It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WaPost: End presidential term limits

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 




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.


Of course, the Washington Post is a pillar of unbiased reporting. Sure it is.



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.


Their dissent over the last couple of years to his increased lawlessness has been deafening. Uh huh.



Progressives have been complaining for a while now. So don't try making the specious claim that progressives are all of a sudden leaving Obama because of ACA.


Right, currently bailing on Obama are the ones who are trying to get re-elected in 2014 and those who support that goal.



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.


I believe this is a propaganda piece and fully supported by the Post. That's my opinion and never once did I say there was a concerted effort to repeal the 22nd amendment by democrats.




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


Our country will need all sorts of help if they remove term limits on the Presidency. We could end up like other countries that are in civil war and are trying to overthrow their government because they have some sort of oppressive dictator in office and the government does nothing to protect the people from his tyranny. We, the American public, does NOT need to be removing term limits!!



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Nope, sorry Barry, when your time is up you're gonna go. And tell Michelle to leave the silverware behind. Nothing will please me more than seeing you two vacating the people's White House.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   

beezzer
Obama couldn't get elected as Dog Catcher after his dismal record as president.

This won't stop his most ardent fans and supporters, but even then, that's just a small percentage of the population.



While I wish what you say were true...I sadly believe it is not. After the mess of Obama, his people will want revenge...or more accurately...a do-over. They will go to the polls again and vote the same way they always have. "Anything is better than the other side" will be their continuing slogan. And if they win, we will be in the same sewer hole or worse. When you only have two options, they could both be Hitlers. But you have to choose one. But it is still one Hitler. What we need is a real third party, or fourth, or fifth. But that won't happen. So the only real choice is to hope for the complete crash of our government so it can be rebuilt from scratch.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Nope, keep presidential term limits. We do not need a tryant in the office.

In fact, add term limits for the house, senate and supreme court.

Also, remove special interest groups to the point that if any politician is caught listening to one, he/she will be tried for treason.

That about covers it.

You cannot make good decisions for the people if you are only interested in yourself and the person lining your pockets with cash.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
There should also be a nepotism clause. I mean out of around 350 million people why do we keep ending up with reps from the same families? I know the answer to this but in a perfect world this would not even be an issue. Who is ready for Jeb to run?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
i a curious why the right wing didn't go off and bash ronnie reagan when he said he wanted to do away with presidential term limits in Nov of 1987?

Mr. Reagan, in a restatement of a past position, said the limitation interfered with the right of the people to ''vote for someone as often as they want to do.''



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I agree about the sham 2 party system of charades and farce the globalists have foisted on the USA for many many decades.

However, I've also increasingly come to the conclusion that we need to have the President serve for one and only one 4 or 5 year term.

Enough of this entrenched hogwash treason.

And Senators . . . one 5 year term. Maybe the acclaimed top 1% per a poll of the whole USA . . . be allowed a 2nd 3 year term.

Congresscritters . . . 2 four year terms . . . with the acclaimed top 1% per a poll of the whole USA being allowed a 3rd 2 year term. That's it.

No special laws or health plans etc. for them only. Retirement would have to be into a fund like normal people . . . at a rate not above the (ranking from the bottom) 80th percentile? . . . i.e. with the lowest being 1 and the highest being 100 . . . not above 75-80 mark for their contributions into a retirement account.

As a dyed in the wool capitalist . . . I have very torn feelings about capping incomes . . .

however, it's gotten super extremely out of control. Absurdly and artificially engineered so. That needs curbed, imho.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wdkirk
 


I don't know how to deal with the special interest groups and lobbyists and still have freedom of speech.

Perhaps all by emails. Each citizen gets 3 emails to send to the same rep or Senator every 3-12 months?

Senators and reps can personally--not with staff--personally call or email constituents to get their opinions--again not more than 3-5 times per person. No more than once for folks making more than $200,000/year..



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


For the most part I agree with the expanded term limits you propose but might go with something like the following:

President: A single 6 year term. (give them time to accomplish something)

Senator: A single 6 year term with the top 10% being allowed a second term.

Representatives: 2 four year terms.

And something needs to be done about the lobbyists, special interest problem.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


I could support your outline.

Would certainly be an improvement.

I think that a shorter term for congress critters would keep the principle of more diversity and turnover with the REPs.

Of course, I have NO DOUBT that O and his puppet masters will bring the whole house down around the nation's collective ears as soon as they can manage it . . . the globe, actually.

What The King of Kings would support after Armageddon is a whole 'nother issue.

But I could imagine Him supporting such things.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Under the original structure of the Constitution and the limits placed upon the Executive (prior to the expansion of clauses by the Supreme Court, i.e. Commerce Clause and war powers, to name a few; along with other amendments, specifically the 12th and 17th amendments), such limits are counter-intuitive to a Federal Republic such as the United States of America. That said, given today's environment, coupled with how ordinary citizens see and believe in what the powers of the Executive should be, the 22nd Amendment (the one that limits the term of the Executive) is absolutely needed.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Bassago
And something needs to be done about the lobbyists, special interest problem.


What would you suggest? You would have to carve out an exception in the First Amendment that limits and/or denies selected groups from engaging in redress. Not easy.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




What would you suggest? You would have to carve out an exception in the First Amendment that limits and/or denies selected groups from engaging in redress. Not easy.


The 1st has taken enough damage as it is so I would not suggest any such restrictions. Maybe we're looking at the problem from the wrong end. The restrictions could be placed on officials in regards to legislative favoritism, bribery, and obvious special interest influence. Just an idea.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


If you were around during the George W Bush administration, there were "conservative" (I use quotes as I personally believe the last conservative president was JFK) media types as ark as congressmen who wanted to not only remove term limits, but to open the presidency up to foreign-born naturalized citizens (read: Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Please, don't be one of the suckers who thinks only one of the two halves of the oligarchy are the bad guys.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 


I think both sides are the bad guys.
2nd



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

dogstar23
reply to post by Bassago
 


If you were around during the George W Bush administration, there were "conservative" (I use quotes as I personally believe the last conservative president was JFK) media types as ark as congressmen who wanted to not only remove term limits, but to open the presidency up to foreign-born naturalized citizens (read: Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Please, don't be one of the suckers who thinks only one of the two halves of the oligarchy are the bad guys.


And if you were around longer than that, you would have seen the same; calls for Clinton. You are correct as it isn't a ideological mindset that has dominion over this issue; but also the WaPo never ran an editorial in favor when it was suggested during the Bush Administration. Former President Clinton made the call for repeal a couple years back too; as did former President Reagan.

I think that is the key point here. While conservative talking-heads may have perused the idea; it wasn't give more than a glance by anyone outside of those circles. Once the media, in this case, professors and large newspapers, take the issue and begin the onslaught of articles pro this idea, it becomes a concern.

Mainly it becomes a concern because it won't be decided by the People and the States; rather by power hungry politicians on both sides of the aisle.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Bassago
The 1st has taken enough damage as it is so I would not suggest any such restrictions. Maybe we're looking at the problem from the wrong end. The restrictions could be placed on officials in regards to legislative favoritism, bribery, and obvious special interest influence. Just an idea.


That is the issue though and this thread is not for this argument alas. I agree to your points above but how to get there is not through the heavy hand of government in my estimation.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Not even worth the mention is it.
edit on 1-12-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


The gov't loves to use RICO on us...maybe it should use it on politicians too.

2nd line



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join