Speaker 1: All right.
Let's get into the week's mailbag.
You can always email info at David Pakman dot com.
We have a variety, a smattering of different thoughts and prayers and emails and different
things to look at this week.
Occasionally we will look at YouTube comments or tweets or whatever the case may be, but
mostly emails.
All right.
Let's go to our first one.
Mary wrote in about Donald Trump and said, I loved his Alaska rally and I hated all your
little stupid comments on the side.
I think you're a complete idiot.
Well, two points to Mary for correctly.
Using the contraction of you are y o.u.
Apostrophe, Ari.
It's almost a legal requirement when you send me hate mail that you incorrectly put in y0ur.
We see that almost every day.
So, Mary, congrats.
As a reminder.
I will say whatever the hell I want during my streams and if you don't like it, find
a different stream.
This is my stream at the end of the day, and I'm allowed to talk over your president as
you like, to refer to him as much as I want.
Thank you, Mary.
Mike from New York City wrote in about the who is the president question and says, big
fan of the show.
Recently you asked election fraud conspiratorial list.
Darlene Sofer, who is the president?
How is this question asked in better faith than Republicans who ask what is a woman when
hearing testimonies from trans advocates?
Aren't they both gotcha questions?
No.
Mike, who is the president is not a gotcha question.
When I ask who is the president, it's a good faith check as to whether they can tell me
a simple fact.
It's sort of like, do humans need water to live?
It's a yes or no question.
These are not trick questions.
And if they are unable to answer it, it really says something about them.
The what is a woman question is a question that's deliberately contrived, first of all,
to blow up an issue that is a minor political issue.
That's number one.
And then number two, it's a question that is being asked out of context and then misused
to answer questions that are either legal questions or questions of competition in sports
or about abortion or whatever the case, it's the epitome of bad faith.
When I say, who's the president?
If they go the president's, Joe Biden go.
Fine.
I'm not looking to use that in any particular way.
It's the opposite of a bad faith question.
So, no, there's really no similarity there whatsoever.
Erin wrote in about Donald Trump's dancing, says, Hey, David, it's Aaron from Hull, England.
I've been to Hull from Hull, England, writing huge fan of the show.
I was wondering what your thoughts are on Donald Trump's dancing after rallies.
It's always perplexed me as to his motives behind the dancing.
Do you think it's to come across as more affable or light hearted?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the reasons behind his dancing.
No.
Here's what it is with Trump and his dancing.
Trump not accidentally, but on a whim.
Trump danced for like 5 seconds once at a rally, and his the crowd liked it.
And it started to be seemed and his supporters loved it.
And he got the attention that he wanted for it, positive attention rather than negative
attention.
And so he just does it all the time.
That's all that you have to.
The lens through which we interpret all of these actions by Trump is a lens of self-centered
narcissism.
That's fundamentally the most important thing.
And so the reason Trump does anything is to get what he hopes and believes is or will
be positive attention.
And he even does it.
The dancing now at horrible times like he danced at the he spoke at the NRA 72 hours
after the horrible Texas shooting, made a mockery of everything at the speech and then
danced after the fact.
It's all in poor taste.
It's all for self-aggrandizement.
Kyle wrote in, Kyle says, Hey, I need to talk about something.
My mom's cousin sends her stupid political stuff, and my mom thinks 75% of Democrats
regret the way they voted.
I don't think that's an accurate statistic at all.
What do you think?
What would you say?
Her cousin is always sending her stupid political crap.
Yeah.
So, listen, it's hard to debunk things I haven't seen, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever
that 75% of Democrats regret voting for Biden over Trump.
I am not a Democrat, but I'm on the left.
I voted for Biden over Trump.
Do I think Biden is the best thing since sliced, cracked wheat bread?
No.
Is Biden the best thing since no VA smoked salmon?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Of course not.
But was it obviously the right decision given given the alternative 110%.
So it sounds completely made up.
If you look at Biden's approval of 37%, 37% is low.
But there's no way that the vast majority of the disapproval is Republicans.
So you have to sort of see if these numbers pass the sniff test, if of the 63%, it's really
some people have no opinion.
So it's like high fives.
But of the 60% that disapprove of Biden's handling as president, most are Republicans.
And so you have to realize by that alone, it just doesn't make sense that 75% of Democrats
regret voting for Joe Biden.
So ask her to provide a source is the best advice I can give you.
Violence if Trump is indicted.
This came up on the show the other day and a viewer doesn't think I should be talking
about it.
Who said, quote, I think it's smarter not to talk about that.
The Democrats are cowards enough for many and all threats the Republicans make.
Do you want them to really think about these potential threats when evaluating whether
or not to indict Trump?
Think that's smart.
I don't.
But love your thoughts most of the time.
Yeah.
Listen, Merrick Garland is not considering whether Trumpists will be violent in terms
of figuring out whether he wants to indict Donald Trump.
I think Merrick Garland is thinking more about his career and how it will look for a Department
of Justice to indict a former president.
I don't think that it's a factor.
And one of the things I won't do on this show is sort of like strategically hide things
from you for optics reasons.
I believe there's a real chance that if Trump is indicted, Republicans will get violent.
I'm not going to hide that.
It's a topic of discussion.
It's a very real one after January 6th in particular.
So I think the smartest thing I can do is to be honest with the audience and to say
what I believe the truth to be and what I believe is likely to happen in the future.
Emily wrote in about Gavin Newsom and says, Dear Mr. Pacman, I agree with you about Gavin
Newsom for 2024.
What do you think about Pete Buddha judge?
Actually, they called him bootleg.
Bootleg, but I call him Buddha judge for vice president.
I think they would make a powerful team.
Watch your show daily.
Keep up the good work.
Best to you and yours.
Amy.
Yeah.
I mean, listen, if you want to make an identity politics argument, it's like two more white
guys.
What?
The reality is that Gavin Newsom and Buddha judge are two highly, highly skilled politicians.
They play offense rather than defense, which the Democratic Party desperately needs right
now.
Now, in terms of Buddha judge for vice president, let normally I wouldn't even be talking about
2024 before the 2022 midterms, because the two elections are so linked.
We're talking about both in relation to each other.
I've said I think Newsom is a skilled politician who could be interesting in 24.
I think Buddha judge is a skilled politician who could be interesting in 2024.
So let's first figure out the nominee.
Let's deal with VP later.
But there is no question that Buddha judge is a very good when he goes on Fox News at
just completely disarming and disassembling these contrived right wing framings of issues.
And that's really what they are.
Nathan wrote in about right wing derangement.
Here's Nathan's theory theory.
The right wants to make the entire middle of the country uninhabitable for all but the
hardest right of the right wing nutjobs, forcing reasonable humans to fewer and fewer states
on the coasts, enshrining minority rule, solidifying indefinite control over the Senate, all future
judicial appointments, and clinging to fascistic power indefinitely.
Could this be why there seems to be no bottom to the absolutely depraved arrange policy
positions they're willing to take, so there is no bottom to their depravity.
Nathan's right about that, but this doesn't seem like what the idea here is.
Republicans want to make red states so horrible for liberals that all the liberals leave now
in the Senate.
That can be useful because you can increasingly have minority rule where in a minority of
where senators representing a minority of the population control more than half the
Senate, we've talked about that.
Now the math works in the Senate.
The problem is, if all the red states lose population at the census, they will lose members
of the House.
And that's not good for them.
And also, it doesn't help them win presidential elections.
So I, I, I think they would have no qualms morally about approaching employing such a
strategy.
Nathan.
But I don't think they're doing it.
I don't even know that they're that organized.
And also, it doesn't really seem like it would work when you look at the math of it.
Blake wrote in, Blake says, I'm a subscriber and I very much appreciate and agree mostly
with your show.
However, I also respect and appreciate Dr. Joseph Mercola.
I'm not sure why some of the left have trouble with Dr. Mercola.
It would be incredibly educational if you could critically interview him.
Thanks for reading.
Yeah.
I mean, the thing about Dr. Mercola is he's one of the most notorious anti-vaccine, anti-science
voices in this sort of like, quack community.
So it's not for me.
It's just not for me.
Last one, Anthony says.
Trump says that investigations of him are politically motivated.
So what if an investigation into his activities reveals a crime?
What does it matter if the investigation was politically motivated?
Well, it doesn't matter if it's politically motivated in terms of the criminality.
What we wouldn't want is a crime committed by 100 people where only Republicans or Democrats
are targeted for it.
That would be a problem.
Trump's crimes are highly political, and in that sense, it's not the wrong term to say
politically motivated.
But the problem with political motivation is when we talk about unfair application of
the law, it's not what's happening with Trump, that's for sure.
We've got a great bonus show for you today.
Sign up at join pacman dot com.
Use the coupon code.
Big voting 22.
I will see you that.