Speaker 1: Let's check out the mailbag.
You can email info at David Pakman dot com if you have any questions, comments, concerns
trolling that you want to do.
Info at David Pakman dot com is the place.
Let's jump right into it.
Vera from Finland says Pro-lifers next move.
Very exciting.
Hey, David.
I, for one, am excited for the next step for the pro-life movement.
And I have a proposal.
Make organ donation mandatory.
After all, lots of people die every year because they don't get an organ transplant that they
need.
So what is more pro-life than preventing those deaths?
Honestly, I think this should have been their first step since it's much less radical than
forcing people to give birth.
Corpses don't need organs after all, and I'm sure an all powerful God can just give you
new ones if the afterlife exists.
So chop chop pro-lifers.
Your work is not done.
Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding the movement, says Viera.
And it's not actually about preserving life at all.
But that would mean they're lying douchebags and lying is a sin.
So I'm sure that can't be it.
Yeah, this is a good this is a good point.
And the email is tongue in cheek, but we've talked about this before in the context of
there aren't even things we force people to do in death.
So how is it we can force them to do it medically in life?
That's a contrast that seems like a jarring double standard.
And Viera correctly pointed out.
And the other double standard is if they can't claim to care about children, then they should
be funding pre-K, Headstart, paid paternity leave, paid maternity leave, all of these
different things increasing and making permanent the child tax credits to the larger all of
these things.
And they don't.
Why?
Because it's not really about that.
It never was.
And unfortunately, in reality, their next move isn't going to be to properly fund maternal
care.
Their next move isn't going to be to make organ donation mandatory, which would save
many, many, many lives.
It's going to be to try to either outright ban abortion at the federal level or undo
gay marriage or something else.
That will be horrible.
Those will be their next steps.
And we know it because they told us that that would be it.
Next email is from John.
John wrote in about the shooting in Japan and says, Hey, David, first time sending in
a question.
Love the show.
Here's the question Could the latest shooting in Japan potentially be stimulated by the
United States, or is it only coincidence that this would happen in the midst of heavy gun
controversy?
I don't know what the shooter's reason was, but I'm thinking more motivation to action.
Could we see more shootings in places mostly considered safe due to the U.S.?
Is irresponsible actions towards gun control, which is inherently giving more mass shooting
examples?
As we know, Japan gun violence is very rare.
So perhaps as we see more shootings here, it may inspire shooters elsewhere.
Lastly, if this were to happen, could there potentially be some point, a third party to
interfere and tell us to get our guns in check?
For example, criticism in the U.S. would love your take.
Thanks, John.
So the second part I don't know about the question about the influence is a good one.
Now, John isn't saying and I'm not interpreting this to mean, is it possible someone in the
U.S. is actually to blame for the shooting of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe?
No, the answer to that would be no.
But the question of has American gun culture, which has legitimized and mainstreamed using
firearms to solve problems, disagreements, conflicts?
Could that be sort of leaking over into other countries?
And the answer is, sure it could.
Sure it could.
I mean, the United States has a very hegemonic culture in many ways, and that includes media,
of course, TV shows, movies, etc., to some degree, also in literature and books.
So why couldn't it also be that, hey, look, in the United States, there's this you have
a problem, you have some disagreement, you go and you get a gun and you and you solve
it.
So as a theoretical question, I think the answer is absolutely yes.
There were questions as to whether the motivations in the particular assassination of Abe were
even political.
And I believe the shooter said that they're not.
But at least as a theoretical question, completely valid, completely plausible.
Langdon wrote in about right wingers who troll me, and Langdon says, Hi, David, I've been
following you for quite some time now.
On social media, I joined Rumble and Troth Essential.
About 3 to 4 months ago, I've noticed 90% or maybe more of the comments or replies you
get are from right wing trollers.
I would love to get your opinion as to why my personal opinion is these people are so
insecure.
They feel the need to defend their right wing beliefs when anyone challenges them.
Thank you.
I actually don't think that's what it is.
I think it's much simpler.
The reason that 90% or more of the replies to my posts on Rumble and Truth social occasion.
A troth central are attacks and trolling is that those platforms are overwhelmingly right
wingers.
They are right wing platforms.
Rumble less so and Rumble seems to more proactively want to have more diverse content.
Where is truth essential or truth social or whatever you want to call it, is more overtly
right wing.
The users are just on the right and so they see my content and they troll me and they
attacked me.
I think it's that simple, quite frankly.
Langdon David wrote in about Cassie Hutchinson.
If Hutchinson was so bad, why was she allowed to work for Steve Scalise, Ted Cruz and to
be the chief staff assistant to Mark Meadows?
Wouldn't she have been weeded out before January 6th?
How does she support herself now?
I don't know how she supports herself now, but this is an endless question Trump ran
on.
I will hire the best people.
I might not have experience in foreign policy or trade or whatever, although he claimed
he was a genius in those areas as well.
But his big thing was, I will hire the best people.
I hired the best people to build my buildings and I'm going to hire the best people.
That will be my strength.
And then he hired all of these different people who then quit or he fired them and he said
they were terrible, which, of course, calls into question his bona fides as someone who
can hire the right people.
I'm talking about, you know, William Barr and Rex Tillerson and John Bolton, all these
people who has he has since attacked.
Well, it sounds like you weren't really that great at hiring people.
And of course, the same thing applies to Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.
They insist now disgruntled, not a very good employee, not particularly smart, didn't really
have access to any of the things she claims.
She can't be trusted.
Terrible, terrible, terrible.
Well, she was not only hired, but promoted, brought to the West Wing to have a very close
level of access to Mark Meadows and sometimes Donald Trump.
