titan said:

---

Gaeilge said:

---

You think they won't?! They already tried! Now you have their sitting senators saying they'll try again.

---

That is certainly an argument. They were down to just two reasonable Senators last time to stop them. Do any really believe the number of reasonable members are growing in the DNC? Will there even be two next round?

So this is something to bear in mind too, as seek to balance this.

---

I disagree. It was those two because they only needed two. There were a LOT more than two if more were needed.

Slippery slope. It's their for a reason.

Demosthenes81 said:

---

Step 1 see which way the midterms go. If Rep do not maintain both houses abort. If the do go to step 2

Step 2 End filibuster and blue slips

Step 3 expand and pack the Sup Ct; pass raftload of Constitutional amendments for conservative causes.

Step 4 pass amendment enshrining filibuster

Let the people through the state ratification process decide the issue

Learn from our enemies how to pull up the ladder after winning.

---

Once the VRA is gutted none of that is necessary

agsalaska said:

---

Gaeilge said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

No

---

Why not? It is abundantly clear that if dems get enough power again, they will. They already tried, but Manchin and Synema were the adults in the room there.

---

Bull***** That is not anywhere near 'abundantly clear'. I've heard that for 30 years

Do. Not. Do. It.

---

You have not heard that for 30 years.

No

Tea Party said:

---

oldcrow91 said:

---

No

---

This.

The only way this becomes a discussion is if you are ok with the GOP going scorched earth on the left to the point that it becomes political warfare and in a sense grants significantly more power to the government, or more aptly the government in control at the time.

I don't foresee the GOP having the balls to go scorched earth, nor do I trust them to do it in a way that is best for our country, so I am fully against ending the filibuster.

---

I agree they don't have the guts.

Keep the gov't closed for another 29 days. RIF them all.

No. Democrats voted 13 times NO

No! quit giving in to the dems. The more this goes on the worse it's looking for Chucky.

The filibuster halts government….I'm all for it.

Just like I'm okay with this shutdown and shortening sessions and limiting their occurrence.

I'm for less government, not more.

If the GOP does it now, then even the Manchins of the democrat party would go along with it next time. They would undo every change made within 2 years and turn us into a "socialist utopia".

What needs to happen is follow the Melei strategy. He didn't half ass it, he stuck to his guns. Then, instead of losing his ass in his midterms like ALL pundits thought would happen, he won it in a landslide. There is a reason our last landslide was Reagan who was the last president who was unabashedly right. The right showed up for him in droves, and the democrats did too when his policies actually worked.

If a president can actually stick to his guns and the free market is actually allowed to save the economy, then we can actually gain 60% in the senate, and then we could do a reverse LBJ. Basically roll back everything with impunity.

aTmAg said:

---

If the GOP does it now, then even the Manchins of the democrat party would go along with it next time. They would undo every change made within 2 years and turn us into a "socialist utopia".

What needs to happen is follow the Melei strategy. He didn't half ass it, he stuck to his guns. Then, instead of losing his ass in his midterms like ALL pundits thought would happen, he won it in a landslide. There is a reason our last landslide was Reagan who was the last president who was unabashedly right. The right showed up for him in droves, and the democrats did too when his policies actually worked.

If a president can actually stick to his guns and the free market is actually allowed to save the economy, then we can actually gain 60% in the senate, and then we could do a reverse LBJ. Basically roll back everything with impunity.

---

Agree with this. Trump's big victory in November 2024 was because he probably came next closest to that Reagan precedent of being unabashedly opposed to the Left agenda. (Allowing for the totally different eras)

There are no more Machins in the Democrat party.

The next time they get power, it's gone.

The fact that folks believe otherwise is delusional.

Logos Stick said:

---

There are no more Machins in the Democrat party.

The next time they get power, it's gone.

The fact that folks believe otherwise is delusional.

---

It does boil down to this. They are in the process of running Fetterman out for example. So what is the argument against this? Its starting to look difficult. If you have them intentionally driving out any Sinema, Manchin, or Fetterman examples --- doesn't that point to maybe need to really revamp things now.

Logos Stick said:

---

There are no more Machins in the Democrat party.

The next time they get power, it's gone.

The fact that folks believe otherwise is delusional.

---

This is wrong. There are a bunch of Maher type people who long for the old days of "moderate" democrats. The whacko wing is a loud minority. That's why Trump won every swing state despite polls claiming otherwise and why the trans issue was such a big winner for him. And not only that, the democrats know that they wouldn't be in power forever. That eliminating the filibuster and pushing the county hard left would turn moderate left and RINOs hard against t hem. That the GOP would win power back quickly and then use their own precedent against them to GUT EVERYTHING with the full support of the populace.

But if the GOP starts the precedent of eliminating the 60 vote filibuster rule, then those moderates and RINOs would jump in bed with the whackos. And then the democrats would hold on to their power by projecting fear of what the GOP would do next.

This is a classic case of the first shot loses. Just like the Civil War.

Stir the coals and add accelerant. Let it burn down to the ground.

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

There are no more Machins in the Democrat party.

The next time they get power, it's gone.

The fact that folks believe otherwise is delusional.

---

This is wrong. There are a bunch of Maher type people who long for the old days of "moderate" democrats. The whacko wing is a loud minority. That's why Trump won every swing state despite polls claiming otherwise and why the trans issue was such a big winner for him. And not only that, the democrats know that they wouldn't be in power forever. That eliminating the filibuster and pushing the county hard left would turn moderate left and RINOs hard against t hem. That the GOP would win power back quickly and then use their own precedent against them to GUT EVERYTHING with the full support of the populace.

But if the GOP starts the precedent of eliminating the 60 vote filibuster rule, then those moderates and RINOs would jump in bed with the whackos. And then the democrats would hold on to their power by projecting fear of what the GOP would do next.

This is a classic case of the first shot loses. Just like the Civil War.

---

Schumer has caved to AOC and the other radical squads types. Yet you think there is a broader base that just wants to be less "whacko"? If so, it has yet to show up.

We can no longer take the chance that the Dems may come to their senses and return to "normal order". As such, you strike first and hard.

A brave new future awaits. Trump will lead us to it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

There are no more Machins in the Democrat party.

The next time they get power, it's gone.

The fact that folks believe otherwise is delusional.

---

This is wrong. There are a bunch of Maher type people who long for the old days of "moderate" democrats. The whacko wing is a loud minority. That's why Trump won every swing state despite polls claiming otherwise and why the trans issue was such a big winner for him. And not only that, the democrats know that they wouldn't be in power forever. That eliminating the filibuster and pushing the county hard left would turn moderate left and RINOs hard against t hem. That the GOP would win power back quickly and then use their own precedent against them to GUT EVERYTHING with the full support of the populace.

But if the GOP starts the precedent of eliminating the 60 vote filibuster rule, then those moderates and RINOs would jump in bed with the whackos. And then the democrats would hold on to their power by projecting fear of what the GOP would do next.

This is a classic case of the first shot loses. Just like the Civil War.

---

Schumer has caved to AOC and the other radical squads types. Yet you think there is a broader base that just wants to be less "whacko"? If so, it has yet to show up.

We can no longer take the chance that the Dems may come to their senses and return to "normal order". As such, you strike first and hard.

A brave new future awaits. Trump will lead us to it.

---

It did show up. When Trump won every swing state. They showed up by not voting.


You guys aren't being smart about this at all. We should do what Lincoln did prior to the Civil War. Let the South shoot first (hell goad them into doing so), and then when they do, use the anger against them to crush them. If Lincoln had invaded the South unilaterally without provocation, then the South would have been more emboldened than they were and far more people in the North would have sided with South or stayed out of it altogether. Lincoln was smart, that is why he had it play out like he did.

Something I've heard suggested was a proposal to amend the constitution to add the filibuster as a permanent feature, and if the Democrats turn it down, immediately end the filibuster and ram through any conservative priorities you can think of.

Stmichael said:

---

Something I've heard suggested was a proposal to amend the constitution to add the filibuster as a permanent feature, and if the Democrats turn it down, immediately end the filibuster and ram through any conservative priorities you can think of.

---

That's a bad suggestion.


Every conservative priority would be undone within 2-4 years. And then they would turn us full commie with nothing to stop them. And middle would support them the whole way.

aTmAg said:

---

It did show up. When Trump won every swing state. They showed up by not voting.


You guys aren't being smart about this at all. We should do what Lincoln did prior to the Civil War. Let the South shoot first (hell goad them into doing so), and then when they do, use the anger against them to crush them. If Lincoln had invaded the South unilaterally without provocation, then the South would have been more emboldened than they were and far more people in the North would have sided with South or stayed out of it altogether. Lincoln was smart, that is why he had it play out like he did.

---

Not sure I would agree with how you describe the start of the Civil War.

flown-the-coop said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It did show up. When Trump won every swing state. They showed up by not voting.


You guys aren't being smart about this at all. We should do what Lincoln did prior to the Civil War. Let the South shoot first (hell goad them into doing so), and then when they do, use the anger against them to crush them. If Lincoln had invaded the South unilaterally without provocation, then the South would have been more emboldened than they were and far more people in the North would have sided with South or stayed out of it altogether. Lincoln was smart, that is why he had it play out like he did.

---

Not sure I would agree with how you describe the start of the Civil War.

---

Then explain where I'm wrong.

LMCane said:

---

No

when we are in the minority with a President Alexandra Cortez we will need the filibuster.

---

And it's things like this that make the filibuster ever more important, because the last thing this country needs, aside from AOC as POTUS, is the ability for her to do every wet dream the far-left has always wanted to ram through.

aTmAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It did show up. When Trump won every swing state. They showed up by not voting.


You guys aren't being smart about this at all. We should do what Lincoln did prior to the Civil War. Let the South shoot first (hell goad them into doing so), and then when they do, use the anger against them to crush them. If Lincoln had invaded the South unilaterally without provocation, then the South would have been more emboldened than they were and far more people in the North would have sided with South or stayed out of it altogether. Lincoln was smart, that is why he had it play out like he did.

---

Not sure I would agree with how you describe the start of the Civil War.

---

Then explain where I'm wrong.

---

Well, let's start with seven states already seceding before Fort Sumter.

Lincoln was also provoking more than he was playing peacemaker. His rhetoric was one of demanding submission to the Union, not of hearing out the grievances of the South.

Lincoln's actions after the defeat at Fort Sumter also escalated the division between the Confederacy and the Union as much if not more than the "first shots" themselves.

From Lincoln's perspective, there could be no "invasion" as he did not recognize the secession of the states so any movement would not be invading. In fact, his resupply of Fort Sumter was provocation for Beauregard's attack.

The table was set no matter who moved first. And the South firing first is of little consequence to the outcome of the war and many could argue firing first was what allowed the South to galvanize their support, get 4 more states to secede, and get the populace dug in for 4 years of fighting.

Finally, if they had not shot then Lincoln would have one outright and forced the southern states into complete submission. So in effect, what you are clamoring for would result in complete defeat of the Rs at the hands of the Ds.

No thank you.

No Spin Ag said:

---

LMCane said:

---

No

when we are in the minority with a President Alexandra Cortez we will need the filibuster.

---

And it's things like this that make the filibuster ever more important, because the last thing this country needs, aside from AOC as POTUS, is the ability for her to do every wet dream the far-left has always wanted to ram through.

---

We won't need the filibuster because we are about to have the house for a generation or more

No Spin Ag said:

---

LMCane said:

---

No

when we are in the minority with a President Alexandra Cortez we will need the filibuster.

---

And it's things like this that make the filibuster ever more important, because the last thing this country needs, aside from AOC as POTUS, is the ability for her to do every wet dream the far-left has always wanted to ram through.

---

SOC has 0.0% chance of becoming POTUS. Complete nonsense.

And if she did, it means such a colossal shift in the voting masses that it also likely means that any attempt to stop that communist from doing her thing is not going to hinge on the filibuster.

The problem with the filibuster is that the pork spend negotiation required to overcome it has resulted in a huge part of our $35 trillion debt.

The biggest DOGE thing that could ever be done is to end the filibuster. Now.

The power at hand always wants more pathways to more power until they are not, the opposite reaction will be equal and greater than you can fully imagine.

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

LMCane said:

---

No

when we are in the minority with a President Alexandra Cortez we will need the filibuster.

---

And it's things like this that make the filibuster ever more important, because the last thing this country needs, aside from AOC as POTUS, is the ability for her to do every wet dream the far-left has always wanted to ram through.

---

SOC has 0.0% chance of becoming POTUS. Complete nonsense.

And if she did, it means such a colossal shift in the voting masses that it also likely means that any attempt to stop that communist from doing her thing is not going to hinge on the filibuster.

The problem with the filibuster is that the pork spend negotiation required to overcome it has resulted in a huge part of our $35 trillion debt.

The biggest DOGE thing that could ever be done is to end the filibuster. Now.

---

Agreed, but at best, it would be temporary is the Dems win next year. And then what?

The fillibuster sucks to hell and back, but when even maga politicians in charge in DC won't even think of doing that, there's a reason.

Burpelson said:

---

The power at hand always wants more pathways to more power until they are not, the opposite reaction will be equal and greater than you can fully imagine.

---

Problem is the left is of weak mind and even weaker character. In a full on frontal challenge, they will fold like the paper tiger they are.

No one should fear what the left may do. Understand what they intend to do and make the preemptive strike.

Communism, socialism, and anti-Americanism touted by the left will not stand.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Agreed, but at best, it would be temporary is the Dems win next year. And then what?

The fillibuster sucks to hell and back, but when even maga politicians in charge in DC won't even think of doing that, there's a reason.

---

Not sure your sources, but it is VERY likely the filibuster is on its way out. Dems behavior regarding the current shutdown all but guarantees it.

Showing absolutely ZERO willingness to compromise on the basic necessities of government in order to make political points is quite evident.

Burpelson said:

---

The power at hand always wants more pathways to more power until they are not, the opposite reaction will be equal and greater than you can fully imagine.

---

This is why you only end the filibuster if SCOTUS guts section 2 of the VRA. You'll need the house as that stop gap for when you don't control the senate and presidency.

flown-the-coop said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

It did show up. When Trump won every swing state. They showed up by not voting.


You guys aren't being smart about this at all. We should do what Lincoln did prior to the Civil War. Let the South shoot first (hell goad them into doing so), and then when they do, use the anger against them to crush them. If Lincoln had invaded the South unilaterally without provocation, then the South would have been more emboldened than they were and far more people in the North would have sided with South or stayed out of it altogether. Lincoln was smart, that is why he had it play out like he did.

---

Not sure I would agree with how you describe the start of the Civil War.

---

Then explain where I'm wrong.

---

Well, let's start with seven states already seceding before Fort Sumter.
Irrelevant to the point

Lincoln was also provoking more than he was playing peacemaker. His rhetoric was one of demanding submission to the Union, not of hearing out the grievances of the South.
Irrelevant to the point

Lincoln's actions after the defeat at Fort Sumter also escalated the division between the Confederacy and the Union as much if not more than the "first shots" themselves.
LOL. Lincoln's actions after Fort Sumter became justified BECAUSE the South shot first. If they hadn't then he wouldn't have been free to take those actions without major pullback from his own side.

From Lincoln's perspective, there could be no "invasion" as he did not recognize the secession of the states so any movement would not be invading. In fact, his resupply of Fort Sumter was provocation for Beauregard's attack.
Which is why I said "goad". The South idiotically fell for it.

The table was set no matter who moved first. And the South firing first is of little consequence to the outcome of the war and many could argue firing first was what allowed the South to galvanize their support, get 4 more states to secede, and get the populace dug in for 4 years of fighting.
Irrelevant to the point

Finally, if they had not shot then Lincoln would have one outright and forced the southern states into complete submission. So in effect, what you are clamoring for would result in complete defeat of the Rs at the hands of the Ds.
The South would have lost either way, as their industry wasn't up to the task. But the notion that NOT shooting would have lost it outright is ridiculous. The North LET them secede for months. By your argument, that lost the North the war on the outset. Which is also a ridiculous assertion. The South could have let them continue to resupply Fort Sumpter forever and force Lincoln to take the initial aggressive action. But the South was eager for a fight.

No thank you.

---

Yeah. You are completely wrong on this entire topic. This is the best way to hand the dem's the reigns. There is a reason it hasn't been done long ago.

aTmAg said:

---

Yeah. You are completely wrong on this entire topic. This is the best way to hand the dem's the reigns. There is a reason it hasn't been done long ago.

---

Irrelevant to the point or whatever the heck you mean by that.

Pretty lazy to excuse anything you do not find convenient to your OPINION as "irrelevant to the point".

You foolishly believe the Dems will not kill the filibuster because the Rs showed such decorum and restraint when they had the chance.

The insanity of "if the South had not attacked Fort Sumter then Lincoln would not have had the support to bring the Union together and thus the Rs should not end the filibuster" has entertain me this morning.

You do you.

Bazooka Joe said:

---

The filibuster halts government….I'm all for it.

Just like I'm okay with this shutdown and shortening sessions and limiting their occurrence.

I'm for less government, not more.

---

The result of the filibuster is a more inept congress that sits on its ass all day. The result of that is more judicial activism and executive orders.

Which do you want?

The original Senate rules only required a simple majority to stop debate. Why require a super majority to end debate when the vote itself only needs to be a majority? Its an abomination that both sides like to utilize so they can blame the other side.

javajaws said:

---

Bazooka Joe said:

---

The filibuster halts government….I'm all for it.

Just like I'm okay with this shutdown and shortening sessions and limiting their occurrence.

I'm for less government, not more.

---

The result of the filibuster is a more inept congress that sits on its ass all day. The result of that is more judicial activism and executive orders.

Which do you want?

The original Senate rules only required a simple majority to stop debate. Why require a super majority to end debate when the vote itself only needs to be a majority? Its an abomination that both sides like to utilize so they can blame the other side.

---

No, if they just sat on their butts we would not have $35 trillion in debt.

Compromise aka pork-barrel spending depends heavily on the filibuster. That is why it has not been ended. Has less to do with power and much more to do with spending on pet projects in the name of working together.

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Agreed, but at best, it would be temporary is the Dems win next year. And then what?

The fillibuster sucks to hell and back, but when even maga politicians in charge in DC won't even think of doing that, there's a reason.

---

Not sure your sources, but it is VERY likely the filibuster is on its way out. Dems behavior regarding the current shutdown all but guarantees it.

Showing absolutely ZERO willingness to compromise on the basic necessities of government in order to make political points is quite evident.

---

If the filibuster dies, so be it. Like I said, i think it sucks. Both sides have caused shutdowns and neither should have been able to.

Just be ready for when the Dems get back in power, because it'll happen eventually, and I'm sure they'll be ready on day one when it's their turn. And then the back and forth will truly begin.