Talk:Nuclear option

Move to Nuclear option (United States Senate)

Hello, I think that the term "nuclear option" is very general, and using Nuclear option to describe this U.S. Senate procedure is undue. --167.58.214.170 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Riddled with Redunancies

This article contains multiple redundancies. For example, it refers to "simple majority" and "three-fifths majority." A majority is a majority. If a greater number of votes is required, that requirement is referred to as a "three-fifths vote" or a "two-thirds vote" respectively.Hansel von Schnitzel (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference to upcoming use

For context, Thune said that GOP will use the nuke to get through a bunch of “minor” nominations at once. Was wondering if we should wait for the nuke to officially be “detonated”, or just put this in now. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 19:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect Sourcing for Incorrect Statement

At the end of the long section on recent uses of the nuclear option, there is the bald statement that "As of October 2025, the nuclear option has not been used to abolish the filibuster on legislation." The cite for this statement goes to an article that was originally published in 2019 and revised in 2021. As such, it's hard to see how that's a source for a statement about October 2025. As such, I'm removing this statement as it is very much up to debate (e.g. how is invoking the nuclear option on budgetary matters not "legislation") and the cite is not relevant.

2600:1700:1FF0:9420:6E01:C06C:451C:9EBC (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)