The Chris Cuomo Project - Controversy Nontroversy: Trump Birther Conspiracy, Aaron Rodgers, Chick-fil-A

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

Chris Cuomo dives into recent headlines to separate hype from what really matters, from Trump's latest birther conspiracy against Nikki Haley to Aaron Rodgers' removal from Pat McAfee's ESPN show. Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There's so many stories that pop up, drive people into their corners or into a frenzy that I believe are more hype than anything historic. We call it controversy or non-troversy. We don't fake the funk here, and here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS, and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments, and you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to

clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S.com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions, you need an online consultation with a healthcare provider, and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, the price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. Hello, everybody. I'm Chris Cuomo, and welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project

Podcast. Remember, if you sign up for this on Substack, you get it ad-free, and often you'll get it first. So there's so much. Oh, there's this thing that happened at the Holland Tunnel. Oh, and here's this gender thing. Oh, and here's a book thing. And then there's another thing. My question is this.

Are you getting played, being played for a sucker to drive clicks, or are these stories individually or maybe as they work together, real controversies that we have to care about and not non-troversies as I would write them off. To do this, it is not just me here, but I am joined by the redoubtable, the inimitable, the available Gregory Ott. Mostly available. So first controversy, non-troversy. Okay, the first one I've got here.

Oh, no, I have the first one. Oh, okay. Here's the first one. I thought the whole bit was me queuing up these stories. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're launching into it right away. But I have a feeling that you don't like this one, so I wanted to get it out of the way. Great.

And make it first, so it's harder for you to edit. Oh, can't wait. Have you noticed how people on podcasts almost always have cans on their head? Have headphones on? Nobody cares about this. I think they do. I think now that I say it to you, you'll be like, yeah, why do they have it? I don't know why.

Because... To monitor the quality of the audio coming through. While you're broadcasting? I don't wear headphones when I do my TV show. I think it's a way to just isolate the audio sometimes and hear the quality. I'm sitting here so I can make sure on the board, okay, this all sounds good coming out of your mouth and coming out of my fine mouth.

I'll give you a pass, but I think they do it because it's just a convention. It's how they do it. So they just do it that way, even though they don't need to anymore. I would point out that podcasting is an audio medium. And so it's important to be able to hear what you're recording.

I know, but you can hear it without, if unless you are- No, this is a very high quality microphone, but you cannot hear the quality that's coming through these headphones. You just know what your voice is doing. 100% true. If you're an engineer or somebody working on a podcast,

this is a way for me to monitor what is coming through. I'm giving you a pass. I'm saying often the host and co-hosts or guests or whatever the other players are in these productions all have cans on. Okay. They don't need them. Take them off. I'm not taking it off. I need to, I'm the only one running this board right now. You can leave them on. I'm just saying controversy, non-troversy. Of all the things to start this off with, I cannot believe this is, I thought we were going to save this for last

because nobody cares. I cannot believe this. I care. All right, well, tell you what. And a lot of you are going to agree with me. All right, let's, hopefully in the comments, we'll get the people's take on the controversy. They're going to say, yeah, a lot of people wear them.

I don't know why. He's right. I think a lot of people understand. Okay, I'm getting real worked up. And this again, over something. Look, and hyper emotion in any debate is usually proof of a weak position. Oh, that's got to be it. Next. Okay. This is from the New York Times, the paper of record. Trump promotes false birther conspiracy about Nikki Haley. On Truth Social, Mr. Trump, leading presidential candidate, claims falsely because Ms. Haley's Indian immigrant parents were not yet citizens when she was born in South Carolina. She's

disqualified from presidential or vice presidential candidacy under the 12th Amendment. And this is being compared to the false birther conspiracy he pushed against Mr. Obama when he was president. And so this is a controversy or an controversy? It's an controversy because he's wrong again. And this is what Trump does. He plays, look, this is classic demagoguery. Look it up. Play to people's fears and prejudices. We're dealing with one aspect of division right now

is the us versus them thing. And there's a big anti-immigrant vibe, even though that's what this country is almost entirely populated by. And he's doing exactly what he did with Obama. And by the way, he had a better case with Obama because Hawaii has this Fugazi birth certificate system. But Nikki Haley is really no different than his wife. Actually, she's much more, you know, naturalized a citizen than his wife was. This is how a lot of people come to the country is

through immigrant parents. I'm second generation in this country. She's first. And why he would play with this when he had one immigrant parent himself is just proof of Trump doing what he does worst, which is playing to what divides us. And I make a bet. I guarantee you he has no idea how many amendments are in the Constitution, let alone what the 12th is. But what he does know is how to make you not like somebody. Can you explain to the audience why you are saying this is a non-troversy? Can you explain your definition of a controversy versus a non-troversy?

Controversy is something where you have a legitimate question of fact or import that needs to be sussed out, where it's a ratioed proposition. It's not 100-0. It could be 50-50. It could be 64. This is a controversy. We're not sure about this. We need to chew on it. Versus a non-troversy, which is where something is a fugazi. It's hype. It's fake. And that's what Trump is doing. He's creating a fake reason for you to not like Nikki Haley by reminding you she's one of them. Here is another story about Mr. Trump, who again is the leading candidate. You got Trump on the brain, huh? No, he just-

TBS, Trump derangement syndrome. Derangement syndrome. The man is running for president. He's probably going to be the nominee. I think this is a very, all right, this is, I don't have this queued up, but like, I think, is there a controversy to, or non-troversy of the way Trump is being covered in the media right now? Because I've read critics say the media is not covering the statements this man is making much in the way they did. Because he's kind of been on mute since he left Twitter. And since January 6th,

he's in his own little cocoon. He's on truth social. He's on like the Mike Lindell show. And that's where his message is getting out. He's a, he's He's on like the Mike Lindell show. And that's where his message is getting out. He's circumventing a lot of traditional media. And yet he's going on talking about magnets and windmills and all this crazy shit. Like this to me is like, is there a controversy in the way that the media is handling who a man who is pretty much a coin flip to be our next president in spite of January 6th? Well, one, he has always been disruptive of the paradigm. He doesn't behave like a responsible leader, right? He doesn't think about what he says. He doesn't care about the veracity of his statements. And a lot of this gets ignored by his support base and people who are just generally pissed off in society because

you feel like that, not just about Trump, but about everyone in politics. And you don't like that they want to point the finger at Trump for being a way that you think they are. And even if he's worse, somehow the hypocrisy of it matters more to you. And somehow his animus towards the same people that you hate matters more to you than his own flaws. But I think this is more, I'm asking about the media. I get it, it's about the coverage, but I want the, but the context matters. So he's tricky to cover because you're not used to someone spreading as much bullshit as he does. No one has ever flooded the zone with things that are not true, made up, outright lies and destructive as Donald Trump did and does. And I'm telling you, I've been doing this over 20 years. And I was set up to not be inimical towards Trump.

Our families knew each other. I knew him most of my life here in New York. I'd never had a really bad relationship with him, even though when I covered him, he threatened to sue me and damn me back to the womb. But anyone who knows him knows that that's just the way he is, which makes him a character that not a lot of people envied until he became president of the United States.

makes him a character that not a lot of people envied until he became president of the United States. So when the coverage was intense and everything he said was examined, it was too much. And it was a different level of scrutiny than anybody else had ever been given. Then when you back off and he starts to say things that you don't check, you're not checking him enough. You're giving him a pass. And, you know, so it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. He is one of one for a reason, okay? Ramaswamy was trying to play the same game, not working out well for him. Why? Because Trump fills the space of the appetite of need for this type of disruptive character.

So is the scrutiny of the coverage of him controversial? Yes, it is controversial because we don't usually cover leaders this way because they don't usually lie this much. Now, I know that's an unsatisfying answer. And you'll say, oh, yeah, but Biden lies too. Look, again, I don't know why people put Biden on a pedestal. All right, he's president of the United States. I mean, that should still matter. Biden on a pedestal. All right, he's president of the United States. I mean, that should still matter. That is a pedestal. But he lost a bunch of times.

He was never held out for being like Captain Credibility or Mr. Eloquent or like the Lion of the Senate like Teddy Kennedy was, may he rest in peace. So why is he the standard? And even still, he, nobody puts out as much BS as Trump does on a regular basis. It's not even a close call, okay? So, and this, oh, you don't like Trump. That's not true. You don't know me, okay? Let me tell you something that's different about me than a lot of you, because maybe I'm more damaged, I've had different experience, and I've had to make myself this way.

You probably care about most people who have an opinion about you. You'll say no. You'll say no. But most of you do. I don't. I have to have a very high degree of indifference towards other people because not that I don't care about people, I do, but to have an opinion about them, to like or dislike is a big deal for me because most I just let go so that I don't get hurt by the attachment and I don't get hurt by the burden of anger and animus and having passionate feelings about somebody that are counterproductive and often outside my control. It's not necessary, it doesn't my control. So it's not necessary.

It doesn't help me. So I'm telling you, I don't care how much you see me fight with somebody or about somebody. Thinking that it has to be personal and I don't like them is not. My personal beef with the former president is that he weaponized my family and he made it hard for life for my family. And I talked to him about it personally. He refused to change. That was his choice. But I still do the job and I do it as fair as I can. And it's easy to be critical

of Trump because it gives you a lot of reason to. So in terms of coverage, look, I lived it. OK, when he started doing all those interviews, we gave the exact same opportunity to Hillary Clinton. She didn't want it. She didn't want to call in. She didn't want to do that much media. He did. His rallies had big numbers and energy. Those live events sell on television. They resonate with voters. So we did it. She could have had competing rallies. They didn't compete. I'm telling you, it's not as simple as just blaming the media for Trump. I'm telling you, I lived it. You're wrong. Can I do one more Trump story? Yes. you, I lived it. You're wrong. Can I do one more Trump story?

Yes. Okay. This is from his federal election case. A three-judge panel was going on about hypothetical situations in which a president could get in trouble. Here's the story, okay? Jack Smith wants to prosecute the president for acts while he was during that period, unless he was impeached and removed from office for the same. So on that, this is a paraphrase of what happened, but among them, one of the judges asked, what if a president ordered SEAL Team 6, the Navy commando unit, to assassinate a president's political rival? Trump's lawyer

said such a president would surely be impeached and convicted, but he insisted the courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless that happened first. One, sadly, sadly, I don't agree with counsel that he would surely be impeached and removed. I don't know. Why? Because we've gotten into such a poison place with our party politics that they stick with their own, especially on the right, no matter what.

No matter what. Look, Trump has done things that made Nixon look like a choir boy, okay? And times have changed. And the other side is just worse. And that's all that matters. And you stick with your own, especially if you're afraid of what they can do to you. Trump checks that box also. It's not just that they're sticking with their own. It's that, and he's a powerful guy who can hurt you with a group of Americans that are enough to beat you

in primaries. So here's the problem for counsel. The key to the question, and I don't know if the judge meant it this way to trip him up or not, is that there's an analogy being made to what was asked about this case to what President Washington did with the Whiskey Rebellion. Whiskey Rebellion was the first big tax that the government came up with was on whiskey. And people got pissed off. And there was rebellion.

And Washington actually took to the streets and was part of the suppression force. And the analogy is now, if they wanted to prosecute Washington for what he did in suppressing that rebellion after he left office, would that be fair? That's not a good analogy. Why?

The key part of the question was to kill a professional rival, okay? Not to put down a rebellion against the United States government. It was to do something personal. And I think that the lawyer should have seized on that as an analogy and said, well, hold on a second, that would probably not be an official act. Their argument is if it was an official act, then he should be immune,

unless he was removed because that official act was found to be a high crime or misdemeanor, and then maybe it's different. That is arguable. I don't know that it's a winning argument, but it's arguable. Here, what they're saying is that everything that Trump did on January 6th and thereafter, all the phone calls, all the ignoring of counsel,

all the different direct and indirect authorizations to have people try to manipulate the outcome of the election were official acts. And he's immune because he wasn't removed from office for them. I don't think that that's what the Constitution contemplates, but I think it's unclear. And I'm not surprised that it's being litigated. And I'm not surprised even if the Supreme Court would take it, although I'm not sure that they will. And better minds that study constitutional law say that they won't. But there is a bigger thing going on here that is a controversy.

OK, is this whole thing a controversy? Now, I think specifically the idea that you can do whatever you want as president and never be prosecuted because then by that, you could just kill all the senators. And then you can't be prosecuted for that either. Then you got to keep her Sutherland show on your hands. Right. So I think it's absurd. So I think that's a non-troversy. I don't think it's going to wash with the judges,

but we'll see. The controversy is prosecuting political opponents. Everything now is being prosecuted. You don't like what happened on January 6th, Trump had a role, okay, but he wasn't charged with any crime. That's the problem with the 14th Amendment, section three that we were talking about here

back in August. Was he part of an insurrection or not? How do you judge those things? The founding fathers never anticipated that we would have one party prosecuting the other whenever they're out of power to gain advantage the way we have these days now. Looking at Biden for all his finances, looking at Hunter Biden and the laptop and Hillary Clinton and the emails and Trump and Russia and Trump and his money and Trump and what he did on January 6th. We're not allowing you to decide

anything anymore in terms of your leadership. It's all being litigated. And the constitution and our case law is quiet on a lot of this because we've never had this happen before, where everything that happens in politics is being prosecuted as a crime, not just wrong, not just immoral, not just unethical, but illegal. And that's a very different bar. And I think that's very controversial. And I think it's a mistake. And I know that that's controversial to say. And a lot of you get pissed at me and say, I don't respect the rule of law. No, I just respect you more than defaulting to a different process for you to decide who your leaders are. The Chris Cuomo Project is supported by Cozy Earth. Why? Because I like their sheets. That's why.

A lot of people don't get a good night's sleep for a lot of reasons. One of the ones that you can control is bedding. One out of three of us report being sleep deprived. Okay, well, what is it? Well, it stresses all kinds of things. But the wrong sheets can make you hot, can make you cold. I'm telling you, I don't even believe it either. But Cozy Earth sheets breathe.

And here's what I love about them. Cozy Earth's best-selling sheet is a bamboo set, okay? Temperature regulating. Gets softer with every wash. I'm not kidding you, all right? Now, so if you go to CozyEarth.com and you enter the code, enter the code chris and you can get up to 35 off your first order cozy earth.com and the code is chris we don't fake the funk here and here's the real talk over 40 years of age 52 of us experience some kind of ed between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS, and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care.

Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments. And you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven, generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low

as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So, if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S dot com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP.

Prescriptions, you need an online consultation with a healthcare provider and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required.

Plus, the price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. All right, I'm done with Trumpiness. Anything else you find controversial that is not of that man's derivation? Yes. Well, this is not about Mr. Trump. This is about someone who seems to be a fan of Mr. Trump, Aaron Rodgers. He's been on the Pat McAfee show, but the news just came out.

This is probably gonna come out a week after this news breaks, but he was on the Pat McAfee show. He's been cut. This is after all the controversial comments he made about Jimmy Kimmel possibly being on Epstein's list. There's been a back and forth between them.

Is this controversy or non-troversy of this man being, you know, kicked off of this television show where he's opining beyond the sporting world. Cancel culture is real. And as we say here all the time, remember the old expression that people used to say, I hate what you're saying right now, but I will give my life to defend your right to say it. Yeah. I don't think I was around for when that was the most popular, but I've come across it in defend your right to say it. Yeah, I don't think I was around for when that was the most popular, but I've come across it in a book or something.

Yeah, yeah. You've heard that said as part of the problem of the common dialogue, right? Of the political dialogue. First of all, it's not about rights. It's about what we believe to be right and wrong, which is a very different standard. Of course, you have the right to say these things.

The question is, what is the reciprocal right of consequence among everybody else? Remember, the First Amendment is very limited. The First Amendment is limited to what laws the government can pass to infringe on your right of free press, of redress of government,

of speech, of religion, right? That's what it's about. Don't force religion on us. Don't institutionalize religion and don't pass any laws to keep us from saying what we want to say, especially about you and publishing the same. Okay, so this isn't about your right to say things.

It's about the consequences for it, which is not as much about laws. It is about culture. And we have cancel culture going on. And you can blame either side or whatever you want. Look, both sides are going to use anything that gains advantage, okay? So how do I feel about it? Here's how I feel about it.

I believe in more speech, not less. If you don't like what Aaron Rodgers says, don't watch the show. Don't follow the Jets, which is easy enough anyway. They suck. But the idea of, no, he has to lose his job. Now, you're not hurting him financially really, right?

I mean, he's doing fine. But I think we've gone too far with these crowdsourced consequences. And I think there's a perverse bloodlust of being able to take people down that doesn't necessarily make things better. I think if the point is to make things better, then the idea is having better ideas and to let his speech stand and counter it and have other people go on that show and take him on or take him on on other shows and take his ideas on. Because when you take him down, you know what you've done? You've made Aaron Rogers' ideas more powerful now. Because now they're things that the establishment don't want you to hear. And now it's going to renounce and echo all over social media about how his ideas have so much power that the establishment doesn't want them. And I think that that's a stupid thing to set up for yourself. And I think that him being taken off is a mistake.

Does that make it a controversy or a non-troversy? Neither. But it's a mistake because all you're doing is taking the ideas that you want to close out and you're making them more powerful. ABC7 New York, 325 arrested after pro-Palestinian protesters block Holland Tunnel. So the other day, a bunch of protesters, what I said, blocked the Holland Tunnel in a Palestinian, pro-Palestinian protest. Is this a controversy or non-troversy? Can you speak to like this method of protest? It is controversial from the perspective of popular appeal because you wind up making as many enemies as you do allies and you reflect poorly on your own cause depending on how you execute the protest. Right. Let alone as if it crosses the line from a protest to a riot, meaning that it becomes criminal because you touch person or property.

So on a popular level, it's controversial because it's not doing what you want it to do, but that's not why they're doing it. They're doing it for media attention and they're getting the attention. And I believe, you know, for all of these stupid tropes and ugliness about the Jews control the media, not anymore, because they're getting crushed on social media about, you know,

what's being covered and how. And this is the first time I've ever seen a terror organization in Hamas being put on even footing with not just a legitimate sovereign state, but a major ally of the United States. I've never seen it happen before. Now, you can say, oh, it's not really about Hamas. It is about Hamas. OK, because if you're going to do a but for analysis, I only see two boxes to check. But for Hamas, you don't have the situation you're in right now because of what they did on October 7th, which was not just the act of the desperate to get away from the oppressor. Okay. They did animalistic, barbaric things done to calculate this kind of response, and then they ran away and left the rest of the people in Gaza to pay the price. Okay?

The other box you got to check is probably Bibi Netanyahu and his government. I do not think that you're going to find any meaningful peace agreement that has anything resembling a two-state solution with equal rights for both sides with him and his people. with equal rights for both sides, with him and his people. And perversely, the only people in Israel who are getting what they want right now is Bibi and his coalition, because they love the fight. They love, they love it.

They see value in war in this regard. And Hamas gave them exactly that. Bibi Netanyahu was getting shoved out of power for everything he was trying to do with judicial reform there. And this really, I still think he's got big problems in terms of his political future, but this happened on his watch, remember, of course. But he's stayed in power right now because while the courts actually denied him what he wanted recently, in fact, this is keeping him in power because they've got to defend themselves right now

and they don't have the time for political turmoil. But Hamas is a terror organization and they will never put Palestine in a better place because that's not where they're about. So you want to protest that too many Palestinians are paying the price for Hamas. You're right. That there's too much suffering.

You're right. That it needs to stop. You're right. That there's too much suffering. You're right. That it needs to stop. You're right. That Israel has an outsized advantage militarily and they're just pounding on these people. That's right. It should stop. How?

The answer to that cannot involve having Hamas in place. No way. So every moment that you ignore them, excuse them, rationalize them, or mitigate their relevancy, you're making a mistake to your own cause. And it's not that I don't care about your same cause. I just see that we're never going to get to a better place as long as you believe that you can compare Hamas and Israel. So did you give this a controversy or a non-troversy?

It's controversial in terms of you want to win popular support. It's non-troversy in terms of thinking this is bad for them overall because what they want is media attention and they get it. Well, I saved what might be the biggest controversy for last. This came out in late December, but there's a bill floating around here in New York to require that rest stops have restaurants open seven days a week. And Chick-fil-A is upset because they famously are closed on Sundays. And there's a story here in the New York Times. An account of a woman was she was camping out in the Adirondacks. She was driving home.

She stopped in Syracuse on a Sunday. The only restaurant at this Syracuse rest stop was a Chick-fil-A restaurant. And they were closed and she couldn't enjoy a sandwich or perhaps a salad or some, what is that? The ice dream. It's ice cream, but they call it dream. Is it controversial that New York, Republicans are very upset about this. They think it's insanity that New York is considering passing a bill that would require a rest stop to have its restaurants open on Sundays when Chick-fil-A is famously closed on Sundays.

Oh, first you're an controversy. The blue laws. Do you know what those are? Don't swear on stage in a comedy club. So that's blue material. So you had the no booze sold on Sunday. Oh, yeah, yeah. Right?

Yeah. That was a choice. Okay. Why? Because it was seen as, you know, that's the Christian reality in America, that we were all at church on Sunday, and that's the day of rest, and you shouldn't be boozing, all right? It was just, it was an article of social convenience to conform to certain mores that we valued. That's where this comes from, okay? So, it was a law,. All right. So you have the right to decide when places are open or closed. Okay. So that's the legal argument. Chick-fil-A makes a choice, which is I'm not

going to be open on Sunday in respect to the Sabbath. Okay. That's your choice. The obvious remedy here is you need another restaurant other than a Chick-fil-A at that rest stop. See, that's what I'm saying. Like my wife and I got in an argument about this because she's like, oh, let it be closed, whatever. It's like, but a rest stop is like a, it's not a public utility. I don't know what you would call that, but it's like. It's a public accommodation. A public accommodation. So you're driving through on a Sunday.

You're driving. You don't want to be driving. You're tired. You want to go to the bathroom. You want to grab a snack. And the only restaurant is closed. That, to me, is the controversy of however this contract was signed. Like you signed a contract with a company that doesn't provide services one day of the week.

And yet you're up in arms over the fact that, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're going to kick these people out. It's like, well, yeah, because they can't do the thing that we need them to do. You don't have to force them to be open. Right. Unless they are getting a state contract. And then the state gets to make the rules of who can get the contract. And isn't that something that would not be happening here? I would assume they could do it that way. They could overextend themselves because they want a culture fight. But you are going to get exactly what's happening, which is people are going to

think it's anti-Christian. And Bill O'Reilly is going to come on my show and say there's a war on Christianity. And here we go. Here's the latest one. And again, I don't know why you want to hand somebody the stick to beat you in the head with. But this is all about choice. And legally, they have the right to put another restaurant in there,

which is what they should do. And you could argue that it was misfeasance at a minimum that they don't. If it's a public accommodation that's open 24-7, then they should have it open 24-7. And if you want the contract, then you agree to that. And if you don't, then don't agree to the contract. And if you want to have it both ways as a state, you can and put another restaurant in there. Controversy or non-troversy?

Non-troversy. Because I don't believe in things where there are very reasonable answers that don't play to a culture of war, which we're so desirous of. Why? Because the currency is division in a battle to the bottom two-party system. And I don't know why so many of you are so resistant to this idea. I know that two things can be true at once. I know that you got to beware a single factor solution to a complex situation. I get it. But you are in love with these parties.

Like I'm asking us to change the flag. Like I'm asking us to refuse the constitution and throw it out and start again. There is nothing in the Constitution about parties. They're not even creatures of law. They are just tradition. The Supreme Court said that in 1970 something. You can look it up. All of our greatest leaders have told you the parties are poison. Get away from them. Washington refused to stay as president. One of his main reasons was the parties are taking over. I told you avoid sectarianism. I told you be a nation. That is all. I'm getting out of here. You're making a mistake. This is the same shit that happened in London. That's what he said. And he was right. Monroe said the same thing. Jefferson said the same thing before Monroe,

obviously. Teddy Roosevelt said the same thing. Our greatest philosophers we've lost now, name me a political philosopher in modern day. None. Why? We don't give a shit about philosophy. We don't give a shit about our why. It's just advantage.

That's the controversy. That's the real controversy, is that we're killing ourselves. It's literally like, you know, fast food. This is fast food for our political culture. Well, how do I win it right now? Say Nikki Haley's not one of us. How do I win it right now? Say the southern border is porous. How do I win it right now? If they don't want to agree to you calling yourself whatever you want, they hate you. These are all these bullshit, divisive, not even policing, okay? Do we have a problem with excessive force? Yes.

Compared to who? Pretty much nobody else. But we live by our own standard. Yeah, but we still have too much, and there's all these cultural things. We have such a small percentage of those types of negative interactions, given the balance of interactions. I'm not saying that we don't do better. I have covered it. Okay. And I have taken police to task, but we wound up getting to a place of police defund police. How, how so extreme that's division.

That's a binary zero sumsum battle to the bottom. One side only wins if the other side loses. It is the controversy of our time. And any accommodation of the parties is a mistake because they are killing us. And your answer will be the same I get from my family. Chris, one of two answers. Chris, comma, jerk, comma. Now's not the time, it's too dangerous. The time is too important. It matters too much. It's always that way, always.

Yes, Trump is a more inflammatory figure, but it's always too important. Not now, not now, okay? And what's the second one? Well, but then what? And the parties aren't equal. The right is much worse than the left or flip it, right? Depending on your preference.

These, this is the contagion. Nothing changes if nothing changes. That's why I'm asking you to leave the parties, register as independent, so much so that the states have to open up the primaries. These mofos are crazy about the parties because they're afraid of getting primaries. If you take that risk out, we get to a better place like that. Like that.

Yeah, do it right. See, that's why I have these headphones on so I can pick up the snap. See? Yeah, there we go. It's a little muted, isn't it? It's not like a... See, if you had the headphones, you would know how it sounds. I'm telling you right now, I'm hearing it. I have two up the snap. See? Yeah, there we go. It's a little muted, isn't it? It's not like a... See, if you had the headphones, you would know how it sounds.

I'm telling you right now, I'm hearing it. I have two headphones, natural. See, that's better. Yeah, that's a good snap. I've been practicing it longer. Let me hear Amers. Yeah, there's a more clicky...

Can you do this? There you go. You don't know how silly you just looked. What are you talking about? Or cool. You can't make a silly you just looked. What are you talking about? Or cool. You can't make a UFO noise like that. I can't do it when I'm smiling. How do you know that's the sound UFOs make?

Because, I don't know, some guy with a comb and wax paper probably made a noise like that. Some Looney Tunes cartoon. Do it again. No, I can't do it. That's pretty good. Yeah, I know. You are talented.

Thank you. Who knew? Finally. Controversy or non-troversy? You tell me, all right? Or you can just tell Greg. He's the one who goes through the comments anyway. The point is, we got to look at situations,

test them, disagree, agree, but with decency, and see if we are playing at what matters to us, or are we getting played? I see that happening way too much. How about you? Thank you for watching, following, subscribing here at the podcast and at the Substack. If you want it ad-free, if you want it before, other people are going to get it. It's right there, and you can get to be part of the long COVID community where we're working on getting ourselves to a better place of understanding, if not treatment.

And, of course, News Nation, 8P, 11P, every weekday night. Thank you very much for helping us help each other. Let's get after it.