#1
Posted: 7/29/26 at 6:42am
Andy Beshear demands that Mitch McConnell prove he is fit to serve or resign. Good for him
Mitch McConnell won’t leave rehab
#2
Posted: 7/29/26 at 9:42am
Fred Mason said: "Andy Beshear demands that Mitch McConnell prove he is fit to serve or resign. Good for him"
I agree but I hope you felt the same way about Senator Diane Feinstein who was just as bad if not worse.
#3
Posted: 8/2/26 at 3:19pm
Zeppie2022 said: "Fred Mason said: "Andy Beshear demands that Mitch McConnell prove he is fit to serve or resign. Good for him"
I agree but I hope you felt the same way about Senator Diane Feinstein who was just as bad if not worse.
"
I don’t think you'd find anyone opposing that... 80% of America support age and term limits in Congress.
#4
Posted: 8/2/26 at 4:32pm
TheatreFan4 said: "Zeppie2022 said: "Fred Mason said: "Andy Beshear demands that Mitch McConnell prove he is fit to serve or resign. Good for him"
I agree but I hope you felt the same way about Senator Diane Feinstein who was just as bad if not worse.
"
I don’t think you'd find anyone opposing that... 80% of America support age and term limits in Congress."
Term limits is the answer, and IMO solves the age limit thing. I think the most common I have seen is 12-year limit which would be 6 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate. I am not positive but don't think too many people get elected for the first time in their late 50's or 60's. This would eliminate many people from being in Congress in their 70's. it is damn shame that 80% of the country wants it but Congress will never pass it. The POTUS has term limits and so do a bunch of Governors of states so why not Congress.
#5
Posted: 8/27/26 at 2:49pm
So let me ask this to whomever wants to answer it:
Let's say you have a full time job (as most adults do). If you did not communicate a word, you did not show up for crucial decisions and still refused to say a thing about when you would be back for nearly 1/3 of a year......would any of you still have a job?
Serious question.
wck.org
Updated On: 8/27/26 at 02:49 PM
#6
Posted: 8/27/26 at 4:40pm
"So let me ask this to whomever wants to answer it:
Let's say you have a full time job (as most adults do). If you did not communicate a word, you did not show up for crucial decisions and still refused to say a thing about when you would be back for nearly 1/3 of a year......would any of you still have a job?
Serious question."
I think the answer is obvious, none of us would still have a job in that situation. The bigger question is what can be done about it. I am more than ready to hear some suggestions.
#7
Posted: 8/27/26 at 5:52pm
Right. So, he has taken away so much from so many people but is benefiting from taxpayers for his salary (that he does not earn) and health care. So, he's just going to stay away until he's officially gone in January, with no one able to fill his seat. Just like he planned while in "rehab".
I think term limits are the answer. An age limit is open to a lot of legal challenges, and ageism would be brought up over and over again. My best friend's Dad was a senior pilot for SouthWest for decades. The retirement age used to be 60 for obvious reasons being a pilot, but he organized and championed increasing the retirement age (voluntarily) until 65. You could do that if you wanted to, and they won. But, in certain industries, they won't ever tell you to retire and you will work until you're dead. This cannot be the case for someone who works for the people, especially when they are unable to perform. Mitch, Dianne, that man from Jersey (who will lose in November) who left for months due to depression without a word. None of this is acceptable. Something needs to change, and I guess term limits (for everyone including the Supreme Court) is the answer. They work for us, and when one can't perform their duties, needs to retire. One day I sincerely hope they figure that out.
wck.org
Updated On: 8/27/26 at 05:52 PM
#8
Posted: 8/27/26 at 6:28pm
While many think term limits is the answer and I am one of them, good luck on getting 2/3 vote for it by Congress and then 38 states to ratify it. The way to bypass Congress is to have 38 states apply for constitutional convention to propose amendment. If that happened, 38 states would have to ratify it to become law. Once again, chance of that happening is slim and none. As I mentioned in another post, term limits would IMO take care of the age issue. If you made the limit 12 years (6 terms for House, 2 terms for Senate), most people would be gone by 70 because how many of these people would take office for the first time in their late 50's or early 60's.
#11
Posted: 8/28/26 at 8:05am
53 US Senators are 65 or older, 37 of them are in their 70's or older. 47 US Senators have been there 12 years or more. This is a problem which needs to be corrected!!
Updated On: 8/28/26 at 08:05 AM
#12
Posted: 8/28/26 at 12:25pm
Wow, I had no idea. Damn, something does need to change. We need younger leaders in the Country, and we've been seeing that lately in many state elections. Hopefully Americans are quite done with this nonsense and elect younger people on a federal level because as you stated, Congress will never do it themselves.
wck.org
Updated On: 8/28/26 at 12:25 PM
#13
Posted: 8/30/26 at 8:31am
The House is not as bad as the Senate in regard to age and length of service. 134 members are 65 or older, 86 are 70 or older. Considering there are 365 members, that is not too bad especially compared to the Senate. 105 members have been in the House for 12 or more years. Personally, I think the lower numbers are due to their terms are only two years and that means they have to run for re-election more often. In addition, districts change and that can affect a House member being re-elected.
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $80
Tickets From $67
Tickets From $59
