Speaker 1: All right, let's look into my Friday feed bag, by which I mean let's review some
of the feedback we've gotten over the last week about our programing.
Of course, you can email info at David Pacman dot com, you can leave a YouTube comment,
you can respond to me on threads, I guess you can respond on Twitter, although there's
not a lot happening on there.
Okay.
Let's look at what some folks said.
Professor X said YouTube is only offering this dude when I search RFK Junior.
Why?
Who funds you?
David Pacman.
Listen, there is a ton of RFK Jr.
Content on youtube.
I am nowhere near the only person talking about RFK jr.
According to some people.
I'm talking about rfk jr.
Too much.
According to others, I'm not talking about him enough.
Regardless, there's plenty of stuff about rfk jr, including a lot that defends his views
on vaccines causing autism.
And also you can find anything you want on rfk jr.
Including really wacky stuff.
Now, who funds me?
Who funds me?
It's not the DNC.
It's not George Soros.
It's not some big media outlet or conglomerate You all know.
We're mostly funded by our viewers.
So if our viewers stop supporting us, we will disappear.
It's that simple.
All right.
So the only thing Professor X needs to do to end the show forever is to convince all
of our supporters to stop supporting us.
And then we will be gone before you know it.
Another message comment about RFK Jr.
Cruise those back roads says so RFK jr can take maga voters.
That sounds like a winner in the general.
RFK Junior 2024.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the math checks out.
It is true that RFK Jr's base seems to overwhelmingly be coming from Republicans, even though he's
running as a Democrat.
That is not a recipe for winning the general election.
If anything, it's a recipe for spoiling the general election potentially for Donald Trump
if he were to run third party.
It doesn't appear as though Bobby Kennedy Jr has any interest in running third party,
but it is certainly something that's interesting to consider.
Also from YouTube, Gregory Cox says David Pacman is a blind man.
Sad because he seems nice but totally blind.
Well, I appreciate the I'm going to focus on the positive that I seem nice.
That is a virtue.
I do believe being nice is a virtue.
So thank you, Gregory.
Sadly, I am blind, but fortunately, I am nice.
Rock Mal Posted to the David Pakman show subreddit, which you can find at David Pacman dot com
slash Reddit.
Why the left are perpetual losers.
All right, let's see what the hypothesis is.
Rock Mall REITs.
So I just watched David's video on the Supreme Court shooting down Biden's student loan forgiveness
plan.
And once again, David felt it necessary to remind everyone why we should have voted for
Hillary Clinton, completely omitting the fact that millions of more people did vote for
Hillary Clinton.
This really gets under my skin.
Instead of using his platform to bring attention to the fact that the Electoral College is
undermining our democracy with detrimental effects, David chooses to chastise voters
who did exactly the opposite of what he's chastising them for.
What's the point here?
It's truly baffling to me, and I can't wrap my head around it.
Which brings me to my point.
I already know what David will say with tears in his eyes.
David would make some version of the claim.
It's harder, virtually impossible to make that change.
This is why we're losers.
If only conservatives felt that way about abortion for 40 years, the entire conservative
movement hammered away at this issue.
One we all thought was virtually impossible for them to win and they won.
We don't have that on the left, that grit and determination.
And that's why we are going to remain perpetual losers.
And David Packman will commentate every loss while chastising us for already doing the
right thing.
It's absurd.
Wrong, wrong.
Okay, so here's the deal.
I have been a critic of the Electoral College for 15 years on this show.
I don't know how old Rock Mall is, but Right.
Rock Mall might have been making pee in their diapers when I was talking about how disastrous,
how disastrous the electoral colleges I have been pointing out for a very long time that
while the constitutional change that would be required to make a national popular vote
is extremely unlikely to happen because Republicans benefit from the Electoral College.
I have talked endlessly about the NPC National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I have explained in detail how the NPV I see would be the fastest path towards a national
popular vote.
I have also said.
That Hillary Clinton, based on the system we have lost by under 100,000 votes in three
states.
It would be deceptive for me, not to mention that.
So great.
Hillary won California bigly.
Fantastic.
We happen not to have a national popular vote right now.
It's not about chastising the people who did vote for her.
She won the popular vote.
It is about reminding people there was a contingent of the left saying I. Kill a year.
Trump I don't care.
It's all the same.
And I would say, you know, sirs and M&Ms, Supreme Court picks are likely to happen under
the next president.
And if Trump gets two or three, they're going to roll back abortion.
And they did every single piece of what I predicted.
Despite those who said, David, the sky is falling.
Listen to Jimmy Dora.
He'll tell you what to do.
Right.
And Bernie, whatever.
It's not about chastising.
It's not about hiding.
The Electoral College is responsible for many Republican presidents.
Democratic candidates keep winning the popular vote and also by under 100,000 votes in three
states Hillary lost in 2016.
Let's be aware of all of those things and not allow the same thing to happen in 2024.
I'm making us losers by making people understand that.
Give me a break.
All right.
Roberta Vaughan wrote on YouTube.
A true Christian would not be gay or trans unless they became Christian after the fact,
and then they would not be practicing gay or trans.
It is my understanding that a lot of people who are gay was introduced by another gay
or bi person.
It seems that what Roberta is saying is that some gay people.
We're, in a sense, recruited to being gay by someone who is gay.
That's pretty bonkers cuckoo stuff.
And there are plenty of gay Christians.
There are trans Christians.
It's this is what's in the.
These are the brain worms that sadly, a lot of people suffer from.
Phil Richards says no.
Where does the Constitution say we need separation of church and state?
What it says is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
So tell me how that means complete separation of church and state.
That is not what our Christian founding fathers had in mind.
Well, let me explain it to you.
If you don't have separation of church and state and the state, for example, says, well,
here is Christian scripture that says abortion is bad.
By the way, I don't think that scripture exists.
But here they say, here's Christian scripture that says abortion is bad, so we're going
to make abortion illegal.
You are establishing Christianity.
As in forming the law of the land that is an establishment of religion, because then
Judaism can come around.
Most Judaism actually prioritizes the life of the mother and does not have this anti-abortion
view.
So Judaism would say, Hey, we have sacred texts that say this is okay.
And then, well, no, no, we've established what Christianity believes.
What we say Christianity believes in doesn't matter what Judaism believes.
Well, that's an establishment of religion, because separation of church and state is
not there.
Separation of church and state means you can be a Christian lawmaker, but you will keep
your sacred texts.
Or maybe your harebrained interpretation of your sacred texts separate from the law by
not establishing your sacred texts as an enforcement of the law.
It's a semantic game that this person is playing, and quite frankly, it's very silly to play
it.
It really is.
One other comment about religion.
The belief in God is in everything that is America.
Our freedom gives us the Christ consciousness and freedom of speech to say, You're going
to hell, David.
That's one sentence.
No commas, no periods, not a semicolon as far as the eye can see.
I'm not even going to address it.
If.
If you're writing to me about how I'm going to hell, you really just don't deserve to
be taken seriously.
All right.
And then more cowbell wrote on Reddit.
David dismissing you oppose expert participate in it is a bad argument.
And they write from the show today when talking about planes.
Someone criticized David for flying.
Yet being against the missions.
And he said the argument is not valid because you have to participate in the society you
live in sort of suggesting you have no choice.
I recently heard this analogized as making no more sense than criticizing a hypothetical
peasant living under feudalism, likening this to saying you must agree with feudalism if
you participate in it.
On its face, it sounds reasonable.
But I think it's actually a very bad argument and in no way similar.
The peasant literally had no choice but to participate if they wanted to live.
That's not remotely the case today for people who, for example, are against increasing emissions.
Or perhaps the more common argument we hear regarding opposing capitalism, because there
are a lot of things you can do if, for example, you are strongly environmentalist, David does
not need to fly on a plane in order to continue existing.
It's really not critical at all and quite easy not to do it while existing in society
with a high standard of living.
Listen, here's the question I have for you.
All right.
My brother's wedding was in California.
Can I continue existing without going to California for his wedding?
Yes.
Could I drive to California?
I guess driving coast to coast with a baby and taking what would I think it's like 50
hours.
So I'd have to drive 12 hours a day for four days.
So I'd need four days off to get there.
I'm going to be there five days and four days off to get back.
So we're talking basically two weeks, no show for two weeks, so that I drive to California
to avoid flying to my brother's wedding.
Can I do it?
Yes.
Is it fair to say that I must not care about the environment because I opted rather than
to take two weeks to drive to California back and forth.
And by the way, by the way.
The emissions per passenger mile.
For the flight versus driving.
I actually don't even know that it's a lower emissions to drive with just three people,
even in an electric vehicle.
This is a nonsense argument.
It is not a serious argument.
All right.
We're not going to devote more time to it.
Get in touch if you have something to say.
We have we have so many great things coming up on the show.
We have a great bonus show coming up for you today.
Become a member and join backlinks.