, look, I have to make deals with people, so I don't go on calling them names. I'm a dealmaker. I've always been a very good deal maker. I became very rich because of deals. So I don't go around mocking people. You know, part of the reason you have that war in the first place is Biden went around

mocking Russia and mocking everybody else and didn't know what he was doing. That was a war that should have never started. What is Trump talking about? He doesn't go around calling people names and mocking people. His entire political persona, his entire political career has been built around mocking people. He launched his prime. race in 2015 and 2016 by talking about Lion Ted and little Marco and all of this different stuff, making fun of Rand Paul for I don't even remember what and saying Ted Cruz's wife

is ugly and Megan Kelly's bleeding from her you know what and Rosie O'Donnell is a dog and all of this different stuff. He called Hillary Clinton crooked and Joe Biden sleepy and Ron De Sanctimonious and all of This what he that's the main thing that his main thing has been mocking people and making fun of them either over their appearance, their intelligence, their families, their physical characteristics. He insults foreign leaders. He insults journalists, judges, military officials, members of Congress, people who work in

his own administration. And now Trump goes, the reason I don't call Putin a dictator is simply I don't believe it's productive to go around calling people names and mocking people because I've got to maintain a diplomatic relationship. He wants us to pretend the last 10 years didn't happen. And notice something else. Trump isn't saying calling Putin a dictator would be factually inaccurate. He's saying he doesn't want to use the language because he needs to be on Putin's good

side. Now there is a kernel of legitimacy here. Diplomacy is a real thing. Sometimes as president, sometimes as a negotiator, as an official, you have to negotiate with leaders whose conduct you condemn. And you can strategically say we're going to put aside a bunch of areas of disagreement so we can productively focus on hopefully fixing a specific problem. That is very different than pretending Trump has a longstanding principle against insulting people.

His longstanding principle is to insult people. And then Trump takes this interview in an even sort of more ridiculous direction by saying Biden caused the war by mocking Russia. But I don't mock people, but Biden mocked people. And as a result, Putin invaded Ukraine and saying part of the reason you have that is because Biden was was mocking Russia. So we're supposed to believe that we have, that we can place the blame of Putin launching a full scale invasion of a negative country, a neighboring country because Biden made fun

of Russia, mocked Russia. It wasn't about Putin's territorial ambitions or Russia's longstanding efforts to dominate Ukraine or the Kremlin's rejection of Ukraine's independence and its right to determine its own future. No, Biden wasn't polite enough. Now think about how absurd that becomes when you combine Trump's two arguments. He says, I don't insult Putin because insulting foreign leaders is dangerous, but he insults people all the time in reality. And then he says, Biden supposedly mocking Russia provoked a war. So if insulting people is so dangerous, what does it say about Trump's own behavior? And of course, there is zero credible basis for reducing Russia's invasion of Ukraine to Biden mocked Russia. Putin decided to invade. And this is really the broader

kind of problem with Trump's explanation. He takes an act of aggression by an authoritarian leader and shifts responsibility to the American president for hurting the leader's feelings. And meanwhile, Trump goes, I'm so restrained diplomatically. I don't go around mocking people. The guy who invented the modern political insult nickname, you can't make this stuff up, guys. The next time Trump starts mocking someone at a rally, remember, he says, we don't mock. He just mocked a bunch of people, including Ken Paxton, who he's going to do.

trying to support at his recent midterm convention. But we're supposed to believe no, Trump doesn't go around calling people names. It's ridiculous and it's pathetic and it's absurd. And the real issue, as I've said before, is I don't think we go back when Trump is gone. I don't think we go back to there. I always try to avoid romanticizing past times because often there's this bias towards nostalgia that makes us remember the past as maybe better than it was. But we did have a different. There were still insults and we still had that. But there was a time when there was a little bit more of a basis for bipartisan cooperation,

at least in some areas. And the idea that when Trump leaves, we will go back to that. There's just no way. There's no way at all. So we're going to need to do a lot of work, a lot of introspection once Trump is finally gone. And by the way, if J.D. Vance is the next president, I don't think we get back to that era. I don't. But it's going to take a lot of work to at least get back to where we can talk to each other in ways that are a little bit less antisocial and a little bit more productive. I hope that

I can play some role in getting us there. But we've got to get past the election in a few days first. A friend of mine has a cat who's a really picky eater. Mealtime involved sniffing the bowl, looking offended, walking away. My friend switched to small's cat food. and dinner is now the highlight of this cat's day. The cat shows up early. Our sponsor Smalls makes fresh cat food with 100% human grade ingredients, no preservatives, and recipes with real animal protein. Smalls cat food is gently cooked, packed with nutrients delivered right to your door, and the

recipes all have ingredients you would recognize from your own fridge. Cats use protein as their main energy source, so it's good to pay attention to what kind you're giving them. Your cat's health and longevity start with what they eat. And if your cat doesn't love Smalls, you can get a refund. So you can try it risk-free for a limited time, because you're in my audience, you can get 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Most underwear really hasn't changed very much. You got your boxers, you got your briefs, Basically everything down there is thrown into the same space.

But our sponsor, Sheath, takes a different approach. Sheath boxer briefs have this unique dual pouch system. And it keeps everything separated and supported instead of mash together. That might sound like a small change. But when you wear them, you will understand why it makes such a difference. Less sticking, less rubbing, less readjusting. I especially notice the difference when working out, but they're super comfortable in any setting. They are soft, stretchy and moisture wicking. Options include bamboo and mesh.

If the pouch system isn't your thing, you just don't use it. They are still insanely comfortable underwear. The design might sound unusual. When you try sheath, it will make sense. Go to sheath underwear.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 20%. off. The link is in the description. It's great to have back on the program today, Governor Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania. He is embroiled in a re-election campaign, which, you know, I can say looking at the polling looks good, but we fight for every vote. There's a reason that people vote. It's that the polls don't count in deciding who actually gets to hold the office. But we're watching it closely. It's so good to have you on today. Thanks, David. Good to be on. And listen, I always run like I'm

25 points behind. So I'd take nothing for granted and working hard up and down the ballot. No, I think that's smart. And, you know, especially down ballot with some of the Pennsylvania races looking very close. You said Trump and allies are going to try to stop, quote, certain votes from being counted. And we're watching this across the country. What is your best assessment of exactly how they would do it? Because if you ask 10 different people, they'll give you 12 different ideas. You know, it's restrictions. It's the USPS scheme that was struck down. What do you, what are you worried about specifically in Pennsylvania as far as votes? So look, I mean, I think we've, we've seen Trump try and do a number of things so far. And we've stopped him in every turn.

And I think there's still a few more things he can do. So let's go back. First, he tried to mess with the USPS. We stood up to him in court and won. Then he tried to cast out on voting by mail. again, took him to court and won, and we're actually seeing really high numbers of both requests for ballots and ballots returned, and they outnumbered probably three to one Democrat to Republican. So he has failed on that as well. I anticipate he will do a few other things leading up to election day, and then we're prepared for what he might do as soon as the polls closed. So let me explain. my fear has always been that he would try to deploy federal troops, whether it's ICE or trying to commandeer the National Guard from my command here in Pennsylvania or other federal law enforcement

under the guise of, well, we need to keep the peace or we need to make sure things are safe when, in fact, what he'd be trying to do is intimidate certain communities into not showing up. We are prepared should he do that. I probably won't get into all the details on what we might do there, David, respectfully, because we want to not show our hand, but we are prepared. And then once the polls close, I anticipate he and his enablers will do what they did back in 2020 when I was the Attorney General, which is immediately go to court and try and stop certain votes from ever being counted or create doubt around certain votes or stop the mail-in ballots

from being counted. He did this back in 2020 when I was the Attorney General. I would note that we went to court 43 times against Trump. He went 0 in 43. I went 43 and 0. We had a free and fair, safe and secure election where the will of the people was protected. And David, I've got to say, in that election, some Democrats won and some Republicans won. The bottom line is here, we respect the will of the people, and we're going to make sure every legal, eligible vote is counted. I'm hearing. I'm hearing. concerns about the while people are voting piece of this because we've, as you're talking about, we've heard about the possibility of the deployment of federal agents near polling places. And one of the things I'm sort of worrying about is it seems that one of the things governors can do

would be, well, deploy state police. But I don't know that it's a great scenario to have ICE and state police there because to voters who show up, it'll just look like a lot of people with guns at polling places and that's not necessarily good. Well, we actually have laws in this Commonwealth that says police or law enforcement can't be inside the polling places and can't be within a certain range of the polling places for the exact reason that you just said. We want people to feel safe for sure, David, but we also don't want them to feel intimidated when they show up at the polls.

So we are prepared for that scenario. Look, what I'm feeling out in the community as I travel around is folks are really. fired up to vote and they want to make their voices heard and they are angry at Donald Trump. They're pissed about the chaos and and the cruelty and the corruption that he brings about in our country every day. And they want to do something about it. And they're going to show up in vote. One of the things that I was, I guess in a sense, surprised that your opponent mentioned was his belief that, quote, we know that he won referring to Donald Trump in 2020. And the reason I was a little surprised to see that is that in a lot of parts of the country,

including sort of more purple states that have large red and blue contingents like Pennsylvania, it really seems like affordability is an issue. It seems as though energy is an issue, education. And I had sort of thought that a bunch of these Republicans had figured out the election denial is not really serving us very well here. Do you have some sense that Pennsylvania, Republicans maybe do like hearing about the 2020 election fraud conspiracies, or is that a mistake to go in that direction?

I mean, look, my opponent, she is so far outside the mainstream. She called the January 6 rioters, great patriots. She rallied with them. And she has said in the presence of Donald Trump on the rally stage and other times since, that we know we want. She is an election denier. And she's way outside the mainstream. I will point out that, you know, large swaths of Republicans are rejecting her, along with, obviously, Democrats and many independents.

I think reasonable thinking folks understand what happened in each of the elections and have seen that all the nonsense Donald Trump has said is BS. I think what's dangerous about my opponent is she is a total rubber stamp for him, not just on the election denialism. which has a practical impact on Pennsylvanians because the next governor has to certify the winner of the 2008 presidential election. Certainly as governor, I'll certify the will of the people, whoever they choose. She'll do whatever Donald Trump wants. But more broadly than that, she's lined up with him on all the other dangerous things. She called the tariffs fantastic, even though it's jacked up prices on our farmers and our small business owners.

She continues to celebrate the war in Iran, even though it's left 21 families across America with an empty seat at the table because a hero has died in this war we should have never, ever, ever been in. We're seeing farmers suffer because diesel costs her about 645 a gallon here in Pennsylvania fuels over 450 a gallon. And so people are suffering because he's policies and she just continues to stand with him. She was asked the other day, do you have any difference from the president? She couldn't name one. And so I just think what you're getting in Pennsylvania, my opponent is a total rubber stamp for Donald Trump. And that's not where the good people of Pennsylvania are.

I want to bring up the death penalty briefly because there was this very prominent story over the last week where the Pentagon had a plan of live streaming a firing squad execution of Nadal Hassan. And I'm interested in your, they've since said they're not going to do that. You ran for attorney general twice supporting the death penalty. Now you oppose it. I'm interested in, given your background on the subject, why did you change your mind on the death penalty?

I agree with your current position, by the way. And where do you think Pennsylvanians are on the death penalty right now? Yeah. You know, this was a real challenging issue. If you'll allow me, I'd maybe offer a little bit longer of an answer here. I ran for Attorney General, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of this commonwealth twice and won both times. with an honestly held view that we should have the death penalty, that it should be reserved for the most heinous of cases.

And that it would be up to me as Attorney General to determine if that sort of heinous bar, if you will, was met. I found myself as Attorney General struggling when we'd get a case that would come across my desk that was one of those cases that one might consider be heinous. I just couldn't pursue capital punishment. I'd get a life sentence without the possibility. parole. It's a bad person who shouldn't be on the street. But I was struggling with the issue.

And I was really thinking a lot about it. One day, my then 10-year-old son said to me out of nowhere, hey, dad, we don't have the death penalty in Pennsylvania, do we? And I said, well, yeah, but we do. Why? I said, well, you know, for the most heinous of cases, and I found myself, like, as a dad, giving an answer that I believed, but that I saw that I couldn't look my kid in the eye while I was answering it. And my kid then looked at me and said, I don't understand why killing someone

as a punishment for them killing someone else is an okay thing. Right. And honestly, David, it really weighed on me. About three weeks into my term then as governor, a sheet of paper came across my day. desk and it was an execution warrant. And I had the power with my pen to sign it and put that individual to death or to not sign it and reject it and instead ensure that he would serve

a life term behind bars without the possibility of parole. I didn't sign it. I put a moratorium in place. I called on the legislature not to reform the death penalty, but to eliminate it because I just fundamentally believe the state should not be in the business of putting people to death. David, you asked, where are the people in Pennsylvania on this? I made that decision absent polling. I didn't sort of poll it or test it. And actually, if you poll the issue, I'm probably not on the majority side of it. And I respect that people have differing views than I.

But this is a matter of conscience, and I'm the governor, and I've got the power to decide whether someone lives or dies. And I just could not, in good conscience, know that because of my signature, I took someone's life. Again, David, I'm not making excuses for these people. These are bad folks who committed horrible crimes, and they deserve to be behind bars for the rest of their lives. I'm tough as hell on crime, but I will tell you that for me, this ultimately became an issue of conscience. I explained it to the good people of Pennsylvania. They've accepted my view, even if they disagree with it. And that is my view. And I have to say also, I think the worst punishment is,

life in prison, based on my beliefs about, you know, what happens physiologically, I think it's worse to have to live the rest of your life with what you did on a personal level than the lights go out. That's my view. And so sometimes when I hear from people who go, I have a desire for the worst possible thing. I kind of think the life in prison with parole is the worst thing. Yeah.

Look, I think that that is a fair point for someone to have to confront this in their conscience. every single day of their lives. You would hope that they would at some point learn from that. You would hope that there might be some human healing as a result of that. There's also a practical side of this. We saw it play out in, I believe it was Tennessee, if I'm not mistaken, just last week, or pardon me, a couple weeks ago now, where the state literally tried to execute someone on death row

and wasn't able to. She was hospitalized and somehow miraculously overcame him. And then you've got Pete Hegseth, who is completely unqualified for the role that he's in. He's like an eight-year-old playing with toy soldiers every day. He is completely and totally incompetent. And he wanted to go live stream and execution. And that's not who we are. We are not a cruel people in America.

I think we are kind and decent people. And Pete Hagseth and Donald Trump continue to try and take us to the lowest common denominator. Last thing I want to ask you about is data centers. You do not support a blanket statewide moratorium on data centers. I probably don't either as a permanent thing. My concern is sort of the following. Sure. If some communities with this is my concern with data centers, if some communities get all of the

information in an appropriate amount of time are able to ask questions, are able to understand who will fund the infrastructure, what happens to noise, what happens to water, and they decide we want it anyway. Fine. I think that they should be able to have that. The problem seems to be that by the time communities often hear about these projects, they are well underway. The cat is sort of out of the bag. There's been no real opportunity to evaluate fairly. What will this do? So I think that the long-term moratorium on data centers, I am against. But until we can regulate and mandate that communities really have that opportunity, don't we need something to slow down this process? Yeah, and that's exactly what I've done in Pennsylvania. I think your observation is really

astute. So a moratorium is really just a pause, a delay, whatever word you want to use, until you get to the policy. Right. Well, I put the policy in place. And in fact, my policy, my executive order in Pennsylvania now represents literally the strictest guardrails in the entire country. And you touched on the most important point, and that is empowering local communities to be able to make a conscious decision. To your point, maybe they want it because it brings jobs and opportunity to their community, or maybe they don't want it because it brings other things that they don't want there. So what my executive order says, and now other states have begun to mimic what we did here in Pennsylvania, it says the state of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will not even consider your permit

or your application for a data center until, the local community has ample time to weigh in and support it or oppose it. For the local community to support it, there needs to be a local benefits agreement. They've got to hire local labor, and they've got to earn an affirmative vote in that town council or that, you know, that borough or that municipality. Only then will the burden on this data center operator shift to the state. And if you shift to the state, then you've got to do the following. You have to generate your own power.

You have to pay for that power so there's no burden on the local rate payer. You have to protect our air and water in very, very strict ways. And then, of course, you've got to comply with all local zoning and things like that. So in effect, what we've done is we've knocked out probably over 90% of the proposed projects that were wreaking havoc on local communities that local communities did not want. And for the other, I don't know, roughly 10%, I'm giving you kind of ballpark numbers. We're giving that local community ample time and opportunity to evaluate the projects and determine whether or not they want them. I think it's important to protect local control.

I think it's important to say to a community, if this is something you want, if this is something that's going to enhance your community, then we'll work with you on that. But we're also at the state level going to have an incredibly high bar that's going to ensure we're generating. more power. It's clean energy. We're not looking to, we're not going to allow rates to go up. And so I think as a result of this, what we've seen is local communities finally are empowered. They're thanking me, by the way, Democratic and Republican communities. The head of the building trades in North America in attitude, they came out in support of it. A number of environmental groups have adopted this. And the responsible developers have reached out to say, hey, We want to be, we call my executive order grid.

We want to be grid compliant. So please tell us what that bar is. We've got to meet. And so that's where we are. We haven't affirmed any projects since my executive order went out. But the high bar is now in place and the local communities are protected. No, that makes a lot of sense. Governor, before I let you go, are you expect, I'm going to word this carefully, are you expecting

many qualified contenders to show up for the 2028? Democratic presidential primary. I think right now, everyone is doing what they should do, which is focusing on these midterms and trying to weigh it up and down the ballot. That's what I'm doing here in Pennsylvania. I've got four congressional races in my state that quite literally could tilt the balance of power in the U.S. House. I've got a chance to win my state Senate for the first time since 1992, and I'm focused on that.

And then I expect after the election, hopefully it will go well for everyone in all of these tough states. I expect that our party's going to have a robust debate about its future. And I think we've got some tremendous people who can participate in that debate and help lead us forward. I expect robustness. That's for sure. Governor Josh Shapiro, we're watching the re-election campaign closely. Always appreciate your time. Great to me with you, David. And congratulations on the book. Thank you. If you get scam calls, texts or emails, you know, people just trying to sell you stuff for sending you sketchy messages. This isn't happening by accident because your name, phone number, email, home address, relatives, job history can just be sitting there in a public database and then

marketers can get access to it, scammers, different companies, and then they target you. What our sponsor Incogni does is just get rid of all that information from the corners of the internet where scammers get it. And this includes people search sites, online directories, data broker lists, Incogni will send removal requests to hundreds of notorious sites and they'll keep just following up. And if your data comes back, they'll get it removed again. What I think is the best is the custom removals feature. This is with the unlimited plan. Sometimes you might find your information somewhere else, some one-off directory or a search result or a business database. You can paste that link into Incogni and they'll get to work right away to get it taken down.

Removing your info from these databases means it's harder for scammers and identity thieves to reach you and you can get 60% off an annual plan at incogni.com slash Pacman with the code Pacman. The link is in the description. Donald Trump desperately tried to convince a deranged rally crowd that his brain is fine, bragging about cognitive tests and attempting to remember words. In fact, Donald Trump spent about eight minutes rambling about his various multiple cognitive tests. This is a really strange subject when you are trying to rally to help your party.

This one in Bullhead City, Arizona. Here is Trump on cognitive. And it's sort of like, oh, my God, what is wrong with this guy? Or they give you five words. Oh, they mocked me for this. Oh, anybody, they can't do it. Nobody up there could do any of these things. They give you five words. and you don't know what they're doing. They say, sir, we're going to give you five words. We would like you to repeat those words, preferably in order. And what they don't say is at the end of the test, a half hour later, they do it again. So you don't know that.

Everybody knows that that's how it works by now. Five words, sir, hat, hair, logo, white, black. Sir, would you please repeat those words? Hat, hair, logo, white, black. Oh, you got it right. Now you get extra. This is river, I've never seen a Trump rally crowd this dead. What's your points if you can do them in the same order, right?

Now a half hour goes by, they've asked you 25, 30 other questions. Sir, in the middle of the test, we asked you about five words. Will you please repeat them again, ideally in order? You will get points if you get them all. You will get points. All right. Anyway, this is like mind blowing stuff, I guess, for Trump, but the audience is dead. Let's do the game ourselves, though, okay?

I'm going to give you five words. Just remember them at the end of the segment. I'm going to come back and test you. The five words are orange cancles, bronzer, liar, dumps, okay? Cankles, bronzer, liar, dumps. Let's see how many of you can remember them by the end of this segment. All right, don't write them down. Donald Trump talking about traveling with doctors and he says, you know, people get sick in the

audience, we ignore them. Collateral damage. But if I get sick, we have doctors. I would love to know all of the various specialties that are now traveling with Trump on a daily basis. What sort of care is he needing that he needs multiple doctors with him? But remember, I'm the only one that took the test. You know, I took the aptitude test or whatever the hell they call it.

Whatever. I took it when I do, every time I do a physical, I take a mental test. And I've aced it. Where's my doctors here around? I travel with more doctors than any year. If people get sick in the audience, they don't, they leave them alone. You know what they call them? Collateral damage.

If that person right over there, a friend of mine, he looks like shit, actually. He looks like he's ready to have a heart attack. If he actually had a heart attack, you know what my doctors would do that follow the president, all presidents. They would leave him alone. I say, please help him. No, sir, we can't leave your side. And he's dying of a heart attack.

Sir, he's collateral damage. Can you believe it? They got like six ambulances and they won't use one for anybody else. Isn't it crazy, huh? So these are the rantings of someone whose brain is mush. His brain is filled with rancid mayonnaise. It's that simple. But your brain being mush doesn't stop you from dystopian authoritarianism in which Trump says

leakers should be shot, not held accountable if they committed a crime, not sentenced in according with a they should be shot. And of course, this is leakers who leak stuff that's bad for Trump. See him one o'clock in the morning. They flew over. And you know, somebody leaked some sleaze bag. They ought to go to jail and be shot for the rest of their life. They should be in jail.

But they leaked that we were leaving at 12-07 from Missouri, and it was in the New York Times, CNN. They leaked the time we were leaving, the time we were arriving. And I called General Raisin-K. And I said, General, that's not good, is it? She said, not good, sir, but we can do it anyway. I said, let's change the time. So I called off the raid. And you know the unhappiest people were, the pilots?

They were miserable. So after two days, I said, all right, good. Now we can do the raid. Let's leave it exactly the same time. That was the only time that they didn't expect us to be used. We used the exact same time. But they leaked. Leaker should be, in my opinion, leaker should be shot.

We should be shot. It's not just that Trump is saying it. It's that the crowd is clapping. They were dead for, I've never seen a crowd this dead for Trump. But at the idea of shooting leakers, the crowd. the crowd comes to life in an authoritarian slurry. What about Barack Hussein Obama? Remember that guy?

Obama now. What point is Trump trying to make about Obama right here? Almost none can do them in order like that. But I can. You know why? Because I'm a freaking genius. That's right. Right.

No, but no, but you know what? I took three of them. And instead of praising, me. I'm the only one, no president, Barack Hussein Obama, who got into college for different reasons than you did? It's not a smart guy. And sleepy Joe Biden, we know as dumb as Iraq. He was dumb 30 years ago. It's not just now because today has a difficulty. We don't want to hurt people with difficulties. But these guys are not smart guys. He's aren't. Put aside for a second that this is just complete nonsense and some of it is xenophobic and some of it is, it's all disgusting.

right. There's no value in the substance, but I want to ignore that just for a moment. If you can if you can put aside the fact that the entire speech has no substance, uh, who is this helping? Is this helping candidates in any of the states that Trump is visiting? Is this doing is this convincing someone who goes, you know, I'm, I'm a Republican, but like, I don't really think Trump's done that much great stuff for me, but Trump's not on the ballot. It's other Republicans and I've got. Do you think you hear Trump do this crap and you go, I got to get out there and vote for these Republicans. Or does it make you want to stay home, bury your head in the sand and not come out until 2028? Or does it make you go out and vote for Democrats potentially?

Trump ranting that he won in 2020. We've heard this one before, huh? Total inability, total inability to move on. We had a rigged election, so that was not so good. We had a terrible, but because we did so well, because we actually won by millions and millions of votes, it was just rigged. They rigged it through COVID and other things. I said, COVID-Riffy election. You know, the virus went in there and microbes changed votes. I've not heard that COVID rigged it. Now, I know what he means.

The Democrats used COVID to illegally change voting laws and blah-blah-blah. It's all been debunked. Let's do it again. And we did it again. And we won in historic with historic numbers. It was amazing. We had a rig. Yeah.

This one went really terribly for Trump. And at various points, he yelled for his doctor. And the doctor's here. Where's my doctor? He's an admiral. Can you believe it? Where's my doctor? He's a great guy.

He's always waiting for something to happen. He leads a crazy life. Where's my doctor? Anyway, they give a test. And the people that give the deaths are doctors that you don't know. Anyway, more cognitive fiascos. And then finally, finally, Trump insists, Melania really doesn't like it.

like it when Trump dances to the gay national anthem. That's what he calls it. I tell you, my wife is going crazy with me. She hates. She said, you're president of the United States. You shouldn't be doing this. And you shouldn't be dancing on the stage either, by the way. She said you should walk off with a gentle wave. Goodbye. When the gay national anthem plays, you know, it's called the gay national anthem actually. I got the high national anthem. highest gay vote of any Republican in history. I think I have no idea whether that's true, by the way. I truly have no clue. Because of the song. She said, you should not dance off the stage, my darling. I love you very much. But please don't do that. And don't talk about the swimming

where you look left and you look right and then you look a little further right. And you see the largest human being you've ever seen larger than Shaquille O'Neal with a bigger reach. and the swimmer got hurt badly because she suffered massive windburn because the giant to her right swam by her so fast that the wind was unbelievable and she suffered for the rest of her life she'll be suffering from windburn yeah um this is not someone who is well mentally this is not someone who is well socially but this is the man that republicans are counting on to deliver victories on on November 3rd. We have to make sure that that doesn't happen. We have to make sure that we get out there and we vote because anybody who is convinced to vote for Republicans by this guy are people we

don't want in power. Now, let's go back. What were those five words we were supposed to remember? Orange, cancels, bronzer, liar, dumps. How many of you remembered them? There are two interviews with Trump supporters that I want to look at. They tell us so much about how people process information or how they don't and particularly how difficult it can be to hold the president accountable when you've decided everything he does is right. So this first clip comes from CNN. CNN was interviewing people at yesterday's Trump rally. And the reporter asks a very reasonable and straightforward question about the economy. Inflation is up to 3.7%. gas prices are up. Who's responsible? Very simple question. Listen to the answer here.

Inflation, we just got a report. It's 3.7 percent. Price of gas is up. Who do you think is to blame for that? Well, I know who's not to blame for that. Definitely got to be those Democrats. I'm not going to lie. Democrats and the rhinos, not backing Trump. Definitely. Not President Trump. He's doing what he can, try to clean up the mess they made. How do we know that it wouldn't be more if someone else was in office? Because it was lower when Trump took over? What, how can you blame it on someone, not knowing what the other result would be? All right. So who is to blame for 3.7% inflation and high gas prices? It's not Trump's tariffs, which raise prices. It's not Trump's war in Iran, which raises prices. It's the fault of Democrats,

and rhinos. And Trump is simply doing what he can to clean up the mess everybody else made. Now, there's a couple different things going on here. First of all, inflation can't automatically be blamed on whoever is president. We've talked before about global factors, supply chains, energy markets, Fed Reserve policy, all sorts of considerations. I have never proposed that inflation existing proves Trump is responsible. But this is the whole point. If you want to be a lot of to be taken seriously in making an argument about who's responsible for inflation, you have to look at policies, timing, and evidence. When Biden left office, inflation was lower, Trump did tariffs that economists said would raise prices. Trump started a war that economists said would raise prices,

and then prices went up. And this supporter is seemingly incapable of accommodating to reality. If the economy's doing well, Trump deserves to credit. If it's doing poorly, we either lie and say it's doing well or we blame Democrats. If Republicans control the government and something goes wrong, we blame rhinos. If Trump has been president long enough that blaming Biden becomes a little tough, you go well, he's still cleaning up the mess, even if things are going in the wrong direction. It's an explanation that you can never disprove because the conclusion is determined before the evidence. Trump's not to blame.

Now, compare this to the second interview. Reporter approaches a man at the Trump rally, asks a simple question. Why are you here? And the guy mentions Biden. Listen to this. So what brings you out here to support Trump today? Because I don't like Biden or the Democrats. I don't like Biden and the Democrats.

Democrats, that's a newer name that Trump has stuck really well. That's nice than what I normally call them. I usually call them dumbass crap. Really clever guy. I don't like Biden. You're at a rally before a midterm in which neither Biden nor Trump are on the ballot because you don't like Biden. Now, maybe if we sat down with this guy over a beer, he would have a more elaborate explanation

that simply didn't make it into this clip. I don't know. But what a remarkable answer to give at a Trump rally in October of 2026. Joe Biden has been out of office for almost two years. Donald Trump is the president. Trump's the person signing executive orders and making appointments of staffers, negotiating with foreign leaders directing the executive branch. And when this guy is asked two years into Trump's term, why are you at a Trump rally?

Because I don't like Joe Biden. It's like the calendar stopped in 2024. These two interviews fit together very nicely. In the first interview, Trump is insulated from responsibility because everything bad is blamed on Democrats or Republicans who failed to be completely loyal. In the second interview, support for Trump is expressed as opposition to a different guy who isn't even in office anymore. Biden's been out of office two years.

He's dealing with metastasized prostate cancer. This guy is at a Trump rally because I don't like Biden. Nothing tells us anything about what Trump is accomplishing right now. What policies do you support? What results did you expect from Trump? Did you get it? What's success? What's failure?

And you can find people across the political spectrum that can better explain why they oppose or support things than these people we've heard from. But the problem here is this is what happens when loyalty becomes disconnected from any measurable result. If you believe Trump deserves credit for every success, but none of the blame for failures, that is a standard that is delusional. And if your explanation for supporting the current president is you dislike the previous one, you're not really telling us how you evaluate a president. You're saying, I have an allegiance.

That's it. That's why I keep coming back to let's apply consistent standards. If inflation was a legitimate concern under Biden, it's a legitimate concern under Trump. If 3.7% inflation is too high under Biden, it's too high under Trump. If it was Biden's fault when he was president, that it's got to be Trump's fault when he's president. And if we decide, here's how we scrutinize gas prices. We do it the same way, no matter who's president. There's a few things presidents can do to raise gas prices.

Did Biden do any of them? No. Has Trump done some of them? Yes. And if a politician makes a promise to fix something, at some point we should say, did they fix it? Did they do it? Not do the supporters like them or do they hate Biden or whatever. These are two short interviews.

They don't establish what every Trump supporter believes. But this is a problem in American political discourse where the explanations are designed from the ground up to make it impossible to ever find fair criticisms of Donald Trump. And the simplest test is this. Ask yourself, what evidence would cause you to change your mind about a politician you support? If the answer is there is nothing that could change my mind. You are no longer evaluating performance. You're just defending identity and allegiance.

That's very different from holding elected officials accountable. Part of what we will try to do over the next two years is hold elected officials accountable. I would love to have your support on Tuesday as we do a one day membership drive. Get on my newsletter, substack.Davidpac.com, or get on my texting list. Those are the two ways we will be notifying folks of this massive, girthy discount on Tuesday. Text 646-531-4333. I have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. Truth social is collapsing.

A lot of people fell for a fake story about Russian bots. We'll talk about all of it on today's bonus show.