Tue Dec 31, 2019, 03:52 PM

crazytown (7,277 posts)

Three term presidencies.

American presidents are at a disadvantage on the world stage in their second term, carrying the moniker of lame duck. If there was a three term limit, the GOP would have benefitted little, if at all. 1960, Eisenhower was certainly going to retire; The Reagan Era would have still have ended in 1992, and come 2000 Clinton was within an ace of pulling off an Israel/Palestine settlement.

Not to mention Bill and Obama would have won 3rd terms in blow outs.

14 replies, 1427 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Three term presidencies. (Original post)	crazytown	Dec 2019	OP
It's possible Reagan would have remained president until 1997	tritsofme	Dec 2019	#1
I'm thinking a three term limit.	crazytown	Dec 2019	#4
It doesn't matter that it might help our party	FBaggins	Dec 2019	#2
Good presidents should be able to reap the rewards of a third term IMO.	crazytown	Dec 2019	#3
2 is enough	Sherman A1	Dec 2019	#5
TR, Clinton, Obama.	crazytown	Dec 2019	#6
I understand your point	Sherman A1	Dec 2019	#7
Ulysees S. Grant and the end of reconstruction,	crazytown	Dec 2019	#9
And we may have likewise paid a heavy price	Sherman A1	Dec 2019	#11
Bush II was done in 2008.	crazytown	Dec 2019	#14
Elections are the vehicle for term limits, not a stupid constitutional amendment.	roamer65	Dec 2019	#8
Three term Democrats would be OK. Republicans would be disaster.	Patterson	Dec 2019	#10
Precisely	Sherman A1	Dec 2019	#12
A third term for Ulysses S Grant would gave cemented reconstruction,	crazytown	Dec 2019	#13

Response to crazytown (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:04 PM

tritsofme (15,680 posts)

1. It's possible Reagan would have remained president until 1997

With his health stage managed to the extent possible. They would have definitely tried to win a fourth term to “match” FDR.

I don’t support term limits for most offices, but the presidency is incredibly powerful, and the advantages of incumbency are immense. I think Washington’s precedent was generally a good one, and that eight years is enough for one man.

Reply to this post

Response to tritsofme (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:21 PM

crazytown (7,277 posts)

4. I'm thinking a three term limit.

No president for life.

Reply to this post

Response to crazytown (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:04 PM

FBaggins (25,474 posts)

2. It doesn't matter that it might help our party

The two-term limit was (and remains) a good idea.

Reply to this post

Response to FBaggins (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:20 PM

crazytown (7,277 posts)

3. Good presidents should be able to reap the rewards of a third term IMO.

I'm thinking TR here, as well as Clinton and Obama.

Reply to this post

Response to crazytown (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:42 PM

Sherman A1 (38,958 posts)

5. 2 is enough

in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:47 PM

crazytown (7,277 posts)

6. TR, Clinton, Obama.

America has paid a heavy price for an arbitrary two term limit. 1941 - 1945 was the USA's finest hour. Yes a limit, three not two.

Reply to this post

Response to crazytown (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:49 PM

Sherman A1 (38,958 posts)

7. I understand your point

and simply disagree. I believe that Washington was correct in his decision and the precedent that he set.

Reply to this post

Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:54 PM

crazytown (7,277 posts)

9. Ulysees S. Grant and the end of reconstruction,

When AA's were becoming established in legislatures? As I said, the USA has paid a heavy price for two term limits.

(Washington was concerned about an American monarchy. The presidency was very much as experiment then).

Reply to this post

Response to crazytown (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:59 PM

Sherman A1 (38,958 posts)

11. And we may have likewise paid a heavy price

if we changed it to 3 terms. Would you really want 3 terms of Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, Trump? The suggested plan cuts both ways.

Be careful what you wish for.......

Reply to this post

Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 05:06 PM

crazytown (7,277 posts)

14. Bush II was done in 2008.

The GOP could not have run away fast enough. It's not at all certain that Reagan would have won in 1988, or that his third term would have looked much different from Bush I.

Yeah I know it's just wistful thinking, but ...

Reply to this post

Response to crazytown (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2019, 04:50 PM

roamer65 (33,417 posts)