• 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!

Proposal for 3rd Presidential Term

Chomsky said:
buckley_eight1a.jpg



Wikipedia: Eight Is Enough
Click to expand...

You figured out what I was saying! GMTA! ;)
 
A 3rd term? Oh, lordy, no.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I am going to start of by stating what we already know, when somebody is elected to be President of the United States the term is for four years and then after that they can be re-elected for another four years for a total of eight years. You can only be President twice so eight years is the maximum amount of time you can be President. I propose that after eight years a President should be able to be elected a third time but this time it will be only two years and then that will be it. So that makes the maximum amount of time a person can be President ten years, thoughts?
Click to expand...

why? term limits were enacted after fdr who remained president from shortly after the start of the depression until right at the end of ww2 when he died. The term limits were to prevent a monarchy style of govt or even a president for life, fdr managed to break the two term cycle when there were no rules against it, but in reality the country needed to change every so often, for better or worse rather than keep career leaders in power too long.
 
beerftw said:
why? term limits were enacted after fdr who remained president from shortly after the start of the depression until right at the end of ww2 when he died. The term limits were to prevent a monarchy style of govt or even a president for life, fdr managed to break the two term cycle when there were no rules against it, but in reality the country needed to change every so often, for better or worse rather than keep career leaders in power too long.
Click to expand...

I do agree that presidents should have limits as to how long they can be in office but I don't think ten years is too long for an exceptional President.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I don't agree with Trump about everything, but I wouldn't mind him as POTUS for 10 years.
If anything, its Bill Clinton who should've only done 4 years, bummer that he got re-elected.


No, with all the national debt he created while he was in office, he wouldn't've been elected for a third term. The only POTUS who was elected for a 3rd term was Roosevelt and that was because we were at war.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings since FDR. He would have easily won a 3rd term had he been allowed to run again. Point being, be careful which you wish for.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I am going to start of by stating what we already know, when somebody is elected to be President of the United States the term is for four years and then after that they can be re-elected for another four years for a total of eight years. You can only be President twice so eight years is the maximum amount of time you can be President. I propose that after eight years a President should be able to be elected a third time but this time it will be only two years and then that will be it. So that makes the maximum amount of time a person can be President ten years, thoughts?
Click to expand...
There's no point. As we have seen with the last three Presidents, the last year of a President's second term is basically wasted anyways. Electing a President for an additional two years only just means the election season would never end and nothing would get accomplished for an even longer period of time.

Two 4 year terms is enough.
 
Watch how quickly this will be walked back the moment a Democratic president gets two terms and is on track to get their bonus two year third term.

Necro-ing a thread is frowned upon here but I wager that it would be entirely appropriate to do just that with THIS thread in late 2027 if a liberal president has been in charge since 2020.

"So, hows that THIRD TERM lefty stickey thing workin' out for ya?"
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings since FDR. He would have easily won a 3rd term had he been allowed to run again. Point being, be careful which you wish for.
Click to expand...

What can I say, people are stupid for giving Clinton such high approval. However, if Clinton would've won a 3rd term than it stands to reason that Gore would've won the Presidency. After all Gore was Clinton's VP for 8 years so Clinton fans would've wanted Gore to win yet the Presidency went to Bush. It was very close but Bush won. If so many people wanted Clinton to do a third term had it been allowed as you suggest he would, than Gore would've won by a landslide.
 
So everybody in this thread has rejected the idea of the POTUS being able to do three terms, even if the third term is just for 2 years. How about this instead. Instead of allowing the POTUS to run for a third term, have each term run for five years not four. So the POTUS can do a maximum of 2 five year terms which would mean the maximum amount of time a POTUS can be in office would be ten years.
 
DebateChallenge said:
What can I say, people are stupid for giving Clinton such high approval. However, if Clinton would've won a 3rd term than it stands to reason that Gore would've won the Presidency. After all Gore was Clinton's VP for 8 years so Clinton fans would've wanted Gore to win yet the Presidency went to Bush. It was very close but Bush won. If so many people wanted Clinton to do a third term had it been allowed as you suggest he would, than Gore would've won by a landslide.
Click to expand...

Gore distanced himself from Clinton. Moreover, people saw Clinton as much more likable and relatable than Gore. Clinton had such high approval ratings because his presidency correlated with the 2nd greatest period of prosperity in American history. 22 million new jobs created, poverty rates hit their lowest levels ever, the median income went up every single year (the only time that has happened in the last 40 years), times were good and people tend to vote with their wallets. I think a lot of that was just good luck, but just the same, he was credited for it.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I am going to start of by stating what we already know, when somebody is elected to be President of the United States the term is for four years and then after that they can be re-elected for another four years for a total of eight years. You can only be President twice so eight years is the maximum amount of time you can be President. I propose that after eight years a President should be able to be elected a third time but this time it will be only two years and then that will be it. So that makes the maximum amount of time a person can be President ten years, thoughts?
Click to expand...


