Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

DontTreadOnMe

(2,442 posts)

2. The term limits allows policiticians to "play the clock"

Reply to craigmatic (Original post)

Fri Sep 26, 2014, 10:25 PM

Sep 2014

They use the term limit in both good and bad ways, but mainly against a sitting President. In the last two years of any President's term, they try to put off any votes until the next election.

If there was the threat that the President might STILL BE THERE, it would eliminate the "playing the clock" game in Washington.

i see no problems with a President serving 3 terms.. especially if the voters want it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is it time to repeal the 22nd Amendment? [View all] craigmatic Sep 2014 OP

Yep. Voters know best. -- Even when they don't know. immoderate Sep 2014 #1

Consider we'd have had another 10 years of daddy Bush and Nancy Reagan Warpy Sep 2014 #24

Any system can go awry. It's a matter of who bears responsibility. immoderate Sep 2014 #39

The term limits allows policiticians to "play the clock" DontTreadOnMe Sep 2014 #2

Good point. "Running out the clock" is always (or nearly always) an issue during second terms. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #7

No SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2014 #3

What, you didn't want a third Reagan term? Cayenne Sep 2014 #13

I'm assuming you forgot the sarcasm smiley n/t SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2014 #16

Clinton would have mopped the floor with Bush caraher Sep 2014 #4

We would have had 23 years of fucking Reagan even as he slowly turned into a vegetable. CBGLuthier Sep 2014 #5

No way. Brigid Sep 2014 #6

That's also a very valid point. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #8

I would postulate . . . Brigid Sep 2014 #12

Bush wouldn't have beaten Clinton and would geek tragedy Sep 2014 #17

I don't know unless Huffington Post tells me what to think because I'm a...... NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #9

I think there are good arguments to be made one way or the other. So in the end, I'm neutral. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #10

I would oppose the repeal of the 22nd amendment to my dying breath. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #11

Our thoughts are similar edgineered Sep 2014 #15

No. 2 terms is enough still_one Sep 2014 #14

I'm fine with letting the voters decide Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #18

Reagan would have won in 1988, possibly even 1992. tritsofme Sep 2014 #19

I would like to see one 6 year term Travis_0004 Sep 2014 #20

Great ideas SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2014 #21

I like this idea. Brigid Sep 2014 #23

That too has it's drawbacks davidpdx Sep 2014 #30

We would end up with a Cheney for life Generic Other Sep 2014 #22

Only if that's what the people want. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #27

Hanging chads, voting machines, Dieboldt Generic Other Sep 2014 #28

Were Obama's victories legitimate? (nt) Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #29

Don't ask me Generic Other Sep 2014 #32

i trust the people but not the system. spanone Sep 2014 #25

I would like it changed to one 6yr term. nt CK_John Sep 2014 #26

I answered this one above as well to someone else davidpdx Sep 2014 #31

No.... 8 years is plenty. devils chaplain Sep 2014 #33

I'd like to see a six term with a public option on a second jaysunb Sep 2014 #34

"The whole reason why we have this amendment..." Boreal Sep 2014 #35

well since this is not about the 2nd amendment Duckhunter935 Sep 2014 #37

Oh, no! Boreal Sep 2014 #38

Nnnnnnope. TERM LIMITS FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS. ONE IN, ONE OUT. Then you can run again. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2014 #36

The short answer is NO. badtoworse Sep 2014 #40