The David Pakman Show - Trump demands loyalty as MAGA starts eating itself

Episode Date: September 11, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Donald Trump instructs thousands of audience members at an RNC midterm convention to raise their right hands and pledge allegiance to him -- Donald Trump angrily berates a female journalist who presses him on how the federal government will fund $5,000 voter incentive checks -- Donald Trump rambles to Laura Ingraham when asked why his administration cannot immediately distribute proposed $5,000 checks -- Donald Trump escalates an ongoing trade dispute with Canada by banning select imports outright and expanding 50% tariffs -- Peter Navarro attacks Fox News Media on Newsmax following the removal of host Maria Bartiromo from her regular broadcasts -- Donald Trump utilizes professional wrestling style theatrics and political spectacles to keep voters engaged without delivering on anything -- Turning Point USA faces internal conflict and public criticism one year after the assassination of founder Charlie Kirk -- The Friday Feedback segment -- On the Bonus Show: Trump uses 9/11 anniversary to promote his Iran war, key Republicans were caught off guard by Trump's $5,000 checks promise, and much more... 📜 Trust & Will: Save 20% on your estate planning at https://trustandwill.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman 🧠 Try Brain.fm totally free for a month at https://brain.fm/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 -- 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 (01:27) Trump makes audience pledge allegiance to him (10:05) Trump erupts at a female reporter (16:17) Trump asked why he can't issue $5,000 checks now (25:09) Trump escalates trade war in Canada (33:23) Peter Navarro attacks Fox News over Maria Bartiromo firing (43:06) Trump offers theatrics but no substance (50:28) Turning Point is destroying Charlie Kirk's legacy (58:31) Friday Feedback segment Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, Donald Trump gets thousands of people to raise their right hands and repeat a pledge of allegiance, declaring their allegiance to him as the greatest president in American history. A reporter starts asking very reasonable questions about Donald Trump's promise $5,000 checks. And it gets very ugly as Trump lashes out. And Laura Ingram asks really an even simpler question about those $5,000 checks. And Trump's answer involves a completely fictional $21 trillion tariff revenue scheme. Meanwhile, the trade war with Canada escalates something we really never see between close allies. Outright import bans are now being discussed. And something fascinating is happening at Fox News. One of Trump's own top advisors is now telling MAGA viewers, Foxes betrayed you.

And as the fight over Maria Barteromo's departure explodes into the open, we may see quite a realignment in right wing media after we get past these midwives. terms. Plus, I think I finally figured out something important about what Trump understands about politics that a lot of other politicians don't. Plus your messages, good, bad, and ugly at the end of the show in today's Friday feedback. Let's record this one. Why not? Trump made the entire audience on the second night of his midterm convention put up their right hands and swear a loyalty oath. Pledge allegiance, not to the Constitution, not to the flag, not to doing what is best for the average fellow American, but pledge allegiance to Donald Trump.

We have reached the point where the cult is wide open in the public sphere and Trump stood in front of an arena, not a full arena, I have to admit, and asked thousands of people to put up their right hand and repeat after me. Don't believe me. Take a look at this dystopian, authoritarian, rancid nightmare that has become the Republican Party of 2026. Oh, please raise your right hand. I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States that love. loves us so much he can't even breathe that I will go out with my family, my friends. I'll do it anyway.

I don't care if I'm registered or not. I'm gonna try and cheat like hell like they do. There's never been bigger cheaters. I don't care. I am gonna go out and I'm gonna get my friends, my family, and we are going to vote on November 3rd, or we are going to vote before that. If you care about what this country was founded on, if you care about the Constitution,

if you care about democracy, you have to see this as the disgusting debasement of what the founding fathers worked to create. And we have to prevent these people from remaining in power. We do. Thousands of people raising their right hands and repeating back Donald Trump's declaration that he's the greatest and you will cheat to win. And notice how personal he makes it. He could simply say, and I would still find it a little weird because the whole raise your right hand and repeat after me thing is cringy. It's authoritarian. But he could simply say, let's raise our right hands and promise that we are going to vote. But the crowd has to repeat a statement praising Trump and saying we will cheat to win if we have to. This is a convention that they have built around the

idea that Republicans themselves should pretend that Trump himself is on the ballot in November. And that, I guess now includes Trump leading the audience in a repeat after me, call and repeat pledge about himself. Now, Donald Trump in the midst of this big loyalty oath says, I've delivered on every single one of my promises during this second term. And more people clap. More people clap at this lie. And in 19 months, I've delivered on every single promise I made. And I think I delivered on far more. It is not the 2012 Obama. We've made a lot of progress, but we have more to do. It's not I've delivered on some of the things I promised. It's I've done all of it. What about no new wars in the Middle East? What about five to six percent GDP growth that will buoy this economy like a rocket

ship. What about gas down 50%. What about energy down 50%. What about being respected around the world? What about inflation down so much that prices will actually decline rather than go up more slowly? And some of the people are clapping. Now, do they all know that this isn't true? and it's a performance for the people watching on TV, as few as that number may be. Does Trump know he's lying? But the people in the crowd are stupid enough to believe it. Do all of them actually believe it? Does Trump in some kind of demented fog believe that he did deliver on every promise?

And the crowd also believes it, even though these are promises that have not been fulfilled. And remember that this is happening at a midterm convention where Republicans are supposed to be convincing voters, we've earned another two years controlling everything. And so normally you would expect to hear, here is what remains to be done. Here is what we need to do in the second term and what Congress needs to pass. And that's why I need your vote. But the pitches apparently pledge allegiance to me. I've done everything I promised already. But also you need to elect Republicans so I can keep doing all the stuff that I guess I've already finished. Now, at a certain point, I'm a we got to Ken Paxton.

And again, for the third, fourth, fifth time in 24 hours, Trump decides he needs to degrade Ken Paxton's appearance. These are the entire kid, this entire night, too, is basically footage that you can air unedited as ads for voting for Democrats. And I said something yesterday and I don't know if he'll ever talk to me again. Perhaps you will. But I said it. My people said, please don't say that. So I won't say it. But I'll tell you what I was thinking about saying. And if you're watching when Trump attacks Paxton's appearance, the camera actually cuts to him. You got to give the director an Emmy.

