Great post, and I completely agree with everything you said. I didn't mean my other post to sound like a gotcha, but more of additional proof that your original point was spot on.

My only comment though is I don't think the founders fully grasped how apathetic, or even worse dependent, our populace would become towards a large central government. Had they had the forsight to see how weak we have become, they likely would have included additional provisions to prevent government from being so monsterous and overtaken by bad actors.

Or they did think of that and assumed if we were too weak to keep a limited government we would have to learn our lesson and earn it back. The outcome of this SAVE act would be a good test for the populace.

Tea Party said:

---

Great post, and I completely agree with everything you said. I didn't mean my other post to sound like a gotcha, but more of additional proof that your original point was spot on.

My only comment though is I don't think the founders fully grasped how apathetic, or even worse dependent, our populace would become towards a large central government. Had they had the forsight to see how weak we have become, they likely would have included additional provisions to prevent government from being so monsterous and overtaken by bad actors.

Or they did think of that and assumed if we were too weak to keep a limited government we would have to learn our lesson and earn it back. The outcome of this SAVE act would be a good test for the populace.

---

Thank you & I didn't take it as a gotcha post at all.

I think a big problem is we don't like other citizens representatives or senators of other states without understanding the politics of those states.

We need more pressure points outside that moves the voters or the candidate if that makes sense. I would use Mitch as poster child for a shame campaign against staying too long.

Hot take from a thirty-something: term limits are unnecessary if there's a max age to run for office . . . and to vote. Cap both at 80.

That's ****ing stupid.

hth

Fitch said:

---

Hot take from a thirty-something: term limits are unnecessary if there's a max age to run for office . . . and to vote. Cap both at 80.

---

If the max age to run for office and to vote are the same, then the minimum age to do both should be the same. Nobody under 25 voting for the house, nobody under 30 voting for the senate and nobody under 35 voting for president. If you are too young and inexperienced to hold office then you are too young and inexperienced to vote.

No, I am not serious, but if we are going to pick arbitrary numbers to take away voting rights, lets make it cut both directions.

Stupid is as stupid does, sir.

By no means is it a hill I'm gonna die on, but age caps on elected government offices make far more sense than term limits. If the offense is in respect to the suggestion of voter age caps, fine then just make it conditional on receiving social security - if you're on the doll and 80+ then no vote for you.

txags92 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Hot take from a thirty-something: term limits are unnecessary if there's a max age to run for office . . . and to vote. Cap both at 80.

---

If the max age to run for office and to vote are the same, then the minimum age to do both should be the same. Nobody under 25 voting for the house, nobody under 30 voting for the senate and nobody under 35 voting for president. If you are too young and inexperienced to hold office then you are too young and inexperienced to vote.

No, I am not serious, but if we are going to pick arbitrary numbers to take away voting rights, lets make it cut both directions.

---

I actually have little qualm with the idea of upping age minimums to vote (allowing for a waiver of that if an individual is in the military - sort of a no taxation without representation thing but with life and death).

I'll move off the topic because it's not really germane to the thread, but as a last and only point to make, play out the hypothetical here for me: in general does the 25-35 year old contribute more to the economic output and population growth of the country (and therefore has a meaningful stake in its future), or the octogenarian?

Is Mitch McConnell even functional at this point? Should he be in hospice care? Has he been seen in public in the past 2 weeks?

I'm sure there would be some unexpected consequences with term limits, but there is no reason that anybody should spend 30-40 plus years in congress. The longer those people are up there, the more out of touch, or maybe corrupted, they become. You see it with those really old republican congressmen that have been in office for years. Some of them were good at one point, but after years of being up there, they become out of touch with a country and world that's changed since the end of the cold war.

Interesting twist.

We very strategically took every step possible to set this up for the fewest hurdles possible in the senate and maximum chance to force a talking filibuster. It matters how you do things….. https://t.co/oUUsuCxL5a

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) February 21, 2026

Thanks for clarifying. Verified: The House amended S.1383 (originally a veterans bill) with SAVE America Act text on Feb 10, 2026, passing it 218-213. This makes it privileged in the Senate. The original SAVE Act (from 118th Congress) isn't active; SAVE America is an updated…

— Grok (@grok) February 21, 2026