While a number of Democratic
senators voted against
including the minimum wage
increase one decided to
have a little bit of fun with it.
And so here is Senator Kristen
Sinema during the vote.
>> Ms Sinerma.
Ms Sinema.
>> There's just so much there
in that couple of seconds now.
Look, realistically, her no vote is
basically exactly as bad as all of
the other no votes, they all have
the same effect of contributing to
it not being included.
If what you're doing is telling,
I think in her state.
I think there's like close to
900,000 people working below
that wage.
That like,
why are you having fun with it?
Why are you doing like a parody of
John McCain who as despicable as he
generally was, when he did
the thumbs down it was to
maintain the ACA at the very least.
Why do that?
Why do the little squad and have
your bag is if you're just God,
I gotta do this before I leave.
I don't understand why doing
the fun performative thing on this
of all votes.
>> Yeah.
So first, let's also point out that
she brought chocolate cake and
in case we were unclear about
the analogy.
So she's the Marie Antoinette of
the establishment.
Let them have cake instead
of higher wages.
Well we appreciate it
Senator Sinema that's very clear.
And John is exactly right in
the word that he used.
While you're sitting there is
performative now you're thinking
well who she performing for?
She claimed to be in favor
of the 15 minimum wage before now
she's making a giant showing
of like [LAUGH] I'm for lower wages
and rubbing your face in it.
But she's not like Marie Antoinette
because Marie Antoinette was
genuinely clueless.
Sinema knows the positions.
Earlier touted the other position
and knows that she's going to get
a lot of attention for
rubbing our faces in her not being
a real Democrat.
Well, and that's your answer.
So this entire performance is
virtue signaling or
perhaps the opposite of
virtue signaling for corporations.
This is to raise her hand and say,
I have no virtue, just like Joe
Manchin just like the other six.
But I'm going to do a whole big
show and tell over it.
And so this is what judges do if
they try to if they're right
wingers and they're trying to get
on the Supreme Court,
they will rule that corporations
can literally kill you.
Kavanaugh ruled that and
Gorsuch ruled that,
and corporations make note of that.
And so the Chamber of Commerce
looks at that
through the Federalist Society and
the case of the courts.
And goes,
these are vicious anti-worker,
pro-corporate people,
lets put them on the court.
This is Sinema raising her hand
going, I will do anything for
corporate donors, anything at all,
and I'll have fun doing it.
And I'll end up so
I'll be your Huckleberry and
corporate donors notice that and
go, that's it add a girl, okay?
But move up the list.
So maybe we'll run her for
president or
something because corporate donors
rule all of Washington.
That explains the mystery of
why kick us when we're down because
she's signaling to corporations.
I'm the worst of the worst.
So make sure you back me for
my higher ambitions.
>> I only have two points to add
one being that if we're working in
merging Marie Antoinette analogies.
I think it's important to note that
there is not a clean opinion among
historians as to whether
Marie Antoinette actually said,
let them eat cake.
[LAUGH] And
I think the record should reflect.
She had a lot of very pronounced
enemies both in court and
outside and while she was
an extremely privileged young woman
who existed in court and
was married off as effectively
property and a political pawn.
She, I don't agree that she was
necessarily clueless.
While she was definitely not
a class conscious person for sure.
Having said that, [LAUGH] with
regards to the performance on
the floor, I can't even put myself
in that position I would listen
to any sort of like statement she
eventually gives after the fact.
But I think mostly what that speaks
to is just kind of like
the installation and entitlement
that can often come from roles like
this and this belief that you know,
even when you're being watched.
You're not necessarily being
watched in the way that other
people are being watched.
And so, >> Yeah.
>> You have footage like that.
>> Well, I don't I'm sure she will
make some kind of statement.
I will say that she tweeted earlier
today, saying that she understands
the hard choices that people have
had to make during this pandemic.
Why maybe this was a hard choice
for I don't know.
And so one of the things that's
really confusing about this is,
she's tweeted, like, first of
all her own political history.
She presented herself not that many
years ago as like a radical
progressive or whatever and that
apparently is a long way away now.
But just like look at
this tweet a full time minimum wage
earner makes less than 16 k here.
This one's a no brainer.
Tell Congress to raise
the wage that was seven years ago.
And now she's in
a position to actually do it.
But I mean, going back even
further, journalist Ida Chavez,
she re up this 2002 letter that
Kristen Sinema published
in The Arizona Republic that says.
Until the average American realizes
that capitalism damages her
livelihood while augmenting
the livelihoods of the wealthy,
the almighty dollar will
continue to rule.
It certainly is not ruling in our
favor, which kind of gives me like
vibes of Pete Budaj edge writing
that thing about Bernie Sanders
a billion years ago and then
well then once you're in power,
it's slightly different I guess.
The one thing that I'll say that
kind of loses me and
I only sort of kind of touch base
with this on Twitter a little bit
is people who are like focusing on
her bag which we talked about it.
And it's not a bag that lots of
minimum wage people going to have,
but it's not a $10,000 bag.
Supposedly your bags like 150
bucks, every guy in that room is
wearing a $903,000 suit.
So I wouldn't want to focus too
much on that,
like a good soul ties 85 bucks and
it's not practical in any way.
So there's plenty that's obvious to
focus on without focusing on
her bag choice, I think.
>> Yeah, I actually disagree.
So- >> I wanted to address her
the tweeted statement that went out
with regard to individually I
support this,
I think especially coming off
the research of doing this book.
I think that her use
of the individualized narrative to
talk about what she would or
would not support.
Or and decision she's made in her
own life when confronted with these
kinds of choices or
these, not even choices, but
like these exact realities.
I think is very telling when you're
talking about implementing systemic
changes like everybody having a $15
minimum wage and what that would
do in terms of redistribution or
rebalancing any sort
of dynamics that are there.
The fact that she's invoking a very
personalized story to essentially
eclipse that,
I think is very telling with regard
to her politics,
but also how she is conceiving of
this potential systemic change.
And what should be implemented to
effectively Eclipse it and that is
like these very personal choices,
this very personal anecdotes,
which should be a huge red flag
when there are decisions like this
that are coming up.
>> Yeah, so
I want to comment on what John said
there.
Also what co has said I'm going to
come back then in a second.
So, no, I actually think the bag in
the end everything that's part of
that performance is relevant.
Only because I think she intended
it to be relevant.
So the size of the bag is almost
more important than the price
of the bag.
So if it was not part of
a performance I said get off for
us who cares what she's wearing or
what bag she has, who cares?
But she's with the curtsy,
with the cake.
She's obviously making
a giant point.
And the point is change on the
house and this Kristen Sinema 101
she's perfected this change on the
outside continuity on the inside.
And she knows the media generally
looks at the superficial.
They're obsessed with
the superficial, so
the media will almost never
criticize any of her votes.
because they'll say, well,
that's not objective.
People have lower wages,
they have higher wages.
I'm a reporter.
I don't care at all.
And so if you want to crush those
have the powerful crush
the powerless.
I'm neutral to that.
So that's the ethos of journalism
that I don't agree with, right?
so called journalism.
So but she knows that.
So she goes now let me give you
something else to talk about.
I'm hip, I'm, young, I'm bold,
remember because she was going for
the radical thing.
And to be fair to her,
not morally but intellectually.
She gets into Washington as she got
there by being pitching herself as
a radical progressive.
That's smart because the majority
of voters are progressive, and
Sinema knows that.
Once she gets into power,
she realizes no it's the donors
that make all the decisions and
have all of the power.
And if I want to remain as
a senator and protect my commency
I have to serve corporations.
And she correctly adapts, it is
removed from all morality, right?
She adapts to the environment that
she's in.
And in that bubble to it,
here's the thing you might not
know, but I have interactions
with people inside that bubble.
The bubble is super thick.
And that bubble says progressives
are irrelevant.
They have no power at all.
In fact, you will have more
power If you kick a progressive
on your way just gratuitously.
So Sinema is correctly assessing
the situation and going if I make
a giant show out of being young and
hip, they will tell all of their
viewers and
all their readers, the media will
that I'm progressive.
So that way I can get there, trick
them into their votes and then I'll
tell the donors look at my votes.
I voted with you guys and
against my voters every time and
I'll get their money.
So, in a sense, don't blame
the play blame the game,
[LAUGH] right?
And that goes back to what Cole was
saying about Marie Antoinette.
At the end, it was not her power.
It was the Kings power Louie
the 16th.
And then in this case you could
argue his mansion but
I would argue it's Joe Biden and
I would go beyond Joe Biden and
say, no, it's actually the donors
that control Biden, Mansion and
Sinema their King Louie the 16th.
They're the ones that tell
rewarding Kristen Sinema for
rubbing it in our face,
and that's what she's reacting to.
>> I will add that I think that I
don't mean this specifically to
Sinema but I think that progressive
politics quote unquote, however
you're interpreting that across
a spectrum of realities and issues.
Has, in some ways been flattened
into a brand for politicians for
celebrities for famous people of
all Ilex for Instagram influencers.
And so disability kind of like what
was said earlier that you can
signal these, certain affiliations
while clearly voting them down, in
the same reality or not extending
any sort of legislative support or
funding or depending on what we're
talking about abstractly.
I think that an unfortunate,
development that's happened
probably in the last eight seven
years depending on which part of
the country that you're looking at.
And then like what parts of our
culture is that some progressive
tenants have become very trendy and
they're trending in such a way that
they're not
substantiated with votes.
It's more so
about optics and how you appear and
then kind of like what was
just being said about being able to
signal to certain newsrooms that
like you represent these values.
And I don't think it's isolated to
politics unfortunately,
I think it's leaked out to a bunch
of other industries as well as
branding has become very pertinent.
>> Yeah. And I'm going to say
one couple of last things about it
because this is a great point by
car, so basically Sinema saying I
think the media is stupid and
will help me, okay?.
Because if I go with the trendy,
brand of progressive and
they never tell anyone that I'm not
actually progressive and
I act the right way,
I'm trending in both directions.
And the media basically works for
corporate democrats and are dupes.
So there's going to be no
consequences and my
voters are never going to find out.
And it's a tremendous insult to
the media, who usually just sits
there and takes it.
And one of our members just wrote
it and we do the show with you
guys, I love being interactive
with you guys.
Jean Ginny wrote in.
It's all about publicity cinema,
like the others thrive on any
attention.
And so, Jean, you're right.
She's clearly trying to
get attention here, that's why I
talked about the size of the bag.
It's like when Matt gates who came
in with that ridiculous
suit, right?
[LAUGH] And
look like some sort of mafia capo,
right?
And so,
it was a way of saying, look at
me, so why would she want to draw
attention to this terrible vote?
Because she thinks
there are no downsides.
She's drawing attention to her
being a moderate which the media
rewards and two corporate donors
are saying I'll definitely do
whatever you tell me to do.
Which by the way again,
let's just be clear she's just
being more ostentatious about it,
is true for 90% of politicians.
And so the ones that made it clear
here today,
that's why we got the petition
tyt.com/petitions/thehatefuleight.
That's the eight democrats that
voted against the minimum wage
increase and then rubbed it in our
face and and basically mocked us as
Sinema did and hence the title
Plus, it was a good movie.