I said, I don't like the way Ken dresses. Although I also said he looked really sharp in that suit yesterday. I thought. Spiffy. And Ken Paxton just sits there and he takes. it because what else can he do? And this is the guy Trump is ostensibly trying to help get elected. And Trump can't stop talking about he's not very good looking and he doesn't dress very well. And he talks kind of weird. And it's every single day. And somehow we're still talking about Ken Paxton's face. And what is the obsession? And then we move to Trump renaming more stuff going, we are in such control of the Strait of Hormuz, we might as well call it the Trump Strait. And by the way, we control the straight, the Trump Strait, I call it.

We control the Trump Strait. The Trump Strait. And of course, if that were true, we wouldn't be in month seven of a two to three week war with oil and gas prices continuing to spike. As Donald Trump says, there are no empty seats here. An audience member pans around the room and you see a lot of empty seats. Thousands, I would even say. There are thousands of people outside.

They search the arena for your seat. That's why last night I said, please don't get up and go to the bathroom. Just sit. Because they're fake people. They are fake horrible, horrible human beings. Not all. Not all. You have some fine journalists.

Not too many. All right. So there's a visual element here. But as this individual turns the camera around, as Trump likes to say, turn the camera around, you see quite literally thousands of empty seats. A confused and flaccid moment, feeble moment from Donald Trump. He seems to think that this convention has been going on seven days in a row, even though it was day two.

And now, and now that's enough of politics. I've been doing this now for seven days. I want a little music if you don't mind enough with the politics. All right. So Trump seems to think that this is day seven of the convention and it is another authoritarian disaster where quite literally the cult members were instructed. Put your right hand up now and pledge allegiance to me, not to the law, not to the constitution, not to your fellow Americans, not to institutions.

To me is the president of the United States. It was a very bad day for Trump. And just wait till you see what happened after this speech. Donald Trump erupts again at a female reporter. How dare Rachel Scott have the audacity to try to pressure test some of Donald Trump's terrible ideas like I'm going to give five grand to every adult if Republicans keep control of the House and Senate. Watch Trump's reaction when a female reporter has the audacity.

to question him. He loses it again. Take a look at this and he snaps a soaking wet, swollen Trump snapping. Mr. President, for turning out the vote as a reward for people having to put up with five years and four years of horrible, a horrible situation caused by Biden. I mean, they had to put up with the four years and that carried on for at least a half an additional year with horrible, just a horrible thing that Biden did to our country. And it's not only just from an economic standpoint. You look at the border, you look at the crime, and now we've got it under control. But what a period of time? It's almost a reward for the people having to put up with Biden's policy.

You also offered checks to rent a refund checks. Not you. And that didn't happen with your president. Hey, not you. On Iran. You're the network and you, you're the worst. You're the worst. What is this really about? This is about a reporter, a woman no less, which really triggers Trump because his expectation is, okay, maybe a guy would do this, but a woman has the audacity to ask a follow-up question and demand facts from me. A female reporter pressing Trump on the obvious absurdity of his $5,000 bribes to voters,

which they will never get. Trump becomes viciously angry in an instant at a woman who, who is he sees it is stepping out of line. But it wasn't just Rachel Scott realizing the $5,000 check thing is farcical. Here's another reporter going, how are you going to pay for these $5,000 checks? And Trump goes, out of growth. What growth? You promised 5 to 6% GDP growth and we're in half that. How are the day for the $5,000 check? To all these all of growth. We have tremendous growth. We have growth like no country has

ever seen before. We have trillions of dollars coming in. And that will end up being not a very big problem at all. And I think our people deserve it. What about the deficit? And they don't forget they're investing it. They'll be reinvesting it in our country. Are you worried about the fact that it all impact the deficit? No, I'm not in the whole world.

Nope, don't the deficit I don't care about. No. So wait a second. Is socialism an existential threat to the United States? Or do we need to give everybody five grand for voting for Republicans? Oh, it doesn't matter. It's just whatever is good for Trump in the moment. On the topic of Iran, another reporter says, hey, you know, oil prices are shooting back up because of what's going on. And Trump again, we're getting really close to the end of this war. It won't be September. It won't be October. But after the election, very quickly, this war will be over before you know it. It'll make your head spin how many, how quickly this war will end.

Iran, all the prices have shot back off over the last 20. The prices will drop very rapidly as soon as we win the military conflict or war. You can call it whatever you want. The prices will go back to where they were. It's always, look, there's no cost cutter like me, but Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. When that ends, I think it'll end very shortly after the election. It could end before the election, but I think it'll end very shortly after the election. Very shortly after the election. So that means at least November, meaning at least the nine month

war that was supposed to be two weeks to three weeks and then four to six weeks and then 90 days. And then it's basically been over 50 times at this point. It'll end really, really soon. And of course, normal people looking around and going, wait a second, Trump controls everything now. We've got a Republican in the White House. We've got a Republican in the half of Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. Why do we need to go beyond the election for the war to finally end? Nobody knows. And we'll get in a moment to Laura Ingram also going, by the way, why can't you just give people the five grand now? And Trump has an explanation, which by the way is completely incoherent. Trump asked, could this war actually not end right after the election

and instead last the duration of your term. And Trump goes, oh, no, no, no, there's no chance. It's possible that the Iran war will last the rest of your term? No. No. There was a report in a journal about this yesterday. The journal, Walshry Journal? It's one of the most inaccurate papers I've ever read. It's only going on its past laurels. Of course not. The war that would last two to three weeks, but then ended up going four to six weeks and then went 90. days and now is in its seventh month. Actually, we're, are we in the eighth month? No, I guess we're, we're, I think we're in the seventh month. There's just no way that it'll last your entire term.

No, no, no, no, no. I would be skeptical about that. And this is the guy who said this will absolutely not happen under my watch. And it is happening right now. One of the great questions that keeps coming up is why is the election so important in order to give people five grand or end the war or whatever the case may be, make America strong again, make America healthy again. Why? Because you all control everything already. Well, Fox News host Laura Ingraham had the gall to ask about that and I want to talk about that next. Did Donald Trump have a stroke on camera? That's the question dozens of you are asking me and sent me this video. Something is very wrong with Donald Trump here. And I believe Laura Ingram Fox News host realizes that something is wrong with Trump. I genuinely

have no idea what Trump is trying to say in this video. And I want you to listen carefully because Laura Ingram asks him an incredibly simple question. You're promising everyone five grand if Republicans win the midterms. Well, if we already have the money, if we took in all of this record money from tariffs and all of this stuff and Republicans control Congress, why wait until after the election? Listen to Donald Trump's answer and see if you can decipher what on earth he is talking about, or is this a medical event where he is losing control of his mental and oral faculties. Why don't just give the money now? If you have the money, why don't give it now? Because they can't, I'll tell you what, because the Democrats can't do it. Because with them,

it's negative growth. With us, it's so positive. So we're taking in 21. $1 trillion. Nobody, no country's ever taken in anywhere near that. It's four or five. What? Why can't you give people five grand now? Because the Democrats can't do it, he says, because with them, it's negative growth. And we're taking in $21 trillion because of tariffs. What? I don't understand. What, what does any of that mean? The question is, why aren't you giving people the money now? And Trump's answer is, I'm not giving people money now because Democrats can't do it. Democrats aren't president. Democrats don't control the House.

Democrats don't control the Senate. So what does the answer have to do with the question? And then he goes, it's negative growth and we're taking in $21 trillion. What does that have to do with why you can't send the checks now? And then we get the most insane part in reality is we're taking in $21 trillion because of tariffs. The federal government has collected like $154 billion in customs duties through July of this year. Now, remember, American companies are paying for that. The phrasing take in is extraordinarily deceptive.

But put that aside for a moment. We've collected $154 billion in customs duties as a result of the tariffs through the end of July. We then would have to add a little bit for August. And Trump goes, 21 trillion is what we took in. That is over a hundred times the actual amount collected through the end of July. And put it in perspective. Trump's promising five grand, okay, to about 245 million adult American citizens. It's five grand per adult.

That would cost about $1.2, 1.3 trillion dollars. If the United States had really collected $21 trillion from tariffs as Donald Trump is now claiming, and the number just goes up. It used to be $17 trillion on night one of the midterm convention. It was $20 trillion. Now it's $21 trillion. If the U.S. had really collected $21 trillion in tariffs, you could give everybody more than $85,000, not $5,000 or you could give everybody $5,000 and then pay off the entire national

debt. But we don't have any of this money. We don't have $5 trillion. We don't have $154 billion. We're talking about $154 billion already collected from American companies. And so Laura Ingram is a nightmare. But the question is an important one, which is you're saying that the $5,000 checks are basically a dividend that tariffs make possible.

That means we have the money. If we've got $21 trillion, why are we waiting? Give people the money now. You've already collected it according to Trump. It's $21 trillion, according to Trump. Five grand for every adult is like $1.2 trillion. Just do it. But we all know because we can do arithmetic and multiplication that the tariffs don't come anywhere

close to actually covering that. So where does the rest of the money come from? We don't know. And instead of answering it, Trump talks about, oh, no, but because that why can't you give people money? Because Democrats can't do it. Are you okay? Do we need to call 911?

Negative growth. It's negative growth. And remember how extraordinary this proposition is to even begin with. because Trump's not merely proposing $5,000 checks. He's saying Americans only get the checks if Republicans win the House and Senate in November. If Republicans win, you get you five grand. Now, I really do think it would be important and relevant to ask some voters. Are you changing your vote because of that? Are there people out there who are falling for this who are saying, you know, I was going to stay home or vote for Democrats? But once Trump, Trump promised me five

grand if they win everything, I decided I am going to go and vote for Republicans. I would love to know if there are those people. And I've got a bridge to sell them if they are. Now, if this is genuinely a dividend from money the government that has already collected, you shouldn't only get it depending on the outcome of an election. You should get it because, hey, listen, the people have earned a dividend. We've done this, this policy and you're the president and you want to do it. So you've got the money. And that's the question that Laura Ingram is essentially asking. And Trump's answer makes less sense even than the proposal because Democrats can't do it, negative growth. And none of it explains why people have to wait until after the midterms other than it's a bribe. It's a dangle.

It's a carrot that Trump is dangling. Now, there's a very straightforward numerical reality. Donald Trump promised in his first term to have a surplus that would be so, so big that it would pay off the national debt. We can do it right now. Let's do it live. If we have collected $21 trillion, pay off the national debt right now, whether or not you give people the money right now. But we don't have that because it's all made up. And instead when Trump has asked about it, he goes, because Democrats can't do it. Imagine if I go, hey, listen, um, are you coming in to work tomorrow at nine? Well, apples can be turned into watermelon. What? Are you okay?

That has nothing to do with what I'm asking. This is the level on which we're operating. And as usual, we are left to wonder, is Trump this stupid? Is Trump this dishonest? Or was this a medical emergency? The trifecta question. And with Donald Trump, you kind of really can't tell whether it's one or the other. Estate planning is one of those things that's easy to put off.

Don't do it. I did my estate planning. It's really important to have a plan in place for the people that you care about. We have a sponsor, trust and will. They do really affordable attorney designed estate plans. You can start creating one in as little as 30 minutes. Platforms super easy to use. You can explain what is important to you about guardians and asset distribution and healthcare. Keep it all organized as life changes. They are state specific products that they will develop for you. You can update your plan over time, share access with people you trust. If you want more guidance, they have lawyers ready to help as an add-on. Trust and will uses bank level

encryption. They use secure sharing to help keep all your important information and documents protected. They also have thousands of five-star reviews on trust pilot. This is really important. Get it down in writing now. You don't want to leave your family with uncertainty later on. Go to trust and will.com slash Pacman and get 20% off. The link is in the description. Sometimes the most important part of a political story is not what gets reported, but what gets placed in the center of the frame. And that is why our sponsor Ground News is so valuable.

Take a look at Trump's Medicaid work requirement rule. The underlying story is that a lot of adults on Medicaid will have to do 80 hours a month of work, school, or volunteering. to keep their coverage. When our sponsor ground news lines up the sources, the framing really changes. On the left the focus is human consequences. What happens if you're sick and you lose coverage? On the right, it's how much will it cost to implement these requirements?

What about states saying that's going to be really expensive? And what's revealing is only around 10% of the coverage is coming from right-leaning sources. They're mostly ignoring the story. News will flag gaps like this through its blind spot feed. So you can see when a major story is getting very little attention from one side of the media landscape. Go to ground. news slash Pacman for 40% off the same vantage plan I use.

The link is in the description. Donald Trump's trade war with Canada is hitting a new level. You have to really try to ask yourself, what is the end game here? it is not making any sense. We are not talking about, oh, let's put tariffs on some specific Canadian products for strategic reasons. The Trump administration is banning certain Canadian products from even coming into the United States, alcohol, dairy products, motorcycles, mopeds. And starting on September 29th, some of these Canadian products just will not be allowed into the United States period.

And it's happening at the same time that Trump is expanding his 50% tariffs to additional Canadian goods. This is a huge escalation of a destructive trade war between the United States and Canada. It is not a trade war with China or with Russia. It is one of America's closest allies. This is one of our largest trading partners. One of the trading partners we depend on and American companies depend on to import component parts for things that are assembled here in the United States.

The sequence is really important to understand. The U.S. previously imposed 50% tariffs on billions of dollars of Canadian products and then negotiations collapsed to avoid those and Canada decided, well, we're going to retaliate. So now Canada has implemented retaliatory tariffs. They range from as little as 15% to as much as 50% on tens of billions of Canadian dollars worth of American products. Those tariffs hit American steel. They hit aluminum, as some say, I call it aluminum, appliances, clothing, dairy products, agricultural equipment, electronics. And Trump's response is to escalate again. The White House says this is necessary because Canada is discriminating

against American products. Canada says we're responding to tariffs that the United States imposed first, wherever you assign responsibility for each individual step, look at the cycle we're in. Tariff, retaliatory tariff, higher tariff, another retaliatory tariff. And then we are now going to import bans, which is a new high in this insanity. So what is the off ramp from this? Well, there's another fascinating detail in what the Trump administration has announced. At the same time that Trump is expanding tariffs on Canadian products, his administration is removing some products from the tariff list. Wait a second. Why? Because when they looked at the impact, officials figured out if we tax certain Canadian products, it'll be a problem for our supply chains, which is what

I've been saying for a very long time now. Cement will no longer be tariffed. Rock salt will no longer be tariffed. Certain hospital paper products won't be tariffed. And according to Axiose, the administration made those changes after feedback from businesses and figuring out these American supply chains depend on Canadian products. Of course they do. Now think about what that means. You put massive tariffs to supposedly punish Canada. And American businesses go, wait a second, you're punishing us. We need this stuff. And then the administration goes back through the list then they start removing stuff. And meanwhile, they're adding entirely new products to the tariff regime.

So this is this on again, off again. We didn't understand. We didn't get it. This is the fundamental problem with pretending tariffs or something the other country pays, which is what Donald Trump claims to believe, whether he really believes it, I don't know. Importers pay tariffs when the Canadian products enter the US. You still pay the Canadian company and then you cut a check to the United States as well. Now you've got your stuff.

Those costs could be absorbed by the importer, but typically about 80 to 85% of that extra cost is passed along to the customers. So we just pay more. There's no magical mechanism where Canada writes Trump a check because he put tariffs on Canadian goods. And now we're moving beyond even that. An import ban won't make some of the stuff more expensive. It'll just ban it.

It will not be allowed into the United States. And what the administration is arguing is that the bans aren't going to come. cause a big problem because they are targeted against relatively small American consumption with substitutes available. That may be true for particular products, but it's kind of besides the point because the direction this is going is insane. Trump has also threatened a 50% tariff on Canadian automotive imports starting next year. He's threatening Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier with being shut out altogether

from the American market. He's directing the federal government to remove tens of billions of dollars in Canadian products from government purchasing programs. And now we are at import bans against Canada. Normally, you would only use an import ban when you are dealing with a hostile government and you're sanctioning them for bad acts, authoritarian civil rights abusers or whatever. It is really unusual to deploy import bans against, forget about a kind of country you're not adversarial with. It's one of our closest allies. And we are seeing so many examples of how this

is going to go, go sideways. Bombardier doesn't exclusively operate in Canada with no connection to the American economy. Bombardier supports thousands of American jobs. And so even Republican Senator Jerry Moran has said, this is a very bad idea. Thousands of Kansas workers will lose their jobs if you ban Bombardier next year. We have really interconnected economies can't even if tariffs meant Canada loses, which it doesn't, right? Because the Americans pay the tariff. Even if you could come up with like a Canada loses tariff scheme. That also means the United States loses.

And there are American workers building components who will lose their jobs. There are American manufacturers relying on Canadian materials and parts who are going to struggle. There are Canadian businesses relying on American suppliers. And the whole point of NAFTA and subsequently USMCA was to recognize there's something special and particularly important to Canada, US and Mexico of these economic integrations that we've done. And so to do USMCA and then watch the US and Canada start pulling pieces of that system apart, Canada's openly saying we just have to reduce our economic dependence on the

United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney is saying, we're going to diversify away from from American markets. This is an utter disaster for the US. And suppose that this goes on long enough that Canada does it and becomes less economically dependent on the US and Canadian companies find different suppliers and Canadian consumers find non-American products and they develop trade relationships with other countries. If Trump leaves when Trump leaves in two years, if when Trump leaves in two years or sooner, if he doesn't make it that long and a more sane person replaces Trump, that's, that

That person won't be able to call Canada and go, we want to go back to the way it used to be because Canada will say, hey, we built some nice relationships with other countries now. We aren't inclined to ruin that just because Trump is gone. And it is a relationship that has now deteriorated so badly that Reuters is even saying, USMCA may not even be viable under this new trade war that we have started. So the biggest question is, what is the objective? What outcome would end this? Because if Canada retaliates and America retaliates against Canadian retaliation and Canada retaliates

against that, that's just an escalation cycle. And eventually someone's got to tell me what does it mean to win this thing? Because I don't get it. And it seems that we are screwing ourselves, which is a common thing that Donald Trump does. Something really interesting is starting to happen on the right. Fox News is taking like a teeny tiny step back from its complete and total loyalty to Donald Trump. And it is making Trump's allies immediately turn on Fox News. This isn't MS now doesn't like us. CNN. We're talking about Fox News here. Peter Navarro, who went to prison for Trump,

just went on Fox News's direct competitor Newsmax and basically said to Maga viewers, Fox News isn't it anymore. And this is potentially the beginning of a much bigger fight. Fox has a huge problem. They spent years building an audience that expects complete loyalty to Trump, but Fox is still a giant corporation with lawyers and executives who remember what happened when the election lies produced a $787 million settlement paid out to Dominion. So what happens when Fox decides, you know, there are some lines, some lines even we don't want to cross. I guess it's this. Maria Bartaromo was fired for leaking an internal memo to the Trump administration, Peter Navarro is asked about it.

Maria's out of a job. I want to ask you, though, like, what did you do with it? You forwarded up the chain. How did you, who did you show it to? By the way, all your points are totally legitimate. I'm not getting into the details. Remember, I went to prison, Greg, for not violating the executive privilege. But suffice it to say that Suzanne Scott got a call,

and basically the White House let her know that, that kind of thing is totally unacceptable. She didn't accept that at all. She just went out and fired Maria Bardo Romo, and that place is out of control. And the problem, Greg, is at the producer level as well. There's a guy over there named Ralph Girdano, who is basically her tip of her spear, censorship spear.

That's what this is. It's censorship, right? And so what the producers are told by Suzanne Scott, who's the CEO at Fox is, Okay, when you craft your segments for like the equivalent of Greg Kelly every day, whatever the show is, it's like you don't do these mega issues. You don't do pro-trum stuff. I understand. You have your A, B, C, and D block. And it's out.

Peter, anybody who watches, I got to jump in, Peter, because we're running out of time. That happens all the time there. This is where the story starts to get really, really interesting. Fox reportedly decides we don't want to spend two. days relitigating Trump's 2020 election claims. So Maria Bartaromo sends Trump people the internal memo from Fox News. It gets to the White House. And according to Peter Navarro, someone from the White House calls the CEO of Fox News,

Suzanne Scott, and goes, why are you guys doing this? And so then they fire Maria Bartaromo. Now Fox is calling Maria's departure a business decision. Berderomo's lawyer says she was fired or rather, Berderomo's lawyer disputes the reports that she was fired and says she's an employee, but she just no longer has a show and she doesn't do any work on Fox News. Now forget the personnel drama for a second because look at the political dynamics that this exposes. Fox's supposed offense here is incredibly small. This isn't, oh, they became anti-Trump. Sean Hannity carried the Trump speech where he said I won in 2020. He

He carried it live. Fox's primetime programming is very friendly to Donald Trump. We're talking about Fox management just deciding we don't want Fox business spending time promoting Trump's claims that he won in 2020. That's like the teeny tiny step backwards from Fox News. And the response is forget the idea that Fox is a MAGA friendly network or a Trump friendly network. They're getting rid of everybody over there who wants to talk about MAGA issues.

And that is the argument that Peter Navarro makes in this next clip. I want to go into it. Listen, did you violate a confidence of Maria Bartaromo? That's my first question. Absolutely not. The text was sent to me. It was my duty to forward on. And Maria Bartaromo was aghast at what the network was doing.

Greg, this is like unbelievable. You got a prime-time address by the president of the United States. Those are very rare. And it's about the Chinese Communist Party basically hacking into more than 200 million voter files and doing other things to interfere in our election. They have these massive capabilities. And Suzanne Scott, over at the mothership at Fox, didn't want to have anything to do with that.

And the bigger story here, Greg, the bigger story here is forget about anybody thinking that Fox is a conservative network that's friendly to MAGA, that's friendly to Trump. Suzanne Scott is the enforcer. They'll feed you some red meat over there, you know, the easy stuff, you know, the trans stuff, stuff like that. But when it comes down to MAGA things, Suzanne Scott gets rid of everybody. So listen, the message is Fox News isn't loyal enough anymore. They're just not loyal enough to Trump. And Navarro is making the argument on a direct competitor to Fox News News Max, which by the way, who would benefit a lot if MAGA viewers decided, oh, Fox betrayed us.

Newsmax would benefit a lot. And that is why this is bigger than Maria Bartaroma because for years, Fox and Trump have had this really weird relationship where each side needs each other. Trump needs access to the biggest right wing audience in America. And Fox wants an audience intensely interested in Donald Trump. But now they have different incentives. Fox is ultimately a media corporation. It has legal exposure.

It has executives, advertisers. And Trump world treats any disagreement as disloyalty. So Fox can be 98. percent friendly to Trump. The 2 percent that they disagree on is enough to start this war. And we've seen this before. We have seen this in other, uh, where where Trump was complaining, hey, Tucker's not that friendly to me. Lou Dobbs isn't always that friendly to me. And now they are sitting on news max going Fox has turned on us. This is going to potentially become a very big deal into the 2028 election, especially if Fox doesn't get in line with whoever Trump wants to be the next Republican

nominee. So we're going to watch it very closely, but a direct line. We didn't like it. So we called the Fox News CEO. Oh, boy, oh boy. If you get scam calls, texts or emails, you know, people just trying to sell you stuff or 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. Procrastination. Most people have some stuff that they avoid doing. It's not because the tasks are necessarily difficult, but because getting started just feels

a little hard. The emails you need to answer or documents you need to read or write, projects you've been putting off. This is where our sponsor Brain FM can help. It's a music app designed to support focus, music created by musicians working alongside alongside neuroscientists with patented audio technology to influence brain activity associated with attention. This is the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. There is research behind it. There are peer-reviewed studies showing that its music will increase

activity in attentional networks, and it will improve performance on attention-based tasks, including particularly strong results among people with ADHD-type symptoms. Brain FM has modes for deep work, creative work, motivation, learning, a dedicated ADHD mode for people who will benefit from extra stimulation. If what is preventing you from getting in gear and staying there is you, try Brain FM. My audience can try Brain FM totally free for a whole month at Brain.fm slash Pacman. The link is in the description. I brought this up briefly last week and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.

