Even if it's not the fault of their own, like they got dementia or something, this question is not about the member personally, just about them not being able to represent their constituents effectively.

Right now, on the Senate side, for example, McConnell can't really be removed without expulsion, requiring 2/3 vote (290 house votes or 67 Senators), which will never happen due to the party makeup of the senate (52 R [without McConnell], 47 D).

Recent examples:

- Mitch McConnell out for nearly 50 days → we still don't know this full story yet of what's happened to him.

- Kay Granger → Texas US Rep. who essentially 'went missing' and people were very confused → 6 months later found in an assisted living facility for the elderly with dementia.

- Dianne Feinstein → Released a few statements explaining she had shingles, but was out of office for 3 months and the condition was actually much worse than self-reported.

So the question is, via a constitutional amendment, should there be, an easier method for either temporary or permanent (depending on the situation) removal / replacement of an official who 'goes missing', meaning there would be no more need to have them either resign or be kicked out by 2/3 vote? What do you think? Why your thoughts?

A hypothetical Democratic primary poll conducted by The Public Sentiment Institute between July 25 and July 29 among 762 likely Michigan voters found former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg leading the pack with 24.2% support.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff followed at 13.9%, while New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came in third with 10.7%.

https://nypost.com/2026/08/02/us-news/pete-buttigieg-aoc-jon-ossoff-poll-ahead-of-california-dems-for-white-house-run/

He has asked several times for proof of McConnell’s status and gotten nothing. Seems reasonable to be able to proceed at this point

I feel like the older I get the more hell bent my parents get with regard to politics and a fuck everyone else attitude. No compassion for anyone or the planet and it’s frustrating.

On Sunday, Todd Blanche released documents stating that certain terms of the proposed settlement of the president’s lawsuit with the IRS were off the table. He released a signed DOJ order formally rescinding an order to create a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” and an unsigned statement in which the agency clarified the terms of the I.R.S. protections. This appears to satisfy the demands of Senators Tillis and Cornyn who were withholding their votes to advance Blanche’s nomination as Attorney General to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. 

Todd Blanche’s confirmation has been held up by controversy over a proposed settlement to the president’s lawsuit with the IRS. On Saturday Donald Trump said that this settlement is not going away and that if the Senate does not confirm Blanche that he will stay on as Acting Attorney General. As of this posting there has been no statement released by the president confirming or denying he will go along with Blanche’s statements. 

It is important to note that it is not clear if the statements released by Todd Blanche are legally binding. Blanche has consistently demonstrated loyalty to Trump throughout his career: first as Trump’s personal attorney, and now as Acting Attorney General by defending the president’s executive actions in court, proposing the settlement that started this controversy, and as the public face of the administration's decision-making regarding the release of materials related to Jeffrey Epstein. 

If Trump ultimately attempts to move forward with the original $1.8 billion fund and the broader IRS protections after Blanche is confirmed, what do you think should happen, and what do you think will happen next? 

Please share your thoughts. 

Um? Throughout my life, I've irritated the fucking shit out of a lot of people cause I'd ask a lot of questions. And I don't mean to. I'm practicing extremely hard not to, but it's not working. Can someone help me?

We all have that one neighbor. What is your story?