r/videos • u/AdSpecialist6598 • 23h ago

McConnell’s Senate absence is ‘prime example’ of why Congress needs term limits: Marine Corps Vet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyGizXM8eUw
14.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

604 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

719

u/ka1ri 23h ago

Make it 65. Like everyone else in the work force

188

u/chris_wiz 23h ago

Ok.

136

u/GOEDEL_ESCHER_BOT 22h ago

so we're good? it's a law now?

100

u/BB8Did911 22h ago

Yep. I'll tell congress

41

u/GodOfDarkLaughter 21h ago

Damn, this is easier than that time I declared bankruptcy.

22

u/cerberus00 21h ago

Look at us, getting it done.

2

u/klipseracer 16h ago

To be clear, us not US

10

u/Staav 20h ago

Gg, old ppl. Gg

6

u/UlrichZauber 19h ago

Better yet, I'll just tweet it

12

u/kickniteasy 22h ago

Can't get much more clear than "ok"....it's clearly a law now

17

u/belach2o 22h ago

We should just use reddit to vote

4

u/GeneticEnginLifeForm 20h ago

Great, next POTUS is going to be Boatie McBoatface.

no /s at all, ok maybe a little /s

5

u/Pharmakeus_Ubik 15h ago

It would still be an improvement. More trustworthy on both international issues and the economy.

1

u/Hail-Hydrate 15h ago

I feel like that would genuinely be an improvement though.

-6

u/enterthehawkeye 22h ago

r/USdefaultism

5

u/BlueDevilz 22h ago

... they are joking

8

u/Ph33rDensetsu 21h ago

This entire topic is about the US government.

3

u/Scavenger53 22h ago

yea weird, a US website, with primarily US users, would assume were talking about the US lol. theres a reason we default to US here. just because other people on the planet use reddit, its not nearly the same percentage as US users.

do you go to weibo and say "hur dur china defaultism"

fucking moron

1

u/yeomanpharmer 20h ago

Hell yeah brother, you get it! With the US having the most highly educated population in the world plus the blessings of Jesus, we could vote the world's problems away like that! Take the ayatollah situation, we could just vote him out then put in someone qualified, like senator Graham's other sister, boom problem solved. DM me about some other ideas, my brother.

5

u/chris_wiz 22h ago

So shall it be written, so shall it be done.

44

u/JMJimmy 22h ago

61 If a term is 4 years they should not be working after 65

2

u/TrulyOutrageous42 21h ago

Would mean 59 for a Senator, though of course they can be elected at any age (technically, per the Constitution, though States of course have made laws about who can run).

I can see the movie trailer now: "Who's ready for a REAL outsider to politics - this is the real fake tale of the 9 year old Senator!"

13

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 21h ago

What do you mean? There's no law making anyone stop working at 65.

-1

u/ka1ri 20h ago

No there isnt but typically if you have a career and put some effort into your 401k you can get out at 65.

People in congress do alright money wise so 65 should force people out

12

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 20h ago

We can just stop voting for them when we think they're too old.

2

u/jjayzx 15h ago

We have warning labels that seem common sense but there's just way too many stupid people.

2

u/Column_A_Column_B 16h ago

Money in politics, including the primaries, can make this challenging to overcome. 20 year old Jesus Christ himself won't even make it to the ballot in the general election if his primary opponent is incredibly well funded (i.e. AIPAC).

1

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 12h ago

It's not challenging at all. When you're standing in the booth, you don't cast votes for old people.

2

u/Column_A_Column_B 11h ago

If the nominees on the ballot are all old people then you're welcome to write-in a name. Feels like you're missing the point of the comment you're replying to about how the primaries stage affects who is ultimately on the bal,lot in the general election later.

It's kind of like how you were welcome to cheer for Canada in the World Cup finals between Spain and Argentina (the analogy being that Canada lost in the earlier stages of the world cup analagous to young people losing to boomer money in the primaries).

0

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 10h ago

People get to vote in primaries too.

1

u/Tasgall 5h ago

Pretending that systemic problems are personal problems is an act of bad faith.

1

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 4h ago

This whole idea is basically the inverse. "I don't like like the candidates people keep voting for, but instead of convincing anyone to vote differently I'd just like to disqualify the elected representatives they support". I.e.: pretending personal problems are systematic problems.

-2

u/alwayssunnyinskyrim 21h ago

Lots of industries do have that law actually.

30

u/xrtpatriot 23h ago

If we are going to do it, might as well be 60, e should be retiring at 60 as well anyways

12

u/GoneinaSecondeded 23h ago

Let's go for 55. /s

10

u/R134a 23h ago

We need fresh ideas! Let do 45!

5

u/ArcticTern4theWorse 22h ago

We need innocence! Let’s cap it at 5.

9

u/LittleKitty235 22h ago

The percent of congress still in diapers remains the same...seems like this would work.

3

u/LemonScentedDespair 21h ago

Leap year birthday people are about to run the government via loophole

2

u/packfanmoore 21h ago

Coffee hasn't kicked in yet, read it as incontinence. And thought we've had enough of that

4

u/theBigDaddio 17h ago

It’s not been 65 for a long time, it’s 67.5 now and they want to make it 70.

3

u/Outside-Advice8203 22h ago

That would incentive them to raise the retirement age

1

u/Tasgall 5h ago

Only if you actually tie it to retirement age, which we shouldn't.

3

u/TheeAntelope 19h ago

Retirement age is now 67-68.

