The David Pakman show David Pakman dot com. Okay, let's spend some time today, talking about Medicare for all Medicare for all is becoming a bigger and bigger part of the twenty twenty democratic primary. It rightly so I mean it makes sense. This is one of the biggest issues. How are we going to pay for health care? How are we going to organize health care and there are now lots of inaccurate things that are being said about Medicare for all proposals and there Lots of inaccuracy also about allegations about the positions of different candidates around Medicare for all. So what I want to do today an I hope that this will be useful and understood in the good faith that I'm presenting it.

I want to go through the bad? humans against Medicare for all, but I also want to bring up the more serious and sober critiques that are The areas in which we should be focused, because these are the stronger criticisms of the proposal so to set the stage generally. If you we're already triggered, because I might say something about Medicare for all- is not perfect. You've got to back to the real world. There is no political proposal that is perfect or without caveat or risks. Liabilities. This is the world we live in every every Bing has the other side of the ledger. Everything is risk versus reward. Everything is opportune versus liability, and what we want to figure out is what proposal or plan is on balance of the best and most efficient when it comes to health care for delivering the best, and

nice quality and most available care at the lowest cost we shouldn't be afraid, in serious adult conversations about discuss the pros and cons of any policy, even a policy that we think is the best one or better than the status quo, and in fact I would take it further argument. We want. We need to be prepared for when people argue against Medicare, for all. We know to be able to identify these with a serious arguments to be discussed versus the silly bad faith ignorant arguments that aren't really worthy of further exploration. My prediction is Most of my audience understands why I'm doing this and will like it and appreciate it, but I do know that there are people who will attack. Merely for talking about here are question marks that remain about Medicare, for all, which completely misses the point. So, first and foremost bad critiques of Medicare for.

There are many of these one that comes up often is the countries that have programs like Medicare for all Have small populations, the US is huge there for Medicare for all wouldn't work in the United States. This is a bad critique of Medicare. Overall number. One bigger population actually means that you're spreading the risk across more people, there's no one small group or people with a particular condition that can throw off the actuarial realities of what it costs to cover people. You can make the opposite case that actually, the bigger the risk pool the safer and more efficient and better price to something like Medicare for all would be. That's that's a bad argument now. Secondly, you can also disproved that by counter example, because there are many very large countries that have nationalized systems of different kinds. Germany has eighty three million people, their systems, not Medicare for all, but it is a system that is far better than the one we have in his elements of Medicare. For all.

Anna is hundred and thirty million people. I think you get the point now. That being said, you can make the case. What will make the US implementation more of a struggle or a challenge? Are the large rural areas of the United States, because large rural areas can be more of a concern in terms of providing access to health care services, but That's not an issue with Medicare for all, specifically that's an issue more broadly in a country that has a lot of rural areas and it has nothing to do with Medicare for all set bad argument that we hear about Medicare for all medic for all will lead to long waits for services and it'll lead to rationing of care and death panels. Death panels was one of the phrases that used to be. Run around. We already have those things there a shortage of dermatologists in much of the you s, you sometimes have to wait three or four months as a new patient.

See a dermatologist in all. But what would be considered like emergency? You know you might have skin cancer. It needs to be looked at right now. There already rationing in our system, because for profit insurance companies are deciding who's covered. What is covered when and how much You can already see defacto rationing and it impacts how people obtain avail themselves of care that they would like to have. There will sometimes be weights and there will sometimes be rationing under Medicare for all. It will be different under the current system, but it's not unique to Medicare for all, and it is not a unique criticism of Medicare for all whatsoever Then you get into the general. We can't afford it that tearable criticism, because we can't afford our current system. If the barometer affordability is people can get the care that would be medically suggested at a price they can afford. We already have a problem with affordability. Afford

Medicare for all is a question of political will. It's a question of deciding what kind system. Are we going to have and deciding to put in the means to pay for it? Now there are also will talk more about cost in a moment. There are also just really dumb criticisms of Medicare for all, like it's communism, these aren't remotely serious, I'm not even going to waste your time with that today, but just know that, if that's, if you hear those words in a critique of Medicare for all it's not a serious critique zero, let's now get to what are the more important and sensible critiques of Medicare for all. We all want to know what these are, so that we can be prepared, SIRI Actually, I hope people understand what I'm doing here, I'm not attacking Medicare for all. Despite the following critiques, it may, we still be the best system. This is how serious people evaluate important proposals we figure out. Strongest argument against it, and then Can we still defend this as the best policy? In light of those arguments? Does it stand up to scrutiny

remaining the best plan? First of all, just accepting that Medicare for all. Isn't the only way to get to you personal coverage. We should all be doing that this isn't a criticism. Ok, it's a reality! Lots of countries have universal coverage that people can afford without Medicare for all or something that would be equivalent in that country, but with other plants. I've talked about many of them. Medicare for all could still be. The best could still be the simplest. It could be the cleanest or not, but it's important not to say that Medicare for all is the only anyway to achieve health care for every, because there are many examples from around the world that are different. Second, the idea that costs will go down for every or almost everyone. That is a simple truth. It is possible that Constructeur Medicare for all so that costs goes down for most people, but

you look at serious analysis. You will see that in order for lost to go down for most people, you need either to justify drastically reducing what health care costs per person in the United States beyond just what the bureaucracy adds to the cost I'll get to that momentarily or you need a more modest plan in terms of what's covered and I'll explain that now. This is not my opinion. If you look at the work of the Urban Institute, which is left leaning, they say that to do exist exactly what Bernie wants to do over health care spending might actually go just the messenger here. If you do what Bernie wants to do in terms of taxation level, with more modest covered benefits, then the cost might go down for most people now. This is not an attack. Let's be adults, no system is perfect. There are many ways to set up a plan there. Leaning, analyses that say it is not as cut and dry

Bernie's numbers make it out to be now, that's ok, it might still be the best proposal we have, and it would definitely be more than what we have right now, but doing an analysis. So, let's with this issue of cost. For now the argument is right: now we have all these different costs. We've got employee paid health insurance premiums, employer contributions to health care premiums that many employers you've got your copays some people co insurance- you have an annual deductible, you have to meet. There is maximum yearly out of pocket, it all adds up and the idea is Medicare for all gets rid of all of that stuff and it gets replaced with a payroll tax that is shared by employees and employers and overall the cost comes down. This is in total claim that has some controversy around it. Even when you look at non partisan and even left leaning economists, it's possible,

that's the way it would work, it's not guaranteed. Ok, there are dense conomique papers, which I encourage you to read from good economists, for example, Robert Polling from the city of Massachusetts, who has consulted for Bernie Sanders. Who says the truth. Is we don't yet have all the details to say for sure that the middle class is definitely going to save? Let me again because here costs might go up slightly they to cover more so it might still be the trade we want to make and it still could be the best proposal for most people, but serious economists say it's a little early. We don't really have the data to say that costs are going to go down for almost everyone. The way that Bernie and Warren and others have been saying, it's not an attack or a defense on any candidate. This is just the reality about these proposals. Let's do something related to the cost peace Bernie has said

you raise the money from an employee tax and an employer tax. The employer tax is only going to hit companies that payrolls of two million or more per year. If you look at that, this generally believe that that tax, that the employers pay will be passed along to workers as either wage cuts or will delay future wage increases or will lead to companies, maybe not hiring as many people. That does I mean it's a bad plan that something economists say is not being accounted for in the broader economic impact of the proposals. That's a serious question. Now again, this my still be the best plan, but we don't want to pretend that every question is answered by the proposal that we have so far now. There's one other detail: Bernie and Elizabeth Warren haven't made clear who counts his middle class.

A big part of what they say is middle class. Total cost will go down. We need to know who counts as middle class in order to evaluate that. So far we haven't gotten. That doesn't mean anything's. Dishonest doesn't mean anything is on under that you know on toward, but we need to know that next, aside from who pays, there is the issue of total cost, and this is what I alluded to earlier There are left wing economists, serious economists who say propose rules for Medicare for all our drastically. Understating the cost to deliver care. A one example is an economist named Kenneth Thorpe. He was hired remember when Vermont was going to do state single payer he's not a right wing bomb thrower. He was hired by by Vermont to help implement state single payer, which ultimately didn't happen. Thorpe has said that as proposed, if we look at Bernie's twenty six, in Medicare for all plan, which is very similar to the one we have today. Seventy one percent of households overall

currently have private insurance, might end up actually paying more in total. When you account for the tax increases now they may have or access they may have more covered services. We still might want to do it, but the claim that everybody's costs will go down. This left wing econom he says there is a question mark around that. That's just one analysis, but it's an important one and it's really important to understand where the discrepancy comes from. Thorpe says that Bernie plan the numbers Bernie uses they change out when they change out from a private insurance system to a single payer system. They assume that our per person, health care spending, will drop to healthcare spending per person in countries like Canada and Australia. This is an assumption that never happen and it could take a long time. What I mean by that is Canada is forty. Eight percent, less per person in the United States on health care,

Australia spends fifty six percent less in person than in the United States. Part of that discrepancy is the bureaucracy built into the system that we have and when you get a more efficient system for paying like Medicare for all, there will be a savings, but there has not been a good answer to. Why are we assuming total costs will go down to what they are in Australia and can because there are many other reasons, including just how things are priced here in the United States, that will keep costs higher, and that throws the numbers of most of these Medicare for all proposals out of line. Now you can make the case once a single payer system. The government is going to be able to negotiate costs of all services all the way down to what Canada and Australia have. That is a bit. Domestic by serious analysis? So, like that's a question mark So does this mean Medicare for all is bad? No, it doesn't. Does this mean

care for all is worse than what we have now. Definitely not it would be better. Does it mean we should abandoned Medicare for all as a platform abs, totally not especially because remember a lot of Democrats already oppose it and it's going to be a negotiation, no matter what happens in November, of twenty twenty but we need to understand the details, because there are good faith questions about Medicare for all that people on the left are bringing up and being brought up, because we want the best system. We want to anticipate what argument could be made against it and we want to be able to distinguish bad arguments like the US has too many people for this to work, terrible argument or it's communism, not even an argument versus listen. If you hit the cost assumptions in most of these proposals, they see idealistic and potentially beyond what the facts support. That's the important thing here and if we go through the

we might still decide Medicare for all is the best system or I'd say Medicare for all is a great system that has problems, and here is another system, not the lane public option, but various other ways of getting to universal coverage that have other issues but resolve some of the issues of Medicare. For all. This is how we have to think through these serious problems, and I think that's why it's worth taking the time to go through it. Let me know what you think: I'm on Twitter at the pachman, the show is on Twitter, at David PAK The David Pakman show at Davidpakman dot com. A great way to support the David Pakman show is to support our sponsors, and one of those sponsors is green flame hemp, giving everybody in our podcast audience. Fifty

sent off everything in their store when you go to David Pakman, DOT, com, slash, hemp, that's h, e m p and use the promo code happen at checkout. Green flame have offers high quality, cbt products which come from the cannabis plant, but are now completely legal in all fifty states, as of early two thousand and eighteen they are good, to have shipped right to your home, everything's grown on their farm in Colorado, tested for purity by third party labs and, although dvd, is derived from cannabis. It is not the same as marijuana, it is not psychoactive. It can just produce a general feeling of calmness that many people find helpful with falling asleep or dealing with stress. Green flame have has everything, from C b d bath bombs to edible gummies, to delay

Cbd, infused coffee, if you don't know much about Cbd, read up on it, it's been fascinating to follow the research being done on the potential health benefits of Cbd and, if you're looking for a place, you can trust to buy high Cbd. I'd, recommend you check out green flame hemp annual, be supporting show go to David Pakman, DOT, com, slash temp, that's h, e m p and use code PAC man to get fifteen for turn off your entire order and free shipping. The David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. Okay, welcome back to the program very, very busy show. Today. I will just take thirty seconds to say thank you to a few great people, Michael your cow, ski and JD, for work. The great Jt Thor Worth Artes new members of the day the David Pakman show. Of course,

We have a whole bunch of different funding sources, but the biggest one has been and continues to be at forty percent of our monthly revenue. I open the books to you last month and showed you this forty percent of our monthly revenue, the biggest single this comes from direct memberships. Like Michael KD going. Website join Batman, dot com and signing up for a membership. I also want to say thanks to Roger Bohm, who has been a member for almost five years. Is today's longtime sustaining member of the day Roger? Thank you. I really do appreciate your support. Join these great people at Join Packman COM, the David Batman Show Subreddit is truly one of the best places on the internet. I would argue, for sensible, sober and respectful political discussions. More than fifteen thousand of our viewers and listeners are now subscribed at David Pakman slash, read it and I want to look at a couple of posts that I noticed that are interesting, one

from a user called bad smash for who says due date. Its videos get titled in such a way as to specifically attract right, Wingers IRA, I dislike the way David videos are titled. I always have they're. Always very clickbaity: they don't represent what David has to offer as an analyst here's the thing out and- and he said you might deliberately tidings it titling videos this way to attract right, wingers and, if so, that that would actually be a be a respectful thing to do. Listen, we do what what I The entire Youtube titling status quo is basically a game and we approach it satirically, which is we make satirical titles that are not necessarily inaccurate, but they are city. Quickly sensational. So when I entered when I'm interviewed on some other show, we will uh

As you know, David destroyed by facts and logic. It's satire because there's a contingent of the right that love to talk about how all these right, wingers, like Ben Shapiro, are destroying lefties with facts and logic. It's not serious. It's not specifically to attract a particular audience. It's just playing around with internet memes and that's it- I wouldn't read too much more into it and remember that in the end, the title is the title. The bulk of what we're doing is really the content, and as long as we're not being you know, truly deceptive. You know these are basically meme titles and jokes and satire or whatever, and I get not, everybody might get it, but I feel pretty good. The titles that were using, and you know we're doing what we can with you tube metadata to get the biggest possible audience 'cause. That's the important thing another user, LBJ Spns Interesting says, complain.

Monday's show had zero mention of Bernie's rally. David complains about losing viewership when he talks about the polls, however, I think, is pro war and biases coming out whenever Warren does anything in the polls he's all over it like white on Rice What's the largest rally of this political season and crickets and I pointed out only cover rallies like we just we just don't cover rallies. If something noteworthy happens at a rally like, for example, the identity, politics game that a reporter tried playing with a we'll see in Burney at that rally. We covered that. But this is one of those places where, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you to see is some kind of anti Bernie Pro Warren Bias on the program you will find both the coverage things and the lack of coverage of things to feed that narrative, when the truth is we just don't cover that a rally took place, what we cover

is weather, interesting things are said at a rally that warrant analysis. If unusual things take place and therefore we covered yesterday. In the context of mentioning this was, I believe, the biggest rally of the political season we covered the ten of an interview that took place. That's it don't read more into things than what is actually warranted by the facts. Join the discussion at the David Pakman Show Sub Reddit David Pakman, DOT, com, slash r e d d. I t you know at first. I was going to call this next story mark Sucker Burg, visibly be fuddled, bye, AOC's, simple questions, but that would not speaking of titles and click bait. That would not really be an honest title for this story. These are actually pretty damn difficult questions that AOC asked Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, because they get, to the intersection of things like free speech, the

if a corporation to police content, voter suppression, foreign in appearance in elections. These actually are complicated things. What notable was that Mark Zuckerberg seemed not to have answers as to what Facebook policies are and that's really the problematic part. So let me set before you were going to look at some very interesting video here. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, was visibly be fuddled by questions from Alexandria, Ocasio Cortez, because neither Mark Zuckerberg nor Facebook as a whole nor twitter, real. We have answers that feel to the average person satisfactory to the question that were being asked. So, let's get right to it. Congress went out Congressman Alexandria, Cortez question Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg about what will facebook take down when it comes to news and advertisements what kinds of

are considered over the line and against the policies of Facebook with regard to add policy, and it turns out that the answers are both not so clear and also it doesn't seem like it's completely known to Mark's, which is a problem we'll take. Will Facebook take down an ad that says something false about candidate Zuckerberg says? Well, we don't fact check ads well, what if the ad falsely promotes the wrong election date as an example and targets zip codes with disproportionately black, voters mark Zuckerberg, says well yeah. We might take that down then, because it's not just fact checking it's relating to voter suppression, but lots of things late to voter suppression, even if they're not about election day. So where is the line? Aoc says what, if I targeted candidates with incorrect claims, that

they supported the green new deal. Republican voters might be upset with their incumbent Republican elected officials if they believed that those officials supported the green nude. What if I ran an ad falsely saying they support the green new deal, these

actually interesting questions, and I want to get into the first clip and you will see how visibly confused mark Zuckerberg is I paid to target predominately black zip codes and advertise them the incorrect election date? No congresswoman you couldn't we we have even for these policies around the newsworthiness of of content, that politicians say in the general principle that I believe that, but you said you're not going to fact check my we have if, if, if anyone, including a politician, is saying things that can cause that is calling for violence or could risk even in physical harm or voter or sense of suppression, we roll out the census suppression policy arm. We will take that content, so so you will there is

threshold where you will fact check political advertisements. Is that where you're telling me well congresswoman, yes in for specific things like that, where there's imminent risk of harm, should I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the green new deal? Sorry, I can you repeat that, would I be able to run advertisements on Facebook targeting Republicans and primary saying that they voted for the green new deal. I mean, if you're, not fact, checking political advertisements, I'm trying to understand the bounds here. What's fair

I I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. I think so you don't know if I'll be able to do that exam. Do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact, checking on political advertisements? Well, congresswoman, I think lying is bad and I think if you were to run an ad that had a life that would be bad, that's different from it being from it from the fork in our position. The right thing to do to prevent your constituents are people in an election from seeing that you live, so we can so you won't take down. My three will take down my savings, just a pretty simple, yes or no on this woman in spin, I'm talking about actual yes in a democracy. I believe that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians that they may or may not vote for one

take care for themselves. So you wanted, you may flag that it's wrong, but you won't take it down congresswoman. It's sad. It depends on the context that it shows up organic post, calling for violence risks for physical harm could suppress notes, so it is sort of a form of fact checking that they do, and now it's really exposes that mark Sucker Burg doesn't really understand the policy and maybe even more insidiously, it's possible that Facebook it doesn't really know how they implement the policy that they've written down in order have something that they can point to. Let's look at another, AOC here asking Mark Zuckerberg. How does Facebook determine who is trusted news source, because this is something Facebook is a new initiative at Facebook we want to mark. It is likely to be an untrustworthy worthy source or a trustworthy source really important stuff for independent media, like our show here, is how Zuckerberg handles this question

in your ongoing dinner parties with far right figure, some of who advanced the conspiracy theory that white supremacy is a hoax. Did you discuss so called Social media bias against conservatives and do you believe there is a bias congresswoman um? So I don't remember, thing that was in the sand and in the course of a I'll move on. Can you explain why you name the daily caller a publication white, a well documented, with ties to white supremacist as an official fact checker for Facebook, I'm assuming sure we actually don't appoint the independent fact checkers they go through an independent organization called the independent fact checking that works that has a rigorous standard for who they allowed to to serve as a fact checker, so you would say that white supremacist, I'd publications need a rigorous standard for fact checking. Thank you congresswoman. I would say that we are not the

assessing that standard. So on that one Zack is just shirking responsibility, he's saying: hey, listen we pointed someone else to tell us who's trustworthy in AOC wants to get to well what about this other news outlet that is in bed with associated with white supremacy. How did you determine that they're, trustworthy and Zuckerberg, saying we didn't determine anything. We just outsource that to somebody else. So so far, Berg is unsure about what is and isn't allowed in Facebook ads. He says that they even the ones determining who is true most worthy. None of this is particularly inspiring of confidence, but this is actually really good stuff to be talking about, because it's so import. And the social media platforms are not figuring it out the most important thing to take from This is sure you know I mean listen. Zucker as a billionaire tech, CEO, who doesn't our best interests as his priority.

