• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

to repeal term limits for the prez

It should die a gruesome death. We shouldn't be looking to remove term limits from Presidents, we should be looking to put them on legislators
 
that would die an even quicker death. :lol:

I like the idea of a President serving one 6 year term. No re-election garbage that starts right after the mid term elections and distracts him/her from their job.
 
Chavez in Venezuela is celebrating his victory to be reelected as many times as he wants as well.


Jose is a democrat from NYC. A bit of craziness is par.
 
Term limits should remain for the Prez, and term limits should be applied to congress IMO.
 
Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem: the longer someone stays in an office, the more power that person has in that office, giving that person an unfair advantage over the opponent. In Congress, it gives people who have stayed longer an unfair advantage over newer legislators as well, which is why I also support term limits for the Senate and House.

Or, as a compromise, I'm willing to accept allowing elected officials to have limitless terms, but have a term limit after which they must step down for at least one term before coming back. I believe that is true with the governor's office over here in Virginia.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.
Click to expand...


Doing a good job and having high popularity are not the same things.

No term limits can lead to cults of personality assuming you don't already have one.
 
Dav said:
Here's the problem: the longer someone stays in an office, the more power that person has in that office, giving that person an unfair advantage over the opponent. In Congress, it gives people who have stayed longer an unfair advantage over newer legislators as well, which is why I also support term limits for the Senate and House.
Click to expand...

Life isn't necessarily fair. Further, term limits give a good person a massive disadvantage at staying in their job.

Or, as a compromise, I'm willing to accept allowing elected officials to have limitless terms, but have a term limit after which they must step down for at least one term before coming back. I believe that is true with the governor's office over here in Virginia.
Click to expand...

Nah. I stand by my position.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Life isn't necessarily fair. Further, term limits give a good person a massive disadvantage at staying in their job.
Click to expand...

They do even more to eliminate an advantage for bad people staying in their job, which I see as a much greater threat.
 
That's how dictators are made.

Just because your leg tingles when you see obama .. does not mean that you should make him king for life.
What happens when you get a person like bush in there, and he keeps getting voted back in. It works both ways.

IF anything congress needs to have term limits, once you are a resident of DC, you cease being attached to the state and people who elected you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.
Click to expand...

I am against entrenched under performing monopolies.
-----------
Bush and McCaine did what they had to do to get Obama elected.

Hillary really wanted to be puppet#1 of the builderberg group but Obama took it.
 
Last edited:
bilbus said:
That's how dictators are made.

Just because your leg tingles when you see obama .. does not mean that you should make him king for life.
What happens when you get a person like bush in there, and he keeps getting voted back in. It works both ways.

IF anything congress needs to have term limits, once you are a resident of DC, you cease being attached to the state and people who elected you.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be the same as allowing the market to determine whether a business fails or succeeds? If the President is good, let the people elect him; if he sucks, let them vote him out.
 
a business can not remove your liberties.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Metaphorically it can. It can fire you.
Click to expand...

Only if you are a socialist.

If you are so stupid that you think a job is a liberty, then yes i guess your correct.

It is NOT your job! it's your employer's job and can be taken away at any time. There is no right to work.
 
bilbus said:
Only if you are a socialist.

If you are so stupid that you think a job is a liberty, then yes i guess your correct.

It is NOT your job! it's your employer's job and can be taken away at any time. There is no right to work.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant to the metaphor. Truthfully, the metaphor I meant, was more like this...let my state it simply for you:

In the free market, a business will survive or not survive based on it's practices and the impact of these practices on the public. Either the public will buy from the business, allowing it to prosper, or not, allowing it to fail. Without regulation and rules, the free market dictates survival or elimination of a business.

Without term limits, a President will either remain in office, or be removed based on his/her practices and the impact these practices have on the public. Either the public will support and vote for the President, allowing him/her to stay in office, or not, allowing him/her to be voted out. With out regulation and rules (term limits), the public, freely decides who governs and who does not.

Please show how these two scenarios are NOT metaphorically similar.
 
Last edited:
As stated, a business has no leverage over my life. Worst they can do is treat you badly or fire you. You are not a slave and you can leave at any time. Since monopolies are illegal you will always have a choice.

I do not have to do business with a particular business ..i can't say the same with the government.

A president without term limits opens up the door for a dictator. When a political figure is more worried about staying in power then doing the right thing, bad trends starts. Without term limits a president that wants to stay in power just needs to keep making promises of hand outs for the people.

I realize you are a socialist leaning person, so more government control is a goal for you. I for one want the federal government to have as little power as possible, just enough to protect my liberties and my homeland. They are not here to provide me with a job, healthcare, a place to live, or food to eat. That is my job.

The federal government is here to work with the states to defend our country. I am in favor of stronger state governments, and a much weaker and smaller federal government.

Just because Obama makes your heart flutter does not mean that he should be president for life.
 
There's merit to repealing the term limits on the Presidency.

However, to ensure that it's a matter of principle and not political chicanery, much as the 22nd Amendment didn't apply to whomever was in office at the time it passed, the same should done for its repeal -- whoever's in the White House is still limited to two terms.

THIS measure is transparently an "Obama Forever!" attempt.
 
bilbus said:
As stated, a business has no leverage over my life. Worst they can do is treat you badly or fire you. You are not a slave and you can leave at any time. Since monopolies are illegal you will always have a choice.

I do not have to do business with a particular business ..i can't say the same with the government.

A president without term limits opens up the door for a dictator. When a political figure is more worried about staying in power then doing the right thing, bad trends starts. Without term limits a president that wants to stay in power just needs to keep making promises of hand outs for the people.

I realize you are a socialist leaning person, so more government control is a goal for you. I for one want the federal government to have as little power as possible, just enough to protect my liberties and my homeland. They are not here to provide me with a job, healthcare, a place to live, or food to eat. That is my job.

The federal government is here to work with the states to defend our country. I am in favor of stronger state governments, and a much weaker and smaller federal government.

Just because Obama makes your heart flutter does not mean that he should be president for life.
Click to expand...

I know you would much rather discuss what you want, rather than actually addressing the content of my post, but in order to help you stay on topic, I will repost it for you. Perhaps then you will address it...if you can:

In the free market, a business will survive or not survive based on it's practices and the impact of these practices on the public. Either the public will buy from the business, allowing it to prosper, or not, allowing it to fail. Without regulation and rules, the free market dictates survival or elimination of a business.

Without term limits, a President will either remain in office, or be removed based on his/her practices and the impact these practices have on the public. Either the public will support and vote for the President, allowing him/her to stay in office, or not, allowing him/her to be voted out. With out regulation and rules (term limits), the public, freely decides who governs and who does not.

Please show how these two scenarios are NOT metaphorically similar.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.
Click to expand...

Most people see the dangers of repealing the 22nd Amendment. Power Corrupts, never forget that. Of course, as a neo-statist, you would support such, but that's not the point I think.
 
He brought it all together for us, and in all his wisdom, he understood.

Washington reluctantly served a second term as president. He refused to run for a third, establishing the customary policy of a maximum of two terms for a president which later became law by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

George Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
MrVicchio said:
Most people see the dangers of repealing the 22nd Amendment. Power Corrupts, never forget that. Of course, as a neo-statist, you would support such, but that's not the point I think.
Click to expand...

And as a hyperpartisan conservative, you, similarly, have avoided my argument. I wonder why that is? ;) It's always fun confronting you guys on your hypocrisy...and watching you scurry off.

So, here is my argument, again. Let's see if you will address it:

I know you would much rather discuss what you want, rather than actually addressing the content of my post, but in order to help you stay on topic, I will repost it for you. Perhaps then you will address it...if you can:

In the free market, a business will survive or not survive based on it's practices and the impact of these practices on the public. Either the public will buy from the business, allowing it to prosper, or not, allowing it to fail. Without regulation and rules, the free market dictates survival or elimination of a business.

Without term limits, a President will either remain in office, or be removed based on his/her practices and the impact these practices have on the public. Either the public will support and vote for the President, allowing him/her to stay in office, or not, allowing him/her to be voted out. With out regulation and rules (term limits), the public, freely decides who governs and who does not.

Please show how these two scenarios are NOT metaphorically similar.

Come on Mr. Vicchio. Bilbus has already refused. Let's see if you can do better.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.
Click to expand...

Unlike the hyperpartisans here, I'll take your argument. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the market is rational, that voters in this case are actually going to view empirical evidence as to whether or not a president is doing a good job. As the media has shown, the average voter is as dumb as a pile of bricks and extremely easily manipulated. This does not bode well for no term limits. Congress is a good example of this. Many a long elected Congressmen has been sent to jail or shown to have participated in some extremely shady deal. Yet they still get elected. FDR's economy during his first term did not get better. Yet he got re-elected.

I'd actually argue for single term for the president. This way the president is not acting in a partisan fashion for reelection and can make the hard, unpopular, decisions that need to be done. Bush started doing the right thing during his second term because he had effectively nothing to lose. American often cannot wait four years for the president to start making the hard decisions necessary. I fear that Obama will not make the hard, unpopular decisions because he's worried about reelection. No chance of a second term relieves that problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom