President Donald Trump demanded that Republican senators end the filibuster to end the government shutdown.
“….BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE STONE COLD “CRAZY,” THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE “NUCLEAR OPTION,” GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Trump also added:
The one question that kept coming up, however, was how did the Democrats SHUT DOWN the United States of America, and why did the powerful Republicans allow them to do it? The fact is, in flying back, I thought a great deal about that question, WHY?
Majority Leader John Thune, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, are doing a GREAT job, but the Democrats are Crazed Lunatics that have lost all sense of WISDOM and REALITY. It is a sick form of the now “legendary” Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) that only comes from losing too much. They want Trillions of Dollars to be taken from our Healthcare System and given to others, who are not deserving — People who have come into our Country illegally, many from prisons and mental institutions. This will hurt American citizens, and Republicans will not let it happen. It is now time for the Republicans to play their “TRUMP CARD,” and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW! Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Never have the Democrats fought so hard to do something because they knew the tremendous strength that terminating the Filibuster would give them. They want to substantially expand (PACK!) the United States Supreme Court, make Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico States (Thereby automatically picking up 4 Senate seats, many House seats, and at least 8 Electoral Votes!), and many other highly destructive things. Well, now WE are in power, and if we did what we should be doing, it would IMMEDIATELY end this ridiculous, Country destroying “SHUT DOWN.” If the Democrats ever came back into power, which would be made easier for them if the Republicans are not using the Great Strength and Policies made available to us by ending the Filibuster, the Democrats will exercise their rights, and it will be done in the first day they take office, regardless of whether or not we do it. In addition to all of the other things we would get, such as the best Judges, the best U.S. Attorneys, the best of everything, this was a concept from years ago of then President Barack Hussein Obama and former Majority Leader Harry Reid in order to take advantage of the Republicans. Now I want to do it in order to take advantage of the Democrats….
Do. Not. Do. This.
Trump forgot that Reid ending the filibuster for judges and whatnot came back to bite the Democrats in the butt.
That will happen again.
Sinema and Manchin fought against getting rid of it because they knew the Democrats wouldn’t always have the majority.
Republicans won’t always have the majority.
The Founders formed a government that wasn’t supposed to work. They instilled moves that would lead to deadlocks so the government wouldn’t become too powerful.
Look, you have more and more people calling out the Democrats. We’ve even seen a few media people confronting Democrats for not voting for the continuing resolution.
Republicans have the high ground. Don’t do this.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I picked “Should Rule 22 Be Abolished?” as my government 101 term paper topic long ago. The topic is ancient.
What’s new perhaps is parties voting in lockstep, so no diversity of opinion coming in.
I would rather pass good legislation than”have the high ground”
False dichotomy. Having (and maintaining) the high ground and passing good legislation are not mutually exclusive.
Trump had brain fahrt on truth social? This would be the greatest gift to dems in the future. Don’t do it.
No, this is exactly the wrong approach.
Each vote, eliminate wholly another program and regulatory agency along with agressive RIFs.
If you make changes to the fillibuster, make it so that anyone wishing to conduct one must hold the floor and speak continuously. Once they have stopped, the vote is taken anyway.
maybe djt is running out of great maga ideas and thinks he has to “do something” as opposed to just reinforcing maga agenda
how about END TSA CONTROL OF AIR CONTROL etc and have the airlines do so where thennnnnn
the government can adjudicate when needed any wrong doings
and lo and behold …no shortages of air control etc
Well, you have to ask yourselves: If the situation were reversed what would the D’rats do?
You know the answer. You can’t keep shooting yourself in the foot with the “We are better than that” trope.
The Dems wouldn’t nuke the filibuster, they would just hammer with “The Republicans own this shutdown,” so I don’t know what you mean to convey.
The Senate was intended to be a deliberative body, compared to the House which was designed to vote with passion. Though the filibuster was not part of the Senate’s founding rules, it is a critical part of reducing the amount of legislation that is approved by Congress. Leave it alone.
dems also want to end electoral college …anything to keep their ignorant base fighting in the streets
At this point nuking the filibuster is really a bad idea. First d/prog are likely keeping the shutdown in place only until after the upcoming off year elections. Second it would demonstrate that the d/prog claims about responsibility were correct all along; ‘the GoP has control of the WH, the HoR and the Senate so its their fault’. Third it is a bad idea IMO to pull the trigger, even with the high degree of certainty that the d/prog will eventually do it in the future.
IMO the better course is to hold firm and make the d/prog submit and bow to the inevitable by a handful of d/prog Senators voting for the CR. Not to mention the CR the Senate is rejecting is only good for another couple weeks. The HoR would have to pass another CR with a longer timeline end date then send it back to the Senate for another vote to go beyond the end date of the CR currently being rejected.
If the d/prog want to be petulant and shut down the govt…we should get out of their way. After all the GoP is supposed to be the political party opposed to big gov’t and big spending, why intervene to assist the d/prog when their current actions deliver up a broad win.
DC has a good idea above. Kill off the TSA, transfer that responsibility and its costs back to local airport authorities. Privatize the ATC system. Regulate and monitor the hell out of both airport security/screening and ATC but let the costs be borne by airline passengers through ticket fees assessed by airport authorities not the federal taxpayers.
Heck get rid of EBT/SNAP as a cash program. Go back to handing out pre packed boxes of beans, rice, govt cheese and other staples. Lets see how many current EBT/SNAP recipients will show up weekly to pick up the box. I suspect the cost savings would be far larger than we may believe.
Very much this. If you are in fact starving, it will be a godsend. If you are simply a parasitic grifter, it won’t be attractive.
Has someone actually sat Donnie down and explained to him in simple, short words what a disaster it would be to end the Senate filibuster? Or perhaps someone has and he simply doesn’t care what the results would be since he’s a second-term president with nothing to lose.
I would be in favor of this if I thought the GOP had the courage of their convictions. End the filibuster, open the government, and pass a budget decimating the government. Pass bills ending the Department of Education, zero out funding for USAID, etc. Close out positions and downsize the government until you have a balanced budget.
But, the GOP won’t do that. The won’t remake the gov’t back to “limited government.” They like spending as much as the Democrats.
So why bother ending the filibuster? It won’t result in conservative spending.
ex act ly!
And since the Dems came two votes shorts of trying to end the filibuster, don’t pretend they won’t end it the first time they have the votes. In the meantime, Republicans can close a lot of spending and shrink the gov’t.
The point is they didn’t end it. Nor did they end it any of the previous times they could have.
And the reality is they came up a lot more than two votes short; had they had another senator they would have come up three votes short, etc.
Once you kill it it’s gone forever. It can never be revived. And the next time they get the majority they reverse everything you just achieved.
Not a good idea
I hope he’s bluffing
other than the military
courts
treasury
why is a government shutdown affecting sooo many ???
B/C the government is toooo big too succeed
maga
I just dont think 41 senators should be able to hold up funding the government.
For a continuing resolution, get rid of the filibuster, or lower it to 55 for cloture.
CRs should be automatic. It is in NC and it eliminates all the statewide wrangling. CRs weren’t an issue until someone in the Nixon(?) administration said it was an issue.
I disagree. There should never be any zombie appropriations shambling along untended.
If a budget runs out, all “manditory” spending should automatically become discretionary and discretionary spending gets cancelled.
I’ll go for automatic CR…. IF and Only IF the CR is set at 90% of the prior FY as the top line, it extends for a minimum of 6 months and other than DoD, VA, DoJ and DoT gives the Executive power to prioritize funding during the CR timeline. Otherwise nope, force the legislature to succeed or fail in its responsibility to pass a budget on time and let voters feel the pain of their decisions to send these clowns to DC. Maybe if the pain extends long enough the voters will figure out who is really to blame and vote their asses out next election. If it takes a couple budget cycles to get the voters attention and focus so be it.
No, balanced budgets should be automatic. Create one every year or go home. I managed to do it at a multi-billion dollar company for 40 years and I didn’t even have access to a steam room.
Well, House Speaker Mike Johnson said House won’t reconvene until Schumer and the Dems agree to vote for the clean CR. No more throwing up phony bills to try and make the GOP look bad.
One of two good things McConnell did. One was not confirming Garland for SCOTUS. The other was not acquiescing to Trump’s pressure to end the filibuster during his first term.
Sinema and manchin care about nothing but lining their own pockets with bribes from their own secret party to buy their compliance.
If you think the dems won’t end the filibuster the next time they get control of the Senate you’re living in a fantasy world.
If they manage to wrest control back they will do everything in their power to enact every left wing fever dream as quickly and irrevocably as possible.
Beat them to the punch. Eliminate the filibuster, quit trying to negotiate with terrorists and get the Trump agenda codified into law.
We can always do that later on…lets see the meltdown over 42 million (1 in 8 Americans) not getting SNAP. Let the blue enclaves have their tantrum for a while then we can figure it out before Christmas.
“They didn’t do it the last time they had the majority, or the time before that”
I think you have a short memory; at least about “the last time”. They were set in changing voting rules to ensure they’d have the ability to cheat into office anyone they desired but the Senate was evenly split, so they couldn’t break the filibuster. With Harris’ tie breaking vote, there was absolutely a push to end the filibuster, but Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema would not support it. Those two moderate Senators from relatively conservative states are the only reason the filibuster survived the Biden administration.
Notably, both of those “moderate” democrats were chased out of the Democrat party, became independents and are no longer Senators.
I stand by my assertion. If they get the chance and ending the filibuster will allow them to get their radical agenda passed…especially the part that would allow them to permanently rig future elections so they don’t need to worry about losing power again…they’ll do it without a second thought.
As far as “the time before that”…I’d remind you that the Democrats during the Obama years are the ones who eliminated the filibuster for lower court judicial appointments so they could pack the district and appellate courts with their radicals…many of them the ones who are now working so hard to thwart Trump’s agenda through extrajudicial TROs and injunctions.
No, I do not have a short memory. I remember exactly what they said and did last time, and the time before that. The last time, when they could have abolished the filibuster, they didn’t. They held a performative vote to abolish it (or rather, to limit it) but they lost 52-48 thanks to Sinema and Manchin. Had they had two more senators there would have been at least one more defector. With three more senators there would have been at least two more defectors, and so on. They never intended to abolish it, and made sure it wouldn’t pass.
On the previous iteration they did abolish it for nominations only, and look how that turned around and bit them. They regret doing that, and are not likely to repeat the mistake.
We fundamentally disagree on what the Democrat leadership’s intentions were. What their regrets are and what they’ll do in response. Apparently you have much more faith in the reasonableness of the party of unfettered illegal immigration, never-ending supplies of other people’s money, “y0ur speech is violence but my violence is speech”, and “that six foot four, 230lb creature with a prominent adam’s apple, suspicious bulge in the crotch area and who’s ‘deadname’ is on the registered sex offender list must be treated as if it were a woman because it says so.”
I prefer to predict their future actions based on their past actions, not on what someone really, really wants to believe they meant by it.
When someone points a gun at me, I’m going to shoot them. I’m not going to say “well, I don’t think they really intended to pull the trigger.”
My modest counter offer. Round up all the Democrats, load them in boxcars, and drive the train into the Gulf of America.
There are other ways to accomplish this. But the concept is the same.
Sinema and Manchin fought against getting rid of it because they knew the Democrats wouldn’t always have the majority.
————————–
And neither is in the senate anymore to fight against the dems trying again to rig the SC, votes and anything else they want.
Once the dems get the power back they will screw America every which way they can.
They don’t need to be. The vote would not have passed even if they hadn’t been there. The Dems would have found enough dissenters to make sure the vote failed.
No guarantee that they could get 51 votes for a Rule Change
There are cooler heads that know what could and would happen in the future
Though the filibuster wasn’t one of those. If it had been, it would never have got such a derogatory name as it has. It would have been seen from the beginning as a legitimate tactic that was deliberately included in the senate rules, and may be used without shame or reproof.
But it wasn’t, and under the senate’s original rules debate could be limited just as it is in the house. It was only an inadvertent omission in a revision of the senate rules that left this loophole open, and when senators first noticed it and started exploiting it they were rightly seen as pirates, hijacking the senate floor to impose their will on the majority.
The filibuster only gained respectability over the years, as successive majorities had the chance to close the loophole and deliberately declined to do so. So now it’s a legitimate part of a senate minority’s armory, but it still has the name it originally earned — an act of piracy.
Interestingly, the reason the rule change went unnoticed for so long is because during that time, neither the House, nor the Senate, commonly voted to end debate. For more than a hundred years after the rule change, there was no means in the Senate to end debate at all, but somehow the Senate was still able to function (primarily because to continue debate you had to actually be on the floor, speaking, as soon as the minority party relinquished the floor, the filibuster was over).
in 1917, the rule was changed to allow a 2/3 majority to end the filibuster, then in 1975, it was changed to 3/5 majority and the “silent” filibuster was born.
It may have been originally introduced as a mistake, but the fact that it has survived for over 200 years and has since been codified by subsequent rule changes that modified but did not eliminate it, lends the practice legitimacy.
In “normal” times, I wouldn’t support ending it, but I’m convinced that the Democrats would do so if given half a chance and saw it as an opportunity shove their agenda down our throats, so I fully support the Republicans beating them to the punch…especially since most of the Trump agenda has majority support by large margins and killing the filibuster would be used by Republicans to enact the will of the people…as opposed to the Democrats using it to enact the will of the One World Government supporters and the obnoxious blue haired, nose ringed, very loud, but tiny minority radicals.