If we do that, we also should include a provision for presidential recall elections. In fact, we should do that in any case. Yes, I know we have an impeachment process but that is seldom used, especially when the president's party controls congress. Indeed, it has never successfully removed a president from office.
 
Bonus Presidential elections would suck. I hate how much time and money go into them now. A president can already serve almost 10 years, They just have to assume the presidency from the VP position for just under 2 years and then win two elections, and if someone can do that in the toxic murk called politics that we have, more power to them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Gore distanced himself from Clinton. Moreover, people saw Clinton as much more likable and relatable than Gore. Clinton had such high approval ratings because his presidency correlated with the 2nd greatest period of prosperity in American history. 22 million new jobs created, poverty rates hit their lowest levels ever, the median income went up every single year (the only time that has happened in the last 40 years), times were good and people tend to vote with their wallets. I think a lot of that was just good luck, but just the same, he was credited for it.
Click to expand...
Alright than for that same reason Obama would not have been elected for a third term if they allowed third terms as some people have suggested. After all, in the eight years he was in office Obama added on over nine trillion dollars to the national debt, more than all the presidents before him put together. Considering all the debt he created I don't think most people would've wanted him for a third term. As for me, overall I think Obama was OK as POTUS. He was certainly better than Clinton, but I wouldn't've voted for him for a third term if they had that option.
 
CHuDWah said:
If we do that, we also should include a provision for presidential recall elections. In fact, we should do that in any case. Yes, I know we have an impeachment process but that is seldom used, especially when the president's party controls congress. Indeed, it has never successfully removed a president from office.
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately they didn't remove Clinton when he was impeached.
 
vegas giants said:
That was funny. I get jokes
Click to expand...

You just don't like Trump because he believes in gun rights and you know it. You just can't bring yourself to admit it as its obvious enough in your posts in other threads.
 
Captain America said:
I'm curious if Trump will even make it to 2 years.

Just curious, between Clinton and Trump, in your opinion, which one has brought more "disgrace" to the oval office?

I dunno. It's a tough call. Blow jobs in blue dresses vs. porn stars and hooker pee.

Let's just hope Trump has the economic success that Clinton had.
Click to expand...

When Trump shtoops a porn star in the Oval Office, let us know.
 
So nobody likes the idea of a POTUS doing three terms, how about, as I said in an earlier post, a President being only able to do two terms at the most as it is now but each term is for five years not four. That way a President who gets elected for the first time will be President for five years and then they can be elected again for another five years for a total of ten years.
 
I think before we focus on the Executive branch of government, which is to be the second least powerful branch, we need to address Congress and their lack of ability to do their job for the American people. Congress also needs term limits badly. We have members serving 20 plus years and it has turned into an aristocracy. If you really think about it our current government is a Monarchy with the president, an Aristocracy with Congress, and an Oligarchy with the Supreme Court. Three forms of government our Founders didn't want to have. The whole point of a Constitutional Republic is for all to be governed by the Rule of Law. But to your main point, I don't see why we need to give the President an extra two years. But the way thinks work now it would be better to give a president 5-6 year terms rather than four. But if things worked like they were suppose too then four would be plenty.
 
Actually, guys, if you read the amendments carefully, the president IS limited to ten years maximum, but typically in the case when he was the Vice-President first, then took over as President. If two years or less remain in the term for which he assumes the presidency, he may have two full four-year terms. If it's a day over two years, he may only have one full four year term. This includes any tenure as "acting president" (like if the president has a stroke and needs to be relived of duty but not removed from office). Lyndon Johnson could have run for another four year term under the rules at the time, but he chose not to. I don't remember in which amendment the 10-year limit is specified, maybe the 20th or 22nd, but it's in there, I'll have to check where specifically.

Bad idea to put term limits on Congress, it would only paper over the REAL flaw in our constitution that keeps them in power so long: gerrymandering. So Congresswoman Smith may have to step down after x# of terms in the House of Representatives, but her party would still retain a stranglehold on her seat forever (she might even be able to politically pick her successor!) No, gerrymandering needs to be addressed, not congressional term limits. The executive branch, however is another matter. Thank God we have a two term (or ten year maximum) for that one.
 
There shouldnt be any changes to the presidents terms. The only change I would make would be to the terms for congress. The house I would change to 4 year terms. Congress is inept and a large player is that they are too busy being in campaign mode.
 
Renae said:
When Trump shtoops a porn star in the Oval Office, let us know.
Click to expand...
Clinton didnt have sex with an intern in the Oval office. He had her give him blowjobs and used her ***** as a humidor. There was apparently no reciprocal sexual benefit for the woman. Its important to remember just how much he respects women.

Kinda helps to explain Hilary...doesnt it?
 
Leave it alone, what good does it do?
 
Presidential terms are the worst, nothing gets done. Single party countries like China are outperforming us because off this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom