|
Changes in Presidential Term Limits (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
In now way I tried to say that bashing Clinton was a big no no.. sorry if I made it seem that way, just calm a bit hehe.. all I was pointing at was the economic situation. Yes it was the time for the boom and all, but come on, his administration did an exellent job with it.. and people against the guy always try to find something against it.. I know I know, you will say I do the same with Bush, but really, I do agree with things when they are proven to be good ya know, and to be honest, all thats good that came out from him is the AIDS package. Anyways, my whole point was focusing on how people always try to give the president before CLinton credit, which is kind of funny because if there was a person to give credit to would have to be Reagan, who gave the whole cake to Bush 41,.. but, that was way back then, not even close to Clintons era.... and yes everypresident that I've known of has had a bad fuse.. soo.. |
To be honest I hate both Presidents. I can find criticisms for both that lead me to conclude that neither are truly great for America. I don't think we've had a decent president in office for quite a while. Certainly non that have had the moral standards or the quality of leadership that some President's have exhibited in decades past. I think our political system has transformed the Presidancy into a position that requires superb political savvy and political skills to attain that position, yet requires little wisdom or leadership to be able to hold that position. Not sure if I'm making much sense ... |
|
|
| trintiy |
Here's a fact you quoted wrong!
I'm a liberal
I vote based on the strongest candidate, and during the last presidential election I was actually a McCain supporter. But since Bush beat him and I thought Gore was and is and idiot. I choose the lesser of two evils. I think ANYONE who votes purely based on party loyalties does a great disservice to the country.
| quote: | | And Finally.. YES!!! CLinton would be great for another Term, he would fix the diplomacy, economy, makes us all happy, and from all the experience he gained, and from the mistakes he did, Im sure he'll do equally good or better |
And if you actually believe that I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you! |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
Christ guys, this is some grandiose thread hijacking in progress...
To try and get things minorly back on course:
Term limits are a sticky issue for me, I dislike them because they fly further in the face of true democracy, even if people want to re-elect someone they no longer have the option.
On the other hand, when we have presidents like Bush Jr. then I'm actually very glad to have them around to prevent a never-ending rule by one charismatic man.
Clinton wasn't a bad president but as others have said his record was far from spotless. I'd much rather have him back in office than Bush Jr. for the simple fact that Clinton only occasionally killed civilians (the infamous medicine plant incident comes to mind) while Bush Jr. seems to be on a real run in that regard.
Honestly, the whole presidential office is a joke to me, it's only become powerful because the other branches of the government refuse to rein it in, and I think there's much to be said in favour of efforts to that effect in the future...investing too much power in one office, particularly one that's held by a single man, is ultimately dangerous in the long term IMHO because you'll end up with situations where someone takes advantage.
So, in short, yes, I support term limits just to prevent people like Bush Jr. from getting more than 2 terms, but ultimately I support a more parliamentary system being put in place as well with more emphasis on party over individual leader, but that's another thread altogether. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trintiy
I think ANYONE who votes purely based on party loyalties does a great disservice to the country.
|
Amen to that. I was actually a McCain supporter myself. But I chose Gore as the lesser of two evils :). If Bush can make peace between Israel and the Palestinians I might change my mind ... even with the whole Iraq war.
Like if you think about it, Bush is probably the most likely president that could concievably achieve peace in the middle east. In Sharon's mind, Bush is committed towards combatting terrorism so he knows he won't leave him hanging out to dry if Israel's makes concessions and the terror attacks continue. Meanwhile, Bush is pushing hard for Israel to disband its settlements, and is negotiating with Arab leaders to support a stronger PLO security force. If Abbas can secure a truce with Hamas than who knows ... maybe this stupid road map can succeed. Remember, this is the first peace proposal that has explicitly outlined the creation of a Palestinian state and it's the first peace proposal to directly confront a key issue at the get go ... Israeli settlements. |
|
|
| biznology |
hey i have a wild and crazy idea!
how about we create more than two(2) political parties (no more L/R), and instead of voting for the richest, most trash talking cantidate you simply vote for the party that upholds your wants and needs...and let them pick the most qualified person to run things!
oh wait thats Swedish Socialism. i really dont think i will miss it once i go back to the mudslinging tho. woo hoo lesser of two evils:rolleyes: |
at least with this system a charismatic, effective leader can do what he can for as long as he can, but its not a popularity contest... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| There have been many more than 2 parties in our history, the problem is that none of the fringe players can get enough financial backing to run a strong enough campaign to compete with the big guns. Perot made a good attempt (not that I'd vote for him), but with $3 billion in the bank, he could afford to spend a few of his own bucks. Nader was a joke, but was a third party. I guess we have a society that tends to think black/white on issues and if you disagree with someone on one point, they automatically assume you disagree on every idealogical point. I'd gladly welcome more parties so we could have more potential candidates to choose from, but at the same time, won't that just create more of the same gridlock? At least with 2 parties it's not that hard to have a majority, but the second you toss a third party in there, the hits the fan! |
|
|
| biznology |
i dont think that giving people more choice would create a greater problem.
and why the should it be a matter of money? if there is one major problem with the US election system its that they judge who is winning or losing most often by fundraisers!
sure, you need to spread the word, but why should you need more than 100 million dollars to be an acceptable president? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| one word: Marketing. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
sure, you need to spread the word, but why should you need more than 100 million dollars to be an acceptable president? |
You ever notice that there are additional names on the ballot boxes with the independant parties? Completely random people you've never even heard of?
You've never heard of them because they don't have a couple million dollars. First, you can't have a job ... you're campaigning 24/7 and you're going around the country to every single state and possibly several cities in each state. Secondly, in each of these cities you have to pass out hundreds of thousands of fliers, announcements, etc. You probably have to hold gallas with governors, mayors, congressmen, etc., and hold lots and lots of debates. Third, TV!!! Everywhere ... in every major and minor market in every state you're going to want to run tv ads. Then multiply the amount of tv ads you do by 2 or 3 for the print media. Fourth, your staff. People who also have no jobs but devote their lives to you for this time period. Aides, marketing analysts, campaign advisors, statiticians, someone to wipe your ass, etc. I'm sure there's a million other things as well but this should be some kind of introduction as to why it costs so much to run for office. |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You ever notice that there are additional names on the ballot boxes with the independant parties? Completely random people you've never even heard of?
You've never heard of them because they don't have a couple million dollars. First, you can't have a job ... you're campaigning 24/7 and you're going around the country to every single state and possibly several cities in each state. Secondly, in each of these cities you have to pass out hundreds of thousands of fliers, announcements, etc. You probably have to hold gallas with governors, mayors, congressmen, etc., and hold lots and lots of debates. Third, TV!!! Everywhere ... in every major and minor market in every state you're going to want to run tv ads. Then multiply the amount of tv ads you do by 2 or 3 for the print media. Fourth, your staff. People who also have no jobs but devote their lives to you for this time period. Aides, marketing analysts, campaign advisors, statiticians, someone to wipe your ass, etc. I'm sure there's a million other things as well but this should be some kind of introduction as to why it costs so much to run for office. |
Im not blind to the truth of how it all works...im just saying that there should be a more ideal system. You are systematically removing potential people and limiting the selection process just on TV ads alone. And I for one have never seen a TV campaign ad that has never done anything but disappoint me.
Again, like I said, if we werent voting for the 'most popular' person then all of that bull (gala=exp party) wouldnt be necessary. it works something like that here in Sweden and their government is not only multipartied but functioning quite well. Taking popularity out of elections is like taking Patriotism out of the US:rolleyes:
___________________tho now we are yet again completely off topic.
i say, if there wasnt such an emphasis on the individual presidents 'accomplishments' then a limit wouldnt be necessary. after all, if its one guy in charge (which it isnt as occrider explained, even during the campaign) its a dictatorship, whether benevolent or not. thusly, i dont think i object to Clinton's idea of limit expansion| |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| - The best way to be registered as is Independent:D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
- The best way to be registered as is Independent:D |
Actually I think the best way to be registered is as a republican. If you are registered as a republican you can vote in the primaries for both parties, however if you are registered as a democrat I think you can only vote in the democratic primaries. It might be vice-versa not 100% sure.
Edit: Hmmm I think it also depends on what state you're in. But at either rate I think that by registering as an independant you're throwing your vote away! Primaries are critical in determining who represents which party. |
|
|
|
|
