I have a question for Chris and
Sinema and every person who says
the filibuster is designed to bring
both sides together.
It's about comedy,
about coming together and
working together.
Okay, so why does that ever work?
Like on anything important,
on anything substantive?
Why can you keep saying that being
proven wrong?
Like the other side laughing in
your face as your stupid
a historical take on the filibuster
is proven laughably wrong over and
over again.
Why does it ever have to actually
work for you to keep saying that,
like you just say it anyway?
>> Yeah.
>> Why would it work?
Why would the filibuster bring both
sides together?
There's a very basic requirement
for her and other people's
hypothesis to actually work,
and that would be for
both sides to want something.
If both sides wanted something,
then in theory, the Republicans
would have to come and
work with the group in power to get
what they want.
But what they want is nothing,
they want nothing to happen.
They want taxes to stay where
they're at until they get back in
power and lower them.
They don't want money
spent on things,
you think they want influence over
the infrastructure bill?
They don't give a damn if there's
never an infrastructure bill,
they had power for years and
didn't pass one.
You think they want a revamping of
immigration law under a Democratic
administration?
Why would they want that?
Some big change to healthcare or
free public college.
Yeah, they just want influence.
No, they don't want that to happen.
And in that area,
they don't need to come together
because they have ultimate control,
they can stop anything at any time.
>> Yeah.
>> So the filibuster is not
creating an incentive for them to
come together, it is assuring them
that they never have to.
Now if you got rid of it, then they
would have to come together to have
some influence over the process.
It might not be much influence,
it arguably shouldn't be since they
keep losing national elections over
and over and over again, but
they would have to have a seat at
the table.
Now, they get to turn the table
over anytime they want.
It's so pointless to even say this,
Krysten Sinema knows every single
word that we're saying.
Now, she doesn't believe anything
that she's saying.
But I think it's very important
that other people do, so that if
they hear regular good people out
who believe, well, yeah, they do
filibuster a lot but in theory
to lead to bipartisanship, no.
It's not designed to do that,
it doesn't do that, in fact,
it assures that there never will
be substantive bipartisanship.
>> That's right.
And one of the things
that would happen and
I think we need to really highlight
the point you just made.
You go to a simple majority,
you still have moderate moderate
Democrats in the Senate, you still
got to work to get their votes.
And also watch what happens if you
go to a Senate majority.
Republicans could technically serve
an entire term or in an entire two
years, four years, six years, and
never get anything done.
Never actually vote to promote
something.
So, when their re-election comes up
in six years, they can always say,
well, I didn't get anything done.
And Democrats can run on that and
say, this guy literally did not
pass one bill nor support one bill
or the other way I happen John.
Where the Republican needs to be
able to say, I got something done
for the people in my state.
And if Democrats have the simple
majority and you've negotiated
a bill where that's simple majority
can push legislation.
I may need to get on board with
this simple majority because my
people will benefit in my state.
If I'm on record for not voting for
this, and my people are saying they
celebrate the policy,
I have a political problem.
>> Yeah, and if the Democrats were
passing things, then in theory,
the Republicans might feel some
pressure to come up with
alternatives to campaign on.
It might lead to them actually
campaigning on policy,
now, they filibuster everything,
nothing gets done.
There's no alternative needed if
they can just block
everything the Democrats do,
they never have to pass anything.
And as I already laid out,
they don't want to pass anything.
Anna and I were talking about this
with Tucker Carlson last night.
You can't expect solutions from
people for whom they see no
problems, they're fat and happy.
>> Yeah.
>> They're wealthy beyond your most
fantastical dreams.
Everything's okay, all the problems
we talk about on a daily basis on
this show, come up with any problem
you want, don't affect them.
Because they are shrouded
in armor composed of millions and
millions of dollars.
[MUSIC]