Speaker 1: All right, let's hear from a few more people via Discord at David Pakman dot
com slash discord. Let's go next to Alexander from something that starts with, Well, I can't.
It's cut off. Where are you from, Alexander? Speaker 2: And. Um, I'm from a town called
Palm Coast, Speaker 1: OK, Palm Coast.
Speaker 2: What's up? Yeah, it's it's in Florida. Gotcha. And by the way, I've never been on
the air before, so I'm kind of nervous. Speaker 1: Oh, don't worry, you're doing great.
What's on your mind? Speaker 2: I. I wanted to ask you something,
see if you could personally answer this on. You know, it's about these news networks that
everyone talks about. Yeah. What's the difference between Fox News, Newsmax and Orwellian, also
known as One America News? Speaker 1: Well, I think they become more
reactionary in exactly the order you listed them Fox, Newsmax, 0& in that order.
Speaker 2: What do you mean, reactionary, more
Speaker 1: unhinged, extreme and cartoonish? I guess I would say like it always to me seems
like it's out and out crazy where there's people on it. Like, for example, the anti-vax
stuff on Fox is a little more polished. It's less polished on Newsmax, and it's straight
up crazy on Joanne. Like, I think I think that that's that my getting my point across.
On. Speaker 2: I think so used, I never really
view them as that, and I have a hard time really distinguishing them.
Speaker 1: Oh, OK, yeah, I mean, listen, I will. I will admit that Fox has done stuff
in the last three months on Tucker's show, for example, related to vaccines, where Tucker
says, you know, tens of thousands of people appear to have died from the vaccine, a statement
that's totally untrue that has even surprised me. But as a general thing, I find that Newsmax
is crazier than Fox, and 0& is even crazier with even lower journalistic standards to
the extent that they exist. Like, I don't even think Newsmax has any of what they even
pretend is hard news. Whereas Fox does, but it's bias, you know?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess so. I just, I don't know. I I never really thought of it like
that because I knew there were all kind of people would like lumped them in the same
category. But I didn't know like they were like that different from each other and how
they report on news. Speaker 1: And yeah, they're definitely in
the same category. But I think, oh, is is is the absolute crazy
Speaker 2: like you mean like Fox News is the quote unquote mildest one. America news
is like the most unhinged, the most off the walls. Bonkers news channel.
Speaker 1: That's how I would put it. Yeah. Hey, Alexandra, I know you said you're you're
in Florida. Are you from New York originally? Speaker 2: What the. Sorry, what? So I said
what the because my whole family is, oh, Speaker 1: OK, yeah, no, you just have a very
noticeable New York accent and you sound like Michael Cohen, you know? Really?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now as interesting to know. I'm pretty sure that was it, actually this
is I'm going to make this very, very quick. Well, there's one more thing that I feel like
I need to ask. OK. So you hear about. What's it called, it's the thing with the
Speaker 1: Alexander, I've got a lot of people holding, so I'm going to let you go. I really
appreciate the call and the multiple questions, and it's been a true pleasure having you on.
Let me go next to Steve from Chicago, Illinois. Steve, how are you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing good, how are you? I'm doing all right.
Speaker 1: Where's that? What's on your mind? So I asked you, it's OK.
Speaker 2: Just reactionary. I have a couple of things you can cut me off. I'm going for
too long, though. Sure. Pleasure question. I know you did a video on anti-Semitism with
Tucker, and I think he was talking to Gutfeld. Yep. With George Soros, I felt like you were
just kind of seeing it as anti-Semitic for saying stuff. They didn't like what George
Soros was doing. I don't know if you can explain it a little better. It kind of seemed like
they were kind of like just like talking about how he uses money and then that's like anti-Semitic.
Speaker 1: Nope, that's not at all. It's definitely not what I said, and it's also not what I
meant, so I'm glad to have the opportunity to say more. George Soros at this point is
basically a placeholder boogeyman for is it boogeyman or boogeyman? I am not actually.
Do you know which it is? It's boogeyman boogeyman, OK? George Soros has become a sort of anti-Semitic
placeholder boogeyman for for a code for rich Jews in many cases. And so whether Tucker
specifically intended it to be that or not, the Soros ruining America with his money is
just a tired anti-Semitic trope, which which makes no sense. I mean, he's a 91 year old
guy at this point. And the idea that he would be hell bent on destroying America in any
way simply doesn't pass the sniff test. And so you really have to look at context. And
everything about that piece reeked of the sort of let's find someone to blame. And we're
not going to mention that he's Jewish, but it's this this trope of the rich Jew ruining
and controlling things for his benefit. It's just a very old trope. It doesn't mean what
Tucker was specifically saying is anti-Semitic. Speaker 2: OK. I mean, I guess, in case you
were saying, I guess I don't think that segment was too anti-Semitic and I was neutral,
Speaker 1: and that's the thing is you have to. It's by design that if it coded language
and coded tropes are designed where if you don't know the milieu within which it exists,
you wouldn't see it for what it is a part of.
Speaker 2: I get the coded language. I just don't think they're like using coding language.
In that scenario, they're for their, I guess I just disagree with you on that.
Speaker 1: Yes. I don't mean the literally language.
Speaker 2: I don't mean literally like anti-Semitic. OK. What I guess would be what Whoopi Goldberg
said this week on The View. I don't know if you've been able to touch that or not yet.
Speaker 1: I think what Whoopi Goldberg says is this. It was said it was disgusting, and
it unfortunately plays into. So the George Soros stuff is the type of anti-Semitism you
see from the right. The Whoopi stuff about the Holocaust wasn't about race, and a Jew
goes to the Jews are not an oppressed minority. Soft anti-Semitism that's more common on the
left. So I called it out on the Wednesday show. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I must and must. I must admit that I was just wondering. No, that's
about that. And if you can comment, you can call me if you want. But the last question
I had was, I know I've seen some stuff on you on gerrymandering from the right. I was
wondering if you had any comment on what's been going on, what they're proposing for
New York, which seems very on the side of gerrymandering, extreme for the listener.
Speaker 1: My view, my view on this is not Partizan. My view on this is gerrymandering
is bad and we need a system that is a nonpartisan system. There's four or five different ones
that have been proposed. I'm agnostic about which as long as it's better than what we
have now. And I also recognize that for as long as gerrymandering is possible, if Republicans
are going to do it as badly as they can, I have to also recognize that Democrats must
take opportunities to do it because otherwise they lose everything.
Speaker 2: All right. I guess I can see that is I guess it just probably won't ever stop
there and if both sides are going to keep on doing it.
Speaker 1: Well, remember, the mechanism to stop the gerrymandering is a different one
than the mechanism by which gerrymandering takes place. So you can both realize that
if either they gerrymander or we do, it's better. If it's us, you can recognize that.
And at the same time, work to put in place a nonpartisan redistricting commission. You
can do both. Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess, like, I don't know,
two evils don't make a right in my mind. I agree, and I'm not saying they're doing it
for the power. Yeah, but I appreciate you taking my call and answering the questions
and kind of giving me more of an outlook of what you're saying with the whole Soros aspect
on that. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Steve very
much. Appreciate a great great to hear from you