I'm a Republican, and he needs to resign immediately or be kicked out of Congress. He's obviously not well. This country can't have people making such important decisions with obvious mental issues.
OT - McConnell
- Thread starter Deleted11512
- Start date
I’m a republican and I think it’s time for a changing of the guard. Also need an age maximum in my opinion. Certainly Mitch should step down.
McConnell,Fetterman,Feinstein and I'm sure there are others.All need to go.
I remember Strom was incoherent about the last 10 years of his tenure in congress.
The fact that we don't have term limits is a National disgrace.
I remember Strom was incoherent about the last 10 years of his tenure in congress.
The fact that we don't have term limits is a National disgrace.
A fun exercise would be to put her net worth under both of those pictures to see why they're REALLY hanging around so long.Who says we need term limits??????
It was an honest oversight on the part of our founding fathers. They could not possibly have conceived of people who would make a career out of politics, turning into a life-long money grab. They all served truly out of duty but wanted no part in making it a life-long endeavor. It was understood by them, that people would serve a term and then return to their normal life.
70 should be the age limit for ALL occupations. One becomes less productive at that age. At that age, if you are sitting on a park bench, death is staring you right in the face in front of you. I know there are exceptions that people can site. But generally, that's the case. I know that might step on toes here. But, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Should have been kicked out a long time ago . Along with about 90% of all those others in congress. NEVER seen a person in politics at the national level COME OUT POORER THAN WHEN THEY WENT IN . Almost all of them come out multi millionaires . Corruption at its finest . Why would a sane person pay millions of $s of someone else's money for a job that pays around $175,00 /yr. ? That was a rhetorical question ! We all know the answer .
It really does not many any sense at this point that there are age minimums but no maximum. Of course, the founding fathers did not conceive of people serving for 50 years well into their 70s.
There are age minimums for obvious reasons. You don't want 18 years olds making critical decisions. We now know that the brain isn't fully developed until the mid-to-late 20s, which is right about where the minimum ages are for Congress.
We know, however, that cognitive function typically begins as you advance into your 70s. Yes, we all have known that one 95 year old who is sharp as a tack but they are the needle in a haystack. That there is no age limit taking this into consideration is absurd.
If not term limits, which we know they will never pass, an age limit is certainly a reasonable option!
Of course, if voters were smart, they would apply term limits themselves.
It is notable, of course, that members of Congress initially received no annual salary. It was not intended to be their livelihood! They received $6 a day while attending session. If you extrapolated that out to today, it would come to less than $40,000 annually. How many people do you think would be lining up to serve in Congress for less than $40,000? It was truly envisioned by the founding fathers to be SERVICE.
Even if you don't milk the system and behave fully above board, you can make a nice living on the $174,00 salary they receive (regardless of the number of days they spend in session). It was never intended to be a living or a full-time job. You take a break from your normal life, come to DC to serve for a bit, and go back to your normal life.
How much more efficiently would our government be if we didn't entrenched politicians who knew they were going to be there for decades?
To some degree. There's a minimum age for reason. You have to be 25 to be a Representative. Does that mean that nowhere in America is there a 24 year old who is mature enough to serve? No. There might be. But we understand that cognitive development is not fully complete until the mid-to-late 20s in most cases. So you just set a minimum age.
The exact same logic should apply to cognitive decline. Are there people who are as sharp at 80 as they were at 50? Few. The vast majority are not.
According to his physician, Biden is peachy. HaHa
So, who is going to be the arbiter of mental fitness?
Age and mental fitness do have some correlation and I think 80 is certainly a reasonable age to ask some of these people to give up power and go home.
That’s a grey area. It needs to be a hard line, no if ands or buts. See above for my reasoning. If anyone thinks Biden has a 100% healthy brain, I have ocean front property in Arizona too.
McConnell, Fetterman, Feinstein, Biden.
It's both sides of the aisle, and it's pathetic.
We are literally putting mentally deficient people in office because of party affiliation. I get that we put some dumb people in, or less than reputable people in, because of the party affiliation. That is bad enough. But we're literally sending people back to Washington that aren't mentally able to care for themselves, much less lead a country.
Fetterman and Feinstein are even more incapacitated. Democrats do not care as long as their vote gives them the power.
The lack of term limits is the Constitution's major flaw. If Senators were limited to one term and Representatives to 3 terms, the country's political situation would be a lot better. Supreme Court justices should be limited to 20 years or something like that. Lifetime leaders are not good, I don't care what the party affiliation.
Pretty funny take on it:
"Brother, you 155 years old"
"They got Diane Feinstein, Frankenstein, in a chair. The lady's face twisted and she rolling around in a wheel chair."
"RBG, or whatever her name is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while she was in the Supreme Court. They got a picture of everybody in the Supreme Court justice and she dead in that picture. Everybody's alive and she slumped."
"Brother, you 155 years old"
"They got Diane Feinstein, Frankenstein, in a chair. The lady's face twisted and she rolling around in a wheel chair."
"RBG, or whatever her name is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while she was in the Supreme Court. They got a picture of everybody in the Supreme Court justice and she dead in that picture. Everybody's alive and she slumped."
It's crazy to think when McConnell took office, I was a kid watching Transformers and GI Joe on tv. Now I have 3 kids of my own.
There's an epidemic of elder abuse in congress. Their families surely know they can't perform the duties they were sworn in to do, but they also know they are a huge wealth creation machine for as long as they hold the office.
When McConnell took office my dad was in college. Now I have 2 kids of my own with a 3rd on the way.
Even more ridiculous, Chuck Grassley was elected to the House in 1975. He's been a Senator since 1981.
And there are plenty of examples like this in both parties. It's absurd.
I know more than a few octogenarians who are sharp as can be. It’s not about age
Well, they SHOULD be, but too many have a party before country mentality.
Voters are obviously not smart enough to fill the role of arbiters or we wouldn't have the number of aged, mentally incapacitated money grubbers still in office.
That’s right. We voters have no one but ourselves to blame
Wow the most obvious person you should say that about is our cognitively impaired President. They would have used the 25th Amendment a long time ago if it was Trump and he bumbled and stumbled like Biden does. I hope somebody has taken his keys away - to the nuclear code, that is. That should scare the crap out of all Americans assuming he still has it.
Democrat or Republican, if a person is to incapacitated do the job anymore, its a shame to see party lines voters keep voting them in.
Unfortunately the system we have contributes. Long serving incumbents are typically not challenged in primaries, running either unopposed or by candidates without a chance of winning. Lindsay Graham, for example, in his last primary had 3 challengers. He had no chance of losing when those who might want a new Senator split the vote 3 ways.
You can't really fault people for choosing to vote for a poor candidate of their own party if the alternative is voting for someone in the other party who holds fundamentally different views on important issues.
Term limits are the only answer, since the vast majority of our Senators and Representatives are unwilling to voluntarily step down from office. Unfortunately term limits are a pipe dream.
That is true. I have never understood why people vote straight one party or the other. I cannot recall never not splitting my ticket. The downside to voting in both political party's primaries is that you get mail and texts from both sides. I've long been an advocate for getting rid of political parties. That way, people would have to read up on the candidates, think and vote for the best person. If they are too lazy to do that, then they have no business voting.
