Obama: 8 more years? 12 more years?

[Grenartia]

-snip-

I'd rather not debate with you anymore. It rather feels like a dog chasing its tail around.

[Grave_n_idle]

What is it with this internet militia psyching themselves up for their war of resistance to... something that there's no indication is ever going to happen?

It's safer than preparing for a war of resistance against something that could happen.

Good point. And you never have to feel bad about how weren't prepared after all...

[GCMG]

-snip-

I'd rather not debate with you anymore. It rather feels like a dog chasing its tail around.

I call this quitting and declare victory. Term limits are rubbish, proven in rational debate.

[Vetalia]

I call this quitting and declare victory. Term limits are rubbish, proven in rational debate.

I don't think they're rubbish at all for the executive branch, I think it's a necessary move given the singular nature of the position and the amount of power it holds.

[Dyakovo]

It's safer than preparing for a war of resistance against something that could happen.

Good point. And you never have to feel bad about how weren't prepared after all...

I've been preparing my entire life to put down the hamster uprising.
*nods*

[GCMG]

I call this quitting and declare victory. Term limits are rubbish, proven in rational debate.

I don't think they're rubbish at all for the executive branch, I think it's a necessary move given the singular nature of the position and the amount of power it holds.

Allow me to convince you... with words.

1. Why is that relevant? The US is one of the more highly ranked countries, arguably precisely because of our term limits. Not to mention the dubiousness of the CPI.

This is another excellent reason to cut out the numbers and just quote stuff... you're cutting out the context.

1. Not just the US, humanity as a whole. The concerns I raised are rather an inherent part of all societies I've ever heard of.

I'll remind you that you have accepted that the concerns you have raised are:

And if you are that worried about Presidents fudging results then there is something seriously rotten going on.

Again we've got the same basic concern of the evil untrustworthy bugger at the top.

So, what we are seeing is evidence of this:

Except that view isn't borne out.

The US being realitively free of corruption on this measure (and by the way CPI stands for Consumer Price Index, be careful in other contexts if you mean this index) doesn't help your point for the simple reason that, well, you are making a "pro-corruption" argument in that basically everything you have said boils down to (and this you haven't challenged) "the evil untrustworthy bugger at the top."

2. That's why they make sure nobody finds out about the corruption. It should be rather simple to figure out.

Which is actually pretty hard to do. Nixon is a better example as he was considerably more powerful. The dubiousness of Bush, again.

3. Yes, I know full well what fearmongering is. No, I am not fearmongering.

Really? Emotive and unsupported argument underpinned by the basic assumption that "teh politicians are evulz" isn't fearmongering? For God's sake man, your whole argument is that without term limits your presidents will create tyrannies!

4. No. Democracy, as it was intended to be, is about voting for the person you think has the best ideas. Not about being swayed by somebody with a good speech writer.

Strawman. How? Well, that's not what I said and I can prove it.

Democracy as it works is about people being convinced to elect other people.

We notice a vast difference in "as it was intended to be" and "as it works"...

5. I find the numbering more convenient. I can address things point by point, and don't have to fuck around with quotes, which many times leads to mangled quotes, which leads to confusion.

Ah, argument from laziness. It's really not that hard to do. You highlight something and then press the quote tag. Remembering with the first part that you've got to delete an extra one at the start and one at the end with last bit.

6. I DID read the paragraph, and saw nothing explaining a difference between what I said, and what you said.

That's because it assumed that you would understand why they are different if I brought up why it was mentioned. Basically, from pre-term limit era there is no example of anyone doing anything like what you've said. So, it's an means to an end... destroying an argument. However, what you brought up was a simple good/bad of something based on past presence. That's a difference that cannot be overcome.

7. The concerns were indeed somewhat valid. No wartime President has ever lost a reelection bid. All a President has to do, theoretically, is keep the country in war, and he/she/they will never lose an election. False Flag operations are easy enough to carry out.

Wait, what's that thing from election time. No President has ever won without X until Y did it. You have to assume, firstly, that president will stand for re-election, that will go to corrupt ends to do so (which your best response is that they'll be successful in covering it up) and it'd hold true again. There are examples of presidents who lost after having won a war (Bush I, although there's argument to be made for during) and their spiritual successors losing (whoever Nixon beat the first time).

8. Wiggity is a nonsensical term used in this context for humorous alliterative effect.

Great.

My question was not what looking in the mirror was, but rather how it applies to my posts and this topic.

If anything that you propose would happen happened it would create a Sputnik Moment... there would be change as a result. The public wouldn't stand for it.

9. Who and/or what is dividing and conquering who?

The principle behiund divide and conquer is splitting the enemy into smaller factions to better defeat them. By pointing out that the US is on its own an attempt is made to isolate and then make it more manageable.

10. According to your source at the beginning, the UK falls at the same corruption level as the US. Also, the only really valid comparison is Bush/Blair, as Thatcher was before the CPI was created. New Zealand is the only really valid comparison, if the CPI is even a trustworthy indicator.

Two "only really valid comparisons" why should I believe a word you say when two consecutive snetences clearly contradict each other?

The Corruption Perceptions Index was for one thing (the, er, developed world is not so nearly corrupt as you think). These are instances of people being elected three times with none of the problems proposed. That the corruption range is similar is irrelevant but it does give an indicator of what we'd expect now that you've combined the two. NZ is, to be frank, out of the States' league so...

11. Sooo, its a strawman. Because I never said anything about the necessity of term limits in the context of Presidential deaths in office.

It'd be a strawman if I said that you had said that... which I didn't sooo...

Also, the age limit for president contributes to the fear they may end up dead... that should go too.

Yeah, not seeing it. We may consider it a pre-emptive response. Dealing with the argument that term limits prevent deaths in office before it happens; I don't think it'll happen now so it's successful.

12. I'm not just complaining, either.

You've got a funny way of not complaining. Not complaining is not bringing it up or if it needs to be brought up bringing it up with connected substance and no random polka dots.

Please clarify the underlined.

How so? If plain English isn't clear enough what is? You mean, it's too difficult to see that what I am saying is that what you are saying condemns term-limits? Or that I lay the responsibility for your claims (that is to say what make you make those claims) at the feet of term limits? Personally, it was easier to understand before.

13. I am perfectly familiar with the concept and reasoning behind representative democracy.

Brilliant.

The entire principle is to vote for who one thinks has the best ideas.

If by best you mean "the ones closest to one's own ideas" then yes. Because that is representing one's ideas and so one.

Term limits simply prevent any possibility of long-term suppression of the opposition.

No, they simply prevent the voting public for choosing who they think best represents their views. The opposition also barely exists in the backwards system of the USA. Get a parliament and then talk about the Opposition. For example, nine years of Labour Government have left National in a stronger position than Labour. That's hardly oppression of the opposition. Of course, this politics based on parties in parliament which is considered to be better but still...

If anything, we in America need NEW term limits on elected officials who currently don't have them (such as Congressmen).

So the public can not choose who they want to choose? Democracy is about competing ideas. Those who cannot compete fall by the wayside. Take Bush, roundly seen off by Clinton. Look at Romney, his message failed to compete with Obama's so he fell off. Phil Goff's leadership of Labour resulted in one of their worst electoral displays. Don Brash had a good idea but it fell apart so Helen Clark got the third term.

Term limits do not weaken democracy, because they enforce it.

Deomcracy is about the people having the power. Term limits remove power from the people and give it to a piece of paper.

Democracy is about change.

Not really.

Term limits merely enforce that change.

Democracy is not about change. Therefore this logical change falls flat. That it is logical doesn't matter because the base assumption is wrong.

Think of a building, without a foundation... it just falls over.

[Vetalia]

Allow me to convince you... with words.

That doesn't really address my reasoning for term limits; I see them as a necessary check on the power of any single individual in the executive branch to influence and control the government. Once a cult of personality takes hold it can be difficult if not impossible to erode; forcing a change in leadership provides at least some backstop against that kind of problem.

And, of course, I also don't believe that more democracy is inherently desirable or beneficial; people make stupid, parochial decisions in regards to government all the time and there's no guarantee an electoral system in and of itself can contain that, especially in a first-past-the-post system like we have in the United States. With a sufficiently large and captive voting block in their corner they can hold on to power regardless of whether or not they're actually acting in the best interests of the community at large.

Add on to that the fact that the consequences of actions might not be noticed for years down the line after implementation; what seems like a good idea now might end up being a disaster down the line, having a fresh set of eyes to examine prior policy in one branch is beneficial especially when balanced against officials that don't have term limits (Congress and the Supreme Court) who have the benefit of experience and continuity between regimes to inform their decisions.

[GCMG]

Allow me to convince you... with words.

That doesn't really address my reasoning for term limits; I see them as a necessary check on the power of any single individual in the executive branch to influence and control the government. Once a cult of personality takes hold it can be difficult if not impossible to erode; forcing a change in leadership provides at least some backstop against that kind of problem.

Cult of personality? That's a new one... something I didn't expect to see. In a functioning democracy it would be very difficult to establish in the first place. It might be easier in the US (due to directly electing the Head of Government) except hereditary politics is far too ingrained. And even then it is rare to get multiple party runs beyond the term limits.

And, of course, I also don't believe that more democracy is inherently desirable or beneficial; people make stupid, parochial decisions in regards to government all the time and there's no guarantee an electoral system in and of itself can contain that, especially in a first-past-the-post system like we have in the United States. With a sufficiently large and captive voting block in their corner they can hold on to power regardless of whether or not they're actually acting in the best interests of the community at large.

Free up the system. It would solve these criticisms. A friend of mine and I decided that not enough democracy is worse than none or, obviously, enough. I say the US leans towards not enough in the sense it is poorly executed.

Add on to that the fact that the consequences of actions might not be noticed for years down the line after implementation; what seems like a good idea now might end up being a disaster down the line, having a fresh set of eyes to examine prior policy in one branch is beneficial especially when balanced against officials that don't have term limits (Congress and the Supreme Court) who have the benefit of experience and continuity between regimes to inform their decisions.

This is better achieved by a better system, not term limits. And sometimes it is better not to have policies chopped halfway through... because it is the chopping not the policy that is the negative influence. And judges, they shouldn't be elected.

Term Limits going would be accompanied by some other changes in a perfect world.

[Grenartia]

I'd rather not debate with you anymore. It rather feels like a dog chasing its tail around.

I call this quitting and declare victory. Term limits are rubbish, proven in rational debate.

No. This is nothing more than me deciding not to waste my time. I have other, better things to do than to sit around in the same damn thread debating with some person who'll never see my points, and who's points I won't see. Nothing was proven, other than I don't like to waste time that could be better spent.

I don't think they're rubbish at all for the executive branch, I think it's a necessary move given the singular nature of the position and the amount of power it holds.

Allow me to convince you... with words.

-snip-

Yeah, no. Presuming that one post that was merely the straw that broke the camel's back is the 'magic bullet' that will defeat any counterargument to your position can be considered nothing short of extreme arrogance on your part.

[Trustopia]

Bush was more deserving of a 3rd term, imo. He is much more representative of the general population of the United States than Obama is.

I can never understand why people argue government policy when it comes to the president.

dude, bush is constantly rated at 1 of the worst presidents ever.... i dont like him

[Benomia]

Bush was more deserving of a 3rd term, imo. He is much more representative of the general population of the United States than Obama is.

I can never understand why people argue government policy when it comes to the president.

dude, bush is constantly rated at 1 of the worst presidents ever.... i dont like him

I can agree with you there.

[Hurdegaryp]

dude, bush is constantly rated at 1 of the worst presidents ever.... i dont like him

I can agree with you there.

The Bush years were fascinating, to say the least. That reminds me... Dick Cheney still alive? That guy is a medical miracle, apparently.

[Tairoth]

Im not american but if the USA citizens vote for him until he dies he should be allowed.


Because.... It is the home of democracy... *cough*

[Farnhamia]

I can agree with you there.

The Bush years were fascinating, to say the least. That reminds me... Dick Cheney still alive? That guy is a medical miracle, apparently.

Fascinating? You don't live in the US, do you? And yeah, Dick Cheney's still alive. He had a heart transplant this past March and his doctor says it's not unreasonable for him to live another ten years.

[Bobbyland420]

I think Bush resembles your average overweight religious dumbass middle class American more than Obama does.

Perfect leader image for America, imo.

[Farnhamia]

I think Bush resembles your average overweight religious dumbass middle class American more than Obama does.

Perfect leader image for America, imo.

President Bush was pretty fit during his years in office. He did graduate from Yale University and Harvard Business School, too, so "dumbass" is not exactly fair. And given his family background, he was hardly middle class.

Thanks for playing, though.

[Kakistopolis]

So I just saw a video that convinced me pretty well that Obama will try for a 3rd term. Obama is a great opertunist, and he will take advantage of future events to ensure he maintains power. What do I mean by this? Well, the United States is soon going to become the oil center of the world. Gas prices will drop so significantly that the U.S. will become extremely rich, despite Obama's economically destructive policies. Despite that this prosparity will be a result of private discovery of technology and natural oil reserves, not Obama, most citizens will be convinced that it is Obama who caused the prosparity, not independant oil businesses. Obama will also tax the oil companies, and use their money to pay for more social programs to buy enough public opinion to propel him to a third term.

Americans don't realize it, but what they want is socialism, redistribution of wealth, more government handouts, less requirement to work. We are a covetous bunch, that cannot be content with the decent lifestyle we already have. The poor in our country live better than the middle class of Europe, and our homeless are better off than the homeless of any other country. Over 60% of americans say they are conservative, yet 51% voted for Obama. We are officially a socialist country, whether you like it or not. And in 3 years, 10 months, when everyone is considering who they will vote for, Obama will be at the top of the polls. You might as well be chanting "Big brother!" already.

Fool. Everyone knows G. W. Bush is still in charge.

[Bobbyland420]

I think Bush resembles your average overweight religious dumbass middle class American more than Obama does.

Perfect leader image for America, imo.

President Bush was pretty fit during his years in office. He did graduate from Yale University and Harvard Business School, too, so "dumbass" is not exactly fair. And given his family background, he was hardly middle class.

Thanks for playing, though.

Haha dude notice the word resembles. I mean despite being the son of an oil millionaire and being well-connected, he does bear a lot of resemblance to your average American(especially from the south), as evidenced by his numerous TV appearances while he was in office. .

Now with Obama, and going back to watch Clinton speak... I'm as convinced as ever that the President of the United States is a stooge who's only job is public speaking.

There are other people in charge of the executive.

[Farnhamia]

So I just saw a video that convinced me pretty well that Obama will try for a 3rd term. Obama is a great opertunist, and he will take advantage of future events to ensure he maintains power. What do I mean by this? Well, the United States is soon going to become the oil center of the world. Gas prices will drop so significantly that the U.S. will become extremely rich, despite Obama's economically destructive policies. Despite that this prosparity will be a result of private discovery of technology and natural oil reserves, not Obama, most citizens will be convinced that it is Obama who caused the prosparity, not independant oil businesses. Obama will also tax the oil companies, and use their money to pay for more social programs to buy enough public opinion to propel him to a third term.

Americans don't realize it, but what they want is socialism, redistribution of wealth, more government handouts, less requirement to work. We are a covetous bunch, that cannot be content with the decent lifestyle we already have. The poor in our country live better than the middle class of Europe, and our homeless are better off than the homeless of any other country. Over 60% of americans say they are conservative, yet 51% voted for Obama. We are officially a socialist country, whether you like it or not. And in 3 years, 10 months, when everyone is considering who they will vote for, Obama will be at the top of the polls. You might as well be chanting "Big brother!" already.

Fool. Everyone knows G. W. Bush is still in charge.

Do tell.

[Kitrium]

There's an amendment in the Constitution that restricts the amount of terms a President can officially hold in office after they are elected. Seeing that Obama was never a VP taking over for a President who couldn't perform their duties, he won't get more than two terms.

In fact, if we didn't have FDR in office and being elected four times before he died in office, we probably wouldn't have had that amendment in the first place. Plus I'm sure that those who aren't fans of Reagan are glad that he was restricted to two terms, albeit those fans would probably have at least one more term (I know my dad did anyway).

If the amendment was constitutionally repealed* before he could run for re-election, I'm sure he would attempt it. It's not really an opportunist more so than a egotistical narcissist.

(*) - Through the constitutional process, not by an executive order.

[Kakistopolis]

Fool. Everyone knows G. W. Bush is still in charge.

Do tell.

"It's Bush's fault."

[Kitrium]

Do tell.

"It's Bush's fault."

That argument is flatter than a flatfoot. I understand you meant to make it a joke but using that argument or calling someone you are debating a racist, sexist, or homophobe with no proof to sustain the accusations is getting rather old and tiresome.

[Kakistopolis]

"It's Bush's fault."

That argument is flatter than a flatfoot. I understand you meant to make it a joke but using that argument or calling someone you are debating a racist, sexist, or homophobe with no proof to sustain the accusations is getting rather old and tiresome.

That's because you're a socialist Kenyan.

[Farnhamia]

Do tell.

"It's Bush's fault."

Some of the things we're dealing with now are President Bush's fault. Tax cuts preceded by two wars funded off the budget by emergency appropriations, for instance. If he had appeared on television in the days immediately after the September 11 attacks and told the American people that the nation would need revenue to prosecute the war on terror and that meant rolling back the new tax cuts, shared sacrifice and all that, I think he would have had as much support for that as for the war. Even Grover fucking Norquist would have pulled his head in. Instead, he urged everyone to go shopping. The Iraq war was totally unnecessary, a huge waste of money. That was his fault. Besides, he spent much of his time in office blaming things on President Clinton.

[Vetalia]

Cult of personality? That's a new one... something I didn't expect to see. In a functioning democracy it would be very difficult to establish in the first place. It might be easier in the US (due to directly electing the Head of Government) except hereditary politics is far too ingrained. And even then it is rare to get multiple party runs beyond the term limits.

There was certainly a substantial cult of personality surrounding FDR (and Reagan), albeit a grassroots sort rather than one deliberately cultivated by the government; furthermore, he also violated the unwritten tradition of presidents serving only two terms that had been in place since Washington. That was no doubt a motivation for the passage of the 22nd Amendment; while FDR certainly didn't have any intentions of misusing that power, there's no guarantee it couldn't happen. This is especially true given the extraordinary growth in the power of the executive branch since then; the more singular power an office has, the more important it is for the ability of anyone to hold that office to be restrained.

Free up the system. It would solve these criticisms. A friend of mine and I decided that not enough democracy is worse than none or, obviously, enough. I say the US leans towards not enough in the sense it is poorly executed.

I absolutely agree that the system should be altered in favor of proportional representation (assuming that is what you advocate); the winner-take-all model greatly reduces the ability of people in "safe" states to have any real say in the election. If you've got the misfortune of being a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California you might as well not even bother voting for your party's candidate because your vote won't matter.

This is better achieved by a better system, not term limits. And sometimes it is better not to have policies chopped halfway through... because it is the chopping not the policy that is the negative influence. And judges, they shouldn't be elected.

Term Limits going would be accompanied by some other changes in a perfect world.

I agree, with a better system there would be no need for term limits. I can't say I believe in term limits as an inherent measure, just a protection needed for our current model.

Also, I agree that judges shouldn't be elected at any level; the entire point of a judge is to be impartial in judicial matters, not a popularity contest. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that the person who is responsible for dispensing justice is dependent upon the votes of the very people they're supposed to be judging. (To be fair, though, when I voted back in November virtually every judicial election was a single-candidate race).