Is it possible that for a significant number of MAGA voters, what they primarily want out of politics and out of their government is to be entertained? And before somebody gets angry with me, I'm not saying every Trump voter thinks this way. Obviously, not every Trump voter thinks this way. But think about what Republicans have been teaching their voters about government for decades. Government doesn't work. Government's inefficient. Government wastes your money. Government really shouldn't be doing much for you anyway. And this is not my character is. of the ideological divide. Pew found that 71% of Republicans and Republican leading independence said, government's doing too much stuff. It's doing too much stuff that should

be left to individuals or that should be left to businesses. Only 28% believe that government should do more to solve problems. Now, among Democrats, it's completely reversed. And there is a consequence to teaching people government can't, shouldn't, and isn't doing stuff. If you don't, believe government can or should materially improve your life with your tax money at the end of the day, what are you supposed to demand from your politicians? You're not, if you don't think government should be doing anything for the people with your tax money, you're not asking what are you going to do with my tax dollars? How are you going to make health care more affordable with my tax dollars? What will you do about the cost of housing, child care, infrastructure, education,

retirement, what measurable improvement in my life are you promising in exchange for my tax dollars and for my vote? If you are one of these people that has accepted the premise that government can't or shouldn't do much of anything, you've lowered the bar for what politicians have to deliver. And then suddenly another product is available. Entertain me. Make me laugh. Make me angry.

Piss off and insult the people I've decided I hate. me somebody I can boo or give me a nickname I can call someone or give me a villain that I can point to and say that's why stuff isn't going so well for me. Tell me I'm one of the good guys and that these other people, Democrats, communists, immigrants, whoever are the people destroying this country. And if that's what you want from politics, Trump is perfect for you. Now I'm not saying Trump has no policy agenda. In some abstract sense he does, his administration, has done stuff when it comes to immigration and deportation, taxes, tariffs, like, they've done stuff.

But what I'm talking about is the experience that's sold alongside that. Trump understands intuitively that politics can basically function like professional wrestling. We've got our hero. We've got a scapegoat. We've got an insult. We've got a feud. There's entrances with pyrotechnics and you've got merchandise and catchphrase. and catchphrases. And then tomorrow, you've got your next episode of the Trump presidency.

Look at what Republicans are doing right now. They are, as we spoke about earlier this week, and they just finished. They did this midterm convention in Dallas. There's no presidential nomination. There's no formal business of a presidential convention, but there were speeches and cowboy themed imagery and balloons and all of this stuff. It's, a political spectacle designed to entertain people. And the idea was that's going to energize people. But the problem is that the government isn't supposed to be entertainment. It's actually, it should be boring in a good way. If you have a functioning government with people you've never heard of writing regulations, you'll never read about problems you didn't know existed because they

solved them. That's kind of a good thing. And they're making sure that bridges don't collapse. not collapsing doesn't really make news. Is your kid's school going to have lead in the water they drink? No, it's not. It doesn't make headlines that your kid came back from school and didn't drink water with lead in it. And it's this sort of stuff that we really should expect. Meet inspections, administer social security, negotiate prescription drug prices, maintain air traffic control with no drama about it at all. Can your 78 year old mom afford the medication her doctor prescribed? None of that stuff gets however many people they can get into an arena screaming and shouting and excited.

But it matters way more than whether the president came up with a funny nickname for somebody or chose black onyx for his driveway renovation or whatever else. And there's something almost self-fulfilling about the Republican argument. If you tell people for decades that government is useful and then you get elected. And then you treat governing as completely secondary to the spectacle of your administration, that's going to make government work pretty poorly. And then you can point at the dysfunction that you caused and go, I told you, we told you government doesn't work.

And meanwhile, people are still paying taxes. And that's the part that drives me nuts. If you're going to send thousands and thousands of dollars to the government every year, why wouldn't you demand something in return? Not a Trump dance, the double jerk dance or whatever or a meme or AI truth social posts. Actual stuff like make my health care cheaper, make my commute better, make it easier to raise my kids, make sure my aging parents aren't bankrupted as they age. Spend money efficiently. Show me what I'm getting for it.

So this is not an argument for me that government should do everything. I am not a socialist. There are perfectly legitimate arguments about what government shouldn't, shouldn't do. I've made them do particular programs work. All of that stuff is legit. The point is those are the arguments politics is supposed to be about. And for a lot of these Magapitamians, politics has become primarily entertainment. And when you allow that to happen, it is very convenient for politicians.

Because instead of performing in the sense of delivering policy that materially improves people's lives, you just have to perform by quite literally performing, performing on social media, performing on TV. whatever. And if you can keep voters furious at real or imagined enemies, you don't really have to improve their lives or make government work or whatever if that's not what they expected you to do in the first place. You don't have to deliver anything. You got to put on a good show. And Trump for for all of his faults puts on a pretty good show. The question is, is that really what anybody should be satisfied by in terms of what am I getting for my tax money? And I believe that I believe, of course, as someone social Democrat, a person of the left, of course, those expert

expectations are pathetically low and wrong for what we should have for our governments. But for a lot of these MAGAs, they don't expect government to do much. They don't believe government can do much. Tax dollars be damned. Just entertain me and give me good nicknames for my enemies that you've told me are supposed to be my enemies. Tragic stuff. Truly tragic stuff. Back in December, I did a segment called they've already destroyed Charlie Kirk. And a lot of people really like the segment. And the basic argument was something very strange is already happening just a few months after Charlie Kirk's assassination. There had been this massive effort right after the death of Charlie Kirk to construct a legacy

around him, the flags at half staff, the posthumous presidential medal of freedom and the memorial events with pyrotechnics and turning point USA plastering his image everywhere. And Erica Kirk is going to accept the, uh, um, the eternal flame of turning point USA and continue it and all that. And what I pointed out back in December is that very quickly, the memorializing of Charlie Kirk started to become the branding of Charlie Kirk. And his image was everywhere at America Fest. There were huge banners. There were prove me wrong tent replicas for selfies. And my question back in December was, is this preserving Charlie Kirk's legacy or are they destroying Charlie Kirk's legacy? We are now a year out from Charlie Kirk's killing and Amanda Marcotte has a piece out in Salon that suggested revisiting this story.

