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.
Your suggestion is the best I have seen in some time. The pension part is the best and since nobody has ever campaigned as long as Obama has I am not so sure about the 6 years either.
My opinion is that the job itself is very overwhelming due to an almost need in many different expertise, against crucial decisions...The set up as it is would be one VP and a Pres. At very least a large corp has maybe 4 VP, be that as it may the VP of the Country is part of the package and has a contributing responsibility directly to the Pres decision making process...I believe Biden has failed the Pres in the contribution. Due to the failure in the 4 yrs economy Obama should have been forced to change VP....I think each year the party should have a choice to evaluate the VP...and replace from their choosing, not the Pres. People can either draw out the good in another or the bad...I'm sure the left given an opportunity would get that guy outta there in a snap. People sometimes choose the wrong person and cannot see as clearly from the inside....so let them have their choice and then a yearly evaluation with full access to removal with a party vote for replacement. . Biden should be fried to the wall for absolutely zero contribution in effect for drawing out anything credible in Obama's approach. How can it be argued, all Obama does is get in trouble from one issue right into the next. Theres no way someone else could not do a better job and guess what, knows it just like the whole party knows it, don't kid yourself. Theres no way one guy can do this job by stressing and forcing idea's on everyone around....and then they just go along. Thats all Biden is, a tag along for the ride cashing a ch for nothing.
Last edited by stargazzer; 12-06-2012 at 07:55 PM..
Forget GOP vs. Dems for a second. But for the sake of building a better Democratic system, does a four-year term make any sense? Especially, since the midterm elections happen at the two-year mark. It seems our system promotes way too much time campaigning, does not allow the President in-charge enough time to implement and push through meaningful reforms, and most importantly forces the government in charge to think and act short-term, not long-term, which is essential for the good of the country. For instance, a President is biased to spend or implement policies that would temporarily lower employment or raise GDP to build a trend leading up to an election as opposed to pursuing sustainable policies. Not to say this will be eliminated but it will be tempered and may yield significant benefits to soceity. We all know human nature drives us and Politicians have to manage the polls to get re-elected. It seems like our system is working against us and not for us and I think we should seriously consider six-year terms. What do you guys think?
One 6 year term. Then they can work on their agenda the entire 6 years.
One thing happening more frequently is senators resigning before their end of term and governors appointing political replacements. There should be an immediate appointment by an independent panel to serve out the term avoiding giving an appointed candidate the advantage.
My opinion is that the job itself is very overwhelming due to an almost need in many different expertise, against crucial decisions
The Roman Republic, which of course provided in part a model for the Philadelphia Convention, chose two equal chief magistrates, either of whom could veto the action of the other.
Forget GOP vs. Dems for a second. But for the sake of building a better Democratic system, does a four-year term make any sense? Especially, since the midterm elections happen at the two-year mark. It seems our system promotes way too much time campaigning, does not allow the President in-charge enough time to implement and push through meaningful reforms, and most importantly forces the government in charge to think and act short-term, not long-term, which is essential for the good of the country. For instance, a President is biased to spend or implement policies that would temporarily lower employment or raise GDP to build a trend leading up to an election as opposed to pursuing sustainable policies. Not to say this will be eliminated but it will be tempered and may yield significant benefits to soceity. We all know human nature drives us and Politicians have to manage the polls to get re-elected. It seems like our system is working against us and not for us and I think we should seriously consider six-year terms. What do you guys think?
With a one term limit maybe. We don't need another FDR irreparably damaging the country with over a decade in office.
One thing happening more frequently is senators resigning before their end of term and governors appointing political replacements. There should be an immediate appointment by an independent panel to serve out the term avoiding giving an appointed candidate the advantage.
It's one of the antiquated aspects of an outdated constitution. A modern instrument would provide for by-elections.
I think having term limits for the president but not for Congress is rather silly.
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.
