7/11/25: Elon is scaring Trump, top exec nukes Trump to Lara’s face

Summary

Detailed Summary of "The David Pakman Show" Episode Released on July 11, 2025

Podcast Information:

• Title: The David Pakman Show
• Host: David Pakman
• Description: One of the most-watched independent progressive programs, offering insightful analysis on politics, current events, and social issues through commentary and interviews with national leaders.
• Episode Title: Elon is Scaring Trump, Top Exec Nukes Trump to Lara’s Face

---

1. Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump: A Power Struggle

Timestamp: [00:07] – [04:00]

David Pakman opens the episode by discussing the escalating tensions between Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump. He references an article by Bill Kristol from The Bulwark titled "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Ellen," suggesting that Trump's recent shift from insulting Musk to labeling him as "dangerous" indicates a significant level of concern.

Key Points:

• Third-Party Ambitions: Musk's potential launch of the America Party could disrupt Trump's political coalition ahead of the 2026 elections.
• Epstein Connection: Pakman theorizes that Musk might leverage information about Trump's connections to Jeffrey Epstein to sway MAGA supporters away from Trump.
• Trump's Reaction: Demonstrates a softened tone towards Musk, which Pakman interprets as a sign of fear and acknowledgment of Musk's influence.

Notable Quotes:

• Donald Trump [03:37]: “I think it's ridiculous to start a third party. We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party... Third parties have never worked.”

Analysis: Pakman posits that Musk's strategic moves could undermine Trump's loyal base by providing alternatives and raising doubts about Trump's capabilities and intentions. This dynamic reflects a broader struggle between influential billionaires and established political figures.

2. Internal Republican Discord: Rand Paul and JD Vance

Timestamp: [05:34] – [06:05]

Pakman shifts focus to internal conflicts within the Republican Party, highlighting a recent statement by Senator Rand Paul on CNBC. Paul suggests that JD Vance nearly sided with him against the majority on a spending bill before concessions were made to secure the vote.

Key Points:

• Coalition Fragility: The negotiation over subsidies for Alaska to prevent a debt ceiling showdown indicates fractures within Trump's coalition.
• Implications for Future Legislation: Demonstrates that Trump's administration may struggle to pass significant legislation without resorting to pork-barrel tactics.
• Desperation Signs: Reliance on minor concessions to maintain party unity signals underlying weaknesses.

Analysis: This segment underscores the lack of cohesiveness within the Republican Party, suggesting that Trump's tight grip on the party may be weakening. Pakman interprets these negotiations as signs of a desperate effort to hold the coalition together, hinting at potential challenges for future legislative endeavors.

3. Interview with Activist Jessica Craven: Strategies for Political Engagement

Timestamp: [11:37] – [38:38]

David Pakman engages in a comprehensive discussion with Jessica Craven, an activist and content creator on Substack. Their conversation delves into effective methods for increasing political participation and engagement, particularly among disengaged or misinformed populations.

Key Points:

• Activism vs. Content Creation: Craven emphasizes her dual role in activism and content creation, aiming to inform and mobilize her audience.
• Engaging the Uninformed: Craven shares experiences of educating individuals who are disengaged or lack basic understanding of political structures, highlighting the importance of relatable and accessible information.
• Combatting Purity Testing: Both hosts critique the tendency within progressive circles to demand perfection from allies, arguing that this mindset hampers electoral success by alienating potential supporters.
• Importance of Simple, Emotional Messaging: Discussions highlight the need for the left to adopt clear, emotionally resonant messages akin to successful Republican slogans like “Make America Great Again” to effectively mobilize voters.
• Structural Challenges: They address systemic issues within the Democratic Party, such as bureaucratic inertia and internal power struggles, which impede progressive advancements.

Notable Quotes:

• Jessica Craven [16:37]: “Legacy and corporate media want us just to be in the audience. We need to create activists and encourage people to engage.”
• Eli (Jessica's Alias) [21:02]: “There are 90 million people who didn't vote. These people are different... They don't understand what's happening.”

Analysis: The interview with Craven provides insightful strategies for increasing political engagement, emphasizing education, relatable communication, and the importance of overcoming internal divisions. Both Pakman and Craven advocate for pragmatic approaches that prioritize achievable goals over ideological purity to enhance the effectiveness of progressive movements.

4. Listener Feedback and Discussions

Timestamp: [43:00] – [38:38]

Pakman addresses various comments and questions from his audience, touching on topics such as Trump's immigration policies, media coverage, and strategies for interacting with MAGA supporters.

Key Points:

• Trump's Deportation Failures: Pakman critiques Trump's immigration policies, noting that his administration's deportation numbers fall short of Obama’s, thereby undermining his claimed successes.
• Impact on Businesses: A segment highlights Lara Trump’s interview with Ford’s COO, who criticized Trump's tariffs and environmental regulations, illustrating the real-world economic repercussions of Trump's policies.
• Media Intimidation: Discussions include how corporate media may be self-censoring information about Trump's cognitive abilities due to fear of lawsuits or regulatory backlash.
• Engaging with Disillusioned Family Members: Pakman offers strategies for communicating with family members entrenched in MAGA beliefs, advocating for curiosity-driven conversations rather than confrontational fact-checking.

Notable Quotes:

• Lara Trump [49:00]: “Maybe I'll ask for two... One would be the parts tariffs... The other would be one national standard for fuel economy, greenhouse gases.”
• Eli [35:11]: “I feel that the purity testing is the single most destructive thing in our party and in our giant tent.”

Analysis: The listener feedback section underscores the complexities of political discourse, particularly in addressing misinformation and internal party conflicts. Pakman emphasizes the need for informed, empathetic engagement with those who hold opposing views, while also critiquing the internal dynamics that hinder progressive objectives.

5. Trump’s Immigration Policies: An Ineffective Strategy

Timestamp: [39:10] – [49:00]

Pakman provides a detailed analysis of Donald Trump's immigration enforcement strategies, arguing that his approach is both ineffective and counterproductive.

Key Points:

• Deportation Numbers: Trump's administration has significantly underperformed compared to Obama's, with annual deportations in the tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.
• Policy Flaws: Mass deportations are criticized as inhumane and economically disruptive, with Trump’s strategy failing to achieve intended results.
• Economic Impact: Pakman highlights how deporting long-term workers could harm businesses reliant on their labor, a concern recently acknowledged by Lara Trump.
• Comprehensive Reform Recommendations: He outlines a sensible immigration policy framework, including legalizing long-term undocumented migrants, streamlining legal immigration processes, targeting smugglers rather than workers, rebuilding trust with law enforcement, addressing root causes abroad, and enforcing labor protections.

Analysis: This segment presents a comprehensive critique of Trump’s immigration policies, arguing that his focus on mass deportations is both morally questionable and economically detrimental. Pakman advocates for holistic reforms that balance border security with humane treatment and economic considerations.

6. Corporate Criticism of Trump’s Economic Policies

Timestamp: [49:00] – [70:01]

A notable moment in the episode involves a candid critique of Trump’s economic policies by a top Ford executive, Kumar Galotra, during an interview with Lara Trump. The executive bluntly opposes Trump’s tariffs and calls for a unified national standard for fuel economy.

Key Points:

• Economic Ramifications: The Ford executive explains how tariffs on parts, steel, and aluminum harm the automotive industry by increasing costs and complicating manufacturing processes.
• Environmental and Efficiency Concerns: Calls for standardized fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations are presented as necessary for economic and environmental stability.
• Contradiction with Political Rhetoric: The executive’s criticisms starkly contrast with Trump’s pro-tariff stance, underscoring the disconnect between political promises and business realities.

Notable Quotes:

• Ford Executive [49:00]: “Don't do the tariffs. These policies are bad for business and our jobs.”
• Lara Trump [49:06]: “Maybe I'll ask for two...”

Analysis: This exchange highlights the tangible negative impacts of Trump’s economic policies on American businesses. The unfiltered criticism from a senior Ford executive serves as a powerful testament to the adverse effects of Trump’s approach, challenging the narrative of economic success touted by Trump supporters.

7. Additional Listener Comments and Discussions

Timestamp: [70:01] – End

Pakman continues to engage with listener comments, addressing concerns about media bias, political messaging, and internal Democratic Party dynamics.

Key Points:

• Media Censorship Fears: Some listeners express concern that corporate media are avoiding coverage of Trump's cognitive decline due to fear of legal repercussions.
• Political Messaging: Discussion on the effectiveness of Democratic vs. Republican messaging, emphasizing the need for the left to adopt simpler, more emotionally resonant slogans.
• Engaging with MAGA Family Members: Strategies for having productive conversations with family members who hold staunch pro-Trump views, focusing on understanding and empathy rather than confrontation.

Notable Quotes:

• Pakman [43:00]: “Instead of more raids and more guards and more bad ideas, try something humane and sane. That will work.”
• Pakman [35:12]: “I can connect almost anything to politics. Almost anything goes back to politics.”

Analysis: The ongoing dialogue with listeners reinforces the show's commitment to addressing real-time political concerns and fostering constructive conversations. Pakman consistently advocates for informed, compassionate engagement as a means to bridge political divides and promote progressive values.

---

Conclusion:

In this episode of "The David Pakman Show," host David Pakman navigates a complex landscape of political tensions, internal party conflicts, and strategic challenges facing progressive movements. Through incisive analysis, expert interviews, and interactive listener engagement, Pakman underscores the importance of informed activism, pragmatic policy reform, and effective communication strategies. The episode serves as a comprehensive guide for listeners seeking to understand and influence the evolving dynamics of American politics.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Welcome to the show, everybody. A lot of the recent conflicts between egomaniacal billionaires are now coming to a head. And if I had to handicap it right now, I think Elon Musk is out on top of Donald Trump here. Let me tell you what's going on. There's a really interesting piece in the Bulwark by interestingly written by Bill Kristol called the enemy of My enemy is my Ellen. Not a phrase I would typically say on this show. Interesting piece from Bill Kristol, but the piece points out that Donald Trump's sort of shift recently from insulting Elon to saying he's dangerous really seems like a signal that Trump is terrified. And there are two reasons. Number one, Elon Musk's third party, the America Party, and number two, what Elon Musk knows about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, even though that I don't think is what you think. So let me lay it out. The America Party, if Elon Musk is serious about this third party, the America Party, to big if he might not really be serious about it, it could do real damage to Donald Trump's coalition in November of 2026, which is now just 16 months away. The Epstein stuff is less about, oh, Elon knows the truth about Trump and Epstein's debauchery. It's more about if Elon can convince MAGA people that Trump is now covering up the Epstein stuff. They spent years saying Trump's going to uncover it, Trump's going to disclose it, Trump's going to expose it. And if Elon can convince MAGA people Trump's part of the COVID up now, he could potentially get MAGA people to abandon Donald Trump and that that's how his third party might be useful, which is, hey, I have something for you to abandon Trump to signs that Trump is worried. Well, Trump is posting stuff like the following on Truth Social, quote, I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely off the rails, essentially becoming a train wreck over the past five weeks. He even wants to start a third political party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States. The system is not designed for them. The one thing third parties are good for is the creation of complete and total disruption and chaos. And we have enough of that with the radical left Democrats who have lost their confidence and their minds. Republicans, on the other hand, are a smooth running machine that just passed the biggest bill of its kind in the history of our country. It's a great bill, but unfortunately for Elon, it eliminates the ridiculous EV mandate which would have forced everyone to buy an EV in a short period of time. And I've strongly been opposed to that from the beginning. People are now allowed to buy whatever they want. Gas powered hybrids which are doing very well, or new tech as they come about. No more EV mandate. I have campaigned on this for two years and quite honestly, when Ellen gave me his total and unquestioned endorsement, I asked him whether or not he knew that I was going to terminate the EV mandate. It was in every speech I made, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so he, he's sort of laying out, instead of just insulting Elon, which is what he does to people that he doesn't think are a threat, he's laying it out calmly and rationally for Trump. And that is a sign that Trump's actually scared. Then Trump, when asked about this on video, said the following. Starting a third party.

[Donald Trump]

I think it's ridiculous to start a third party. We have a, a tremendous success with the Republican Party. The Democrats have lost their way, but it's always been a two party system. And I think starting a third party just adds to confusion. It really seems to have been developed for two parties. Third parties have never worked. So he can have fun with it. But I think it's ridiculous.

[David Pakman]

Eli, aside from the fact that it's not true that the country was really developed, developed to be a two party duopoly, that's not true. We used to have more parties. It's basic American history. Trump sees Elon as dangerous. Trump sees him as dangerous. Now, I'll tell you, Elon Musk is not an ally to liberal democracy. He weaponizes conspiracy theories and, you know, they might incidentally be ironically useful in weakening Trump's grip on the authoritarian right. But Ellen is not our friend for sure. But to the extent that this might end up being a strategically valuable disruption to Trump's loyal coalition, Trump's right to be scared about what Elon Musk is doing. And I say I hope it does create a big problem for Donald Trump. Do you think it will? Let me know info at David Pakman Dotcom. This one sort of flew under the radar. Did you see this? This is a little window into how shaky things are behind the scenes. Senator Rand Paul, of all people, a Republican, said something that should make Trump squirm. Rand Paul was on CNBC and he was talking about the recent spending bill that was signed into law by Donald Trump. And let's listen carefully. But what I believe is being said here is that JD Vance was thinking of being on the no side with Rand, I mean, it almost seems inconceivable, but let's listen to what Rand Paul had to say.

[Donald Trump]

My note, my note would never have sunk the bill. And the reason it wouldn't is they were negotiating with me. If my vote were going to be the deciding vote, they would have negotiated. They were negotiating. Well, they were negotiating that morning. The Vice President was very, very close to going with me versus the subsidies for Alaska. They eventually chose the subsidies for Alaska, which shows you something, that subsidies for Alaska and more money out there was actually easier for them than having to vote on the debt ceiling again in three months.

[David Pakman]

So I guess what Rand Paul is saying is that at least on the topic of goodies for Alaska for Murkowski versus having to vote on the debt ceiling on that issue, not on the entire bill, but on that issue, supposedly JD Vance was on the verge of siding with Rand Paul. Why? Well, because Trump and his allies jammed the bill with goodies for Alaska to buy Lisa Murkowski's vote and to avoid a debt ceiling fight before the election. And Vance, according to Rand Paul, was almost out of that way that they bought their way into passage of the bill. Rand had him, supposedly, until Trump's team decided it's easier to throw some money at Alaska. We don't want the fiscal showdown, so think about what that means. Trump's hand picked loyalist running mate was nearly ready, if we believe Rand Paul, to buck the White House on one of their biggest economic priorities over pork barrel spending. We were told it's an ironclad MAGA administration and coalition. And if you believe Rand Paul and I, you know, we can say a lot of things about Rand Paul. I don't think he would make this up. He's out here bragging, oh, the Vice President almost joined me in this rebellion. I don't think he goes on national TV and says this unless it's true and unless he's trying to send a message. So I believe that this is a signal Trump's coalition is not as unified as, as it looks. And the fact that it only took some Alaska subsidies to keep it from falling apart speaks to me of more of a desperate situation than a situation of strength. We know the coalition wasn't strong because they had to go negotiate senator by senator to get them the goodies they needed to come out and support this bill. So very interesting in particular for what it means for any other legislation that Donald Trump may try to push through. We're going to have more of this, by the way. We have a daily hour podcast that's free. If you're used to listening to clips or watching clips, you can get the David Pakman show on Spotify or Apple Podcasts in full, usually much earlier than the clips come out. So I invite you to do that. We'll have more on this topic there. I've talked before about how I have allocated a poor portion of my assets to individual stocks. And when it comes to individual stocks, how do you get the information that is going to help you meaningfully decide what makes sense for you? And that's exactly why I've been testing out Investing Pro. This is the new flagship platform from Investing.com and the whole idea here is it's a tool to find stocks others may be missing. And and the feature I've been using is called Warren AI. It's kind of like Chat GPT trained on up to the minute market data. So you can ask it what happened to Nvidia yesterday? What might be moving Tesla stock? Or if I have X to invest, how might I allocate it? And the answers are fast, precise and actually helpful, which is different than a lot of finance content. It's all powered by Investing.com's Data Engineering. It's designed to give retail investors tools more like the ones that the pros use take advantage of their huge summer sale, giving you 50% off plus you'll get an additional 15% off when you sign up at David pakman.com/invest. The link is in the description. You know, for weeks now, discussions have focused on Trump's big, beautiful bill and its potential Medicaid cuts. However, a far more dangerous over overlooked provision in the bill exists at Ground News Slash Pacman, you'll discover what MAGA lawmakers quietly included a provision that could block federal judges from enforcing court orders unless a bond is posted. And if this passes, it could render Trump above the law. This is a critical detail. It's largely unknown and it really exemplifies this flood the zone strategy of the Trump administration. Now this is why Ground News is essential. It really is the best way to uncover buried information by showing you not just the story, but its origins across the political spectrum. You can see bias, ratings, credibility scores, coverage timelines, and their browser extension also will flag potential bias. When you're on a news site, sort of guiding you to more reliable sources for fact checking, Ground News gives you a smarter and more reliable way to stay informed. And I'm partnering with them to give you 40% off their unlimited vantage plan, which makes it just $5 a month visit Ground News, slash Pacman. Scan the QR code or use the code Pacman in the app to start. The link is in the description. I had a conversation on Substack Live with activist Jessica Craven. Jessica is awesome. We're going to listen to that conversation now. You can watch these substack lives when they are live as a free subscriber on my substack Substack dot David Pakman, Dotcom Jessica Craven. Let's check it out.

[Jessica Craven]

Well, we are live. It is great to welcome Jessica Craven and also to say hello to your audience. Jessica, this is so cool. You know, we are on some. It sounds very ominous, but signal chats, but we've never talked to each other directly. We're, we're. I see you know, you in passing and then I, I follow you on Substack as well. But I was really interested in talking to you because in a sense there are similarities in what we do, but in a sense there are some really important differences and I'm really interested in the way that you're doing it. So, like, for some context, I have a podcast. It's Monday to Friday.

[David Pakman]

I do an hour a day.

[Jessica Craven]

I do eight to 10 stories.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Jessica Craven]

There's this structure kind of to what I do.

[Eli]

Right.

[Jessica Craven]

And I'm newer to Substack and building what I see as a sort of less concrete audience in a way. At the same time, I spoke to someone like Aaron Parnas, who he does instant reactions. It's less structured wherever he is, whatever news is breaking sort of thing. So I'd love to just hear a little bit from you about, like, your approach and how you got started with all this.

[Eli]

Sure. Well, and first of all, thanks for having me on. It's nice to see you here because, yes, we are in, like, other groups. There's a million groups. Right. But it's nice to see you here. It's nice to see people I know, people I don't know. Yeah. So Aaron, first of all, so great. I love his sort of like walking down the street and shooting, you know, the news while he's like, going to get coffee. What I am. So I was an activist first with a newsletter. So when Trump was elected the first time, I started with a newsletter, and that was not even really intentional. I was just like, I'm so upset about Trump. I have to do something and I'm going to share it with some people I know because they want to do something, too. So I started sending that out to a couple people and then more people asked to be added to the list. And that became a newsletter which I moved over to substack in like, I don't know, maybe 2020, 2021, but I'd been doing it since 2016, so. But always I was like, first, first I'm an activist, like I'm out, I'm phone banking, I'm canvassing, I'm teaching people how to do that stuff. And then I've got this newsletter which tells other people how to take action. And I started doing content creation in 2020, but really just because I thought I could recruit people to activism during COVID when I couldn't like go out. And it was very accidental that that took off the way that it did. So now and then when Donald Trump was elected the second time, my substack, which, you know, built slowly over the years but like it exploded. I think a lot of the people who had been doing sort of action related things stopped after the first Trump term. They were like, okay, we're good now I'm going to stop.

[Jessica Craven]

Yeah.

[Eli]

And I just kept going. So literally like a crazy explosion of new subscribers after he first started doing all of his, like when the coup started, basically. Um, so now I do the newsletter. I do a once a week podcast called Practivist Pod. Um, and then I. So the newsletter comes out really six days a week. To be honest, it's supposed to be five, but it always ends up being six. And then I make, you know, usually two or three pieces of content a day. So that's what I do. It's tiring. I don't do probably quite as much breaking news. Occasionally I'll grab something when it's right about to. It's breaking. But I will generally do more of sort of like, wow, look at this ridiculous. Like today I did a piece about Ted Cruz cutting funding for flood warning and weather warning, going on vacation and then coming back from vacation just to say, like, oh, we really need to have a better warning system and than calling people, you know, saying that people were being inappropriately political when they called him out for that. Like I'll make a video sort of putting all of those pieces together and talking about how that is emblematic of the Republican Party. So I guess it's a little bit more. It's not, it's less rapid response, but I do respond to what is happening in the news.

[Jessica Craven]

So one of the things I want to dig into a little more deeply that you said and actually does it look like our stream is working on your end? Because I see no one chatting and it says Zero people watching. I just want to make sure we're, like, genuinely live.

[Eli]

Live. Oh, yeah, No, I see people chatting, and we've got 531 people here right now.

[Jessica Craven]

Okay, good. So all that's broken is the indicator.

[David Pakman]

You.

[Jessica Craven]

If.

[David Pakman]

If the.

[Jessica Craven]

You want the. The thing to be working. The indicator I can do without. But that's fine.

[David Pakman]

That's totally fine.

[Jessica Craven]

I just wanted to make sure we were really live.

[Eli]

Yeah.

[Jessica Craven]

So one of the things that I think distinguishes what we do in all of the formats from what legacy and corporate media do is that if you ask if they're honest, what is the. What do you want your audience to do? Legacy and corporate media are like, we just want them to be in the audience.

[David Pakman]

Watch.

[Jessica Craven]

So we get ratings, and then we can sell ads to advertisers. Cool.

[David Pakman]

That. That.

[Jessica Craven]

That's what they want with us. There's all these other layers where some creators want to create activists. Right. Let me tell you what's going on in the world so that then you will go and be an activist in the world. Others want to encourage other people to become creators, Right? So creators who say, hey, we need 10,000 or 100,000 of us rather than whatever number like, we sort of have. And then there's sort of like, other iterations of this based on your writing. I know that getting people to be activists seems to be an important part of what you do and your motivation, but what else? What are the actions that you think are most useful for our audiences to participate in?

[Eli]

Right. That's a great question. Well, yes, I do want to get. What I want, really more than creating activists is I want people to get engaged in their democracy. So that's. It's a fine distinction, but not everybody is going to go out and knock doors, for example, or make phone calls. Some will, some won't. But what I want people to do is to pay attention, to do things, because it'll make you feel better as well as make you feel more empowered, but also to watch. I was just reading something today about how people who pay attention to the news voted for Kamala Harris by 15 points and that Trump wins or won overwhelmingly with people who don't pay attention to the news. And so part of the problem in America, as I see it, is just people who are literally like, I don't know what's happening because I don't understand it. That is the thing that I know there are some people who just don't want to know, but there are some people who I think would want to know if they understood it, but they're afraid to ask.

[Jessica Craven]

So can I give you a. Can I interject a MAGA counterpoint to that? Because I think it'll be really interesting if we presented that statistic to a lot of the MAGA folks. They would go, david, Jessica, what's going on is when you watch the news, you are lied to and tricked into voting for Kamala Harris. Like they would. They might acknowledge the statistic, but they would say it's part of the problem. You. And I might say, well, the more informed you are about the world around you, the more likely you are to say the better choice is Kamala Harris. They would say, of course, if you let yourself get indoctrinated by news media, you're going to vote for the wrong person. And that's like a structural problem we're up against right now.

[Eli]

It is a structural problem we're up against to a certain extent. But there's also this huge portion of the population, what was it, 90 million people who didn't vote at all. And these people are different. So I'll give you an example. When I was in physical therapy like a year ago, I was talking to my physical therapist week after week. I was in there for a while. Nice guy, you know, mid-20s, super, super nice. Slowly started to talk about politics a little, just cause I mentioned I worked in politics. We didn't talk about it for the first like five sessions. And then slowly it came out that he had not voted. Oh, sorry. This was after the presidential election, so he had not voted. And when we started to talk about it, I didn't say, that's so bad that you didn't vote at all. We just started talking and I started talking about like state legislatures and how it's really important, you know, that we participate because of like the book bans that are going on. And he said, wait, there are book bans? He had no idea. And so I started talking a little bit about just what happens, like what state legislatures control as opposed to what national we. And I kind of went on a little thing about it. And at the end he said, you know what? Nobody in my entire life has ever explained what you just explained to me. I literally did not know that. Thank you for telling me. Like, he didn't know the basics of how our government works. So yeah, there's definitely the people watching Fox News. Like, I never argue with those people. They're. I mean, hats off to people who want to. I don't. I am looking for the people who are actually Genuinely nice people, but who are just checked out, don't know what's happening, and are afraid that they shouldn't weigh in on politics because they don't understand politics. So it's, it's those people as well as the people who are already engaged. And I mean, I'm not going to argue with Fox News viewers or Trump voters about what, what is facts, because you, you can't, again, like, you just can't.

[Jessica Craven]

But that's really interesting. So there's a couple things there that might be interesting to like, dig into in a little more detail. One is one of the things I try to do and I think can be effective is a lot of people don't consume news or politics at all, right? We, as a creator in news and politics, I have a glass ceiling that is lower than for entertainment creators or sports because there's a category of people large in the US that just goes, I don't consume that stuff. One of the techniques I think is important is when people go, I'm not into politics. What they often mean is, I don't understand how who we vote for affects my life. That's like Coke, right? So if we can show them how that is. And it might not be at the presidential level as much, there are people in situations in certain states where it actually might be the state government or even the municipal. But if we can draw the line between, oh, the complaints you have about your life, while you say, I'm not into politics, directly relate to the politics of your municipality, your state or the federal government. So that's one thing that I, I think is really potentially effective at motivating some of those people.

[Eli]

100%. 100%. And I mean, so going back to the physical therapist, he had been talking about how eventually he wanted to work with senior citizens in nursing homes to help them with physical therapy. And so we started talking about Medicaid and how important it was that that stay funded. And then I just mentioned in passing that Kamala Harris had also wanted to extend Medicare to cover long term care and that that was stuff that Trump was gonna cut. Now at that point, he hadn't actually done what he has now done, but again, he did not know that and he was interested because it would affect him directly. And I think you are so right. When I've gone out and knocked doors or phone banked, the thing I get all the time, over and over, I don't do politics. Oh, I don't pay attention to politics. I'm not interested. And so then you gotta Find out. So what is interesting to you? What are you interested in? Because I challenge people. I can connect almost anything to politics. Right. I mean, you just can. Almost anything goes back to politics. So then you have that conversation, oh, you care about your health and you're into food. Do you know that like right now all the food inspectors are being fired. Like, we're now eating food that is like categorically less safe than it was before Trump was elected or whatever it is. So that, yeah, we talk about the unseen parts of government that are the things keeping us safe. And unfortunately, we are getting an object lesson in it right now. So instead of like shaking a finger at people, it is part of what I do to just sort of say, like, you see, this is why we fund the noaa. Right. We're not, it's not because we're like libtards. It's because that science is important during an emergency. And you're not going to persuade everybody. There's some people who just can't hear it. But you will persuade some people, I hope. I mean, I have to hope.

[Jessica Craven]

So this gets to the broader kind of political reality where every election we get to a certain point in the election cycle where it's, hey, if one side can turn out one and a half percent more people, then they win. It's, it's the, if we convert the non voters to voters, people with our sensibilities who aren't voting, we win every election. It's set.

[Eli]

Yeah.

[Jessica Craven]

My belief right now, and if you have kind of contradictory knowledge about this, I would want to hear it. My, my belief right now is that really the only person who genuinely did that in the recent very many election cycles was Trump in 2016, in the sense that he created, you know, Republicans before Trump, there were like three categories. There were like your pro business, low tax, Mitt Romney style Republican, you had your libertarian Republicans and then you had your religious right Republicans. So like a Ted Cruz type or something like that. Trump kind of actually activated people who did not really follow politics before.

[Eli]

Yeah.

[Jessica Craven]

They were drawn in by Trump's populist rhetoric, his celebrity and, and this is where I give him credit. Even if he was offering wacky solutions that would never work, identifying pain points for people. You've got a job where like you can't save anything and cost of living is high. Oh, that's China and trade, which I know and. Or it's brown immigrants from Latin America. He was wrong on the fact, but he connected to some pain points. And I think that more than any recent presidential candidate. Trump actually activated prior non voters in 2016 in a way that arguably won him the election.

[Eli]

Yeah.

[Jessica Craven]

What's your sense of that?

[Eli]

Oh, no, I think it's absolutely true. And I think he did it in again in 2024 to a certain extent. And actually, you know, it's something I think that Barack Obama also did. And I think it's something that we're seeing right now with Zohra and Mamdani. So I think. And Bernie Sanders. I think it may be that it's not so much about the party as it is about the person and what they're talking about. And they're, in a weird way, their authenticity. Now, Trump, of course, lies when he opens his mouth. Right. But people perceive him as not giving a fuck what people think about him, excuse my language. And being who he is, unafraid. And that's something that people really crave right now. But I'm not sure that people actually crave what he's actually delivering at all.

[David Pakman]

Exactly.

[Eli]

I think people are really drawn to that thing. And I just was reading something about this today about where do we find a. It doesn't have to be another Trump. It can be a Mamdani or it can be an Obama or someone who just accepts, excites those young voters and typical non voters who just are not excited by your Chuck Schumers and your Hakeem Jeffries, who, frankly, I'm not excited by either and, you know, at all, like, at all. So I think there is a solution out there. But yes, there is. Like, we definitely have to let go of some institutional stuff that for whatever reason, the Democratic establishment has a really hard time letting go of. And that is unfortunate.

[Jessica Craven]

But I want to get back to the Schumer Jeffries thing because there's something really interesting there. I'm curious about your. Your audience. One of the things that you reminded me of, I don't know if you saw this interview Trump did. It might have been like September, August, maybe October with this. These guys called the Nelk Boys. Does this ring a bell?

[Eli]

I probably didn't watch it. I have a hard time watching Trump, so I will. Typically.

[Jessica Craven]

Totally understandable. It's basically this podcast of guys hanging out. They do pranks, they've got products, they sell. They're sort of socially on the right. Okay. So Trump goes and he sits with them for I don't know if it was an hour or two. And he told a lie a minute. He promised things that are impossible. All of the stuff that Trump does But it appeared unscripted because it almost certainly was. It appeared as though there were no limits on what they were allowed to ask Trump because there probably were no limits and, and came off as genuine and authentic in a way that as totally divorced from what are you going to do with the tariffs? Right.

[David Pakman]

Didn't matter.

[Jessica Craven]

Didn't matter. It generated an environment that I don't see the left, with very few exceptions, really generating right now. And I think it helped him very clearly.

[Eli]

Yeah, right. But and you, by the way, I'm sorry, I've got tree cutters outside. I hope it's not too noisy on this video. If so, maybe I can cut it out. You look at this video and I'm sure you've seen it of I don't mean to keep returning to Mom Donnie, but this video of him that came out yesterday of him walking down the street trying to make a campaign video, and people keep coming up to him to talk to him and get a selfie with him because they love him so much, people of all stripes and the kind of genuine response he has with them, again, that is what people are looking for right now. They just want someone who is authentically themself. And yes, I think that Trump manages to communicate that, even though to me, I just see total fraudulence all the way through. But like, it, it gives that to the people it needs to give it to. But I think that that also people are willing to see it somewhere else as well. The people are open to seeing it in other people. Not all people maybe, but a lot of people. So. Yeah, interesting.

[Jessica Craven]

So on Schumer and Jeffries, I'm going to give you kind of the lay of the land of my audience's view on Democrats right now as I understand it.

[David Pakman]

And if I'm wrong, I know my.

[Jessica Craven]

Audience will correct me. But for the most part, my audience kind of hates just about every Democrat right now. And over the last month, I've interviewed Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Jamie Raskin, variety of people. Gavin Newsom is another example. PHIL murphy, Governor's okay, yeah, for the most part, my audience hates all of them. And I am curious as to where your audience is on the Democratic Party. And my view on this is as follows. I don't think Chuck Schumer is an exciting elected official. I think a lot of these folks, like Cory Booker and others, have a lot of the right sensibilities, some good ideas, but are part of a machine that is not really exciting or motivating anybody right now. And also I all I recognize, or at least I think that to get some of the success, some of the systemic change that I'd like to see that might get us better candidates, I don't know if it'll happen with Democrats, but I know it's not going to happen with Republicans. And so I end up in this prisoner's dilemma situation almost where I go, listen, in the two party system we have, with the campaign finance system we have first past the post elections in most of the country, I've got to go with the better option.

[Eli]

Yeah.

[Jessica Craven]

And usually that's a Democrat. Yeah, I don't know that that's kind of where I am. What's your sense of where your audience is on Democrats right now?

[Eli]

Oh, yeah, I mean, I. Look, I am an elected member of the Democratic Party in California, so I'm a delegate to the state party and I hate it. I hate the meetings, I hate most of the shit I hear at the party. I don't like. I can't stand sort of party talking points. Like, I just don't like that stuff. The reason I'm still there is, first of all, it's a four year term and I ran for it, you know, a while ago. But also because if everybody walks away from the party structure, the party still exists and it's still generating politicians who are going to run in races, but there's no one there going, hey, wait a minute, you need to be talking about climate change more or whatever. So having said that, I really, I feel antagonistic towards Jeffries and Schumer and I feel bad about that because they're probably both like super nice people and I think that under normal circumstances maybe they'd be fine, but we're not under normal circumstances. So I see them as an obstacle to our progressing. For me, if we want the party to get back, some of the people who have left, they need to resign. It's just straightforward. It's like a corporation. If you're failing and your sales are down and your brand is damaged, you replace the people at the top. It's so straightforward to me. But power clings to power, man. It's really hard to dislodge power if you're a student of history. You know, anybody who gets power becomes addicted to having power and it's hard to get them out. So I don't love a lot of the people that you listed. On the other hand, I do love Elizabeth Warren. I think it's dangerous to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have some people who are great legislators who are working their asses off. Elizabeth Warren stayed up, like, three nights in a row to try to block this bill. And when they failed and it passed, she got into her car and made a video where you could tell she had just been crying her eyes out. She looked exhausted. If people are like, that's not good enough for me, a person who is literally fighting for consumers all day, every day, then I don't know what people want. Like, at that point, I get very annoyed with perfectionism because the. The. The best is the enemy of the good that we can actually get.

[Jessica Craven]

So, you know, funny anecdote about Elizabeth Warren. And so I've been interviewing her off and on since before she was ever senator, interestingly. And I just interviewed her two weeks ago in D.C. at the Senate. And I. I've always liked Elizabeth Warren. And I remember back in 20, did she. It's a time warp. She ran in 2016 to be the Democratic nominee. Right. Or was it 20?

[Eli]

20. 20.

[Jessica Craven]

Okay.

[Eli]

She ran. She ran in 2020.

[Jessica Craven]

It was 2020. It's a time warp. So I remember saying to my audience, hey, you know, I'm a Bernie guy. Elizabeth Warren's my second choice.

[Eli]

Yeah.

[Jessica Craven]

And a lot of my audience said, david, how dare you? Elizabeth Warren, she's part of this wing. Or she made her money in this industry. And I said, guys, listen. I look at the voting records and policy positions. She's the second most progressive senator at the time. Bernie was the first. He's the second. So I'm telling you, she's my second choice. And there were people who understood that and got it in my audience, but there was also, like, a loud contingent that was sort of like purity testing a little bit. And that's what sometimes worries me about. About the movement that I think we're kind of loosely a part of here, which is the right. Is really good, at least for the purposes of winning elections, at saying, everybody, come on in. Differences. Forget about it. You don't like Kamala, come on in. Or you're questioning, come on in. And sometimes I think that a little bit of the litmus testing hurts us when it comes to winning elections.

[Eli]

Oh, beyond. I mean, I think that the. The purity testing is the single most destructive thing in our party and in our giant tent. I do. I mean, I think that, you know, the decision that Kamala Harris wasn't good enough because. Fill in the blank. So I'm gonna vote third party or I'm not gonna vote. Killed us.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Eli]

And I could see it coming a Mile away. I saw it a year before the elections. I was like, these are. There are outside issues that are going to kill us. And they did. And they're worthwhile outside issues. They're things I believe really passionately in, too. But lots of people on our side don't have the ability to say, like, the good has got to be good enough right now if we can't get the best. And obviously, I have to think about what will be best for the most marginalized people who we're now seeing suffer in ways that are absolutely catastrophic because Kamala Hearst wasn't quite good enough on every issue. That shit is gonna kill us. So in a certain sense, I have a lot of sort of, I want the best, but I also want what is attainable and what politics is, the art of what's achievable. Right. We have a lot more work to do to get people on our side to understand that. And unfortunately, the voices that refuse to accept that are often the loudest. And I feel that they are, in their own way, although they are claiming to be, for this thing that is the best. It's actually very cynical. It's very, very cynical to destroy what is actually possible because you can't have what you demand. And it's been, you know, I live in Los Angeles. I'm watching lives ruined every fucking day. And a lot of them. I'm watching families be tortured. And to say that that makes me wish that people could have just voted for Kamala Harris instead of demanding perfection is really an understatement. It's heartbreaking what's happening here. It's sickening what's happening here.

[Jessica Craven]

Maybe we could talk about that briefly. In the last few minutes we have, I mean, I'm seeing a lot of speculation, I guess, that what's happening in Los Angeles is maybe a test case for how would communities react if Trump went for the martial law under whatever pretense might happen. And on the one hand, it sounds hyperbolic and exaggerated. On the other hand, I don't know. I mean, you're. You're there. What. What's your assessment of it?

[Eli]

I don't know. I mean, I. I don't know. I. With Trump, you just never say never. Like everything we thought maybe he would do, maybe he wouldn't do, like, he's doing all of it. So I try to stay in the day that we're in right now. It is directed at, you know, almost exclusively the immigrant population. And so what I'm looking for and what most people living here are just, like, it's very reactive right now. How can we help? Oh, God, they're in MacArthur Park. Let's go. You know, who needs. People are literally texting me every day like, I have an undocumented, you know, house cleaner, and she can't leave her house. Like, how do I help her? What do I like? So that's what we're doing right now, is trying to help people eat when they can't safely leave their houses. So what Trump is gonna do? Yeah, I think he's definitely pushing the envelope to see how far he can get, and that's why it's really, really important. You know, people went out to MacArthur park yesterday and, like, Karen Bass showed up there, and they did leave. I mean, there was no need for them to be there. There was nothing to invade. But it feels like their force is overwhelming, so what's the point? But actually, I feel that resistance is still really effective. And, you know, we just have to do it. It's literally the question of, like, what would you have done in Nazi Germany? Like, right now, we are being asked to stand up for the immigrant community. And so we'll stand up for the next community when that time comes, if it comes. But right now, that's who we're standing up for.

[Jessica Craven]

So I really want to thank you. We've been speaking with Jessica Craven. If you are a follower of mine on Substack, make sure you're subscribed to her. If I'm new to you, I would be humbled if you are one of Jessica's viewers. If you also subscribe to my Substack, really appreciate your time and your insights and really just keep up the great work.

[Eli]

Thank you. I'm so glad to be here. It was really nice to talk to you. I enjoyed it so much, David. And thank you, everybody, for being here.

[Jessica Craven]

All right, we'll talk to you soon. Take care.

[Eli]

See you later.

[Jessica Craven]

Bye.

[David Pakman]

These days, sadly, it's less a question of if your personal information will be leaked. It's more a question of when will it happen? And this is why I use Aura, our sponsor. Aura monitors the dark web. Your financial accounts, your credit, and will let you know with real time alerts if any of your personal information has been exposed or if someone tries to use it to steal your identity. Could be your social, could be bank logins, your credit file. Aura keeps an eye on all of it 24 7, so you're not blindsided by fraud. It's like having a digital bodyguard with aura that never sleeps, scanning for threats able to warn you before real damage is done. Aura also includes award winning antivirus software to protect your devices from malware, phishing and ransomware. And Aura also gives you a Secure password manager, US based support that's always available and up to $5 million in identity theft insurance if the worst were to happen. One app does the work of several and for me it's worth it for the peace of mind, for my family and for myself. You can try Aura for free for 14 days at aura.com/pacman that's a ura.com/pacman to try it free for 14 days. The link is in the description. Your personal data is everywhere and you might not even know people. Search sites and data brokers are quietly publishing your name, address, phone number, even things like property records, political views. It is not just creepy, it's dangerous because scammers and fraudsters and shady marketers can use this information every day. Our sponsor Incogni solves the problem for you. Incogni contacts the data broker sites on your behalf and forces them to delete your data. The data brokers are legally obligated to comply and Incogni handles the entire process for you. Incogni is now taking this even further with their custom removals feature included in the unlimited plan. They've got their 250 plus sites where removal is automated. But if you find your information anywhere else you can custom submit that and they will have it removed manually. This is serious protection. Using Incogni can cut way down on the spam calls and the messages that you get. Fewer risks, more control over your identity. Try it Risk free for 30 days and get 60% off an annual plan when you go to incogni.com/pacman that's incogni.com/Pacman for 60% off. The link is in the podcast notes. Well, this is very awkward for Donald Trump. Trump's the guy who promised the largest deportation program in American history. He's deporting way fewer people than Barack Obama and it's reportedly driving him insane. Now this is the type of story where I should upfront disclaim. I don't think mass deportation is a mark of success. I think it's often inhumane. It's disruptive to families, it's disruptive to communities. It's really something that riles up the base more than it solves any real problems. But Trump does believe that deportations are the metrics. He's made that clear over and over again. He's promised to deport more than anybody. And by his standard, he's failing badly. Now, let me give you the numbers. Obama deported more people in a single year.

[Donald Trump]

Obama?

[David Pakman]

Yeah, that guy. Over 438,000 in 2013 than Trump has ever come close to. Trump tried to ramp it up during his first term. He's trying to ramp it up against now in 2025, but he is falling very, very short. In April, deportations were around 17,000, more than under Biden at the same time last year, but nowhere remotely close to Obama levels. Trump would need to more than double the current pace and sustain it and make up for lost ground. It's not happening and Trump knows it. Now, let's talk not about who gets to brag about deporting more people, but let's talk about the underlying reality here. Trump launched these flashy immigration raids across the country. California deployed the National Guard. He's involving the irs. He told half a million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to voluntarily self deport. Sort of like the landlord saying, I'm kicking you out, but only if you want. It's not working. And Trump is furious. And now Trump wants more money for immigration enforcement. Because when your plan fails, apparently the answer is more money and more cruelty. Now, here's the kicker. Trump recently admitted on Troth Central that after talking to hotel and farm executives, he's sort of having second thoughts about the deportation of longtime workers because he says it's hard to replace people in those jobs. So think about the big picture of what's going on. Trump is furious that he's not deporting enough people. He's worried that if he deports more people, it'll be bad for business and bad for some of his donors. And this is the supposed stable genius immigration strategy. And the real question we need to be asking, asking here is what would work if we wanted a more sensible and logical immigration and deportation policy, given that countries have a right to enforce their borders and immigration policy and they have a right to deport people. If we were serious about actually addressing this holistically, rather than just, I want the biggest deportation numbers, what would you do? Well, you would do a few things. Number one, you would once and for all finally put in place serious pathways to legal status for long term undocumented migrants. Millions of undocumented immigrants have lived and worked in the US for decades, legalizing their status through a fair process that doesn't allow violent criminals access to that process, which I don't know anyone on the left that is pushing for that. It'll keep Families together. It'll strengthen the economy. It'll reduce the fear that is palpable in immigrant communities. Trump doesn't want to do that. Number two, streamline legal immigration. We have such a backlog for visas and green cards that the bureaucratic nightmare encourages people to do it illegally. If you speed up the process, raise the caps, make the system more user friendly, you'll reduce the incentive for illegal crossings. Three, target the smugglers and the traffickers. Don't go after the workers and the families. Focus on enforcement, on organized crime and human trafficking, not the day laborers and the parents dropping kids off at school. It's smarter, it's safer, it's also more effective. Number four, you got to rebuild trust with local law enforcement because when you use the aggressive tactics of trust Trump, you make cities less safe because immigrants stop reporting crimes. Community policing models are something to look at. Number five, we've got to deal with the root causes abroad. As I've said before, people don't flee their homes for fun. If you can make money and be safe where you have community, you will almost certainly stay there. And so poverty, violence, political instability, all of that stuff, the US can help reduce the need for people to say, I'm going to chance going to the US Illegally if we stabilize the source countries. And the number six, you got to create some real labor protections instead of deporting exploited workers. Hold the exploitative employers accountable because not only do we focus on the workers, not the employers, very often the undocumented workers face wage theft and other circumstances that they don't feel comfortable reporting because they know that their status is of course undocumented. Now all of that stuff Trump's not interested in, he's just not. He doesn't really care about solving a problem. He wants outrage, fear and performance. So he wants to create a crisis. Point fingers, fundraiser, ask for accolades. He promised the base mass deportations. He bragged that Biden had open borders and he can't even out deport Obama. So instead of more raids and more guards and more bad ideas, try something humane and sane. That will work. But that's not going to make as good of a truth social post, is it? This is wild. A top Ford executive nuked Trump's economic policy right to Lara Trump's face. Lara Trump, full time MAGA hype woman. She thought she was tossing a softball during this feel good segment. A one on one with the CEO of Ford, Kumar Galotra. And she says, what would you ask Trump for? And he doesn't miss a beat. He Goes, don't do the tariffs. No, no, no. Don't do the damn tariffs.

[Jessica Craven]

If there was one thing that you would ask President Trump, maybe Congress to.

[David Pakman]

Do right now that would allow you.

[Eli]

Maybe to create even more jobs than Ford already does, what's one thing they could do?

[Lara Trump]

Maybe I'll ask for two.

[David Pakman]

Okay.

[Eli]

Okay.

[Lara Trump]

One would be the parts tariffs, as I. As I said, because we can't make all the parts here. And if the tariffs are high on the parts, including steel and aluminum, that actually hurts our economy. So that would be one thing. The other thing would be one national standard for fuel economy, greenhouse gases. The administration is already working towards it. We're working with the EPA and other agencies to get that done. That would be great because it's very complex for us not to have one standard nationally. In the end, we're one country, which is that one national standard.

[David Pakman]

You can practically hear the gears grinding in Lara's head as she realizes this guy is saying, trump's primary economic policy, his core economic talking point, is bad for American car manufacturers. Wow. Now, I think it's important to do an honest review. Right. The tariff program, bad for American businesses and manufacturers. The emissions rollback of Trump, bad for efficiency, bad for the environment, increasing costs. Trump's entire America. First thing is making it harder for Ford to create jobs in the U.S. what's great about this, this is. It really wasn't a partizan hit. This was a business leader, chief operating officer, actually, is dealing with the nuts and bolts, metaphorically and literally, of running Ford says the trade war, the deregulation, these are stunts. These are bad for business. These are bad for our jobs, the jobs that we create or don't create. And therefore, it's bad for the economy. And it happened right with Larra Trump, who was probably expecting some kind of canned answer about tax cuts or patriotism or whatever the tax cut, the talking point of the day was. But here is an executive at one of the most arguably important or notable companies in the United States saying, these policies aren't good for us. These policies are costing us money. And this is what happens when you run the government like a reality show and you treat economic policy like a press release. The people who do the building end up saying, hey, this is going to cost us. This is going to cost jobs. It'll raise the cost of our finished product. That will be bad for American consumers, it will be bad for the workers. And Larra Trump just sits there. Oh, okay. Oh, I see. What more evidence do we need that the entire economic framework that this president has put together is bad for America. Then American corporate executives telling us this is bad for our companies. Does Lara Trump care? Probably not. She going to tell Donald? Probably not. But at least the guy from Ford is saying it. Today's show is sponsored in part by Lucy Breakers. This is a tobacco free nicotine pouch with a capsule that can be broken to release extra flavor. Such a better option than smoke or vapor. Lucy breakers come in 4 or 8 milligrams strength. You can choose Mint, Apple, Ice, Mango Berry, Citrus. Also check out Lucy's regular nicotine pouches and Nicotine gum which come in their own varieties of flavors. And you can subscribe for convenient home delivery. If you're not completely satisfied, lucy offers a 30 day money back guarantee. Try a tobacco free nicotine alternative. Join the countless people who Lucy has helped go to lucy.co use code PACMAN for 20% off your first order. That's lucy co. Then use code PACMAN for 20 percent off. The link is in the podcast notes Lucy products are only for adults of legal age. Every order is age verified. Warning. This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Many of us know all too well about the sticking, rubbing and chafing that you can get with traditional underwear. Our sponsor, Sheath Underwear have created unique boxer briefs with multiple ergonomic compartments in the front which prevents skin on skin and that means everything stays separate, comfortable, dry and cool. You will have a boost of confidence when you're out and about. I've known so many people who were skeptical about those compartments. Friends who say I heard that ad for sheath. What about those compartments? And then they try it and then they're amazed at the comfort and breathability. When they finally try it. You will thank yourself. Plus Sheath has brand new materials like bamboo and mesh for even more cooling comfort. They will be the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you ever put on. No more sweatiness and chafing and readjusting, especially at the gym. It's a lifesaver. Give Sheath Underwear a shot. I've had a great experience. I think you will to head over to sheath underwear.com/pacman and get 20% off with code PACMAN. That's sh e a th underwear.com/pacman use code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes. All right, let's get into Friday feedback. You can always email info@david pakman.com we will feature comments on our substack, comments on YouTube, comments on Tik Tok Spotify. You never know, but you can always email info@david pakman.com Da lack on our subreddit wrote Trump will start a war because he thinks it will boost the economy he's ruining with his tariff war. I think war hawks in Trump's circle are feeding him the idea that starting a war with Iran will boost the economy and in turn improve his approval rating. Why is he so pro war now without solid evidence Iran has near term nuclear capabilities? There has to be something in it. You know, here's the thing. On the one hand, the idea of a war to unite and rally behind the president is not a crazy idea. It's not a foreign idea, it's not an unusual idea. At the same time, I don't know that early public opinion about the Iran engagement suggests that it really would boost public opinion. And so even if you believe that a war with Iran would help the economy, which I think is a question mark, I'll come back to in a moment. Even if you believe a war with Iran would help the economy, the American people a couple of weeks ago seemed so definitively against such an engagement that it might counteract whatever benefit Trump thinks he might draw economically. Now, on the question of would a war with Iran help the economy, here's the thing. There's often this idea that when you go to war, if you're the United States because you have this big military industry, it's great for all of the contractors, the Raytheons and Northrop Grumman and all these companies, but it also generates significant economic instability, stock market instability. It can lead to shortages or price spikes in related or affected goods, oil being one that comes to mind in the context of Iran. So even the case that that would boost the economy is less salient or clear to me. It wouldn't be unprecedented to start a war for reasons other than just we need to go to war. But I do think it's relevant to consider all of the ways in which it might not go so well. And then it becomes less clear that that's something that Donald Trump would necessarily do. I think if Trump wanted to start a war for some reason other than this war really makes sense, it would be just as a distraction, not because it would boost the economy or whatever the case may be. All right, Justin wrote, crazy how you sound like you're this is the wrong your of course crazy how you sound like you're betting against the US and rooting for any news you can spin to bad for this country. You know, this is sort of like the quintessential patriotism as a cudgel critique. If I point out that the government is screwing some stuff up and that the orange guy in charge doesn't have your best interests in mind, I must hate the country and be betting against it and hoping that it fails. But I see this as totally backwards when I point out bad policy. That's not un American, it's pro American. It's hey, you know what? I'm not okay with things that are bad for the average American. The opposite would be covering it up, right? Allowing unchecked executive overreach, not highlighting errors and failures. So here's the deal. I root for the US to live up to its ideals and what's in the law and due process and what the founders intended. Okay? When you say I'm betting against the United States, you're assuming that criticism is disloyalty, and I see that as a completely false tradeoff. You can say the US has done good things. And also, here's some stuff that's not good. And here are the people who were doing it. It's hard to think of a more pro America thing than that. Rooting against America. Give me a break, dude. All right, this is a good one. Gilg71 on Reddit jokingly asked why hasn't David covered the Ace Bailey situation with the Utah Jazz? The silence is deafening. Star forward Ace Bailey from Rutgers hasn't reported to the Jazz. Okay, this is about basketball, all right? This is a joke. If you don't understand the joke, why would I be talking about NBA and college basketball stuff? The joke is that it's very popular to go on the David Pakman show subreddit. It's very common. And see posts about why haven't I weighed in on this, why haven't I weighed in on that, why haven't I taken a position on X, Y, Z? And as I've explained many times before, the show is just what I feel like talking about. That's all it is. You know, I don't have layers of editors telling me what to do. I don't have executives saying what the show needs to be. It's just what I feel like talking about. And if you don't like what I feel like talking about, you can go to a show where you do like what they feel like talking about or what they are told to talk about by executives or editors. But I love the joke. The idea is this person wants me talking about Ace Bailey and I'm not talking about it. How dare I? Very often a better use of Time is, instead of making a post on my subreddit, it's just going and finding someone talking about the thing you want to hear about. All right, guys, please. Ok. Corwin Kratzman wrote on Spotify, listen. Listening to Elizabeth Warren, it clicked. What is wrong with Democrat versus Republican messaging? All the things she said are great, but what's the overall saying, the big idea? I don't know. She had a bullet point list. Republicans don't do lists. Make America great again. They've used it a bunch of times. Build the wall. Each of these are big ideas that excite people. I think that's part of why the no Kings protests were successful. Two words meaning end corruption, wealth inequality and money in politics. This is an analysis not unlike the one that I have made for a long time. You know, Democrats often over index on details. Let's publish a white paper and put in place a five step plan. Read from bullet points and then you lose people in minutes. And then Republicans come in with this vague but emotional and repeatable. Make America great again. Build the wall. This is why populist slogans stick. They appeal to feelings. Now that's a good and a bad in a way because you can make emotionally salient talking points stick but they don't really lead to follow through. And that's a problem with the populist rhetoric. They don't necessarily point to a particular policy. So I do think there is a lesson here from Corwin which is for the left to compete we need simple frames and big ideas that are emotionally resonant. Break down complex proposals into memorable mantras. End corruption, health care for all, whatever. Right? Repeat it relentlessly. Policy depth does matter. But if you don't have like a clear unifying narrative, you're just not going to cut through the noise. And Republicans absolutely understand that. Jim Cook wrote on Spotify, hey David, why don't you point out that if old establishment Democrats didn't move aside, we wouldn't have empty seats and we could block this thing. I suspect you are with the establishment purely for ego, relevancy and access. What do you actually stand for? So if I'm honest, I don't know what Jim's talking about. Why don't I point out that if old establishment Democrats didn't move aside, we wouldn't have empty seats and could block this thing. I know it's about the big beautiful bill, but I don't really know what Jim's talking about. But let me, let me kind of give you my take to the extent that I understand this, what do I stand for? I stand for accountability, transparency and policies that expand opportunity while protecting rights. That that's what I stand for. Okay. My core audience knows I've never been a Democrat. Often it's Democrats that are the better choice and I'll vote for them when they are. I criticize Republicans when they overstep. I criticize Democrats when they over underperform my establishment bona fides amount to. I've been doing a show for two decades. If the fact that I've been doing a show for two decades and now have over six and a half million followers across all platforms, if that grants me access, then that's why I've been granted access, because I've earned it based on doing this. It's not about placating power. Now as far as the whole move aside thing, you know, you've got to come to me and tell me about a specific person that you're talking about. There are procedures, there are rules, there's internal politics, there's primaries. If seats are empty, that can happen in different scenarios. As far as that goes, I don't really know what Jim's talking about, but I hope I've made clear kind of where I stand. Hieronymus wrote on Spotify, the reason corporate media is refusing to report on Trump's cognitive decline is because they are terrified he will either sue them to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, just ask ABC and cbs, or he will sic his FCC on them to potentially revoke their broadcasting license. This is a very good comment. Hieronymous is tapping into a real fear. It's an authoritarian environment that causes this. Trump's legal threats and Trump's regulatory powers intimidate outlets into silence. And I believe there is validity there because Trump has targeted all sorts of networks and publishers and if they start going after Trump and saying we need answers about the cognitive decline, they will probably get targeted too. Now the bigger story is why are outlets self censoring? Is it just that fear? Part of it is a risk assessment. Maybe we underreport on it instead of facing a billion dollar lawsuit. At the same time, if you believe that serious reporting about that issue could diminish Trump's power and make it harder for him to manufacture consent around, for example suing media outlets, then you would be well positioned to do it and say, hey, I might actually be protecting myself by covering such a story. Gogol Devon said. How do I get through to my MAGA family members? My father in law is under the impression that the Bill only kicks immigrants off of Medicaid. Illegal immigrants off of Medicaid. He refuses to accept that. He may be wrong. I'm afraid he's beyond help. But what would you do? Well, here's the thing. It's heartbreaking, but it's familiar. Your father in law may be beyond help. It's possible. Not everybody is savable. He may be trapped in an echo chamber where facts in reality, you know, bend to deeply held beliefs. You cannot force someone to see the truth if they've already decided they don't care. So if you go and show your father in law charts, I just don't think it's going to make a difference. Now what you can do is maybe to shift from here are the facts. I'm going to beat you over the head with them. To tell me why you believe this, use a genuine curiosity, sort of wrapped up with a Socratic method of questioning. Create a conversation. Why do you believe this? Who did you hear that from? Most people agree no one wants fraud. Most people agree seniors deserve health care. Frame these conversations around areas where there is agreement and then use the questions. How did you learn that? Where did you hear that? All right. Shay wrote in and said, david, no joke, but you should seriously leave. Why even bother to find out if ICE or DHS target you? Do you really want to take a chance on going to El Salvador or somewhere else? You have a family and a child. I wouldn't even entertain the possibility of this happening. They are literally building the camps and literally telling you guys it's going to happen. I wouldn't chance it. Leave while you freely still can. Your family is more important than the risk. Much love. What do you think? I'm a citizen here. Naturalized, yes. But I am a citizen. Do you believe that I am in an imminently risky situation? To the degree that Shay is pointing out? Let me know by emailing info@david pakman.com and of course leave a comment on the substack substack.david pakman.com We've got a great bonus show for you today. Sign up@join pacman.com to get yourself a membership or to gift a membership to one of the 3,000 people currently waiting for a gift membership. If you would like a free membership, go to David pakman.com/free membership register and you will get memberships for free in the order that you register. And finally, remember to get on my substack substack.davidpakman.com we'll see you on the bonus show. Have a great weekend. This is one of the most spectacular venues with all kinds of character and hospitality scenery. These people in this Kittedas Valley, they love when you come to see what they have to offer.

[JJ Harrison]

I'm JJ Harrison, Ellensburg Rodeo Clown and I want to invite you to the rodeo. Come hang out with us in Ellensburg. Great rodeo, great time. Two performances on Saturday. One is the Extreme Bulls of the Year event. Do not miss the Ellensburg Rodeo August 29th through September 1st. We'll see you there.

[Libsyn Ads]

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.