HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Government & Elections » Election Reform (Group) » Should presidents be allo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:06 PM

Should presidents be allowed to run for more than two terms?

34 replies, 4048 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should presidents be allowed to run for more than two terms? (Original post)
hrmjustin Sep 2012 OP
Keefer Sep 2012 #1
doc03 Sep 2012 #2
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #4
doc03 Sep 2012 #7
Drunken Irishman Sep 2012 #8
HeiressofBickworth Sep 2012 #15
Drunken Irishman Sep 2012 #16
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #12
eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #29
Sekhmets Daughter Sep 2012 #28
The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2012 #3
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #5
Drunken Irishman Sep 2012 #6
Pyrzqxgl Sep 2012 #9
muktiman Sep 2012 #24
MrSlayer Sep 2012 #10
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #14
ToxMarz Sep 2012 #11
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #13
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #23
creeksneakers2 Sep 2012 #17
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #19
Kolesar Sep 2012 #31
Swede Atlanta Sep 2012 #18
hrmjustin Sep 2012 #20
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #22
Vincardog Sep 2012 #25
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #32
gopiscrap Sep 2012 #21
orpupilofnature57 Sep 2012 #26
1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #27
eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #30
TheNaimSadik Oct 2012 #33
mykpart Oct 2012 #34

Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:11 PM

1. Simple answer???

NO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:11 PM

2. I used to think so but just imagine

12 years or more of W. No Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:20 PM

4. he never would have run again, I think. You never know, but he would have lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:23 PM

7. True but what if the economic collapse would have been 6 months later? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:26 PM

8. He still had awful approval ratings...even before the economic collapse.

For Bush to win a third term, you'd have to go back and fix Iraq in 2005. That's really what killed his approval ratings, since Iraq turned into a gigantic clusterfuck shortly after he started his second term. It's a big reason the Dems took control of the House & Senate in the numbers they did in 2006 ... so, I don't think there is any possibility of Bush winning a third term.

IMO, I think Bush would've opted to not run again. Kind of like LBJ in '68.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:48 PM

15. For Bush to win a third term

the Republicans would merely have to cheat again. They did it twice and got away with it so a third time would be a piece of cake.

I think limiting to two terms is a good idea, no matter who the President is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HeiressofBickworth (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:05 PM

16. Nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM

12. he was unpopular before than. I understand your point about shrub, however I still...

... think he never would have run again. he would have had to start running in 2007. Their might have been a primary, and he was very unpopular.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:37 AM

29. W vs a third (or fourth) term for Clinton ? I'd risk it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:50 AM

28. Perhaps, but

Without term limits Bill Clinton would have won in 2000 and 2004...In fact without term limits he might still be president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:14 PM

3. Until 1951, when the 22nd Amendment was ratified, they could.

But FDR was the only president ever actually elected to a third term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:22 PM

5. and a fourth. truman could have ran, but he said no.

what do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:23 PM

6. I don't know...I think a president should be given three terms, not two.

Generally, the second term amounts to little for any president because we already know he's done no matter what. I have hope Obama will be able to do more in his second term, but it's rare a president gets near the level of his agenda through as he did in his first.

So, giving a President three terms allows for the potential to have a second term defined by policy and not lameduck status, which almost always happens the second after his inauguration.

Yes, I get some people fear the possibility of Bush getting a third term, but that wasn't going to happen. Had Bush run for a third term, which I even doubt he would have, Obama would've kicked his ass worse than he kicked McCain's.

Give a president three potential terms to shape the country.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:27 PM

9. We should have the right to elect anyone the hell we want. Term limits is a restriction of Freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pyrzqxgl (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:59 PM

24. I agree

term limits are undemocratic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM

10. I don't think they should get more than one.

 

A single six or seven year term would be better. Do what you want to do without having to worry about re-election. No wasting time campaigning when you should be governing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:38 PM

14. Like Mexico. That is an Idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM

11. After Obama wins his second term

It would be an awesome rumor to start over at the Freepers, that Democrats intend to change the law so he can serve a third term. Those whose heads haven't yet exploded, will. Fox will probably do it anyway to keep them riled up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ToxMarz (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:37 PM

13. good point but they would have to get a constitutional amendment to dot this so they need...

.... GOP support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ToxMarz (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:57 PM

23. That happens every time we have an 8 year president.

I remember people saying Reagan was going to try. Then the right was afraid Clinton would try. Then the tinfoil people here were SURE SURE POSITIVE SERIES that was what Bush was going to do, after suspending the constitution and putting everyone into FEMA camps.

And so it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:44 PM

17. Get rid of term limits

Presidents always leave all the big problems to the next guy. If a president was going to be around for 20 years, he'd be more responsible about what he's creating and leaving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:47 PM

19. agreed my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:57 PM

31. That's one good reason to end term limits

More broadly, term limits have ruined Ohio government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:45 PM

18. No.........it took a Constitutional amendment to limit the terms of the President....

I would like to see similar term limits for Congress and the Senate....

I would propose no more than 3 terms for a Congressman or 6 years and no more than 2 terms for a Senator or 12 years.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a system of citizen representatives, not monied career politicians. But term limits will have limited effect if we have unlimited corporate money in elections. We would still need an amendment that would significant change the ways elections are funded and reduce the influence of 3rd party money in elections. I don't see that happening ever, ever, ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:49 PM

20. I would say 6 terms per congressman or 2-3 terms per senator.

let them get their pension. But as someone her said what about Ted Kennedy. We never would have The great ted with term limits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:54 PM

22. If the FF had wanted term limits, they very easily could have written them in.

Too often, "term limits" are the excuse used by the people who constantly lose since their ideas are out of sync with most of America (see the religious right) as their desperate attempt to shoehorn their person in.

Term limits are legitimate in the case of the POTUS because the chief executive has a tremendous amount of power unique only to that office. It is dangerous to allow anyone to sit in that chair for too long.

But it's a special case. I do not think term limits are appropriate for Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:38 AM

25. The FF believed that people had a duty to serve in government and thus enrich their fellow citizen's

lives. Serving in government was a hardship and came at the expense of not managing your own affairs.
They did not envision a professional class of politicians nor did they envision anyone wanting such a profession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:30 PM

32. And they were human beings who created a remarkably durable and flexible framework for self-govt

but this idea of playing the endless game of "what would they have wanted", or "they would have wanted this" is silly. Would they have driven SUVs? Hybrids? Drank Diet coke? Would they have enjoyed violent XBOX games? HBO?

It's meaningless. At the end of the day, they're dead dudes from over 200 years ago. Really more relevant to us today, is to ask ourselves, now, what can we do and what should we do in a constitutional framework.

Personally, I am opposed to congressional term limits; I think that, like many jobs, people often require time and experience to get good- and point blank kicking all Senators and Reps out after one or two terms guarantees a perpetual crop of people 'learning the ropes'. There is something to be said for experience in Washington; love him or hate him (and there are ample reasons for both) Lyndon Baines Johnson was quite possibly the most effective politician of the 20th century; he honed that ability by spending a great deal of time in DC. We have long-time members of congress, like Barney Frank, who still do good work and have established themselves and their positions over time.

We have remedies for bad legislators, i.e. elections. That is how voters can remove people who have outstayed their usefulness in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:52 PM

21. No it should be one six year term

and at the four year mark vote approve (if approve then continues for the next two years) or dissapprove and if disapprove hold an election 90 days later for a new president and then the six year clock starts ticking again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:42 AM

26. Only if they're as good as FDR , No one produced more

as far as a Manager.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:48 AM

27. No ...

a maximum of two four year terms is, IMO, perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:46 AM

30. Several Presidents tried for a third term. Only FDR succeeded.

And that was largely because the country didn't want to change leaders in the middle of a war, which was a good decision.

Voters don't need to be "protected" from their decisions. They have chosen well enough without the 22nd Amendment. The only President who could have been elected to a third term since was Clinton -- and wouldn't that have been BETTER than W? Even if Clinton had lost, he could have run again in 2004 -- how do you think THAT would have turned out? Think how different our recent history would have been without the 22nd Amendment -- maybe no 9/11, certainly no Iraq War, maybe warning signs on Wall Street would have registered in time. No, I don't think Presidential term limits have done us any good at all, and quite a bit of harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sun Oct 28, 2012, 08:48 PM

33. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 01:34 AM

34. I don't know, but I'm kicking this thread so I can learn more from more replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread