Will Cain Country - The Debate Is On! The Left's New Lie About Former President Donald Trump

Episode Date: May 21, 2024

Story #1: Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker kicked off an interesting conversation, what is a fulfilling life for women? Can women have it all? Perhaps not at the same time. A conversation with the author of How To Build A Better Life, Suzanne Venker. Story #2: Bill Maher and Greg Gutfeld show that it is possible to be friends, even if we have profound disagreements. Story #3: A conversation about whether or not former President Donald Trump froze and if Michael Cohen's testimony undid Donald Trump. A debate with host of The David Pakman Show on YouTube, David Pakman.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show!   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

1. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker introduced an interesting conversation. What should we celebrate? What is a fulfilling life for women? Can women have it all? Perhaps, but not at all at the same time. The author of a brand new book, How to Build a Better Life, Suzanne Fanker. Two, Bill Maher and Greg Gutfeld. We can be friends, even if we have profound disagreement. And three, in that spirit, a conversation about whether or not Donald Trump froze, whether or not Michael Cohen undid Donald Trump, a debate with liberal YouTuber, the host of the David Pacman show, David Pacman.

It is the Will Kane Show, streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always available on demand by subscribing at Apple or on Spotify. You can listen to the Will Kane Show whenever you like. We are growing exponentially. More and more people joining us live every day, Monday through. Thursday at 12 o'clock eastern time, 11 central. And the morning show, 9 a.m. on the West Coast, by subscribing on YouTube or tuning in and subscribing on Facebook to the Will Kane show.

170,000 people watched us yesterday on Facebook. We are growing exponentially, and we want to grow not just in a fire hose, a wash of audience. I'm not playing click. I'm not playing viral videos. I'm not playing mass numbers. I'm playing for a community, a two-way conversation between you and me. Like this. We've recently hosted debates with liberal YouTuber Destiny,

or had in-depth conversations with Sargon of Akad, Carl Benjamin, or had long conversations with YouTube's nerd-rotic. Dylan A. Bro on YouTube says, I remember liking Will Kane on First Take on ESP in a few years. years ago. I was sad when he left ESPN and joined Fox. If you read this will, great choice having nerdotic. You're probably going to blow up in popularity very soon. I hope you have your own YouTube channel building right now. So we can support you. You are too big for the mainstream media. You need to be out there for us to have a direct connection to in the same

vein as destiny. We have that connection. We have that availability. We have that community now. Chappie 42 on YouTube says, I love Will and Nerdroddick, was listening to Will back in his days of ESPN. Great collab. So we have another collaboration today. David Packman is very popular on YouTube.

He is from the left. He believes that Donald Trump is showing some of the same frailty people talk about with Joe Biden. He believes, this past weekend at the NRA convention, Donald Trump froze for 13. 35 seconds that, like Joe Biden, he's old, Donald Trump. We'll debate that, in fact, with David Pacman. He also believes that Michael Cohen's testimony has undone Donald Trump.

As the defense has rested its case, and we now move into closing arguments and soon jury deliberation, we have no idea what 12 New Yorkers will decide regarding the fate of Donald Trump, but we can debate what is true justice as well with David Packman. And that's coming up in about a half hour here on the Will Kane show. But Harrison Butker introduced not just backlash, not just a quote-unquote controversial philosophy when it comes to what is a fulfilling life, when it comes to not just women, but men. The Kansas City Chief's kicker received backlash from sports media, from news media. But he also introduced a deeper conversation, one that we've tried to have. When it comes not just to women and not exclusively on men, but for people, what is a fulfilling

life in a world full of outrage and exhaustion and a world that sees everything through a partisan lens? We each and every one of us want to go home every day and not just feel happy, but feel fulfilled in our purpose. And that, in the end, is what was being spoken about at Benedictine College. Those were the words of Harrison Butker. So let's dive into that at a little bit deeper level with story number one. Suzanne Vanker is the author of a brand new book, How to Build a Better Life.

She's been addressing this on her substack and she's given a couple of speeches where she's responded to what Harrison Butker had to say. Suzanne, thanks for being on the Will Kane Show. Thanks for having me. So I saw something you were speaking about recently when it came to Harrison Bucker. And I talked about this late last week. I talked about the idea of can you have it all? I sort of said that is the lie, in part, that Harrison Butker was referring to. He was referring to in part that the most fulfilling thing you could do in your life is receive titles and promotions.

But I also think that the lie that's been sold for over half a century is that you can have it all. Time and energy are finite, and what you give to A, you cannot give to B. But you had something interesting to say about women, having it all, and that their lives are very different than men. And you may be able to have it all. You can't just have it all at the same time. Talk to me about seasons of life. Yeah, so what is largely overlooked because we live in a country where men and women are supposed to be, quote, unquote, equal as in the same or interchangeable. is that men and women, of course, are demonstrably different in many ways, but one very obvious way,

and that is that women have babies and men do not. So what that means, if we're allowed to even say that, is that a woman's life is not going to look as linear as a man's. It is a life that is filled with seasons where, you know, there's a time for this and a time for that. because men don't have that physical ability, they're kind of on a one-track focus in their life, whether they marry or not, but especially when they marry, they up the Annie in terms of providing. And that doesn't change for them because they're not the ones who go through getting pregnant, giving birth, breastfeeding, nesting, which does not, of course, mean that they don't have a huge role to play. Actually, men's role, I think, becomes a little more a bigger

deal a few years in, but those early years are very heavily taxed for women. And in order for you to build a life that's going to incorporate that, and which we know that most women want that, even if they don't think they do, or even if they're told by society that you can do that later and it's not as important, ultimately they do come to want that. And in order to build a life that's going to allow them to embrace that, they need to make decisions early on. on financially, relationally, and professionally that it will allow them to do that. And that's really my argument in this book, which goes hand in hand with what Berthur, Herston Butker was saying, because I believe that was basically his argument was, look,

this is great, this is a great achievement. You should be honored that you achieved it, but it is not everything. And that's a hard thing to hear at that phase, you know, to commencement address because people aren't expecting it, which is, I think, is why people are, this part, in part, why there's been such a backlash. It's like, well, what did he say? You know, you're not supposed to say that at this, but at this event, but why not? Why not? That's, that's kind of my argument. Do you think there, do you think there is any legitimacy to the criticism that it was the wrong time and place? Now, people have often addressed the place of what he had to say.

He said it out of Catholic College. He said it had been a dictating. He said it toward a receptive audience but there's others who said but what about set aside the space what set aside the place what about the time he said this to a group of one young women and men but focused in that part of his speech on young women that were in a season of their life following your rationale where their priority might not be on that on building a home building a family and raising a child that their priority at the age of 22 might just be what can i achieve in my career i do completely completely understand that. And my response is essentially that I think where he kind of, I don't know, messed up for lack of a better way of putting it, is he might have said, right now you're not thinking about this. But let me just give you a little heads up so that you can plan accordingly in the coming years when you have these big decisions to make. If he had sort of framed it a little differently, I think it might have gone over a little better, probably not great, because you still have the left. freaking out over it. But I think there's something to be said for that, and it probably could

have been said better. Let's put that way. However, he was only saying that one piece in the context of a larger argument that he was making. He wasn't talking the whole 20 minutes about just that topic. So that's why it was, I think, difficult for him to expound more on that. This is a bit of a generalization, Suzanne. But if I think about the backlash or the reaction to what Butker said, I sort of think about it in three camps. So the first camp is one that's been around, I think, for the better part of half a century. And that's the one he's addressing when he said, you've been told lies. And that is this feminist idea that the most fulfilled life a woman can achieve is to do the same things that men essentially have been doing for millennia. And that is to go out into the workforce and provide and promote and bring home the bacon. to fulfill your individual desires. That's one camp, I believe, of the outrage. And that camp is the most militant.

They're going to be the least open to what he had to say. There is a second camp, I think, that is perhaps women who have attempted to have it all. So these are women that might be a little bit older in their life who have children who are also embarking on a career. and they're either pulling it off and think that he's wrong or they feel guilty because they're not pulling off one side or the other of the equation, that they're learning. It's very hard to have it all. And like everyone in life, not just women, you don't want to be told about things that you might feel guilty about, that you might have failed.

But then the third camp is this thing you're talking about. It's this bright line divider in life. And whenever it happens, I know that in your book, you've talked about the age of 30, but the bright line divider is, I think, when you begin to have children. And maybe before that, as you begin to want to have children, and your priorities shift. And so the camp that's incredibly outraged, I find is, let's say women between the ages of 23 and early 30s, who are still in that career phase, who really quite honestly haven't crossed over that line, and I anecdotally have seen it in my life, you see priorities shift among women. Like, one day you wake up and you think,

I want to be CEO. The next day you wake up and you're like, I want to raise a family. And I think that the camps of outrage fall into one of those three categories. They do, but I think, and this goes back to your, you know, the whole hoopla about the timing of his saying this. The reason why it's important to hear it at this stage is because there's, as I said, there's going to be a series of decisions, relationally, financially, professionally, that these women are going to go out in the world and begin to make.

And if you make them with the assumption, which is the cultural assumption that your career is going to be the most important thing in life, it matters more than anything else, don't worry about getting married, having kids. You can do that later, yada, yada. You're going to make different kinds of decisions than if you understood the reverse, which is that ultimately this may seem like the biggest deal right now, but give it five or seven years. And I'm telling you, it's not. Your priorities are going to shift dramatically. So if you want to set up a life that works from 28 to 58, let's say, incorporate what, look, who we marry, anyone, those of us who have been married for decades know that who you marry and how that marriage fares has more effect on your happiness and well-being than anything else you do. It is the single most important decision you make and way more so than your career. You can always change your career. You can't just, you know, swap out your family for another one. So if you know that this is the most important thing and it's going to affect you, why on earth is it at the bottom of your list? Why are you not

taught how to make this decision well and let the career end of the professional end orbit around that as the center of your life, which is pretty much the argument in my new book. The only thing that's hard about that, Suzanne, is you'll meet women and like not even sure they want to have kids. And next thing, you know, it's the most important thing

in their life. So it's hard to project forward, and I think that's kind of his message. Like you're saying, project forward. Generally, what's going to happen is most of you are going to reorganize your priorities at some point. And it's hard to project forward that you'll feel a certain way you don't feel today. It is, but my stock answer to that is air on the side that you will want to pull back

and your priorities will change, not that they won't. That way, when you make those decisions, let's say you're wrong and you don't ever want to be with your baby after you have your baby, you still have the option to go back into the workforce immediately because it's not for you, which is that's just so rare that that happens. It just is so rare, but just err on the side that you will want to be with the baby when you have him or her and set up your life accordingly. You can always undo that, but you can't do the reverse. So that's kind of a, you know, stock answer for that.

The conversation that we're having now is focused on that final category of outrage that we talked about, and that's the ones that have not yet experienced, perhaps, this, this transformative phase of life. What would you say to the other two camps, Suzanne, like the camp that is still of the belief, I can have it all, and I'm pulling off having it all, or the camp that says, hey, you're encouraging people just to be babymakers and stay in the kitchen, which is the first camp, the feminist ideology of, you know, the highest achievement in life is to do the same thing that men have done. What would you say to those two camps? So I'm speaking primarily for what I believe is the unserved majority, actually, that are very silent.

You know, the research shows that mothers of children who are at home, whether they work, this is what's interesting, whether they work outside the home or not, if they had their choice, want to work less and or part time. So it's not this binary of never working or always working. there is this massive middle ground where most women live and want to construct a life that allows them to have primarily the time and attention that they want to spend on their kids, their marriage and their home, and a little something for themselves on the side. Let's put that way. And it's never been better time to sort of figure out how to do that because of what's going on with, you know, with the Internet and how many options that we have to do stuff from home. So, you know, for the people who, I think that the second part of what you said before is really more, hits the nail in the head more, that the people who are hearing what they don't want to hear are the people who are having the most reaction. Because if you really were secure in your choices, you wouldn't have, you know, you'd be too busy to react so negatively. you only react that strongly when you have a nudging of guilt or feeling uneasy about it's like hitting a nerve, I guess. And guilt gets a very bad rap in this country. I think that guilt is a wonderful tool to be used to, it's basically your conscience telling you, hey, something's not right here.

It's not, and you need to pay attention to it. It's not society making you feel this way, which of course is what women hear all the time, that if they feel bad about anything, it's never their fault, which, you know, really takes away our humanity because that's actually an internal mechanism that's there for a reason. That's so interesting what you said, that guilt has gotten a bad rap, that guilt has a positive subconscious role. Emotion in general, I find a part of this as well. We've touched on what maybe the career mother might feel in terms of guilt. The other side I've seen of this is that women who do stay at home and primarily raise their families often feel, I don't think

the word is shame, but they feel this sense often of, well, I didn't fulfill everything that I could be in life. You know, I went to college, I did this, I'm educated, and now I'm a homemaker. And there's some, I don't think guilt is the word, but sense of, did I really become everything I was supposed to be? And this actually feeds into that third camp I'm talking about, the feminist idea of the last half century. And I mean, to be honest, I've had this conversation with my wife. I'm just like, I don't know what job you could have done. It's more important than the job that you've done for our family. And again, I'm searching for the right word because in this case, it's not guilt. It's not shame either. It's just this sense of lack of accomplishment, which personally I've said,

oh my gosh, I can't think of anything greater you could have accomplished than to successfully raise, in my case, these two boys. Amen. Amen. I mean, I feel that deeply and always have. And I'm sad that other people don't get that, but I will say that while that can be true in any era that a woman might struggle there, it's so bad today because we have demoted this work to the bottom rung of the ladder so that culture no longer understands the weight of it and the significance of it and what's really going into that work, because that's what it is from the moment you wake up to you go to sleep, especially in the early years, but always.

And because we don't shine a light on it, and because we don't, if it doesn't earn a paycheck, we have no interest in it. If it's about children and not adults, we have no interest in it. We just have no respect or understanding for children, family, and bonds and relationships and how the family is everything.

We're so focused on outward achievement and money that we can't even see it. And it didn't used to be that way. And I think that's why some of those women struggle so much today. Well, I hear from them all the time asking me. You know, I just struggle with the sense of not, quote, unquote, contributing. And I hate hearing that word because it didn't exist 30 years ago. People understood that contribution isn't just financial.

Yes. Yes. Thank you. And you said so well when you say, we've demoted this job, which in my estimation probably belongs at the top of the ladder. 100%. promoted it to the bottom of the ladder, the bottom rung. And you can see that in the reaction to Buckker where some people have said, you know, women should be nothing more than baby makers and stay in the kitchen. It's like, wow, you have taken something so noble and so demeaned it, though. But even if he had said it, it's like you've taken something so noble and you've made it so shameful. I mean, I really believe he stood up there and I don't want to ascribe my

thoughts, but what I got from him is I'm up here because of someone else. And you can't see her, and I want you to see her. This is what that role is. This is why I'm here. And you can choose this too if you want, even though the culture tells you who cares about that. That's what I got from what he said. Yes. Yes, I totally, I totally agree. So you've written this book. It is how to build a better life. It is largely targeted. It is targeted. It is targeted. at mothers, at women, and you go into different parts of this book, where you talk specifically about how to date for marriage, for example, than rather for fun. How does one date for marriage instead of fun? Yeah, yeah. So just want to point this out real quick. The subtitle is a new roadmap

for women who want to prioritize love and family. So that subtitle kind of hones in on who it's really for. But dating for marriage is simply, look, you're in this for the long haul. Nobody really wants to date, fall in love, have a connection, especially if it's sexual and very, very meaningful, and then have an end. I mean, just nobody really wants that. That's not really what we're here for. So knowing that, being able to admit that, hey, this is, I'm in a long haul. I want to get married and build your relationship from that standpoint. And if the person doesn't want you, in this case, since I'm talking to women, if the man isn't interested, great. You've just removed him from the equation you can get on with someone who does so that you don't sit there and waste

months or years of your life hoping that you're going to change somebody or wasting your time with somebody who never wanted what you wanted from the get-go. You can find that out really early on from your behaviors and your conversations rather than just sort of haphazardly dating with no real goal in mind. And of course, we live in a culture that's all about the fleeting and the here and the now. And there's no discussion or help on how to date for marriage. It's just, in fact, dating is a nightmare for young people today. Because there's no rules. There's no end game. Well, you talk about seasons. And I can only speak about this from the perspective of a man's seasons in dating and then moving into that phase of open to marriage.

And I will say, like, there's a phase of your life a season where you're dating for fun as a man, for sure. And I'm not prioritizing every single thing about that woman. Is she a potential partner for life? But I do remember a transition where it's like, well, you know, this person is not adding up to someone. And you're right, it doesn't take long. You know, it's probably. No, it doesn't. Honestly, I don't even know.

A month or two, you know, a handful of dates, three or four maybe. And you can add it up. The equation is this person, I hate to use the term marriage material, but is this person have everything, I think, that adds up to a life partner. But this is cliched. A lot of girls seem to at times think maybe that's the case. Maybe this guy adds up in a lot of ways, but I'm waiting around to find out if he's in that season of his life of looking

for someone who could be a life partner. Yeah, and see, Will, that's a really good point that you made about it. You're right. A man's coming in with this with a different perspective, and people have to be able to appreciate and say out loud that men and women are different in order to have this conversation on a deeper life. level. The reality is that a woman has a foreshortened time frame for which to get her life in order than a man does because of what we opened this conversation about, which is that she's

the one who gets pregnant. She's the one who has this quote unquote biological cloth in a very clear way so that she has to think differently about it. She has to. So there's nothing wrong with that. You know, the fact that a man can change his mind down the road and, you know, have fun for a while and marry a younger woman and still have a family, well, you know, you could take that up with God or nature or whatever you want, but we can't change that, you know. And so you have to think differently as a woman than you do as a man when you're dating. Well, I can, again, I don't want to speak for all men, and I'm well past this phase of my life. But here's something that I think that men, and I know your book is, again, you know, targeted to women, but they're encountering men who are dealing with

this. And now that I'm in a different phase of life, it's so easy to look back and say, hey, don't make this mistake. But I think a lot of men, it's not even about whether or not she's the right life partner. They want to put it off. So many men do this until they feel financially secure until they can help support someone else. And my advice to young men is do not do that. And it's every single one of us did it. But the reason I say don't do that is because it's, I mean, I know this is hard to hear. It is all going to work out. You are going to make enough money to be married. You are going to make enough money to have a family. because people have been doing it for thousands upon thousands of years.

There is no big breakthrough in your career that you need to wait on. 100%. If you have the right person, if you have the right person. And by the way, this is another thing. If you have the right person, you don't have to worry about supporting her. She actually is a trampoline, not an anchor. She will make it so that you are better in your career. The only caveat I would add there is that women are encountering a lot of men

who have not found their way. professionally or don't have a purpose and don't have any plan for the future and where they're going. And you definitely want to steer clear of those men. You don't have to have gotten to a certain point. You don't have to be rich. None of that. You just have to know where you're going. Because if you are lost, then you're banking on the fact that he's going to find himself during your relationship. And, you know, a lot of times, many times, most times, I don't know, that's not working out too well. So I do appreciate the idea that a man has to at least know where he's going before he you know thinks about marriage but i completely agree that he doesn't yeah that he doesn't

need to have arrived or anything like that i mean arrived at some some big you know financial point yeah no they think that there's some big moment some some promotion some level of financial security some some some big into the parade when you can actually take on all these other things but i get the other side of that what you're saying is um well he might not have arrived there is no end of the parade but he might not arrive at some illusion of the end of the parade. He needs to at least be on the path. He needs to at least understand the direction that everyone is marching. I'm intrigued by this part of your book.

I'm intrigued by this part of your book, The Truth About Daycare that No One Told You. So that's the hard part. That's a hard part because it is so countercultural, so opposite of what women in the last, I'd say 10 to 15 years especially have been used to hearing, which is it has great. I first started writing about this 20 years ago, and we were still understanding that daycare was not just some, you know, fine alternative.

It was being debated back then, and now it has devolved, I'll say, into this idea that it's actually good for your babies and good to be away from mom so that mom and baby don't get too attached, which is just utterly shocking because it could not be more manifestly wrong. And they don't have the information about the significance of what goes on in those early years and how important it is to bond with your baby and to develop that secure attachment. And that if those children do not get that, it will stay with them for life. And that is an extremely difficult thing to hear in a culture where it's been told that you should separate as much, you know, as quickly as possible and that they should be independent and socialize

and all of that, when in reality they have to graduate to that point. You don't, they don't just come into the world able to do that. The first, those early years are about developing that resilience and that bond so that they feel secure so that they can then go out and socialize. So they have it all backwards. And it's not their fault. They're not getting the information because it's completely hidden from them on purpose, for political reasons.

Well, beyond the outrage, I think the conversation that he introduced was absolutely fascinating, Harrison Bucker. And you have written an entire book on it that I think people should check out how to build a better life, a new roadmap for women who want to prioritize love and families by Suzanne Vanker. And we appreciate her, you, Suzanne, being with us today here on The Will Kane Show. Thanks, Will. All right. Check it out. How to Build a Better Life, Suzanne Vanker. You guys are jumping into the conversation. The title of today's episode is Donald Trump falling apart. Lizzie says, huh, never Trump Fox News strikes again, Trump, 24.

Lizzie, this is a conversation today where we are having a debate with someone who contends that Donald Trump, at least in parts, is falling apart. If you would like to hear the back and forth and perhaps a rebuttal from yours truly, Will Kane, stick around. Maybe the title was not the full conversation on the Will Kane show. Mario Tehada says, this should be good. Can't wait for David Packman to infantilize Will Kane on his own show. Well, that might just happen.

Who knows? Maybe I'll get destroyed and we can put it in all caps. Or maybe we'll have a real conversation with David Packman about Donald Trump. That's coming up on the Will Kane Show. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week.

Download and listen at Fox News Podcasts. or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at fox acrossamerica.com. Is Donald Trump falling apart, huh? Never Trump Fox News strikes again.

2024, says Lizzie on YouTube. We've got to learn to read beyond the headlines. That will be the debate we have coming up in just a moment with YouTuber David Packman of the David Packman show. This is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe right now. The link is in the text description underneath this live stream or click through to the Will Kane show on Facebook. Subscribe, both on YouTube and Facebook, and you'll get alerts every day when we go live. or you can go back in previous episodes and see, for example, the interview we had

with liberal YouTuber, Destiny, or NerdRodic, or Sargon of Akad, Carl Benjamin, or Stephen A. Smith, Dave Portnoy, Tony Robbins, and Jordan Peterson, go back and watch old episodes or YouTube shorts of The Will Kane Show. You can always subscribe on Spotify or on YouTube. The idea, for example, of having a guy like David Packman on The Will Cane Show is we so rarely see people of differing points of view on the same. same screen. We so rarely seem to interact with them online. We so rarely encounter someone who holds a different opinion of our own. But that happened last night on Gutfeld. Last night, Greg Gutfeld,

to his great credit, had to his great credit on Bill Maher. Bill Maher has a new book out, and he has been saying things on real time and club random that appeal to those who I would say 80% of the rest of the time disagree with Bill Maher. And I actually found that one of the most interesting parts of their exchange. In the beginning it's like, see, we have you know, disagreement. See, we

can appear together. But Maher said, yeah, that's all true. But the goal isn't to pretend that it's all kumbaya. The goal isn't to pretend that we don't have disagreements. I actually really liked this part of what was said on Gutfeld by Bill Maher. So far,

so fun. I have a few quibs. Okay, go for it. Quib away, Mr. Quib. Well, I mean, I agree that it's great that we're talking. I agree that we agree on some things. We're not exactly aligned on the most important things, which is basically Trump is someone who does not concede elections. That's the most important thing. Yeah. You don't seem to see it that way. That's the most important thing that's going on in this country. He didn't concede the last election. He's not going to concede this election you don't know that you don't see into the future bill i don't see your crystal ball yeah i did i did because i was the only one who was talking about that way back when and everybody said oh you smoked

too much pot turned out i smoked just the right amount of pot there's no right amount well so let's let's address two parts that i mean i disagree with bill mar and and for that matter much of the left on the thing he can't get over which is about donald trump that he believes he is a dictator in waiting that he is a tyrant, that he doesn't concede elections functionally, not just rhetorically. Now, after the 2020 election, Donald Trump definitely fought tooth and nail every stretch of the way. And ultimately, walked out of the White House, ultimately, if not rhetorically, functionally, conceded an election. I don't think Donald Trump is awaiting authoritarian. I think that he is going to, as a personality, very rarely ever admit defeat and fight in

every mechanism that he can to retain victory. But Marr believes he remains a quote unquote existential threat to democracy. And what I like about what Marr had to say is we can be friends. We can interact with those that disagree with us. Why? Well, in part because it's possible that on 80% of other things in our life, maybe our faith, maybe sports, maybe raising our children, we have way more in common. And even on some substantive points of view, for example, with Marr and Gutfeld, perhaps on free speech. Or any other

host of issues, because Marr also, for example, defended Harrison Butker, a conversation we just had with Suzanne Vanker. But we can also not pretend some level of kumbaya. We don't have to find some level of moderation, some in-between. Life doesn't, righteousness in life doesn't always exist in the middle between two disagreements. But that doesn't preclude us from literally appearing upon the same screen or interacting on the sidelines of a soccer game. And I think that's what we can and do more is understand that as human beings, we're way more than the way that we vote.

And here's an example of Bill Maher, acknowledging, I think, a reality in finding some level agreement with Gutfeld when it comes to Joe Biden. I mean, look, he's almost the same age as Biden, but Biden presents as old. Yeah. Ancient. Yeah. That does not look old. No, it doesn't.

He does not present as old. Yeah. I mean, he's like, he's like kiss. He puts on the wig and the face paint, and it's 19706 all over again. Talking about Trump, and they talked about his growing stand-up act at rallies where he talked about the bad contractors that put the stage together, or. Biden tic-tacks, tiny little box of tic-tacks, and he's comparing Trump there to the obvious physical, and I say physical to include the mind failings of the current sitting president,

even though they're almost the same age. They're not in the same ballpark in terms of functional capability, of senility. And that, for example, is a great place to begin our debate with David Pacman, who recently focused on Donald Trump, quote, unquote, freezing at the NRA convention for 35 seconds. Is Donald Trump in his contention falling apart? Thus, the title of this episode of the Will Kane Show. So when we come back, let's have that conversation with David Pacman of the David Packman Show. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells the story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases.

Real people. Listen and follow now at Foxtruecrime.com. Back when I was on ESPN, used to be a running joke, that I had a monopoly on the truth. I don't think I have a monopoly on the truth. I just think I've cornered the market. Holly Walker on YouTube says, I hate to break it to Wilcane, but David Pacman talks to people who disagree with him every week. I don't have a monopoly on engagement and debate, but we intend to be someone that has a corner on the market, Holly. I give David a lot of credit for interacting with those who disagree with him, and today we will do it here on the Will Cain show. Hey, MJ says on YouTube, interesting conversation with Suzanne Vanker. Is Pacman going to be engaged as well?

We'll find out in just one moment here on the Will Cain Show streaming live at foxnews.com, the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook. If you're on any of those platforms, just drop down, hit subscribe. out with us every weekday, Monday through Thursday, live at 12 o'clock Eastern Time. But by subscribing, you become a part of our community. Jump into the comments, and you'll get notifications of every day we go live and be able to see past episodes. We've had debates with liberal YouTuber Destiny. We've had interesting conversations with YouTuber NerdRodic.

And, of course, Stephen A. Smith, Tony Robbins, Jordan Peterson, Dave Portnoy, The Rock, and others here on the Will Cain Show. Subscribe as well on Apple or on Spotify. So, the title of today's episode is Trump falling apart. That's not never Trumpism. That's not a contention, an affirmative statement that I am making today. But it is certainly an allusion to something that has been suggested by my next guest. And he is David Packman of the David Packman show, joining us now in the Will Kane Show.

What's up, David? Good to have you. How are you? I am, it's a pleasure to be here, and I look forward to exploring and engaging in dialogue. during which we'll figure out, are you one of the good faith participants at foxnews.com? Well, I'm excited to have you be my judge, jury, and executioner on my faith. But I'm excited more to have you here. Well, at times debate.

We'll also explore, like you said. By the way, David, I don't know how familiar you are with me, but I think I've got a pretty strong track record of being someone who engages the opposite side in good faith, whether or not that's on ESPN or on Fox or wherever I have appeared in the past. I have no intention of it being any different today here on the Will Cain Show. So, David, let's start with current events. Let's start with news. We'll find some disagreement, but we're also going to search for understanding as well.

So I was watching you recently, and you were talking specifically about Trump this past weekend at the NRA convention. If you're cool with this, what we'll do now is we'll play a clip from the David Packman Show on YouTube, and it will include a clip of Donald Trump from the convention at the NRA. Some calling it a terrifying, terrifying cognitive moment. Nation in the history of the world. But now, we are in there. Even Mitch McConnell only froze a few seconds. And for people suggesting that Trump's teleprompter was glitching,

regular Trump when his teleprompter glitches, which Of course, you can see teleprompter there. Biden's bad for using a prompter. Obama was bad. Trump's using a teleprompter. For those who were suggesting it was glitching, normal Trump wouldn't do nothing for 35 seconds. He would rant about the teleprompter. So now we're back live here on the Wilkane show.

For those of anyone listening on Apple or Spotify, the video shows Trump just kind of, I mean, he's not frozen like Mitch McConnell, but he's not speaking for 35 seconds. I say that, David, because Mitch McConnell stared into distance and literally froze. Trump just doesn't talk for 35 seconds. And your takeaway, based upon the headline of your video and kind of what you had to say there, is this is terrifying. And the contention seems to be, you know, in essence, he's falling apart. This is like what the right points out about Joe Biden. Yeah. So later on in the clip, which you didn't play, I say very clearly, I'm not saying this is the same phenomenon as with Mitch McConnell.

This may be more of a sort of reflecting Trump. Trump's total social disconnect from what's going on around him. And he may think that he's being deep and sort of connecting with the audience in some way by being completely silent for 35 seconds. It may be that Trump has gotten completely disconnected from sort of like society around him. It's something very strange and nothing that makes him look particularly with it. Now, I think this will be the real kind of test here. I'm willing here to stipulate that Joe Biden is not as sharp as he was 10 years ago.

I've said it. If you look at the Paul Ryan debate, where you ran circles or I'm ready to stipulate that. I would have preferred someone else's the nominee. I'm wondering if you're ready to say the same about Trump compared to even two years ago and four and 10 and 12. If not, you may be in the cult, my friend. Okay. Well, you've set the terms of defining me. I reject the test on whether or not I can, I will admit to some kind of like mental slippage from Trump compared to 10 years ago. which, by the way, in the abstract, yeah, I'm sure that to be the case. Any 77-year-old probably isn't the same guy that he was at 67 years old. But here's what I think's going on. First of all, let's deal with the technical parts of this particular clip. I don't know. I don't know if the teleprompter glitch. That's probably not my suspicion of what happened.

My suspicion is what you're suggesting secondary. I think that what happened there, and this is me guessing, right? But that music, and I'm going to admit, that's weird, like the whole music underneath when he's speaking. The music picks up, it's loud, and he senses some sort of dramatic moment and leans into that dramatic moment, which I will agree is kind of weird, but I mean, I don't think it reflects some kind of social disconnect from Donald Trump. When you look at the way, you know, we'll see if you can stipulate to this, he clearly connects with an audience in gathering, no matter what the truth is, we can both agree, really big audiences. When I say truth about the literal side,

eyes, really big audiences at rallies. And I think that's probably what happened in that 35 seconds. He was overly dramatically leaning into whatever was going on with that music. Yeah, being able to connect with an audience of 107,000 would be remarkable if such an audience existed at an event that really had 15,000 people. So when you say the truth of the audience size, probably a conversation for a different day, here's my kind of view on this, because I'm not a mental health professional. I think your background is in law, so I think you aren't either. At this point, I've interviewed four different mental health professionals. They all agree.

Biden is slowing down. And when you understand the things that are tough for Biden combined with his lifelong stutter, he very quickly corrects himself when he gets a fact wrong, he shows certain signs that they say are appropriate for an 80-plus-year-old guy. The scary thing about Trump to the professionals, not to me, you know, this is just what they say. When Trump confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, he didn't realize, I'm literally saying things that make no sense.

He repeated it in fact and continued on. When he regularly says Hungary has a border with Russia or Or Bonn runs Turkey or Obama's president or I defeated Obama or when he doesn't realize it. And that combined with what are called phonemic paraphas where he glitches and can't get a word out and then white flags, like the infamous Saudi-a-e-ut-a, and then he moves on to something else. That's concerning the mental health professionals I talk to, and I have to go by the professionals because I'm not one. Because the professionals have a sterling track record over the last five years. No intellectual

capture group think within the professional class. But David, here's what I think is going on. The particular individuals, it's very easy to generically say, oh, the professionals demonstrated about the specific people making the claims and bring something alternative forward. I'll give you one other example. Well, I don't know the specific. I mean, to be fair, you haven't cited anyone. You have cited also a generic professionals I've talked to. I mean, you know, I can provide the list.

I can't rebut them. Yeah, but I haven't seen what they had to say or don't know who they are, so I can't sit here and rebut their testimony to you on the David Packman Show. What I can say is I think this is, and I'm saying this. And this isn't, I don't want one of these like, you know, slap fight, stupid debates. I don't think they're going to do that. No. But here's what I think's going on, David.

And I'm going to be real with you and you just tell me, no, Will, I think you're wrong. That's not what I'm doing. I think you're creating a false equivalency. So I think what you're doing, and I'm not going to argue for Trump's perfection, but this is like you going 90 miles an hour and a 55 and trying to point out that I went 60. Yeah, okay, Trump has some failings, but they don't measure to the thing that you admitted, which is Joe Biden just this week said, you know, that he was vice president during the pandemic. He didn't correct himself right after that, David.

He said Obama sent him to Detroit to work with the mayor of Detroit during the pandemic because he was vice president. We're off by, how many years are we off by? By like seven or eight in that situation, six years in that situation. Joe, but that's just one anecdote. And we could just go on and on. And I think that what you're doing is seeing your own vulnerability. And when I say that, your own in that you're sort of arguing on behalf of Biden. and I'm sort of arguing on behalf of Trump in this in this pseudo debate, you're sensing your

own vulnerability in trying to, you know, offer up some equivalency, which is just totally off. Trump may be going 60 and 55, but Biden is veering off into the ditch at 120. Okay. I think I understand your perspective. I do, like you said, I do totally disagree with you. And I think the greatest example of this is the following. All of the predictions about Biden's decline fail to materialize. and he does fine. I'll give you some examples. 2020 primary. He's going to debate Bernie. He

won't be able to speak. He won't know it's a debate. He'll soil his diaper. He does fine. Okay. Now the 2020 debate against Trump is coming up. He won't even be able to stand. He'll be facing backwards. He'll fall down. It's absolutely fine. He ends up winning the election. Okay. State of the unions coming up. He can't possibly deliver a hundred minute speech. He does it and it goes so well that now they've switched to it's so good he must be on drugs yet they can't cite the drug that would achieve what it is that they claim is being achieved to counter that will well can i just ask you on that david i can't i can't prove that right but i know you did this on your show recently and you can you can you really dismiss that as absurd though i mean i can't i can't prove what are

you talking about right now you're bringing up you know oh my god he's done so good that he's on performance-enhancing drugs of some kind. He's shot up with something. It's all over your network. Have you seen the morning show on Fox News? I am. I host the morning show. So I know exactly what you're talking about. Now, my co-host said it this past weekend on Fox and Friends. What I'm telling you is it's not an absurd. He's juicing, he's taking injections, Byron. Hold on, David. I'm not debating you on that. I know that's being said. What I'm asking, yeah, I know that it's being said. What I'm saying to you is, it's not absurd to say it. I don't.

say it because I can't have proof in it. But every single one of us watching, including not just the right and Republicans wonder, how is it one guy, one way, and in these big moments, these big stages like you talk about, a different guy, a different way. And I don't think it's this like absurd, absurd leap to go, whoa, provigil, I don't know, whatever, but he's on something that's amping him up because he's a different dude. Let's talk about those. Let's talk about Adderall and Providial. Now we're in substance. Now we're getting into it, right?

Well, Adderall and Ritalin, they work four to six hours. The idea that Byron Donald's presented on your channel that by the end of a one hour speech, he's fading, not how Adderall and Ritalin work. And Adderall and Ritalin famously don't cover up cognitive decline. And when there is cognitive decline can generate anxiety and more difficulty speaking. So Adderall Ritalin wouldn't do what you're saying. So you're saying there's no drug. There's no drug that could be serving as a performance enhancer for Joe Biden in these

situations. You're jumping ahead. Let me get, let me get through it. So Adderall and Rital wouldn't do what you're suggesting. Pro Vigil has a 12 to 15 hour duration. So again, like Byron Donald goes, you can tell because it wears off at the end of an hour. It doesn't work that way. And also Pro Vigil's effect on dementia is zero.

So now let me turn it around to you. You tell me the drug. It's weird to say, I think there might be a drug. David, tell me which one it is. You tell me what drug would do what you're suggesting. To be fair, okay, you've done two things there, okay? And we're shifting burdens of proof, but my burden of proof is not. You asserted drugs and I'm asking you what drugs.

I did not. I did not. Hold on. Walk with me here. First, the Byron Donald's argument is a straw man with me because you specifically rebutted that it wears off. I never said that. And I don't think that undercuts or it hides the idea that he could be, that he could be on some type of performance answer.

I also didn't make the affirmative statement that he is on performance standards. What I said to you is, you have contended, that's absurd. Look at the guy, this is evidence of his cognitive abilities that he can rally for these big moments. What I'm telling you is my co-host or anybody else that says, or somebody sitting at the backyard barbecue says, he's injected on all kinds of things to ramp him up for the debate, is not an absurd supposition. I don't have to prove the affirmative on it. I just have to tell you, you rejecting it is the burden of proof. You can't reject, and I think you have a heart hill to climb to say, there's no way he's on anything like that.

In order to say it's not an absurd suggestion, you have to at least plausibly bring a specific substance known to man that would do what is being alleged, which is it would take someone suffering from cognitive decline who struggles to even understand what he's saying and make them coherent in the way that it is being described. So the burden of proof is on those who say it's plausible to say here's the list of drugs that could do it. And even now, here's one other thing, one other thing before you jump in, before you jump in. Yeah. I wouldn't expect you to come up with the right drug because yesterday morning, Dr. Ronnie Jackson on Fox News couldn't even propose what drug would do it. If the pill guy from Air Force One can't suggest it, I know you're not going to be able to. Well, and okay, to be fair also, just because I don't.

I'm into the logic of these debates. You rebutted Adderall based upon the premise of Byron Donald's statement that it wears off. You know, that's an additive to the contention that is only by one man, Byron Donald's, that it wears off. It doesn't undercut the idea. Forget about Byron. Forget about Byron. It also does not hide dementia symptoms, and it can make folks with dementia more agitated and anxious, which would be very bad for Biden's speeches. Once again, though, David, you're using specifics.

And I appreciate your use of specifics on certain things, but now you've put into mind. I'm using specifics. But you're planting the debate. You keep planting my position. But then give me the drug. You mentioned that or all. You mentioned that. No, no, no, no.

You're building assumptions on top of one another with me. For example, I haven't made the contention that he has dementia because I'm not a doctor. I can't diagnose him. But I can also look at him as a common sense human being and go, something's not right with Joe Biden, whatever it is. Then you use my assumption that I said dementia or whatever else it is and use that as a way to say, there's no performance enhancer that could solve these specific things that you made as part of the assumption. Here's what I think, Will.

I think the Biden cognitive decline story is a loser for the right and this conversation is proving it. I'm willing to leave it there. Okay, I disagree because I'll tell you this. forget we're talking about the average independent out there i actually think it's one of the most important voting um factors for the average independent that they see what's going on with joe biden and they sense a lack of competency i don't mean in just intellectual failings i mean age-related decline why isn't it showing up in any poll that that is a major concern for independent voters yeah i don't know i don't know by the way maybe it's not well i mean maybe maybe

it is. David, let me ask you this. Let's both do this. I want you now to tell me your biggest criticism of your quote-unquote side. Okay. Just define my side so I know what we're talking about. I wondered if you would do that. I mean, I think it's fair to say. I'm not a Democrat. So I just want to clarify, I'm not a Democrat. So if you met the Democratic Party, the left, okay, fair, fair, fair. No, that's fair. I just want to make sure we're on the right terms. Good. Yeah, I don't like parties. My biggest criticism right now of the left.

You're the left. I'm right now of the left is what I call litmus test leftism, where we might agree on 95% of stuff, but there are certain litmus tests that are put in place by some of my fellow leftists, which if you don't meet or pass, you're kicked out. And I've cited over the years, many examples of this when Jewish women weren't a oppressed and intersectional enough to be part of the women's March leadership, I immediately was alienated from the entire Women's March movement. Or when the, you know, queers for Palestine all of a sudden is melding movements that I think

are separate movements and I get alienated from the LGBT movement because I see the hostility towards folks like me who have a more balanced view on Israel, Gaza. That type of litmus test leftism is one of my biggest gripes with my side right now. All right. And to be fair, so I think that argument or that failing of the right has been something that people have talked about as well. It's like everything has to be pure at this point. But I'm actually not going to do that, even though I'm going to admit that's also a failing on the right. I would say the biggest criticism I have of quote unquote my side is that there's too much playing to the cheap seats, that there is too much, it's cliched to say outrage, right? Clickbait, viral. There's too much emphasis on what political people would say is rallying your base as opposed to winning over independence. To be honest, David, this is one of the things that, for example, I have learned to.

to appreciate about Donald Trump. Ideologically, he is much more of a pragmatist, he is much more of a populist, and is diverted from partisan politics that you would have seen a decade ago within Republicans. But the idea that everything has to, and look, I mean, you know, you're on YouTube, so we understand how everything has to be destroyed and everything has to be terrifying or whatever it may be. There's too much on the right that is focused on. outraging the people that already agree with you.

That's very interesting. I have a different take on your criticism of Trump and the getting away from certain policies, which some see as no longer being pure. Trump has really abandoned in what I would argue is really the worst way in terms of having people on my side that we can work with people on your side. A lot of the really important principles of conservatism from the last 60 years. I mean, just to take one, there was a time. where your traditional conservative Republican was not an authoritarian maniac who wanted

to stay in power after losing an election, shut down media outlets he doesn't like, weaponize the Justice Department against his political enemies, etc. When I see the right now, I would love to go back to when the right was not authoritarian in this way. And we could say, let's deep dive on what sort of tax system is best for the country and get into that, rather, rather than than seeing these supposed conservative principles abandoned. So we're speaking in different language, obviously, and we have a different opinion, but I don't know that we're saying necessarily dramatically different things. The one other disagreement I have with what you said is I actually don't think that the right

is holding Trump accountable for his abandonment of those principles because he, I mean, listen, 40% of the Republican primary electorate went for someone other than Trump, but he's still easily going to be the nominee even though he's abandoned all those principles. So I wonder whether the Republican voters even care. So let me let's talk about this repositioning of conservatives by Donald Trump. So in many ways, and I guess I guess you're not one of these people from the left. What Donald Trump has managed to do is be truly independent. I don't yearn for the days to go back to arguing over tax rates. I think that's important. And we need to have that conversation. But I don't yearn for the days that our differences were the highest marginal tax rate between 36% and 50%.

That's not the most existential debate to the future of our republic. What Donald Trump has done, and this is why I bring you up as compared to others on the left, has actually bridged some gaps that 10 years ago, 15 years ago, you would have vilified somebody on the right for. For example, first of all, much more doveish on foreign war, much, I don't think in isolation. but much more through the prism of whatever it is militarily, how does it serve America first? Where the George W. Bush, Mitt Romney Republican, who by the time, by the way, at that time in the left was described as a devil for all of these wars, that now seems to be a part of the left's neocon shift, whether or not it's Ukraine or whatever it may be. The left is now much more the party

who is looking for big foreign wars. And Donald Trump, not the entire right, not the entire Republican party, but Donald Trump is the one pushing it in a more, a less neo-con vision. Same thing on the economy. You know, 10, 15 years ago, it was the left who was concerned about domestic production and let's talk about tariffs on various places like China, when the right was more libertarian capitalism free trade. And I think a concern for the middle class and the American working class is a good repositioning because of Donald Trump. By the way, we've seen the movement, for example, of union voters towards Donald Trump, previous Democrats, towards Donald Trump, because of that kind of position.

And I think that what I worry about your side, I don't know if it's a repositioning or if it's a truth, you're too wedded to institutional power. There was a time when the left was skeptical and rebellious of institutional power, and now you're indistinguishable from institutional power. Whether or not it's the experts you quoted, or that's a side note, but like the medical establishment all the way to the top, government authority, including the military industrial complex, the left's embrace of institutional power as a sign of their devotional to democracy is incredibly concerning.

Yeah, there's a lot there. I don't know that we can do all of that in the depth that it probably deserves in the time we have left, but I would say a couple things. I think your analysis of Trump's shifts are accurate if you replace what's best for the country with what's best for Trump. I agree with the analysis. I would just replace that. Trump's, the prism through which Trump analyzes everything is what is best for him.

I mean, I think the abortion thing is a great. example where at the end of the day, he predictably, he got his three justices, Roe v. Wade's overturned, disaster politically in the sense that there's more of the population now thinking abortion should be legal in most cases than ever in American history. And Trump realizes this may not be good for me. So what does he does he do? He just basically says, hey, listen, kind of whatever, like, if you don't like it and you want to ban it in your state, cool, some states are going to say it's fine and hey, that's it.