And the headline is about why Erica Kirk has failed as Turning Point USA's leader. And it argues in the subtitle that a year after Kirk was killed, the organization is a joke even on the right. And she makes a very compelling argument. Amanda Marcotte's argument is it's obviously commentary. Okay. But she identifies something that is very much, that I think is very accurate, which is that the effort to control Charlie Kirk's posthumous legacy has become tangled up.

in all of these contradictions and the infighting of the movement that he left behind. One good example that captures this is what has happened with Candace Owens. Candace Owens and a guy named Andrew Wilson who seems to me to have, I mean, listen, Candice Owens has real problems. I watched some of this debate with this guy, Andrew Wilson. He seems to have really serious, like just the way he talks. He's like shaking and bizarre. Seems to have serious personality disorders, et cetera.

They recently did a debate. And it was a really bizarre event promoted as a debate about the killing of Charlie Kirk. And when you looked at the promotional graphics for it all, it kind of looked like WrestleMania, you know, giant faces staring each other down, explosions in the background, but they weren't promoting, you know, Hulk Hogan versus the Undertaker. It was a discussion about theories or hypotheses about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And Amanda Marcotte notes that much of the event, the debate, was them attacking each other, mostly disregarding the evidence prosecutors have presented against the guy accused of killing

Charlie Kirk. And then naturally, the debate generates more reaction videos and more content. And this is what I was talking about in December. Charlie Kirk, the person, has become totally secondary. He's become content. The death of Kirk is content. Arguments about his death are content. Arguments about the arguments about his death become derivative content.

And everybody gets another thumbnail. But there's another piece of it that is even more striking, which has really surfaced since December. Erica Kirk is now running Turning Point USA while continuing to promote this ideology about women submitting to male leadership. And at a recent Turning Point USA chapter leadership summit, she said, submission is not a dirty word. And she said marriage is like a cathedral. The husband is the structure that holds everything up.

the wife is the stained glass, decoration of sorts. And without the husband, the stained glass shatters and becomes useless. Now, there's a very obvious contradiction here. Erica Kirk is not living as a woman incapable of functioning without male leadership. She's the leader of Turning Point USA. She's a widow. She's giving keynote speeches. She's explaining how does Turning Point USA build chapters and she's making decisions and she has turned her grief into purpose as she describes it. Now, whatever you think about her choices personally, they are really tough to reconcile with the gender ideology that she's promoting. And I was talking about this back in December. The Charlie and Erica brand emphasized a really traditional vision of gender roles. And then Charlie Kirk died. And Erica took perhaps

the most public leadership position imaginable within the organization. And what Amanda Marrador Arcott argues in Salon is that that contradiction is central to the destruction of Turning Point USA. And here's where things get really weird. Candice Owens has also noticed the contradiction. She has asked, why did Erica need to take over the organization when Turning Point USA had male leaders who could have done it? Now, Candice Owens has also promoted conspiracy theories about the death of Charlie Kirk.

It's a completely separate matter. I endorse none of that stuff, none of it. But Candice Owens has identified a real ideological contradiction within Turning Point USA. If your organization tells women, husbands should lead and wives should submit, why is the ideological explanation point to the widow becomes the CEO? It doesn't seem to make any sense. And Candice Owens has exploited that while attacking Erica Kirk. So think about where we are a year later.

The organization that was supposed to protect Charlie Kirk's legacy is fighting over what his legacy means and prominent figures on the right are attacking his widow and his assassination has become fodder for influencer debates and then on the internet you know even the whole like we are charlie kirk a i song that was intended to memorialize him has become a joke it's one of the biggest jokes on the internet and there are memes about charlie kirk everywhere this is the part I think is so interesting historically. Immediately after an assassination, there's often an impulse to believe the public image created during that moment of grief is going to be permanent. That's how we will remember the person. And it almost never is. And it's a year later. The question isn't was

Charlie Kirk's assassination horrific? Of course it was. Political assassination is indefensible. The question is, what about the legacy afterward? And in this case, the people who inherited Charlie Kirk's organization have not been able to freeze him in their moment of mourning. They have commercialized, memed, fought over his legacy and basically been incorporated into the influencer ecosystem that he helped to build. When I last spoke about this, I said the people around Kirk, or around Kirk's death are potentially going to consume and destroy his legacy. That has happened. And I think the irony of all of this is that Turning Point USA spent a long. time trying to make sure Charlie would not become a footnote.

And the louder the spectacle around his memory becomes, it is really hard to separate him from all of this embarrassing insanity that has come since. So they have completed the act now. They have successfully destroyed his legacy in ways that are also terrible for the organization. And you know what? I think the organization was doing a lot of damage. So we are arguably better off that Erica Kirk has bungled taking it over. The David Packman Show is an audience-supported program and the best, most direct way to support

the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show, and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up at join packman.com. I want to show you the level of thought that a lot of the attacks I get are sort of operating under and it's really, really bad. This guy, Gabriel was upset with me this weekend. So Gabriel wrote to me.

He sent me blank emails where the message was in the subject line, which is always interesting. And Gabriel says, Democrats are going communism wake up. It's sort of like these are like caveman grunting messages. Oh, angry with Pacman. Oh, Democrats going communism. message wasn't enough. He also sent another one. Democrats destroyed our country with immigrants inflation gas prices wake up. Angry. Trump, good, Pacman, bad. I guess now I sound like cookie monster. Guys, this is not, this is not serious criticism. Okay. Give me a real critique.

Give me an explanation of what assertions I made. that I got wrong. Oh, Pacman, wake up is not valuable. It is not valuable. Why is there never punctuation? Why are there random capital letters? These are questions for the ages. We simply don't know the answer.

But I welcome critiques. I'll give you an example. I just got an email, beautiful email. It was an email from someone who took the time to write to me about my first book. And they said, David, there's a bunch of stuff in that book I agree with. I think you're, and in fact, he said, your chapter about political hobbyism was so good. However, I have some disagreements with you about incrementalism versus accelerationism. Great.

That's a completely reasonable email to send. It's not, Buh, Pacman bad, maga good, Trump. It's substantive. Try to do better, Gabriel. Try to do better. I know you can. Well, actually, I don't know. Who am I kidding? All right. Jacob Wright wrote in and said, reforming capitalism is just kicking the can down the road. Capitalism's end state is all of the money at the top and little to no money at the bottom. Infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. This is a much better email. Okay. This is a much better email.

