|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jafthasleftthebuilding Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:46 pm
 |
|
|
|
Jaft For one, it happened just once, with FDR. Was he a bad president? He lead the country out of the depression and into WWII after Pearl Harbor. ;D I don't see it as a big deal. So long as people vote. -- Get. Back. On. Topic.
Actually, FDR's policies prolonged the depression. He did handle WWII fine post-Pearl, by leaving it in the hands of the military and not tying their hands. One could also argue that his policies started us on the road we are now. 4/10
It's a big deal because the incumbent always has the advantage, and between that and the media pretty much covering for the president(if the president is a media favorite) can really stack the odds against another candidate. The idea of term limits prevents an incumbent from pulling multiple terms and essentially becoming "president for life" by staying in office until the stress finally makes them croak. Frankly, I don't care which side the person is on, 2 terms is enough.
Personally, I'd reduce it to 1 5 year term, or maybe 2 3 year terms at most. The more power changes hands, the less time there is for alliances to be built and corruption to set in. Of course, this must also be balanced by allowing things to settle inbetween the election periods, so it can't be too soon. 5 years is fine. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