As long as you vote for me, essentially do whatever you want. So my one modification to your, the way that Trump has modified things, it's what's best for him. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that was kind of the first thing that you said that. No, no, no, I won't disagree, but I'll just ask you this. Just as one interjection on that point. Yeah. So what? So what?

So what if his motivation is to get elected? So what is the following? Real quick. Let me finish the thought, please. Okay. Real quick, just finish that. So what? So what his motivations are?

whether or not it's adherence to some ideological belief or his own personal political success, so what? That doesn't distinguish him from any other politician outside of the founding fathers, quite honestly. I mean, most politicians are doing something for their own personal electoral success. But if it gets us to the right place, so what when it comes to the motivation? Yeah, I just totally disagree. I think that's a way to completely whitewash what is a fundamental difference in vision between Biden and Trump. And to be clear, I only defend Biden. in the context of i think he's better than trump and i plan to vote for him in november it's not i think i don't deify biden i have no biden hats or boats or anything like okay so it's just

i think in this in these two choices i think he's better so much of what biden has done quite literally he could either have not done or there is no obvious benefit to a guy who has no races left to run six months from now and i just don't you can disagree i don't see i don't see the personal, well, for example, Trump's motivations with so much of the way he has run this campaign has been, can I keep myself out of prison if that's what it comes to? To say so what to such a self-centered motivation is very different than saying, well, Biden did chips and science because it'll be generically good for his presidency. These are very different things.

And while I agree with you that to some degree, anyone who thinks I'm qualified to. be president has some egocentrism. There's no doubt about it. I do think that we're conflating too dramatically different things here. It may just be a difference of opinion. I see them as very different. Well, but stay with Biden for one second. I mean, positionally, he's an entirely different human being than he was, you know, certainly from the 90s, from the 70s, even from 10 years ago. I mean, he's switched positions on really important, really important issues. He is absolutely 180 degrees different than who he was in the past. We can just, he's, he's the height of Amendment and abortion. Student loan forgiveness. You know, that's a, it's a blatant electoral ploy,

and he's the guy that helped create the student loan industry and ensured that students wouldn't have him bankruptcy protection and getting out of student loans. That's Joe Biden from the state of Delaware, and today he wants to forgive student loans in order to get elected. Obviously, crime. You know, everyone's pointed that out. But is this a criticism because he changed to an opinion you no longer like? Neither. I do not begrudge in a politician changing his opinion. This is about your indictment of motivations. It's about you, and you're saying, I said motivations don't matter, but you're giving Joe Biden some kind of pure motivational ploy that he does things regardless

of his electoral ploy. I'm telling you, he's doing all these things so that he can get elected to a second term. I think it's obvious that many of Joe Biden's positions over 50 years have become more in line what we are now seeing on the left. I mean, listen, rescheduling cannabis, right? I don't think Joe Biden was interested in, nor did it fit in with what the left wanted to see in the early 90s to get cannabis off of Schedule 1, for example. I think that Joe Biden's position has evolved on that in alignment with where the country has gone. The difference is Trump becoming anti-abortion at age 68 because he met a kid that he liked,

and the mom said, I thought about getting an abortion. I'm glad I didn't. And now we are supposed to believe at age 68, that means. made Trump against abortion, that is totally self-centered and driven only in what can I use to get people to support me? It's obviously untrue. Trump is obviously pro-choice personally. I just see that as different than Biden's position on cannabis evolving over a 50-year period. I mean, cannabis is one, but I mean, we're peering into the motivations. My contention is pretty simple. Politicians do things they think are popular in order to get elected. So, you know,

pick the ones that hold the positions or changing towards the positions that you believe. So, and by the way, those who are competent and strong leaders, let's do this really quickly, and then I'm going to return to current events. Now I'm going to offer, you offer the biggest criticism of my side, and I'll offer the biggest criticism of your side. Singular. We'll do it singular, right? I mean, listen, it's so tough.

It's so tough. I think if I zoom out from any particular issue, quite frankly, I just think your side, has essentially abandoned a share basis in fact from which we can discuss almost any issue. That's, yeah, that's a hard one for me to rebut a generalized. And I know that you do a show on this on a daily basis, but, but, well, I mean, again, like you said earlier, you and I could do hours on this, but the, you know, the party that's interested in a misinformation bureau while peddling misinformation is not one that's wedded to reality and the facts.

biggest criticism of your side would be the following. It's unmoored. You know, while Donald Trump has moved Republicans in a populist direction, and populism's a fire you have to be careful with. It'll burn out of control. The plus side of populism is you're perhaps more in touch with debate, the voter, their concerns. But you have to have principles to keep that fire under control. Yours is totally unmoored. And it just, what was this, what's a sin today was a position yesterday, and the speed of which it goes, progressivism in general, is impossible to keep up with, you know, I mean, Barack Obama would be considered gay marriage is an easy one, moving into LGBT issues, moving into trans issues. I mean, like, Barack Obama was opposed to gay

marriage. Here we are, what, 10 years later, a little more than that, and it's like we're having a fight about what is a boy and what is a girl, and whatnot that can be self-defined. It's just totally unmoored from any kind of principle, and it follows whatever is perceived to be popular. I don't even think by the vast majority of people, you bring up cannabis. That's setting that one aside. I don't think you're following a 51% proposition on most of these unmoored positions. It's actually by a really radical, loud, extreme minority that drives you in these positions that are unmoored from principles, and who knows where that wind will take you.

Your boat's going to end in really crazy seas if it's unmoored from not. just like documents like limitations on power through the constitution but principles yeah i uh that is a lot i so first of all some of these allegations maybe are more appropriate for other people that are considered to be on the left they don't ring true to me i mean to say you know gay marriage as an example it's been you know 18 years i think since obama changed his view on that or something like that. Gay marriage was a fight that lasted decades. It seems, I don't, I don't really know where gay marriage has a role to play here. What I can tell you is the following. Well, it shows a starting point and a present point. Yeah, it used to be illegal. Now it's legal.

It's no big deal. There's been no societal harm that has come from it that I can identify. I mean, you know, I don't know. We could talk about gay marriage. We're not in a debate about gay marriage. We're having a debate about the way these positions evolved. It's such a rapid pace. I am sure you can find like I'm well you know because we're doing this in good faith I don't have to defend everything the left does I'm sure you can find examples of what you're talking about of people who are completely unmoored morally blind we can find them on the left we can find them on the right I'm very comfortable with where I am on the political spectrum which is that we are economically socially democratic which is a form of capitalism it's a form of

of capitalism where where which is not dramatically different from from what we have in the United States right now um secular humanism as a sort of guiding light in terms of ethical and moral principles which has overlap with some of the major religions but doesn't want to impose it as a way of defining government and in terms of your prediction of the ship sinking it all kind of points to places like Denmark which have an extraordinarily high standard of of living, slightly higher taxes, which include a bunch of stuff you don't have to worry about paying for out of pocket. It's not a radical vision, in my view, and for most of the world, you know?

In the abstract, I understand. In the abstract, I understand it doesn't sound radical. What I would say is that point, always pointing to the Scandinavian nations as a model for the future is just, it's like pointing to the moon. It's just not the same place as a nation of, what are we now, 350 million people, incredible diverse. I mean, that's a homogenous society where a social safety net is much easier to sell than a diverse country like America. What's that? That argument falls flat. I've got a whole chapter in my forthcoming book, The Echo Machine, about this. It's often said that the homogeneity argument is

often repeated about Denmark, about Sweden. You actually look in 2024 at the breakdown in terms of national origin and in terms of race. It's changed dramatically. The countries are still doing well. The business environment is good. I would also add, Will. I would also add. That's a recent phenomenon. We don't only, well, no, it's been changing since the 70s. We don't only have to look at Scandinavian countries. We can look at Uruguay around 2010. Obviously, we have to adjust for the broader environment in Latin America. We can look at the Carol estate in India. We can look at the German socially democratic party. I don't want to turn this into a history lesson, but if you're bored with homogenous countries and Scandinavia, we can look elsewhere. It's fine. Well, we'll leave

this. We'll go one last current event topic, but just more on this esoteric broader thing. Yeah, my vision is completely different than yours. Well, you described this social democratic economy, you know, undergirded by secular humanism. Mine is a capitalist laissez-faire. relatively, everything is graded on a scale here. Society with limited government as imposed by founding documents, some of the most genius documents created in the history of man, but undergirded by a Judeo-Christian ethic that is required. The founding fathers believed that, by the way, like, you have to have some type of governor

on society, and that governor is the individual morality of your civilians, not the moral imposition of a government. And so that vision we have, I think, is pretty different. I think, I mean, freedom is great, but freedom isn't the end of the story, right? Human behavior has to be limited in some way, and that limitation as envisioned here. And my argument is all those countries you make is there are nothing compared to the United States. This experiment, based upon that foundation I just described, has been the best in humanity. Yeah, all right.

We definitely have different visions. I mean, I think it sounds like you want to move on, but I think it's an interesting. question to explore. If the religious component is so important, why are some of the most prosperous and safest countries with the best business environments, the least religious? Something to think about. You're talking about Europe? Some of them are in Europe. Yeah. I think that my argument in response to that would be Europe is living at the tail end of an experiment, economically, population-based-wise, that you're looking at essentially the Joe Biden of civilizations. You're looking at civilizations in decline, living on a past where, to your point of

Scandinavia, they were much more homogenous, all much more bought in to a social democratic experiment, shared interest, shared future, that when you're dealing with a massively diverse population, the best way you can push everybody forward is honestly through freedom. That's, I mean, maximalization of freedom. all right that's fine yeah and just as a reminder i'm i'm all my vision is a capitalist vision as well as long as we're on the same page about that okay um let's do michael cohen really quickly you did a video you might have done it after before cross-examination you might have done it during direct where you kind of like contended that michael cohen was undoing donald trump in new york

that it was devastating testimony i think you did that before cross-examination now that there's been more cross-examination? Do you still feel the same way? Well, listen, I mean, Cohen's not on trial. Trump is. Cohen has been tried. Cohen has lied. But what I think is maybe most important here is if Cohen was under oath and is subject to being charged with perjury. If Trump and his lawyers really felt good about an alternative explanation of the facts, they could put that forward rather than having Trump claim he's going to testify and having Alina Haba claim is going to testify for months. And then, oh, we rest our case.

So the person who's under oath and subject to a legal problem if they, if they, uh, perjured themselves is Michael Cohen. But maybe more importantly, there is so much corroboration to the big picture of the story, the 11 invoices and the general ledger entries and Trump slipping up and saying, we did this and we did that. that i don't know you know it's gonna come down to the jury i wasn't in the courtroom i don't know if you were uh but i don't know that i have anything insanely explosive to say about this right i mean i would just disagree michael cohen is on trial because he is the star witness so his credibility is

essentially on trial and you know the fact that he's under oath he has shown doesn't matter i mean it he has no fidelity to the truth or to an oath he's a convicted perjurer and i think his motivations have been laid out in cross-examination. He hates Donald Trump. More than that, he's stolen from Donald Trump. I mean, that came out in a mission of thievery, of stealing money from Donald Trump. So now you've got a star witness that hates Donald Trump, that's lied, that's stolen from him. And, I mean, in the end, I can't predict what 12 human beings are going to do. I think we're all inherently emotional human beings, and it's hard for people to judge things based upon facts and evidence. So I don't know what they're going to do. But I think,

that Michael Cohen, it appears, and I accept as well, my humility that I wasn't in the courtroom, appears a very, very weak star witness. Yeah, it'll be up to the jury to decide there were more than a dozen other witnesses. They all had essentially the same story. You know, there was this defense witness Robert Costello that went completely haywire and off the rails. The Trump defense didn't really present any alternative explanation. And so the question is, will a jury Costello testified that Trump didn't know. Will a jury that saw 13 witnesses, one of which is Michael Cohen, who they have reasonable reason to be suspicious of potentially, I will even grant that?

Will they say, oh, it's not guilty on the basis of that one out of 13? Like you're saying, I just don't know. The one thing I will tell you is Trump has still not even admitted that this affair took place. So if you want to talk about dishonesty, I don't know that the honest side and the honest story overall is coming from the defense it'll be up to the jury to decide but do and you and i can't that's like that's like you and me sitting here at half time predicting the winner of a of an NBA playoff game we just we can't do that you know we have no idea what this jury will decide last on this i mean do you really think this is a pursuit of justice or is this a political

show trial i mean you look at this it's misdemeanors it's india's everybody signs india's it's hard to bootstrap a crime out of this even if there was a crime like what miscoding this, mis-recording this in the files? I mean, how many different businesses in New York are doing that? So, like, even if Trump were guilty of that, so what? And then, by the way, if he's guilty of that, the statute of limitations is run. So you've got to Frankenstein some kind of felony out of it that still doesn't make any sense. It just all adds up to this is not a pursuit of justice. It's a political trial. It's not a compelling argument to me. You know, you've got to look at each of those things you said one by one. The

misdemeanor into felony thing. There's a lot of people acting like this is a one off that this is being done. I believe this prosecutor has done it like a thousand times or something along those lines. So the idea that that is the proof that this is some kind of fabricated or forced thing. That doesn't really make sense. You can make it that I think here's what I would be willing to kind of concede and maybe we'll agree on this. I interviewed Ellie Honig, the CNN former prosecutor legal analyst. He said he does think that this particular trial, not the other three, but this one, that the timing and the total number of charges were influenced by a broader interest in telling a story and telling it at a particular time. The evidence

is Trump's clearly guilty is his opinion, but the timing and number of charges, one could argue, were influenced by who Trump is and the forthcoming election. I'd be willing to concede that. Well, I appreciate that. You've been willing to hear me out and understand, and at times concede. I hope I've been a similarly gracious host in, while we had moments of irreconcilable differences, it is fascinating to talk to someone that you disagree with. If nothing else, old co-host of mine in a first take used to say, you know, the thing about debate is I either get smarter. I win or I get smarter, one or the other. So, you know, at times, we, disagree at times we're just understanding one another you have an open door invitation david to come

here on the will cane show whenever you like you um and i appreciate you doing so today i'd love to continue to have conversations with you david packman i would love that and your audience is welcome to call me and confront me when i take live calls about all the things i got wrong i would love to do it and i look forward to hearing from them okay all right it's the david packman show it's on youtube as you as you mentioned he has a call in line so you can participate in uh not just hearing me and him go back and forth, but you can go back and forth with him as well. David, thanks so much for your time today. All right, my pleasure. Thank you.

All right, take care. There goes David Packman of the David Packman Show. So, as Mario Tahada said, should be good, can't wait for David Pakman to infantilize Will Kane on his own show. Three crying face, L-O-L-L emojis. There you go. Mario, did it happen for you? Are you not entertained?

Did you get the blood that you? wanted in the Gladiator Arena? Or did we have at the beginning of a conversation where we can have a back and forth where it is all too often rare? All right. Go check him out at the David Packman Show on YouTube. That's going to do it for me today here on the Will Kane Show. Subscribe.

YouTube right here. Check us out on Facebook. Subscribe. Spotify. Apple. We'll revisit that conversation, break it down and do so much more tomorrow here on the Will Kane Show. I'll see you next time.

Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz. Then come back here to see how you did.

Thank you for taking the quiz. Thank you.