Okay. This is someone who's thinking about substance from the show. Now, I agree that in a physical sense, if you've got a finite planet, you can't have growth forever. That's true. I simply disagree that that gets us to therefore capitalism inevitably ends with one guy or a few people having all the money. We've had capitalist economies with wildly different levels of inequality. And the fact that we're on a finite world doesn't change that taxation, labor power regulation, public services, competition, redistribution, all can be used to have different outcomes in capitalist systems. Now, economic growth doesn't have to literally mean digging another 4% of the world's iron out of the earth or, you know, capitalism and growth can also mean cancer treatments that are better,

software that's more efficient, producing the same stuff with less energy to create economic value. I am much more interested in building a system that produces good outcomes rather than figuring out which ideological label wins. Capitalism without guardrails can produce bad outcomes, but that doesn't mean guardrails don't work. And so I see the infinite growth problem as a separate question. But I appreciate the message. It's a substantive message and I like that. Okay, Boney Bob Cliff from the subreddit says just once I'd like to see this happen. When Trump is doing one of those stupid photo op Q&A sections at his desk, a reporter should ask a hard hitting question. And when he inevitably demands to know who you with as if that's relevant, the reporter should go,

you just answered my question with another question or better yet none of your business because it doesn't matter who I'm with it's a question the American people deserve an answer for so I actually have a different view slightly but this reminds me of something I've been meaning to mention to you when Trump falls asleep in public reporters should immediately ask him about it immediately when Trump does another cabinet meeting roundtable speech Q and a in the Oval office and he falls Falls asleep or better said falls asleep. Immediately, I would love to see a reporter, Caitlin Collins or whoever, go, Mr. President, you just appeared to be asleep.

I was not asleep. Who you with? That's a nasty question. You should smile more. Okay. If you weren't asleep, what did Nutlick just say? Or what did whoever just say? And then the next reporter when he goes, get out of here.

Who's in a? Sir, it did seem as though you were sleeping. start asking the guy about it. Meanwhile, yes, holding Trump accountable more during these press conference type events would be a would be a very good thing. All right. Ashley wrote in with a beautiful message. I have to say.

Ashley says, I appreciate how thoughtful you are to your audience. I'm fairly new to politics. And I think you explain things exquisitely for someone who is trying to be more informed. You're awesome. I always look forward to your podcast. Yeah. You know, I was sent another message over the weekend that's. Someone posted to the Stephen, Kenneth, Destiny, Benel, Borelli, Barrelli, the second subreddit.

Some people just know him as Destiny. That I'm doing, they called it something like AI content for morons or something like that. I don't know what that means, but we have a real problem in this country where a lot of people don't know what's going on. or don't care what's going on or don't have the foundation with which to understand what is going on. I don't think that because I try to explain things clearly to people, regardless of your level of political knowledge, it means that it is not a worthy cause or that it is less than some other thing, you know, and I think that the argument that was made on the Stephen Kenneth Destiny, Benel, Borelli, Barrelli, the second subreddit was sort of being pejorative for without really

making it's like the argument that's made against academia or the argument that we sometimes consider when we say, listen, this 100 page academic paper is very interesting, but it's not accessible. And accessibility should also be something we care about. Anyway, appreciate the comment, Ashley. Thank you very much. Alison Laredo says, I've preordered referring, of course, to my forthcoming book pay attention. Ladies and gentlemen, we are at the end.

The book comes out in mere days. If you have not yet ordered a signed copy of the book, I've actually already signed the books. So at this point, when people preorder a signed copy, it means I've got to go back in and sign more books, which by the way, I'm happy to do. So go to David Pakman.com slash attention. Pre-order the book. If you want to be entered into a raffle to get this specific copy, this is the first ever printed copy of pay attention. If you want to get this one, we're raffling this one off. Simply send your pre-order receipt to info at David Pakman.com. All right. Janice Romano wrote about Donald Trump. He supports mail in voting if you're going to be away working at college in the military or are disabled. or otherwise physically unable to vote in person. You know what's very interesting about that.

This is someone who's essentially saying Trump does support absentee voting for people who have an approved reason. But the thing is, states have determined for themselves what approved reasons are. we support states having that right or we don't. And states run elections. And one of the bizarre things about this debate is if you are physically unable to vote in person, why are you more trustworthy as someone who's mailing in your ballot than someone who's on vacation? Like, are people voting by mail because they're going to be on vacation less trustworthy than

people who are voting by mail because they're in the military? It doesn't make any sense. And by the way, Donald Trump doesn't meet any of these requirements. I mean, listen, being away working is such a vague thing. In a sense, people are sort of, I'm away at my office or I'm away. Trump's got multiple 747s. That's he's working in D.C. Even though he spends his weekends in Florida, now is a reason for him to vote by mail.

Give me a break. So you're defending a guy who has no interest in defending you. That's really the saddest thing. Chetho wrote, loving the new battle hair. I hope it gets taller and taller each episode with the camera moving further and further away to keep the hair in frame. This is how we went. Yeah, last week, just randomly one day my hair was crazy. And it actually, as I'm doing right now, it goes out of frame. So really, I would need to zoom the camera out. And then if it gets even bigger, I would then, I would eventually just be so far away you wouldn't even be able to see me,

which would make the show very difficult to, uh, very, very different. to watch. We are now on the precipice of me launching my book tour. Let me mention a couple of events where I would love to see you. On Monday, September 21st, I will be signing the book at the Upper West Side Barnes & Noble in Manhattan. We are going to have about an hour conversation about the book. There will be some Q&A. I'm going to be announcing the moderator soon. I think it is going to be great. That's on Monday, September 21st. And then on Saturday, October 3rd, I will be going back to my ancestral home of Western Massachusetts, the area where I grew up, and I am going to be doing a joint book event with Jessica Tarlov.

I'll sort of be interviewing her about her book. We will both be there, signing books and taking questions, et cetera. Let me see. The Upper West Side event, I don't remember what time it is. Let me see, Upper West Side. Barnes and Noble, David Packman. I've got to get this stuff going on my count. Or otherwise, I'm going to be late.

Anyway, you can, oh, here, no, I don't know what time. I think it'll be either like five, six, or seven. And then the event in Springfield, Massachusetts on October 3rd is at 6 p.m. More announcements about events forthcoming. We've got a great bonus show today. We will see you then and be back on Monday.