Why, if she was so horrible and incompetent.
Well, because they're lying.
Because they're lying.
That's what they say about everybody.
Once they've fallen out of their good graces.
Grant wrote in, Grant says, Looking for your advice.
Hey, David.
My conservative friends often bring up talking points they don't fully understand, but they're
convinced they have everything right.
Sounds like many people I know.
I politely inform them when they're incorrect, but unfortunately I don't have much skill
at formulating arguments or remembering facts when I refute their claims, but don't have
the hard evidence to immediately back it up.
They assume I'm disagreeing just based on my personal feelings.
I'll be honest, I don't have the deepest understanding of government, the economy, etc.
I never took any political, economic or history courses in college.
I'd like to think I have a fair amount of common sense and I'm an adequately logical
thinker, but it's often not enough.
I'm not a fan of confrontation.
I sometimes crumple under the pressure when dialoging.
How can I better prepare for these discussions?
Okay, so here's the best thing you can do, Graham.
This doesn't just apply to you.
It is impossible to always be prepared with the facts on every issue.
It's just not possible.
This happens to me as well.
The most important thing you can do is understand how people are thinking or not thinking when
they make these claims and be prepared to probe how they came to these conclusions.
I don't know that much about how to know what's an example.
I don't know that much about.
So many different things.
I don't know that much about the Ford versus Chevy debate.
Right.
That's a debate.
I don't I could not care less about it.
I remember in high school, there were the more there was a contingent of kids in my
high school who were very big on Ford versus Chevy.
And certainly American cars are better than foreign cars.
Okay.
I didn't know a lot about it, but my instinct was that these were not conclusions they were
coming to from a very evidence based perspective.
So without knowing a lot about the issue, there would be very easy ways for me to say,
okay, so Chevy's the good one.
Ford's bad.
Okay.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Well, I had a Chevy and it lasted a really long time.
Oh, okay.
That's interesting.
And how many Chevy's are out there?
Well, I don't know.
Is it possible that it's millions?
Yeah, it's possible.
So the fact that you had a Chevy and it lasted a long time, does that tell us a lot about
all Chevy's?
Well, yeah.
I feel like.
Okay, so you get the point.
The point is understand and learn the Socratic method of questioning and how to probe people's
beliefs.
And you don't have to be, nor is it possible to be as prepared as you might want on every
issue.
Understand how to get people to realize for themselves that they may believe things not
based on good evidence.
Mice wrote in about a texting scam and says, I wrote a comment on YouTube to your story
on Liz Cheney.
And I got a reply saying, Send me a text with your picture and a phone number.
Is this real?
It is not real.
So let me.
We are playing a Whac-A-Mole with scammers on all platforms Instagram, YouTube, Facebook,
everywhere on YouTube.
Right now, there are tons of people who are using my face as their profile picture and
they're responding to people and saying, Hey, contact me via WhatsApp or I'll send you money,
I'll send you free crypto, I'll send you a free product if you review or whatever.
Okay, I'm not texting anybody.
I can't even respond to emails that I got.
I'm just too busy.
So I'm not texting with anybody in the audience, number one.
Number two, I'm not using WhatsApp to contact anybody now.
And number three, I'm not sending money to people in the audience.
If we did any kind of giveaway, I would talk about it on the show and you would know it.
I'm not going to be silent on the show about a giveaway and then reply to YouTube comments
one on one.
Okay.
So I'm not texting anybody.
I'm not what's zapping anybody?
Don't fall for it.
Report those account.
We're reporting them as quickly as we can, and that's it.
I'm not don't don't respond to any of it.
These are scams.
Sean wrote in about Trump's presidential announcement.
Isn't it obvious, right, Sean, that Trump is announcing an early run because he knows
he's going to be indicted?
This then gives him a loudspeaker to claim he's being arrested and charged because of
politics.
He will claim to be a political prisoner.
I actually don't think so.
I think Trump has actually been delaying announcing the presidential run in order to not have
the reporting requirements for money that comes in for as long as possible.
I do think there's a very good chance Trump announces a run, and it'll probably be.
I don't know, maybe right before, but probably right after the midterms.
But I don't think that the strategy is announced really soon to try to mitigate or somehow
influence the potentially forthcoming indictments.
I just don't think so.
If people disagree with me, just let me know.
And lastly, another perspective on Trump's run.
Alan says, Sir, I keep seeing Trump might announce a 2024 presidential run soon.
Is this something we should be hoping for?
There is potential to split and ruin the Republican Party for at least the next couple of election
cycles.
So there's two sides to this.
One that we've discussed is what does it do for Republicans for Trump to run?
The other one we've discussed is, was what does it do for Trump?
For a lot of Republicans to run?
I think that a lot of Republicans running helps Trump in the sense that if you get all
these two and 3% type people, maybe Nikki Haley, maybe Ted Cruz or whoever, that splits
the more mainstream Republican electorate for a while, while Trump just consolidates
support.
So that's more or less what happened in 2016.
I think more candidates is good for Trump.
Trump running.
I can't tell you whether it's good or bad for the Republican Party.
I think if Trump runs and loses to DeSantis, for example, it's bad for the Republican Party.
It will fracture it.
And that would be a really great thing.
But some of this we won't know until we see how do the midterms go, number one, and what
level of approval does Donald Trump have among the Republican electorate?
Questions we won't know in the 2024 context until after the November midterms, but we'll,
of course, be talking about it and covering it.
We have a fantastic bonus show for you today.
Sign up at join Packman icon coupon code big voting 22.
We'll see you then or I'll see you back here on Monday.