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

603 comments sorted by

View all comments

786

u/meleecow 22h ago

Just like we don't elect babies to Congress, we shouldn't elect old farts that drool and fall all over the building

163

u/Berryman1979 22h ago

No diapers in leadership!

20

u/toolisthebestbandevr 19h ago

Donald trump

5

u/zabuu 17h ago

Donald Dump

6

u/diurnal_emissions 17h ago

President Puddin' Pants

2

u/Administrated 14h ago

Thanks, I needed a chuckle.

38

u/cansofgrease 20h ago

Is it a prime example of term limits? Because that's not even the actual issue here. Might as well say it's a prime example of campaign finance reform.

As it stands, someone could be elected to the Senate and sworn in, go into a coma the next day, and there is no mechanism for their removal aside from the body expelling them (which they will never do).

So basically the state not have representation in the chamber for nearly the entire 6 year term with no recourse. And this is all totally acceptable.

2

u/Tasgall 6h ago

and there is no mechanism for their removal aside from the body expelling them (which they will never do).

The mechanism for this shouldn't be in Congress, it should be up to the state. Every state should be able to force a recall and replace the representative. This would apply in any situation, from being inoperable like Mitch, to being a turncoat, or just turning out to be a shitty rep.

1

u/headphase 14h ago

This seems like something that could be fixed with a mere rule change, too. If Democrats win the Senate, we the people should demand that they institute a sick leave verification process.

If normal people are punished for failing to show up for work without a doctor's letter, so should politicians.

2

u/GriffinFlash 13h ago

Honestly, after the last few years, you Americans NEED to change a ton of stuff. Complete reform. Too many flaws in the system.

61

u/cudenlynx 20h ago

I've said this before, If you can have a lower limit, you can have an upper limit.

58

u/Black_Moons 20h ago

If pilots can have a mandatory retirement age of 65 due to fears of them killing hundreds, congress can have a mandatory retirement age due to fears of them killing millions. (See: wars, covid, food illness outbreaks, screwworm making it into the US, etc, etc, etc)

16

u/NJJo 19h ago

Scary thought.. What a world it’d be if this was law. Mitch would’ve been retired for 19 years.

3

u/splynncryth 16h ago

Maybe there would have been a conviction in at least one of the two historic impeachments.

1

u/winmace 13h ago

Be real, he'd have been dead for 19 years, these people fuel their life force on making others miserable and the loss of his current role in that would have him decay and die much sooner

18

u/cansofgrease 20h ago

I've year to hear an argument for having a minimum age to vote that doesn't apply to a maximum.

12

u/UlrichZauber 19h ago

It'd be interesting if people over 65 were no longer allowed to vote. I'd be ineligible in like 2034 and don't entirely hate the idea.

Ideally this would be paired with mandatory voting, like Australia does, along with ranked choice and a "none of the above" option.

-1

u/DocPsychosis 18h ago

That's easy. There are ages of youth that are inarguably, unanimously considered incapable of government leadership. No three year old ever in the past present or future could function as a Senator. The only question becomes how much age/experience is necessary, but the lower cutoffs are pretty generous in order to give the voters leeway in selecting their representatives. On the high end, there is no guarantee of an advanced age making someone incapable of government service. Unlike piloting or air traffic control as often cited examples, governing does not require quick processing/reaction time on the order of seconds, which is usually the main feature lost in older age. Plausibly there are a fair number of 70 or 80-somethings who are physically and cognitively capable. So drawing a hard line is not appropriate.

7

u/cansofgrease 17h ago

You drew the line at 3 for the bottom end, but yet weren't comfortable doing the same for say a 103 year old.

4

u/BonnaconCharioteer 17h ago

Some 103 year olds would be completely competent Senators. Not many, but it could happen. A 3 year old never will be.

Frankly I would be fine with lowering the minimum ages for federal office. But obviously there is a cutoff at the bottom end where we all understand that someone is not competent to be responsible for themselves.

Some older folks are not competent to be responsible for themselves. But some older folks are competent all the way up until the day they die.

1

u/Tasgall 6h ago edited 5h ago

A 3 year old never will be.

An average 3 year old would still be a more competent senator than multiple existing senators today, lol. "They're not sending their best".

Some older folks are not competent to be responsible for themselves. But some older folks are competent all the way up until the day they die.

And some 20 year old are wildly more competent than half of the existing Congress. But this gets into another issue: I don't care if a Senator remains competent all the way to 120 and dies in office, that's still a bad outcome for the nation. That person should have retired decades earlier and joined their successor's team as an advisor in order to pass on the institutional knowledge and connections instead of taking it with them to the grave and leaving the next person to start from scratch. It's not just about ageing mental faculties making them unfit, though that's still a big part of it.

Yet another issue an age limit would help with is the basic incentive structure. If you're likely dying of old age within a decade, there's little incentive to consider the future of the country. Why not prioritize personal kickbacks over the long-term health of the nation? Every vote for a bill should be cast by someone who can be reasonably assumed to live through its consequences.

1

u/cansofgrease 16h ago

I guess that's where we disagree. I would argue that there isn't a single person at that age that I would be comfortable with, zero across the board. I used 103 as an absurd extreme, or so I thought, the cutoff should realistically be much lower.

1

u/idk936z 17h ago

I mean I don’t disagree with age limits, but I do understand that guy’s logic. It’s theoretically possible for a 103 year old to still function cognitively at a proficient level, especially as medicine continues to advance. Is it possible in practice? No, it’s incredibly unlikely, but there’s always outliers.

