Does limiting POTUS to a maximum of two terms hurt us against our international foes? And if so should we consider changing it?

[volfanhill]

All of our major international foes can play the long game on our leadership. We change POTUS way more often then China, Russia, etc.. This enables them to "wait it out" with administrations. So should we consider changing it?

 

[hUTch2002]

All of our major international foes can play the long game on our leadership. We change POTUS way more often then China, Russia, etc.. This enables them to "wait it out" with administrations. So should we consider changing it?

No. It’s all one party anyway behind the scenes so it really doesn’t matter. No change.

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

Russia is hard at work tonight.

 

[EasternVol]

No way. We'd have really suffered if Reagan, Clinton, Bushito, & Obama were in office longer than they were. They did enough damage in 8 years each.

 

[rekinhavoc]

Don't need a king or queen. Got a bunch of lords and ladies in congress that need limits.

 

[JOEY’S ALL VOL !!!]

Eh ... if we ever got a great one that did their job in a superior fashion, cleaned up the mess that is the US government, and worked tirelessly for the country and its citizens then I’d be okay with more than 2 terms. The likelihood of that happening is slim and even if it did happen, the voting populace would very likely be too intellectually absent and too partisan to re elect them anyway

 

[hog88]

It’s a good thought. Much of our problems are because as a country we don’t plan any further than 4 years into the future because of our election cycle. And even good policies by an incumbent are usually scrapped when then new guy takes office.

Maybe 1 single 12 year term, no reelection possible?

 

[InVOLuntary]

It's fine the way it is. We don't need more roots in Washington. Career politicians are the problem now. Used to going to Washington was supposed to be a sacrifice, to serve. It's now a get rich quick scheme. Politicians are like dandelions in your yard, once they're in they're almost impossible to get out.

 

[utvolpj]

There should be no term limits for elected positions

 

[OrangeTsar]

Riiiight, because all of those other countries are such great role models.
Besides, don’t fall for the illusion that the President actually drives US policy. It is the permanent unelected administrative state that decides thing. They actually refer to the President as the „temporary help“

 

[OrangeTsar]

There should be no term limits for elected positions

There weren’t originally. Only Republican Angst over the inability to ever beat FDR gave us the one constitutional one we do currently have.
But then again, leave it to the Democrats to push the issue to a head by having FDR refuse to follow accepted precedent going all the way back to Washington where a President voluntarily stepped down after two terms. Just like when they decided to nuke the judicial filibuster or to start denying the minority party in the house the right to select their own committee members. Power is everything. It’s why we can’t have nice things

 

[bamawriter]

I would be okay having no term limits if we had snap elections like in the UK. Politicians spend way too much time and energy near their reelections trying to figure out how to get voters to ignore how the preceding years had gone. If things went to absolute crap, a snap election would allow the people to have a say at the present moment.

 

[Vol423]

All of our major international foes can play the long game on our leadership. We change POTUS way more often then China, Russia, etc.. This enables them to "wait it out" with administrations. So should we consider changing it?

No.

 

[hog88]

I would be okay having no term limits if we had snap elections like in the UK. Politicians spend way too much time and energy near their reelections trying to figure out how to get voters to ignore how the preceding years had gone. If things went to absolute crap, a snap election would allow the people to have a say at the present moment.

Please expand on this. How would a snap election be called and what would the time frame be between and election being called and held?

 

[OrangeTsar]

Please expand on this. How would a snap election be called and what would the time frame be between and election being called and held?

Just one more opportunity for the Dems to cheat when they wanted a Republican out of office. They would have been trying to call one weekly when Trump was in office. No thanks

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It’s a good thought. Much of our problems are because as a country we don’t plan any further than 4 years into the future because of our election cycle. And even good policies by an incumbent are usually scrapped when then new guy takes office.

Maybe 1 single 12 year term, no reelection possible?

I would be in favor of an 8 or a 6, but 12... nah.

 

[hog88]

I would be in favor of an 8 or a 6, but 12... nah.

It's a great subject for discussion, I'd like to get more info from @bamawriter on how snap elections work. 12 years wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me if there was a mechanism for earlier elections when needed.

OP is 100% correct, our 4 year election cycles is a weakness.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It's a great subject for discussion, I'd like to get more info from @bamawriter on how snap elections work. 12 years wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me if there was a mechanism for earlier elections when needed.

OP is 100% correct, our 4 year election cycles is a weakness.

I agree. We make promises as a nation the next guy refuses to honor. I don't know why any nation would enter an agreement with us.

 

[hog88]

I agree. We make promises as a nation the next guy refuses to honor. I don't know why any nation would enter an agreement with us.

We generally honor ratified treaties, any promise by a POTUS is useless in the long term without a ratified treaty.

 

[McDad]

I agree. We make promises as a nation the next guy refuses to honor. I don't know why any nation would enter an agreement with us.

Because those nations don't honor the agreements they make with us.

It's all a blue ribbon award show to make politicians of each country feel good about "the good work they did".

Yall need to boost your cynicism.

 

[FLVOL_79]

There should be no term limits for elected positions

And elected positions for life!

 

[bamawriter]

Please expand on this. How would a snap election be called and what would the time frame be between and election being called and held?

I'd like a couple of mechanisms for calling one: 60% vote in both chambers, or an executive order (with limitations as to frequency). Timing should be within 60 days.

That being said, I would prefer the status quo and slap term limits on congress.

 

[hog88]

I'd like a couple of mechanisms for calling one: 60% vote in both chambers, or an executive order (with limitations as to frequency). Timing should be within 60 days.

That being said, I would prefer the status quo and slap term limits on congress.

Thanks. The problem with the status quo and term limits is still no long term planning/follow through. They'll still be governing to win the next election instead of governing for the good of their constituents.

 

[volinbham]

I agree. We make promises as a nation the next guy refuses to honor. I don't know why any nation would enter an agreement with us.

same reason we enter agreements with them - they are seen as beneficial. we offer 1) massive, well-funded consumer and business markets for their goods and services, 2) generous aid, 3) superior military power and the logistical capabilities that the free world is almost entirely dependent upon.

we could have the same POTUS for 25 years and countries wouldn't enter agreements with us unless they saw strategic benefits.

the amount of change between administrations WRT to international agreements is pretty small.

 

[volinbham]

All of our major international foes can play the long game on our leadership. We change POTUS way more often then China, Russia, etc.. This enables them to "wait it out" with administrations. So should we consider changing it?

I think to address the issue you've raised you'd need to have single party rule for an extended time. Even if the POTUS remained stable for 12 or 20 years they wouldn't be able to enact a "long-plan" like China or Russia given they would need the cooperation of Congress and to some extent the courts.

The "advantage" a China has is they can have a 30 year plan. I use quotes on advantage because the ability to long-range plan in a rapidly changing environment is fraught with risk. Take the one-child policy; it's still causing issues for China even though it ended long ago.

Given the ever increasing power of the Federal government I think term limits are more needed than ever.

I'll go the opposite way and say we need term limits on management level positions in Federal agencies.