>

Chuck Grassley has entered the chat
Wouldn’t he be one of them? >

On the contrary. 
Accepting any grandfather clause that has been mentioned, term limits precisely benefit unpleasant social climbers like Ted cruz. 
Congress is very much a traditional institution and Leadership roles are often very heavily determined by seniority. 
Mitch McConnell is a skilled politician. But Mitch McConnell is also Mitch McConnell because he's been in the Senate since 1985.   
If you impose term limit of say two consecutive six-year terms.  Every new election cycle you'd have an argument about who among the most senior senators are qualified to be the majority leader. 
A self promoter like Ted Cruz thinks he could benefit from that. >

That's an interesting angle.  My first reaction was "I fucking hate Ted Cruz but this might be good".  Now I wonder if I'm falling victim to thinking the grass is always greener. >

You've got to look beyond just getting rid of today's politicians that you don't like.
You also need to ask "Why would term limits get us better politicians tomorrow?"
Because Ted Cruz?  He's only on his second Senate term.  
Boebert, Greene?  They're only on their second term in the House.  Gaetz is only on his third.
And the best example I can think of for why term limits do not automatically mean better people in office?  Barack Obama was term limited, and he got followed up on by Donald Trump.
And if you're a right winger who got upset about me saying that, then you probably hate Obama - who was the follow-up to a term limited Bush.
The problem isn't shitty politicians who have been in office too long.  The problem is shitty politicians who have been in office at all.
And I just don't see how replacing shitty politicians on a more frequent basis is supposed to make them less shitty instead of just a slightly different flavor of shit. >

Every at bat is a chance to get things right. Every chance to replace a McConnell or a Biden, a McCarthy or a Pelosi should be pursued because the longer corrupt politicians sit in office the more damage they do. >

Every at bat is also a chance to get things wrong; to be forced to fire a non-corrupt politician.
And you don't even need term limits to get what you want.  We've already got at bats to replace those people every two to six years. >

Right but you can't deny that incumbents enjoy a massive advantage, and term limits help mitigate that advantage. >

And the part about how your term limits would force us to get rid of good politicians?
And what's your plan for improving the quality of candidates?  How are term limits supposed to do that?   If the only ingredients you have in the pantry is shit, you're going to end up with shit for dinner no matter what recipe you use. >

Then what the fuck are you expecting term limits to achieve? >

Like people that spent a decade in office and are only capable of fucking off to Cancun in a disaster. >

Ted Cruz is the most entrenched politician... right up his own ass. >

idk mitch mcconnell might give him a run for his money on that front