- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
John Thune Asked Why GOP Lacks 51 Votes For Talking Filibuster On SAVE Act
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:08 pm
quote:
Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Tuesday gave reasons why he thinks the GOP lacks the 51 votes needed to pursue a talking filibuster for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.
Republican senators broadly support the SAVE America Act but hesitate to pursue a talking filibuster as a method to secure its passage. When asked in detail why he thinks a talking filibuster wouldn’t succeed, Thune first pointed to the math in the Senate, saying the GOP does not have 51 votes.
The filibuster effectively forces most legislation to secure 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote, giving the minority party a significant check in the Senate. The talking filibuster refers to the original form of the tactic, in which senators had to physically hold the floor and speak to prevent debate from ending. Under current rules, a silent or procedural filibuster often replaces continuous speaking. “We don’t have the votes for it. And that’s, again, it’s a simple function of the math in the Senate. It would take even a talking filibuster. It would take 51 votes.
We don’t have 51 votes for that in the United States Senate,” Thune said. “But why is that? Why are Republican colleagues not going to force the issue?” host Bret Baier asked.
quote:
“I know people don’t like to hear this, but the talking filibuster, it takes you back basically to the 1800s. You go back to the 19th century and the way things were done in the Senate, and we can’t find an example in modern Senate history where a piece of legislation passed via the talking filibuster,” Thune said.
Thune said that even if the GOP could muster the 51 votes needed for a talking filibuster on the SAVE America Act, the tactic would prolong the process with endless debate and repeated votes on amendments.
“It would be at 51 votes, but between now and then, and you’re talking about unlimited debate, and any time an amendment, for example, is offered and fails if it gets tabled, you start all over. You reset the clock. And it really favors the minority,” Thune added
https://www.aol.com/news/john-thune-asked-why-gop-020352618.html
They simply don’t want to do it.
I bet half those old fricks couldn’t stay there to hold quorum anyway.
17
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:09 pm to loogaroo
We have some compromised RINOS. I would love to know what the Deep State has on them.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:10 pm to loogaroo
quote:
They simply don’t want to do it.
I bet half those old fricks couldn’t stay there to hold quorum anyway.
That and he's lying.
There are other rules in place that would limit debate to no more than a week to 10 days.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:12 pm to loogaroo
Then just amend the rules to limit the time for debate, you feckless, Nutless Ken Doll.
You won’t. You’ve basically squandered the republican majority. On purpose.
You won’t. You’ve basically squandered the republican majority. On purpose.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:31 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Then just amend the rules to limit the time for debate, you feckless, Nutless Ken Doll. You won’t. You’ve basically squandered the republican majority. On purpose.
All of this ^^
People aren’t pissed off enough about this.
They could absolutely pass this. They are directly defying the will of the people.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:34 pm to loogaroo
I don’t understand what Thune is saying. Filibusters prevent legislation from going to a vote rather than pass legislation. And if the GOP doesn’t have 51 votes then the bill wouldn’t pass anyway. Does he mean 51 votes to change the filibuster rule?
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:48 pm to Hetfield
Was he asked why he will not put the version that passed the House on the floor of the Senate which would only require 51 votes to pass?
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:49 pm to loogaroo
He's a friggin bitch
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:00 pm to loogaroo
I saw that interview live. Appalling. When he said the talking filibuster wasn’t used since the 1800s, he lied. Baier is too stupid to remember if he even learned it.
The last bill where it was used was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When republicans used it to pass it over the racist demorats.
Thune probably doesn’t have much more than 35 votes for the bill. They don’t want to pass it. They don’t agree with restrictions on mail in ballots. That’s a major problem for republicans.
Everything happening now is performative. Even McConnell voted for it yesterday. Why, considering he has been vocal against it? Because it doesn’t matter.
The last bill where it was used was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When republicans used it to pass it over the racist demorats.
Thune probably doesn’t have much more than 35 votes for the bill. They don’t want to pass it. They don’t agree with restrictions on mail in ballots. That’s a major problem for republicans.
Everything happening now is performative. Even McConnell voted for it yesterday. Why, considering he has been vocal against it? Because it doesn’t matter.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:04 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Fifty plus Vance.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:06 pm to loogaroo
We will remember this when voting in primaries and donating to politicians.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:09 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Then just amend the rules to limit the time for debate, you feckless, Nutless Ken Doll.
Why don't people understand that changing the rules requires the same 51 Senate votes that he cannot get to do this to begin with?
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:10 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
I don’t understand what Thune is saying. Filibusters prevent legislation from going to a vote rather than pass legislation. And if the GOP doesn’t have 51 votes then the bill wouldn’t pass anyway. Does he mean 51 votes to change the filibuster rule?
I believe he needs 51 votes to go to a talking filibuster--which he is saying he does not have.
He is also saying that if they don't have the 51 to do that, he doesn't have the votes to pass it anyway.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:11 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
Was he asked why he will not put the version that passed the House on the floor of the Senate which would only require 51 votes to pass?
Why do people keep saying this? Where is the authority for that?
The House passing something does not nullify the Senate's rules and procedures. As far as I know, the SAVE act is ordinary legislation. It isn't reconciliation or some other special procedural loophole that bypasses the filibuster rules.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:16 pm to loogaroo
Why TF does this tool keep saying legislation passes through a talking filibuster.
He's DELIBERATELY misleading people.
He's DELIBERATELY misleading people.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:19 pm to loogaroo
If someone with enough money were motivated to change the GOP, they could do it. It's pretty clear that the majority wants these bums out. But for whatever reason, the party is controlled by some other dark money and apparatus.
It sucks but you're not going to change it. And there will be just enough rope they give you to think you can, but it's not going to happen.
It sucks but you're not going to change it. And there will be just enough rope they give you to think you can, but it's not going to happen.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:20 pm to Giantkiller
quote:
It's pretty clear that the majority wants these bums out.
I would posit that judging by elections, the only metric possible to determine what the majority of people want, disproves this pretty clearly.
Every member of Congress was put there by winning at least a plurality of their constituency.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:24 pm to loogaroo
Yeah but WHY?
Rather than diverting off into a history lesson on the filler buster. WHY don't we have the 51 votes? Do republicans hold 51 or more seats? If so then WHY don't we have 51 or more votes? Which republicans won't vote for it? Name them ! And what their reason? Have you trying discussions with them or persuading them?
Screw this guy, and screw Bret for allowing him to dodge the question.
Rather than diverting off into a history lesson on the filler buster. WHY don't we have the 51 votes? Do republicans hold 51 or more seats? If so then WHY don't we have 51 or more votes? Which republicans won't vote for it? Name them ! And what their reason? Have you trying discussions with them or persuading them?
Screw this guy, and screw Bret for allowing him to dodge the question.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why don't people understand that changing the rules requires the same 51 Senate votes that he cannot get to do this to begin with?
People understand. We want to know why republicans are against it when 85% of the country is for it in a bipartisan way.
They think we are stupid and they can save face with this fake "we tried" bullshite.
This post was edited on 3/18/26 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 3/18/26 at 2:27 pm to loogaroo
quote:
“I know people don’t like to hear this, but the talking filibuster, it takes you back basically to the 1800s. You go back to the 19th century and the way things were done in the Senate, and we can’t find an example in modern Senate history where a piece of legislation passed via the talking filibuster,” Thune said.
That's because you MFs don't do your jobs anymore. Blatant dereliction of duty is now an excuse for blatant dereliction of duty.
Congress sucks so bad. I hate these people.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News