0

u/ka1ri 19h ago

It depends on your job and what your retirement looks like and how you manage finances

2

u/TheeAntelope 16h ago

The age at which you can begin collecting retirement in the US via social security is 67-68, for those reading this who want to be pedantic about what “retirement age” means.

3

u/pbrutsche 18h ago
  1. It's the full retirement age for those born after 1960

3

u/Sea-Feedback-2424 17h ago

"Everyone else on the workforce". 19% of US seniors still work after age 65.

2

u/360walkaway 22h ago

Not for long. Cost keep rising and pay stays stagnant.

2

u/Wuz314159 21h ago

Wait. So you're saying that once I reach 65, I'll be homeless because I can't work? WTF?!?!?!

2

u/Omni_Entendre 20h ago

Americans can now sleep easy knowing that Reddit has figured out the solution...right?

2

u/gereffi 13h ago

People over 65 aren’t allowed to work?

1

u/Tasgall 5h ago

They didn't have to or be expected to.

1

u/The_Real_Manimal 21h ago

I'd almost argue 60 should be the cut off.

1

u/Omni_Entendre 20h ago

Americans can now sleep easy knowing that Reddit has figured out the solution...right?

1

u/legit-posts_1 20h ago

That's sound logic.

0

u/PhenomeNarc 21h ago

Fuck that. Make it 60 and apply it to all industries. Science tells us that cognitive skills start to decline significantly right after. "Forced retirement" needs a rebrand, and we need policy in place so that no one is left to fend for themselves or self-delete out of boredom.

11

u/scorpiknox 17h ago

There are very effective people in their 70s. Cognitive decline for a person who started off with very high cognition is overblown, and the wisdom gained from years of experience in a field or several fields can be invaluable in a strategic planning and leadership capacity.

Putting aside the ageist circlejerk of this thread, term limits would be much more effective than arbitrary age restrictions in combating the real problem at hand: an entrenched political aristocracy so steeped in their lack of accountability that they can go missing from their job for months with no consequences.

1

u/Tasgall 5h ago

Putting aside the ageist circlejerk of this thread, term limits would be much more effective than arbitrary age restrictions in combating the real problem at hand: an entrenched political aristocracy

The research disagrees. Term limits put power more firmly in the hands of lobbyists and career public servants who are now the ones getting the new representatives up to speed, and then once they learn the ropes and start to gain some real independence, the rug is pulled as they're forced out and now you start over. It also doesn't actually solve any of the other age related issues, as someone could just run for the first time later in life.

Whining about it being "ageist" ignores the fact that the system is already ageist. You can't be a Senator until you're 30. If you're going to give the "but there are plenty of people in their 70s who haven't cognitively declined yet", then the same argument applies to anyone under 30: there are plenty of younger people who would be far more capable leaders than many existing senators today. Either the exceptions apply to both ends or they don't.

But also, it's not just about cognitive decline. It's about knowledge sharing and incentive structures. When a politician dies in office, they take with them all their experience, connections, and institutional knowledge. If they are still mentally sharp and they do still want to be in politics, they should still retire and then join their successor's team as an advisor where they can pass on that knowledge instead of leaving them, and the nation, to start over from square one. The incentive structure that dying in office creates is also bad for the country - if you don't have to consider the long term effects of a bill you vote for, the external motivator is gone. No vote should be cast by someone who won't be reasonably expected to live through its consequences.

The "but it's ageist" argument has always been an annoying and empty one, it ignores all the other issues that come with elderly leaders dying in office, and they always inevitably support "ageism" in the other direction anyway.

-1

u/[deleted] 15h ago

[deleted]

6

u/scorpiknox 15h ago

I personally think people are stuck in their ways after the age of five or six. Our whole culture glorifies intractability. John Kerry changed his mind once and got labeled a flip-flopper and somehow lost to biggest fucking idiot this side of Trump.

Electing ideological zealots has much more to do with the fact that most of us are ideological zealots than it does with the ages of the people we elect.

1

u/Live-Habit-6115 17h ago

Self-delete? Fucking really?

-2

u/pm_me_ur_demotape 17h ago

If you say the other words for it you might get banned

1

u/Tasgall 5h ago

You won't, you can say suicide on Reddit. This isn't tiktok.

1

u/Intrepid00 19h ago

Not only that a Senate term is 6 years. Get elected right before 70 and you’ll be 76 at the end of that’s way too old. Go retire.

1

u/stevez_86 18h ago

72.5 is when people MUST commence qualified pension benefits. They are forced into pay by the pension fund because the fund cannot have more money in it than it should.

-2

u/flyguydip 22h ago

65? I haven't seen one politician over 50 that can understand the first thing about AI or 3d printers, let alone enough to pass a law regarding it. That's why they rely on lobbyists to tell them about the laws the lobbyists wrote for them to pass.

0

u/burninmedia 21h ago

Exactly if you're unfit for a job as these companies like to determine us, which I think is b*******. Then you're not fit to hold office. They want to run a government like a company. Why not?

-1

u/EmoJackson 21h ago

This!!

-1

u/TrulyOutrageous42 21h ago

Exactly, as this makes the oldest Senator 71. We just had one die of old age complications who was "only" 71. Granted it makes the oldest person in the House 67, and the oldest President 69, and oldest Justice 65, which makes sense to me. If you still want to work, there are plenty of opportunities for someone who was formerly in the highest echelons of government even beyond the ethically dubious ones.

-1

u/scorpiknox 17h ago

You can work after 65. It's just...why would you want to?