Post: #1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/e...story.html

Quote:End presidential term limits

Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.

Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?

That was the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

Why is it that liberals have such a difficult time understanding the concepts of liberty and limited government? Had this WaPo columnist been born in the 1950's in Russia, he'd be defending Stalin.

Post: #2

There is an argument to be made for leaders to be allowed to remain as long as they keep getting elected; the incentives for continued governing are different than those for fixed terms. If you can keep getting elected you would tend to have a longer term focus. Although I do not necessarily agree with this change, it would also benefit Republicans should they come into power. At one time liberals thought Republicans would rule forever.

Post: #3

If I had to start a new country from scratch if I were to have term-limits, I might allow up to 4 consecutive terms. I also think 4 years may be too short a time for any one president. Sometimes it seems like they spend half their term fund-raising and campaigning for the next election. I would also consider giving each serious candidate the same amount of public funding to run the campaign and no private/corporate support of any candidate would be allowed.

Post: #4

The legislative branch is where term limits are needed.

Post: #5

(11-29-2013 02:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Why is it that liberals have such a difficult time understanding the concepts of liberty and limited government?

Because, except for the Department of Defense, most government employees vote democrat. The bigger the government, the more cushy office jobs for democrats exist.

Likewise, democrats always oppose increasing the budget of the Pentagon, as that creates jobs in the sticks for rednecks who vote republican.

Post: #6

I agree with term limits, but also agree with speakeasy, 4 years is too short. It should be terms of 6 years with a two term max. But, they way we do it, isn't that bad. I prefer having a term limit over not having one.

I say a return to the spoils system would be a good thing too. Too many cushy government jobs. An interesting link talking about how our government has become very partisan: Link

Post: #7

(11-29-2013 03:37 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  The legislative branch is where term limits are needed.

This is the source of so much of what is wrong in US politics. There shouldn't be "career politicians" at all. I think if you want that job, it means you shouldn't have it.

Post: #8

I believe the US political system may be fundamentally broken because giving money is a form of protected speech. Banning contributions and mandating, for example, public financing, would very likely be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. As far as I know, the only way this is legally possible is by a constitutional amendment.

Post: #9

(11-29-2013 03:37 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  The legislative branch is where term limits are needed.

The problem with this is that it takes years to establish enough power to change the entrenched interests. Of course by the time you develop that power and learn the ropes you've probably been thoroughly corrupted, but at least the people had a shot.

I know a guy who was a leader in establishing term limits in a particular state. He deeply regrets it. Now the established interests (bureaucratic lifers, heavy private players, police state mongers, etc) have even less to worry about. Your limited terms mean you'll never get enough leverage to challenge them.

Post: #10

I actually would like to see 1 term presidents for 4 years.

This would eliminate the lies and bullshit in the first 4 years that takes place, in order to get re-elected.

You get 4 years. Get to work and make positive strides. You only get 1 shot.

The first half of the term promises are made and the last 2 years are campaigning for another 4 years.

Will be interesting to see if Hillary gets in next election.

If so, I will more than likely become Roosh's neighbor.

The irony is the media is ALREADY saying "We've broken the color barrier! Now it's time for a woman president!"

Fast forward 10 years and it'll be "Time for a Trannie president!"

The fact that ANYONE would vote for a candidate based on their color or sex, IS the definition of racism and sexism.

Btw, how much did you guy's healthcare premiums go up?

Lmfao.

Post: #11

Politics are blue pill.

The real action happens behind the scenes.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are blue pill terms.

The truth goes much deeper then what you will read in the Washington Post.

Isn't the Washington Post owned by "The Moonies"???

Think about that!!!

The Washington Post is literally owned by an International Cult!

If you are getting your information from mainstream media, you are very much blue pill. You are being brainwashed.

Post: #12

(11-29-2013 05:12 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  Politics are blue pill.

The real action happens behind the scenes.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are blue pill terms.

The truth goes much deeper then what you will read in the Washington Post.

Isn't the Washington Post owned by "The Moonies"???

Think about that!!!

The Washington Post is literally owned by an International Cult!

If you are getting your information from mainstream media, you are very much blue pill. You are being brainwashed.

Actually it's Washington Times which the Moonies owned. The W Post is their rival paper and wasted no time covering the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03212.html

Post: #13

The way the Constitution was/is written, the Presidency is supposed to be nothing more than a near nugatory position in the day to day affairs of the nation. But since we've been continuously pretending to be at war for decades on end, they all use Lincoln's illegal activities during the Civil War as precedents. Obama ran on a platform of ending those injustices, but all he did was grab the ball and run with it.

Term limits wouldn't matter for the Executive Branch if the Presidents honored their oaths. Too bad that the position has become nearly despotic. Bill Clinton became the only President in history to ignore a Congressional Declaration against war, and nothing came of it. In fact Clinton is still beloved by millions of idiots(I hope the reason for that is because of Bush, and nothing Clinton did). Ever since Reagan, Presidential abuse has become an all too common theme in US politics. Maybe one day we'll wake up, but I doubt it.

Post: #14

(11-29-2013 05:12 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  Politics are blue pill. (...) The words "liberal" and "conservative" are blue pill terms.

Yes and no. Please allow me to explain my point of view.

Is it blue pill to think that Bill Clinton is a liberal? Of course. Clinton would have been a Nazi if he had been born in Germany in 1913. He would have been a Communist if he had been born in Russia in the same year. He is for more power for himself. Paraphrasing Rick from Casablanca, he's the only cause he's interested in. People like Clinton know what spiritual needs the electorate has, and find a way to fulfill those needs. In return, they are given power. When people no longer believe in God, they have new spiritual needs, and politicians often play the role of priests.

On the other hand, there are militant true believers. For those, it's all a matter of tribal identity. You join the blue tribe or the red tribe. Sometimes you pick the elephant (even though you dislike him) because you despise the horse. People need to have something to fight against, as it gives their lives purpose and emotional fodder. All humans need drama, not just women.

Virtually every political or religious movement consists of cunning red pill opportunists at the top, supported by a very wide base of blue pill true believers. At the level of the true believers, it's a tribal holy war. At the level of the opportunists, it's about who gets the biggest slice of the taxpayers' money.

Post: #15

Without term limits the president wouldn't be anywhere close to a dictator. And even if Obama could run again I doubt he'd win a third time (I don't think any democrat will be able to win in 2016, including and maybe especially hillary).

Post: #16

There is precedence, FDR.

Post: #17

Isn't there a wee bit of a disconnect between the title of this post and what the article actually says?

Post: #18

According to what has happened in history,

REPUBLICS always turn into OLIGARCHIES which then become DICTATORSHIPS.

Rome is the perfect example.

As the public debts explode, tax revenue declines, and corruption abounds, eventually legislative process, administration of justice, and military become consolidated into the hands of one for efficiency sake.

We are already an oligarchic corrupted Republic, so the next step is Dictatorship =- this will definitely happen within the next decade - decade and a half.

But such powers would never be allowed to accrue to someone like Obama (Black and not establishment enough). More likely he's being used to usher it in .(wolf in sheep's clothing)....... and as soon it is ready - he will be "let go"......

Julius Caesar style most likely.

Post: #19

When was America not an oligarchy?

Post: #20

As much as I dislike Obama and liberals, in addition to not using 80%-90% of my political science BA, I'm going to have to say based on my knowledge of this area, that I think getting rid of term limits is a good idea.

The main reason term limits exists is to get a new guy into the position. Every time a person goes for election, there are promises made (money, political, etc.) to all major power brokers from industry to parties to non-profits. A first time elected official will have to make more promises than a incumbent official. And, because of the short time period of being elected, they are more beholden to parties if they want to do anything after their elected position. California is particularly bad on party bench voting for its officials since they get termed out all the time and have to find a new place. As such, if you reduce the pressure of the term limits, the elected roles long-term responsibilities win out over time vs the party. Additionally, elected officials without term limits are less willing to do crazier initiatives since they have a stake in the future and have something to lose for their fuck ups. Kicking the problem down to the next person wouldnt be a viable strategy than.

The another argument for term limits is to prevent anyone from staying in too long because they'll become a dictator or power crazy. The 8 year term limit was more tradition than anything until after FDR. At anytime, an American president could have gotten a 3rd term before FDR and it wouldn't have been an issue. But they didn't due to a mixture of tradition, party influence, and people's choice. In other countries, there are no term limits. UK didn't explode due to term limits affecting its legislators (more likely other reasons) since even Marget Thatcher and Tony Blair served less than 12 years.

Therefore, I would think we should remove term limits because at end of the day if an elected official is really shitty you can vote him out while term limits will make it more he is shitty in the first place.

Post: #21

(11-29-2013 07:14 PM)j r Wrote:  When was America not an oligarchy?

There were a few Presidents who refused to play ball. But even they had some major failures.

Martin Van Buren was basically the founder of the Democratic party. He stood for strict adherence to the Constitutional freedoms granted to citizens, and for the most part believed that states and people should be left to their own devices. He was also dead set against wars of aggression, as seen with the Mexico conflict resolutions.

Cons: Although he wound up running for the Free Soil Party(abolitionist) he was too compromising when it came to slavery during his term. That compromising on slavery ended up facilitating the Trail of Tears, which is easily one of the most horrible things our government has done.

Grover Cleveland recognized the destructive power that tariffs had on the economy, and fought Congress to maintain the integrity of our currency. He was also the President who flat refused to hop into bed with England and impose our own form of imperialism on the world(McKinley accomplished that a few years later) by attacking Spain for no reason. The US could have purchased Cuba for $100 million at that time, and Cleveland correctly pointed out that a war with Spain would've cost more than that without the human life factor included.

Cons: He, like all Presidents of his time was a cocksucker when it came to Native Americans. Annexing land to white settlers. He also sent US troops into Illinois to end the railroad strike against the authority of the Illinois Governor which was/is unconstitutional.

The best Presidents we've ever had in my opinion are Democrats, but the modern ones hold no resemblance to their predecessors. In fact Cleveland was the last Democratic President who wasn't a war monger.

Post: #22

(11-29-2013 02:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/e...story.html

Why is it that liberals have such a difficult time understanding the concepts of liberty and limited government? Had this WaPo columnist been born in the 1950's in Russia, he'd be defending Stalin.

In my opinion, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. Republicans lobbied for it in Reagan's day.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/29/us/rea...limit.html

Eisenhower as well.

GW had his own ideas, that seemed to have his own problems with "liberty and limited government". "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Post: #23

(11-29-2013 05:12 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  The words "liberal" and "conservative" are blue pill terms.

That is the seed of a great idea. Every time I see the terms liberal or conservative on RVF I want to groan.

My observation is that many of the posters who self-identify as "conservative" or actually quite far from historical conservatism. It could just be that folks came of age in the Obama years and lack context.

Think about it... the media loves selling the conservative / liberal meme... as if there are only two possible ideologies or courses of action in human affairs. It makes for cheap theater and good ratings. Oddly enough, American voters have very little real choice. Obama turned out to be an extension of GW Bush in many ways, especially regarding our loss of liberties and privacy.

Jeffrey P. Bezos (Amazon) owns the Washington Post now. Moonies own the Washington Times.

Post: #24

[quote='Giovonny' pid='590349' dateline='1385763125']
Politics are blue pill.

The real action happens behind the scenes.

The words "liberal" and "conservative" are blue pill terms.

The truth goes much deeper then what you will read in the Washington Post.

Isn't the Washington Post owned by "The Moonies"???

Think about that!!!

The Washington Post is literally owned by an International Cult!

If you are getting your information from mainstream media, you are very much blue pill. You are being brainwashed.
[/quote

Not the Post,The Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times