{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Baph:
1/28/2013 2:45:10 AM
67
Democrat Proposes to Eliminate 22nd Amendment
This recent proposal by a Democratic representative from New York would seek to eliminate the limit on the number of terms a president can serve. What do you think about this? Personally, I think this is a power grab by the Democrats to try and keep their "golden boy" Obama in power come 2016.
-
1 ReplyI would prefer keeping it to two terms, thank you.
-
10 RepliesTerm limits on the presidency have only existed since 1947? Damn. OT: I don't really care. I don't think term limits accomplish anything.
-
1 ReplyAt least they're not trying to redistrict the country in order to try to get a president in power that doesn't have the popular vote.
-
1 ReplyAs far as I know, Canada still does not have term limits. We just hold elections every five years or so (earlier if absolutely necessary) and elect the party that we feel would do the best job. Whoever is leader of the party at the time isn't really important so long as people are willing to keep that person in office. For example, our longest serving Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, was P.M. for 22 years. He did not hold office for those 22 years in succession, but he held onto the leadership of the Liberal party and simply became the P.M. when they won an election.
-
18 RepliesOnly if Ron Paul gets elected, then we will make him president for life! Then when he dies, Rand Paul'll take over! Seriously though, does anyone think, unless Obama can totally turn around the country in the next four years, Obama would even get reelected if he could run again?
-
2 RepliesHurray for totalitarianism! OT: This is completely stupid.
-
so long as they are still being re-elected every few years, why not let them serve for as long as they can? if they get re-elected it means they're doing at least something right (even if it's rigging the elections lol).
-
A limited number of terms is silly. I hope, for the US's sake, that it's ratified.
-
4 RepliesThis reminds me of Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine managed to stay in power long after his term(s?) had expired. OBAMA IS A SITH LORD.
-
2 RepliesI believe it was George Washington who said "if there's anything I couldn't do in 2 terms, why would I be able to get it done in more?" (not quoted verbatim) I hope this gets shot down.
-
well shit, there goes the neighborhood
-
3 RepliesFDR was elected to four terms. He was a cool guy. Obama though...depends on how he does this term.
-
"What?" "WHAT!?" I actually shouted that out loud. This must not happen. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I]Send him to say these words to the bill.[/url]
-
don't think it'll be ratified
-
-
Edited by HHArcum: 1/28/2013 4:00:30 AMI doubt it OP, most Democrats don't like him that much, the only reason he's in office is because he was conservative enough to get the independents and moderate Republicans to vote for him over the new super right wing candidates the Republican party has been running. That and he got a bunch of blacks who never vote to vote. Also, we really want Hillary in office if she will run. She is by far the most qualified and actually knows what she is doing.
-
2 Repliesprotip: if you don't want a single person in government for more than two terms, don't vote for them.
-
1 ReplyAs others have stated, the title is misleading. Stupid bills are proposed by stupid people all the time. Every political party has idiots in it, and one idiot suggesting a stupid idea is not indicative of an entire party. For clarification, I am not a democrat. I don't pay attention to any of the political parties because all that happens is constant bickering. It's like an old married couple.
-
2 RepliesI changed the title, since it seems most people are incapable of comprehending text at more than a superficial level.
-
Why? Why does it always have to be out of malicious intent? Why does it always have to be finger pointing? Why does it have to be childish insults between political parties? Can't people just shut up and fix the clearly broken country?
-
15 RepliesI don't see a problem with this. If the majority of the people still vote for Obama in the next election, if this amendment was removed, then obviously he's the best person for the job.
-
Christ, can we just not?
-
What a horrible idea.
-
inb4Republican-proposes-this-when-they-have-their-next-great-president
-
If that were the case, you'll be seeing a lot more assasinated presidents.
-
3 RepliesYeah, this title is misleading. It should say "Democrat proposes," not "Democrats."
