Trump urges GOP to ‘end the shutdown’ by going nuclear on Senate filibuster

[libertybele]

Trump urges GOP to ‘end the shutdown’ by going nuclear on Senate filibuster

President Donald Trump on Thursday urged Republicans to end the filibuster in order to end the monthlong government shutdown.

In a late-night Truth Social post, Trump noted that Democrats had tried to eliminate the Senate procedure when they had control of both chambers of Congress and the White House during the Biden administration, but then-Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema — both of whom have since left the Democratic Party to become independents — helped block the effort.

Trump revived talk of the "nuclear option," after returning from his Asia trip this week. ..........

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-urges-gop-end-shutdown-going-nuclear-senate-filibuster

[libertybele]

  Trump Urges GOP To Go ‘Nuclear’ On Filibuster, Blasts Democrats As ‘Crazed Lunatics’

President Donald J. Trump late Thursday issued a fiery call for Senate Republicans to immediately eliminate the filibuster—with the “Nuclear Option”—arguing the move is essential to end the ongoing government shutdown and counteract “Crazed Lunatics” on the Democratic side.

In a lengthy post on his social media platform, Truth Social, the President praised Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson for doing a “GREAT job,” but reserved his sharpest criticism for Democrats, whom he accused of suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)” and having “lost all sense of WISDOM and REALITY.”

The President insisted that eliminating the 60-vote threshold required to pass most legislation in the Senate is the necessary “TRUMP CARD” for the Republican majority. He linked the filibuster’s continuation to the current budgetary impasse that has shut down parts of the federal government for weeks.

“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!” the President wrote. “If we did what we should be doing, it would IMMEDIATELY end this ridiculous, Country destroying ‘SHUT DOWN.'”

Trump pointed out that Democrats, while previously in power, “fought for three years to do this” to advance their own agenda, only failing due to Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. He argued that if Republicans don’t act now, Democrats will certainly scrap the rule the “first day they take office” to push through their own agenda.............

https://www.tampafp.com/trump-urges-gop-to-go-nuclear-on-filibuster-blasts-democrats-as-crazed-lunatics/

[mystery-ak]

 GOP senator ‘firm no’ on Trump’s call to eliminate filibuster
by Alexander Bolton - 10/31/25 9:23 AM ET

Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) says he is a “firm no” on eliminating the Senate filibuster, which requires legislation to have 60 votes to advance, pushing back on President Trump’s call to deploy the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules and reopen the government.

“The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it,” Curtis wrote on X, the social media platform, responding to a Fox News story on Trump’s demand to get rid of the filibuster to fund government.

Senate Republicans have voted 13 times on a House-passed continuing resolution to reopen the government and keep it funded through Nov. 21.

Democrats have blocked the legislation every time by denying Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) the 60 votes he needs to advance the funding bill.

Thune pledged last year to preserve the Senate filibuster when he campaigned to become the Senate majority leader after Republicans wrested control of the chamber away from Democrats.

Members of his leadership team, including Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the Senate Republican Policy Committee vice chairman, and John Cornyn (R-Texas), an advisor to Thune’s leadership team, earlier this month ruled out a potential change to the filibuster.

Some Republicans, however, predicted that Trump would ramp up pressure on the Senate GOP leadership to eliminate the filibuster if the shutdown dragged into November.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5582936-senate-filibuster-john-curtis-trump/

[Timber Rattler]

Trump just can't keep his big mouth shut.  He has no clue about how the Senate operates or its rules.  Keeping in mind Napoleon's famous dictum about not interfering with an enemy when he's screwing up, the Democrats are about to buckle and don't need any misguided help from the White House.

[libertybele]

Trump just can't keep his big mouth shut.  He has no clue about how the Senate operates or its rules.  Keeping in mind Napoleon's famous dictum about not interfering with an enemy when he's screwing up, the Democrats are about to buckle and don't need any misguided help from the White House.

What has led you to believe that the DEMS are about to buckle?  13 votes and still not budging.

