But David Pakman show at David Pakman DOT. Com this'll has happened before and it's happening again and in fact, we've covered this before on presidential election day's video has caught an electronic voting machine switching votes, and we now have at least three reports of this happening in at least two different, Mississippi counties based on the latest information, and this could still change. This was the republic gubernatorial primary runoff. We have video of it for you posted to Facebook by Sally Kate Walker, which show

who's a man attempting to vote for Bill Waller and the machine selecting instead, Tate Reeves multiple times as the person taps the screen. So a few things here, this particular video is from the bridge s voting precinct in Oxford and the same machines that are in use there are in use in lots of the state of Mississippi. The Secretary of State's office has put out a statement saying they're aware of the issue and they dispatched a technician as soon as they were told about it. This was a tsx machine. It's owned by the county. It was tested by local officials to machines in Calhoun. County have reportedly shown similar votes, Bing Behavior, so, okay, this is a republican gubernatorial primary runoff. There fixing it what happens if this takes place on presidential election day in November of two thousand and twenty, when turnout is higher,

when the stakes are yes, they are higher, even though, of course, we want every election to be secure when one precinct or a group of precincts could conceivably turn a state and one state could conceivably decide the Presiden shall election. What do you do now as of right now? There's no reason to think that this is foul play. This is most likely screen being miss calibrated. So when you tap on a part of the screen, it's interpreted as you tapping on a different part of the screen, it's simple enough, but it's potentially one hundred and ten percent chaotic on election day. If one wanted to manipulate an election, you only need to interfere with some portion of the machines in some portion of precincts in just one or two states, and you can hypothetically turn the results of a presidential election, and this is where the left

right are truly different. I talk so many times on the show about. There's lots of areas were left and right are basically the same perpetuating the status quo. There are other areas are areas where Democrats and Republicans are very different when it comes to sexual harassment by people within their party. Democrats and Republicans are very different when it comes to the net neutrality. Democrats and Republicans are very differently. Republicans have made it clear for more than a decade now they are simply not super concerned with election interference, election tampering, voter suppression, etc as long as their candidate wins, and they understand that a lot of this stuff helps the Republican over. The Democrat helps the more conservative

public in over the more moderate Republican within republican primaries, but in principle they don't care as long as they benefit from it in some way, shape or form. The left, on the other hand, we just want one hundred percent secure elections. We want everyone who wants to vote and at to vote to have their vote counted, and the reality is, of course, that the left benefits from greater turnout in more votes being counted, because the country has moved to the left. There's no, you know the right will say: will you guys just want more people to vote, because it helps you that's right. I want the highest level of participation in the system that we have, with the understanding that the will of the people will be most accurately reflected when as many people as possible actually go out and vote when the right here is about the stuff they say well, both sides

do it even when it's not totally clear that something is actually being done and when you zoom out it is far more red states that have the electronic voting machines with no paper trail, which, if one wanted to tamper with it election through the voting machines that have no paper trail, it would be a really great place to start. So this is again just another one of the many anecdotes of this taking place. It's not presidential election day, but we all understand the risk here, or at least we should understand the risk here. What's the next step with these particular voting machines, I don't know, but these types of voting machines are in use in a lot of the United States. Okay, so I haven't been talking much about this right wing journalist named Andy. No, it's spelled NGO. I've been told it's pronounced, no, I'm going to pronounce

that way. Today, I'm going to talk about him today, a little bit now. I know for a fact that a significant portion of my audience has not heard of this guy they're, not aware of the controversy involving Andy know, but at this point I think it does warrant a discussion. Even if you haven't been following story because Andy know is just the worst kind of right wing grifter, that's what I've learned over the last couple of months, I'm going to explain. The entire thing to you Andy know is an early 30s. Thirty: two hundred and thirty three year old right wing journalist, his parents came to the United States from vietnamese and asian American. He was born and raised in the United States in Portland, or he was known prior to June of two thousand and nineteen in some niche circles for writing. For a publication named Colette and in June he was propelled to Cigna

definitely more notoriety and fame, because he was assaulted at a protest by Antifa protesters in Portland Oregon. There was a right wing, proud boy March in Portland Oregon there was an Antifa counter protest and Andy no was there and he was attacked. He was punched, he was milkshakes, I mean really bad stuff. I unconditionally denounced that I haven't talked more about the broader Andy know stuff, but the attacks on him I'd announced I'm against violence. It's horrible. We shouldn't be do this to anyone period. Okay and people were so saying. Oh Andy know was baiting Antifa to attack him

merely by being there, because people know what he's written in the past. Okay. Look that that that all ah may be true, but the violence is completely out of line, I'm against the violence period. Horrible full stop, not no other qualifiers are necessary. Now, when that happened, when you attacked, of course, predictably, he immediately got a media round of interviews as a result, and the media interviews mostly set him up to talk about how violent the left is and how bad Antifa is who's on Dave Rubin's show he was on Joe RD show. I think he was on Fox news. He was all over the place and fascinate a lot of the coverage was identity. Politics coverage saying look at this small in stature, gay asian guy, who was attacked by left wingers, even though he checks, identity box is that the left should be defending or in favor of or whatever I mean it's a total identity. Politics argument. We

know that the right claims to be against identity politics, except when there for it, because it benefits them in some way shape or form. But then things started to sort of not make sense about Andy know. So, first of all, he had claimed that the milkshakes that were thrown at him, which I'm against period the milkshakes that were thrown at him, contained concrete, which of course would conceivably harden and do serious damage to a human body, but there appears to be no actual evidence that there was any concrete there. So that's or to be sort of a weird thing. Then I asked myself when I watched interviews with this guy. Why does Andy know sort of speak in a british accent now when, if you look at videos from just a few years ago, had a standard american accent and he was raised in Portland Oregon? It's no crime to adopt

the random acts, and we know who what was the Madonna has done it right up, but the people that do that it it's an odd thing to do and often for me it signals that there may be sort of more to the person. It's rare that all they do that raises questions as adopt an accent that doesn't correspond to where they were raised. Ok, but then it gets really bad. Journalistically, ok, Andy know starts reporting that another Portland or protest Antifa attack right wingers with hammers heat. We did Antifa attacks, people on a bus. They try to pull them out and hit him with a hammer and from the video he posted it sort of, maybe seems plausible, but very quickly, more videos surface, and you actually see that the Antifa people we might call them the counter pro testers were pounding on the windows of a bus containing right, wingers from a white nationalist group, and it's actually the right

is in the bus who introduce a hammer literally the opposite of what this guy Andy no reports and the people on bus. Again they were either right wing American Guard, which is a right wing, supremacist, white, supremacist group or maybe proud boys or a combination of the two so the store. He is literally the opposite of what Andy no reports and then what Andy know follows up with is oh right: it was the right wingers who introduced the hammers, but they were doing it in self defense, which is now a can a different story. I mean really eight eight eight grifter tweeting quote the mob, rushed to the buses as they were, trying to leave and began attacking the vehicles with concrete before attacking the people inside the buses could not continue driving because protestors were standing in front. In that context, the use of the hammer may have been in self defense. So this is not a good faith actor. He first reports that anti brandished hammers then when it

seems undeniable that it was the right wingers who brandished the hammers. He says, alright, that's true. The opposite of what I reported is true, but it was plausibly in self defense. So not a good faith act, even though he's being lauded by the right and then the cherry on top is that he now has been caught on video commiserating with a far right group that was planning violence and he never reported that they were planning this violence. The group is called Patre prayer. They were planning violence, no is on video hanging out with them as they plan it. He reported nothing and now it has been announced that is no longer with Quizlet the publication for which he worked. Now Collett is saying that the separation is not directly related to the fact he's been exposed as commiserating with right, wingers, planning, violence and said nothing about it. They say he actually left Collette weeks

and they're only announcing it. Now. Maybe that's true. Maybe it's not. I don't know the truth of that. So the big picture is, first of all, not surprisingly, someone that the right decided, tow hold up as both a martyr and a hero of sorts is not either of those things and really is a bad faith, actor who was attacked and I am against the violence and he shouldn't have been punched and milkshakes. Okay, I want to be absolutely and totally clear, but when you put it all together, I just see a troubled guy. Quite frankly, the combination of his completely dishonest and contradictory reporting, again the starting to speak with his british accent a couple of years ago, which I know people will say David. That doesn't really mean anything. I agree it's a detail, but if you zoom out and and look at the at the big picture here taken with anything else to me, it signals a troubled and confused person, and this is someone that we are better off seeing for

what they are, which is really an unwritten. I and very partial right wing. We can use the term journalist we can. We can use the term activist, we can use the term analyst or commentator, I don't know exactly what term to use, but now that we've sort of, let it all play out over the last couple of months. I think the truth of and you Know- is surfacing and I've even seen, tweets and re tweets from people who interviewed, and you know and gave him the platform to talk about how bad everybody is to him and how how bad the left is in all of the different stuff. They are even pointing out that things have certainly turned and taken a different direction with anti. Now, if you don't care about this guy or didn't know about him and, quite frankly, continue not to care fair. I, and I totally understand that, if you've been following this, I would be curious to hear from you. I'm on Twitter at the PAC man have has your view changed about, and you know from the beginning in June, when, when this story

and his being attacked came to prominence, ten now has your view changed, or has it not? Was it always a negative? Viewed as it remain positive? I want to hear from you I'm on Twitter, at the PAC man. The show is on Twitter at David Pakman Show, and I hope you will join me this week this this week I will be doing once or twice in the evening- live twitch stream at twitter, DOT tv, Slash, David, packed, make sure your

following me there and I hope, to see you at one of my street David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. Today's program brought to you in part by Blink ist dot com, Slash Packman, Blink IST is a great service that I use all the time. What they do is they take thousands of the most popular nonfiction books, including the newest, best sellers. They condense them into fifteen minutes audio books that you can listen Thio and you still get the most crucial information and insights from each book and I've listened to a ton of books on Blink IST. I recently checked out

