• 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!

The corruption of Herry Reid

Dittohead not! said:
He was also far and away better qualified to be POTUS than Obama was, but, unfortunately, that is a moot point now.
Click to expand...

Dubya was "better qualified", too...and see where that got us.

There's lots of examples in American history of presidents who were previously qualified or unqualified, who were good or poor presidents. In other words, most of the first year of any presidency is consumed with "on the job training".
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Dubya was "better qualified", too...and see where that got us.

There's lots of examples in American history of presidents who were previously qualified or unqualified, who were good or poor presidents. In other words, most of the first year of any presidency is consumed with "on the job training".
Click to expand...

So, should we do away with the term limit?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I don't think so. Reagan could have easily won a third term...but at what point would the dementia that was developing have began to affect his decision-making ability?
Click to expand...

That's an unknown, of course. Some of his detractors think it had already started, before the end of his second term, but there is no way to know that for sure.

Maybe then the lesson is to not elect presidents who are so old that they wouldn't be employable in most of the private sector jobs.

An aside: My son (age 45) is a manager at Safeway. His boss said he had a new hire coming in, and he was an "old person." Turns out the new hire was 43! My son asked the boss how old he thought he was. The guess was thirty something. Made his day.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That's an unknown, of course. Some of his detractors think it had already started, before the end of his second term, but there is no way to know that for sure.

Maybe then the lesson is to not elect presidents who are so old that they wouldn't be employable in most of the private sector jobs.

An aside: My son (age 45) is a manager at Safeway. His boss said he had a new hire coming in, and he was an "old person." Turns out the new hire was 43! My son asked the boss how old he thought he was. The guess was thirty something. Made his day.
Click to expand...

That's a good one - and a good sign for your son.

But the matter of electing people who are too old - that's actually one of the reasons I supported Hillary in 2008 instead of Obama. Not only did I believe then (as now) that America simply wasn't ready for Obama yet, but I knew that Hillary was ready for the job, while Obama - as good as I knew he would be - was not ready. Another tour of duty in the Senate would have given him a bit more sorely-needed cynicism about those who would oppose him. I figured, too, that in 2016 Hillary might be too old for the job, whereas Obama would have been coming into his political prime at that time. So that's why I really believe that it would have been better for all if Hillary had won in 2008, and then Obama in 2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom