Tara Setmayer & Abby Phillip UNLEASH on MAGA Pundit’s Racist Comment in Heated D [0:00-5:01]

because of the voting rights act. Because the South knows what's going to happen. There was a hundred years ago, so because all the states, all the people color, that's not ignored, why would I vote like that? Because that's a pretty good thing. No, that's what she said. That's what I said. No, I guess I guess that's what I was saying. I mean, why would I say that? But I mean, it has all been about diluting the votes of minorities, because minorities don't necessarily vote for Republicans. Don't tend to think that anyone has particularly clean hands here. The reality is that whether you want to keep the current maps or get rid of the old maps in your name. Black representation. No, I'm saying the state of black people and the state of black people, and the state of black people and the state of black people. I just don't think there's a relationship. I don't think that you can say, oh, twice, so be it, he wrote. The byproduct is that the Republicans will receive more than 20 house seats in the upcoming terms. Hello, everybody. Guys, they say he has a deal that you just can't pass up. We got Mr. By-1, get 5 free. Team U Trump is back on the panel. Along with Mag is very own, Tella Tubby. Let's get into this segment, and we'll talk about it. And yes, Abby's looking like a mama seato right now. All right, let's just get that out of the way. Tonight, after the Supreme Court delivered Republicans yet another advantage in the midterms in Louisiana, Donald Trump is pitching an extreme proposal for other states. Cancel elections and redraw the maps, potentially invalidating votes that have already been cast. In a six-three decision last week, the Supreme Court rejected Louisiana's card congressional map on the ground so that it was drawn through race-based discrimination. But although the Court's decision applies just to Louisiana, over on social media last night, Trump directed other states to redraw their maps and supposed compliance with the decision. If they have to vote twice, so be it, he wrote. The byproduct is that the Republicans will receive more than 20 house seats in the upcoming midterms. No, what do you make of Trump sending this very clear message to states to not just to redistrict, but to redistrict even if it means throwing out election results it have already happened? Well, I just hate the way the president talks about this sort of thing. And the American public does not like it when they hear a party talk about this sort of stolen based strategy. And it backfired on the Republican party. The president, when he said we should do mid-decade redistricting, was to net Republican seats so they could absorb the impact of a democratic wave in November and Democrats around the country and some Republicans and Independents said, what are you talking about? We're not going to allow that to happen. This ruling was vital in my view for constitutional purposes. For 30 years, Republicans on the court, before we had a court majority, we're saying that there is an irresolvable tension between the VRA as it is construed and interpreted. And the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. For 20 years, we've been hearing that and they've been gradually chipping away at it, section four, section five, section two now. And you hear the president say stuff like that. And it gives people license to think that this is not a constitutional argument, that this is just another stolen base and the Supreme Court is behind it. That's raw. That's a misinterpretation of events. But it's one that the president does allow with loose talk like that. Yeah, I mean, it's an important point, especially from a conservative perspective. He is confirming the view of this ruling as being just about giving Republicans a electoral benefit. Obviously, that's what they're doing. And he's views the whole thing through, what can you do for me in this election, as opposed to what's best for the system, what's best for the country? To the extent the states are going to make some sort of decision to do something sooner, that is their responsibility. It's their obligation. The president doesn't have any control of the situation here. Giving these directives, I think, is no already pointed out. Really bad optics for Republicans. But I also think that, you know, as I think about this, I don't tend to think that anyone has particularly clean hands here. Like, the reality is that, I don't even want to keep the current maps or get rid of the old maps. And you're kind of vocally, vociferously in support of either outcome. It's really because you want to gain the system. And ultimately, with respect to gerrymandering, what we really need is some sort of national policy with respect to actually having independent, competitive districts. Every single incumbent ought to be under pressure in every single race. It may not always yield the best governance, but what definitely doesn't yield the best governance is everyone playing this game. Shut up, Camel. Like, everyone is playing this game. I can't stand this, dude. Always literally stretches to find a way, I guess not literally, tries to find a way to say it's both size fault. He's just another one of these kinds of hacks. It's a fence sitter. Dems tried getting rid of gerrymandering. Republicans voted not to. This isn't a both-size thing. We are forced to do this because Republicans are doing it. It's very simple. Like, what would you have the Dems do? Just sit and take it, right? Just lose election after election? It doesn't make any sense. That's a logic of what he is saying. I love to ask him, what would you want the Dems to do?