Should the 22nd amendment be amended/scrapped

[JoeB131]

You dumb shit. You are always confused about everything. We don't want these goddamn stupid ghetto welfare queens to have any more political power than they already have. They need to be "disenfranchised" . That just results in the country getting more fucked up than it already is.

Naw, guy, if we had wealth equality, things would be better, not worse.The reality is that we spend FAR more on MIddle Class Entitlements than we do on Poverty Relief, and there are more white people on welfare than black people.

Democracy sucks when the sorry ass majority finds out that they can use the government to steal from the minority. That can destroy a nation. You are just too stupid to understand that. Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that but Libtard idiots like you aren't.

Actually, what destroys nations is wealth inequality, not wealth equality.

here, let me give you examples of countries where the rich had too much and the majority didn't have that much.

France - 1789
Russia - 1917
China - 1949
Cuba - 1959
Iran - 1979

The Electoral College was a compromise that enabled this country to get a Constitution. Of course you don't know that because being a dumbass uneducated Moon Bat you don't know any more about History than you know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

Just because some dead slave owners who shit in a pot thought it was a good idea doesn't make it good idea.

 

[Flash]

Naw, guy, if we had wealth equality, things would be better, not worse.The reality is that we spend FAR more on MIddle Class Entitlements than we do on Poverty Relief, and there are more white people on welfare than black people.



Actually, what destroys nations is wealth inequality, not wealth equality.

here, let me give you examples of countries where the rich had too much and the majority didn't have that much.

France - 1789
Russia - 1917
China - 1949
Cuba - 1959
Iran - 1979




Just because some dead slave owners who shit in a pot thought it was a good idea doesn't make it good idea.

You dumb shit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about things like this.

In the US now it is the mega rich and Wall Street mega millionaires/billionaires that support the filthy ass Democrat Party because of the Democrat support for globalization and keeping the welfare Negroes off their backs. Both Queer Barry and Crooked Hillary got more political donations from the Wall Street Fat Cats than did their Republicans opponents

The working man in Montana trying to support his family does have a little more political power than the dumbass illiterate big city welfare queen because of the Electoral College. That kept Crooked Hillary from fucking up this country in 2016 and that is a good thing.

Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The Electoral College does not stop the tyranny of Democracy but it helps a little bit and that is good thing for this country. You Libtard idiots wouldn't bitch about it if the Democrats benefited from it.

The American Civil War was fought because of the majority of Northern assholes using the government to steal from the minority South. The last thing we need right now is for all these really stupid greedy worthless ghetto queens to have the keys to the Treasury. They will steal from the American taxpayer just like they are stealing from their neighborhood stores nowadays.

 

[JoeB131]

In the US now it is the mega rich and Wall Street mega millionaires/billionaires that support the filthy ass Democrat Party because of the Democrat support for globalization and keeping the welfare Negroes off their backs. Both Queer Barry and Crooked Hillary got more political donations from the Wall Street Fat Cats than did their Republicans opponents

Not really. Obama had two political opponents, and Romney was Wall Street's boy. I suspect they didn't invest that much in McCain because they knew he was a lost cause.

Wall street supported Hillary because Trump is nuts. His own peer group hated him.

The working man in Montana trying to support his family does have a little more political power than the dumbass illiterate big city welfare queen because of the Electoral College. That kept Crooked Hillary from fucking up this country in 2016 and that is a good thing.

You think either party gives a crap about Montana, when was the last time a candidate even showed up there.

Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The Electoral College does not stop the tyranny of Democracy but it helps a little bit and that is good thing for this country. You Libtard idiots wouldn't bitch about it if the Democrats benefited from it.

Not really. It just means that instead of promsing stuff good for the country over all, candidates pander to a few swing states.

The American Civil War was fought because of the majority of Northern assholes using the government to steal from the minority South. The last thing we need right now is for all these really stupid greedy worthless ghetto queens to have the keys to the Treasury. They will steal from the American taxpayer just like they are stealing from their neighborhood stores nowadays.

The American Civil War was fought because some inbreds who didn't own slaves didn't want black guys banging their sisters. That was THEIR job.

 

[2aguy]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

No.......in order to keep a check on political power, term limits are an excellent tool....they protect me from the bad choices of other people.....

 

[2aguy]

The point being is, if Reagan had been reelected 3 or 4 times, it's because, the US public wanted Reagan reelected 3 to 4 times. That means, the majority were happy to have Reagan for much longer. In effect, the 22nd kills your democracy because it stops you for voting for who you want to.

Checks and Balances are necessary to keep power from accumulating.....and term limits is a good one...

 

[fncceo]

The 22ndA is about America

Which raises the question, "Why do you care?". You've said many times that you're not American and don't live in America.

 

[2aguy]

Which raises the question, "Why do you care?". You've said many times that you're not American and don't live in America.

I personally don't mind when foriegners chime in on American topics.....I find outside perspectives interesting, and they open opportunities to debate and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each culture......

 

[JoeB131]

No.......in order to keep a check on political power, term limits are an excellent tool....they protect me from the bad choices of other people.....

In short, you don't want other constituencies to have effective representation.

Personally, I have a problem with these guys staying in office until they are in their 80's and 90s. I think what we need is a mandatory retirement age of 75 (which would eliminate both Trump and Biden, but so be it.)

 

[2aguy]

In short, you don't want other constituencies to have effective representation.

Personally, I have a problem with these guys staying in office until they are in their 80's and 90s. I think what we need is a mandatory retirement age of 75 (which would eliminate both Trump and Biden, but so be it.)

No, term limits allow other constituencies to have representation because there is turn over......you won't have a few big states keeping assholes in office forever, where they can consolidate power and never be removed...

Term limits for the White House, House and Senate, and mandatory retirement for judges at 60

 

[JoeB131]

No, term limits allow other constituencies to have representation because there is turn over......you won't have a few big states keeping assholes in office forever, where they can consolidate power and never be removed...

Term limits for the White House, House and Senate, and mandatory retirement for judges at 60

Frankly, I want guys who have a lot of experience, not some yokel who is going to be there for one term.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No.

The reason why they passed the 22nd is because they didn't want a president staying in office until he died, which is pretty much what FDR did.

Without a 22nd Amendment, Reagan would have run for a third and maybe a fourth term, even though he was suffering from Alzheimers, perhaps as early as his second term.

Clinton would have run for additional terms even though he was dealing with heart issues by the mid-aughts.

No. Clinton would have beat Bush, McCain, and Romney very easily.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and mandatory retirement for judges at 60

I disagree with this one conceptually.

The result would be the the appointment of younger and younger "judges" just so they can occupy the seat longer and be counted as a political win.

75, 80? Sure. But 60 is way to young. Federal Judges can already take retirement at 65 and move to Senior Status. Meaning they become effectively "part time" and act as a reserve for special cases.

Figure 22 graduating with your bachelors, plus three more years for your JD. That's 25. No judge (IMHO) should be appointed to the District Court level with less than 15 years experience in defense, prosecution, or corporate law. That's 40. 10 years or is a reasonable time before being moved up to the appellate level. No we are talking someone in their 50's.

A mandatory Federal Judge retirement at 60 requirement means "they" (both the D's and the R's) will push for inexperience judges in their late 20's and 30's that can't handle the job.

WW

 

[SavannahMann]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

It is important to understand the reason the 22nd was passed. Up until FDR it was just tradition that no President would serve more than two terms. That was begun by Washington. He said that two terms was enough for anyone.

Washington may have recognized the old truth. Power corrupts everyone eventually. He may have believed that the responsibility was too great to endure for more than two terms. But the tradition was two terms and then out.

FDR dying in office wasn’t a real reason for it. Presidents had died in office before. One mere days after assuming office.

What was more of a concern was how much we learned about FDR’s power. He managed to make the Atomic Bomb in Secret. Spending incredible amounts of money with no oversight. The more the public learned the more uncomfortable they were. We were perilously close to the kind of power we didn’t really want anyone to have.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump wants to have ultimate power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

Why the 22nd enacted? What is the history behind it? Why should anyone share an ignorant opinion on this lacking any context?

 

[my2¢]

If the US people want the same president for more than 2 terms, then should the 22nd Amendment be scrapped/amended?

Yes, the two terms limitation should be scrapped.

But my objection is based on a reason I feel more strongly about than the limiting the voter's choice.
My main opposition is the lame-duck effect it has on the sitting President, restricting his ability to lead.

I'd favor an upper age limit restriction over a term limit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, the two terms limitation should be scrapped.

But my objection is based on a reason I feel more strongly about than the limiting the voter's choice.
My main opposition is the lame-duck effect it has on the sitting President, restricting his ability to lead.

I'd favor an upper age limit restriction over a term limit.

I disagree (politely).

We don't have a term limits problem we have an incumbency problem. There should be no such thing as a "lame duck" President (or Senator or Representative).

WW

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yes, the two terms limitation should be scrapped.

But my objection is based on a reason I feel more strongly about than the limiting the voter's choice.
My main opposition is the lame-duck effect it has on the sitting President, restricting his ability to lead.

I'd favor an upper age limit restriction over a term limit.

The reason being is, the voters may feel the president is doing a good job, they may wish to vote for him/her for more than 2 terms.

 

[my2¢]

The reason being is, the voters may feel the president is doing a good job, they may wish to vote for him/her for more than 2 terms.

I'm thinking more in line that after the mid-terms in any President's 2nd term, he loses influence as members of his own party are vying for control over the party's leadership.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'm thinking more in line that after the mid-terms in any President's 2nd term, he loses influence as members of his own party are vying for control over the party's leadership.

Well, it's a case of voting for a President or having party politics and having a Prime Minister.