[Wingnut]

Fear not, some federal Judge will rule that Snap bennies must be paid.  The 5 foot 3 inch 300 plus pounders will survive.

[libertybele]

Fear not, some federal Judge will rule that Snap bennies must be paid.  The 5 foot 3 inch 300 plus pounders will survive.

https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-aid-ruling-shutdown-trump-09f9807264385f0beab61a68dcbbdd66BOSTON (AP) —

Judge questions the Trump administration’s plan to suspend SNAP benefits for millions

A federal judge in Boston on Thursday seemed skeptical of the Trump’s administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be suspended for the first time in the food aid program’s history because of the government shutdown.

During a hearing over a request by 25 Democratic-led states to keep the funding flowing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford to cover the cost, there’s a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits,” said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama.................

[Wingnut]

https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-aid-ruling-shutdown-trump-09f9807264385f0beab61a68dcbbdd66BOSTON (AP) —

Judge questions the Trump administration’s plan to suspend SNAP benefits for millions

A federal judge in Boston on Thursday seemed skeptical of the Trump’s administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be suspended for the first time in the food aid program’s history because of the government shutdown.

During a hearing over a request by 25 Democratic-led states to keep the funding flowing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford to cover the cost, there’s a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits,” said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama.................

Holy Crap.   I thought I was making a joke.   

[libertybele]

Holy Crap.   I thought I was making a joke.   

Never underestimate the liberal judges.   

[Wingnut]

Never underestimate the liberal judges.   

Indira Talwani.  Sounds like a bacterial infection.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In this instance I agree with Trump. bleep the filibuster.

[Kamaji]

https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-aid-ruling-shutdown-trump-09f9807264385f0beab61a68dcbbdd66BOSTON (AP) —

Judge questions the Trump administration’s plan to suspend SNAP benefits for millions

A federal judge in Boston on Thursday seemed skeptical of the Trump’s administration’s argument that SNAP benefits could be suspended for the first time in the food aid program’s history because of the government shutdown.

During a hearing over a request by 25 Democratic-led states to keep the funding flowing, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani told lawyers that if the government can’t afford to cover the cost, there’s a process to follow rather than simply suspending all benefits. “The steps involve finding an equitable way of reducing benefits,” said Talwani, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama.................

Reducing all benefits to zero because there is no money to pay for them is the epitome of equitable - everyone gets exactly the same reduction - unless, of course, the judge is simply using "equitable" as leftist code-words for giving preference to blacks and other politically privileged minorities.

[Bigun]

Reducing all benefits to zero because there is no money to pay for them is the epitome of equitable - everyone gets exactly the same reduction - unless, of course, the judge is simply using "equitable" as leftist code-words for giving preference to blacks and other politically privileged minorities.

  

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm a "No" on this.  They'll probably do it anyway.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1984265891568042104

[DefiantMassRINO]

There's nothing in the US Constitution that requires a supermajority affirmative vote in the US Senate to pass everyday legislation.

The 60-vote requirement has turned the US Senate into the House of Lords.

I prefer the ol' fashioned Talking Filibuster.

I think Senators like the 60-vote requirement as a vote-avoidance measure so there are fewer voting instances that could be used as campaign fodder by their re-election opponents.  It's a dystopian Senate incumbent protection plan.

[Kamaji]

I'm a "No" on this.  They'll probably do it anyway.

Agreed.

[Kamaji]

There's nothing in the US Constitution that requires a supermajority affirmative vote in the US Senate to pass everyday legislation.

The 60-vote requirement has turned the US Senate into the House of Lords.

I prefer the ol' fashioned Talking Filibuster.

I think Senators like the 60-vote requirement as a vote-avoidance measure so there are fewer voting instances that could be used as campaign fodder by their re-election opponents.  It's a dystopian Senate incumbent protection plan.

The Senate was never supposed to be a popularly-elected body, either, but here we are.  The 60-vote requirement is one of the few remaining brakes left on rank demagoguery.

[The_Reader_David]

The problem is not the 60 vote requirement to cut off debate on a measure, but the custom of deciding if the 60 votes aren't there, then the Senate can pretend it's still being debated, even if no one is speaking to the measure, and can carry on with other business.  Make the side that's refusing to cut-off debate actually hold the floor and speak to the measure and block all other Senate business.  The Democrats should be obliged to field a sequence of Senators holding the floor and "debating" the measure. (As should the Republicans when it's our turn to filibuster something.)  If there's no debate to be cut off, it should move to a vote without the 60 votes in favor of cutting off debate.

[Kamaji]

The problem is not the 60 vote requirement to cut off debate on a measure, but the custom of deciding if the 60 votes aren't there, then the Senate can pretend it's still being debated, even if no one is speaking to the measure, and can carry on with other business.  Make the side that's refusing to cut-off debate actually hold the floor and speak to the measure and block all other Senate business.  The Democrats should be obliged to field a sequence of Senators holding the floor and "debating" the measure. (As should the Republicans when it's our turn to filibuster something.)  If there's no debate to be cut off, it should move to a vote without the 60 votes in favor of cutting off debate.

Fair enough.

[DefiantMassRINO]

There's an Amendment to the US Constitution to popularly elect US Senators.  (America is a nation of laws, and $h!t like that.)

There is no article, clause, or amendment in the US Constitution for requiring a 60-vote supermajority to approve legislation in the US Senate.

It's a dystopium vote-avoidance / incumbent protection measure.  They don't want to be caught making a vote on legislation that will later be used against them in a re-election campaign.

Do nothing windbags.

The Senate was never supposed to be a popularly-elected body, either, but here we are.  The 60-vote requirement is one of the few remaining brakes left on rank demagoguery.

[Kamaji]

There's an Amendment to the US Constitution to popularly elect US Senators.  (America is a nation of laws, and $h!t like that.)

There is no article, clause, or amendment in the US Constitution for requiring a 60-vote supermajority to approve legislation in the US Senate.

It's a dystopium vote-avoidance / incumbent protection measure.  They don't want to be caught making a vote on legislation that will later be used against them in a re-election campaign.

Do nothing windbags.

The 60-vote requirement is a handbrake on demagoguery, and should be preserved. 

[Lando Lincoln]

The 60-vote requirement is a handbrake on demagoguery, and should be preserved.

I agree. It would be a grave error to eliminate the filibuster.

I can imagine, on the other hand, that PDJT is trolling the Dems with the suggestion.

[Bigun]

The problem is not the 60 vote requirement to cut off debate on a measure, but the custom of deciding if the 60 votes aren't there, then the Senate can pretend it's still being debated, even if no one is speaking to the measure, and can carry on with other business.  Make the side that's refusing to cut-off debate actually hold the floor and speak to the measure and block all other Senate business.  The Democrats should be obliged to field a sequence of Senators holding the floor and "debating" the measure. (As should the Republicans when it's our turn to filibuster something.)  If there's no debate to be cut off, it should move to a vote without the 60 votes in favor of cutting off debate.

  and 

[Fishrrman]

Please take a few moments and read how I predict it may go here:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=571779.msg3233611#msg3233611


Rhetorical question:
What if a state like, say, New York passed a law that required 56% of the vote in order to win the election for all state and national offices?
Would you be OK with that...?

[libertybele]

Please take a few moments and read how I predict it may go here:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=571779.msg3233611#msg3233611


Rhetorical question:
What if a state like, say, New York passed a law that required 56% of the vote in order to win the election for all state and national offices?
Would you be OK with that...?

Somehow I missed your prior post ... you're prediction is spot on @Fishrrman

[libertybele]

Please take a few moments and read how I predict it may go here:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=571779.msg3233611#msg3233611


Rhetorical question:
What if a state like, say, New York passed a law that required 56% of the vote in order to win the election for all state and national offices?
Would you be OK with that...?

Exactly what the DEMS want to happen.