Pages: 1 2

 

2007-07-07 04:41:50
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6770
OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)

Is it really long enough to help change the USA?

Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
2007-07-07 04:42:57
buLLet_t00th
Mr. Boombastic
+178|6444|Stealth City, UK

BN wrote:

OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)

Is it really long enough to help change the USA?

Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
I think Bush has slightly changed the US hasn't he?
2007-07-07 04:49:33
Twist
Too old to be doing this sh*t
+103|6525|Little blue planet, milky way
Consider the fact that in the EU, you have 6 months !
and many other "terms of office" are significantly shorter than 4 years.

It's not about what can be COMPLETED while you're in office, but about what can be STARTED.
2007-07-07 04:51:01
Katash
Member
+4|6561
....You can do alot of damage in 8 years
2007-07-07 09:10:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

BN wrote:

OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)

Is it really long enough to help change the USA?

Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
I don't know if 8 years is long enough to fix things, but it's certainly long enough to screw things up....
2007-07-07 09:35:45
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6603|132 and Bush

Maybe extend the term limit but increase the reelection frequency?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-07-07 09:38:16
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6524|...

I think a leaders longevity should be based on your performance and demonstrated ability to carry out your said goals.
2007-07-07 09:38:22
Fredrik
i hate you all
+201|6650|Norway
lol @ the relies
2007-07-07 09:42:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Maybe extend the term limit but increase the reelection frequency?
Maybe....  I just don't like term limits.

Then again, there is the argument that term limits lessen the advantages that incumbency brings.  To a certain degree, incumbents can work the system to stay in office for a long time (see Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy).
2007-07-07 09:48:13
sexecuti0ner
What kinda guy are you are?
+148|6234
A former classmate of mine shared an idea that I've kind of bought into over the last few years.  He said that it would be better to have one six-year term where afterwards the president cannot be reelected.  This way, the president would really try and do as much as he could in the time he was given instead of just trying to make people like him as much as possible so he can be reelected.  I've heard a lot of people say that a presidents first term is really only running for reelection ahead of time and the second term is where most get things done.  If you remove the idea of being reelected, it makes sense (to me, at least) that you would try and benefit the people that elected you.  /two cents
2007-07-07 09:54:39
imortal
Member
+240|6667|Austin, TX

jsnipy wrote:

I think a leaders longevity should be based on your performance and demonstrated ability to carry out your said goals.
...in other words, as long as you like said leader?

The varying term lengths were chosen for a reason.  Sometimes, important laws may need to be passed that, while neccesary, are extremely unpopular at the time.  Long terms were created in the hopes that the officials elected could resist public pressure in order to pass what they felt was right.  Short terms, such as the House of Representatives, was designed to bring "the will of the people" (so to speak) into the goverment.  Since they are up for elections so often, they cannot afford to get jaded and alienate thier voting base.

The two term (8 year) limit for Presidents was decided upon after the loss of FDR.  He had been president for so long that the goverment depended upon him. The goverment was thrown into such turmoil at his death (sorry, Truman), that the 22nd ammendment was passed to limit the length a president can serve, and therefore limit just how attached (or addicted) to a single popular president the public can get.  It also has the added effect that if anyone COULD rig an election to try to stay in office, that they would still be limited.  It would be most difficult to find a way to stay in power longer without coming right out and trashing the Constitution. 

In America, we are more worried about a tyrant than a useless president.  Our goverment was designed to be pretty ineffectual, since it was decided way back in the 1780's that the states would wield most of the real power.  THat went up in smoke after the Civil War.  Still, I would rather have someone sit in the white house and play solitare for 8 years over someone who wants to "change the world."  When will people realize that the President of the United States has as their lone and sole responsibility, the care and keeping of the United States of America.  He or she is not responsible for "changing the world," "ending world hunger," "promote world peace," except in how those events would impact the US.  Global economy or not, the leaders of the United States MUST place the welfare of the United States above the entire rest of the world.

But since we do not trust our goverment, we will hamper thier efforts at every turn.  Even if that means kicking them out too soon.
2007-07-07 09:57:12
imortal
Member
+240|6667|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Maybe extend the term limit but increase the reelection frequency?
Maybe....  I just don't like term limits.

Then again, there is the argument that term limits lessen the advantages that incumbency brings.  To a certain degree, incumbents can work the system to stay in office for a long time (see Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy).
I personally believe in mandatory term limits.  And they cross boundries.  Say you have a 5 term limit in place.  you serve three terms in the House, then two terms in the Senate, you should be DONE.

Lack of term limits is what helps create a lot of the really disgusting stuff in DC, by people who have spent so long in office, they abuse it with regularity.  The other nastiness is, of course, lobbies.

***EDIT:  Of course, for me, I will push for anything that limits the authority of my goverment within the boundries of my own nation.

Last edited by imortal (2007-07-07 10:04:38)

2007-07-07 09:58:09
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6524|...

imortal wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

I think a leaders longevity should be based on your performance and demonstrated ability to carry out your said goals.
...in other words, as long as you like said leader?

<snip>
No, I don't mean to indicate open ended situation, rather I think if a leader sucks (via measurable and verifiable metrics) then that leader should not be able to even to go for additional terms, however by law may be left available.
2007-07-07 10:02:25
imortal
Member
+240|6667|Austin, TX

jsnipy wrote:

imortal wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

I think a leaders longevity should be based on your performance and demonstrated ability to carry out your said goals.
...in other words, as long as you like said leader?

<snip>
No, I don't mean to indicate open ended situation, rather I think if a leader sucks (via measurable and verifiable metrics) then that leader should not be able to even to go for additional terms, however by law may be left available.
Yes, currently we can only impeach for "high crimes and misdimeanors."  Got to give them at least 4 years to get something done.  If there is a way of ending their term early, then the president is a popularity contest, and we will have a president who does nothing but what the polls suggest (Bill Clinton).  That is not leadership, that is letting the mob rule. Can you say bread and circuses?

Edited because I flubbed "polls" with "poles"  oops.

Last edited by imortal (2007-07-07 10:03:19)

2007-07-07 10:07:39
eMarine
Gorgonnash PVP
+119|6846|Sacramento, Cal

buLLet_t00th wrote:

BN wrote:

OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)

Is it really long enough to help change the USA?

Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
I think Bush has slightly changed the US hasn't he?
QFT!

Last edited by eMarine (2007-07-07 10:08:08)

2007-07-07 10:39:19
V1king
Member
+10|6156|Land of crocs and cane toads
I think 8 years can be either too long or too short.  Really depends on who's in office running the whole show.  One point is their too damn old!  Why not someone with a little less age be considered.  Say around 35 - 45. 

I know that it takes years of political history on your resume to make the presidency grade but by the time they get that position of power, they are so corrupted by the system to not really care 100% or just sign on the dotted line when presented changes, laws, etc... by their advisors.  Someone younger with a less corrupted, tunnel visioned mind with fresh ideas may be the answer.  Maybe even a female.  Lets not be sexist here OK.  Just because she has a higher pitched voice, a vagina and big tits, doesn't mean she can't run a country. 

Hmmmm.....Hilary Clinton rings a bell.......
2007-07-07 12:00:05
Fen321
Member
+54|6499|Singularity

BN wrote:

OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)

Is it really long enough to help change the USA?

Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
Better question is why do we think the President is the only person capable of "helping" change the USA. Get involved in local politics and create the change you need in your area, forget the federal government they only want one thing....mo money mo money.
2007-07-08 07:39:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina

sexecuti0ner wrote:

A former classmate of mine shared an idea that I've kind of bought into over the last few years.  He said that it would be better to have one six-year term where afterwards the president cannot be reelected.  This way, the president would really try and do as much as he could in the time he was given instead of just trying to make people like him as much as possible so he can be reelected.  I've heard a lot of people say that a presidents first term is really only running for reelection ahead of time and the second term is where most get things done.  If you remove the idea of being reelected, it makes sense (to me, at least) that you would try and benefit the people that elected you.  /two cents
That makes sense.  Imortal brought up some good points as well.

I guess if we made it a 6 year term for the presidency with no more terms allowed, that would force the president to focus solely on getting things done.
2007-07-08 09:55:35
DankmanHightimes
Member
+24|6502|atlanta GA
8 years is plenty of time for them to fuck shit up, but if they could only half-ass fix something in that same amount of time

Last edited by DankmanHightimes (2007-07-08 09:58:11)

2007-07-09 09:47:23
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6629
I believe this President has changed the USA for years to come.  The national debt will take decades to pay down.  The reputation of the USA has hit rock bottom.  But to top it off only 18% of the American people feel the country is headed in the right direction.  So yea, 8 years you can screw up a good country a long time.

I agree with one 6 yr, term as well with modification.  I believe the congress should be able to cast a "no confidence" vote similar to the British Parliament.  With one six year term the President won't have to focus on his second election after his first two years in office.
2007-07-09 12:25:55
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6292|Éire

BN wrote:

OK assuming a president gets 8 years in office (2 terms)

Is it really long enough to help change the USA?

Taking into account all the things that go along with a presidency i.e. wars, opposition congress', scandals etc.
In some cases it's too long!
2007-07-09 12:29:21
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6664|USA
All public service (<----LOL @ public service) should be one term.
2007-07-09 12:39:24
Villain{NY}
Banned
+44|6346|New York
It depends on the individual in office.  Yes, alot can be done in eight years but if said person owes alot of favors to people who helped them get elected then the majority of the people lose out.  It all comes down to us the voter to make sure we have someone capable and apt enough to make the most out the 2 terms given.  I think the right to vote is one of the greatest privileges we have in this country but when a minority of the people actually make it to the polls we are shocked at the poor quality of our leadership when, in reality, it's our own fault.
2007-07-10 07:02:01
-101-InvaderZim
Member
+42|6845|Waikato, Aotearoa

GATOR591957 wrote:

I believe this President has changed the USA for years to come.  The national debt will take decades to pay down.  The reputation of the USA has hit rock bottom.  But to top it off only 18% of the American people feel the country is headed in the right direction.  So yea, 8 years you can screw up a good country a long time.
I keep saying that Mr Bush is the biggest threat to US National Security and not some half arsed Arab with a bone to pick and chip on his shoulder.
Tell me 1 GOOD thing that George Jnr has done for the US since he came to power.... (and Im sorry but picking a fight in Iraq DOESNT COUNT - and neither does removing Saddam.)
2007-07-10 07:55:44
williedyna
Member
+7|6647
When you get to appoint two people to the supreme court, including a chief justice...  8 years is more than enough time to have a dramatic effect on the future of the USA.  And it was that same body that got you elected in the first place, doesn't seem like 3 branches to me.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard