Author Topic: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?  (Read 533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 257,468

Support the USO

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2013, 10:01:07 AM »
Yes term limits are right...so right that in fact we should term limit US Representatives, US Senators and Supreme Court Justices.

There is no room in a Representative Democracy for a King or any other lifetime Royalty.


Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2013, 02:49:15 PM »
Okay one article about term limits is idle speculation, but three or four in a span of two days reeks of WH talking points. What is afoot in this talk???

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,609
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2013, 03:09:05 PM »
Okay one article about term limits is idle speculation, but three or four in a span of two days reeks of WH talking points. What is afoot in this talk???

They said the same thing during Clinton's 2nd term, but not at this time. Personally I think the President should just serve 1 six year term.
To Clear things up...

Mueller has been one of the most respected individuals on the planet over the last 20 years.

Mueller is a Republican

Mueller was appointed by Republicans

Mueller doesn't determine if someone is guilty, The Judge and Jury do!

Get it!!!!

“You can go to live in France, but you can't become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany, but you can't become a German... But anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.”

- Ronald Reagan

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2013, 03:10:48 PM »
They said the same thing during Clinton's 2nd term, but not at this time. Personally I think the President should just serve 1 six year term.

same here

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,609
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2013, 03:14:37 PM »
same here

I wouldn't worry about it. It takes an arm and a leg to amend the Constitution and I don't think the GOP will be willing to get rid of the 22nd Amendment.
To Clear things up...

Mueller has been one of the most respected individuals on the planet over the last 20 years.

Mueller is a Republican

Mueller was appointed by Republicans

Mueller doesn't determine if someone is guilty, The Judge and Jury do!

Get it!!!!

“You can go to live in France, but you can't become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany, but you can't become a German... But anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.”

- Ronald Reagan

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2013, 08:31:50 AM »
Okay one article about term limits is idle speculation, but three or four in a span of two days reeks of WH talking points. What is afoot in this talk???

It does smell of issued talking points. Rather badly. First one was Washington Post, right? They often float trial balloons for policy changes, which then get taken up by the NYT.

It could be harmless - an interesting article that the editorials in other news agencies thought was worth discussing. It could be something under serious consideration.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,698
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2013, 09:54:42 AM »
Personally I think the President should just serve 1 six year term.

I like that idea. Then, the officeholder won't be vying for a second term by offering up candy to core groups in exchange for their vote. I like it.
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,609
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2013, 01:25:13 PM »
I like that idea. Then, the officeholder won't be vying for a second term by offering up candy to core groups in exchange for their vote. I like it.

It is a good idea, but the amendment won't pass...
To Clear things up...

Mueller has been one of the most respected individuals on the planet over the last 20 years.

Mueller is a Republican

Mueller was appointed by Republicans

Mueller doesn't determine if someone is guilty, The Judge and Jury do!

Get it!!!!

“You can go to live in France, but you can't become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany, but you can't become a German... But anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.”

- Ronald Reagan

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,786
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2013, 01:36:49 PM »
Okay one article about term limits is idle speculation, but three or four in a span of two days reeks of WH talking points. What is afoot in this talk???
I wouldn't put it past this WH.


Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,367
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2013, 09:32:38 PM »
I'm willing to swallow an amendment like this...

... IF.... it's mated to a second clause that changes the setup of Electoral College voting as well.

I advocate that the Electoral College be changed from operating at "the state level" (in which each state decides how to apportion its electors) to the "Congressional district" paradigm (by which electors are designated by the winner of each Congressional district, plus the two for the Senators going to the winner of the state).

This would create a significant shift towards the influence of the "flyover" areas and make Republicans/conservative districts much more influential in the years to come.

Correcting the problems with the Electoral College would be a significant improvement and breath new life into conservatism, at least for 20-30 more years. But you'll never get a change like this without giving up something to the other side -- hence, the proposition that they both be changed together, since both involve the presidential selection process.

I don't think the left would go for it, however -- they (of all) know how significant the change would be...

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,609
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2013, 10:15:30 PM »
I'm willing to swallow an amendment like this...

... IF.... it's mated to a second clause that changes the setup of Electoral College voting as well.

I advocate that the Electoral College be changed from operating at "the state level" (in which each state decides how to apportion its electors) to the "Congressional district" paradigm (by which electors are designated by the winner of each Congressional district, plus the two for the Senators going to the winner of the state).

This would create a significant shift towards the influence of the "flyover" areas and make Republicans/conservative districts much more influential in the years to come.

Correcting the problems with the Electoral College would be a significant improvement and breath new life into conservatism, at least for 20-30 more years. But you'll never get a change like this without giving up something to the other side -- hence, the proposition that they both be changed together, since both involve the presidential selection process.

I don't think the left would go for it, however -- they (of all) know how significant the change would be...

Actually Maine does and Nebraska does it as well.  Don't need an amendment to do it. Have to prod the state legislatures to do it.
To Clear things up...

Mueller has been one of the most respected individuals on the planet over the last 20 years.

Mueller is a Republican

Mueller was appointed by Republicans

Mueller doesn't determine if someone is guilty, The Judge and Jury do!

Get it!!!!

“You can go to live in France, but you can't become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany, but you can't become a German... But anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.”

- Ronald Reagan

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,367
Re: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 12:00:47 PM »
[[ Actually Maine does and Nebraska does it as well.  Don't need an amendment to do it. Have to prod the state legislatures to do it. ]]

How could you get states like California, Illinois, New York, Washington and Oregon agree to do this?

Nope. That's why it would have to be accomplished through a Constitutional amendment that mandates it EVERYwhere.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf