Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    In all democracies, there should be term limit of 4 years at a time, for every 4 years of service. And re-election can happen only if more than 120% of previous count of electors accept re-election.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuse View Post
    It's a term limit so we don't get a dictatorship. Derp.

    Although I'd vote for Bill Clinton one more time for sure!
    What about an electorate choosing the same guy over and over in a democratic and open election makes it a dictatorship?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #83
    Mechagnome Time Sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Behind you! Turn around!
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Mukki View Post
    Wouldn't you say in that case that the problem is with the commercialization of elections then, rather than how often we have them?

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 09:54 PM ----------



    Hillary at least held an elected office before running for President.
    I never said she's WIN :P

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    What about an electorate choosing the same guy over and over in a democratic and open election makes it a dictatorship?
    It depends, if you are against the guy then he is a dictator, if you vote for him then it is democracy.

    Safari Type: Bug. Friend Code: 5043-2200-3518.

  5. #85
    I honestly think presidential term limits could be removed, or at least raised to three. The only pres we have ever had that served more than two was FDR, and he was fucking awesome. His cousin Teddy Roosevelt almost won a third term for himself, and he was awesome as well.

    Most presidents wouldn't ever go for or win more than 2 terms, which is proven by the fact very few ran for a third term, and only one ever won a third, before the law was passed. The presidency is a tiring, stressful, and aging job, even for people who honestly don't give a shit about it or don't do anything, like Grant or Arthur.
    This is also a true representative democracy, there is no way in hell a shitty president would ever get a third term. Tither their party wouldn't nominate them again, or they would lose the general election. If say, George Bush had tried to run for a third term, the GOP would have said fuck that during the primaries and there would have been no way he would have gotten another chance.
    To get a third you would have to fucking rock. the only living president I could honestly say might win a third term is Clinton. I don't think Obama will have enough energy after this term is up to attempt another try if this bill passes.

    Every once is a while an awesome pres comes along that puts us on the road to several decades of prosperity. It would be good to be able to keep those type of presidents in power for a longer amount of time than normal.

    I do however think Representative and senate terms should be limited to 4. Five at the very most. Some of these guys have gerrymandered districts and do absolute jack shit for 40 years and then retire with a cushy pension.
    Last edited by Defengar; 2013-01-06 at 06:24 AM.

  6. #86
    Warchief Hastings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Laniakea Supercluster, Milky Way Galaxy, Solar System, Earth
    Posts
    2,193
    Regardless of what is done concerning term limits and the like, I just wish campaign finance would be redone. Having our politicians waste millions of dollars and countless hours of time on shiny advertisements just so they can appeal to the uneducated populace is not something I like.
    "Then we have found, as it seems, that the many beliefs of the many about what's fair and about the other things roll around somewhere between not-being and being purely and simply." - Plato: Republic

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Depom View Post
    Shows what your guarantees are worth.

    And there's plenty more.
    There are probably more but she is from Wales and Australia still considers itself part of the English monarchy so technically she has always been the Queen's subject like anyone born in Australia. There isnt anything like this in the US.

    The president must be born American because he is the commander in chief of the military. It limits foreign influence and the fact that children of immigrants can be president is already more lenient than other countries at the time the US was created. Like someone said do we choose 5 years or 15 when they come to the US? Well the number we chose was 0. We are also one of the few countries where someone is considered a citizen just by being born here.

  8. #88
    Scarab Lord Skroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,822
    No.
    (1) Hindsight is rose colored. People say all the time, for example that Bill Clinton was a good to great President (true) that could have easily won a third term (maybe) and should have been allowed to try. What that hindsight forget is that 1999 was the year of Monica Lewinsky and Al Gore didn't have Clinton campaign for him at all. Why? Because in 2000, Americans were ready to see Clinton gone. Moral of the story: things that look like they may be a good idea in hindsight might not be.

    (2) The President of the United States it the most powerful political position in the world, but it is more than one man. It is his team, his cabinet, his staff, and junior staffers. Todays junior staffers are tomorrows managers. It is important, just like in the military, which has mandatory retirement ages, that there be turn over to refresh what could easily become a calcified political system with the same people in the same jobs for many years. When Presidents change, even within the same party, they'll turn over large numbers of staff. Some go to academia or to the private sector. Some new ones come from there. But moving them around is refreshing to a system that could easily become stagnant.

    Term limits means large scale executive turnover. It restores vitality. If anything we should keep going in this direction and put an age cap on the running for the Presidency (60) and Senator (77).

  9. #89
    Pandaren Monk solvexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    extended, maybe.. removed? nah. opens the door for too much cronyism imo.
    Australia has not had a maximum term limit for a long time.. And look at that.. We have a better economy, health care system and education system than America.
    So can't really say that it'll open the door for friends to appoint other friends President.
    Not even sure how you came to that thought.

  10. #90
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    11,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Mukki View Post
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...s/d113HR.lst::


    http://www.examiner.com/article/pres...es-term-limits

    If this gets past Congress, I don't imagine a majorly Democratic Senate would block this. I don't even know what to say.
    Not unless we get another, like, Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  11. #91
    Pandaren Monk solvexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    1,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Prokne View Post
    There are probably more but she is from Wales and Australia still considers itself part of the English monarchy so technically she has always been the Queen's subject like anyone born in Australia. There isnt anything like this in the US.

    The president must be born American because he is the commander in chief of the military. It limits foreign influence and the fact that children of immigrants can be president is already more lenient than other countries at the time the US was created. Like someone said do we choose 5 years or 15 when they come to the US? Well the number we chose was 0. We are also one of the few countries where someone is considered a citizen just by being born here.
    Lol stop back peddling.
    The fact is is that Australia is doing great without all these rules that America has.
    Commander and chief.. Jeez that's a bit rough.
    Our prime minister is also in charge of our military in times of war and she's from wales.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by TheImmortalLordAtlas View Post
    The US should remove the requirement that the president be born in the US. It's like a big "F U !!!!" to immigrant children.
    why? Its not like you can't do pretty much everything else. Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't born in america, but he became governor of California, which by itself is the seventh biggest economies in the world. as a person not born in america, but who has lived here all your life, you can be a governor, state legislator, senator, state representative, and can serve in all cabinet or presidentially appointed positions too.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    Not unless we get another, like, Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
    Who were both more like modern democrats than modern republicans.

    Unless Im reading your comment completely wrong and what you meant to say was "more than 2 terms wont pass unless we get more awsome presidents like these 2"

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    No.
    (1) Hindsight is rose colored. People say all the time, for example that Bill Clinton was a good to great President (true) that could have easily won a third term (maybe) and should have been allowed to try. What that hindsight forget is that 1999 was the year of Monica Lewinsky and Al Gore didn't have Clinton campaign for him at all. Why? Because in 2000, Americans were ready to see Clinton gone. Moral of the story: things that look like they may be a good idea in hindsight might not be.
    The reason Gore didn't win was because of the BS in Florida, the fact we have an electoral college instead of a popular vote system, and the fact that he is gore, a very stiff and wooden person, especially compared to Bush.
    The only reason he really had a chance was because he had been Clintons VP.

  15. #95
    The Lightbringer Simulacrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Mukki View Post
    Should Presidential Term Limits be Removed?
    They should be extended beyond 4 years (4 years isn't enough time to do anything), but never be allowed to run again (they should spend all their time worrying about how to best do their job, not about how to best possibly get re-elected when their term is up).

    Same should apply to other holders of high-office, btw. Congressmen, senators, etc, should all be barred from holding that position again. Their ability to be re-elected indefinitely, along with the guy with the most money being the one who has the best chance to be-reelected, logically leads directly to an extremely corrupt system where all the power rests with the rich, because they're the ones paying to get the ones running the country elected.

    Professional politicans are a blight upon society. They have no useful attributes that give them any special ability to lead a nation. If anything, they, because of the process they go through valuing certain traits over others, are someone you wouldn't want running a country almost by definition.

  16. #96
    Oh dear lord, no. Eight years is more than enough for any one person that roughly half the country despises. The time limit is a power check.

  17. #97
    No, I mean look at what happened when they extended the term limits for Chancellor Palpatine...

  18. #98
    There are benefits to letting the current president hold his/her job for as long as the electorate what them to.

    For one, there is experience. Instead of every 4-8 years you get a complete noob on the job, you have a seasoned veteran who knows the ropes and know where the pitfalls are, after 8 years he/she might actually have a good idea what they are doing, and is less likely to get manipulated by "shadow shoguns" and lobbyists who beat them in experience.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Itisamuh View Post
    Oh dear lord, no. Eight years is more than enough for any one person that roughly half the country despises. The time limit is a power check.
    Why not have the electorate as a power check?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  20. #100
    The reason I think it should stay, is because if I were president.. Then my decisions in my first term would be "slightly" biased towards getting reelected, but my 2nd term I would no longer feel that pressure and be able to make decisions that I thought would simply better everyone. But that's just me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •