Let’s be clear: The GQP can end the shutdown with a simple procedural vote to remove the filibuster. All they need for that is a simple majority, which they have. Thune has done it several times already this year. To the dolts who think it needs 60 votes, the filibuster is a rule agreed to in the beginning of each new Congress and is susceptible to a vote at any given time to be removed. Rules only need a simple majority to pass.
I don’t think the filibuster has anything to do with it.
Since the CR is budget-related, it takes 60 votes in the Senate. And since there is only 53 GOP senators, the democrats need a few to decide to reopen the government. And since this CR is exactly or very close to ones they have voted on in the past, it makes this situation more ridiculous. But having the government shut down prevents them from messing things up, so there is that.
If you have a link to a valid source on how the filibuster is causing the shutdown, please share it.
Nope. You are incorrect. Period. Full stop.
I can’t tell what you are saying. I said the filibuster is NOT the problem, because it can be removed. You provide a link stating that it is. The fact is, the filibuster is a rule voted upon in the beginning of each Congress. Rules an be revoted on at any given time. A reconciliation bill can be passed with a simple majority as means to by-pass the filibuster. A filibuster can be removed at any time with a simple majority vote to which a continuing resolution can be voted on and passed with a simple majority. So far, Thune has resisted in doing so.
Not because of any reason you allude to, but because a shutdown gives the president more power to fire federal employees and dismantle additional agencies as part of his Project 2025 fulfillment.
Lest you forget, he wanted his last shutdown. It only ended after 30+ days when the air traffic controllers started calling in sick because they weren’t getting paid.
Project 2025 was invented by some conservative site–actually years ago that they keep updating and renaming.
Trump’s plan was called Project 47 or something similar and only had some things in common with Project 2025.
If the Senate gets rid of the filibuster for on piece of legislation, can they vote it back in? The filibuster is a feature of the Senate as they are supposed to be able to debate openly.
Also, when the Democrats got rid of the filibuster years ago, didn’t that allow Trump to get many judges seated in his first term as the Senate only needed 51 votes to seat the judges? My point being that getting rid of the filibuster may have consequences that will make more people whine.
and that’s likely why they haven’t done a lot of the things people are fearing they will try – because when it’s the Democrat’s turn to be in power, they are now able to do the same thing
The filibuster as stated, is a rule that can be changed at any given time. They can state to remove it just to vote on the CR and bring it back in place afterwards. As I said, Thune has removed the filibuster several times already this year and brought it back after passing what he wanted.
The Democrats dropped the filibuster during Obama’s term because the GQP blocked nominations for the cabinet and judicial positions (except SCOTUS), but not legislation.
The filibuster is a double edged sword. I have no doubt that both sides hold onto it to hide their vote (“I’d vote for the bill, but it’s being filibustered”) But by eliminating it, the party in power, which today would be the GQP, would obviously install legislation that the majority of Americans would hate because there’d be no guardrails. The positive effect of that is the backlash could eliminate the GQP party as we know it today, as Americans might finally see that the GQP hates the American people and prefers wealthy donors who allow them to stay in power. If one doubts that, name one piece of legislation in the past 50 years that was created, pushed and passed by the majority of GQP members (House/Senate/President) that was predominantly designed to benefit, specifically, working Americans. Not breadcrumbs, but a solid piece of legislation for the average American.
As for project 2025, the circus peanut denied any knowledge of during it his campaign or at least distanced himself from it, but once the shutdown happened, he used one of the authors, Russ Vought, in an ad to promote his intent on carrying out its plan. The timeline is irrelevant, the existence and execution of it is all that matters.
Right there in the referenced article it says it’s a Senate rule. Rules can be changed just like the Republicans have done before to get what they want. Like the confirmation rules.
So there is that.
Any articles on why Republicans work so strongly to deny all Americans health care except the ones that can afford it? All the other industrialized countries in the world and even some third world countries have universal health care.
Prediction: IF (a huge big IF) the GQP decides to restore medical subsidies to the people, mark my words, Johnson will pass a new bill a few months later that will be a rescission bill for the subsidies. It will be passed as a reconciliation bill that will bypass the filibuster.
NEVER, NEVER trust a republican.
As someone quipped, “if you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it is free.”
It would be better to get government out of the health insurance business as much as possible, mainly because there is nothing our federal government has gotten involved with that made it better or cheaper.
or we could take our cues from other countries where universal health care has been in effect for decades, and actually works. No one should go bankrupt over a medical issue
If you understood how insurance works, you’d know that a larger pool lowers rates. Which is why when the subsidies drop, millions will drop insurance, decreasing the pool and affecting everybody else’s insurance. A “Medicare for All” approach would lessen our overall health expenses by billions of dollars over time.
And as an FYI, the healthcare I speak of is a single payer, which would be the government. That offers lower overhead, less paperwork for doctors and more efficient payments. Healthcare itself would not be government run. However having said that, hospitals should be mandated to run as non-profits, thereby creating health outcomes for better health rather than better profit margins for stockholders.
And then your closing argument is 100% incorrect. Utilizing the government reduces overhead as it is not in the business of making a profit, but rather exists to serve the people. If you’re going to use the Post Office as your rebuttal, let it be known, the last guy who headed it (Dejoy) was put in there to deliberately destroy it. He pulled multi-million dollar sorting machines to slow the mail and installed all sorts of problematic rules to cripple the service in hopes of privatizing it. It was doing fine on its own, until the GQP congress insisted on funding pensions 75 years into the future. Not to mention they have raised stamp prices more than 25¢ since the circus peanut put Dejoy in. It took almost 29 years to rise 25$ more prior to the reign of orange terror. Dejoy headed RXO, whose company was hired by the USPS for large scale shipments. Imagine how rich his company would get if he was no longer a contractor, but someone who was in it just for pure profit. Trust me, RXO sucks as a trucking service. Your mail delivery would be virtually non-existent and all rural areas would lose it completely. UPS and FedEx are no better, especially for costs and efficiency at those costs.
Quips are cute and all, but take very little understanding of all the facts. Limit your thinking, you limit your understanding.
AND, if your little quip is referring to medical care, the US ranks at the bottom in most health categories compared to all other countries who have a universal healthcare system. We spend more but get less.
Let’s be clear: The GQP can end the shutdown with a simple procedural vote to remove the filibuster. All they need for that is a simple majority, which they have. Thune has done it several times already this year. To the dolts who think it needs 60 votes, the filibuster is a rule agreed to in the beginning of each new Congress and is susceptible to a vote at any given time to be removed. Rules only need a simple majority to pass.
I don’t think the filibuster has anything to do with it.
Since the CR is budget-related, it takes 60 votes in the Senate. And since there is only 53 GOP senators, the democrats need a few to decide to reopen the government. And since this CR is exactly or very close to ones they have voted on in the past, it makes this situation more ridiculous. But having the government shut down prevents them from messing things up, so there is that.
For your reading pleasure: https://govfacts.org/analysis/why-the-minority-party-can-force-a-government-shutdown/
If you have a link to a valid source on how the filibuster is causing the shutdown, please share it.
Nope. You are incorrect. Period. Full stop.
I can’t tell what you are saying. I said the filibuster is NOT the problem, because it can be removed. You provide a link stating that it is. The fact is, the filibuster is a rule voted upon in the beginning of each Congress. Rules an be revoted on at any given time. A reconciliation bill can be passed with a simple majority as means to by-pass the filibuster. A filibuster can be removed at any time with a simple majority vote to which a continuing resolution can be voted on and passed with a simple majority. So far, Thune has resisted in doing so.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/09/congress/shutdown-filibuster-nuclear-option-00599767
Not because of any reason you allude to, but because a shutdown gives the president more power to fire federal employees and dismantle additional agencies as part of his Project 2025 fulfillment.
https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/newswire/trump-weaponizes-looming-federal-shutdown-bid-seize-permanent-authority-blaming-democrats/
Lest you forget, he wanted his last shutdown. It only ended after 30+ days when the air traffic controllers started calling in sick because they weren’t getting paid.
Project 2025 was invented by some conservative site–actually years ago that they keep updating and renaming.
Trump’s plan was called Project 47 or something similar and only had some things in common with Project 2025.
If the Senate gets rid of the filibuster for on piece of legislation, can they vote it back in? The filibuster is a feature of the Senate as they are supposed to be able to debate openly.
Also, when the Democrats got rid of the filibuster years ago, didn’t that allow Trump to get many judges seated in his first term as the Senate only needed 51 votes to seat the judges? My point being that getting rid of the filibuster may have consequences that will make more people whine.
and that’s likely why they haven’t done a lot of the things people are fearing they will try – because when it’s the Democrat’s turn to be in power, they are now able to do the same thing
The filibuster as stated, is a rule that can be changed at any given time. They can state to remove it just to vote on the CR and bring it back in place afterwards. As I said, Thune has removed the filibuster several times already this year and brought it back after passing what he wanted.
The Democrats dropped the filibuster during Obama’s term because the GQP blocked nominations for the cabinet and judicial positions (except SCOTUS), but not legislation.
The filibuster is a double edged sword. I have no doubt that both sides hold onto it to hide their vote (“I’d vote for the bill, but it’s being filibustered”) But by eliminating it, the party in power, which today would be the GQP, would obviously install legislation that the majority of Americans would hate because there’d be no guardrails. The positive effect of that is the backlash could eliminate the GQP party as we know it today, as Americans might finally see that the GQP hates the American people and prefers wealthy donors who allow them to stay in power. If one doubts that, name one piece of legislation in the past 50 years that was created, pushed and passed by the majority of GQP members (House/Senate/President) that was predominantly designed to benefit, specifically, working Americans. Not breadcrumbs, but a solid piece of legislation for the average American.
As for project 2025, the circus peanut denied any knowledge of during it his campaign or at least distanced himself from it, but once the shutdown happened, he used one of the authors, Russ Vought, in an ad to promote his intent on carrying out its plan. The timeline is irrelevant, the existence and execution of it is all that matters.
Right there in the referenced article it says it’s a Senate rule. Rules can be changed just like the Republicans have done before to get what they want. Like the confirmation rules.
So there is that.
Any articles on why Republicans work so strongly to deny all Americans health care except the ones that can afford it? All the other industrialized countries in the world and even some third world countries have universal health care.
Prediction: IF (a huge big IF) the GQP decides to restore medical subsidies to the people, mark my words, Johnson will pass a new bill a few months later that will be a rescission bill for the subsidies. It will be passed as a reconciliation bill that will bypass the filibuster.
NEVER, NEVER trust a republican.
As someone quipped, “if you think health insurance is expensive now, wait until it is free.”
It would be better to get government out of the health insurance business as much as possible, mainly because there is nothing our federal government has gotten involved with that made it better or cheaper.
or we could take our cues from other countries where universal health care has been in effect for decades, and actually works. No one should go bankrupt over a medical issue
If you understood how insurance works, you’d know that a larger pool lowers rates. Which is why when the subsidies drop, millions will drop insurance, decreasing the pool and affecting everybody else’s insurance. A “Medicare for All” approach would lessen our overall health expenses by billions of dollars over time.
And as an FYI, the healthcare I speak of is a single payer, which would be the government. That offers lower overhead, less paperwork for doctors and more efficient payments. Healthcare itself would not be government run. However having said that, hospitals should be mandated to run as non-profits, thereby creating health outcomes for better health rather than better profit margins for stockholders.
And then your closing argument is 100% incorrect. Utilizing the government reduces overhead as it is not in the business of making a profit, but rather exists to serve the people. If you’re going to use the Post Office as your rebuttal, let it be known, the last guy who headed it (Dejoy) was put in there to deliberately destroy it. He pulled multi-million dollar sorting machines to slow the mail and installed all sorts of problematic rules to cripple the service in hopes of privatizing it. It was doing fine on its own, until the GQP congress insisted on funding pensions 75 years into the future. Not to mention they have raised stamp prices more than 25¢ since the circus peanut put Dejoy in. It took almost 29 years to rise 25$ more prior to the reign of orange terror. Dejoy headed RXO, whose company was hired by the USPS for large scale shipments. Imagine how rich his company would get if he was no longer a contractor, but someone who was in it just for pure profit. Trust me, RXO sucks as a trucking service. Your mail delivery would be virtually non-existent and all rural areas would lose it completely. UPS and FedEx are no better, especially for costs and efficiency at those costs.
Quips are cute and all, but take very little understanding of all the facts. Limit your thinking, you limit your understanding.
AND, if your little quip is referring to medical care, the US ranks at the bottom in most health categories compared to all other countries who have a universal healthcare system. We spend more but get less.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022