Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. The President don't have to worry about re-election.
2. The President would focus on his job and his legacy.
3. The presidential party can field candidates better for the current state of affairs.
Note: This is not a jab at Obama; I think Obama has his goods and bads.
I have to disagree. I think our system of term limits for our Pres. is just fine, now we need the same for congress. 1 term isn't always long enough to accomplish what one sets out to do, they need time and exposure. And like you, this isn't a knock against Obama, Bush or anyone else.
Frankly I would like to see term limits erased. If Clinton had had a third term, we would not be facing 8% -- 9% unemployment, we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we wouldn't be dealing with the Bush debt and we never would have been in Iraq.
You do realize that Saddam, for all his faults, was keeping Iran from building nuclear bombs..........so the coming nuclear Iran is a direct result of the failed foreign policies of Rice and George W Bush.
Oh for heaven's sake you don't know that. We can put blame anywhere we want, but to say the world would have been better and different if Clinton could have stayed in office is strictly speculative plus he had been impeached and would never have won a third term mostly, but even that, who knows? Heck if you want to play this silly game, had Bush been elected 3 times we wouldn't be dealing with a very unpopular health care bill. We could go on and on..
It would be even greater if you add congressmen and senators to that. Also no pensions for serving and no continuing government health insurance (among other unfair perks). We could save a bundle.
This.
The president is basically worthless from the start, anyway, and isn't much more than a figurehead. We are in dire, dire need of term limits for everyone else. I can see going 6 years for everyone. If someone wants to run again in, say 10 years, fine, but no consecutive terms.
So did daddy Bush.......which is exactly why he did not take Baghdad during Gulf War 1. He knew that Saddam was Irans balance of power in the middle east. WE took out Saddam, IRAN has a clear field.........thank you george the stupid.
Iran has never started a war since it's independence from Britain. Iran was never a part of any coalition that went to war against Israel, either.
Iraq under Hussein, on the other hand, declared war on Iraq and did join the Arab wars on Israel twice. The Iran-Iraq war lasted for 8 bloody years until both sides withdrew. There never was a formal peace treaty signed to officially end it.
Of the two countries, Iraq was also the first to build nuclear reactors. The Israeli air force destroyed both of them 20 years ago in an attack. Iran has no reactors at present. They are attempting to get enough nuclear fuel to build one, as the fuel is the most difficult necessity in the job.
George H.W. Bush did not go after Saddam because of Iran. He believed the Iraqis would take care of Saddam themselves, and there was an uprising after the war. Saddam ruthlessly suppressed the uprising using poison gas to kill everyone in several villages.
As far as Presidential re-elections:
I've believed that a single 7-year term would be the best for the Presidency for years. The last year of a second term is usually the time when everything a President has accomplished earlier either sets in and becomes established or when things fall apart.
It's all moot anyway. I doubt very seriously that Americans will ever be willing to do the drastic surgery to the Constitution as to change term limits.
It would be even greater if you add congressmen and senators to that. Also no pensions for serving and no continuing government health insurance (among other unfair perks). We could save a bundle.
That is what I dream about. Unfortunately, it'll be a long dream...
1. The President don't have to worry about re-election.
2. The President would focus on his job and his legacy.
3. The presidential party can field candidates better for the current state of affairs.
Note: This is not a jab at Obama; I think Obama has his goods and bads.
1. The President don't have to worry about re-election.
2. The President would focus on his job and his legacy.
3. The presidential party can field candidates better for the current state of affairs.
Note: This is not a jab at Obama; I think Obama has his goods and bads.
Agreed. It should be changed to a single six-year term with no possibility of re-election.
1. The President don't have to worry about re-election.
2. The President would focus on his job and his legacy.
3. The presidential party can field candidates better for the current state of affairs.
Note: This is not a jab at Obama; I think Obama has his goods and bads.
No ;even the presdient needs to represent the people who elcted him and the paltfrm which he ran under. otherwsie his entire election is a lie.I think people need to be assurede they are voting for son mthig than a unknown quanity and are represented .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