We know about him, we know about Jeff Basos, so we know about all of that stuff. That's not because we know that we cannot just assume that these big tech companies and their ceos have the broader best interests as their top priority. That's not knew the issue here is we had a more educated population, a lot of These issues would not be issues, that's not where we are right now. So we do need figure out what the framework is going to be for managing these types of problems. Now Facebook's mark Zuckerberg makes very clear what they want. As a policy is we will do some stuff and create some documents to be able to point to to make it look like we're working on this, but it's really going to fix anything and when were asked about it, we'll just waffle back and forth sort of trying to look looking like he needs to be rebooted control, Alt delete! That's not good! It's not good for anyone

it's not good for users is not good for political discourse. It's not good for public education. Oh really, nice job by Alexandria, Casio Cortez of pulling out from Mark Zuckerberg both the ambiguities in the lack of clarity around some of these policies. That being said, this is a way bigger issue. Even if are executor. Berg had clean cut answers. It's still doesn't solve the problem of what should be done, an how this should be managed so excellent job, but shows but there's a lot of work to do along these lines, make sure you give us a like on Facebook at Facebook, dot com, David Pakman, show

follow the David Pakman show Instagram page at big things are happening. The David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. One of today's sponsors is blue. True blue. That's blue, like the color bringing you the first insurable with the same FDA, approved active ingredients as and Cialis. You can get that extra confidence with blue chew at blue two dot I'm take them anytime, day or night, even on a full stomach. Since they're chewable, they work up to twice as fast as the

so you can be ready when an opportunity arises, you can benefit from extra function and more confidence. Blue Chu is the fast easy way to enhance your performance. Blue Chu is prescribed online ships straight to your door in a discrete package, no in person doctors visits or we eating in the pharmacy. No more awkwardness they're made in the USA and since blue to prepares and ships direct they're cheaper than a pharmacy. It's really important that we de stigmatize a lot of these issues and blue, true dot com, makes that happen. Blue two dot com gets you your first shipment for free. When you use promo code pack, in just pay five dollars for shipping. That's blue, two dot com b, L, you eat, shoot dot, com, promo code, PAC man to try it for free

welcome back to the David Pakman show, the Republicans did a nice little job of executing a sort of temporary corporate media crew. Yesterday this is when what Bob I don't mean they took over ownership of corporate media. What I mean is they took over the attention of corporate media when they pulled, and obviously unnecessary, and just ridiculous political stunt that was meant again to take over coverage of corporate media up for the day and they did it about. Thirty Republicans stormed closed door meeting yesterday as a protest of what they said was being shut out of Trump's impeachment inquiry. What he said was a lack of transparency. The civic meeting was one where Laura Cooper, the deputy secretary of Defense, was going to testify.

Publicans are saying: none of this is legit. Democrats are holding secret private meetings, it's all bad republicans, reportedly storming in and taking pictures in the meeting, so that then the entire thing was delayed. It had to be swept by police for security breaches and it ends being a total childish display of nonsense and in the end, it served only to delay LISA Cooper's testimony by a few hours. It didn't prevent it, but it did succeeded getting republicans some undeserved attention, but here's the absurdity- and I wasn't even going to cover this until I learned about this these republicans are saying the reason they did. This is there's a lack of transparency that there shut out of the impeachment process. This is an in that is being run by the house, intelligence oversight and foreign affairs committees there are republicans on those committees. Republicans on those committees can ask questions at every hearing. They can

new documents if they so choose the entire pretext or pretense of this protest and barging in it's completely bogus and axios looked into the details. Thirteen so crazy thing, teen of the Republicans who participated in this protest are on the committee's in question. They can question witnesses, they can review documents. Thirteen Republicans stormed a meeting in protest over lack of inclusion and transparency, despite the fact that they are already involved themselves in the ink. Sorry, it was one hundred percent, a stunt media of course fell for it and that's why I hesitated to cover it. I got a lot of tweet saying David you've got to talk about this protest. You've got to talk about Republicans barging in you've got to cover the, test itself. The reason I wasn't sure is because it was such a patently bogus stunt but in the end I decided you know it's important

explain. First, because lots of those Republicans have access that they claim to be demanding that it's a complete and total of a protest, but also there's Donald everything. Around Donald Trump seems to include not only lies and distortions and personal motivations. But witness tampering has been a big big part of everything that well Trump has done around any investigation or attempt to just exert oversight. That is legally a possibility for Democrats this could be argued to be a form of witness tampering, because this is ok. The deputy secretary of defense, I'm guessing that she's not going to be intimidated by this, but you're already directing people to ignore subpoena, is when you already want to suppress witnesses. Who could speak, not the great things you've done, but about the problematic things that you've done, that they've over heard, seen or witnessed

great way to indirectly tamper with witnesses and to maybe influence them to opt out of participation to send a signal that their participation is going to be disrupted, their participation is going to be difficult. That also, by the way how secure was the facility. If these republic, things were able to just barge in in the middle an now there Discussion among Democrats have we better physical security to protect ourselves from Republicans who want to barge in with bogus ridiculous protests about things that aren't actually problems first and the insanity of that understand. The absurdity of in government buildings, democrat that may need physical security so that disk run old brown nosing sycophantically Republicans, don't interrupt the legal

constitutionally protected processes, an investigations in which they are participating. It almost is beyond x nation with the normal english language. I don't know how else to say it. Every week, public support for impeaching Donald Trump is going up reasonable question Why do we give you know what about this? Why do we care about this? The reason care. Is that if there's any chance that Republicans will turn on Donna? trump it's going to be based on public opinion about impeachment, better or worse, we can say this is terrible that this is the reality, but this is the reality. Republicans are putting their fingers to the wind and, to the extent that public opinion shifts in favor of impeaching and removing Donald Trump. That is,

the only remotely possible way that you are going to see. Republicans say you know what. Maybe it is time for the president to go? It's not likely, but we do have some historical precedent for it. If you go back to the 1970s and Richard Nixon, this was, admittedly, historically a very different circumstance. Public support for Nixons remove, was a really big piece of Republicans eventually going to Nixon and saying listen, we don't want to impeach you to convict you on impeachment, but we sort of are going to have to it would be much if you resigned and ultimately Nixon, did resign and that's why this is relevant. So, let's look at the numbers for Donald Trump, multiple new polls about this. None of them good for Trump New Quinnipiac Poll, says fifty five Center of registered registered voters support the impeachment inquiry. That's up four points from a week ago, which was up from forty six. The week or which was up from like the high thirties the week before that, so the trend is very, very clear. Forty eight percent support, not just the

query, but the removal of the president of the United States- that's roughly half of the country on the question of there are Trump's dealings with Ukraine were all to further his personal interest. Nine percent say yes, they were also up from previous numbers, also not good for Donald Trump, by the way, as a leading indicator to further future support for impeachment. Now, on that one, the question to me is: why do fifty nine? It's not a question of why fifty nine percent realized the truth about Trump's dealing with Ukraine. It's. Why is preventing the other forty one percent from realizing that obviously Donald Trump's interactions with Ukraine were out of personal interest like what is holding back that forty one percent from realizing? What's right in front of their face? Also from the Quinnipiac University poll, fifty eight percent of independents support the inquiry. Forty nine percent say remove Trump from office, which is absolutely

We have an you, Reuters, Ipsos Poll, which shows that among independent voters, impeachment support is up. It's not just Democrats who want Trump impeached, that one says that overall forty eight percent of the country wants Trump impeached and removed in line with the first hole that we look and then you have a new CNN poll which says fifty Americans want Trump removed, also very high. Now we can quit about the specific numbers in the margins for error. One says forty eight once is forty nine one says fifty one is a margin for of error for three. The CNN poll famously has a margin of error of five, which makes it on the border of being statistic, significant but somewhere around. If you look at all the polls average somewhere around one hundred and two hundred Americans believe that Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office, and that's a number that's climbing weekly. This is not normal. That's the important thing to uh and this was not the case under Barack Obama Republicans hated, the guy Republicans talked

impeaching Obama. They didn't because would have been able to. There was nothing to impeach him over and there was no public demand for the impeachment of Barack Obama. When you, get these numbers and understand the hyperpartisan environment that exists today. Fifty nine percent of the agreeing on anything is stunning. That's why eighty eight percent, bring on universal firearms, purchased background checks after sandy hook was so huge and still our elected officials, just couldn't get it done. So these impeachment numbers are massive. Remember that the public hearings haven't even started. You it's all just been meetings and requests for documents so far, my guess is that the public hearings will very heavily trigger Donald Trump's, twitter rampages, which don't to be helping him lately, so just

At the beginning of this thing, the concern, though, is we are now only what is it fifty three weeks, fifty four weeks from the twenty twenty election, and if this is going to damage trump, it's gotta get going before Trump's reelection campaign really gets going in earnest takes over the new cycle. That's where we are right now. Let me know what you think leave a comment: if you're watching on Youtube, send me a tweet if you're on Twitter at Dpac,

David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. Today's program is sponsored in part by Blink ist dot com, Slash Hackman. If you've not already heard about bling guest, it's amazing, it's an apt for your phone tablet or web browser and what they do is they take non fiction books, Popular Nonfiction, critically, acclaimed non fiction. They can dance the book into a fifteen minute audio book. You get all the most important information and insights from each book, but you can soak up the entire essence of the book. In one sitting, I've listened to a ton of books on blink guest. One recent one is Robert Reisz is new book. The common good, also bunk by Kevin Young useful in preparing me for the pseudoscience miniseries that we're producing, and if you are a David

and show viewer or listener. You can get a seven day free trial by going to blink, is dot com, Slash PAC man, if you're watching on Youtube use the link in the video description after the free trial. If you like it, you can get the full access to thousands of condensed audio books for about five bucks. A month, that's b, L, I n K. I s: t dot com forward, Slash P, a K M, a n, the David Pakman show David Pakman dot com, Donald Trump had another. One of these gong show rallies yesterday and he told a lot of lies in the rally. That's not a surprise, but he also said something that's more than a lie or something that is more interesting than just a lie or truth. Either way, whether it's true or not, it's idiotic Donald Trump was in Pittsburgh. He was getting a

each about, I guess on paper. It was supposed to be about energy, but it's trump. So it goes off the rails. As usual and Donald Trump said that his administration is already building a wall in new. Going in Colorado here. From the horses mouth himself take a listen, we're building a wall on the border of New Mexico. I was building a wall Cala Rado we're building a beautiful wall, a big one that really works that you can't get over. You can't get under. And we're building a wall in Texas. And we're not building a wall in Kansas, but they get the benefit of the walls that we just mentioned. He might needing to use a sharpie to modify a map. I guess to put Colorado on the mexican border. Now, if you look at a map, you might notice that yeah this New Mexico does share a little bit of a border with Mexico, but this

native Colorado does not. So I don't know if Trump is trying to keep people in Colorado because of that legal weed or out of neighboring states, we may never really know, and of course people Trump's rally, as you heard in that clip where cheer when Donald Trump said he was building walls in New Mexico and Colorado? Why are they cheering like? Are they just dumb Do they want a wall or Colorado separating Colorado from other states? What about Denver huge international airport into which planes can just fly over the wall anyway? How does Donald Trump explain it? It's all a joke trump was making adult jokes despite never. Having shown evidence of the type of sense of that would allow a subtle joke to be made Donald Trump doing kidding we're building a wall in Colorado then stay We are not building a wall in Kansas, but they get the benefit of the wall, we're building on the border referd to peep

in the very packed auditorium from Colorado and Kansas. Getting the benefit of the border wall. Can I have what is this guy talking about what an obviously Riddick this explanation now, what's more likely, Trump was using the type of subtle in detectable humor. He's never displayed evidence of being capable of or trump it had, no idea where walls were getting built. If anywhere. Maybe not getting built, is more like it and has only a limited understanding of the geography of the United States. The evida This says that the latter is actually more likely. The people of Colorado by the way, are more or less sensible. Maybe they are the ones building a wall to keep trump out since Trump seems to think walls keep people out. He might not realize. If I want to go to Colorado, I can just fly buy into the airport over the wall. The best explanation, Colorado, Borders, New Mexico and maybe

Trump is thinking that Colorado should have a wall on its southern border, with New Mexico for safety or something because thing with the name: Mexico, when it clearly is very, very dangerous or something America in two thousand and nineteen. This is it's a sad place. This is a reality. I that is more analysis necessary or the one do you is. Is there anything else that I'm not accounting for that? Maybe Donald Trump meant when he said we're building a wall around Colorado. Let me know, leave a response if you're watching on Youtube. Send me a tweet at the this next story is just hilarious, but it's also infuriating in a way and I'll. Tell you why Donald former Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, who was always one of the people with a head on his shoulders other than being a total tool of militarism, a gymnastics was more or less sensible, more or less connected to reality when it came to Trump being a clueless person, Madison

reportedly said we're now learning back when Trump wanted to do that ridiculous. Fourth of July military Parade with the tanks that would destroy the Modes in the entire thing, Jim Mattis Report Ridley said I'd rather swallow acid. That's a quote. I'd rather swallow acid than watch Trump military parade. Now I like this because it can terms that Madison not only had a son of how ridiculous trump's actions were. He also had sort of a clever sense of humor the book we're talking about called holding the line inside Trump's Pentagon with secret, very Mathis, which was written by retired Navy Command, Guys Snodgrass Snodgrass was Madisons Communications vector and head speechwriter, and the book has a ton of interesting stuff in it, not the least of which is Madison's preference for swallow acid over watching Donald Trump's military parade. The it also says that Trump wanted to quote quote: screw Amazon, CEO,

Turbo billionaire Jeff, Basos, keeping Amazon out of the bidding process for a Pentagon contract for some big network computing. Networking it installation zero. The end of most of what's in the book is in line with everything we've seen. Donald Trump do, which is there's always uh central angle to it. Trump is president and he's supposed to be doing what's best the United States but Pentagon Working contract. I want to screw Jeff Basos me Terry aid to Ukraine? I want you crane to smear Biden for the benefit of my twenty re election campaign and the real embarrassment is that for any we can say about Mattis. Now he understands Trump is bonkers. He wanted to swallow acid instead of watch the parade whatever. Where was Mathis earlier right, not why didn't matter stand up to trump sooner and we know the answer and unfortunately,

Trump did untold damage through decisions that Mattis could have at least tried to stand up to trump about. He would have been or forced to resign, obviously, but he could have done it. Mad has buyer's remorse from working for Donald Trump, but where was that assessment at the start? Trump? It's we didn't have to wait and see who Donald Trump is going to be, as President Trump as president is exactly who we knew him to be the he hired. Jim Mattis and Mathis went along with it for a long time and it's important to accept the accurate statements of these former trump officials to the extent that they are accurate now in hindsight, but we can't tell them to rehabilitate their images so easily. We discussed this yesterday on the bonus show. Actually we talked about it with regard to Sean Spicer, former, just embarrassingly bad dishonest press secretary who now is rehabbing his image on. I didn't even know this pat told me on dancing with the stars could be Sanders. Who is, I don't really know what she's doing, but she could potentially at some

the governor of Arkansas, who knows a long list of people who assume as they leave the administration and they sort of seem to be connected with reality. We often immediately improve our opinion of them, it's great that they recognizing it now, but the truth is they probably recognized and they said nothing. They saw only their personal Karere potential that with associated with participating in this completely abortive presidency, and we should not allow them to rehabilitate their image in the way that they are so so obviously trying to do at this point in time. There's other remind me who else there is. I mean I obviously I know. Spice and Huckabee are two of the big players Rex tellers and although he doesn't really need to re up his image, he's a you know ready to retire at least financially, if not ideological, but there are others, and we've got to be really careful about, allowing them to now be seen as normal people, because there's nothing normal about going along with it for the weeks months or years that they did before they said. I can't do this anymore or Trump kick them out.

We have a voicemail number that number two thousand one hundred and ninety two David p. Here's a interesting question about how I would handle a particular

interpersonal scenario. Take a listen uh huh David uh. I had a question kind of a philosophical question to ponder about maybe uhm it's. If someone you know an acquaintance uh, who is a big admirer of yours, ok, uh! You found out later that they were rapist and murderer right. How would you respond to that? Would you shut them out completely um? Would you uh try to you know, get get

the details on on exactly what, but they did a. Would you try to understand or what I'm just I'm curious. Listen. I have no idea this is. It happened to me before I've never found out that an acquaintance or friend or something is a rapist or a murderer, and I don't know what would happen. I mean I to give you some answer. I could say: oh, I would definitely cut them out of my life. I could never have contact with him again or I could say you know, listen I would try to understand and if it was far enough in the past at the time when they were really a different person, then I would I've, no idea. I think the detail. Probably wouldn't matter. My guess is that there are people in our audience who listen. There must be people in our audience who are acquainted with, maybe not murderers, but more than likely at least some people in the audience. The audience is big enough. Where there's probably people acquainted with rapists

I don't know I'd be curious to hear from others what it was like when something like that was revealed. I don't. I think that you know this. Like when people say if I was on a plane and a terrorist did x or y here's? How would react? I think we know until we're in these situations. I think there's so much in the details and I wouldn't even pretend to be able to say definitively what it is that I would do. We know what you think if you've been in such a situation, I would be interested in hearing from you. We've got great bonus show for you today. We will talk about something that is happening within the healthcare field, the health care industry that is not discussed nearly as much as how we pay for Healthcare Medicare for all etc, which is huge turn out among doctors and nurses. I have some personal stories actually to tell about this. We will also talk about a lot of people going crazy about this and Joe Rogan tweeted about it, and I tweeted back. I think people are misunderstanding. There's a bill: that's been most in Massachusetts that would be, and the word bitch and

people are going crazy about language, policing and all this stuff, if you just and what it is that is going on. You would realize that this is like nothing that this shouldn't even be a news story and then, basically, a Georgia sheriff started, putting no trick or treating signs in the yards of sex offenders in advance of Halloween and the sex offenders are now suing. We will talk about the legal and the social and the literal and the logical when it comes to that all of those stories and more on today's bonus showed the show can continue. There is more show a two ways: access it become a member at Joinpackman, dot com or become a pay at

patrie on dot com. Slash David Pakman show much more coming up on the bonus show. Otherwise, we'll talk to you. The David Pakman show at David Pakman, dot com, increase your performance and get that extra confidence with blue chew. The first chewable with the same FDA, approved, active ingredients as and cialis blue true is prescribed. Online works faster than uphill and can be taken any time, visit, Bluetooth, dot com and get your first shipment for free. When you use the promo code, Pakman just pay five bucks for shipping that's b.