- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
![locked post](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/lock.gif)
One six year term, no two four year terms
Posted on 11/3/14 at 9:23 am
Posted on 11/3/14 at 9:23 am
Seeing as to how almost all agree that the last two years of a president's second term is usually nonproductive, would one six year term be a better option for more productive government?
Asset - less elections to suffer through. Liability - none I can think of.
Of course we get into the constitutional aspect of it and I really don't know if it would be possible.
Asset - less elections to suffer through. Liability - none I can think of.
Of course we get into the constitutional aspect of it and I really don't know if it would be possible.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 9:25 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Liability - none I can think of.
besides getting stuck with a bad president for 6 instead of 4 years? Also, how would that solve the last two years being meaningless problem?
This post was edited on 11/3/14 at 9:26 am
Posted on 11/3/14 at 9:26 am to Homesick Tiger
I don't agree with term limits for any elected official. For better or worse, the electorate should be able to choose whoever they like as many times as they like.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 9:26 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
nonproductive
As a conservative, I kinda like a nonproductive govt.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:00 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
nonproductive
This is a good thing. When has the fed gov fixed anything? Oh, and trust me. I work for the Federal gov.
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconDevil.gif)
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:15 am to Homesick Tiger
Wouldn't that just beleaguer the non-productive years? I think it has everything to do with burnout frankly and 3-4 years tends to do that with many people, not just the presidency.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:26 am to Homesick Tiger
Mexico has a one, six-year term limitation. Are they doing well with it?
The problem I see is that you have term limits for the POTUS but NOT for Congress. So there's an imbalance of power.
And when the POTUS tries to cure this imbalance by using the tools he has (or thinks he has), Congress gets upset.
We really need term limits on both sides.
The problem I see is that you have term limits for the POTUS but NOT for Congress. So there's an imbalance of power.
And when the POTUS tries to cure this imbalance by using the tools he has (or thinks he has), Congress gets upset.
We really need term limits on both sides.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:41 am to Homesick Tiger
Term limits, different terms etc etc will not work, special interests will still win out, we need A HAMMER continually hanging over our politicians heads like they have in Great Briton where elections can be called for AT ANYTIME that the public losses confidence in the government
This would hold these coward sellouts feet to the fire, NO MAN should have a right to be continually lawless, without the chance of getting voted out of office.
This, and the House should elect the president like in England, that way you have no more gridlock, one party is responsible at all times for the direction of the country, therefore there can be no pointing of fingers at the other parties blocking of legislation.
How many needless, stupid votes are taken on issues that have zero chance of passing, just to put an opponent "on record" what a fricken waste of time.
We need a party in control fully, then if shyt is bad we can vote the scum out, AT ANY TIME, which is a HAMMER that would make our politicians always seeking to do the job of the peoples will instead of the job of the parties will.
This would hold these coward sellouts feet to the fire, NO MAN should have a right to be continually lawless, without the chance of getting voted out of office.
This, and the House should elect the president like in England, that way you have no more gridlock, one party is responsible at all times for the direction of the country, therefore there can be no pointing of fingers at the other parties blocking of legislation.
How many needless, stupid votes are taken on issues that have zero chance of passing, just to put an opponent "on record" what a fricken waste of time.
We need a party in control fully, then if shyt is bad we can vote the scum out, AT ANY TIME, which is a HAMMER that would make our politicians always seeking to do the job of the peoples will instead of the job of the parties will.
Posted on 11/3/14 at 10:55 am to Homesick Tiger
Screw that. Four years is just about right. Enough continuity, enough to survive a mistake.
I think where we (the voters) make a mistake is conceding the second term to the president too easily. I remember a friend saying just after Obama got elected "He's going be a great leader for the next 8 years". I asked "8 years, it's 4 year term?" His response " yeah but unless a president does something really wrong, he will get a second term."
He turned out to be right. I think many voted out of the default "he's didn't completely f*ck up, so let's keep it going" position."
That's the (abhorrent) power of incumbency in modern presidential politics.
I continue to think the second term should be only for very exceptional presidencies. Reagan, yes. Bush 41, no (got that one right!). Clinton, no. GWB, not if the democrat candidate was better. Obama, should have been primaried.
Maybe I just hate incumbents?
Ultimately it's up to us--the voters to take care of this. Seems the fears of the founding fathers of the people electing themselves into an aristocracy were well founded... We've forgotten our roots.
I think where we (the voters) make a mistake is conceding the second term to the president too easily. I remember a friend saying just after Obama got elected "He's going be a great leader for the next 8 years". I asked "8 years, it's 4 year term?" His response " yeah but unless a president does something really wrong, he will get a second term."
He turned out to be right. I think many voted out of the default "he's didn't completely f*ck up, so let's keep it going" position."
That's the (abhorrent) power of incumbency in modern presidential politics.
I continue to think the second term should be only for very exceptional presidencies. Reagan, yes. Bush 41, no (got that one right!). Clinton, no. GWB, not if the democrat candidate was better. Obama, should have been primaried.
Maybe I just hate incumbents?
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
This post was edited on 11/3/14 at 10:58 am
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)