but for obama, i think term limits should be taken off the books,

we need obama in office for the next 40 years, like Tito

Nalod wrote:Yes, I think we might want to consider one term. Still they are beholden to the party, and their legacy. Hence, first term is about getting a second term.

This President need to get Simpson-Bowles in place as well as the legacy of his healthcare law.

On the surface, I think it's a bad idea. It seems that many of our problems, domestic and abroad, are caused from a lack of continuity. Plus, I don't think we're in a position to toss aside talented legislators considering the number of idiots out there seeking office.

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:normally i would say yes,

but for obama, i think term limits should be taken off the books,

we need obama in office for the next 40 years, like Tito

Tito, the Czech communist from the 50's?

the yugoslavian leader from ww2 to death in 1980,

the most beloved leader in all of the world,

everyone was looking for a tito at the time,

he told ussr to suck one and he was non-aligned

My mistake. I knew he was an Eastern European leader post-WWII but know very little else about him. LOL, I did go to ****ty public school so you got to give me some slack. His time was also before I was even born but I will definitely look to read a little bit about him. He had to have been a brilliant strategist to straddle the line between both superpowers and not wind up assassinated (especially by us).

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:normally i would say yes,

but for obama, i think term limits should be taken off the books,

we need obama in office for the next 40 years, like Tito

Tito, the Czech communist from the 50's?

the yugoslavian leader from ww2 to death in 1980,

the most beloved leader in all of the world,

everyone was looking for a tito at the time,

he told ussr to suck one and he was non-aligned

My mistake. I knew he was an Eastern European leader post-WWII but know very little else about him. LOL, I did go to ****ty public school so you got to give me some slack. His time was also before I was even born but I will definitely look to read a little bit about him. He had to have been a brilliant strategist to straddle the line between both superpowers and not wind up assassinated (especially by us).

he was a good man,

but who knows why we propped him up

Were you raised in Yugoslavia? If so when? I've always been interested about visiting Eastern Europe (and the world).

Nalod wrote:Tito was the bassist for the Jackson 5. The one with the hat!!!!

Continuity is a good thing, but neither is pandering to the party line. I like Obama but not thrilled with his legacy chasing.

It's funny because I've grown indifferent about Obama for a lack of legacy chasing. He's far too moderate, during a time that calls for a radical. Considering the track record of past game changers in our country though (the Kings', Kennedys', Henry Wallaces' and Malcolm Xs of the world), I could understand his reservations. Its also a reason why eliminating term limits might be a good idea. FDR was so successful because he actually gave a **** about what would happen 8, 12, 14, 18 years in the future since he could be re-elected. It also helps politicians to develop their policies, without some jackass threatening to repel it or modify it for brownie points.

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:Tito was the bassist for the Jackson 5. The one with the hat!!!!

Continuity is a good thing, but neither is pandering to the party line. I like Obama but not thrilled with his legacy chasing.

It's funny because I've grown indifferent about Obama for a lack of legacy chasing. He's far too moderate, during a time that calls for a radical. Considering the track record of past game changers in our country though (the Kings', Kennedys', Henry Wallaces' and Malcolm Xs of the world), I could understand his reservations. Its also a reason why eliminating term limits might be a good idea. FDR was so successful because he actually gave a **** about what would happen 8, 12, 14, 18 years in the future since he could be re-elected. It also helps politicians to develop their policies, without some jackass threatening to repel it or modify it for brownie points.

OasisBU wrote:I believe in term limits. In fact I believe the President should only have a single term and it should be 6 years. The current system is awful. You get elected, get the first 100 days to do something, then they start the re-election campaign. Once re-elected you are a lame duck so congress basically ignores you and you can't get anything done. With the focus of re-election off the table you might get 2-3 decent years out of the 6 year term as opposed to 100+ days of an 8 year presidency (this is an exaggeration but you get my point).

Congress should also have term limits imposed. The fact that the people who are running congress have been there for decades is pretty disgusting. Being a politician should not be a career, it is a public service.

In a nation this big, where it takes so long for anything to develop, 6 years is nothing. Just for perspective, it took the 2nd year of Obama's 2nd term for all the provisions of Obamacare to go into effect. If a Republican is elected in 2016, the program easily can go to hell and cause a great deal of instability.

More importantly, I don't believe in punishing success and experience. If you're good at your job, why shouldn't you be able to keep it? It's not like people capable of being President grow on trees, so the idea of forcing a good one out seems stupid to me, regardless of their party affiliation. Quite honestly, we can't afford any Harry Truman's and George W.Bush's to occupy the office again and the surefire way to guarantee that is by eliminating the term limits.

OasisBU wrote:I am not sure you got the point of my post. Two 4 year term limits are pretty ineffective if you take the 8 years as a whole, so consolidating to a single 6 year term would essentially give the president more time to push his/her agenda without having to focus on a re-election campaign mid stream and then essentially being labeled as a lame duck once re-elected. I think its a great compromise.

You're right; I definitely misinterpreted your post but I still don't agree with the reasoning. This revolving door of President's will lead to people serving that should never have served in the first place by virtue of the talent pool being exhausted. And you still ignored a key point of mine, any "agenda" that a President attempts to enact can take much longer than 6 years to see results. I like the idea of a competent individual being able to see their policies develop and amended accordingly, rather than this instability we've seen over the years e.g. raising taxes and then lowering them again.

OasisBU wrote:Term limits are in place for a reason, imagine if the presidency were like the senate - with someone from the 70's still running the show, stuck in their old ways and basically a Washington insider who has the road to the White House on lock down. No thanks, I think change is good.

All you'd have to do is not vote for that person; a beauty of living in a democracy. More importantly, age has nothing to do with being in touch with the times. Men like Barry Sander (I), a senator from Vermont, is a true progressive and is 72 years old.

OasisBU wrote:Another alternative would be two 5 year term limits so a single president would get a full decade and adding another year on would extend the effectiveness of the first term beyond 100+days and the first year before having to focus on re-election. I am not sure it would change much int he second year (thus why I would prefer a single term longer than 4 years).

I don't mind the terms being extended by a year but I still don't understand the rationale behind having term limits. People get better with experience, not worse. And like I said before, age is not a barometer for being attune to the needs of the people.

OasisBU wrote:What Presidents since 1980 do you think would get a third term? I count two:
Reagan - if he had won a third term he would have faced the same recession that did Bush I in. He also had alzheimers which would have eventually done him in
Clinton - if he had won a third term he would have faced the same recession that Bush II inherited and then 9/11. He also started having heart trouble post presidency and he had been bogged down in the Lewinsky scandal plus numerous other scandals that would have unraveled a third term. If I recall correctly, the country was ready for a change at the end of his Presidency and only after some hindsight in the Bush II years did Clinton become more beloved

Bush I - didn't get a second term (Lost to Clinton)
Bush II - don't think he would have won a third term
Obama - I am not sure he would get a third term right now

Going back to the 70's:
Carter? Nope
Ford? Nope
Nixon? Watergate
Kennedy? Assassinated

Who would you lobby for to get a third term?

First off, Reagan was a **** President and patient zero for the bat**** crazy Republicans we see today. But to answer your question, I think that Bush I deserved a second term, Bill Clinton deserved a 3rd term, Carter deserved a second term (and third) and Bush II deserved to never have been President.

That being said, what does this prove in light of my counterpoints? In a country that professes the importance of choice, I'm not sure why we are denied the element of choice in one of the most central functions in our society.