• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the president hav a term limit?

Should the president hav a term limit?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 76.9%

  • No

    Votes: 7 17.9%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • I don't care

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Total voters
    39
As i have said before in threads before this about term limits:
"I believe they (term limits) are pointless. If people like you and you are a good leader and you are operating in free and fair elections the people can no longer vote for who they want. You also loose leaders, and experienced government officials. They are undemocratic. Plus democratic elections also are basically a sort of limit, they are a structural limitation, hense you have to win if you want to hold power.
More reasons include if you cannot run for a position because of a term limit and a new leader is elected that person who previously held the position takes all the experience and essential skills and work experience, and when a new leader comes in they will have to develop this from scratch. Also leaders who have reached a term limit are more likely to ignore the will of the people and the promises they promised on the campaign since they wont face a electorate after their last term.
They also serve little to no purpose. If you are popular amongst your people why should something such as a term limit hold your back for running again? It slows down democracy, and government."
 
i'm pretty good with two four year terms max for the president.
 
Two six-year terms, even for Bush-43 since your underlines are subliminal slaps at O-Bam-Bam, would be better for the country in this modern era. No more 4-year races. 3-year terms for House members might get one good year out of them. 18 straight years in either the House or Senate would eliminate the garbage on both sides. I have no trouble with a senator starting over in the House. And what say ye about them becoming consultants upon leaving either chamber?

MaggieD said:
I'm very good and very grateful for two four-year term maximums.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
Two six-year terms, even for Bush-43 since your underlines are subliminal slaps at O-Bam-Bam, would be better for the country in this modern era. No more 4-year races. 3-year terms for House members might get one good year out of them. 18 straight years in either the House or Senate would eliminate the garbage on both sides. I have no trouble with a senator starting over in the House. And what say ye about them becoming consultants upon leaving either chamber?
Click to expand...

By the time presidents have served eight years? I'm happy to see them go no matter which party. That makes no difference to me. As to them becoming consultants after leaving either chamber? They could become fire eaters for all I'd care. ;)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
As i have said before in threads before this about term limits:
"I believe they (term limits) are pointless. If people like you and you are a good leader and you are operating in free and fair elections the people can no longer vote for who they want. You also loose leaders, and experienced government officials. They are undemocratic. Plus democratic elections also are basically a sort of limit, they are a structural limitation, hense you have to win if you want to hold power.
More reasons include if you cannot run for a position because of a term limit and a new leader is elected that person who previously held the position takes all the experience and essential skills and work experience, and when a new leader comes in they will have to develop this from scratch. Also leaders who have reached a term limit are more likely to ignore the will of the people and the promises they promised on the campaign since they wont face a electorate after their last term.
They also serve little to no purpose. If you are popular amongst your people why should something such as a term limit hold your back for running again? It slows down democracy, and government."
Click to expand...

Changing leaders insures the system is strong and will not collapse upon the death of a representative.




I would like a 1 term limit on every office, we can make the ~years served as president to 6, senate 4 and house 3. Governor 4-5. No one can serve in the same office twice. One could still be a career politician, but would need to change jobs (moving up, down or lateral) every election.
 
Last edited:
T. Roosevelt comes to mind as one who could have been President for life IMO.
As for term limits for governors across the land, I feel we have made a huge mistake in a rush to get one party out of office if that is the reason.
Though not a Republican, I would point to Daniels in Indiana as being far better than Pence. Kasich is finally growing up in his job.
On the other hand, PA and MI need new governors. That should be the call of their people, not by a law not originally in the Constitution.
Term limits became fancy in 1994 from the Republican point of view and helped them win the House.

MaggieD said:
By the time presidents have served eight years? I'm happy to see them go no matter which party. That makes no difference to me. As to them becoming consultants after leaving either chamber? They could become fire eaters for all I'd care. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Personally, I would rather see a single 6 year term limit. I don't think presidents should be focusing on re-election.
 
NIMBY said:
T. Roosevelt comes to mind as one who could have been President for life IMO.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. There were no term limits, and he failed when he tried to regain the Presidency.
 
Sarcogito said:
Personally, I would rather see a single 6 year term limit. I don't think presidents should be focusing on re-election.
Click to expand...

It's a double-edged sword. Part of keeping him in line is the threat of losing his job.

(I suspect this is why second terms are always disasters.)
 
If he hadn't have quit in 1908, we would not have had Wilson. Imagine that.

Harshaw said:
Apparently not. There were no term limits, and he failed when he tried to regain the Presidency.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
If he hadn't have quit in 1908, we would not have had Wilson. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

While it would be nice to think, you can't know that for sure. This also doesn't bolster the argument that Teddy could have been President for life.
 
NIMBY said:
Term limits became fancy in 1994 from the Republican point of view and helped them win the House.
Click to expand...

Which they suddenly forgot about when in power....

Actually, there are term limits. They're called elections. Had enough of the current guy, vote for someone else. Don't look to government laws to make your job easier.
 
ecofarm said:
Changing leaders insures the system is strong and will not collapse upon the death of a representative.
Click to expand...
Why? Our system is set up very clearly with a clear line of succession and strong laws and is not inherently relied on one person. Thats why we have a clear separation of powers. And hell when FDR died its not like the system collapsed.



I would like a 1 term limit on every office, we can make the ~years served as president to 6, senate 4 and house 3. Governor 4-5. No one can serve in the same office twice. One could still be a career politician, but would need to change jobs (moving up, down or lateral) every election.
Click to expand...
And just say to constituents oh you liked that guy representing you.. Too bad..
 
Not only yes but hell no to suffering a Bush or an Obama for life...
 
Obama is going down, even as we speak. As time goes on, he will become ever more abusive to the Americans that he hates so much.
 
Ray410 said:
Obama is going down, even as we speak. As time goes on, he will become ever more abusive to the Americans that he hates so much.
Click to expand...

Wow....sometimes the things people say amaze me. :lamo

As far as term limits go...two four year terms is fine. I think Congress should have limits as well. Nobody should be allowed to hold any office for life...that is my two cents.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Why? Our system is set up very clearly with a clear line of succession and strong laws and is not inherently relied on one person. Thats why we have a clear separation of powers. And hell when FDR died its not like the system collapsed.
Click to expand...

This should be ovbious. By changing leaders, we insure that the system itself is holding up the country and not cronyism and such from the leader. This is not grad school level system analysis here, and I think anyone can reason it with minor effort. If the system is capable of operating efficiently regardless of who is in office, then our system is strong and we do not rely on any individual excessively for our vitality.

And just say to constituents oh you liked that guy representing you.. Too bad..
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like what is gonna happen to Obama at the end of this term.

Really, this idea of "liking that guy" is rather backwards politics and a relic of a soon to be forgotten era. It's cult of personality, quasi-dictator crap that the western world left behind long ago. Only a reactionary could desire for politics or any country's political system to return to the era of politics by popularity. Today, we must make our decisions based upon policy and issues. Anyone who is voting based upon tribal or physical attraction to a leader is a relic of the past and a negative-impact voter.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
As i have said before in threads before this about term limits:
"I believe they (term limits) are pointless. If people like you and you are a good leader and you are operating in free and fair elections the people can no longer vote for who they want. You also loose leaders, and experienced government officials. They are undemocratic. Plus democratic elections also are basically a sort of limit, they are a structural limitation, hense you have to win if you want to hold power.
More reasons include if you cannot run for a position because of a term limit and a new leader is elected that person who previously held the position takes all the experience and essential skills and work experience, and when a new leader comes in they will have to develop this from scratch. Also leaders who have reached a term limit are more likely to ignore the will of the people and the promises they promised on the campaign since they wont face a electorate after their last term.
They also serve little to no purpose. If you are popular amongst your people why should something such as a term limit hold your back for running again? It slows down democracy, and government."
Click to expand...

And Im sure you got the same answer as always, that being in power gives you power to keep yourself there. I think the country works best when more people have a hand in running it, not less.
 
Harshaw said:
It's a double-edged sword. Part of keeping him in line is the threat of losing his job.

(I suspect this is why second terms are always disasters.)
Click to expand...

We could solve that by adding in a recall option. However, with term limits, it doesnt matter. They will be out no matter what. Keeping him in line is the job of seperation of powers.
 
Helix said:
i'm pretty good with two four year terms max for the president.
Click to expand...

There should be term limits for the house and senate also. I think 2, 2 year terms.
 
Carleen said:
There should be term limits for the house and senate also. I think 2, 2 year terms.
Click to expand...

I could go either way on congressional term limits. four years is way too short, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom