http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
According to this, the republicans are floating the idea of changing the constitution to allow Bush to run for a third term.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
According to this, the republicans are floating the idea of changing the constitution to allow Bush to run for a third term.
Wait.. you mean people would actually vote for him a thrid time?! ... I think the democrates would really have to mess something up for that to happen... seems to me bush is just losing more and more popularity.
Anyways I don't know if that is such a great idea.. but meh I don't know what effects this would have on history... might be good if we had an excellent president to keep in power... but then again maybe not.
I don't think it would be a bad idea. Many democracies have unlimited terms. If the voters want the same man again & again is it not undemocratic to not let them vote for him?
I see why it is there, to stop a camouflaged dictatorship, but Ireland, the UK and many others have never had this bar on terms & as far as I know no European country has had a dictator since democracy was introduced to that nation & STAYED a democracy. That would happen only in corrupt governments and corrupt voting & the only major power to have it's voting questioned to a large degree was...well America. It serves a purpose in fragile democracies & corrupt administrations but surely America is neither, is it?
Last edited by Cuchulainn; 07-15-2005 at 04:12 AM.
Prior to being a constitutional amendment, it was an unwritted formality to not run for more than two terms. FDR just did his own thing and so they set the limit.
So really, Bush would just be more of an asshole if he ran for a third term. I guess you could call FDR an asshole too, but there was that whole World War II thing so that kind of redeems him.
Plus he had polio. I mean, c'mon. You don't just go and make fun of sick people, jerk.
You mean the Republicans Steny Hoyer, Howard L. Berman, Martin Olav Sabo, and Frank Pallone Jr.? The ones who get a natty little 'D' after their names?Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
On the one hand I see a strong case, as was shown by Cuchulainn's post, for abolishing term limits. On the other hand, everyone needs protected from the government, so restricting their powers in any and all ways is a good thing.
It would be funny if they pass the amendment and then Bush doesn't get re-elected, or better still, Clinton comes back to be president again. Oh, the late-night TV jokes will be endless. I'm all for it.
lol how true that would be prime lol... though I would hope the democrates could float a great canidate rather then going back to clinton(not bad, but I am sure there are better out there.. or I hope so).Originally Posted by -N-
Ugh. This better not happen. And no, not even the potential of having Clinton able to run again would make this appealing. Clinton really wasn't as great as we remember him being, and this comes from a man who loathes the Bush administration with every fibre of his being.
Why do you think they are putting this up?Originally Posted by -N-
I don't know why anyone would want to be president of the US any longer than 8 years. The stress puts such a huge strain on all officeholders. I can't imagine Clinton would be up for being President again, especially when he could just be the First Husband.
I...don't particularly care.
If anything, I could probably be persuaded to agree with getting rid of term limits.
Getting rid of term limits would be a horrible thing. Think of things this way... Someone like Ronald Reagan could easily have served three terms. Thats reason enough to keep a two term limit.
People who vote for people like Reagan deserve the results.
I don't think Reagan could have stood up long enough to campaign again
That and he'd forget where he was in the middle of a speech or debate.Originally Posted by eestlinc