David Pakman (17:55)
You know, Trump saying Mar a Lago, like, the White House is a beautiful place. I think part of the reasons Alinsky is not super impressed with Mar a Lago is that it's sort of like dripping in gaudiness in a similar way to Kremlin and other facilities under Putin. And I just don't think Zelensky is impressed with that kind of Gilded Age, gaudy kind of stuff. Are we any closer to a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine after this meeting at Trump's house with Trump at the helm? Listen, I hope we are. I hope we are. But I struggle as I see Trump disoriented and confused about what even are the parameters here. I struggle to think that we are rapidly accelerating towards peace. Let me know what you think in a comment or send me an email info@david pakman.com all right, so we all know Alexa listens to us, recommends products based on our conversations. Metta retargets us based on our browsing and engagement history. Have you wondered what Chat GPT and Claude are up to with your conversations? We feed so much of our information to these AI chat bots. Thoughts, dreams, sensitive questions, business ideas. They take the information, tie it to your identity and they can sell that to third parties and governments. Chat GPT has the former director of the NSA on their board right now. That doesn't feel awesome. It took us a long time to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data. We don't have to make the same mistake with AI, and that's why I've started using Venice AI, our sponsor. Venice is a generative AI platform that is completely private and permissionless. They don't spy on you, Venice. I won't censor the AI. They have a safe mode which you can turn off for both text and image generation. Messages are encrypted. Your conversation history is only stored on your browser. I love the Pro Plan because I get upgraded features like uploading files, unlimited text prompts. Check it out if you want to use AI without censorship or fear of handing over your most intimate thoughts to a corporation or the government, go to Venice AI/pacman and use code PACMAN to get 20% off their pro Plan. The link is in the description as we approach the New Year, there are so many ways to support the independent media shows that you value, which will be particularly important as the midterm midterm elections are now just about 10 months away. A few easy ways to support this show number one become a member on my website. Join pacman.com we do an extra show every day for our members. Number two grab an item from our merch store at store.david pakman.com Number three become a substack premium subscriber at substack.david pakman.Com and of course so many free ways that cost nothing to support this show or whatever show you like. Subscribe on YouTube, share a video on social media, leave a like or a comment. Appreciate everybody. As we wrap up 2025 and head into 2026, I want to talk about the narrative of the anti war president and what that really means. There is a very specific and carefully crafted narrative that Donald Trump has spent years sort of cultivating and that many of his supporters have actually Fallen for. And it's the idea that Donald Trump is truly deeply anti war as a matter of principle. He's the guy who finally stood up to the deep state. He's the guy who rejects the forever wars of the neocons and of the Democrats. And on the campaign trail, Trump would repeatedly sell himself as the only real candidate and, by the way, the only president during his first term who didn't start any new conflicts. And for a long time, that branding was kind of sticking. It never really made sense, but it was kind of sticking. But if you now look at 2025, as we get ready to head into 2026, that is a narrative that is not just falling apart, it is reversed. Where now I look at Trump and I see a guy who is actively starting all sorts of new conflicts. You look at Trump's second term, and he is governing as a president who is quick to reach for military force. He's using military force more broadly. He's using it with fewer institutional checks than almost any modern predecessor. And hilariously, a lot of the same people who fell for Trump as the antiwar president are the people who fell for Tulsi Gabbard's grift as the only true liberal, the only actual Democratic candidate against the forever wars back when she ran for president in the Democratic primary. And it starts with something that might sound symbolic. Then we're going to get to the specific instances of aggression. But this year, the administration started informally. I say they say formally, but it's sort of informally referring to the Pentagon as the Department of War in all official communications and internal materials. Now, that might sound like a gimmick. You go, that's just that that's bluster. Well, it isn't really, because it reflects how this presidency now views the military. It doesn't view the military and war as a last resort. It views it as the default tool. That's our default. Let's get going with some kind of military intervention. And look at the examples we have from the first year of Donald Trump's second term. The US Started executing airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean as part of what the administration called Operation Southern