

I used a slight appeal to authority to highlight the ridiculousness of the initial argument. I’m not typing out a million different nuances / hedging everything I say.
Multiple things can be true at same time. I can acknowledge that a sitting senator obviously has some idea of what is / is not effective in terms of when / when not to filibuster while not bowing to the institution itself. Sorry I didn’t add three extra paragraphs about how despite being a US senator… Yada yada yada.
Could also try sorting by top 6 hour.