WaPost: End presidential term limits

reply to post by supremecommander

The OP and others would be wise to stop feeding into the left/right paradigm. By doing so, you are being played for fools. Wake up.

Did you even read the original post? In no way do I support our current left / right false political system. Here's what I said in case you missed it.

The choice between democrat and republican candidates pretty much just gives us the choice in the manner of our destruction. That's if you believe the voting results at all.

If it wasn't for Obama i wouldn't care about politics. No one I talk to would either. Not many do, but it's way more than it used to be. IF we only had amazing president after amazing president, imagine how much easier it would be to screw everyone? Need some bad to get the good. Who knows, maybe a few people will come out of the woodwork. What motivation would these good folk have if not for bad presidents?

reply to post by Bassago


I have to wonder if you even read the article. The author is discussing the pro's and con's of ending presidential term limits (an issue that comes up in the House at least once a year since adopted), something we didn't have until 1947.

I think the author makes a very valid point with both sides. The con side being that members of the sitting president's party might be too afraid to act against the president should they continue winning the office and the pro side being that yes it actually does take power out of the hands of the people and essentially says that we are too stupid to vote out a bad president.

Personally at this point in time I agree that the people are too stupid to vote out a bad president so I will accept the hand holding and being told government knows best... I would even move to increasing the limit to one term. Eight years of GW and eight years of Obama has done far too much damage for me to take my usual anarchist stance.

reply to post by Kali74

I have to wonder if you even read the article. The author is discussing the pro's and con's of ending presidential term limits (an issue that comes up in the House at least once a year since adopted), something we didn't have until 1947.

Yes, of course I read the article. I also understand the points made about both sides of the argument. I was more interested in what I believe to be the real purpose of the article.

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election

reply to post by Bassago


It's a blog post, should he not give his opinion on the topic?

You're clearly against the concept but why are you? Do you think we need our hands held, that we the people aren't strong enough to oust a bad president so we needed government to make the decision for us like I do, or do you have another reason?

reply to post by Kali74


It was still offered as a Post article and I would be incredulous if it was not their perspective as well. After all they gave the platform to write it on and obviously the editors approved the content.

I don't think we need our hands held but it's obvious that the executive branch needs some types of restraint. That's going back as far as Reagan. To me the thoughts that the likes of Bush Jr or Obama could stay in office any longer is abhorrent. Look at the damage they both caused.

Not sure what you mean by "another reason." Do you mean because Obama's black? If so, I couldn't care less if he was green with purple strips. It's what he's done that concerns me.

reply to post by damwel


LIne item veto? Congress would/will/did have a kitten over that... Why? Because it's a hell of an idea.

Yea I don't think that would be good idea.
I don't have anything against presidents personally, but its bad enough that you got some people you cant pry out of office with a stick as it is due to oligarchy. You know, same people same policies, SAME AGENDA with high monetary backing. Puppets come to mind as well. On some level, that's a continuous dictatorship or monopoly over control of the country that could result in total Power inequality.

That sort of thing leads to ugly places historically. People forcing other people to do things they don't want to do. Support things they don't want to support OR ELSE. The very thought of it is repulsive and terroristic in nature. I would have no idea who would be president after this one or the one after that or even after that, and I don't know that the guy or gal wouldn't be a nutjob ready to kill me or bomb a town, destroy a state, a race of people or incite a civil war. Imagine a person like that in the Whitehouse for 20 years.

No thanks Washington Post, have some consideration for things like posterity and a more perfect union. We don't need dictators here EVER.

reply to post by Bassago

I don't think we need our hands held but it's obvious that the executive branch needs some types of restraint. That's going back as far as Reagan. To me the thoughts that the likes of Bush Jr or Obama could stay in office any longer is abhorrent. Look at the damage they both caused.

Elections (the people's voice) aren't enough restraint? I agree with you that the thought of any president in my lifetime serving more than 8 years is abhorrent, that's why I don't trust the people with this... there was more than enough reason not to re-elect Bush and more than enough reason not to re-elect Obama yet both made it to a second term. Now we can blame the opposite party in both situations as not having offered a better of two evils, but doesn't that fall back on us again, our ignorance, our lack of involvement (our meaning we the people)? There really isn't another way to look at this debate. Either the people know best or government knows best. Which is it?

Not sure what you mean by "another reason." Do you mean because Obama's black?

lolwut?

reply to post by Kali74

There really isn't another way to look at this debate. Either the people know best or government knows best. Which is it?

Fair question. I want to say I have faith in the American people as a whole but I don't. I have even less faith in our government. That being the case I'll have to go with retaining the 22nd amendment as the only workable option.

lolwut?

Sorry, it seems like anyone who criticizes the big O get called out on the race issue. Since that's not what you meant my apologies. What did you mean anyway?

The Washington post or progressives want the Constitution changed? Do it the legal way, the only way it can be done. Change it due to "popular opinion" or by dictation and I'll take up arms and so will millions of other Americans.

reply to post by Bassago

Fair question. I want to say I have faith in the American people as a whole but I don't. I have even less faith in our government. That being the case I'll have to go with retaining the 22nd amendment as the only workable option.

So you're trusting the government over the people in this situation?

Sorry, it seems like anyone who criticizes the big O get called out on the race issue.

2009 called, they want their meme back.

Since that's not what you meant my apologies. What did you mean anyway?

What I meant was do you not want to see any person sit in the oval office for more than two terms or just Obama?

reply to post by Kali74

So you're trusting the government over the people in this situation?

So you mean the government is the 22nd amendment? I don't think so but that's what I'll stick with.

2009 called, they want their meme back.

Nope they can't have it, it's still applicable today so we need it.

What I meant was do you not want to see any person sit in the oval office for more than two terms or just Obama?

At the moment I prefer the term limit's on any president. If we ever do eliminate them it would have to be non-applicable to the sitting president. But I think it's a bad idea to lose the limits.

reply to post by Bassago

So you mean the government is the 22nd amendment? I don't think so but that's what I'll stick with.

Yes, the government. Only one amendment was passed by Constitutional Convention, all others including the 22nd have been passed by State Legislatures.

reply to post by Kali74

Yes, the government. Only one amendment was passed by Constitutional Convention, all others including the 22nd have been passed by State Legislatures.

Not sure why you feel this makes it the government. Article 5 of the constitution allows for this and it was ratified by the requisite number of states. How does this make it the government?

Seems like a sensible limit to anyone hijacking the government to me. Just wish it applied to congress as well.

reply to post by Bassago

In a previous thread I wondered how long it was going to take before the progressive left would start proselytizing the idea of removing presidential term limits.

The whole "third term" idea is regularly brought back to life by media sources whenever there's a second term president.

Term limit changes were brought about in the mid to late 1980's with Reagan's third term:
www.csmonitor.com...

For example, ever since 1985, when Ronald Reagan was serving in his second term as president, there have been repeated attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits each president to two terms. Luckily, this proposal has failed repeatedly in Congress,

www.salon.com...

Bill Clinton:

Rep. Serrano has introduced the very same proposal to Congress every two years since 1997 (a total of nine times), regardless of which party was currently occupying the White House and starting well before Barack Obama became involved in national politics. On the first two occasions (in 1997 and 1999) the incumbent president was a Democrat (Bill Clinton);

Read more at www.snopes.com...

Every time people trod out this idea of removing term limits, it fails to gain any traction. And no, it's not only Democratic politicians who have thought of this idea, politicians from both parties have at certain times introduced this idea. No the 22nd amendment will not be removed and even if it was somehow, Obama wouldn't run for a third term (people can pretend he would but he is smarter than that, as would've Bill Clinton or Reagan, it's political suicide).

reply to post by beezzer

Obama couldn't get elected as Dog Catcher

Yep Obama's opponents, tea partiers galore, were saying this in 2008 during the Democratic primaries and again in 2012.. and yet he got elected both occasions. As for him getting elected a third term? No he wouldn't have as chance, neither would've Clinton and neither would've Reagan. Running for a third term if made available is political suicide.

I think the only president who may have had a chance of a third term is Kennedy but even he wouldn't of ran.

This won't stop his most ardent fans and supporters,

Obama has ardent fans and supporters, Clinton had ardent fans and supporters, Reagan had ardent fans and supporters, yes many presidents had their segments of ardent fans and supporters who would support anything their president did. Even bush had his ardent fans and supporters, he still has them to this day.

One 6 year term & be done with it!

Bassago
reply to post by MrInquisitive

 

First off, this is not the progressive left suggesting the revoking of this Amendment. It isn't even the WaPost suggesting it. It is but one professor suggesting it and writing an editorial about it, so why do you use the word "they" to say who is suggesting this? You're attempting to put words into a lot of people's mouths, and it ain't flying.

I'm quite aware of the author who penned this propaganda piece just as I'm aware the Washington Post gave him the platform and published it. To say "they" are not responsible and supportive for what "they" publish because it was written by the professor is disingenuous at best. AFAIK they printed it, they own it.

Sure the progressives are running from BHO now because of obamacare but in the political arena that's simply a self preservation tactic. Also sure, some of MSM is putting heat on him for this reason but only because that mess can't be glossed over anymore. By publishing the article /op-ed whatever you want to call it the Post, it's editors and owners are supporting it. If they didn't it would have never seen print. IMO.

First off, aren't there differing opinions in the Op Ed page of most all newspapers. Generally Op Ed sections of papers give space to various view points. That a paper publishes an opinion piece doesn't mean it supports that opinion.

And as for progressive Democrat running from or dissenting from Obama, it began happening a long time before this screwed-up Obama Care website business. So, again, don't try to portray true progressives as only dropping Obama or criticizing him since this ACA website biz. Progressives have been complaining for a while now about Obama's connection with Wall Street and corporations, the way the BP oil spill was handled, his on-going drone campaigns, and most certainly the ever-increasing US surveillance state. So don't try making the specious claim that progressives are all of a sudden leaving Obama because of ACA.

But back to you original post and my criticism of it: please show any actual evidence that progressives or even establishment Democrats are, as a group, pushing for the rescinding of the Constitutional Amendment limiting presidential terms. Oh yeah, you have none; just this one Op Ed by one solitary professor. But don't let the inconvenient facts get in the way of whatever ideologically biased point you're trying to make out of thin air.

Oh hell NO!!! I don't care who it is, there's a reason why you limit positions of power in Government. Personally I think we should have limits on ALL Powerful Positions within Public Service so that new ideas and practices are constantly being tried and tested.