Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-02-2013, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,947,200 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub dub II View Post
What has changed in the last 60 years to warrant a term limit?

Just curious as to what you think...not really for or against.
This will be your history lesson for the day.

The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951. Prior to that, there was no prohibition from running for president any number of times. Roosevelt won four elections.

Republicans pushed the Amendment to prevent another Democrat from holding the office many times. Had they only known that Eisenhower was so popular he would have won a third term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2013, 06:11 PM
 
26,143 posts, read 19,838,779 times
Reputation: 17241
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310
Why are idiots so willing to vote an idiot to a third term?
I dont think it matters.. ALL ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED IN THIER ADVANTAGE!!!!! (Voting is just a game to keep people THINKING they have say)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,893,401 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
I dont think it matters.. ALL ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED IN THIER ADVANTAGE!!!!! (Voting is just a game to keep people THINKING they have say)

I have to agree with this for the most part. The USA federal government is no different than any other when it comes to clandestine affairs. I hate to think about how many elections were already decided weeks before held. If elections are crooked what else can't be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 07:11 PM
 
8,016 posts, read 5,858,077 times
Reputation: 9682
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
In 3 years Obama will step down from office of President of The USA,a successful ,rich individual with many accomplishments to his credit, he will live the rest of his life happy in the knowledge he did what very few get to do,be a two term President of the USA .

Many accomplishments?

That's comedy gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF7OnW4XDck
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 07:21 PM
 
8,016 posts, read 5,858,077 times
Reputation: 9682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
Obammy's reason for failure is that he was not prepared to serve as president. President of the United States is not an entry-level position and the country does not have time for "on the job" training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Well, actually, what he's proven is that anyone can do it if they get the right packaging.
Experience? Nah. Paying dues? For suckers.
His getting the presidency actually makes being president way less of an achievement in my eyes.
And I am not an Obama hater. My lack of respect for the office started building during the administration before.
Obama is proof positive that a feel-good media movement can achieve anything.
Thanks, "Information Age."

Two comments that are oh-so-incredibly-accurate.

I would love to think that low-information voters take heed about putting an inexperienced neophyte into office again -- ANY office, much less the Oval Office. Obama's "meteoric rise" has definitely devalued the achievement of being president.

Let's hope we don't ever have a repeat of an unaccomplished "media candidate" in our lifetimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 07:27 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,379 posts, read 60,561,367 times
Reputation: 60996
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
This will be your history lesson for the day.

The 22nd Amendment was passed by Congress on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951. Prior to that, there was no prohibition from running for president any number of times. Roosevelt won four elections.

Republicans pushed the Amendment to prevent another Democrat from holding the office many times. Had they only known that Eisenhower was so popular he would have won a third term.
No. Eisenhower would not have won a 3rd term. As it was, Kennedy ran against him, the old guy rooted in the 19th Century, as much as he ran against Nixon.

Roosevelt's winning of a 3rd and then a 4th term was a confluence of circumstances which will likely never recur-WW II breaking out in Europe in 1939 and the US being slowly drawn in, Wilkie and Roosevelt were more alike than different in about 99% of beliefs during the 1940 campaign and then the US never changing Presidents during a war in 1944.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,893,401 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
There was no Amendment to prevent FDR from serving more than two terms. You can't apply present day laws onto past events. So I have no issue with FDR serving more than two terms.

How many know 22A was ratified 2/27/51?

I can recall too much of this off the top of my head and have a hard copy of the Constitution on my desk here if need be. I refer to it quite often.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 07:53 PM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,003,124 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
You would have to read up on the history of the 22nd Amendment. Before that it was basically an unwritten rule, but more than two terms is too long for any one person to serve as president.
Well I almost fell over, or out of the couch, when I read your posts here lifer. We actually agree on something. There is that HOPE............LOL............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 07:57 PM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,003,124 times
Reputation: 5455
There is a loon named Jose Serrano who has proposed a bill to end the the term limit thing while Clinton and Bush were both president. He's just a loon though............democrat too no shock. Only a loon would even do that to begin with yet he keeps getting voted in...........I guess that is the real question why does this guy stay in office with his madness?

H.J.Res.15 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. |
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,218 posts, read 22,361,490 times
Reputation: 23858
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
A bill like that is introduced during almost all administrations.
Go back and see for yourself.

My comment is that I think we're getting closer to seeing it become a reality.
The country is getting more polarized.
The side with the greater numbers will get their way eventually.

Never say never. That change came in after FDR.
FDR got elected 4 times in a row.
The law changed after FDR. He was the only exception to the 2-term rule ever.

There is no 'reality' when it comes to a 3rd term. The country has been polarized before and will be polarized again. That is the nature of our politics.

Obama will not run again even if the law was changed, and the law will not be changed. The Democratic party will not nominate him. Voters would not vote for him again. This is his last time as President.

It has been 73 years since FDR was elected for the last time. During those 73 years we have had Presidents who were more popular, or less popular than Obama, and Presidents who were more controversial or less controversial.

There will be no more Presidents who serve 3rd terms. There were never any before FDR nor were there any who followed him.

As you say, the side with greater numbers wins. Voters obviously do no want a 3rd term. Otherwise, there would have been another President after FDR who would have won a 3rd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:46 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top