Should the presidency be reduced to a single term?

Woodznutz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
35,377
Reaction score
18,086
Points
1,788
The first thing a newly elected president does is to craft policies that are popular with the people, to enhance chances for a second term. If the presidency was limited to a single term those policies might actually reflect what the country needs most, which would mostly be unpopular. If the administration knew it had only four years to do something good for the country, they might actually...do something good.
 
term limits for any pol would seem apropos~S~
 
No. Two terms, across the board, for everyone, including Congress. Two five year terms for the SC too, by the way.

These people are not irreplaceable. The longer they're in office the bigger their power base. Their top priority is getting re-elected. Enough of that.

Either we change the system or we just bending over for more of the same.

#ForwardParty
 
No. Two terms, across the board, for everyone, including Congress. Two five year terms for the SC too, by the way.

These people are not irreplaceable. The longer they're in office the bigger their power base. Their top priority is getting re-elected. Enough of that.

Either we change the system or we just bending over for more of the same.

#ForwardParty
There was an idea for one six year term for President's some years ago.
 
No

We should not have term limits at all
 
The longer they're in office the bigger their power base. Their top priority is getting re-elected. Enough of that.

So, the guy suggests a single term for President, and you say "no". Then you say that it should be two terms. Then you make the comment above.

You just made a strong argument for the position to which you said "no".

Personally, I think the OP makes an excellent point. We would probably be in a much better place right now if single term Presidencies were the law. I would also like to see someone be no longer eligible for the Presidency if they've served as Vice President...
 
It just seems to me that a president would use his first term to gain enough popularity to earn a second. Then use that second term for his 'legacy', which would include some necessary but largely unpopular policies, policies that could have been enacted four years sooner if he had but a single term in office.
 
The first thing a newly elected president does is to craft policies that are popular with the people, to enhance chances for a second term. If the presidency was limited to a single term those policies might actually reflect what the country needs most, which would mostly be unpopular. If the administration knew it had only four years to do something good for the country, they might actually...do something good.
I think it should be a one, 6yr term. A prez will never have to worry about reelection and not being puppet stringed
 
A single term across the board for all politicians.
1 term at the local level, 1 at the state & 1 at the federal.
No more career politicians grifting the country for decades.
I notice the progressive is fine with dictators for life.
I suspect he's a fan of taterdicks as well
 
Sure they do.
They just call Dominion. :icon_sjung:
Dictators try to spread distrust in the election system so they can declare themselves Dictator

Like on Jan 6
 
15th post
A single term across the board for all politicians.
1 term at the local level, 1 at the state & 1 at the federal.
No more career politicians grifting the country for decades.
I notice the progressive is fine with dictators for life.
I suspect he's a fan of taterdicks as well
A single but longer term actually makes sense.
 
The first thing Biden did was to issue massive numbers of authoritarian executive orders. Rather than fiddling with the length and number of terms, I would rather see more restrictions placed on Presidential power.

Doubly so in the case of doddering vegetables.
 
Back
Top Bottom