Originally posted by Ushgarak
Talk like this is just irrational paranoid nonsense. that bears no relationship to reality.
Actually, it's just the opposite.
If you are unable to see that a different set of historical events are possible, then you cannot appreciate or better prepare/understand the present and future. Thinking outside of our virtually media and political fabricated world every now and then can provide excellent insight.
How would you or anyone have evidence to prove otherwise? (I'm referring to the example I gave.) Would you even be aware that a cover-up at that magnitude was perpetrated? How would you even get to the juncture of realization? Meaning, would you even realize that you should question the events that "occurred?"
It has nothing to do with wearing an aluminum foil hat while living in an underground bunker. I was pointing out that it is very possible that, even in this modern world, something like I mentioned is well within the powers of a country such as the United States. Would you put actions like that beyond say, pre-perastroika USSR? Have you ever seen government propaganda perpetrated to to the extent of almost universal indoctrination? Do you think that the permitted media is greatly biased in say, Iran?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say, in denying the electorate choice for no viable reason, it is bad law.
And here lies the problem with your logic. If you can't understand why it is limited, then you will always end up with illogical conclusions.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your view of, by default, assuming the electorate will get it wrong, actually shows a basis of anti-democratic thought.
On the same token, too much "President' degrades democracy. I'm not sure if you realize what point I am trying to make.
It diminishes the point of democracy. Electing a president has more to do with PR and media games than it does actual policy. If it were based on policy and real positive change, we would have elected Ron Paul.
Maybe you don't realize that even without taking into an account propaganda machines, other things happen during a presidency that strengthens (and sometimes, weakens) the decisive power a president has. If unlimited terms were allowed under a presidency that could play the American political game much better than average, we would see the office of President more resemble a dictatorship as successive terms are inhabited. (Not saying that that could be a bad thing, but it could be a bad and could set a precedence for future administrations. It is one of the things our founding fathers wanted to avoid.)
However, and this is a big however, I don't see it being a major problem with no longer limiting terms. 😐
I was just mentioning reasons why limiting terms could still be good policy. Altogether, I think it's fine limiting it to two terms. There is too much of a "game" involved with politics.
Though, like Jaden pointed out, I couldn't see anyone making it past 3 terms in this modern world. I could see Clinton making it to three terms IF you eliminated his scandals and purgery...but I don't think he would have survived a forth election after 9/11 and the succeeding economic down-turn. That is one of the reasons why I don't see a big problem with eliminating the term cap. However, I will not be so naive as to think there is nothing good about a term cap. (Lest you mistake that as an insult to you, it's not. I highly doubt you think that there is nothing good about a term cap...I was commenting in general.)