542
AOC says Mitch McConnell should resign if he cannot provide health update
(www.washingtonexaminer.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
542 points (99.1% liked)
politics
30532 readers
2613 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Need age caps -- or at the very least -- a rigorous cognitive and physical assessment from a panel of independent medical experts after retirement age that is made COMPLETELY public (because you're a public servant, after all), annually.
It's too much of a national security risk to have these geriatrics in office. I mean they're easily-scammed by phishing emails and scam phone calls. Dementia is a high risk at that age. Sudden strokes, heart attacks, or sudden aneurysms as in Graham's case are too much of a liability.
The problem isn't age, it's entrenchment and corruption. Being old in office is a side effect, not the main problem.
We need term limits for Congress. If we had term limits, the only way an old person could get into office is if they were voted in when they were old. Being old doesn't necessarily make one incompetent.
Congress makes national policy that affects all of us, but only a few people in each state vote for or against them. There should be some safeguard against them remaining in office for decades.
Term limits for Congress.
Why not both age and term limits? The way I see it, they act as filtering layers that help remove problems. If one fails, the other might do the trick.
The problem is that there are multiple problems, and some of the solutions aren't close to the root cause. I'll try my best to explain.
One can say that age alone isn't the problem; it's corruption. I'd personally say the problem isn't term-limits; it's the ignorance of the electorate in discerning who is ready to go.
Yes, Sanders is an outlier that proves that old age isn't always a problem; but he's also proof that term-limits have negative consequence -- for he has been an exceptional Statesman for decades, and we would've lost him long ago, if we had term limits.
So in my opinion in terms of corruption, we are chasing symptoms instead of the root cause, which is helping the electorate identify when a politician is useless. Examples of this: Kentucky for McConnell, California for Feinstein, New York for Schumer, and Maine for Collins.
Independent of corruption, old age is certainly an issue though. But even from a corruption standpoint, these senile geriatrics know they're not long for this world and have little stake in the long-term future of the country, or even being worried about being held accountable and spending years in prison. That alone matters.
I'd say that it's disenfranchisement and the fact that elections arent mandatory. That makes it more advantageous for the non-working class to spend time at townhalls and at voting booths.
A man working 2 jobs 12 hours a day to support his family simply isn't going to have the same kind of presence as a business owner who makes his own hohrs or retirees who no longee work full time. And that applies even to voting. So guess how the voter skews?
But mandatory voting isn't even in the conversion right now. Term limits are and has precedent. We gotta try something.
Yeah I'm amicable to term limits as one method of helping solve this, I just have concerns and will have to do more of a deep dive on the pros and cons. Sadly the issue with so many of these good ideas is that it still puts the cart before the horse. We know what needs to be done, but since the likes of term limits require literal Constitutional Amendments, that requires both widespread public consensus, and an ability to vote together and for legitimate representatives willing to play ball -- which, naturally, is the very problem we're trying to fix in the first place.
So we have the 3rd and 4th step... But how do we get there from here?
really hard to say. We first need to stop breaking our government and get adults back in the room. Then we need chains of actions that rebuilds trust amongst all of us, or enough of the apathetic to rule out the inevtiable MAGA propoganda. It's not impossible because term limits are generally a positive topic (very few people like the idea of career politicians to begin with), but still an uphill battle
Alternatively, we could somehow garner massive support that even Trump can't ignore. But that's a harder order than the above.
Term limits are a double edged sword. You lose experience when you kick people out just because they have experience, not to mention taking away voter choice.
It might be better to limit consecutive terms to a low number, based on the length of the term of office. For example, no more than 2 consecutive terms as a US Senator, or something.
I agree with you that there's a problem that needs solving.
These ghouls do their dardnest to make sure remove voter choice as is.
Besides, term limits don't need to be 8 years. Make it 3-4 terms for Senate and 10 for House. The main idea isn't a revolving door, but to make sure fossils older than my dead grandpa aren't still in Congress controlling my (theoretical) kids future.
Well, that's a different take than the one I responded to. You seem focused on age limits, which are not the same as term limits.
As the other person noted, term limits won't keep old people from being elected, if they're old when they're first elected.
Not that they both can't be problems worth addressing, but we should take care to define what it is we're trying to solve, and solve it as directly as possible.
ahh. I might have mixed up threads.
Yeah, the age thing doesn't matter as much. You can technically be 30 and still be seriously hospitalized like this. You can be 80 and genuinely have the best interst for the country. it's just more likely at 80 that you end up this way, on tubes and bitter at the world. T
he issues here is that represenatives have no incentive to actually do their job, or at least have minimum accountability from not doing their job as long as they are "the right people". I beleive other countries have either recall processes for situations like this, or require X days per quarter in session before special elections can be triggered.
We should have multiple forms of accountability. Recalls, age and term limits, a cap on recesses and vacations, backup representatives when people go on vacation, requirements to attend town halls, and so forth.
I disagree with the the former, it's too easy to exploit, and also people are living with cognisance and clarity and good health for much longer than they used to, with no signs of a stop coming to that trend yet.
I vehemently agree with the latter though, should be something hard to exploit, cause GOP could use it as a weapon against their enemies
Sorry, can you clarify -- disagree with blanket age caps as we already have age mins, or disagree with a cognitive/physical annual assessment as we often as private employees are subject to already?
Former means "the first one"
Of course; though contextually that could've meant the latter paragraph, too. I was slightly thrown off as I don't know how one would exploit hard age limits, but instead it also seemed exploiting the cognitive assessments would be an easier thing to exploit.
Either way, something must be done of course. Hopefully consensus continues to rise on this.