New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life


Recommended Posts

Oh my lord, I don't see what all the fuss in this thread is about. If the majority continues to elect the same person for more than 2 terms , then so be it. We'd still be seeing an election every 4 years, and the only way a president would serve more than his current limit of 4 years is if the MAJORITY felt he was the best candidate every time. Doesn't seem like such a radical idea to me, and I can't say I'd change my opinion on the subject if Clinton was still in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have term limits then rumble? I think Washington set an excellent example myself. It says a lot to me that we all know that Bush would accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have term limits then rumble? 

586071057[/snapback]

Why don't you tell me? I'm not the one endorsing them. There are plenty of arguments against them - we lose experienced, knowledgable presidents who could otherwise be re-elected. Historically, 'new', inexperienced, first-term presidents have had the most innefective policies this nation has seen. Term limits encourage irresponsible long-term policies and short-term appeasement by removing incentive to 'behave' (upcoming elections).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my lord, I don't see what all the fuss in this thread is about. If the majority continues to elect the same person for more than 2 terms , then so be it. We'd still be seeing an election every 4 years, and the only way a president would serve more than his current limit of 4 years is if the MAJORITY felt he was the best candidate every time. Doesn't seem like such a radical idea to me, and I can't say I'd change my opinion on the subject if Clinton was still in office.

586071037[/snapback]

just because 51% of america voted for the fool this time doesnt make them right. the country is split down the middle, and us 49% still have an opinion and a say in how this country works. the thing is at first the majority didnt support him and this time around its questionable but not going to go there. teh term system works well and is a safeguard against dictatorships, even if the "majority" votes them in. it wont pass though so im not worried in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because 51% of america voted for the fool this time doesnt make them right.  the country is split down the middle, and us 49% still have an opinion and a say in how this country works.  the thing is at first the majority didnt support him and this time around its questionable but not going to go there.  teh term system works well and is a safeguard against dictatorships, even if the "majority" votes them in.  it wont pass though so im not worried in the least.

586071147[/snapback]

Do you disagree with the theory, or the current administration? It seems lik you are just bitter because the Republicans control the White House , House, and Senate right now. Would you be singing the same tune if it was still the early / mid 90's when Dem's controlled the WH/H/S? What about when Clinton wanted to revamp the 'term system'? Did you disagree there as well? Or are your views conditional?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you disagree with the theory, or the current administration? It seems lik you are just bitter because the Republicans control the White House , House, and Senate right now. Would you be singing the same tune if it was still the early / mid 90's when Dem's controlled the WH/H/S? What about when Clinton wanted to revamp the 'term system'? Did you disagree there as well? Or are your views conditional?

586071399[/snapback]

no not at all, if it was clinton, kennedy, bush, regan, anyone, i would still be in favor of keeping our current system. it is a safeguard against one party from keeping control due to the fact that a simple majority isnt always right. no my views arent conditional, i think it should stay the way it is, regardless of who introduces it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok if this happens bush will be seen as the real thrat the democracy thus it will be USA v the rest of the world

586071191[/snapback]

The true threat to democracy is an illiterate, misinformed, apathetic electorate. Don't take anyone's opinion piece as "fact". Do some research so you can make an informed decision and exercise your rights by voting on election day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of it. If politicians believe that they can still be re-elected, there is more of a chance that they will favor moderate ideas. Politicians need to stop thinking about their legacy and more about this issues on hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok if this happens bush will be seen as the real thrat the democracy thus it will be USA v the rest of the world

586071191[/snapback]

I believe that there were people that were arguing the exact same thing in 1947-1951 when the Admendment was finally ratified. Remember this is something very recent as far as our country is concerned.

Q: How many 3+ term Presidents did the US have before then?

A: 1 Franklin D Roosevelt

Also, if for some strange reason this actually passed. It would have to follow constitionual guidelines setup to run this Republic/Democracy. If by following the rules of goverence you have setup since the founding of the country you are threating the rule of goverence setup since the founding of the country, you are threating it. I am rather amazed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by following the rules of goverence you have setup since the founding of the country you are threating the rule of goverence setup since the founding of the country, you are threating it.  I am rather amazed.

586073112[/snapback]

What the...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the...

586073154[/snapback]

Yes I did not write that thought out well. If you believe that by going though the rules of governece that you are jepordizing the rules of goverence, something is wrong there.

This admendment was added to the Constution in 1951, following the exact same proceedure that will be used now to remove it, IF it gets removed.

This is how these changes are supposed to occur. Not though the whim of Congress, but by the legislative branch of each state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.