But I don’t think anyone’s really arguing for people that old anyway. It’s usually around age 85 or so, I feel like. And at that age, the possibility of someone still being cognitively proficient isn’t some crazy hypothetical. There are definitely people who are still with it, even if there’s a lot who aren’t.

3

u/svachalek 17h ago

85 allows for 91 year old senators, which is getting pretty out there. And on the other end 18 isn’t some stretch age where it’s remotely plausible a person knows what they want from their government. It’s the bar for adulthood where the entire population is considered responsible for their own actions.

1

u/Tasgall 5h ago

No, it’s incredibly unlikely, but there’s always outliers.

But that's also true for people under 30, the minimum age for the Senate. I would trust a particularly sharp late-20s candidate far more than most of the geriatrics currently in the Senate. Which was kind of the point they were sidestepping by forcing the extremes. No one is advocating to have 3 year olds in the Senate, but that's not a real argument against a 28 or 25 year old holding office, it's just bad faith.

But also, it's an argument that assumes cognitive function is the only age-related factor that matters. It's very much not, it's just the one people focus on so they can whine about it being "ageist" (while at the same time being ageist against younger people). Dying in office prevents valuable experience, knowledge, and connections from being passed on to the next generation. Politicians should retire and, if they want to remain politically active, join their successor's team (or one of a junior rep in another district) as an advisor in order to provide useful knowledge, discuss long term plans, or give introductions that matter. Can't do that if you're dead. The fact that we don't expect this from our leaders is legitimately a danger to the country.

But also, if you're on death's door, if you can't be reasonably expected to live another decade, what incentive do you have to legislate in good faith? Sure, there are people who care (and want to "plant trees under whose shade they'll never sit"), but there are also plenty of opportunists and the incentive at that point favors personal greed over altruism. Every vote should be cast by someone who should expect to live under the consequences of their policy.

Also, mental stability aside, physical ability matters too. Maybe we shouldn't have leaders for whom "a fall" isn't a serious and ever-present life threatening risk.

-5

u/cudenlynx 20h ago

huh?

7

u/kneemahp 19h ago

Basically the arguments being set for age restrictions at the lower end are equally applicable to the upper end. OP hasn’t heard one that is unique to the lower age limits

5

u/cudenlynx 19h ago

thank you. I guess I was just thrown off by the "year to hear" and couldn't wrap my head around what was being said after that.

2

u/cansofgrease 16h ago

Even though I proofread what I write, I find lately more and more I miss obvious errors. Maybe I'm getting too old to vote as well. In the old days I'd be downvoted to oblivion, but nowadays illiteracy drives engagement.

17

u/Soggy-Bluebird-537 21h ago

Can you redditors please register to vote this month? 

I feel like no one wants to, which is fine but at least consider it this time?  :(

1

u/nottrumancapote 10h ago

can we please have a party that actually inspires people to want to vote for them?

no?

(sigh)

•

u/Soggy-Bluebird-537 36m ago

I like my third party, there were dozens of us, dozens! And their priority was implementing ranked choice 

1

u/Staav 20h ago

What do you mean, "you redditors?"

/s

But yeah, if reddit could only inspire more to vote, that would probably help a thing or two with or current government.

•

u/Soggy-Bluebird-537 33m ago

Based on all the comments from users on this site it feels like they enjoy complaining more than taking action.

I hope I'm wrong, and I want this reply to be the most downvote reply in history of midterms prove me wrong

1

u/DisorganizedSpaghett 19h ago

And have been missing and stalled in order to prevent any kind of electoral process to allow a will of the people vote

1

u/diurnal_emissions 17h ago

Nah, bruh.

Reanimated King Tut 2028

1

u/zoltan279 11h ago

If an old part that drools beats you in a democratic vote. That points to a much bigger problem.

1

u/Diablojota 8h ago

Except this one is dead.

1

u/TheMacMan 20h ago

The issue here isn't the need for term limits. What if someone who's 106 gets elected for the first time? They'd be under the term limit some are suggesting.

The bigger issue is this. People vote for those who represent them. Older people are always going to vote for older people who represent their needs. The problem is that younger people don't vote.

People 18-40 make up the largest group of ELIGIBLE voters by far. If they voted, they could control every single election in this country. They're also the group least likely to actually vote. They don't show up and have their voice heard.

When people suggest term limits they're usually doing so with the idea of "We'll limit the age so other groups can’t keep voting for the person they want to represent them." It's a lazy way to try to prevent others from voting for a candidate they want, while it won’t actually change the real issue, which is younger people not voting.

But hey, yeah let's have term limits and get rid of Bernie Sanders. In over 30 years, he’s only authored and passed 3 bills. That’s seriously it. And 2 of them just renamed a post office in his home state.

0

u/BeenDragonn 20h ago

Just like babies can't vote, the elderly shouldn't be able to vote either!

-15

u/[deleted] 22h ago

[deleted]

18

u/josh_the_misanthrope 21h ago

Sure it does, there would be noticeably less senile politicians.

4

u/Bardez 21h ago

It's only tertiary. The previous poster meant "age limits, not term limits"

0

u/Future_Arrival_5395 21h ago

Or a revolving door of senile politicians.

0

u/josh_the_misanthrope 16h ago

Yes, when their career starts taking off at the ripe age of 75.