Kyrsten Sinema: Political Independence and Bipartisanship Insights

Kyrsten Sinema champions a marketplace of ideas, urging acceptance of diverse opinions in politics for genuine growth.

### Kyrsten Sinema's Political Journey: Embracing Independent Thought in a Polarized Landscape
* 🎉 Kyrsten Sinema has made history as the **first Democrat to win a Senate seat in Arizona since 1976** and the **first woman to serve in that role**.
* 📉 Censured by the Arizona Democratic Party, Sinema announced her departure from the party, emphasizing her **commitment to independent thought over party loyalty**.
* 🤝 Sinema expressed her appreciation for bipartisan relationships, highlighting her friendship with JD and the importance of **differing opinions in a healthy democracy**.
* ⚠ She criticized the current political climate, stating that the expectation to **agree 100% with one's party** creates a **dangerous environment reminiscent of authoritarian regimes**.
* 📊 Sinema discussed the intense pressure in Congress to conform to party lines, particularly regarding significant votes like the filibuster, which she defended as **essential for protecting minority opinions**.
* 💰 She revealed the financial burdens of running for office, noting that a Senate seat in Arizona can **cost around $150 million**, which often compels politicians to **align with party expectations for funding**.
* 🗳 Reflecting on her experience with the Build Back Better plan, Sinema lamented the **lack of early bipartisan negotiations** that could have **mitigated conflict and led to more responsible fiscal policies**.
* 🌍 Lastly, she underscored the need for **open dialogue in academia**, arguing that universities should be spaces for **confronting diverse ideas** rather than avoiding **uncomfortable discussions**.

this is very good news for Cinema. What just happened in the last couple of minutes? Kirsten Cinema has been declared the winner. This is the first time that a Democrat will have won a Senate seat in Arizona since 1976, the first woman ever to serve as senator in Arizona. So, it's a very big deal. Censured by the Arizona Democratic Party, Kyrsten Cinema announcing she's leaving the Democratic Party. She's going to be leaving the Senate. If you ever meet someone with whom you agree 100%, either they're a liar or you're not thinking for yourself. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Senator Cinema. Thanks for coming. Absolutely. Thank you for being here. How are you? Hey, good to see you. All right, well, I think you heard JD. I listened to some of it. You listened to some of it. You caught some. Yeah, I listened to the whole thing. What's your take on JD and, you know, if he were to be called on to be president, which is the nature of that job. God

forbid for whatever reason. Um, how do you think he would do as president? Well, first, let me say JD and I have been friends for quite some time. You know, we served together in the Senate. We have a great relationship. We don't agree on everything. Um, what I really appreciate about JD is that it doesn't bother him that we don't agree on everything, right? I know that sounds strange, but not here, right? I mean, yeah, obviously, you guys. Um, there's this thing that I think is kind of disturbing that's happened in American politics, and it's this idea that you either have to agree with someone 100% of the time or they are your mortal enemy and must be destroyed, right? And the two parties actually talk about each other in this existential threat way, right? Like, the only way the country will be safe is if we completely eliminate the existence of the other party. But if you think about that, that's actually incredibly dangerous, right? Yeah, it's incredibly dangerous to have one party. Yes, it's called China and Russia. Exactly. That's

exactly right. So, what we really want in this country, what I really want, is a robust marketplace of ideas. And not only the idea that you can tolerate that someone else has an idea different than your own, but that you can welcome the idea that someone has a different idea than your own because you might, I know this sounds crazy, learn from that other idea and over time change or grow your opinion. It's an opportunity. And so, that's one of my favorite things about JD, is that he and I have areas where we share opinion very closely, and we have areas where we don't share the same opinion, and it's not a problem at all. Like, we're both comfortable with the idea of difference of opinion. I think that's core to the idea of who you want in a leader. Why has that happened? So, why? Why have we found ourselves in a place where we are intolerant of the other party's ideas, and we are intolerant of members of the other party? Well, what's D? What's Driven

this change. I will say that the term we doesn't apply to me, obviously. Um, like, because when people told me to do that, I was like, Yeah, no, I'm not going to do that at all. And um, they were like, You're excused, and right, so. And for those who don't know your background, you left the Democratic Party. That's right. And as a sitting senator. Yes, right. Yes, that's right. Um, because I think you should have your own opinion. I'm pretty straightforward. Yeah. And so, how does that phone call go? Do you call Chuck and say, I have something to tell you, or, or actually more importantly, joking aside, how did that evolution happen for you? So, you started out, you're in Arizona, you start out as a clear Democrat that wins you the actually. So, turn back time. Um, great song. Um, when I first ran for office, very young, like in my 20s, I ran as an independent, and I came in dead last. Yeah. Um, and then I re-registered as a

Democrat ran for the same office, came in first, and then you fast forward, changed nothing, meaning in terms of what you said. My hair changes all the time, but apart from that, nothing changed, right? So, uh, re-registered as a Democrat, came in first, served in the state house for seven, for six years, served in the state senate for a term, ran for the US Congress, won a competitive district, slightly more Republican than Democrat. I won, I served in that seat for six years, ran for the Senate, became the first woman ever to win a Senate race in Arizona, um, more importantly, I was the first member of, at the time, the Democratic party in over 30 years to win a Senate seat in Arizona, um, but I was never a traditional Democrat. And those who've known me for a long time have always known that, that I just am not interested in fitting into a box and never have been. And so, I've always been me, um, there came a point where me being me no longer fit within the Democratic party, and they were really uncomfortable having me in.

the party, and so I made it easier for them by leaving, and it made everyone happier. Um, I was a lot happier 'cause I was being more genuine. Um, but what did that mean? Just double-click into you being you. What is that? That was that made them so uncomfortable. Well, I'll give you an example. My first vote in the United States Senate was a vote on the issue of Israel, and I got a call from at the time minority leader Chuck Schumer, and he asked me to vote no on the measure. And I said, Well, there's zero chance I'm voting no on this measure. This is a vote to stand with Israel. Like, the 'I vote no' is a hard zero. He was like, Ah, this is partisan, and we got to be a unity, and I don't like... I'm not going to share the details of that conversation, but it was a partisan conversation. And for me, I was like, This, I'm confused about the nature of this conversation because the

idea that I'm going to change my vote because someone else wants me to is never going to happen, right? The only thing that would cause me to change my vote is to get new information that changes the calculus for my decision, right? 'Cause that's a sign of growth and learning, is if you get new information, right? There was no new information; it was just a party vote, and I said, Yeah, well, I don't need to go to the party. Like, I'm going to vote the way that I believe. And, um, for me, that didn't seem like a particularly important moment; it's just how I am. But that was problematic for other people. Is there a lot of pressure in the way that politics happens on the ground, which is a lot of you in the Senate may come to a conclusion or an opinion, but before that vote is cast, there's just, on both sides, tremendous pressure to reassign whatever you underwrote. It almost, Hey, it doesn't matter now; we got to tow the party line.

is there a lot of that? Yeah, I mean, the biggest example of that would be what I think is the most important vote I've ever taken in my entire life, and that was the vote to protect the filibuster. The pressure around that vote was severe. Me want to explain that to folks just, uh, yeah. So, the filibuster is a provision in the United States Senate. It's a rule, it's not constitutional, but it's a rule that requires that any major piece of legislation, any policy-related legislation, requires the approval of 60 Senators rather than 51, right? So, a supermajority in order to move forward to debate, discuss, and pass the piece of legislation. Now, there are some people who hate the filibuster because they like to have all the power when they have the power, and I think it's very dangerous to eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster is like a control mechanism that keeps the Senate from ricocheting back and forth between the wild edges of the political pressure.

from either party now. Some people will say, well, the filibusters knew it wasn't always around. Well, that's true because when the Senate was founded, it took a hundred Senators to move forward on a piece of legislation, right? A hundred. And it's eroded down to 60. I believe it would be very dangerous to eliminate that and allow it to be a simple majority. The Senate would become the House. And for God's sake, I served there for six years. There's a reason I went to the Senate, right? The idea is that the Senate is a place that represents all of the views of the country, including areas that are rural or small or have been left behind. Minority opinions must be protected and celebrated in the United States Senate. But there was intense pressure, intense pressure to eliminate the filibuster. Now, the thing that's interesting is that pressure had zero impact on me, yeah, like zero, none. And people thought it was going to. They were like, oh, we're going to get her, we're going to get her. And I just was like

Sure. I'll go to every meeting you'd like, and I went to every single meeting. I listened to everyone. No one ever gave me any information that led me to think it would be a good idea to get rid of the last vestige of bipartisanship in the United States Senate. Is there a knowing what you know now? Is there a path out of this? I mean, and how much more toxic has it gotten over the years? Yeah, and why? And why we didn't get to the why? Like, what's driven the extreme partisanship, the inability to have dialogue, the lack of the idea cauldron? Like, what's... Well, it has gotten a lot worse. I mean, I've been doing this for 20 years, and obviously started in elementary school, but I've been doing it for a long time, and it has gotten much more severe, much more partisan. You know, there are a number of factors for that, but I think a large part of it is that we as

Americans, we all of us are choosing people who agree with 100% of the time because it feels good, even if those individuals don't get done, like they don't return any results, but they will make a TikTok telling you how your view is so right, and it's now become out of favor to support someone with whom you agree with only 60% of the time. When the reality is that if you find someone with whom you agree with only 60% of the time, they're thinking for themselves, and so are you. But if you find someone with whom you agree with 100% of the time, either they're lying to you, or you're not thinking for yourself, and those are two very dangerous things, both very dangerous. So it has gotten more and more extreme because our political system rewards those who say the things that are not true in order to get the applause and the likes and the support money, etc., and punish those who say the things that are true but are not everything you want. You know, does that

mean that democracy eventually dies. No, I don't think so. Our country's been through much worse. I mean, we had a civil war. It does get worse for a while before it gets better, you know, and to Jason's question, how does it get better? Well, I think it gets really bad, um, and then when it gets pretty bad, people are like, Oh, we got to do something. Like, this is our only country. And then, you know, it kind of comes back. Is that this moment now? Yeah, no, I don't think we're there yet. Uh, what, what, what play out the scenarios here? Commo wins, Trump wins, we spend another 8 trillion in debt, and we, and how many more cycles? Cares about debt, neither party cares about debt, let's be honest, on both sides. Yeah, but which means it's going to happen. So, we're sitting here maybe two more cycles from now, and we've put another 15 trillion down, you know, on this. And then when does it break? What is the, what is the um, um, impetus to make

that change. When does it break down? When do we hit rock bottom? Sure, I know the answer to that, and anyone who tells you they do is probably lying because what are the possibilities that you see from inside the machine of this really breaking? Yeah, there are some challenges ahead, right? I mean, uh, Congress spends like a drunken sailor with no thought for the future. We are running to the tape on ISS, on being able to fund things like Social Security and Medicare, and Congress is doing nothing to solve it, right? There's actually a little coalition of us who are trying to solve those problems, um, Cassidy, Senator Cassidy, Senator King, myself, and when we went to go talk to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, they were like, No, let's wait till after the election. Yeah, that's totally going to make it better, right? Like, things are going to be totally good after the election, like they're just putting off that which is uncomfortable because the solution to those fiscal problems requires sacrifice in the short term, and elected officials are not willing to sacrifice anything in

the short term because it means that they may not get re-elected, and if their number one goal is to survive, then they're not going to make the hard decisions. Can we talk about that for a second? Can you just explain to us the underbelly of politics, the money in politics, the people that you have to time with, how the money cycle works, how did you feel that pressure, if at all, even if I'm not saying you responded to it, but maybe just to explain to it. Well, it does take millions and millions and millions of dollars to run for office. I mean, a Senate seat in Arizona is like, what, $150 million? So, you do need a lot of help. Sorry, to win this, to win a Senate seat, it's $150 million bucks in Arizona. Not, yeah, in Arizona, but there are some states in which it probably cost, you know, way less because it's not competitive. But in a competitive state, you know it's going to be very, very expensive. But, you know, I look, there is always

pressure to raise the money, but you can go about it however you want to go about it. Most people go about it the easy way, which is to just kind of follow the line that the party has given, and then the machine lines it up to give you the money. If you choose not to follow the line, then which is the path that I took, then you have to find folks who are also unusual and don't fit easily into a party line. That's support. That's a very important thing you're saying. So essentially, if you inform, which means that in those times where you get the phone call, you have to basically tow the line, otherwise the money spigot stops. Is that right or no? Is that not that drastic? I mean, it was that drastic for me. After the filibuster vote, everyone was like, We hate you, clunk. And I was like, Right, but I am protecting democracy, so call me back later. Click. They had not called back. Um, that day is coming, guys. Um, so the way

you're framing it though. I think is maybe not exactly correct because what you're saying is you have to do the party line thing in order to stay in the thing that that I think it's important to remember is most people want to do the party line thing right. It's not like they're sitting around going like oh I really don't want to vote this way but I really feel like I have to to save my career. There's this thing about being part of the club. People want to be part of the club and so it's not like the thumb is you know being pushed down on lots of people to get them to do a certain thing. They're doing it because they're part of the club. Does that make sense right? It makes sense. I don't understand that me either obviously but I get it. So first of all I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to have a free Marketplace of ideas where people can debate these issues without any fear of

reprisal and um. I think it's sentiments like that that made me support you as when you know you were a senator and a Democrat. People may be surprised to find out that actually we co-hosted an event with you a few years ago. Uh, 'cause I look for opportunities to support Democrats when I can, when they're independent-minded. So, I DAV always appreciate that about you. So, um, for that, yeah, that's exactly weast. Um, I want to go back to the first year of the Biden Administration, 2021. And I don't know if people remember, but that whole year, domestic politics was roiled by a piece of legislation called Build Back Better. This is a $4.5 trillion spending package that actually originally was six. Remember, a six trillion? Like, that's like bonkers. They, yeah, they brought it down six and uh, whatever, whatever, yeah. And um, you know, it eventually failed because every Republican voted against it. Uh, and two Democrats, you and Senator Manchin, voted against it as I

recall the thing that always seemed really crazy to me is, you know, beyond just the sheer amount of this spending package, which now everyone looks at the deficit in the debt and they're like, you know, it's already crazy enough as it is without that having passed. Imagine if it did pass, yeah, um, and our economy. Can you imagine? Yeah, it would. It would have been a total disaster, I think, um, and but the amazing thing to me was that we had this year-long debate in Washington and they never just came to you and Mansion at the beginning of the process and just said, What are you guys willing to do? Because you were the swing votes, right, right, and instead they spent a year like pushing for this thing and then I guess they expected to kind of jam it through at the end, put enough pressure on you to vote for this. I actually had this discussion with um Schumer and the White House in the summer of 21. So um, I'm sure all of you remember all this, you know, because this

is what you do in your lives is think about the work that I'm doing in the United States Senate. But um, in February of 2021, after we passed um that big Co package, which you know we passed a pretty sizable Co package, I was worried that it wasn't paid for. I was worried about the impact this would have on the economy. Turns out all that was right um. I went to Schumer right the day after that and said look, I know that you want to do infrastructure next, and I want to do infrastructure because infrastructure is really important for the future of economic growth and competitiveness in our country. But I want to do it in a bipartisan way because this is that that's what we should be doing in the Senate. And he said something to me along the lines of, We'd love to have the Republicans with us if they'd like to come. That'd be great. And was like, Well, see, my idea of bipartisanship is a little bit different. It's more about the sit down and work together and create

something together and then have a product that you put up together rather than just building it and asking someone to come and jump on your train. And so, you know, people just kind of patted me on the head, and I went out and started working with Rob Portman, who has since retired. But let me tell you what, super smart, very nerdy, great with a spreadsheet, right? Like, I was like, That's my guy right there. And so, Rob and I began working quietly, just the two of us, doing nuts and bolts of like how to build an infrastructure plan. After we gained some steam, we began inviting others, so it ended up that we had a really carefully curated group of five Dems and five Republicans, all moderates and conservatives, working on infrastructure. And we began, we got to a place where our infrastructure bill was going to go. You all may recall, we actually got it done, and it was paid for. But while we were almost at the point of voting on the infrastructure package, that's when

the White House unveiled Build Back Better, and I actually put out a public statement, which is very rare for me, saying there's no way I'm going to vote for that package because it cost eight bazillion dollars, and it was irresponsible. And oh, they were so pissed off. They're like, Why did you say that? I'm like, Well, I think it's important for everyone to know that there's zero chance I vote for that, and I want to say it now so I don't get jammed later, right? CU, I would rather disappoint people today rather than disappoint them the day of the vote. I want them to know I will never vote for this, and the pressure just grew from there. Didn't work, obviously, um, because there was zero chance in which I was going to vote for $4.5 trillion dollars of new taxes, many of which are being debated right now in the presidential campaign and which are bonkers, um, and so I just, I said no. I said no early on, so I did start engaging with the White House.

after that, and they said, Well, what would you vote for? and I said, Here, and I created a spreadsheet, and I said, Here are all the tax policies that you're interested in. Here are the ones that I'm willing to consider. It was a small list, and they just didn't believe me for a long time. It took a year, took about 14 months. 14 months later, they believed me when I said, Here are the policies I will support. Here are the ones I will not support. But it took 14 months before people believed that I meant what I said about tax policy. We, um, when JD was up here, um, and thank you for that work, by the way, and that, uh, Independence, um, it just strikes me before you move on, Jason, that we could have avoided so much rancor over the first one to two years of the Biden Administration if they just listened to you because you were trying to find what I said. You were trying to find, you know, it was a very, it was close to a 50/50 Senate, or I guess it was a 50.

it was 50/50. 50/50. It was 50/50, right? So, it's not like President Biden had an LBJ-like mandate to push through massive new spending tax times. And, uh, so, in any event, I just, it's always seemed crazy to me that they didn't listen to you, and they didn't try and find that bipartisan compromise very early on. We could have avoided, you know, so much of this, um, you know, this again, the rancor. But here's the thing, David, um, and then I want to get to your point. But look, both parties do this, so I don't want to sound like I'm just, you know, all over Biden and Schumer. Because look, when Trump was president and he controlled all the chambers, he did the same thing. So, there's no purity here, right? When one party has total control, they overuse it. That is what happens. Because when a party gets power, they think they're going to have it forever. They overreach.

and then the system corrects, and so one might suggest, just maybe suggest, that a small amount of humility would help here. To think that perhaps when you do have power, you may not always have power, and that it would be good, and it would serve you well, to always consider other people's positions, minority positions, even if they are not the same as your own. Because there will come a time when those individuals have the power, and that perhaps if you're interested in like having some stability and predictability in our country, that finding that more moderate ground is always good, regardless of which party's in power. That's very unpopular, what I just said. Um, I'm curious. Um, when we look at this two-party system, if there is a way out of it, and to maybe create a little bit more choice for um, and a little bit more uh, competition, and have a viable third party. Actually, you uh, explained in the last panel how you know Kennedy to Trump, and you know uh, Cheney to uh, Kamala. It's very strange times we're living in.

and most of us don't feel that either party represents us fully. Sax doesn't believe with these neocons starting wars everywhere, etc. So, is it possible for us to have a viable third party? Because you seem to be also partless, and which I'm fine with. Party one is great, guys. I love it. Party one sits at the bar just perfect. Yes, I love it. It's great too. The nice thing about being a party of one is you get to have the entire platform to yourself. Like, if people are like, What's your party platform? Well, I made it up because it's all my ideas. It's wonderful. So, you know, there was an attempt this year to try and create a third-party option. The group No Labels, with whom I have a great relationship with and a lot of respect for, worked on it. The time is not ripe for that. That was obvious. Like, why is this? I'm not right. I don't know that I can answer that for you. My assessment is that

Many people in America are so scared of what the other party represents and the potential overreach that comes from the other party's positions and the story that has been created that the existence of the other party is an existential threat to the future of our country. Like, that's a story that both parties tell. I think because of that, most Americans are dissatisfied with the parties, but they don't feel confident or comfortable enough to go somewhere else because they're not sure what it will bring, and the fear of the other is at an all-time high. I'm curious in this audience, putting this election cycle aside, how many people would like to see us have a third or fourth option, a third or fourth party. Raise your hand. Okay, that's like everybody in the audience. Like, I don't un L parties one. What's up? A lot of parties have won. Yeah, I mean, I think more Americ R got 19%. It looked like Bobby Kennedy had at the peak what, 15, 20? Yeah, I mean, it does seem like and

and people really wanted no labels to put up Mansion maybe yourself or no no no I'm overqualified. What would you would you what's next for you? Are you going to consider running or you want to be in the private sector? You just want to excited about what's happening in the private sector right now. I mean we've got Industries in this country that are really pushing the edge on what's going to ensure that we're globally competitive and Innovative for the future and I'm really excited about it. And I I believe that regardless of what's happening in government because as I mentioned earlier I do think it's going to get worse gridlock going to get tougher and blah blah blah people are not interested in solving problems they're disinterested and ticktock and so um there's a real opportunity to move our country forward despite the gridlock in government through Private Industry and that's where I want to work. Why why are the Democrats so anti-capitalist? I I don't understand because

that's where the money comes from. Yeah, I just don't understand the spent of being so either. Yeah, you know, I am um, I'm fairly libertarian. I think, you know, just at my base, most Arizonans are um. I I I I struggle with the idea of wanting to eliminate the private industry because that is where the ideas come from, that's where the innovation comes from, and that's where the money comes from to fund the social programs that are important to prot. Country was built on. Yeah, this country had nothing 250 years ago, and the ability to innovate, the opportunity for entrepreneurs to build, and for people to partake in that created productivity gains and ultimately prosperity for everyone. And it makes no sense to stall it. It just doesn't make any sense. Like, I don't understand it. Do you um, when you look at the Israel-Palestine conflict, has any of this, was it, is this expected, the way that this, there's this fissure that's built in America now, the fissure that's been created in West growing um.

it's been growing. You know, I'm quite close with the pro-Israel community, not just in Arizona but nationally, because Israel is our only democratic partner in the Middle East and is one of the best partners to the United States and has been since its inception. But anti-Semitism has long been a part of our country's history, and it has been growing. The difference is that it was kind of quiet; it was happening on campuses with the anti-BDS movement. It was growing in a number of circles on both the far left and the far right. And what we've seen in the last year is that it's now okay to say the quiet part out loud. What's boggling to my mind is, and I don't talk about this very often because it makes me sound really nerdy, but I actually have studied genocide. I did a PhD on the Rwandan genocide, right? Which is super nerdy.

I know, but the narrative that somehow Israel are the oppressors and Hamas are the liberators, and then there are folks who are actually using the term genocide to talk about the Israeli government and the Israeli people, is so insane. Like, that's insane. I mean, talk about the worst form of gaslighting you can even imagine, right? Like, it's just insane. And yet, it's not a surprise because if you've been paying attention, it's been percolating and growing for years. And folks in the pro-Israel community know this, and they've been talking about it. It's just that no one was really listening because it was all whisper, whisper, whisper, or just, you know, kids on campuses. But now we see happening, especially at these so-called elite universities, where not only has the pramas movement taken over, but the faculty, the folks who were responsible for the educational environment, have shown an unwillingness to speak the truth, right? Which I think is just disturbing. Is there a path to

find an empathetic solution for the Palestinians while also at the same time eliminating Hamas and getting past this problem. After the vast majority of Palestinian people are living in an environment in which they don't have control over their daily lives, they don't get access to the food and the water they need, they're being used as human shields and political weapons and physical weapons by Hamas, and so they are in just a horrible, horrible situation. And so the work that we've been trying to do to navigate how to get relief or evacuation for those individuals is really important and should not be eliminated or cut off. But we also need to be much, much more careful about who we're giving the money and the food and the supplies to because we know that the majority of it is being siphoned off by Hamas and used as a weapon of war. Is there a solution that can protect innocent lives? Absolutely. Is standing with Hamas that solution? No. That's like doing a rally for ISIS.

like what the hell is like how did we not see this like we could have just gone to Harvard but how how are young people at Harvard and Colombia and Yale how come they can't they don't all of a sudden that distinction isn't obvious to them it is hard for me to understand this now I am lucky enough to live in Arizona and we just don't have this there's a very small amount of this very small on our campuses but the vast majority of students in Arizona these are like regular kids these are not you know fancy kids these are regular kids they go to regular schools they live a regular life and they go to a regular state school and so they don't wake up in the morning and think I think I want to support those terrorists over there in the Middle East right like and so I think there's one of the problems that I see in Academia and full disclosure I I have been a professor at Arizona State University for 21 years so I I teach I'm te I teach

this semester I've been teaching non-stop for 21 years. Um, but I teach in a climate where my students are expected to be triggered or whatever that word is. I think that's a stupid word. But the bottom line is this: there's this whole thing moving across the country where we're like, Oh, we can't have any triggering conversations. We can't have conversations that make you uncomfortable. That is the whole purpose of college. The whole idea of the university is to go learn about the universe. You should be confronted with ideas that are different than your own. You should interact with people who have views that are different than your own. You should be open to learning and listening and changing and growing. That is the reason that you go to university, right? And that is being taken away. Senator Cinema, thank you for being with us. Senator Cinema. [Applause]

Senator Kyrsten Sinema | All-In Summit 2024

Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks & David Friedberg cover all things economic, tech, political, social & poker.

Follow the besties: 
https://twitter.com/chamath
https://twitter.com/Jason
https://twitter.com/DavidSacks
https://twitter.com/friedberg

Follow the pod: 
https://twitter.com/theallinpod
https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod
https://www.tiktok.com/@all_in_tok
https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod

Subscribe to our clips channel for the best of the besties:
https://www.youtube.com/@allinpod?sub_confirmation=1


All-In Podcast

Kyrsten Sinema's Historic Senate Win and Departure from the Democratic Party

Kyrsten Sinema has made history by winning a Senate seat in Arizona, becoming the first Democrat to do so since 1976 and the first woman to serve as senator in the state.

Sinema's departure from the Democratic Party has been controversial, leading to her censure by the Arizona Democratic Party.

She emphasizes the importance of differing opinions and a robust marketplace of ideas in politics, stating that her unique perspective has always set her apart from traditional party lines.

The speaker found happiness and authenticity by leaving a party, which made others uncomfortable.

They resisted pressure to change their vote on a key issue, prioritizing their own beliefs over party lines.

The speaker faced intense pressure to eliminate the filibuster but remained steadfast in their decision, believing it was crucial for protecting minority opinions in the Senate.

The Deterioration of Bipartisanship in the U.

The speaker has been involved in politics for 20 years and observes that extreme partisanship has worsened over time, driven by Americans choosing leaders who agree with them 100%.

This dynamic has created a toxic political environment, where those who speak the truth are punished, and those who make false promises receive applause and support.

The speaker believes that the country's political challenges will eventually lead to a crisis, but is uncertain when that tipping point will occur, as elected officials are often unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices for long-term solutions.

Running for office requires millions of dollars, with a Senate seat in Arizona costing around $150 million.

There is pressure to raise funds, and many politicians follow the party line to secure money.

However, choosing an unconventional path for support can lead to backlash, as experienced by the speaker after a controversial vote.

The Year-Long Debate on Infrastructure and Spending

The spending package and its potential impact on the deficit and debt were a major concern, leading to a year-long debate in Washington.

The speaker emphasized the importance of bipartisan collaboration for infrastructure planning, working closely with Rob Portman and a group of moderates and conservatives.

The unveiling of the Build Back Better package caused a rift, with the speaker publicly stating their opposition to the $4.

5 trillion in new taxes, leading to increased pressure from the White House.

The Challenge of Bipartisanship and the Need for a Third Party

The speaker struggled for 14 months to get others to believe in their tax policy positions.

They criticized both parties for overreaching when in power and emphasized the importance of considering minority positions.

The speaker questioned the viability of a third party and mentioned an unsuccessful attempt to create one this year.

The Fear of Political Polarization in America

Many Americans feel threatened by the existence of the opposing political party, leading to widespread dissatisfaction with both parties.

The desire for a third or fourth party option is strong, but fear of the unknown holds people back.

The speaker expresses excitement about the potential for private industry to drive innovation and solve problems, despite government gridlock, and highlights the growing issue of anti-Semitism in America as a result of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Complex Narrative of Israel and Hamas

The narrative portraying Israel as the oppressor and Hamas as the liberator is seen as insane and gaslighting.

The pro-Israel community has been raising concerns for years, but the issue has gained prominence, particularly at elite universities.

The speaker emphasizes the need for an empathetic solution for Palestinians while also addressing Hamas's role, and criticizes the current academic environment for stifling uncomfortable conversations.