Presidental Term

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Nov 28, 2011.

?

The Presidents Term should be..

  1. Remain the same @ 4 year term, max 2 terms

    11 vote(s)
    64.7%
  2. Stay at 4 years, but allow at least 3 terms

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. 5 Year term - max of 2 terms

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. 5 Year term max of 3 terms

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 6 year term - only 1 term

    4 vote(s)
    23.5%
  6. 6 year term max of 2 terms

    1 vote(s)
    5.9%
  7. 6 year term max of 3 terms

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Other

    1 vote(s)
    5.9%
  9. Not sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    Should we change the term for the President?
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think ALL federal elected jobs should be 4 year or 6 year one term only with NO federal employment or lobbying for the next 4 years or 6 years.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    That part I agree with!!


    When did campaigning for the 2012 election cycle begin - oh about 2009
     
  4. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd leave it as is but add billwald's idea to the mix. Hell must be freezing.
     
  5. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    104
    I think the presidential terms are fine. I have a problem with congress and the senate. They both have turned into careers, instead of what they were meant to be: a brief time as a civil servant. We need to limit these as well.
     
    #5 Sapper Woody, Dec 2, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2011
  6. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,542
    Likes Received:
    208
    I had to pinch myself to see if I was awake, 'cause I agree with him, too.
     
  7. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    The current term for the President is fine and about all we can stand.
     
  8. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    That would mean 4 years without a possibility of changing federal elected offices. 4 or 6 year terms I'm okay with, but I do think the terms should be staggered. For example, half of all seats in the House of Reps are up for election in 2014, the other half in 2016. That gives a chance for people to make known their dissatisfaction without having wait up to 4 years-- as such often has been done in our "off-year" elections. The U.S. Senate does stagger terms even now-- about 1/3 of all seats are up for election every 2 years, so under what you're saying ["...NO federal employment or lobbying for the next 4 years or 6 years"] that would change, too.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    The problem is that the House is based on population- so that would be hard to do if terms are staggered. (The Senate with 2/state or Commowealth - does not have that problem)

    I am for leaving the House at 2 years as I want to have somewhat immediate accountability.
     
  10. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    We alrady have a Constitutional mandate that allows us to limit terms any time we wish.

    It is called the ballot box.

    We should exercise our rights and use it. :wavey:
     
  11. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately the majority of the voting populace is addicted to 'the opium of the media' and cannot think for themselves any more. Whoever gets the best 'sound bites' and 'puffs' from the media gets the most votes. That is of the 30% or so that actually take the time to vote.
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    In THEORY you are right -

    BUT why does Congress always get a low rating - BUT a (usually) 90% re-election rate?

    Answer - BACON!!! That and because the "out-of power party" doesn't even put up a candidate. :tear:
     
  13. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    Because when people clamour for term limits, most are talking about other representatives besides their own.
     
  14. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Yes, once a solid, conservative statesman like Reagan again occupies the oval office. FDR had three terms to advance socialism and stack the courts. Don't undo the limit for the wholesale Marxist that occupies the office now.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Ding! Ding! Ding! Post of the thread, should be pinned to the top of any term limit discussion!
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    And this should be pinned underneath it!:smilewinkgrin:
     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    If the people are fooled by bacon we need to deal with that issue - not infringing on the rights of the voters.

    I think any spending bill of one Congress should not take effect until the next Congress. That would help this matter greatly.

    And the lack of opposition candidates is based on laziness. The American voters deserve what they get.
     
  18. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Might be an interesting conversation to discuss why that is...

    After all, the American REPUBLIC system of government stipulates that our Congress persons serve as representatives of the people and the states (though the Senate has been compromised by general elections versus the original mandate that the states select their senators). How is it that they DICTATE policy to their constituents instead of RESPOND to what it is that their constituents desire, or else face the fact that they will become a non-representative in the next ballot?

    We, as citizens of the United States, and of the various States within that federal grouping, have in our hands all the control and power to change the system. But, we don't know that we can change the system, and that largely because there is barely and rarely a student that comes through our liberally-controlled school systems that understands how the Republic works.

    Don't like high taxes or government regulation? Vote in someone who will change the system. Tired of seeing your neighbor sit on his padonka and get paid to watch Oprah while you pay for it? Elect someone who will make the change. Want federal control of banks, etc., removed? Same answer.

    In the end, it is all rather simple, but it is so simple that no one actually thinks that it can happen. Even with some of their flaws and issues, the Tea Party gets it. They have discovered that they can indeed effect the process, and they are. Kudos to them! The "special interest groups" learned how to manipulate the system decades ago and have been marching their agenda down America's throat ever since, all the while pretending like their view is the majority view. What a bunch of hooey!
     
  19. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    In reality - its because the one party is pretty sure they can not win - so they will not spend any money, and the candidate will not run, because he does not want a "loss" underneath his belt.
     
  20. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Wow. From one side of your mouth you condemn good men for speaking out against the tyranny of liberal politics and indict the peaceful and lawful utilization of the recourses available to them, and out of the other side of your mouth you deem them worthy of the despotic consequences of inaction.

    You are a nuisance to this forum.
     

Share This Page

Loading...