Two terms tweaked

What do you think?

  • Not a bad idea

    Votes: 11 23.9%
  • I dont agree at all

    Votes: 25 54.3%
  • Not sure, I'll decide after seeing what most people say about it

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • So theres this Monkey Girl on the Radioactive Bus...

    Votes: 6 13.0%

  • Total voters
    46

Bozo Erectus

Master Baker
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
22,389
Up until the mid 20th century, American Presidents could serve unlimited terms, as long as they kept getting voted in. But after FDR, this came to be seen as dangerous to democracy, so they were limited to only two terms. After witnessing the harm that one person can do to the country after two consecutive terms, I think the two term rule should be tweaked a little further. How about this: a person can serve two terms, but not consecutively. This would allow there to be a four year period of reflection on the first term. The effects, positive or negative of the first term can be assessed, and a much better decision can be made about whether a second term for that individual would be desirable. What do you think?
 
NO thanks. If we have an awesome President, why should the country be hamstrung by not being allowed to have him/her twice in a row?
 
I have a better idea. If a President leaves office with under a 33% approval rating he/she is killed.
 
Dictator for life!!!!

Then the world will be unified by the knights of the Neo-cons!
 
I don't see why presidents should be elected, but that's probably just me.
 
NO thanks. If we have an awesome President, why should the country be hamstrung by not being allowed to have him/her twice in a row?
Remember, this would apply to Democratic as well as Republican Presidents. What if another silver tongued devil like Bill Clinton arrives on the scene in the near future? Honestly, dont you think you might be more in favor of the idea in that case?
 
I don't see why presidents should be elected, but that's probably just me.
Then what do you suppose on how president come to power beside being elected?
 
I don't see why presidents should be elected, but that's probably just me.

That wouldn't make them much of a President would it? I don't know how you Europeans do it.
 
Remember, this would apply to Democratic as well as Republican Presidents. What if another silver tongued devil like Bill Clinton arrives on the scene in the near future? Honestly, dont you think you might be more in favor of the idea in that case?

Nope. Just as I wouldn't change my views on the electoral college simply because in the future it may favor Democrats, I wouldn't change my view on this either. The EC is good for the country, and Presidents being allowed to serve consecutive terms is as well.
 
It would be an interesting change but I don't think the country would be any better for it.
 
IT's not imperative. If the President wanted to step down and take a break, more power to him/her. But if they want to serve consecutively, and the populace agrees that they should as well (by voting for them), then I certainly couldn't support denying them the priviledge to serve a second term right after the first.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm not a huge fan of term limits anyway.
 
I don't see why presidents should be elected, but that's probably just me.

Then what do you suppose on how president come to power beside being elected?

That wouldn't make them much of a President would it? I don't know how you Europeans do it.

Well sometimes the Prime Minister is the one elected, and the President is a mostly honorary function, assigned by the Senate or something like that. Maybe that's what Dutchfire is referring to?
 
Hey Bozo,why don't you or someone else research and get the material in this thread that states why is it in our amendment that a president serves only 2 terms.

I forgot when that law was enacted.
 
Back
Top Bottom