soccer nomics by Simon Cooper. We do have after all the World CUP going on recently. We also have been talking about B s jobs and there is a great new book B s jobs by David Graeber, which I listened to on blink us they're, constantly adding new books to the platform. You will never run out of fascinating and critically acclaimed books to enjoy and our audience can get a seven day free trial by going to blink, is dot com, slash, Packman, you're, watching on Youtube, I'm putting a link in the video description and after the free trial. If you like it, you can continue enjoying one thousand. As 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, and David Pakman dot com. These new members of the day, our cake of Rick, Mercer and Brent Carlson, thanks to both of you for supporting the work they I do directly via member. I also want to say thanks to Kevin me and Kevin me in or me Han. I think it's pronounced me and has been a member for almost five years. Today's longtime, sustaining member of the day joining his gr remaining subscribed, is even better and you can sign up in under a minute at w, will w dot join joinpackman dot com? Alright, we missed hatred mail last week because of the David Pakman show staff summer vacation, but it is back quick reminder: what is hatred mail teachers can buy their own school supplies? Would we

throw in the Glock for Free Patriot, mail, written by patriots who hate David Packman, because America Freedom this this week's Hatriot mail Introdu? This is a notable term. Let me put it that way: let's take a listen to it, Queefing bits, Clickbait Packman! Once again, don't you ever learn, I'm generally unsubscribing? How about you hop off buddy? Anybody can see what you're doing nothing personal, but you are a Jew, a pretty obvious due at that. Yes you're White David, because uh can Ozzy. Jews are actually Italians. Europe, spanish speaking Italian, who thinks he's a Jew, must be tough kid, I'm an obvious due that's interesting, so I guess the implication is that there would be so

little Jews and then there are obvious Jews, I'm in the latter category. Apparently the best way to fight Hatriot ISM in your local can unity is to become a member at Join PAC man, dot com, utilizing the coupon code, hatred, forty ha t r. I o t four zero when you use the coupon code, hatred, forty, you save forty percent off of your membership and hatry it's cry, because they are extremely saddened by the fact that their hatred, his name, is only furthering financial support of the David Pakman show. That's how I see it anyway. I know that might not literally be how people see it, but go to the Joe in PAC man, dot com, pick your membership of choice, apply the coupon code, Hatriot forty and get one hundred percent of the member perks, but with a forty percent discount in reality, as I've told you earlier this week, Donald Trump has no average with China in this misguided, haphazard,

never ending endlessly escalating trade war with China, Trump's tariffs or destroying farmers among other workers in the United States. There's no serious plan to off ramp from the tariffs, but Donald Trump has is to pretend that he's winning, because he's got nothing else. He at least needs to try to communicate confidence because the reality is far different. So Donald Trump made up just concocted out of thin air, the China called him desperate to start trade talks so that they can stop all the losing that Donald Trump is causing that now, as I told you before, the reality is that this trade war is far worse for the United States than it is for China. I won't rehash that entire conversation, but we discussed that earlier this week, but the real problem with Donald Trump, claiming that China called him desperate to restart trade talks to end the trade war is that it didn't happen. I trumps tariffs and trade. Belligerence have been

taking the stock markets, go crazy, it's bad economically, it's bad for all sorts of different participants in the american economy, so Trump says: hey no worries China coming around China called us and that they said please. Let's start trade talks right away. The problem is, it doesn't exist. I mean it just didn't happen. Trump said during the last day of the G7 in France earlier this week that China quote called our top people Sunday night to quote: get back to the table on ending the trade war, a Trump's Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin repeated that they have been contacted by China officials and then the chinese government multiple times said yet it just didn't up and there was there was no such call. The last call that China had with the United States was something like two weeks ago. Nothing that Trump says can simply be believed. Donald Trump is also now saying that Melania Trump

has developed a relationship with Kim Jong Moon, even though they've never met I'll talk about that later in the show, but nothing that the guy says can be believed, and the problem with all of this is that it's very easy for Trump's defenders to hear that Trump fabricated that this phone call took place and they're retort is listen. All politicians lie all politicians lie, and this is one of the really disturbing false equivalencies that we've seen under this sort of post truth, alternative facts, fake news era under Donald Trump. All politicians lie so the specific lies and provable lies that Donald Trump tells really aren't a big deal. That Trump is defenders live in this fantasy world, where they equate

something like. I will work tirelessly to reduce the deficit, and then it doesn't work out. The deficit goes up. They equate that to China called me desperate to restart trade talks when there was no such phone call. I've said before I don't excuse any line, but there are politician lies, and there are provable bring, is an factual lies. An these are two different things who do you believe on this one? It's crazy to say it. I believe, the chinese government. I don't believe that this phone call took place. I actually know people in my purse a life who live the way that Donald Trump lies. I try not to associate with them because they are just so toxic, but there are liars like Trump who have been kind of in and out of friend groups.

I've been in and the lies are so brazenly attention seeking or for self aggrandizement the thing that these liars hate the most is: when people don't care, they don't even argue they just ignore it altogether. Actually remember someone I knew who would lie about just stupid things. I mean provably false things are there? Is this person who once said? Hey? Are you so I got into Northeastern University Medical School in Boston, but I chose not to go now. I know northeastern has no medical school, I mean there's, no northeastern medical school doesn't exist, but I don't care, I would just say alright, that's cool and then I would continue the conversation with other people in the group and it infuriates these trumpian liars when you just don't care about their lives and you ignore them. There's someone else. I remember who said this: it was such a whopper, something like my glasses cost, one thousand two hundred dollars because they're,

if some special material I know they're lying. I know there is no such thing, but I don't care. Oh yeah, one thousand two hundred dollars glasses cool yeah. I wear contacts, that's it move on to the conversation they hate it and they increasingly need to be the center of a ten and the more their lies, are ignored or not taken seriously and may see. That needs to be the approach in dealing with Donald Trump. Maybe there needs to be some some lesson. Maybe there's some lesson in how I've dealt with these pathological, brazen liars in my personal life that could be applied to Donald Trump. I don't know what the answer is, but the lies are getting more easily provably false. Not that I had a record setting. Turnout at my calculate inauguration was not provably false, but maybe there needs to be a different approach in dealing with. Some of these lies make sure are following the David Pakman show on Instagram. Excuse me, as I punch my MIKE recommending, I get a totally different MIKE set up to avoid punching it, but we're looking into that a follow. The David

Hochman show on Instagram at David Pakman Show, and while are there follow me on Instagram, at David DOT, Packman incredible reviews of the portuguese dog named Julia, who watches the David Pakman show daily. I posted a video of this dog to my Instagram page yesterday,

David DOT hack, follow me there. We will take a quick break and be back right after the David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. The number one funding source for the David Pakman show has been and continues to be. Membership and membership is not just a feel good thing. You get. Access to the world famous bonus, show every single day. Just for members, as well as commercial, free, audio and video feeds of the show day in and day out, you can sign up for membership very, very quickly at jointed, Pakman, dot com that join the p, a K M, a n dot com. If the normal prices strike you as high by all means use the coupon code vote soon. Eighteen, all one word all lower case become a member today.

Welcome back to the David Pakman show it's great to welcome back to the program today, Jonathan Height, who is a social psychologist, and professor at New York, University's, stern school of business. He's the author of multiple New York Times bestsellers, including the righteous mind, the newer book CO authored with Greg Lukianoff. The coddling of the american mind is just now saleable in paperback, I Jonathan so great to have you back on thanks Dave, it's great to be back. So we've been talking a lot on the program about the sort of media cycles related to kind of modern politics. Now, in particular, is the election is starting to ramp up and how sort of, at a course, structural, all the way in which corporate media cover politics perpetuates a lot of the polarization

that you've been writing about for a long time. Do you see it that way today way? My goodness? Yes, so you know, I think, of human being. This is this amazing species that that came down under out of the trees and evolved for life and small groups um. You know, groups of fifty to one hundred and fifty people that are constantly or not constant, but often at war, with each other or at least having violent intergroup. And we uh, we evolved to circle around rocks and trees and other things make them sacred and then have small scale. Religion, that's human nature. Now, somehow or other we escaped from that. We built these gigantic societies that were a few it'll, originally very hierarchical and then very recently built these amazing killer. You get relatively gala Tarian Open, prosperous democracies that really quite amazing what we've done, but we're still the same tribal religious is that we've always been, and

the modern media ecosystem, beginning with cable tv and then moving on to the internet and social media, has gotten more and more effective at breaking us up into smaller groups, feeding us with very different facts. We live in different worlds worlds in and we hate the people in the other worlds and increasing their willing to take action against them. So, yes, it's very frightening one of the criticisms that sometime is levied when one starts to make a more general. We live in different worlds and have different fact sort of analysis. This, which is not in a wrong analysis. But one of the criticisms that sometimes comes up is yes. Full live in these self perpetuating algorithmic echo chamber sort of worlds with different facts, but there is still some truth. There are things that are true and things that

are not true, and there needs to be more of a maybe reckoning. Some would say which separates the fact that there is a degree of polarization in which people are just an echo chambers and at the same time there are. There is truth and falsity at the same time. Is there not well? I certainly agree that there is truth or falsity, but I don't see that as a as a critique or criticism of the view that we now live in separate worlds. Rather, I would say the truth has always been hard to find, I'm even about medical issues. People didn't notice that if you you know, doctors wash their hands, their patients don't die on, even when that was pointed out to them. They didn't believe it. So it's very hard to find the truth. We have universities, we have an academic system to ferret it out, and we also have journalists were supposed to do that. So we have at it actions to help us find the truth, but man has it gotten harder in the last five or ten years, because of social media, almost anything that you take as a fact now

there are people on the other side, it has a political valence there, people on the other side who who are certain and have evidence that you're wrong, because I'm in the center- and I write about these things- I get emails from people on all sides. So, whatever the scandal, whether it's Brett cabin, whether it's the Amazon Rainforest, burning people, send me things to show all looked the other side's crazy. You know that so so no and I do agree that there is truth. That's why I'm a researcher and a professor, but I am despairing of our ability as a country to find truth on important matters ever again. So what is the? Is there a set of a? But I don't know a set of steps so to speak for someone who wants to determine that truth because, as you say, there's a there's, a significant difference between supply side economics is positive or negative. Influence on our economy, for example- and here is the reality of what we're doing to the planet because of industrialization

and the burning of fossil fuels. I see those as distinctly different sorts of arguments. Question one is: do you have read that those are different types of arguments and then the maybe more important part is what is the process? You can recommend people to arrive at the truth about either or both of those issues? Well, it's true that there are certain propositions that are more easily testable and so on. The question is the planet? Warming. There are some people all right who deny that, but as far as I can tell, there are very few so that I think is widely accepted as a fact and has been for a long time, not by all next question. Are human beings respond symbol for the warming? Well then, some more people on the right will drop off and say they used to say no, it's sunspots, I don't know if they still say that, so there are certain things that are fact tonight. There certainly think it's established that human activity is the major cause of the rise up and then the question is anything else that happens. So, let's just take the the fires in the Amazon.

People are understandably worried about. Well, if you're on the left, you're told that this is that this, the the Amazon is the lungs of the world makes twenty percent of our oxygen, but I read from people on the right and in the center that biologists say that that's not true I haven't dug into it. I don't know. I'm just saying that is a counterpoint. Such is that there is a counterpoint, it's that, if you're a partisan, if you're on a team ever comes your way, you don't just say who? Is it true? You say: oh my god. This confirms the thing that I believe most desperately. This confirms why they're so evil and you have lots of people helping. You confirm that it's called confirmation bias that we don't say well. What's the evidence on both sides, we say: can I can I take this as evidence that

my enemies are evil. We look for that evidence and we always find it on the internet. Just Google, it you know it you'll, find it online uh, so yeah, there are facts, but I think I am again. I am just despairing of our ability to find them. You have talked about um. The sort of um evolutionary advantage is that some of the dynamics that we observe in humans have had at prior times and maybe even still have today. One of the things I've been studying is this concept of the narcissism of small differences and I'm curious. If we imagine a world where imagined that the right convinced the left to come to their side on global warming on abortion on game at whatever right, let's say the left said: you know what you've convinced us you're right. Would there not be a re stratification within the you sort of pillars of disco

ocean where in there would be a new out group within the right? That would be on the left of what is left so to speak, and you would have the same exact degree of polarization, disagreement and sort of alternate fact worlds that you describe yes in general, I think that's true. I mean we certainly made a lot of moral progress. Each side has convinced the other a few things. The direction of history has been more in the progressive direction. A in that you know do what should women have the right to vote? Should women have equal opportunity or equal access to everything, there's not any serious debate or doubt over that. So then we move on where the left says. Well, okay, now what we need equal representation, that women should be fifty percent of, say all the you know all this, the engineers and and computer programmers

the right says: no, we should have equal opportunity. I wouldn't exactly call it the narcissism of small differences. Those are major, an important philosophical questions. What counts as the standard for a fair society, but yes, I think your general point is that progress beat material progress or moral progress will never end are are furious debates. We will always find things to argue about something as simple as do we need it. The the is the cause of our problems that we've lost touch with the old ways in the wisdom of our ancestors war is the problem that we are not advancing fast enough. We need to tear down what we inherited and build something new. That's the fundamental question between progressives and conservatives is the political system that we have ah well suited to adjudicate some of these bigger questions that you've mentioned today, and also that you talk about in the book or is it fundamentally a system that it

either by design or by outcome by side effect, is not going to possibly resolve those disagreements? Yeah, I would never say not, possibly, because the future is very long and we've been through bad times before. So you know five thousand one hundred years from now. I have no idea. Where will be my friend Steven Pinker is probably right that things will be a lot better. Certainly, on material issues will be a lot better, but are there specifically some design flaws or problems with our system that make us worse, armor grid locked Maur, um dysfunctional than many other democracies? I think the answer is yes, so the worst number of political parties, tohave in a country is one, that's really really bad, but the second worst number is too because our

lines are really to find the tune to do us versus them, and there's even research showing that if you break people up into groups of into three or four different groups, you don't get the kind of split you don't get the ferocity of the split that you get when you break people up into two groups. So too is a. We have two parties. I wish we didn't. It wasn't the design of the fat readers, but it emerged even over the question of whether ratify the constitution. They were the federalists and the Anti Federalist. Our system is designed to make it easy to block to block bad ideas, to block whims and passions of the public, so our system is designed to be of a tac rasi and then various kinds of political corruption have amplified that any any group that is strongly like the NRA. Any group that really wants to stop something has a lot of ways. They can stop it, whereas if the majority favors something it's very hard for them to actually push it into law. What are the particular issues that

you see as at least in the short to medium term, not solvable as a result of that structure? So I think well, I think almost all of our big issues are gonna be very hard to solve. Let's just take a climate change for one um, so I think the left has been correct about the nature of the problem um, but the right has been correct that trying to solve it by getting big government agreements is hopeless, we're not going to get China and India to solve things because they agree to reduce their pollution. Ah, because of some agreement that their government signed, Emmanuel Macron tried to do that, he had riots. He tried to have more environmental minded policies. He had riots in France, so countries aren't going to do that.

Um. That way, I think, is failure lies failure. I think the right is correct and hear what I mean, especially the libertarian or free market right um, that these problems are massive and only way we're going to decarbonize is if individual consumers and companies conclude that it's cheaper and better for them, too, use carbon free sources, and so I think, if we leave it to a o c and the green new deal arm, which basically takes us to try to put climate change by importing all the things that the left most wants. That approach that we knew deal has some some good things in it guarantees that people on the right are going to fight it tooth and nail. I mean we have to have a high minimum wage to fight carbon. Yes, okay, but let's, let's go back just one one, slash two, a step, maybe um. I actually

sort of sympathize with the idea that I believe the facts bear out that in the long term, it is actually cheaper, more efficient and therefore more profitable to get away from fossil fuels, but I think the missing step in the libertarian approaches unless there is an intermediary force that pushes before we get to the long term in the short term, it's much easier not to do oh, and I think that that's where the libertarian analysis that you made falls a little bit short. Oh totally agree. So you know if I were king or if I could advise or if there was a government capable of acting on advice um, I would say that um that ultimately, the heavy lifting is going to be done by market forces and if we could have massive federal expenditure into getting really cheap, solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear really has to be part of the problem. If we're serious about this massive government expenditure to get to

those points, ten or twenty years earlier than we would without subsidies. Yes, it's urgent that we do it. So I'm not a partisan, I'm, not a conservative. A progressive or libertarian, I think all three have have insights, to go back to your earlier question. What should one do if they want to find truth? I'll tell you what worked for me. I was on the left when I started writing the righteous mind. My goal was to help the Democrats win more elections, and I committed myself to understanding conservatives and libertarians, and what I discovered is that if you look at the best writing get lots of great ideas. There are lots of really smart, interesting people on all sides, whereas if you get the worst writing if you're on twitter- and you just experience, experienced people, the most extreme versions, you'll think well they're, stupid and evil. So I think we do need. We do need individuals and in a policy process we do need people to propose ideas, other people to say no, that won't work because of X. Here's a better way and you have to have a process by which the best

ideas win. Universities were supposed to do that. That's sort of the idea, the hegelian dialectic in a sense, but the concern I have with it is that when some of the ideas being proposed are outrageous, you're sort of pull, I think the mean in a direction that is not particularly productive mean. That's my concern with that that that the idea you're proposing see what you're saying that the Sir John Stuart Mill didn't use the phrase marketplace of ideas, but it's not a bad metaphor, and so, if it in a real market place, you know the market marketplaces work really well. But if you had a market, what you had a lot of people trying to manipulate the market- and you have ah lobby groups and industry groups putting out fake reports yeah, that's a market failure, so uh! That's why we need quality control and that's why universities, I think, are or should be our best hope for finding the truth.

I've been very concerned that in the Social Sciences, which is what we're really talking about here, we really need the social Sciences to work right to to solve these political and social problems. I'm in the social science they've always leaned left, which is not a problem as long as there are a few people searchers who are committed to the academy to say well, wait a second here, some counter evidence we used to have that now that we've shifted much further to one side, and this is happening across society in a polarization cycle. Lots of institutions are purifying. So my fear is that social science research is not as reliable as it would be if we had. If you play diversity, when you have serious professors who are committed to the research process, you don't get crazy ideas put it that that comes from lobby groups and and non non professionals. So you're, not literally saying every crazy idea should be part of what is considered the serious discussion, but that we should have a system in place that will sort of filter so that

ideas that are being taken seriously have passed some kind of either explicit or implicit vetting of sorts. Yes, that's right, I would never say we need all ideas. I would never even say we need all perspectives. What I would say is we have to really look out for orthodoxy if we have any group that is responsible for finding the truth, which is subject to orthodoxy which me, if someone finds counter truth, they will be shamed or expelled. Then we cannot rely on the conclusions of this group. We've been speaking with Jonathan Height, he is a social psychologist. The paper back version of the coddling of the american mind, CO, authored with Greg, is now available. Jonathan, so great to speak is always my pleasure. Did the David Pakman show David Pakman dot com, the David Pakman show is audience supported, media and you can control

mute any amount you want on Patris on as little as one dollar per month, plus you can get the daily bonus show world famous at this point and the daily commercial free tv show by making those pledges at patrison dot com, Slash David Packman show this is audience supported media. We depend on the support of our viewers and listeners, whether you listen to the podcast watch on Youtube or watches on tv, or even listen on the radio patris on dot com. Slash David Pack

Show David Pakman show at David Pakman dot com. We covered the bulk of the policy fiascos in the diplomatic errors of the Trump administration at the G seven meeting in France over the last couple of shows, and today I have sort of like a sideline story from the G. Seven, that's just genuinely bizarre Donald Trump said at the G seven earlier this week that his wife, Melania Trump, has quote gotten to know: north korean dictator, Kim Jong Moon and Melanija. Having gotten to know Kim Jong Moon, believes that Kim Jong Moon really has the potential, I guess to turn around North Korea now, even if all of this were true, I don't know why we would care about Melanija Trump's opinion about the DPRK. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think we would care, but the more important

is that Melania has never met Kim Jong UN. Take a look at this video of Donald Trump Kim Jong, who had gotten to know extremely well. First lady has gotten to know Kim Jong UN and I think she would agree with me. He a man with. A country that has tremendous potential between China, Russia and South Korea. Now the White House spokeswoman later said, Melania has actually never met Kim Jong Moon and the questions immediately swirling question one: is it possible that it's Ivanka Trump, that meant Kim Jong and Trump is confused between Melania and Ivanka? He's made more comments about both of their bodies over the last ten or fifteen years? Maybe the Confu and goes beyond

seeing them as being similarly well in doubt, or something like that. What was the official explanation, because there is an obvious impossibility here, Trump says: Malani, a has gotten to know Kim Jong on the White House says: Malani has never met Kim Jong on how could both be true you're, going to like this Stephanie Grisham? The way eight house spokeswoman said President Trump confides in his wife on many issues, including the detailed elements of his strong relationship with Chairman Kim and while the first lady hasn't met him. The president feels like she's gotten to know two. Why does he have to lie about the dumbest things? The answer is that it simply comes naturally to him. It's reflexive, it's possibly even pathological for him and, of course

this raises the question of has Trump shared confidential, classified or otherwise sensitive in secret information with Melanija Trump. That would, of course, be a concern as well and to be perfectly bank, I'm more interested in whether Melania Trump has gotten to know Justin, Trudeau, looking very, very friendly greeting each other at the G seven, while Donald Trump stood aside anyway, there is one other possible, maybe Melania Trump and Kim Jong Moon have met and it's being covered up, although it doesn't the most likely thing. I don't recall Melania Trump even attending the trips, during which Donald Trump met Kim Jong. All very weird, the most likely explanation is the simplest one, the one that requires the fewest assumptions, which is Donald Trump, just made it up, because he makes things up on the spur of the

all the time and then later somebody's got to clean it up for him. But in the words of the trumpets defenders he's a politician, all politicians lie, but at least he's doing. The right thing remember the takeaway, which I mentioned earlier. You can't believe anything. Donald Trump or his administration say without further researching at first. The most basic pedestrian assertions by Donald Trump need to be interpreted as potentially lies until you've actually got an independent confirmation. That's the real takeaway from the G7 for Maine. I actually have some good news for you today. Farmers are furious with Donald Trump now. The reason that they're furious is not good, which is they're, getting crushed absolutely destroyed by Donald Trump's tariffs and Trump's, pointless, fruitless, endless trade war, but the

fact that the farmers are now correctly blaming Trump for what Trump did is a good thing. Trump's lies often work and frequently they go unpunished. We have in front of US step one in Donald Trump, actually suffering the consequences or suffering some consequences from his lies, which is that farmers are identifying them as lies. This is step one step. One is acceptance. Donald Trump's tariffs have led to massive drops in a number of agricultural exports, soybeans pork, wheat, a number of other farm exports. Now the administration has tried to sort of make up for this by subsidizing farm, which sounds a lot like the socialism that Donald Trump claims to be against, but ok anyway, it's not been enough farm. Bankruptcies are climbing,

farmers are buying less and less farm equipment, so the manufacturers of the farm equipment are starting to suffer. The problems are trickling up so to speak, and Donald Trump subsidies just aren't cutting it. Donald Trump has now rate up, started, lying and saying farmers are doing great again. It's not true, but much like the trying, a phone call that never happened, Trump, realizing that things aren't going well with the trade war and saying don't worry China's desperate to figure this out, they've called me to start trade talks. Of course they haven't. There was no such phone call. Donald Trump is simply saying: oh uh things are going great for farmers now and fortunately the farmers are actually pushing back and the farm groups are saying. No things are not going well quote from Brian Thalman, who is the president of the Minnesota corn Growers association? There are dozens and dozens of these groups- Brian Fallon, saying we're not

starting to do great again. Things are going downhill and downhill quickly. Will they vote as a result of that? We don't know, but at least they've correctly identified that Donald Trump is lying. The national Farmers Union says Donald Trump's tariffs are making things quote worse, not better. Will they vote on the basis of that understanding? We don't know more and more. Individual farmers, like Bob Coyle in, are saying I'm doing terribly since Donald Trump came into office and it's getting worse and worse. So that's all good. This is just what we call step one then it gets to where the rubber meets the road uh. Will these farmers vote for a Democrat in two thousand and twenty? Will they stay home? Ah, we heard from the same farmer Bob Cooley in to CNN quote: if he doesn't lose, he being Trump

Trump doesn't lose one hundred percent of it from the farm belt. Then people are kind of crazy, because this is not going well for farmers at all. Our farmers going to vote for someone else are lifelong republican farmers. In the Midwest going to vote for a Democrat in two thousand and twenty, I hope the answer is yes, but I don't know- and this is something I've been talking about for a long time just because a lifelong Republican is displeased with what Donald Trump is doing or with some ass act of what Donald Trump is doing, doesn't mean they're, going to vote for a Democrat. Now, that's okay and I'll. Explain that in a moment we actually had a phone call. Ah couple phone calls from trumpets who say I don't like that Trump hasn't built the wall and I asked them it was dug from gym you'll. In fact, I remember I said the Doug okay, if Trump doesn't build the wall by twenty twenty. Are you not voting for him and he said well, no, I mean I probably still would and more

likely the reason he won't build the wall if he doesn't is because of not standing in the way or whatever. So it's really important to understand that any dissatisfaction you hear from these lifelong, reliable republican voters with Donald Trump. It doesn't mean they're, going to vote for someone else, but here's the upper, even if they just stay home on election day. It's not a bad thing, assuming that the left can get our base out to vote in November of two thousand and twenty, because, let's be very very honest about this, if they haven't decided not to vote for Trump in two thousand and twenty by now, they're, either voting for Trump or maybe staying home with most of them. The best we can hope for is that they stay home and that's ok, because they're not going to vote for a Democrat, but the reason why this is all ok and we shouldn't worry too too much about these farmers. Not voting for a Democrat is that national elections are not one by convincing people on the other side to vote for your person in large numbers right.

There cannot really be an election where one hundred and thirty million people vote or whatever the number is flipped arguing with people and changing their minds. When half the country doesn't vote, it's about getting out the vote and then we'll accept anything that depress his vote on the right or splits the opposition vote. So I talked earlier this week. Trump has a primary challenger republican former republic. Congressman Joe Walsh is running in the primary. Maybe he will eventually run as an independent will. Some angry farmers in the Midwest maybe opt to vote for Joe Walsh or ah stay home as a result of that that would be fine. We would gladly accept that. Maybe a few percent of the national republican electorate that isn't pleased will trump with Trump will choose to stay home they're not going

vote for a Democrat, but they won't vote all that still helps us as long as we get our base out. This is the path to a win and these farmers, even if they don't vote, can be a part of turning what was in two thousand and sixteen on election that ultimately was decided by seventy five thousand so votes in three states. Just a few farmers staying home in combination with us getting our base out can actually make a difference. Maybe some of them will actually go and vote for the day. Craddick nominee- I don't know, but we don't know, keep them to do. That is the point. We have a voicemail now. That number is two thousand one hundred and ninety two David p. Here's an interesting question which relates to a lot of different things. We talk about on the show, take a listen, J's coffee system in Ohio. Do the job. Thank you for what you do. You are very articulation. You form your system that senses really well on this flyer. You click on your feet, so to speak, and that's this skill that I'm just really struggling and wondering the skill that you always had. Since you know you were little kid,

just something you really had to develop: reserve the more are cigarettes. When I speak on my feet like you, do and sound lately, more intelligent, just wanted giving advice or if you've also had any struggles in the past, and you had to work on it or or if it's just something that came naturally to you. That's all. Thank you again. Thanks. Here's the thing thinking on your feet and being articulate Anthony Fantano, actually is a really good video about this on one of his channels about how to be articulate, there's two parts to it. There is subject matter knowledge which does matter okay and beyond that, it's just social comfort and comfort in situations where

needs to think on their feet, and I have no question whatsoever why I developed the comfort and it's the jobs I held. What, from from the time that I was young, when I was fourteen, I started working at a laser tag place. I actually got a work permit from the school superintendent, who said David, doing okay enough in school that I'm going to allow him to have a job instead of having to wait until he sixteen and I worked at a laser tag place, and I was the person who had to deal with the angry parents, because their kids equipment there laser tag gun, wasn't working and handle payments in all of this stuff at age. Fourteen I had to be able to think on my feet and deal with parents and kids people of all ages in college kids coming in drunk play later tag, and whatever else I then worked at circuit city as a salesperson. The now defunct electronics retail chain and was constantly dealing with angry people, because their tv is not working right or the laptops not working right or trying to sell extended service plan

is to people and having to, in the moment, sort of gauge what sort of sales technique would best work. It was just that, and that is how I it's just a matter of practice and developing confidence and social comfort. Sort of the opposite of like a social anxiety. Um is what I think most ah most helps there and also having some subs matter knowledge. I think that there is no mean listen. Maybe they were. They were probably recently read catch me. If you can by Frank cabin you all a a rabbit now, if I'm not sure that he pronounces his last name, he may have been a skilled enough. Con man we're in a complete up void of subject matter knowledge. He could appear to be knowledgeable about something for most people. I think you actually need to have the subject matter. Knowledge in the area in which you are trying to be art, articulate and and well spoken. We've got a great bonus of

for you today. A college board is dropping its adversity score for students. After major backlash, we will talk about Kentucky Fried Chicken or I guess now it just called KFC trying plant based chicken nuggets and wings in the United States, and we will also talk about Youtube, CEO saying that it is more important than ever to let will upload what whatever they want to upload to Youtube. That's interesting, and there is a double meaning there that I am going to talk about on today's bonus show become a member at joint Packman dot com or a patron at patriot. Dot com, Slash David Pakman, show to get instant access to. Today's bonus will speak to them. The David Pakman show at David dot com.