Trump calls for abolishing legislative filibuster, and "a good shutdown in September"

[Berengil]

Trump tweeted this morning that we either need to elect more Republican Senators (because Republican control of all levers of government apparently isn't enough), or we need to change the rules to eliminate the legislative filibuster!

Here is an explanation of filibuster and cloture. Also: a brief history of the filibuster.

After the House adopted a rules change in April which abolished the judicial filibuster, allowing for the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans promised not to touch the legislative filibuster.



Regardless of how you feel about either party, or even the two-party system as a whole, you have to understand that the legislative filibuster's sole purpose is to mandate that the party in power must work with the minority party. It's about maintaining representation in our government. Removing this barrier virtually ensures greater division and more destructive partisan politicking, and potentially allows for fringe and dangerous movements to more easily become law without proper consideration and input.

Please, please write your senator or congressperson. Do not allow the continued erosion of our legislative body.

Filibuster isn't in the constitution, it's just a Senate rule. Those can be changed with a simple majority vote. So f the filibuster.

You know who filibusters? People who know they would lose an up-or-down vote.

If you would lose an up-or-down vote, you deserve to see your ideas defeated. That's the point of voting.

I say this without respect to whoever is in power. Filibuster denies a vote that whiny tools know they would lose.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said before, "Regardless of how you feel about either party, or even the two-party system as a whole, you have to understand that the legislative filibuster's sole purpose is to mandate that the party in power must work with the minority party.

Why should they have to? If you lose (whichever party you are), try harder next time. Elections have consequences.

[Bathory]

Let's just get rid of the constitution too. Trump already voiced his distaste with it. Do it America! Go crazy! You wanted to WIN all the time right?

[Ghostpanther]

Well that is dumb for him to say that. He can try to get congress to do it as any President can, but his chances of getting it successfully done is slim or none.

[CostinR]

Well that is dumb for him to say that. He can try to get congress to do it as any President can, but his chances of getting it successfully done is slim or none.

It's a circus so he can get away with the fact he didn't get any money for the wall or that he's signing a budget that doesn't cut anything, which is a very big no for conservative Republicans especially since it ain't cutting Planned Parenthood.

Trump got most of what he wanted: 21 Billion for Defense Spending and 1.5 Billion for Border Security.

[Adam Jensen]

Lets all remember that when Deplorable Donny says he want "more republicans", he really means "more Angry stupid Trump loyalists" and not actual Republicans. He's not succeeding because too many of the current republicans hate him and his policies. It has nothing to do with the number of dems in there.

Sure . . .

But he'll happily blame the Democrats anyways.

[mvaliz]

Sure . . .

But he'll happily blame the Democrats anyways.

Be careful! I've been infracted twice when I suggest that [people from a certain party] blame Democrats for their failures instead of taking responsibility for themselves!

[Thepersona]

Be careful! I've been infracted twice when I suggest that [people from a certain party] blame Democrats for their failures instead of taking responsibility for themselves!

That the party of personal responsibility doesnt take responsibility of their actions? color me shocked!

[Zeta333]

Think that would require a Constitutional amendment, otherwise the party with the votes gets to set the rules in Congress.

im sorry but isnt the point of the everything being this? somthing is passed with the proper amount of votes.

[Breccia]

Trump got most of what he wanted: 21 Billion for Defense Spending

That's half.

and 1.5 Billion for Border Security.

That's not even half, and the WH is saying they'll use some for the Wall. But they can only do so for any parts already built as fence, as per the stipulation. So they will "maintain" up to a few hundred million in what looks like Fallout 4 Metal Shack Model 3 in a place that even the presenter didn't know where it was.

[vondevon]

Filibuster isn't in the constitution, it's just a Senate rule. Those can be changed with a simple majority vote. So f the filibuster.

You know who filibusters? People who know they would lose an up-or-down vote.

If you would lose an up-or-down vote, you deserve to see your ideas defeated. That's the point of voting.

I say this without respect to whoever is in power. Filibuster denies a vote that whiny tools know they would lose.

- - - Updated - - -



Why should they have to? If you lose (whichever party you are), try harder next time. Elections have consequences.

@pacox put it nicely:

People might think the filibuster is petty when used against their party but the purpose is to make it so that legislation passing requires a general consensus and not just simple majorities, like a lot of stuff that goes on at the federal level.

If something is split 51 49, its probably not going to work out very well when passed.

Ever heard of the phrase "no taxation without representation"? The FFs were all about representation. Eliminating the legislative filibuster means that laws can be passed without at least 60% of our elected representatives agreeing on them; because we are not Republicans and Democrats, we're Americans and we have to sorta get along.

[Barnabas]

Its likely that democrats end up being in power when at least two more justices retire. Republicans made it clear it's ok to override the filibuster. So be it.

They are pretty old. It wouldn't surprise me if they croaked while trump is still president. The ones that need to retire are democrat leaning anyway so we'd maintain the balance we have now if a democrat president got in when they died. It wouldn't be a bad thing. Having the same opinion is never good in a group that makes decisions. We still need congress to pass an age limit on federal employees. Make them retire at 75-80 years old.

[CostinR]

That's half.

That's not even half, and the WH is saying they'll use some for the Wall. But they can only do so for any parts already built as fence, as per the stipulation. So they will "maintain" up to a few hundred million in what looks like Fallout 4 Metal Shack Model 3 in a place that even the presenter didn't know where it was.

He asked for 30 billion on the military so that's two thirds of his request.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/32...or-fiscal-2017

As for the Wall. That doesn't matter all that much except for the status symbol that is: Trump voters want it not because it's needed, it isn't, but rather because it's a middle finger to everyone in Washington who said it couldn't be built.

[Mormolyce]

Two issues here. One is the Senate rules on filibuster, which the Republicans are going to regret going nuclear on the next time their opposite numbers are in power (might be sooner than you think).

The other is changing the cloture rules to end legislative debate (including but not limited to filibuster). That's not going to garner much support. Even if he had somehow magically gotten that passed for this round of funding debates, he still might've failed to get his tack-ons passed since there are a significant number of Republicans who are unconvinced by them.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not even half, and the WH is saying they'll use some for the Wall. But they can only do so for any parts already built as fence, as per the stipulation. So they will "maintain" up to a few hundred million in what looks like Fallout 4 Metal Shack Model 3 in a place that even the presenter didn't know where it was.

Did you catch Mulvaney's cavalcade of comedy where he tried to spin repairing the fence as a win for Trump? The logic being that since border experts have already said that the wall would be a waste of money and that a fence would be better, Trump's failure to get funding for the wall is an improvement to national security at a lower cost.

It's a brilliant strategy, if you think about it. Trump could say "Ha! Fooled you, the wall already exists and it's a fence, which is better. Also it costs $0, precisely the amount of money I got from Mexico. Promise delivered."

[Breccia]

He asked for 30 billion on the military so that's two thirds of his request.

Hmm, valid. Still low. 70% is, what, a C minus?

As for the Wall. That doesn't matter all that much except for the status symbol that is: Trump voters want it not because it's needed, it isn't, but rather because it's a middle finger to everyone in Washington who said it couldn't be built.

Eh. Trump wants to have a mighty erection on the Mexican border, but now it's going to be two-thirds to half the height, have a major issue with girth, won't get to all the places it wants to go, and he'll have to pay for where he sticks it.

I mean, if his followers want to call that a win, they're welcome to.

[Barnabas]

Two issues here. One is the Senate rules on filibuster, which the Republicans are going to regret going nuclear on the next time their opposite numbers are in power (might be sooner than you think).

The other is changing the cloture rules to end legislative debate (including but not limited to filibuster). That's not going to garner much support. Even if he had somehow magically gotten that passed for this round of funding debates, he still might've failed to get his tack-ons passed since there are a significant number of Republicans who are unconvinced by them.

No they have prior obligations to their communities to fund certain projects and that is the priority that drives them. One of the biggest beneficiaries to science funding is Tennessee in that budget. Billions going to oak ridge alone for numerous projects. Now that that business is done maybe trump can direct funds to things he likes in September? Trump got a few things from congress. Now it's up to him how he wants to utilize it to convince congress for more funding in the future.

[Macaquerie]

As for the Wall. That doesn't matter all that much except for the status symbol that is: Trump voters want it not because it's needed, it isn't, but rather because it's a middle finger to everyone in Washington who said it couldn't be built.

See the thing is, the whole idea of giving the finger to Washington doesn't work because, you know, the wall isn't being built.

[Breccia]

Did you catch Mulvaney's cavalcade of comedy where he --

Yuuuuuuup. Nobody in Congress is trying to buy this as a win. It's pretty much just the WH in damage control over their emasculated "dealmaker" Trump.

Kinda curious what happens next when he tries TrumpCare 2.0 which is dripping votes one by one, followed by the LBGT affront his next EO is slated to be. Then he tops it all off by hiding in New Jersey.

[Manabomb]

Good, get rid of Filibustering. It is a bullshit technique used to block democracy.

Filibustering is much like the below:

It's not used to block democracy. It's a core part of democracy. It's used to block dictatorships and consolidation of administrative power, you know. Exactly what Trump is trying to do.

[Deleted]

The road to a dictatorship.

Yeah right. But you should be grateful that you have 300+ million guns in your hands, no dictatorship possible in that situation

[Skroe]

Seems the republicans just forgot what it means to be a conservative, just to jump on trumps populism train.

Trump literally betrayed conservatism, and the republicans follow the betrayer.

Yep.

Been saying this for months. We _must_ return to the normal order, where budgets are passed before the year begins, 60 votes are required to end debate, and only legislation that has the votes to pass is put up for a vote.

There is literally nothing conservative about this demand of Trump, or this President. It's the betrayal of conservatism to support him.