View Poll Results: 22nd Amendment?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • It serves a valuable purpose and should be kept

    11 44.00%
  • It does more harm than good and should be repealed

    12 48.00%
  • Other

    2 8.00%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

  1. #21
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

    I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

    Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

    And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.
    I'm a big fan of the 22nd amendment. I have a negative opinion of most presidents, and would like to see them changed often.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  2. #22
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.
    Shorter terms for a POTUS would be a disaster. Let me build a strawman for you:

    In the Corporate world, a very popular item for CEO's is "Stock Options". On the surface, it seems like it would be great. It encourages CEOs to work for the company and have the company's best intrest in mind.... right? Well not always. How a stock option works, a CEO gets a guarantee to buy a share at a set price. If the stock price climbs, he buys the guaranteed number of shares at the lower price and he is way ahead. The problem is that if the CEO sacrifices the long term health of the company to get some short term profits (pretty easy to do) exercises his option, and then sells them at the higher price.... The CEO makes a killing and the company starts to run into issues because the long term plan is non-existant.

    Same with a Presidency. If a President was in power for a very short time, he would only focus on what he could do NOW. The long term health of the nation would be an afterthought.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  3. #23
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.
    Do you notice how Congressmen spend only half their terms doing actual ****, and the other half of the time they're constantly campaigning? That's what would happen if Presidents had 2 yr terms.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  4. #24
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,151

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm fine with having a presidential election every 2 years if it means we have shorter terms for bad presidents. We have midterms anyway so I don't see it as adding much more of a burden on people.
    The problem with that is that it means they NEVER get any actual work done, because they never actually stop campaigning.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #25
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I would favor 4 2 year terms. 4 years is too long to be stuck with a crappy president, and they may preform better if reelection was every 2 years.
    I can sympathize with your feelings, but if we did that, then we would have perpetual campaigning, and we would have even worse political A.D.D. than we already have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice For All View Post
    I dislike the 22nd amendment, if you have an amazing leader and it's the will of the people they should be voted in as many times as the people want. FDR was an amazing leader and pushed our country to be the true super power that it is today. If Bill Clinton had a third and possibly 4th term we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in today instead would probably still have surpluses each year and the economy would be thriving.

    Edit- And yes I think the two term limit hinders the president to play it safe when the country really needs a leader not a compromiser and two face.
    I agree. My first choice would be to repeal the 22nd and replace it with a health checkup requirement before applying for re-election. My second choice would be to revise it to allow a president to serve up to 3 terms. My third choice would be to revise it to allow a president to serve up to two 6-year terms. We suffer from serious political A.D.D. In the words of a former professor of mine, "The interests of a nation don't change every 4 years."

    If I thought it wouldn't be abused, I would favor some kind of recall system to get rid of presidents who engage in gross abuses of power. That's IF I thought it wouldn't be abused (because it would). If you want to see an example of the abuse of the recall process, look up local Omaha politics and the recall of Mayor Jim Suttle.
    Last edited by Luna Tick; 04-15-12 at 11:23 PM.

  6. #26
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?

    I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

    Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.

    And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.
    Only FDR has ever even attempted to run for more than two terms, to the best of my knowledge...and the Constitution was amended shortly after his death to ensure that no one else could do so. I think that Reagan or Clinton could have been elected for a third term if they had been able to run, and I don't see this as a good thing. One only need to look around the world to see that presidents seeking to hold their office for life are usually dictatorships. Even FDR had some authoritarian tendencies...trying to pack the Supreme Court, the Japanese internment, suspending habeas corpus, etc. If he had lived long enough to see the end of World War II, I don't know if he would have continued down this road, but I'm glad we did not find out. 8 years should be plenty of time for any president to leave their mark.

    And I would support "leveling the playing field" with the other branches: I favor giving all senators and representatives a single 6-year term, and all Supreme Court justices a single 19-year term.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Good point, in such a situation you'd have guys spending less time campaigning and more time actually doing ****.
    The Wiseone has a good idea (single longer terms); I'd like to see 4 year terms for Congressmen...and a 6 year term for President...I think...But, then there is FDR and RR.
    Without doubt, the two year term for members of the House is ridiculous..The Amendment XXII did not go far enough.

  8. #28
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Does the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidential terms actually hinder the President (in their second term) and make them less effective?


    snip...


    Two, I think the "lame duck" label is accurate. Even if they're popular, everybody in Congress knows the President will be gone soon, even people in the same party. Why would a Congressperson push a President's agenda when they know a President will soon be gone, and they need to push their own agenda so they can tell their constituents how important and effective they are? Essentially, the Congressperson is always running for re-election. Now, if Congress had the same limits, at least the playing field would be somewhat leveled, but I still wouldn't care for the idea.
    I disagree. Being limited to only two terms a president has nothing to worry about during his 2nd term.If both the house and senate comprise of a majority that is similar to the president's ideology then the president basically has the ability to try to enact everything he wants to that he would not dare to enact during his first term. This is why Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals. Reagan passed Amnesty for illegals, a ban machine guns made after 1986 as well as establish a list of classified persons which enabled back ground checks to be pushed through.


    I understand the reasoning behind it, historically, but I don't care for it. One, it limits my choice should we ever actually have a good President.

    snip..

    And third, I really think the historical fears were overblown. It's rarely been a serious issue. A small handful have tried, but only one actually succeeded.
    A high incumbent reelection rate with a very high disapproval rating of elected officials says that those fears are not overblown.
    The reason we have elected officials with a high disapproval rating getting reelected is due to three reasons.

    1.Politically ignorant voters.

    2.Die hard party-tards.(This how many people can vote for Romney despite being ideologically opposed to him,party above principal, these scum would sell their soul to the devil if it meant their party would win)

    3.voters with short attention spans when it comes to outrage.


    It is because of those three reason how a president could get 3,4 or more terms.All elected officials from the lowly city councilor/alderman all the way to the president should have term limits.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #29
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    The Wiseone has a good idea (single longer terms); I'd like to see 4 year terms for Congressmen...and a 6 year term for President...I think...But, then there is FDR and RR.
    Without doubt, the two year term for members of the House is ridiculous..The Amendment XXII did not go far enough.
    Single terms, even if longer, would just make them lame ducks from the very beginning.



    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I disagree. Being limited to only two terms a president has nothing to worry about during his 2nd term.If both the house and senate comprise of a majority that is similar to the president's ideology then the president basically has the ability to try to enact everything he wants to that he would not dare to enact during his first term. This is why Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals. Reagan passed Amnesty for illegals, a ban machine guns made after 1986 as well as establish a list of classified persons which enabled back ground checks to be pushed through.
    What you say here can happen. I don't think it is a given. Presidential popularity would play a factor, hence probably why Reagan succeeded and Bush failed at essentially the same thing.

    To be fair, my scenario was not intended as a given either, just what I see as a more likely scenario.


    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    A high incumbent reelection rate with a very high disapproval rating of elected officials says that those fears are not overblown.
    The reason we have elected officials with a high disapproval rating getting reelected is due to three reasons.

    1.Politically ignorant voters.

    2.Die hard party-tards.(This how many people can vote for Romney despite being ideologically opposed to him,party above principal, these scum would sell their soul to the devil if it meant their party would win)

    3.voters with short attention spans when it comes to outrage.
    Fair points.

  10. #30
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: 22nd Amendment... unintended consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Single terms, even if longer, would just make them lame ducks from the very beginning.
    The only thing that makes a president a lame duck is if the majority of house and senate comprise of those who are ideologically opposite of the president. This is true regardless if the president has a single term, last term or is facing reelection.A single or last term just means that politician does not have to worry about not getting elected.



    Presidential popularity would play a factor, hence probably why Reagan succeeded and Bush failed at essentially the same thing.

    I could be wrong but I do not think amnesty was ever given to illegals before and it it has its been an extremely long time.In Bush's case many people still remember or have been educated on the failure of the Reagan Amnesty. So it is kind of hard to trust the government on another so called immigration reform compromise when they have not done anything to crack down on illegal immigration. This is why Bush Was not successful.Had Reagan not given amnesty to illegals Bush would have been successful if pushing amnesty. It basically like someone wanting you to loan them money when they have a past of not paying you back.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 04-16-12 at 01:34 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •