Wrote Trump, on Truth Social this Morning.
He's all about winning: "[The Democrats] have much less chance of WINNING if we have Great Policy Wins after Wins after Wins. IN FACT, THEY WILL LOSE BIG, AND FOR A VERY LONG TIME. TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER NOW, END THE RIDICULOUS SHUTDOWN IMMEDIATELY, AND THEN, MOST IMPORTANTLY, PASS EVERY WONDERFUL REPUBLICAN POLICY THAT WE HAVE DREAMT OF, FOR YEARS, BUT NEVER GOTTEN. WE WILL BE THE PARTY THAT CANNOT BE BEATEN - THE SMART PARTY!!!"
Mga Post
61 komento:
What has Trump ever done to secure the Second Amendment? Curious about that.
Anyhow, eliminating the filibuster guarantees---GUARANTEES--we will see "common sense" gun laws the second the Dems get in charge.
Trump is a fucking moron.
As George Costanza's childhood rival and recovering nutcase Lloyd Braun once quipped, "serenity now...insanity later."
If Trump succeeds and gets the filibuster removed, just imagine the greatness for the next three years. And then just imagine the next four years after that if we happen to get President AOC or President Mamdani.
What Trump wants and what the professional Republicans want are not the same. Ask the Kentucky delegation and/or Zombie Dick Cheney.
An impotent plea by the Commander because: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, and John Curtis.
Not gonna happen.
Perhaps he is right. This is our last chance. If the corrupt dems ever gain power again - we are SOOO SCREWED.
It's a sticky wicket. Nothing in politics is permanent; but Republicans' losing the midterms would surely usher in the death of the filibuster (who among the Democrats would stand up for "norms" and "the traditional procedures of the world's greatest deliberative body" in these days of Peloso's saying, and then repeating when the interviewer asked if she really meant it, that she thinks Trump is the most vile person in world? And Newsom is saying that "we" have to win the midterms so that Trump and congressional Republicans won't be able to do literally anything going forward?) and a clear, if not inevitable, path to single-party rule going forward - to say nothing of persecutions and prosecutions (again) of Trump and all who dared to support him for at least the next two years. There will be no "more in sorrow than in anger," there will be no "with charity toward all"; the Democrats have laid down their marker.
So - what to do, DDD? It's not as if Trump doesn't know that Democrats would use the absence of the filibuster for their own benefit - he's saying they'll do it themselves anyway if they win, and that their chances of winning are a lot greater if Congress continues to be hung up like this. What's your plan?
I'll add that I have no idea what I hope will happen here.
Ending the filibuster is the most Democrat thing Trump has suggested so far, and it shouldn't happen for the same reason. Let the Progressive Democrats do that kind of thinking - that's why they're where they are, right now.
I'd guess the internal polling is brutal. Probably matches that of the CNN poll.
Ok you Trump hating cons, repubs, & the rest. Please point out to me in as much detail as you need to why what DJT said here is incorrect? Fuck these Dem obstructionists. Enough with the "distinguished, gentleman" act that masks politicians that want to kill each other. Enough with the powdered wig "my constitutional republic" approach from the late but unlamented. Bush days. Politics is about winning and getting your agenda through not being beautiful losers.
Republicans in Congress are there only to spend money, not to care on what…
Remember that guy that was elected by his district and his peers kicked him out because he demanded regular order? It’s like that…
...and just like that, Trump provides Fetterman and a half-dozen other Democrats the cover they need to pass the CR.
Deep State Reformer said...
Ok you Trump hating cons, repubs, & the rest. Please point out to me in as much detail as you need to why what DJT said here is incorrect? Fuck these Dem obstructionists. Enough with the "distinguished, gentleman" act that masks politicians that want to kill each other. Enough with the powdered wig "my constitutional republic" approach from the late but unlamented. Bush days. Politics is about winning and getting your agenda through not being beautiful losers.
11/4/25, 8:20 AM
—————————
Even if ending the filibuster were a good idea this is not the hill to kill it on.
Ending the filibuster to pass the CR would be a tacit admission that the closure was the Republican’s fault. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
BTW - if it were up to me the filibuster would be enshrined in the Constitution.
Trump also told me I was not a supporter of his if I didn’t support the CR to get to this standoff. If it weren’t for the consequences I’d want them all to lose…
"Please point out to me in as much detail as you need to why what DJT said here is incorrect?"
Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake, and for once it's not (R)'s making it. Worry not, they'll be back to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory soon enough.
A Republican Senate that maintains the filibuster, in the hope that Democrats will do so when they re-take the Senate is absolutely delusional. (Fetterman is the only Democrat likely to vote that way, and he is going to be primaryed.) But that appears to be the Republican Senate we have. Willing to cede power to paralyze the US government for 3 years unless everything the Democrats want is given them.
"Anyhow, eliminating the filibuster guarantees---GUARANTEES--we will see "common sense" gun laws the second the Dems get in charge. "
Your comment only makes sense as a criticism if we assume that the dems WON'T nuke the filibuster if/when they get back in power. Is that what you think? If not, then wouldn't it make more sense for the GOP to do it now in order to get important things done like enacting nationwide voter ID and fixing the census?
I don't see much of a chance for it happening, but ending the filibuster now, while the GOP is in the majority, is anything but "moronic."
I'm of two minds on this question. I think I agree with Prof M Drout, this is a handy threat to force the D's hand. The Rs would not make good use of their new power if they did nuke the fillibuster anyway. Better to hold tight.
The amazing thing about this government shutdown is that the Dems deprived their voters of SNAP benefits and expected their voters to blame Trump and the GOP. And it might well work!
People say that there is no longer any space for ‘the world’s greatest deliberative body’ in our polarized times. Hasn’t that been said throughout our entire history? Don’t change what works for temporary advantage.
I was ready to condemn Trump for this counterproductive and dumb idea. It appeared to me to be foolish to take the heat off Schumer and the Democrats now, but yes, It could be a tactic to appear so crazed that some of the Democrats back down to avoid the end of the filibuster while Republicans control Congress.
"BTW - if it were up to me the filibuster would be enshrined in the Constitution."
Heartily seconded. But that possibility is well past its due date.
We barely dodged losing the filibuster last time, and are guaranteed to lose it next time the Dems control Congress and the Presidency. I understand the desire to nuke it since its on the chopping block anyway next time Dems are in power, but that leads to unending mob rule. The end of the Republic imo. I have zero percent support for Trump on this.
'You have to kill it to save it' is not something I will ever support. If that means we are doomed to some dystopian future so be it.
Rather than nuke the filibuster, they need to restore it. Until 1917, there was no cloture and 1 Senator could filibuster until he passed out. 4-5 senators could tag team and filibuster forever and there was no way to stop them.
The cloture rule initially required 2/3 (67 Senators now) to vote in favor of stopping debate.
I'm not an unreasonable man. Rather than go back to the original filibuster rules (non-rule) I would settley for 3/4ths voting for cloture. But with the condition that senators actually "hold the floor" even if it is only reading grandma's biscuit recipes.
The Senate is supposed to be obstructionist. Our founders designed it to be.
John Henry
Congresses and parliaments don't look much like great deliberative bodies anymore. Party discipline rules all (more among Democrats than Republicans). When there are deviations from party line voting it's less a result of open, reasoned, and stirring debate and more a result of donations and backroom deals. That's not a reason to do away with representative government and its processes, but if things were ever different the change would be something to lament.
Aggie said...
Ending the filibuster is the most Democrat thing Trump has suggested
You say that like you think it is a good thing. Do you really want to live in a democracy? Where whatever whim 51% of the people get can be imposed on the other 49% the next day?
We need to be fighting to make it harder, not easier, for govt to get things done. We should be fighting to strengthen the filibuster. We should be fighting to extend it to the house.
John Henry
The filibuster will be eliminated the moment doing so benefits the Democratic Party- that is absolutely guaranteed. They will even reinstate it during a lame-duck session if they lose control of the Senate in an election.
While I agree with Trump that the GOP has, maybe, a once in a lifetime chance at major federal government reforms, removing the filibuster wouldn't actually help very much since the GOP in the House and the Senate are infiltrated by office-holders who are secretly Democrats and who only run as Republicans because it was their only path to office.
I doubt you could even get it through Congress but, if you really were serious about saving the filibuster, you would put up a amendment proposal enshrining it (best with 2/3s needed). Of course, you would never find the 3/4s of the state legislatures to approve it. This is all academic- the filibuster will be ended by the Dems and the present GOP senate will never move first.
His first post about ending the filibuster bothered me. This one makes more sense. This one reads to me like a message to Democrats. If you want to continue to hold out and force the “nuclear option”, then let’s not waste anymore time. We can get rid of the filibuster and push all our agenda. Or, you can vote the CR.
There is a third option. The minority party with less than 1/3rd approval gets everything they want. That’s no going to happen.
The filibuster is not provided for in the Constitution. Instead, it came about inadvertently - the Senate used to require a simple majority to end debate on a bill, and this was deemed redundant and was eliminated. The possibility of endless debate and no actual vote on a bill was not considered at that time. There is simply no reason for it to exist.
"'You have to kill it to save it' is not something I will ever support. If that means we are doomed to some dystopian future so be it."
You would prefer DYSTOPIA over a Senate that operates by majority rule?
"Ok you Trump hating cons, repubs, & the rest. Please point out to me in as much detail as you need to why what DJT said here is incorrect?"
Traditionally speaking, the Republicans were the small government party that wanted fewer laws and in general wanted the government to "do less stuff." In the words of Ronald Reagan the most terrifying words in the English language are "we are from the government and we are here to help." The party that wants to do less stuff needs the filibuster far more than the party that wants more, more, more. If you think Obamacare is bad, without the filibuster private insurance would be outlawed and Obamacare would be a single payer system. These are the stakes. Gun control. Single payer. The Dems will enact all of this if the GOP doesn't have the filibuster to stop it. When you are typically the party trying to *stop* overreach you need the filibuster far more than the Dems who just want to steam roll new programs and spending.
Ending the filibuster. Paying people to have babies. Uncle Sam taking ownership interests in private corporations. Trump is a Trojan Horse for Marxism. It's just a matter of time before the democrats are in charge again and they will love all of the new powers Trump is going to hand over. We are fucked.
Yes. Simple majority rule is mob rule. You get mob rule you get a packed Supreme Court. No Presidential veto. You get authoritarian rule. Majority rule is always co-opted by dictators.
Possibly I'm over reacting to the dark insanity the left is forcing on us, but that is the way I feel. If you think the left won't take us down a dystopian path if the Republicans give them the tools to do so you haven't paid attention to the last four years. As always, imo.
There is no such thing as "common sense gun laws". Any such crap is is violation of the 2A of the Constitution.
tommyesq said...
The filibuster is not provided for in the Constitution. Instead, it came about inadvertently - the Senate used to require a simple majority to end
Nope. Until 1917 there was NO way to end debate as long as one senator wanted to hold forth.
My understanding, anyway. Perhaps you can point me to some history that says different?
John Henry
What has Trump done to defend the Second Amendment? I remember him trying to circumvent Congress by banning bump stocks via executive order and then getting smacked down by the Supreme Court.
It's a valid question: how has Trump ever defended the Second Amendment. He is a huge fucking RINO squish on the right to bear arms. Somebody point me in the direction of what he has done to protect our Second Amendment rights.
Après moi, le déluge.
Dogma and Pony Show said...
You would prefer DYSTOPIA over a Senate that operates by majority rule?
Not directed at me but yup!
Unless majority rule means supermajority. 67-75%
John Henry
"common sense gun laws"
Require a minority report, historically, Democratically with Diversity motives.
I remember him trying to circumvent Congress by banning bump stocks via executive order and then getting smacked down by the Supreme Court.
In June 24, Garland v Cargill the Supremes 6-3 said that bump stocks are legal.
What are you talking about?
John Henry
I expect Fetterman or some other Dem from a swing state to say the equivalent of "...the filibuster is an important check on bad Republican ideas, but it shouldn't be used for stupid stuff like blocking a CR on a budget that we'd already approved."
"The Dems will enact all of this if the GOP doesn't have the filibuster to stop it."
Do you have the intellectual honesty, D.D. Driver, to admit that this means the Dems will likely enact all of this despite what the GOP does in the present day?
Reps, do it, now. For, surely, the Dems believe that all's fair in lust and abortion.
