Speaker 1: All right.
It's time for the Friday mailbag.
If you have anything you would like to say to us, to me, you can email info at David
Pakman dot com.
If it's praise, if it's a criticism, if it's a demand for a correction, if it's a question,
a topic suggestion, a guest suggestion, any of it.
And unfortunately, even if you just have insults, we can't really prevent you from sending the
email either.
And we are starting today with the type of insult that I have to tell you.
I love this kind.
I get pleasure from this because it's someone who clearly is so in a fantasy world about
the size of our show that I just love this.
Jeff wrote in and says, It's hilarious watching you post tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and
delusional rants on your tiny YouTube channel.
You're just a YouTuber.
Stop pretending you're in the same league as actual journalists or opinion people.
You're never going to be like Tucker Carlson.
God, I hope not.
Nobody likes you or respects you.
Even clowns like propaganda puppet Kyle Collins ski are several rungs above you.
And that's not saying much because he's a laughing stock of YouTube political commentators
just like you.
So Kyle sucks too, but you're even worse.
So what do I love about this?
We have a program that's been around 15 years.
We have a larger daily audience than many corporate media shows that only get a few
hundred thousand viewers a day.
We are in the top 0.1% of all YouTube channels.
We are the second largest left wing YouTube channel behind only the Young Turks.
This is a full time job for me and multiple employees.
We've already done the thing that he says we will never actually do.
And as far as I'm never going to be Tucker Carlson.
That's true in two ways.
Number one, I'm never going to be as immoral as Tucker Carlson.
And number two, I'm never going to have the support of a multi-billion dollar corporation
behind me because I'm happy doing it this way.
I don't want to do it that way.
So, Jeff, you know what?
You're right.
And I'm so happy that some of the things you're saying are true, although many of them are
not.
Next email is from Dave.
Dave says Question HANNITY supports a candidate on his show meaning hand that HANNITY supported
Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary.
It used to be that if a station gave advertising or airtime to one candidate over another candidate,
it had value.
That value counted as a campaign contribution.
I wonder if the FEC would look at this as a contribution to certain candidates and then
be deemed an illegal contribution.
If that value went over the dollar amount set by law, or would they see it as within
the rules of what constitutes a donation or a political contribution?
Dave is right that when HANNITY has a platform the size of his platform and he says, I support
Oz, for example, and remember he supported Trump too, so it would apply there as well.
Every time that he supports Oz or attacks, other people like HANNITY would attack Kathy
Barnett, another candidate running in that primary that has a monetary value.
Exactly what it is would have to be figured out.
But there's no doubt that that has a monetary value in terms of the FEC and it being considered
a contribution, I don't know.
But there's also the aspect of equal time laws, and I don't know to what degree those
are being enforced.
And honestly, I don't know at this point, even where they necessarily apply.
But there was a time and we were when we started on the radio, we were conscious of this, particularly
in local elections when we were up in Massachusetts.
That's where the show started and we would interview local candidates.
We would kind of be told, you've got to at least offer everybody in this race the opportunity
to be interviewed.
They won't.
I'll take you up on it, but you've got to give them that opportunity.
So needless to say, the aside from the legality of it, the kind of like unquestioning, just
kind of like, yeah, I guess it's fine.
HANNITY tells us who he likes, and it's just, you know, he's supporting one candidate over
another and everybody just goes along their Mary business as if there's no monetary value
or influence from that.
It is weird.
I don't know whether the FEC angle you're going to get too far with necessarily.
Next, the email is from Quinn.
Quinn wrote in about Liz Cheney.
Quinn says, David, I wanted to talk more about the Liz Cheney segment you did the other day.
As a Democrat, I feel like it's unfair to say she isn't an ally.
I understand she's one of the people who enabled Trump until January six, but since then, she's
put her career in jeopardy by being one of the only Republicans with a moral red line.
It would have been great after January six for Republicans to have an epiphany and become
a civil rights advocating police, reforming marijuana, legalizing socialists.
But just because she didn't do a Canadian are values doesn't or at least shouldn't mean
she's not an ally in this particular fight for accountability.
That said, if she really isn't an ally, are there any elected Republicans you think would
be?
Thanks for hearing me out.
This is fine.
I mean, listen, Quinn, when I say Liz Cheney isn't an ally, I mean, she's not going to
fight with us for any policy issue on our side.
It's not policy to say, hey, the results of the election are what they are.
That's not policy.
So I understand, you know, using this very specific line, she's an ally in this particular
fight for accountability.
This isn't even really a fight.
It's just we have an election and Biden won.
There was a riot incited and there should be consequences.
But the point I'm making is she's not a political ally on issues of policy and substance, and
I stand behind that while acknowledging she is on the side of reason when it comes to
just like the law is what it is, it should be enforced.
Elections have consequences and they're real.
I hope that sort of clarifies Quinn.
Ryan wrote in about debating, quote, gun nuts.
David Sir, I was wondering what your thoughts were on how to approach a.
Frustration with a gun nut when they have the argument, well, if someone had a gun,
they could have stopped them.
For all of these mass shootings, we know that argument is garbage.
But just wondering if you had any tactics on how to handle that.
Okay.
So there's a couple different things that are important to bring up in those situations.
First of all, in many of these mass shooting scenarios, you only have to think it through
to realize additional guns would accomplish nothing.
For example, the Aurora movie theater shooting in Colorado years ago, a shooting in a dark
movie theater.
It doesn't take much of an imagination to understand how adding more guns in a dark
room so that there's more shooting maybe at the real shooter or maybe not, and then potentially
causing.
Imagine that you're the third guy with a gun and you come in and you just see two people
shooting at each other.
How do you know which is the bad guy with the gun and which is the good guy with it's
absolute and total chaos?
That's number one.
Number two, there are numerous examples, numerous examples of mass shootings where we later
found out there were other people with firearms there and they didn't act because of exactly
what I'm saying.
It was so chaotic.
These things happened so quickly that it didn't actually make a difference.
Now, the counterpoint is you occasionally hear about a gun actually used defensively
to stop a situation.
And that's absolutely and totally fine.
But the bigger, more common, more prevalent scenario is that more guns actually add more
chaos.
And overall, limiting the number of guns that are floating around would have a much stronger
impact on reducing gun crime and gun mortality than simply adding more guns to situation.
It's it's just the way history bears it out, Ramone wrote in about a famine and, says,
David, in having conversations with my family, there seems to be a consensus that an overall
food shortage is coming soon.
I'm a new parent and as many others, my baby is affected by the formula shortage already
as it stands.
I know you've spoken about this in the past.
Can you revisit.
Many thanks.
Love what you do.
The latest I've read is that over the next 4 to 6 months, there may be a shortage of
specific products, but there is not going to be a shortage of any general food group
or nutritional source.
And so what I mean by that is, you know, is it POS and I've talked about this before.
Is it possible that one type of chicken might not be available in your local store?
Yeah, that's that's possible.
But is there going to be no chicken or no suitable alternative like turkey or beef or
whatever the case may be there?
I've not read that.
That's really a concern.
Recently, you all know I love my sumo oranges.
This is arguably one of the top fruits in the history of the world.
I would die on that hill.
Okay.
The sumo oranges, they're just gods.
They come to me, they say, Sir, we can't get them.
And so I'm instead getting a super sweet navel orange.
Now, it might just be honestly, it might just be seasonality.
Maybe this is not a time of year when the Sumo's are available.
But the point is citrus is available.
The exact type of orange I want is not currently available and it just might be a seasonal
thing.
So my expectation, Ramon and I don't have independent knowledge on this, I'm going from
the reporting I read is there may be a shortage of particular products, but that no food group
or nutritional source like for example, dairy, meat, vegetables, fruits, crackers, etc..
Not expecting to see a shortage there.
If the reality on the ground changes.
Of course, we will tell you.
Evan wrote in about being tough on crime.
David, why don't Democrats run on a tough on crime platform by promising gun control?
It's baffling that the party who says they're tough on crime Republicans is also the one
unwilling to do anything to crack down on guns.
Yeah, I understand the logic of it.
Right.
Which is, hey, Republicans say they're tough on crime, but they want more guns in more
places and absolutely no regulations.
We are actually tough on crime.
We the left, because we will make it more difficult to obtain guns and then commit crimes
with them.
It makes absolutely perfect sense.
The right will diffuse those talking points easily by saying, actually, guns make us safer
if we don't have guns to defend ourselves with, only the criminals will have guns.
They have experience with these talking points.
Evan So what you're saying makes sense, but they will be ready for it.
Mazin wrote in about the buffalo shooting and my view on the death penalty.
MASN says, Hey David, I saw a show not too long ago.
Were.
You said you don't believe in the death penalty.
I like to say I don't support it.
You don't believe in the death penalty because the justice system makes mistakes and those
mistakes cannot be corrected once someone is put to death.
I was wondering if your opinion would change based on the facts of the current shooting
at the Buffalo store.
We have video evidence that this kid murdered innocent people, as well as a 100 plus page
manifesto with his motives.
Do you think it's still a better option to let the kid live the rest of his life in prison?
I do.
First of all, if we are, let's just start first first with what's the worst punishment?
Based on my beliefs about what happens when we die.
I believe if you put the kid to death and I shouldn't even be saying the kid.
We're talking about an adult here who did something absolutely horrifying when you put
this 18 year old to death.
Lights go out and that's it.
Doesn't have to live for decades with what he did sitting in a prison cell.
So if you ask me, what's the harsher punishment?
It's all.
You're 18 the rest of your life, whether it be 60, 70, 80 more years, you're going to
do nothing.
You're going to sit in a prison cell, and that's it.
It's it's over for you.
That, to me, is the harsher penalty.
So, number one, if we just start with what's the harsher penalty, I would go there.
And then beyond that, all of my same opposition to the death, that death penalty stance, the
government shouldn't be in the business of putting people to death.
Yes, he arguably has given up giving up his right to live freely in the world.
Okay.
Well, take it away by putting him in a prison cell for life.
Don't take it away by saying, well, we'll also do some killing.
And then there's all the other arguments that are made.
So no masen, even in this case, I am not for the death penalty.
Couple bonus ones from YouTube.
Droned on YouTube said David calls himself an independent reporter.
No, I don't.
I'm not a reporter.
I'm a commentator.
So funny, he doesn't even know if he identifies as a guy or a girl.
Give me a break.
No, I identify as a guy.
Very confused viewer.
Also one other from Droned who says this Pacman is a joke.
I cannot wait till this economy is in World War Three and see what third gender he wants
to talk about.
I, I don't talk about that.
We barely talk about gender on the show.
And I also while I don't make economic predictions, typically my expectation is inflation has
peaked and will start to decline and that we are getting closer to the stock market
bottom.
Now, obviously, that's kind of meaningless.
We're always one day closer to the bottom, even if we're not there yet.
But I don't I don't even know what this person's talking about.
And lastly, Claude Road in this Pacman guy is just a mouthpiece for the Biden gang.
What a joke.
Imagine how much education was wasted to create this propagandist.
Liar.
Yeah, I don't.
The one thing I don't think you can say about this show is that we're mouthpieces for the
Biden gang.
In fact, I find Biden pretty uninspiring and he's done, you know, three or four good things
and is otherwise exactly what I expected his administration to be.
So maybe you're thinking of another show clogged with respect.
Send in your emails to info at David Pakman dot com.
We have a great bonus show for you today.
Sign up at join pacman dot com to get instant access.