David Pakman Made A Fool Of Himself On Patrick Bet-David's Podcast

David Pakman is absolutely insufferable.

David Pakman went on Patrick Bet-David's podcast today, and spent a good bit of the time being annoyingly disingenuous.

One of the most disingenuous moments of their debate was when Patrick Bet-David pressed Pakman on taxes in the United States, and Pakman said anything he could think of to avoid actually engaging in a sincere conversation about it. At one point during this conversation, Pakman (poorly) tried to outsmart Bet-David by asking him a series of insufferably disingenuous questions while Bet-David was providing Pakman with examples of wasted tax dollars in the United States, which we've taken the liberty of time-stamping in a video clip here. The series of ridiculous, disingenuous questions started with Bet-David telling Pakman (correctly) that the American people keep giving the federal government massive amounts of money (and allowing them to borrow it from foreign governments as well) with no accountability of where all the money is going and whether or not what it's being used on is necessary. Pakman laughably asked Bet-David, "what money are you talking about?" as if Pakman was too stupid to realize Bet-David was talking about American tax payer dollars as well as borrowed funds from foreign governments. But this was only the beginning of this absolutely absurd line of questioning from Pakman. Once Bet-David answered his question, Pakman

then moved the window of their conversation to what government programs he was talking about. "Name one [program]," said Pakman, disingenuously. Once Bet-David gave Pakman the examples of the military amongst other social welfare programs, Pakman then moved the window of the conversation yet again to "What I don't understand is what you mean by 'there's no accountability.'" At this point, Bet-David started to become visibly frustrated with Pakman's disingenuity, and said "The fact that you don't know where I'm going with this is an issue." I should say though, in my own opinion, it would have been an issue if Pakman actually didn't know what Bet-David was alluding to in their conversation. The problem is, Pakman actually did know what Bet-David was alluding to, and was just being entirely disingenuous when he was pretending not to, which is a typical and standard play during debates with establishment shit-libs of Pakman's persuasion (Sam Seder, who we've written about and criticized extensively here at Ending Politics, plays a similarly annoying and idiotic game with people he debates), and my sense is that was why Bet-David was getting so visibly frustrated in the linked clip above.

Selfishly, I'm actually quite glad the debate went like this, because not only does it give me great material to write about on my blog here, but it also perfectly exemplifies why intellectually honest people are so hesitant to debate the intellectually dishonest establishment shit-libs these days - because almost all of them behave exactly the same way David Pakman does during his debate with Patrick Bet-David. We see almost exactly the same behavior from Sam Seder too, whose followers are always praising him as a master-debater (lol)... except he's not. He's just so disingenuous in exactly the same way Pakman is in the linked clip above that most content creators would rather avoid the headache and find someone else to talk to.

Anyway, Pakman's disingenuous, stupid games might work on some dumb, low-level Republican politicians, but they're guaranteed to fail when he attempts to use them on an intelligent individual like Patrick Bet-David, who's built a booming small business and podcast from scratch with nothing but hard work and brainpower.

But Pakman then doubled down on his disingenuity even after Bet-David had already answered his questions, by asking him once again, what program he was "displeased with" (despite Bet-David had already given him several specific examples). Bet-David, still visibly frustrated, then offered to pull up a list of government expenses that they could go through line by line, if Pakman so desired. Unsurprisingly, Pakman never took him up on that offer.

Then in the heat of their debate, when Pakman started to look really bad, he attempted to pivot his way into a different argument (that he believed he might be able to win) by claiming that "Donald Trump did a great job of blowing up the deficit." The problems with this pivotal "debate strategy" were, 1. Bet-David never claimed that only the Democrats were running up the debt, and 2. Bet-David never claimed to be a Trump supporter.

One of the funniest moments of this debate was when Patrick Bet-David asked David Pakman what percentage of his income he would actually feel comfortable paying, which took David Pakman almost a full minute to answer. He started by beating around the bush (as he did through most of the debate) with a joke about Abe Lincoln's tax rate, then claimed "he wasn't a high tax guy," then "I don't want to get too much into my personal finances," followed by "I don't like that almost half my income goes to taxes" (David Pakman apparently didn't factor in all the other taxes he's forced to pay like sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc.), and then finally landed on the completely-arbitrary number of "31%," which of course, such a tax rate would still create quite a hardship on the vast majority of the American people.

Admittedly, I felt quite bad for Patrick Bet-David while I watched this debate. David Pakman's disingenuity was completely intolerable, and there were so many more moments like the above examples we could through here, which I won't as to be respectful for you, the reader's time, and you can also watch the debate on YouTube yourself if you're interested. If you decide to indulge yourself, then good luck. You'll probably need some ibuprofen.