Transcript
A (0:00)
Get in the game with the college branded Venmo debit card. Wreck your team with every tap and earn up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash, a new rewards program from Venmo. No monthly fee, no minimum balance, just school pride and spending power. Get in the game and sign up for the Venmo debit card@venmo.com collegecard. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank. NA Select Schools available. Venmo stash terms and exclusions apply at Venmo me stash terms max $100 cash back per month.
B (0:30)
Good for Delta. More businesses need to smack these politicians right in the face. I'm glad they turn down Congress for special treatment until the shutdown is done. And by the way, Donald Trump now officially owns the shutdown. This is opportunity. And let me tell you, the Save act is opportunity too. I know it could disenfranchise. Oh. But could also do a lot more than that. It could if you tweak it. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. Thank you for subscribing and following on YouTube. Now we have all these different subscription levels where you can get different things. We have the merch, we have everything. I'll talk to you about it. But what matters most is the brain food that I can give you. Food for thought right now. Donald Trump now owns the this partial shutdown. Why? The Democrats did it. Yes. And the Democrats did it about ice, even though ICE was funded. So the shutdown doesn't even affect ICE at all. This is wrong for the Democrats, Maybe. Yeah. And then the Iran war. So now you have a national security concern and the Democrats shut down the Department of Homeland Security just when we actually need them? Maybe. Well then how does the President own the shutdown? Oh, I'm glad you asked self, because Senator John Kennedy just let it out of the bag. Senator John Kennedy just said what we had been hearing from our background sources. Now he came into the front ground. There was a deal on the table. The Republicans wanted to take it to reopen the government. And the President said no. Why would President Trump say no? Was it a bad deal? It's not what the Republicans thought. It's not what John Thune thought. It's not what Senator John Kennedy thought. Why? Because he believes the problem works better for him than the solution. Because he believes that shutdown is hurting the Democrats. Because perversely, somewhere in the dark confines and recesses of those that this President foolishly puts trust in, someone has Told him, you know, if something bad happens right now, it's on them. And the shutdown is making them look weak. So they want to keep it going despite the pain, despite the pressure it puts on the system that protects us. Why? Because all that matters is advantage over the other side. And in that, while you can complain as I do, I think shutdown should be illegal. I got more on that in a second. I don't like that the Democrats did this. I didn't think it made any sense then. I think it certainly makes no sense now. But the President bailed him out because now he owns it. Now they look like the reasonable ones. Could it shift again? Sure. But you play the ball where it lies, and right now it lies right in front of the Democrats. Club face. How hard are they going to hit it and in what direction? So how do we see it? Well, the. The deal on the table was to do standalone bills. Look, it's not about the amount of funding. That's not what this fight is. It's about ICE doing its job like first world civilized democracy, fearing law enforcement, as opposed to what the President clearly sees them as, which is a brute squad. Well, why would you say that? Why would you say the President sees them as a brute squad? Well, did you hear how he threatened to use them and now is using them at the airports? Look, if you create a strike and I have people who can do the job while you're striking, what do I do? I say, look, I don't want to strike, but I have people that I'll put in there so that we can keep everything open and going. There's nothing really menacing about that, right? It's. I got other people who can do the job. I'm not even saying I'm going to fire you because you didn't do anything wrong. It's not really a strike here, right? You were forced, you were on furlough, you're not getting paid. That's what's happening with the shutdown. So there is no animus, there is no accountability on the part of the workers. They're not striking. It's actually not the best metaphor. So we don't punish them or we don't blame them for the fact that they are being punished, which they are. But now that you look at it this way, ICE is not about money, it's about the rules and that they have to obey the rules. The masks is a stupid issue. There are not enough people being docs to justify something so menacing unless you counter it with big fat badges that have their numbers bigger than any other police do because otherwise the masks don't work. It's menacing. Now, if the president didn't want them to be menacing when he said, I'm sending in these other workers to my earlier example, that would have been it. But that's not what he did. He said, if you don't give me a deal on dhs, I'm sending in ice. As if he was going to release the hounds. That's the way he said it. I'm not twisting it, I'm not perverting it. He went out of his way. Why? Because he sees that as a threat. Why does he see it as a threat? Because he sees ICE as a brood squad. And that's why I was arguing to you this is about how they're being used. This isn't about bad men and women who are joining ice. That's part of it. Who they're recruiting, how they're recruiting, how they're vetting or not vetting, how they're training or not training, all part of it. But what they're being given as orders, what they're being told is okay. What they're being told is legal matters every bit as much to me, if not more. And that's where I see the real problem. As did Tom Holman, by the way, which is why he changed the leadership, changed the rules of engagement, and all of a sudden, what do we see? We're not having raids the same way. It's still popping up. There's still going after people in ways and targeting in ways that I don't think makes sense. But that's a political opinion. The president sees him as a brute squad and that's how he used them that way. And that's what he wants to see from them. He owns that. And similarly, by killing this deal, he owns the shutdown. Now, why is he doing this with the shutdown, other than what I already offered, that he thinks the shutdown works for him better than it works for Democrats, which is a sad commentary on the state of our politics. Politics, because it doesn't work well for either of them. It's about whom you blame more. Again, it's about which side is worse. It's a battle to the bottom. That's where this two party system has gotten us, which is straight in the shitter. Okay, now the next part of the analysis is he says no deal. To be fair to the president. Right? I'm suggesting why he said no deal. The reason he says he did no deal is because he wants the SAVE act to get passed because he says it's so important. Why? Because our elections are so unsafe. This is a solution in search of a problem. Okay, let's start there. We do not have a voter fraud issue. And the best argument they have is, well, we don't know that. We don't. We don't know what we don't know, but we're very suspicious. That's not how logic works. It's not how good policy works, okay? And it's not how the law works, okay? And you know, it's literally like they're arguing not just the non existence of a fact, it's. Well, I don't know that there aren't 30 people in my backyard right now with pitchforks. I know it's highly unlikely and everybody who's ever looked has never seen a crowd of 30 people with pitchforks, maybe two. And they don't have pitchforks, they have like plastic forks. But I guess it's true. That's the strength of their voter fraud argument. Okay? That's how specious and spurious, how weak it is. So this is a solution in search of a problem. But there is a common sense notion to it. You have ID everywhere else. Here's the problem with that argument. The ID you have everywhere else is much easier to get than the ID that they want you to have to vote because the idea they want you to have to vote is one that includes you proving your citizenship through a very limited number of documents that they find acceptable in that regard. That is not like getting a driver's license. And I must mention that people say it's unfair for me to accuse this suggestion and other suggestions for being about disenfranchising people and making sure fewer people vote. But. But I will point out that there was a bill called Motor Voter, which is when you register to vote, you should be register for a driver's license. You should be able to register to vote. Republicans have always been against it. Why? Because it's not safe? No, because it would have more people vote. And for whatever reason, they don't believe that that is in their interests. And certainly the President seems to agree with that, with these moves that are in there. So this is not like getting a driver's license. This is not something that everybody has already. It is about procuring new things that will have a higher standard. That will be onerous for you too, by the way, because you're going to have to do this. Do you have a passport? Do you have your birth certificate? You ready to Go down and stand in line because we don't know that they're going to have a system where you can do it online. So you ready? You psyched to do that? What? You know, how many of you won't do it? How many of us will be like, fine, I'm not dealing with that. Or you'll wait too long, right? I mean, what's the chance that it leads to more people voting, right? Well, we want fewer illegal people voting. What illegal people voting? What are you talking about? It's not a thing, okay? Now you want to have IDs, fine. But I say you got to flip the onus. Don't compromise. Married women, college kids, other minorities and disaffected groups that are not big drivers in metropolitan areas. Minority, you know, all these non maga voter groups, don't put it on them. The burden is on the government. You contact every rightly registered voter or every registered voter and you do the vetting and you set it up and you administer it. And when you have gotten to a certain level of compliance that you know, they negotiate within the bill, then the IDs become a thing. It's on you. You make it happen. You don't make them make it happen. That is a burden for them. The burden should be on the state, not on the wall. It's going to take longer. That's fine. Then it takes longer. Make it, make better ways to do it. That's change number one. Support comes from Ethos Life insurance. Look, if you want to be in the family game, if you want to have responsibility, you've got to take care of those responsibilities. And I know when I say life insurance, a lot of you are going to say, oh, it's a scam, it's expensive, it's too complicated.