Leftist Caller Has Concerns About Eliminating The Filibuster

The filibuster is crushing any progressive policies from passing but one caller is concerned that Democrats shouldn't be too hasty to get rid of it. Does the filibuster protect Democrats when they're not in power? Should we return to a standing and talking form of filibuster, or just cut it altogether? Would Joe Manchin or Krysten Sinema support any kind of filibuster reform?

We stream our live show every day at 12 PM ET.

We need your help to keep providing free videos! Support the Majority Report's video content by going to

Watch the Majority Report live MF at 12 p.m. EST at youtube.com/samseder or listen via daily podcast at

Download our FREE app

SUPPORT the show by becoming a member

We Have Merch!!!

LIKE us on Facebook

FOLLOW us on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to us on YouTube

Caller: I also wanted to talk about filibuster reform and stuff like that when it comes to getting Medicare-For-All or the Voting Rights Act. I don't think that getting rid of the filibuster is in our personal best interest. I think that a standing talking filibuster...like if Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema say that they're in favor of a standing talking filibuster I don't understand why we don't already have one.

Emma Vigeland: We should but Manchin reneged on that. He initially said that and then he took out saying he's against everything.

Caller: Too much Koch brothers money?

Emma Vigeland: Probably. Probably. I mean he doesn't he probably went back to his Chamber of Commerce buddies and they were like "no no no" so.

Caller: Yeah it's like for about five minutes I was really happy with Manchin because he was putting West Virginia on the map and people were paying attention. But then he just was a bull in a china shop, destroying pretty much every democratic program that we were trying to get through. I don't know if i really think that you know we need to have the option to filibuster. I mean even if we have the option to filibuster a bad republican bill that could go through and you know, do it for 50 days or something i don't think that there's enough energy with the democrats to actually do that. But I think that you know it would at least provide some safeguard against you know trifecta for the republicans maybe i don't know four six eight years from now.

Emma Vigeland: Yeah, the thing though is that the republicans can do whatever really matters to them and what they want to do through reconciliation. So the thing the filibusters really say you know 20 percent of horrible Republican legislation is able to pass the filibuster. Stuff that may be addressed social issue addresses social issues the real harm that they're doing for the most part which isn't just like a "we hate critical race theory bill" is what they can already do through reconciliation. So I understand your concern but I think the downside of maintaining the filibuster has a lot greater implications than keeping it. And but i guess you're saying you want to just keep some version of it.

Caller: Yes I want to keep the option of us to you know filibuster some horrible social policy in the future. But I'm fine with the John Lewis voting rights act taking you to know 60 days of filibustering to get through because great that makes them all look like horrible racists and they have to be they have to actually go up there and talk about horrible racist [ __ ] you know for two days.

Emma Vigeland: I do like the stand. I do like that element of the standing. I mean apparently another what we should do is have the standing filibuster which allows for that and then also gets rid of that law that says you can't use footage from the senator house floor and political ads.

Caller: Yeah, that'd be great.

Emma Vigeland: Appreciate the call thanks so much.