Who REALLY Holds Power in America

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Who REALLY Holds Power in America"

The Chris Cuomo Project
Host: Chris Cuomo
Episode Date: September 2, 2025

---

Overview

In this solo episode, Chris Cuomo takes a critical look at who actually wields power in America—challenging the common assumption that the country operates as a true democracy. Instead, Cuomo makes the case that America’s constitutional republic system, combined with current cultural and institutional dynamics, allows a well-organized minority and fringe factions to dominate national discourse and policy. He explores the implications of this system for representation, political polarization, and the marginalization of majority interests, offering personal insights and suggestions for change.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. America Is Not a Democracy—It’s a Constitutional Republic

• Definition and Historical Context

  • America is not a direct democracy (majority rule); it is a constitutional republic.
  • Representation is not strictly by population—Senate gives each state, regardless of size, two senators ([00:30]).
  • This structure was designed to protect minority rights and prevent mob rule, but it’s evolved over time.

• Founders’ Original Bias

  • System biased towards "the few"—white, male landowners—via structures like the three-fifths compromise ([03:30]).
  • Originally, the system prevented the "mob" from oppressing minorities, but now may let minority interests overpower the majority.

2. The Skewed Distribution of Power

• Minority Over Majority

  • “About a third of the American population has about half the representation in the federal government.”
  • Rural, less populous states wield disproportionate influence.

• Current Effects

  • Now, small organized groups can dominate the political discussion (e.g., via social media amplification of fringe issues) ([06:00]).
  • “Do you think the majority of this country gives a shit about how many trans people are in sports?”
  • National priorities are set by the loudest, not the largest.

3. Role of Political Parties and Media

• Parties as Private Clubs

  • “Our parties aren’t part of our government… They’re mere tradition.”—yet they act as gatekeepers ([08:40]).
  • Calls for more parties or less party influence, especially in primaries.

• Media and Algorithmic Amplification

  • Media and social platforms maximize "provocation" over substantive coverage ([10:23], [11:45]).
  • “Commerce and capitalism without any sense of responsibility is just greed.”

• Audience Responsibility

  • Blame isn't only on media: “All you do is consume and get involved in… little extreme jihads… all the time.” ([10:55])
  • Calls on listeners to change content consumption patterns and unfollow outrage-driven accounts.

4. Escalation of Partisan Extremes and the Decline of Compromise

• Algorithmic Incentives

  • Social media algorithms encourage extreme, divisive takes: “The algorithm could be designed to enhance whatever it wants… reward people who are reasonable… I think we’d have more of it” ([11:59]).

• Unintelligent, Provocative Discourse

  • Hot takes and hostility replace reasoned disagreements:
    • “You gotta have a hot take, you gotta take a side, you gotta be against the other side, you gotta attack…” ([13:34]).

5. Concrete Examples and Policy Outcomes

• Obamacare as a Rare Example

  • Noted as one of the only recent pieces of legislation that addressed an issue for the majority ([15:40]).
  • “Trump promised...he was going to get rid of Obamacare. He never even brought it up. Right. It's just proof of what I'm saying. He just said negative, hostile. Because that's what resonates. He never had any intention…” ([16:34])

• Manufacturing and Populist Movements

  • Misconceptions about American manufacturing—still the world’s #2 producer but with fewer jobs due to innovation and outsourcing ([22:40]).

• Taxation and Wealth Disparity

  • Discusses the concept of “have too much and have not enough” ([21:39]).
  • “When you don't know your net worth, you got too much money. How about that as a line…”

6. Frustration with the Current System

• Entrenched Incumbents

  • “Congress has like a 1% approval rating and a 95% retention rate… How? Because you just play to the few. You play to who would primary you. Because the general election is a fait accompli…” ([19:17])
  • Gerrymandering and closed primaries lock in the dominance of the extremes.

• Populism on Both Sides

  • Right-wing populism seeks to destroy corporations; left-wing populism seeks redistribution—a reflection of widespread frustration with the system ([23:20]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On America’s System

  • “America is a democracy. True or false? False… We are a constitutional republic. And it is a difference with a very meaningful distinction that you have to think about.” (Chris Cuomo, [00:30])

• On Minority Rule

  • “You have the few dominating the interests of the many. And that's not what was supposed to happen either.” ([01:39])

• On Media and Consumption

  • “You point the finger at me and say, 'You should just be giving us the straight news.' Yeah. And what about these fingers that point back at you? Because all you do is consume and get involved in these little extreme jihads…” ([10:55])

• On Social Media Algorithms

  • “Isn't rewarding the provocative, the violent, the extreme? Isn't that subjective also? Isn't that making a choice?” ([12:05])

• On Wealth Inequality

  • “The difference between 10 million and 20 million is not huge. It is not a different lifestyle. The difference between 75 and 150 [thousand] is huge… So what does that tell you? That there is a too much.” ([21:41])

• On Populist Discontent

  • “That's how you get to a populist movement on the left that's calling for socialism. That's how you get a populist movement on the right that is calling to destroy corporations… How do you think these two places wound up in the same place?” ([22:54])

• On Congressional Entrenchment

  • “Congress has like a 1% approval rating and a 95% retention rate… Because you play to who would primary you… a more extreme mofo than you. So you play to those crazies, you play to the fringe.” ([19:17])

• Summary Statement

  • “We are not a direct democracy. It is a constitutional republic which enables the few to dictate the outcomes of the many.” ([26:06])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:30] – Introduction: America is not a democracy
• [03:30] – Founders’ intent and constitutional design
• [06:00] – Examples of fringe issues dominating the agenda
• [08:40] – Problems with political parties influencing government
• [10:23] – Role of media, algorithms, and provocative discourse
• [12:05] – Critique of social media amplification
• [13:34] – On the need for hot takes and provocation
• [15:40] – Obamacare as an example of majority-interest policy
• [16:34] – Trump and Republican failure to replace Obamacare
• [19:17] – Gerrymandering, primaries, and congressional entrenchment
• [21:39] – Defining “too much” in wealth disparity
• [22:40] – Innovation and the myth of American manufacturing decline
• [22:54] – Rise of populist discontent on right and left
• [26:06] – Recap: America’s indirect democracy and its consequences

---

Conclusion

Chris Cuomo delivers a critical, impassioned analysis of America’s system of power, emphasizing the consequences of minority domination and the detachment from majority needs. He urges media reform, more responsible consumption habits, algorithmic changes on social platforms, and a rekindling of democratic values to shift focus back to substantive, majority-interest issues. Cuomo leaves listeners with the challenge to “get after it”—participate, demand better, and resist the pull of polarizing, minority-driven narratives.

---

"We know the problems. We have to stay together and let’s get after it.” — Chris Cuomo [27:08]

Transcript

[Kristen Bell]

Hi, I'm Kristen Bell, and if you know my husband Dax, then you also know he loves shopping for a car. Selling a car, not so much.

[Chris Cuomo]

We're really doing this, huh?

[Kristen Bell]

Thankfully, Carvana makes it easy. Answer a few questions, put in your van or license, and done. We sold ours in minutes this morning and they'll come pick it up and pay us this afternoon.

[Chris Cuomo]

Bye, bye, Truckee.

[Kristen Bell]

Of course, we kept the favorite.

[Chris Cuomo]

Hello, other Truckee.

[Kristen Bell]

Sell your car with Carvana today. Terms and conditions apply.

[Chris Cuomo]

America is a democracy. True or false? False. And it's time that we figure this out and talk about what to do about it. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. What do you mean America is not a democracy? What, have you lost it? I guess so. I'm talking to myself. But this is not a matter of fact. We are not a direct democracy. We are a constitutional republic. And it is a difference with a very meaningful distinction that you have to think about. Okay? Direct democracy is what. What sometimes would be called a mobocracy, which is 50 plus one majority rule. Okay? That is not what we are. In fact, even our presidential elections are subject to what? The electoral College. People get pissed off that the popular vote doesn't really matter. Well, it kind of does, right? Because it's an indicator of how those states are going to go. But overall, we have some real things to reconsider. We are a constitutional republic. Meaning what? Based on a document that is a set of rules and ideals, we have set up a system of apportionment of representation based off population, in part. In part, absolute. Meaning what? Well, you have one president. No matter how many people you have in the country, you have two senators for each state, regardless of their population. And everybody gets representation, regardless of their population, within the house. So only the House moves up and down. But as a result of how it was originally set up, we now have a situation where about a third of of the American population has about half the representation in the federal government. Why? Because states that don't have a lot of people living in them get two senators, just like states with a lot of people living in them. Okay, meaning what? Well, North Dakota has the same number of senators as Texas, right? So because we are a constitutional republic, we have actually gotten very far away from being a direct democracy. And I always thought that was a good thing. Why? Because America was set up to protect minorities, to protect the few. Remember, this was an amalgamation, this country of people running away as minorities from other places, be it religious, cultural, economic, some all that's who populated this country, castoffs. Okay? So I always thought, like, well, that's what makes sense. We're set up so that the minority doesn't get stepped on as they were in other countries. And that's why we came here. Now I'm not so sure. Now I'm not so sure. Now you can make the argument that it has become so extreme, so exaggerated, that you have the few dominating the interests of the many. And that's not what was supposed to happen either. It was such that the collective would embrace the most people that you could in this country while protecting the rights and privileges of the few so that you didn't get shit on because of race or sex or creed or physical ability, meaning being handicapped or physically challenged. That we respected these distinctions and differences and we protected them and we made sure that the majority didn't step all over them. And that's why being a constitutional republic, where people were elected to speak their conscience was a good thing. Now, it started off a little janky, right? They designed it as a constitutional republic. Why? Because they wanted the few to overwhelm the many. They wanted the white male landowners. Even in that really ugly early section of the first article, the US Constitutional Constitution has seven articles, 27amendments. You should read it. It's worth it. A lot of it is procedural and kind of setting up of administrative things that don't really matter, but it's worth a read. In the first article, they talk about what the slave states wanted, right? Which was the three fifths rule and kind of netting up their population because of the slaves. But you couldn't have them be real people, so they were three fifths of a person. Unless you were involuntary servitude for a period of years. If you were an involuntary servant, okay, not a slave, not enslaved, but an indentured servant. So you had to pay off seven years. You had different rights than an enslaved person. Isn't that interesting? Anyway, so in doing that, they were obviously aware of allowing the few, the representatives, the landowners, to have more say than the many. So there was a bias set in at the beginning, but the original design seemed to work well because it allowed a mob to not overwhelm protected minorities in this country. But now it's flipped. So now with social media, you have small groups of people, often fringe political actors, who dominate our dialogue, who dominate our political process, who dominate our politics, the interests of the few. I mean, do you think the majority of this country gives a shit about how many trans people are in sports? Do you think reproductive rights, as important as they are to me personally, do you think that that's an issue that a majority of households in this country are worried about on a daily basis? No. Do you think most of the things we're talking about, the Epstein files, even the war in the Middle east, the war in Ukraine, Russiagate, all the various lawfare pursuits, I mean, if you look at what's trending on social media, do you think it's what is obsessive for the majority in this country? I don't think so. And every time we ask, we see that, that there is a disconnect. And that's why your participation rates in this country are maybe up around 60%. If you're looking at the percentage of registered voters, if you're looking at the percentage of eligible, it's less. But why? Because there's a disconnect. The majority looks on and is like, what are they all so angry about? What are they fighting over? Why does this matter so much to them? And I think we gotta take a look at how our system is set up and we allow the few to dominate the interests of the many. How do you correct it? Well, you're not going to correct the system. You're not going to go to a direct democracy. And I don't know that that would be better. I mean, I think a parliamentary system probably would have been better in coalition governments. And sure, that can be chaotic, but at least there's some reason to not have constant opposition, right? At least the formation of this coalition is a mandate and they're supposed to do whatever the coalition was. I mean, even something that I think was a bad idea, like Brexit. At least they came in, they got Brexit done, and now they're all learning that it probably wasn't such a good idea for the Brits. But the point is, I think there's something to be said about that, but that's about our parties. And our parties aren't part of our government. Our parties aren't part of the constitutional republic. They're mere tradition. And remember, I'm not saying that the Supreme Court said it in 1976. The problem we have is all the people in power belong to these clubs. So they've made it like institutions when they never should have been. And I think we'd be better off with more parties, but I think we'd certainly be better off with less influence from the two parties, especially on the primaries. Support comes from American financing. So think about this. Your next two mortgage payments. You want to delay them. That's right. You can put those two payments in your pocket and finally get a little breathing room. How? You got to use the equity in your house. You got to call American Financing today. And prices are hard, savings are minimal. Everything is stretched. I get it. You got to do something about it though. And groceries, gas, all that. What do you do? Most Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards and that is a huge mistake. You'll never get out from under it. American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt. You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't even have a chance of making the payments. They're salary based mortgage consultants. What does that mean? No pressure to upsell you. They're helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without upfront fees. The customers are saving an average of about 800 bucks a month. That's like a $10,000 raise. It's fast, it's simple, and look, it could save your budget. Call now before it's too late. 866-889-4244-686688-94244 or go to americanfinancing.net Every idea.

[Kristen Bell]

Starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate. And they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you, Cuomo.

[Chris Cuomo]

But you're not going to change the system. So then what can you change to get us back to where the concerns of the many are the priority, not the fringe interests of the few, Especially when they're a complete distraction to what matters. That's a tough question. And I think it's largely cultural. And I actually think that if I were going to cast blame, I would do it on the powerful. But they're just playing the game, man. And the game rewards provocation and playing to these minority things because the media covers it. We've gotten lazy and easy. We don't want to have to cover the disconnect. We don't want to have to cover what the many want. We want to go with what's easy and what's tasty. And then you Guys will say, yeah, but that's not what the news is supposed to be. Yeah, but that's what you watch and consume, you know what I'm saying? So, like, you know the old line, like, you're pointing the finger at me and being like, you should just be giving us the straight news. Yeah. And what about these fingers that are pointing back at you? Because all you do is consume and get involved in these, you know, little extreme jihads that are taking place in our culture all the time. So how do you change it? Well, part of the responsibility is on these platforms to not have the algorithmic algorithms pick up just what's provocative and negative and destructive. Ooh, that's subjective. And how they're going to be making choices, and that's an infringement on speech. Well, isn't rewarding the provocative, the violent, the extreme? Isn't that subjective? Also? Isn't that making a choice? Isn't that preferencing a kind of speech? So they're already doing that. So the algorithm could be designed to enhance whatever it wants, Right? To reward whatever it wants. And you don't think that over time, if what they did was find a way algorithmically to reward people who are reasonable and looking for compromise, that. That got echoed more and more? You don't think we'd have more of it? I do. And I think those platforms should be taken a task about why they do it the other way. Why do they put their ads near the most salacious shit? Right? It's a choice, right? Well, because it's commerce. It's capitalism. Well, capitalism without any sense of responsibility is just greed. And you don't have to have it be that way. It can still be capitalism. And there'd be. Look, look at Chick Fil, A look at other conscientious commercial ventures where they have certain things that matter to them and they embrace that regardless of what it does for their cost structure or their P and L, their profit and loss. So part of it I put on them, but the rest of it is on us. And podcasts like this are a part of it. And there is a growing trend on social media of people correcting things, of being tone neutral, of not being just agitators all the time, of not just being provocative. You know, I saw this piece the other day about me, and the only reason it got picked up by this group called Mediaite, which, like, is a great demonstration of the problem because it's like all it reflects in its media coverage are things that are provocative and things that are outrageous. And it really makes the point. They might as well be tmz. But the only reason it got picked up was because I said the left needs to shut the fuck up about Epstein. Had I not said it that way, they would have never picked it up. They picked it up because I used the invective and because it was such a hostile notion. And that's all the piece was, was that idea, because the rest of it was very reasonable. The reason I was saying shut up about Epstein is because it doesn't matter to you guys. You guys had an opportunity to put things out. You never talked about it before, you're only talking about it now because it's bad for Trump. And that's not the way you should compete with the other side. You should compete with the other side by having better ideas, not just trafficking in shit and mud and salacious things and negativity all the time. That's what I meant. And I'm sure the majority of people agree with it. See, but the way it got picked up was just because of the provocative nature of it, because that's what gets clicks. So you have to change your own appetites as well as I have. I have unfollowed so many things. Sometimes I'm a little out of the loop. I'm actually relying more on my production team than I used to because I've stopped following so many people on Twitter that usually become part of the Zeitgeist. And I just won't follow them because they're full of shit and they're just purveyors of negativity. So I actually need to be put in the loop by my team sometimes about things that I'm covering. For instance, with the shooting that happened recently in New York City, I needed my producers to kind of clue me in as to how people were reacting to it, because I don't follow a lot of the pod bros and the hot takes and blaming CNN for making it anti white and blaming this one and blaming that, and that's what the NFL gets. And all these other hostile, aggressive, aggro agendas that I tune out, and I suggest you do also, because they're not relevant. They're not. They're not intelligent. They're just set up to be provocative. And that's all it is. You got to have a hot take, you got to take a side, you got to be against the other side, you got to be hostile to the other side, you got to attack the other side. And not always with good arguments. It can be specious, it can be hollow. It can be deceptive, it can be perverse, it can be twisted, as long as it's effective in that moment and then you move on to the next one. And I think that's as much a problem as anything else. And it has allowed the few to dominate the interest of the many. And that's why our government never works on majority concerns. You know, even immigration, which is the closest we've really come to it in, in recent time. I mean, that's not true. Obamacare was the most recent effort where an issue that affects the many was actually acted upon by government. And it was done at the behest of half the political system because they absolutely didn't want Obamacare. Now they want it now. They haven't been able to do any better. Right? They tried to kill it like 70 times and never had a better idea. Trump promised to you that he was going to get rid of Obamacare. He never even brought it up. Right. It's just proof of what I'm saying. He just said negative, hostile. Because that's what resonates. He never had any intention, intention of doing anything about it. Concepts of a plan he hasn't done about health care. Think about it. Why? Because what resonates is the hostility and the hot talk and the animus, the outrage, not doing anything. But what does the many want? The many wants action. The few just want words, just want to see someone owned, see something destroyed. And that's what has to be adjusted. And our system right now is set up to reward it. Because we are not a democracy. We are not a direct democracy. Support comes from Fume. If you're ready to break a bad habit, first step doesn't need to be hard or expensive. You just need the right tool. And look, smoking is tough. Vaping may be tougher. And that's why I like working with Fume. The episode is sponsored by FUM0, the brand new grab and go flavored air device. Okay, so why is it different? Well, first of all, it's affordable. It's 25 bucks. Okay? Sleek pre filled device. No commitment, no refills, no batteries. It's clean. Zero nicotine, Zero vapor. Just natural plant based flavored air. Okay. It's the first truly easy way to try the good habit. Six bold flavors over 10 days of use. Zero makes it very simple to start. Here's a quote. When I first opened the box, I was surprised by how sleek the device looked. Now for me, it's not about how it looks. But I know for a lot of vapers, it Is for me, it's that it can't hurt you and it can help you stop a really toxic habit. All right. Tried it out. In my household, the users like the flavors, and that's good enough for me. Take zero chances with fume zero today. 24.99. That's all it is. T R Y F U M dot com to start with. Zero.

[Commercial Narrator]

Mike and Alyssa are always trying to outdo each other. When Alyssa got a small water bottle, Mike showed up with a 4 liter jug. When Mike started gardening, Alyssa started beekeeping.

[Chris Cuomo]

Oh, come on.

[Commercial Narrator]

They called a truce for their holiday and used Expedia trip planner to collaborate on all the details of their trip. Once there, Mike still did more laps around the pool.

[Chris Cuomo]

Whatever.

[Commercial Narrator]

You were made to outdo your holidays. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel.

[Chris Cuomo]

Now, sometimes it winds up in the same place anyway. Right. The President won the majority of the popular vote. Very rare. Right? Last few cycles. Last time around, he did not win the popular vote, but he won the electoral College. This time he won both. Well, he still didn't really have a mandate. He barely won. Whatever. I mean, at some point, it's a mandate. He won in those swing states. But look, if you break it down, you're not wrong either if you say that. Why? Because within each state, you're going to have a population center that is way more populated. Right. Because it's a population center than the rest of the state. So Even though it's one or two or three counties out of 20 or 30, the rest of them lose because they don't have as many people in it. The system is based off population, not off land. Right. Every time you look at the map, it's like, wow, this country's all red. No, the land is red. The people are mostly blue. If you look at the population centers, right? So it gets dicey. But you have to know this. America is not a democracy. It is not a direct democracy. It is a constitutional republic which enables the few to dictate the outcomes of the many. Yes, the few are supposed to reflect the views of their constituents, but that happens less and less. And where do we see that? We see that in the reality that Congress has like a 1% approval rating and a 95% retention rate within its incumbency. How? Because you just play to the few. You play to who would primary you. Because the general election is a fait accompli. As they say in French, the general is a done deal. Why? Because of gerrymandering and Redistricting. Most of them are locked in red or blue. So only thing you got to worry about is getting primaried. And who do you got to worry about in a primary? A more extreme mofo than you. So you play to those crazies, you play to the fringe. That's what's happening in our politics because it is not a direct democracy. So you have to know that and you have to think about it and you have to think about the limitations of it and what it means for us, for how we get back to a country that is focused on the macro needs of the many. The hard stuff. We ignore all the hard stuff. Why are so many of our kids just like to have too much and the have not enough, which I think is better than have and have not. It's not have and have not. It's have too much and have not enough. That's really what we're looking at. Well, who's to say too much? What's too much? I'll say it, okay, when you, when you have people who are two paychecks from being on the street and other people have more money than they could ever know, well, you, when you don't know your net worth, you got too much money. How about that as a line and how about if we put a line. And you know what, they've examined this in social science. The utility effect of increasing income. The difference between 50 grand and 70 grand is huge. Okay, the difference between 70 grand and 150 grand is huge. Difference between 75 and 150. The difference between 10 million and 20 million is not huge. It is not a different lifestyle. The difference between 3 million and 6 million is not the difference between 500,000 and a million. Between a hundred and 200,000. That's huge. So what does that tell you? That there is a too much. There is a line that we could agree on that over that line, you should get the tax stat of you. Why? Because there's no increase in the utility of benefit. That's why. That doesn't feel good. For who? I'll tell you for who. And this is the fucked up part. For people who aren't in that bracket, you have people like me who will be like, well, what's the line? Hopefully I'm under it. But if I'm over that line, all right, well, if everybody's going to be taxed that way, then I'm all right with it. There are a ton of people who make a ton of, you know, in the 1%, which I'm in I'm on the really low end of the 1%, but I'm still in 1%. But the people who don't want that to change are the people who aspirationally want to be in the 1% someday. So they don't want you to fuck with the benefits of that because they're trying to get there, even though doing it now will help you. That's how you get to a populist movement on the left that's calling for socialism. That's how you get a populist movement on the right that is calling to destroy corporations. How do you think these two places wound up in the same place? Bring back the golden age. Bring back all the manufacturing that is anti corporate evolution. Why? Well, what made the jobs leave here? Bringing China into the WTO under the Clinton administration with the help of the Republicans. Yeah, but what else? Innovation is accountable, responsible for about 80% of the manufacturing jobs we've lost. Oh, and by the way, remember what the number one manufacturing economy in the world is? Right? China. Do you know what's right behind it? What were you going to say? India? What were you going to say? Vietnam? Were you going to say Japan? America. The idea that we don't produce anything here anymore is nonsense. It's that the number of people who are needed to produce things in places where they can afford the innovative nature of manufacturing is just much smaller. So it's only in the places like Southeast Asia where they don't pay the money to innovate because they have cheap human capital that they still do it that way. So the reason you have these offsetting populist movements right now, which again is another manifestation of what I'm telling you about us not being a direct democracy, which is that pockets, populist pockets of angry, pissed off people who are not wrong to be pissed off, but they dominate the dialogue, whereas the many are not represented in that. So you say tariffs because it really helps people who want to punish companies in other countries. But what has it meant to the overall macro economy? We don't know yet, but there is a lot of indication that it's not going to be that good. But we're not really focused on that. We're focused on the few, not the many, because we are a constitutional republic where the few can nominate the many. We are not a direct democracy, and it makes all the difference. And that's something that you got to think about because we have to get back to the concerns of the many being more important than the fringe fancies of the few.

[Commercial Narrator]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off terms apply.

[Chris Cuomo]

What do you think now? I don't care what you think about the starting premise because you can disagree, but you're wrong. America is not a direct democracy. It is a form of democracy that is called the Constitutional Republic. But we are not about where the majority always wins. That is not how the system is set up and as a result the majority has been losing more and more and more. And you got to think about why. Thank you for subscribing and following. Thank you for checking me out on News Nation 8p and 11p Eastern every weekday night. Thank you for subscribing to the substack and for paying so that I can help people get long Covid and I can take those who pay and get your questions and your comments and give them the people in my live conversations I have with different influential people every week on Substack. All right my friends, the problems are real if you want to show people that you are an independent critical thinker brought by the free agent gear and where you're independent minutes. And remember, we know the problems. We have to stay together and let's get after it.