Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Just a quick question, how come a sitting President can't serve more than two terms in office? Seems a bit daft to boot someone out if they are doing a good job, just cos they've been there a while Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Think of the wrestling world. Got it? Good. Now, FDR = HHH... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Okay, you consider it a bit "daft" to have someone relinquish the office after two terms? Think about the implications of someone you couldn't budge out of office. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 The person most responsible for the two terms is George Washington. No amendment or rule of law set a term limit for the President. It was Washington who did the 2 term 8 years. After that for more than 130 years, every President took that has the unwritten rule. Than Roosevelt ran 4 times. That's when the 22nd Amendment was added. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 It should be one, 6-year term. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 I also think it's a little ridiculous... if the american people feel, as a majority, that a sitting president should continue on as president, then he/she should be allowed to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Non-Americans won't get the reference, but to those of us in the US that want proof that we need term limitations, please see Teddy Kennedy here in Taxachusetts. Idiot's been Senator since 1962, and won't be voted out until he's dead and buried (and even then would probably still get elected). The fact that Diamond Joe Quimby is a partial parody of him is proof enough that the man's an idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted May 20, 2004 I think Teddy's invincible. I mean driving his car off a bridge didn't even slow him down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Good ol' Uncle Ted -- weren't there a few close elections he had to face? Too bad a certain cable news network wasn't around back then -- could you imagine the coverage he would have received? And why is it out of all the Kennedys to die early, HE is the one still alive?! I think another good posterboy for term limits (although I am against the concept most of the time) is Robert Byrd and good ol' Strom. Problem is that the longer a pol is in office, the more power he gets. The more power he gets, the more money that comes back to his state/district. We all hate government spending, unless it's going toward our area... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tom 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Because we're electing a president, not a monarch. Do your two terms (presuming you win re-election), and then step aside for someone else. I'm also in favor of twelve-year limits on service for Representitives and Senators. Public service wasn't supposed to be your career, and we don't need anymore Ted Kennedys and Robert Byrds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Think about the implications of someone you couldn't budge out of office. But, why couldn't you? As long as elections are being held every 4 years regardless, what's stopping the American people from just NOT voting for the guy again? I don't see how the lack of a two-term rule would make the president into some sort of virtual dictator. He still has to be voted for, and if he's not doing a good job, he (hopefully) won't be voted for again. Of course, democracy don't always work right so it's probably just easier to run with the two term rule...but I always felt it'd be a damned shame if some president came along who was great at everything and he was voted out because he served his eight years. Seems like it'd be a shame, you know? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Think about the implications of someone you couldn't budge out of office. But, why couldn't you? As long as elections are being held every 4 years regardless, what's stopping the American people from just NOT voting for the guy again? My point exactly... the "monarch" comparison is nonsense because because we're still talking about holding democratic ELECTIONS. If the people want the president to continue to hold the office, then they should be allowed to vote him in as long as they want Comparing the office of the president to a Senate position is kind of stupid too because there is a vast vast difference between comparing the attitudes in one state to the entire country... if the entire country voted on every states senator, Kennedy would NOT still be in that office today Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 If there were no term limits then Bill Clinton would still be president. Take that as you will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justsoyouknow 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Surplus + Bustling economy = evil? I liked Clinton. He was awesome. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 If there were no term limits then Bill Clinton would still be president. Take that as you will. wouldn't it be loverly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Clinton's one the better presidents you guys have ever had. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 The jury will be out on Clinton for a looong time... like Reagan... you either love him or you hate him. I personally think he was a great president. Flawed? Duh... but he presided over one of the greatest economic booms we've ever had, and no matter what, you cant take that away from him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted May 20, 2004 because being well liked by people doesn't neccasarly make you a good leader... look at how fucked up the Liberals have made Canada. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Yes... the liberals have made Canada a fucked up country good economy, extremely low crimerate, universal healthcare, and equal rights for practically everyone... bastards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 I liked Clinton, but I really don't think you can judge his legacy yet. And isn't the universal health care in Canada free, but there's free, and better stuff for those with money? (Service-wise) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crazy Dan Report post Posted May 20, 2004 I think that two terms for a President is perfect. Remember the President is the most powerful position in the US. When one is allowed to keep running, chances he might keep getting elected. And when you keep having the same person always elected, it is counterproductive to Democracy. And it just leaves the door open for abuse of power, as the more power one gets, the more chance of corruption ensuing. I think two terms is just right. And FDR, no matter how much I think he was a great president, should not have been elected that many terms, no matter if we were in a war or not. His four terms also probably contributed to the speeding up of his death as well. So you have to consider the health and mental well being of the President. Especially if we have stressfull event after stressfull event. As much as I admire FDR, and even if you disagree with his policies and such, it still was pretty impressive that the guy was in a friggin wheel chair, which shows that you can accomplish anything in this country, I do think that the extra terms took their toll on him, and more than likely contributed to his death during his fourth term. So the health of the individual is also a good reason for the limits. Even if the President is someone who is very popular, it is still good that we only get that president for 8 years at the most. And in the case of Reagan, I am sure many Democrats were happy that they were no longer going to have to deal with Reagan for one more term when he got re-elected. (It was a good chance that Reagan would have been reelected again if he had been allowed to run again in 88). And of course I am sure many Republicans were popping champagne when they knew Clinton was going to be done after 2000. (I also believe that Clinton would have been reelected if he could have ran against Bush in the 2000 election). I believe that term limits means that we will get an influx of new ideas and policies, which might improve conditions, or make them worse. But at least we know that our government will always be changing every 4 or 8 years. Speaking of term limits, I definately think these need to be added to the Senate and House. I am sorry, but Senators like Helms, Thurman, and especially Kennedy should never been allowed to keep running, and winning unfortunately. I mean how effective was Helms and Thurman towards the ends of their last term in office? It was like watching two walking corpses. And Kennedy is getting to that point. One thing I like about term limits is that it make sure that our elected officials can still be efficient and serve the public, without drooling all over themselves, having to be carried in and out, and holding onto outdated ideals which don't reflect the changes in the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Clinton would not have won a third term, although I would have loved to see how he would have handled all the crap that went on during the last four years, including an economy that was tanking during his last 9 months-1 year in office... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 because being well liked by people doesn't neccasarly make you a good leader You know, if we could actually VOTE for the PM, this might be an accurate comparison. And while that statement should be ovious (popularity =/= good leadership), it's not like the Americans aren't voting for people they like right now anyway. Well, not right now, but in every other election - you know what I mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Clinton would not have won a third term, although I would have loved to see how he would have handled all the crap that went on during the last four years, including an economy that was tanking during his last 9 months-1 year in office... ummm you sure about that? Gore won the popular vote... and thats GORE. Do you HONESTLY believe that more people would've rather voted for Gore than Clinton? Think about it... and saying the economy was "tanking" is a bit of a stretch... if you meant the beginning of a slight deficit, you're correct Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 I think 12 year term limits all around are most fair, (2 terms senator, 6 terms Congressman, 3 terms President). The idea is to get new people in and out so the system doesn't become corrupted with career politicians with connections to certain interests... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted May 20, 2004 Yes... the liberals have made Canada a fucked up country good economy, extremely low crimerate, universal healthcare, and equal rights for practically everyone... bastards ...BWAHAHA! You obviously know nothing about my country. Our healthcare system's a fucking joke right now because of mismanagment. The crime rate is low...in comparision to the States. equal rights? If you're middle class, christian, and white perhaps. Canada is the greatest nation on earth IMO but we've got major problems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted May 20, 2004 I'm just judging from what I've heard, seen, and know from the Canadians I am friends with... you're honestly the first I've spoken to that has complained to this extent... but hey, you would know more than I would Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted May 20, 2004 You know, it is nice to walk right into a hospital with no money on you and know that you will be taken care of. It is not nice to have to wait from 7 PM until 10 PM to get a doctor to even look at you, at which point they hand you a cloth of some sort and ask you to hold it over the gash (wasn't much of a gash really, but it was gaping, I'm told) in your head, while they disappear for another hour. Like, it's pretty sad when it takes a total of 4 hours (I was in there until 11) to get TWO stitches put in your head. I think it woulda been quicker for me to have gone home, tried to stitch it up myself, turned my minor injury into a serious one, then gone back to the hospital at the front of the line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted May 20, 2004 My point exactly... the "monarch" comparison is nonsense because because we're still talking about holding democratic ELECTIONS. If the people want the president to continue to hold the office, then they should be allowed to vote him in as long as they want Simple. I don't pretend to understand the electoral system of other countries, but here, beating an incumbent is nigh impossible (incumbents, nationally, win over 95% of the races they won). They have massive advantages over challengers and even a President who was on the verge of death (as FDR was in 1944 --- and it was not a secret) can usually win an election. Comparing the office of the president to a Senate position is kind of stupid too because there is a vast vast difference between comparing the attitudes in one state to the entire country... if the entire country voted on every states senator, Kennedy would NOT still be in that office today If he could get enough pork out there --- he might be. ummm you sure about that? Gore won the popular vote... and thats GORE. Do you HONESTLY believe that more people would've rather voted for Gore than Clinton? Think about it... and saying the economy was "tanking" is a bit of a stretch... if you meant the beginning of a slight deficit, you're correct The economy was growing at a paltry 1% in 2000 --- and this was BEFORE the corporate accounting scandals hit. The economy was in free fall before Bush took office (remember, he got bashed for "talking the economy down" when he took office) -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