Spear. Now, Trump said this is a maritime operation against narco traffickers. In practice, it was a naval blockade of Venezuela. It is a formal. Sorry. It is a form of an act of war without formally declaring that it is a war. And we know that at least dozens of strikes were carried out. It resulted in over 100 deaths. And this was the first major US kind of kinetic action in South America since the invasion of Panama in 1989. That is a huge escalation under the anti war president Donald Trump. Then came Nigeria. Now, I know that many of you are probably saying Nigeria, this happened just days ago. We had a holiday here in the U.S. maybe people didn't, didn't see this. Days ago, Trump authorized what he described as numerous perfect strikes against Islamic State affiliates in northwestern Nigeria. He made the announcement on Truth Social where he said, quote, tonight, at my direction as commander in chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scum in northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing primarily innocent Christians at levels not seen for many years and even centuries. I have previously warned these terrorists if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay. And tonight there was. The Department of War executed numerous perfect strikes as only the United States is capable of doing under my leadership. Our country will not allow radical Islamic terrorism to prosperity. May God bless our military and Merry Christmas to all, including the dead terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues. No authorization vote, no public discussion, just missiles. The anti war president. Earlier this year we saw Operation Rough Rider in Yemen, the largest US Military operation in the Middle east since Donald Trump's first term. This huge air and naval campaign against Houthi targets that resulted in hundreds of casualties and escalated regional tensions there as well. Then we have Iran, where over the summer, Trump authorized direct stealth bomber strikes on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites. Not a warning shot, not a symbolic thing. It was an offensive gamble and it pushed the region closer to a full scale war. So by no serious definition is this an anti war presidency. Trump didn't end the wars. He isn't acting like an anti war president. He's not treating military force as a last result. With diplomacy is the ideal and the goal. He is using the military almost like a messaging tool. The strike in Nigeria becomes a Christmas announcement to his base. A blockade in the Caribbean is proof of how tough Trump is. And you could make the case, I believe pretty accurately that this is more dangerous than traditional interventionism. When a president sees missiles as a way to project dominance rather than as part of an actual strategy, the guardrails disappear. If presidents see missiles as part of a strategy, then and we might go, I don't think it's the right tactic for the strategy. That is one sort of disagreement. But Trump is merely using missiles and bombings to project strength and dominance. And there's no diplomatic off ramp when it's not really about Resolving conflicts. What's also telling is the reaction, or lack thereof, from his so called antiwar base. The people who spent years saying Trump's the anti war guy. These Democrats are obsessed with starting wars. Hillary would start four wars. Biden would start four wars. Trump then launches attacks in Nigeria, escalates in Yemen, authorizes more bombing in a single year than previous administrations did in four. And it suddenly becomes peace through strength. And they go, no, Trump knows what he's doing. They aren't really anti war, they were anti Obama war, they were anti Biden war, but they don't care when it's Trump. A functional democracy has to treat war as something that is difficult to start. There would have to be debate, There would have to be transparency. There would have to be authorization. Trump's dismantled all of it and he governs with this impulsive escalation and almost no oversight. Thirty years from now, I hope that 2025 won't be remembered as a period of restraint under an anti war president. It should be remembered as a moment when the world's most powerful military started to be the personal instrument of political theater for President Donald Trump. So Trump is not the anti war president. He's the most unpredictable war president that we've ever had, but maybe one of the most bloodthirsty as well. The reaction to online photos of Donald Trump's hands has gone off the rails. And we've got to reset what's going on now. This is not about some secret disease. It is not about wild speculation. It's not about turning a blurry picture into a specific diagnosis. This is about transparency, or more accurately, the lack of it. Let me tell you what's going on and the next shoe that has dropped. Trump's almost 80 years old. He's the president. His health matters. He has a long history of hiding, minimizing, or lying about his medical state. The context people keep skipping when they look at just a picture is that we have years of Trump propagandizing about his health and lying about it. We've now seen the bruising on the tops of Trump's hands. In newer pictures, what looks like an indentation or hole on Trump's left hand has appeared. On its own. It proves nothing. There are normal explanations for any one of these things, but the totality of the picture is now raising real concerns. It's even getting more mainstream coverage. The Daily Beast with a piece about it, pointing out that the latest images of Trump's hands directly undercut the story that we have gotten from Caroline Levitt Donald Trump's press secretary. It is not, excuse me, it is not just Trump's right hand. It is also Trump's left hand that is now raising questions, including what some are describing as a whole. On that left hand. We have still images from yesterday with President Volodymyr Zelensky. We have a better image, which does seem to show some kind of around something or other there. So there's a few stories here. Number one, they refuse to explain it honestly. We were told it's from handshaking. Trump doesn't shake hands with his left hand. He once bragged about acing a cognitive test and being in perfect health. But we get very little information or even braggadocio when it comes to what's going on with Donald Trump's hands. And that is where a lot of the concern is coming from. So the bruising on the backs of Trump's hands is arguably common in older adults. The combination of bruising plus an indentation that looks circular. Listen, this increasingly points in one direction, which is some kind of iv. Could be routine bloodwork. But would Trump have that on both of his hands? It's kind of less likely, is it that there is some kind of treatment for which Trump is regularly getting IVs in both hands? That's the natural speculation, but we have nothing to go on. There's no acknowledgment, there's no explanation, there's no update, there's no, oh, you know what Trump's regularly getting, you know, these lifestyle IVs that are now in or Trump is getting, and I'm not even going to speculate, but fill in the blanks. The sorts of things for which you would regularly have IVs in both your left and right hand. Some of them are relatively serious. Now, if this were just normal aging, they could be transparent. Tell us what's going on, and we would go, oh, okay, we had a question, we now have an answer. Trump's almost 80. No big deal. But we have a very different situation here. People wouldn't be zooming in on his hands. If there was a baseline of trust, people wouldn't be saying, what are the list of? What is the list that. That this could be explained by. If we felt all along like this was a White House that was transparent one about Donald Trump's health. So this isn't about saying, we now have a picture of a hole in Trump's left hand. We know exactly what it is. That would be irresponsible. This is about saying, in the midst of this total lack of transparency. We now have images of yet another problem. It's a visible sign of a medical intervention. They won't tell us what it is. They refuse to explain what's going on. It's handshaking. We are increasingly lacking confidence that we are ever going to get the truth until it's arguably too late. When the president's health is this black box, people will notice every new data point. And the newest data point is it's the left hand. Now, very clearly, Trump only shakes hands with his right. It's now the left hand and it looks like the sort of thing where you would be giving some kind of medication or drawing blood for reasons which we can only speculate about as to why he would be so regularly having blood drawn from both hands that he is bruising and and that visible round thing on his left hand. So this is only going to grow if and until we get a real explanation that seems genuine and transparent. This is only going to grow. Daily Beast is now covering it. New York Times, CNN have even started to cover it, albeit maybe somewhat reluctantly. What do you believe is going on here? Leave me a comment. Send me an email info at David pakman dotcom In 2025, Christian nationalism is no longer fringe. It is in policy. It is on school boards. It's in the courts. And it is not just a threat to atheists or non believers. It is a threat to pluralism, equality and even democracy itself. And this is why I support the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They're one of our sponsors. They have been fortifying the wall between church and State since 1978. Their work is critical whether it's legal action against unconstitutional government prayer or stopping religious indoctrination in public schools, or defending the rights of nonreligious Americans. If you want to do something meaningful before the year ends, something that is aligned with your values, join the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Your support helps keep religion out of government and reason in the public square. Or you can gift a membership in someone else's name as a holiday gift. Visit ffrf.us/winter25 or text my first name David to 511511 before December 31st. This isn't about being against religion, it's about defending the freedom not to be told how or whether to believe by the government. The link is in the description text. Fees may apply. It is great to welcome back to the program today. Dr. John Gartner, former assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and also founder of Duty to Warn. It's great to have you back on today. I really appreciate your time.