Bottom line on the filibuster. The filibuster is going to die as soon as the Dems control the senate. Think I'm wrong? Tell me why. Passing up the opportunities presented by having majorities in both the US congress & the POTUS so as to preserve some talking point that nobody GAF about except for pundits is just plain stupid. TIW? Say why. All the powdered wig, "my constitution republic!", bullshit is why you guys never move the ball even when in 100% control. The BlueLeft doesn't do this, so why do the R's cling to this mode that always underperforms or outright fails?
I have long suspected that one of the reasons the GOP holds the filibuster in such high regard is that the Democrats' use of it absolves the GOP from having to do anything their voters want.
He’s right. It may not turn out the way he predicts because Republicans are weaklings and seditionists (Think Paul Ryan.)who fear the mediaswine.
Does Paul Ryan fear the media or is he just getting paid by the same people that pay the media?
@DSR
"so why do the R's cling to this mode that always underperforms or outright fails?"
Please define underperforms. If you are defining it as benefit to one party rather than the whole of the Republic's populace you may have a point. While I think that what a lot of what the left is presently pushing is batshit crazy no one is omnipotent.
"All the powdered wig,....."
A lot of the criticism of Trump (at least among the non-loons) is the uncertainty he brings. Try swinging the pendulum to its breaking point every 4 years. Hell in a handbasket.
A 37% approval rating while losing a bunch of elections has Trump in a bad mood — posting deranged rants like an unhinged maniac.
Underperform: EOs instead of legislation. Actual fucking Border Wall? Legislation banning nationwide injunctions, repeal of DC home rule, no voting right LAW prohibiting anything but paper ballots, prohibiting ranked voting, early or late voting, breaking up the 9th COA. I mean this list could fill up pages. Instead we get Gulf of America type crap. Where are the prosecutions of the DS types? Get a move on.
Fail: Budget bill filibuster is a fail IMO. Roll or get rolled. Keep your promises and do your job.
"Do you have the intellectual honesty, D.D. Driver, to admit that this means the Dems will likely enact all of this despite what the GOP does in the present day?"
Will the Dems do it? No clue. They have had opportunities to do it and have to date have shown restraint. But if the GOP does the dirty work for the Dems, we are fucked. And what what is the point of getting rid of the filibuster to do a bucnh of stiff that wipl be immediately undone without a filibuster? Dumb.
And if you are worried that the Dems will do it: codify the filibuster! Derp.
"Better cut off my own dick because otherwise the Dems will do it for me." Derp.
Eliminating the filibuster now will certainly have people asking why they didn't do it sooner. Like, several weeks ago.
The shutdown isn't about eliminating or not eliminating the filibuster. It's about the Democrats using the only leverage they have to rile up their base. Everybody else be damned.
Don't give them an out. Make them own it.
"And if you are worried that the Dems will do it: codify the filibuster! Derp."
I am all ears, D.D.- codify it how exactly? Amaze us with your brilliant idea and how it could be done.
Funny how no matter how badly the Democrats perform and behave, we still have to worry about them winning elections. We have a serious mental health issue in this country involving emotional decision making devoid of reason or responsibility. That has always existed, but it's well over 40% of the electorate today. Then throw in people who just don't know anything and you get this mass incompetence.
To abort or not to abort a child, a rule, that is the Choice.
Senators used to be chosen by their state legislatures, and so they had strong incentives to represent the interests of their states as states. But since the passage of the 17th Amendment, they face the same incentives as those running for seats in the House of Representatives, i.e., do whatever gets you the most popular votes. The only difference is the size of the constituencies, and for some small states, there's not even much difference there.
The filibuster made a lot more sense under the old system. Now it serves only to amplify the influence of the minority party, but it does so only at the sufferance of the majority and thus can't actually be used to stop anything the majority really feels strongly about.
Trump says the very thin Republican majority sans filibuster can pass all kinds of important things. But as we saw with McCain and the failure to repeal Obamacare, on some issues that majority is illusory. And without filibusters the next Democrat President with majorities in both Houses will easily repeal those measures that only passed due to the filibusters demise.
Jeff, I agree completely that the thin majorities mean the GOP won't accomplish anything meaningful even with the abolition of the filibuster, however, even the minor changes made in this Congress will be completely undone by the next Democrat majority because they will abolish the filibuster- it is literally part of their platform these days. The GOP is fighting to save a process that only helps the Democrats from this point forward.
Mag-post ng isang Komento
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.