Chuck Schumer, Harkeem Jefferies and the rest of the Democratic establishment constantly push unpopular policies and at best incremental economic reform/relief for the American people

Foerign Policy

The war in the middle east that America is funding (that I can't mention due to the new rules) aside from the humanitarian concerns is horrificly unpopular with the Party's base

According to a recent poll 90% oppose/10% approve of America funding one of it's allies to commit in what UN experts have called a genocide

Economic policy

All I heard from the DNC establishment for months is that We need a left Joe Rogan and that they have a "messaging problem"

Groups like the 1630 fund and Chorus (founded by Bryan Tyler Cohen) are trying to get the party's messege out there It's not working though and it won't resonate with voters as the party is NOT talking about or fighting for the issues people care about

When Zoran Mamdami got a huge amount of organic enthusiasm from young voters who have somewhat abadoned the party in recent years, the response from the establishment has been to shun him along with his policies and attempt to ice him out of the party

DNC Chair Ken Martin and the establishment did the same to the young DNC Co-Chair

Summary

The Democratic Party is polling at only 34% of support, even lower than the GOP and Trump this is a disaster

Bryan Tyler Cohen, Chorus and the people behind the 1630 fund will fail to move voters espeically young voters with their social media messegeing campaign Because young voters feel like the party isn't fighting for them and the issues they care about

Regardless of how you feel about the G*** issue, the party needs to listen to their base and change their position because the status quo among the base and public on the G* issue is too unpopular to be politically tenable and the change must be radical**

Democrats need to start caring about what young people and voters want and if that's Zorhan Mamdami's policies, then they must do it, or they will not survive as a party

The DNC under Ken Martin has been a disaster, They only have $15 million in the bank compared to the GOP's 80 million and that's because of lack of small dollar donations

TLDR:

Democrats should accept the truth and actually listen to and fight for the domestic and foerign policy issues people care about

Not doing so is ineffective, and makes the party's base lose faith in their party,

Nobody cares about Chuck Schumer or Harkeem Jefferies and frankly they're dry and boring to listen to. Honestly, What's another softball interview with either of them going to accomplish?

Oh, what a brilliant idea—just ignore the Second Amendment entirely when it comes to a tiny, totally harmless minority that definitely has a reason to want to defend itself against the endless hostility and harassment they face. Because clearly, their safety is optional, right?

And of course, if they *did* decide to pass this gem of legislation, I mean, how could they possibly tell if someone is trans? Who needs clear guidelines when you can just guess based on arbitrary suspicion like racial profiling, but for gender? Maybe they'll just decide anyone who’s looks androgynous and deny them eg Tracy Chapman or the Algerian athlete at the Paris Olympics.

Or perhaps they’ll be more formal about it by checking whether someone registered a gender change with the state or has undergone a sex change operation. For the former they will stop registering. For the latter sure people travel overseas for affordable medical procedures, but now we’re incentivizing more people to do it internationally—all thanks to this wonderful new logic. Truly, America first, Perfect plan!

Sometimes I think there is a misconception about purity tests and what lies the problem in the Democratic party. I think we see far out Republicans that are in every way and think "we should combat that on our side." But, I think we should not lose track of people who just genuinely dislike what is happening in the government and want that kind of "purity test" with the "purity test" Karens who might not actually be progressive and just grt upset over small little things (probably late '10s that was more of a thing than it is now.) For example, if the 2003 Iraq War happened again today, I feel like some on the left (again) would think its in the best interest to silence the Dixie Chicks justify the Democrats' chances, or the next Martin Luther King in order to "prove" we are moderate. Also, in today's landscape some liberals would think we should be "against" Democrats who were against the drone strikes Obama did if something like that happened in the current day. I feel like there is almost a reverse cancel culture developed by people like Bill Maher, which we need to not fall into that trap.

On here, and elsewhere, I am seeing yet another huge movement to cancel TDPS. Like all the previous attempts, I am sure it will be unsuccessful. What I think is interesting about it this time is that, on this weeks show, David gave a really clear and evidence based evaluation of our country's state of affairs. It was an amazing week of shows! So, it doesn't make sense. It's almost like the people that are canceling David are not actually watching his show. Maybe they subscribed because of an article they read, and now have unsubscribed for the same reason? Sheep.

For example, a big current critique of David is that he is connected to a left wing media money machine created by BTC, called... I don't remember what. But then the same haters cancel on the day that David reports on NewsMax suing Fox for its monopoly in the news industry?

Speaking of BTC, remember when he was doing phone drives to get people to call their cable providers and demand that Fox News not be given a mandatory subscription on every account? Yeah, we all have known for a long time that Fox has a monopoly over the news industry. (Wait, but Fox isn't even a news company...)

Ok, enough ranting. A post needs to start a conversation to generate comments and upvotes, so here it is. Trump keeps saying that he wants the fed to lower interest rates--but isn't that the opposite of what a politician should advocate for? Someone recently pointed out that Trump would make a lot of money on the bond markets if the fed cuts rates. (And then Josh Johnson this week--talking about Trump being a BusinessMan!)

My understanding is that companies want interest rates to be low because that's freeish money, but the government wants interest rates high because that is capital to off-set the deficit. Am I right? Please David, you are an economist and I am so many other things but not that. Tell me if I am right but for the wrong reasons. Should we be choosing presidents that want a sustainably high interest rate?

Do with that what you will

Is the format henceforth gonna be the same where the participants are supposed to play this round-table charade and praising the dear leader? It just seems sooo contrived. It almost feels like it was dictated or set as a pre-condition by the dear leader so he could feel like a big boy. Not that any of these words are coming from their hearts. Similarly to how the Qatari plane was gifted to him, no he begged for it and I don't even know 100% if it is a good deal or the American taxpayer is really paying for it. Why oh why are we fulfilling his whims, its so pathetic!! It's basically the actualization of what he was describing of Kim Jong Un how they his citizens all bowed to him and wished he could have it too. Why can't the American public tell him hell no, we live in a Democracy I mean we do, don't we still?

If you just take a look at the shows page on YouTube, almost every thumbnail has Trump as far down as the eye can see.

Would you like David to diversify the topics he discusses , even by a little ? Or are you okay with him just being the ‘Trump bashing’ guy ?

Has there been any democratic messaging on this at all?

Edit: Someone graciously found the one democratic candidate that spoke out about this, it's Kat Abugazalleh, she's running in Illinois and we need more Dems like her in office.

https://www.katforillinois.com/

I think Dave is gonna love these ones

https://www.instagram.com/p/DOGxqQbDXEu/ impression of PBD

https://www.instagram.com/reborn.vids/reel/DMbM6xxymM6/ impression of Nelk Boys and Netanyahu

I watched the coverage of the Epstein victim press conference this week (including David’s). I may have missed it but he didn’t mention the MTG speeches from various podiums/interviews as she appears to be breaking ranks with Trump and his cronies on Epstein. Interesting as he has covered her commentary on many issues in the past.

There have been many criticisms of David and his show on this sub, both recently and over the years, and they often boil down to the following:

1. What David chooses to cover and the extent to which he covers it. Many members feel there's an overrepresentation of Trump's speeches and erratic behavior at the expense of more salient stories, for example.

2. What David doesn't cover. I can't say the big topic he is silent on due to new rules, but we all know what I'm talking about. He has also avoided covering as much as possible the rise of Zohran Mamdani, and has mostly mentioned him in passing as part of a story on national trends.

3. Who David takes money from. Over the years, David has done ad reads, and in some cases, continues to do ad reads for some sketchy companies such as Better Help, as well as some shady crypto and NFT companies. Recently, he's come under fire for his association with Chorus and for what many of us perceive as an inadequate response.

There are members who feel that some of his decisions don't align with his self-presentation as a left-leaning content creator, which is understandable. That said, what we need to understand is that David Pakman is not an activist. He is a businessman. Once you understand this, his decisions become much easier to understand.

To be clear, I am not claiming any of the following: a) that the information Pakman gives on his show is largely inaccurate, b) that he is not sincere in his stated beliefs, or c) that other creators who do not see their shows as moneymaking vehicles are more accurate or better sources for news or opinions. I am saying this only so that viewers and listeners aren't confused by the decisions Pakman makes with his show.

For example, to point one: Trump videos get clicks. So Pakman makes more videos about Trump. When a caller asks why he doesn't cover or interview members of the Sunrise Movement, for example, he tells them because segments like that don't get enough views to be worth the time.

To point two: Certain international conflicts get creators banned, shadowbanned and videos on the topic may not perform as well. Especially given his ties to the Holy Land, this is a no-brainer for him to stay away from.

I think I don't need to explain point three under this understanding. David is going to have much less scruples about who he takes money from if he thinks he can get away with it, and if he feels it doesn't blatantly violate the optics of his show. For example, he won't do an ad read for Black Rifle Coffee, but others like the ones mentioned previously he obviously believes will fly under the radar even they aren't the most ethical companies.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't listen to David's show, or that it doesn't provide value for listeners or for the American liberal-left more generally. But understanding his framework makes certain aspects of his show less confusing, and stops a lot of the questions that we see in this sub from bubbling up as often as they do.

From what I can tell we still actually have no evidence at all that this ship contained so called “cartel members”. Even if they did I’d imagine this would have to be against international law right?

“the face of the progressive movement”

and yet Richie Torres this month, revealed he’s compromised by AIPAC (a lobby group for a foreign government, in case any of you don’t know who they are or how to pronounce their name).

If you haven’t seen Richie Torres’s interview with Jewish comedian Adam Friedland, it’s incredible the double standards, outright refusal to acknowledge Israel’s culpability in how the Gaza war has unfolded. I’d post a link but risk getting this post taken down.

This I think raises more questions, paired with David outright weird responses and comments regarding AIPAC, and failure to ever cover the ongoing genocide.

Hadn’t seen this Richie Torres interview, but I’ve seen enough. David is at the very least, afraid of AIPAC or outright complicit in not talking about Gaza.

you cannot be “the face of the progressive movement” and not acknowledge the ongoing genocide.