'This is the survival of our Country!' Trump warns Republicans they will 'rue the day' if they don't

[rangerrebew]

 
WorldNetDaily
Sunday, Nov. 2, 2025
 
'This is the survival of our Country!' Trump warns Republicans they will 'rue the day' if they don't terminate filibuster
'Don't be WEAK AND STUPID. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT! WIN, WIN, WIN!'

By
Joe Kovacs

November 2, 2025

 
With the federal government shutdown extending into 32 days, President Donald Trump is warning Republicans they will "rue the day" they did not terminate the Senate filibuster that is allowing Democrats to keep the shutdown going.

"Remember, Republicans, regardless of the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the Filibuster the first chance they get," Trump said Saturday evening on Truth Social.

"They will Pack the Supreme Court, pick up two States, and add at least 8 Electoral Votes. Their two objectors are gone!!!

 https://www.wnd.com/2025/11/this-is-survival-our-country-trump-warns-republicans/

[Timber Rattler]

They'll rue they day if they DO nuke that filibuster after the Democrats eventually re-take control of the Senate.

[Cyber Liberty]

They'll rue they day if they DO nuke that filibuster after the Democrats eventually re-take control of the Senate.

I'd like to think Trump is smarter than Harry Reid, but....

[Kamaji]

They'll rue they day if they DO nuke that filibuster after the Democrats eventually re-take control of the Senate.

Yes they will.

[corbe]

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Here's the thing... a law will last longer than an executive order. Maybe not by much but...

[Cyber Liberty]

I saw the girl but I figured she's just part of the furniture and read the text.  Did I fail a test, or pass another?

[Smokin Joe]

I saw the girl but I figured she's just part of the furniture and read the text.  Did I fail a test, or pass another?

Yeah, I checked her out, too. But then I read what was being said...

[bigheadfred]

I saw the girl but I figured she's just part of the furniture and read the text.  Did I fail a test, or pass another?

*context*

[Smokin Joe]

On topic, do not use the nuclear option.
Let the Democrats own the shutdown, even if it lasts until 2028.
Keeping the ability to block them may be vital in the future.

[libertybele]

I think Trump is beginning to sound desperate. 

The MSM is of course blaming the GOP and those whose SNAP benefits or paychecks have been paused due to the shutdown they will blame Trump regardless. 

It's not just overweight, lazy people who are abusing the system who lost benefits.  There are legitimate adults who are dependent on this benefit and then there's the single parent who just can't make ends meet that need this added help.

At the end of the day, they are going to blame whomever is in power.

Just my opinion.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think Trump is beginning to sound desperate. 

The MSM is of course blaming the GOP and those whose SNAP benefits or paychecks have been paused due to the shutdown they will blame Trump regardless. 

It's not just overweight, lazy people who are abusing the system who lost benefits.  There are legitimate adults who are dependent on this benefit and then there's the single parent who just can't make ends meet that need this added help.

At the end of the day, they are going to blame whomever is in power.

Just my opinion.

Trump could also be trying to stay out of the blame game, knowing Thune won't let it happen.   

[Hoodat]

Keep the filibuster.  Just make it so that the opposition has to actually do it.  This can be accomplished by simply changing the 60-vote rule to 60% of Senators present.  That way, if the opposition wants to filibuster, then they have to have the opposition votes to do it.  It places the burden on the opposition, not on the majority.

The way it is now, the Democrats only need one Senator present to oppose a cloture vote.  A cloture vote of 53-1 fails under the current system.  But a new 60% rule would require 36 Democrat Senators to show up and vote against cloture.  Not only that, but they would have to remain on the floor the entire time.  At any point, if one went home, the majority could call another cloture vote at that moment, and it would pass.

[Cyber Liberty]

Keep the filibuster.  Just make it so that the opposition has to actually do it.  This can be accomplished by simply changing the 60-vote rule to 60% of Senators present.  That way, if the opposition wants to filibuster, then they have to have the opposition votes to do it.  It places the burden on the opposition, not on the majority.

The way it is now, the Democrats only need one Senator present to oppose a cloture vote.  A cloture vote of 53-1 fails under the current system.  But a new 60% rule would require 36 Democrat Senators to show up and vote against cloture.  Not only that, but they would have to remain on the floor the entire time.  At any point, if one went home, the majority could call another cloture vote at that moment, and it would pass.

That would work, so they'll never do it.  Nobody wants it fixed and everybody wants to complain.

[240B]

The only time I have heard anyone say 'rue the day' is when I was a kid watching black and white films from the 60s.
This phrase belongs with 'seize them!' and 'you fiend!'.

[Fishrrman]

The filibuster rule need not be "nuked" in its entirety in order to resolve the funding stalemate.

The filibuster rules have been amended before. That's why nominees for the Supreme Court can no longer be filibustered.

Please read this post I put up about how to accomplish this:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=571779.msg3233611#msg3233611

OK, all you intellectuals out there (I'm admittedly not one)...
Explain to me WHERE the Constitution authorizes a supermajority vote for the filibuster in the first place?

Isn't that inherently... unfair? As a member of the dirty-collared common folk, I thought we decided elections (and other rule making) by the long-held standard of "50% + 1".

You're going to come back at me with "the Constitution grants the Senate the right to make its own rules".
OK.
Well then... let's take YOUR logic a step or two further.

What if a state like New York were to pass a law requiring a 56% supermajority to be elected:
- Senator
- Congressman
- Governor
- Other state-level high officials.
Would THAT be legal?
Why not?
Doesn't the Constitution grant the states the right to set their own election rules, too?

Doing this would guarantee that the "folks on the red side" would never be able to elect anyone in NY state again. It's hard enough for the Republicans to get 50% + 1 now.

Why would this NOT be OK with you?
(It's not OK with me)

If I had my druthers, I'd say, NUKE the filibuster completely, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Cyber Liberty]

The filibuster rule need not be "nuked" in its entirety in order to resolve the funding stalemate.

The filibuster rules have been amended before. That's why nominees for the Supreme Court can no longer be filibustered.

Please read this post I put up about how to accomplish this:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=571779.msg3233611#msg3233611

OK, all you intellectuals out there (I'm admittedly not one)...
Explain to me WHERE the Constitution authorizes a supermajority vote for the filibuster in the first place?

Isn't that inherently... unfair? As a member of the dirty-collared common folk, I thought we decided elections (and other rule making) by the long-held standard of "50% + 1".

You're going to come back at me with "the Constitution grants the Senate the right to make its own rules".
OK.
Well then... let's take YOUR logic a step or two further.

What if a state like New York were to pass a law requiring a 56% supermajority to be elected:
- Senator
- Congressman
- Governor
- Other state-level high officials.
Would THAT be legal?
Why not?
Doesn't the Constitution grant the states the right to set their own election rules, too?

Doing this would guarantee that the "folks on the red side" would never be able to elect anyone in NY state again. It's hard enough for the Republicans to get 50% + 1 now.

Why would this NOT be OK with you?
(It's not OK with me)

If I had my druthers, I'd say, NUKE the filibuster completely, and let the chips fall where they may.

Only if the 17th Amendment is repealed FIRST!

[The_Reader_David]

What needs to be "nuked" is not the 60-vote rule to cut off debate, but the notion that debate is still going on simply because a vote hasn't cut it off.  If the Democrats (in this instance, but really whoever is opposing a measure) are not holding the floor of the Senate speaking the the measure, debate should be considered over and a vote called.   Make the filibuster be an actual filibuster.

[Hoodat]

OK, all you intellectuals out there (I'm admittedly not one)...
Explain to me WHERE the Constitution authorizes a supermajority vote for the filibuster in the first place?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings

[Hoodat]

What needs to be "nuked" is not the 60-vote rule to cut off debate, but the notion that debate is still going on simply because a vote hasn't cut it off.  If the Democrats (in this instance, but really whoever is opposing a measure) are not holding the floor of the Senate speaking the the measure, debate should be considered over and a vote called.   Make the filibuster be an actual filibuster.

Changing it from '60-votes' to '60% present' would do that.  Back when the Democrats were opposing the civil rights acts, the rule was 'two-thirds present'.  In the early 70s, this got changed to '60 votes'.  It was a mistake.  It needs to be 'three-fifths present'.  This would restore the debate part of it.

[massadvj]

This whole shutdown might very well be a Democrat attempt to get the GOP to kill the filibuster for them.