So Why Doesn't John Thune Just End The Senate Filibuster Once And For All?

[Nostra]

So please present your theory on why Thune hasn't ended the filibuster? That's the easiest way to end this shutdown.

Why does Thune need to end a filibuster? You clowns claim Dimwingers aren’t the ones who shut down the government.

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

Why does Thune need to end a filibuster? You clowns claim Dimwingers aren’t the ones who shut down the government.

He doesn't "need" to do anything, simp.

But if Thune truly believes in the Big Ugly Bill and that people on Obamacare should pay twice as much, then he should end the filibuster.

But Thune knows these are disastrous policies for the Republican Party and he secretly hopes the Democrats win this battle.

 

[j-mac]

He doesn't "need" to do anything, simp.

But if Thune truly believes in the Big Ugly Bill and that people on Obamacare should pay twice as much, then he should end the filibuster.

But Thune knows these are disastrous policies for the Republican Party and he secretly hopes the Democrats win this battle.

It's a stupid battle...Democrats could have passed the clean CR, and they would have had two weeks already to be negotiating their ideas on this. Instead, they took American's hostage to force Republican's to accept their demands or else, and it is backfiring....

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

It's a stupid battle...Democrats could have passed the clean CR, and they would have had two weeks already to be negotiating their ideas on this. Instead, they took American's hostage to force Republican's to accept their demands or else, and it is backfiring....

You can't negotiate with dishonest assholes like Trump...he will just cut funding whenever he feels like it, like he has done for the past 8 months.

 

[j-mac]

You can't negotiate with dishonest assholes like Trump...he will just cut funding whenever he feels like it, like he has done for the past 8 months.

Ok, then keep it shut down. But, it won't serve you well...

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

Ok, then keep it shut down. But, it won't serve you well...

Better than it's serving your MAGA Nazi Party.

57% of MAGA voters want the Obamacare subsidies to continue.....this is a no-win situation for your deranged side.

 

[Papageorgio]

He doesn't "need" to do anything, simp.

But if Thune truly believes in the Big Ugly Bill and that people on Obamacare should pay twice as much, then he should end the filibuster.

But Thune knows these are disastrous policies for the Republican Party and he secretly hopes the Democrats win this battle.

Removing the filibuster does much more harm than good. The U.S. Senate is intentionally designed to be slower and more deliberative than the House. The filibuster forces bipartisan cooperation or at least broader consensus for major bills.

Without it, the majority party could pass almost anything it wants — from immigration reform and tax cuts to abortion restrictions or voting laws — without a single vote from the minority party.

This would make the Senate a majoritarian body like the House, where the majority rules and the minority has far less influence.

Example:
If Republicans held 51 seats, they could pass sweeping immigration laws, nationwide abortion restrictions, or energy policies with zero Democratic support.

2. It Cuts Both Ways — and That’s the Biggest Fear

The #1 reason many Republicans (and Democrats, too) hesitate to end the filibuster is this: Power flips.
Eventually, the other party will regain control — and then they could pass their agenda just as easily.
Historical pattern:

The party in power often loses the Senate within 2–4 years.
That means any laws passed under a no-filibuster rule could be reversed or replaced just as quickly.

Example: Republicans could pass a national abortion ban.
→ Two years later, Democrats win back the Senate and repeal it — and maybe pass a federal abortion protection law instead.

This “ping-pong” lawmaking would make federal policy far less stable and predictable.

3. Extreme Policies Become More Likely
The filibuster forces parties to moderate their proposals to get 60 votes.
Without it, there’s no incentive to compromise — so bills might become more partisan and more ideologically extreme.
Examples of what could pass with 51 votes:
National bans or expansions on abortion.
Deep tax cuts or major tax hikes.
Large-scale immigration crackdowns or legalization programs.
Climate policy rollbacks or Green New Deal-style plans.

4. The Minority Party Would Lose Its Leverage

Right now, the minority party can block most legislation, forcing negotiations.
Without the filibuster, they’d have almost no power to shape laws unless the majority voluntarily included them.
This would dramatically change Senate culture. Much of the behind-the-scenes deal-making that defines the chamber would disappear.

5. The Pressure to “Go Nuclear” on Everything Would Grow

Once the filibuster is gone for legislation, the pressure would mount to remove it for everything — Supreme Court nominees, lower-court judges, executive branch confirmations, etc.
That would allow each new majority to remake the judiciary, agencies, and bureaucracy in its own image much faster.
This has already started:

• Democrats “went nuclear” on lower-court judges in 2013.
• Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominations in 2017.
• Removing it for legislation is the final domino.

6. It Would Deepen Partisan Polarization

Without the filibuster as a check, the incentive to govern from the middle vanishes.
Politics would likely become more volatile and partisan, with each election potentially swinging U.S. policy wildly back and forth.
This instability could also erode public trust in government and increase political tension nationwide.
The U.S. Senate is intentionally designed to be slower and more deliberative than the House. The filibuster forces bipartisan cooperation or at least broader consensus for major bills.
Without it, the majority party could pass almost anything it wants — from immigration reform and tax cuts to abortion restrictions or voting laws — without a single vote from the minority party.
This would make the Senate a majoritarian body like the House, where the majority rules and the minority has far less influence.

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

Removing the filibuster does much more harm than good. The U.S. Senate is intentionally designed to be slower and more deliberative than the House. The filibuster forces bipartisan cooperation or at least broader consensus for major bills.

Without it, the majority party could pass almost anything it wants — from immigration reform and tax cuts to abortion restrictions or voting laws — without a single vote from the minority party.

This would make the Senate a majoritarian body like the House, where the majority rules and the minority has far less influence.

Example:
If Republicans held 51 seats, they could pass sweeping immigration laws, nationwide abortion restrictions, or energy policies with zero Democratic support.

2. It Cuts Both Ways — and That’s the Biggest Fear

The #1 reason many Republicans (and Democrats, too) hesitate to end the filibuster is this: Power flips.
Eventually, the other party will regain control — and then they could pass their agenda just as easily.
Historical pattern:

The party in power often loses the Senate within 2–4 years.
That means any laws passed under a no-filibuster rule could be reversed or replaced just as quickly.

Example: Republicans could pass a national abortion ban.
→ Two years later, Democrats win back the Senate and repeal it — and maybe pass a federal abortion protection law instead.

This “ping-pong” lawmaking would make federal policy far less stable and predictable.

3. Extreme Policies Become More Likely
The filibuster forces parties to moderate their proposals to get 60 votes.
Without it, there’s no incentive to compromise — so bills might become more partisan and more ideologically extreme.
Examples of what could pass with 51 votes:
National bans or expansions on abortion.
Deep tax cuts or major tax hikes.
Large-scale immigration crackdowns or legalization programs.
Climate policy rollbacks or Green New Deal-style plans.

4. The Minority Party Would Lose Its Leverage

Right now, the minority party can block most legislation, forcing negotiations.
Without the filibuster, they’d have almost no power to shape laws unless the majority voluntarily included them.
This would dramatically change Senate culture. Much of the behind-the-scenes deal-making that defines the chamber would disappear.

5. The Pressure to “Go Nuclear” on Everything Would Grow

Once the filibuster is gone for legislation, the pressure would mount to remove it for everything — Supreme Court nominees, lower-court judges, executive branch confirmations, etc.
That would allow each new majority to remake the judiciary, agencies, and bureaucracy in its own image much faster.
This has already started:

• Democrats “went nuclear” on lower-court judges in 2013.
• Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominations in 2017.
• Removing it for legislation is the final domino.

6. It Would Deepen Partisan Polarization

Without the filibuster as a check, the incentive to govern from the middle vanishes.
Politics would likely become more volatile and partisan, with each election potentially swinging U.S. policy wildly back and forth.
This instability could also erode public trust in government and increase political tension nationwide.
The U.S. Senate is intentionally designed to be slower and more deliberative than the House. The filibuster forces bipartisan cooperation or at least broader consensus for major bills.
Without it, the majority party could pass almost anything it wants — from immigration reform and tax cuts to abortion restrictions or voting laws — without a single vote from the minority party.
This would make the Senate a majoritarian body like the House, where the majority rules and the minority has far less influence.

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the Republicans plan on giving up power if they lose an election in the future.

They do not.

You obviously learned nothing from Jan 6.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your whole argument is based on the premise that the Republicans plan on giving up power if they lose an election in the future.

They do not.

You obviously learned nothing from Jan 6.

You honestly think the Republicans hold the House in 2028? Senate maybe but these are all cycles, in my life time the Democrats were dead in 1984, 1988, 2004, and now, the Republicans were dead in 1976, 1996, 2008, and 2016. History tells us that no one stays in power forever and most Democrats and Republican politicians know that.

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

You honestly think the Republicans hold the House in 2028? Senate maybe but these are all cycles, in my life time the Democrats were dead in 1984, 1988, 2004, and now, the Republicans were dead in 1976, 1996, 2008, and 2016. History tells us that no one stays in power forever and most Democrats and Republican politicians know that.

You're still pretending that the Republican Party is a normal political party. You're talking nonsense that doesn't matter anymore.

You have learned nothing from the Trump insanity of the past 10 years.

 

[Papageorgio]

I learned

You're still pretending that the Republican Party is a normal political party. You're talking nonsense that doesn't matter anymore.

You have learned nothing from the Trump insanity of the past 10 years.

I learned a lot, that the left and right have extreme nut jobs and they are only interested in dividing America not enhancing or making it better, that the extremists don’t believe in the Constitution or do they believe in the rule of law, they believe conspiracy theory crap and can’t get out of their group think mentality and their paranoia. Extremist on both sides are bat shit crazy lemmings that believe whatever bullshit their masters spoon feed them.

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

I learned

I learned a lot, that the left and right have extreme nut jobs and they are only interested in dividing America not enhancing or making it better, that the extremists don’t believe in the Constitution or do they believe in the rule of law, they believe conspiracy theory crap and can’t get out of their group think mentality and their paranoia. Extremist on both sides are bat shit crazy lemmings that believe whatever bullshit their masters spoon feed them.

Obviously, you didn't learn much....nothing that the left has done remotely compares to Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election.

All you do is lie to yourself. Your "both siderism" false equivalency bullshit is lame as ****.

 

[Unkotare]

Better than it's serving your MAGA Nazi Party.

57% of MAGA voters want the Obamacare subsidies to continue.....this is a no-win situation for your deranged side.