Originally posted by fruits
And to whoever said they'd like to see Bill run again..he can. I'm fairly certain the amendment limits it to two CONSECUTIVE terms....i could be wrong though
You are wrong. No President can be elected more than twice or serve more than two years, if they took over for someone else, and be elected once.
A vice president who assumed the presidency because his or her running mate was assassinated is still allowed to serve two terms after the completion of his or her first term. In other words, LBJ could have run for president and won twice, even though his first term would have been the completion of JFK's term. Same with Gerald Ford, ect.
Originally posted by Ace of KnavesOnly if they served less than two years of the previous President's term. If they served for more than two years, then they can only run for one more term.
A vice president who assumed the presidency because his or her running mate was assassinated is still allowed to serve two terms after the completion of his or her first term.
Originally posted by RobtardI believe the 22nd amendment was made over 150 years after the "threat" of a new Monarchy existed.
I believe the it was in the fear that a President could become like a King; considering the U.S. fought to break away from a Monarchy type of rule, you can see why.
Anyways, I believe that in a real democracy you must have the ability to vote for whoever you want, how often you want...so I think sooner is better to get rid of those silly restraints than later.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe the 22nd amendment was made over 150 years after the "threat" of a new Monarchy existed.Anyways, I believe that in a real democracy you must have the ability to vote for whoever you want, how often you want...so I think sooner is better to get rid of those silly restraints than later.
Ah, but you see, the vote is sometimes stupid because all the elections are are games.
Take for instance Obama - McCain. Both had some good policies, both had shitty policies. They both were caught lying out of their ass due to this wonderful information age. Yet, one of them was elected. One played the game better than the other.
The truth is, the people just want someone in office that makes them feel good. Most are too stupid to know what they really need because they fall for the stupid game. They draw lines in the sand and never truly step over to the other side.
Unfortunately, you can never make a voter educate themselves and be open minded.
Now...if.......MY idea were to be implemented, every voter would be required to take a political proficiency test or they couldn't vote. (The test would be as unbiased as possible...though a pure center test would probably be impossible.) Some get pissed when I say this because they say it isn't democracy. **** those guys.
I think if every voter was required to take a political proficiency test once a year or once every two years in order to keep their voter's card, I wouldn't mind if those same people elected the same dumb ass over and over....then it would simply be self-destruction and they would deserve everything they got coming to them and ignorance would not be an excuse in the history "books".
Originally posted by dadudemon
The truth is, the people just want someone in office that makes them feel good. Most are too stupid to know what they really need because they fall for the stupid game. They draw lines in the sand and never truly step over to the other side.
political psychology is a very new field, yet it has been fairly consistent on the finding that, as opposed to being motivated by facts or ideology, people vote for the candidate they like the most, then (and this is IMHO) adopt whatever political memes they use to prevent cognitive dissonance. What determines what causes someone to like a particular politician is different for individuals and likely varies along the lines people self identify with (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc).
Originally posted by inimalist
political psychology is a very new field, yet it has been fairly consistent on the finding that, as opposed to being motivated by facts or ideology, people vote for the candidate they like the most, then (and this is IMHO) adopt whatever political memes they use to prevent cognitive dissonance. What determines what causes someone to like a particular politician is different for individuals and likely varies along the lines people self identify with (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc).
I heart you. 😮
Originally posted by dadudemonThat's interesting, doesn't relate to me saying that it is silly to limit the terms, though.
Ah, but you see, the vote is sometimes stupid because all the elections are are games.Take for instance Obama - McCain. Both had some good policies, both had shitty policies. They both were caught lying out of their ass due to this wonderful information age. Yet, one of them was elected. One played the game better than the other.
The truth is, the people just want someone in office that makes them feel good. Most are too stupid to know what they really need because they fall for the stupid game. They draw lines in the sand and never truly step over to the other side.
Unfortunately, you can never make a voter educate themselves and be open minded.
Now...if.......MY idea were to be implemented, every voter would be required to take a political proficiency test or they couldn't vote. (The test would be as unbiased as possible...though a pure center test would probably be impossible.) Some get pissed when I say this because they say it isn't democracy. **** those guys.
I think if every voter was required to take a political proficiency test once a year or once every two years in order to keep their voter's card, I wouldn't mind if those same people elected the same dumb ass over and over....then it would simply be self-destruction and they would deserve everything they got coming to them and ignorance would not be an excuse in the history "books".
I wouldn't mind if the amendment was repealed. Before it was imposed, the majority of Presidents either lost their next election after the first term or stepped down from running for office a third time because George Washington set the example there. The last time we had a President in office for more than two terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who did a great job in leading the U.S. out of economic crisis and through World War II. If he had done anything less, he would not have stayed on for four terms.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your idea of a test to determine whether people should get to vote is ridiculous.
Originally posted by dadudemon
**** those guys.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why should someone get to have political authority over a person who didn't get to elect them?
The same reason people take care of retards.
Was it really that hard to make the connection?
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So...you realise you'll be writing off pretty much most of the black population with your little test?
You're obviously being racist. That really has no place in this discussion and isn't backed by any facts on your part. I actually find your "point" to be offensive.
Some of the most intellectually stimulating political conversations and debates I've had have been with "the black population."
I'll be "disabling" a large portion of the political "game" which is the entire point. durr
A point that you are unable to grasp.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You'll probably be writing off yourself...
Nonsense. Don't trouble your mind with concepts that are beyond your grasp. You're better off leaving the thinking to those who can do it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're obviously being racist. That really has no place in this discussion and isn't backed by any facts on your part. I actually find your "point" to be offensive.Some of the most intellectually stimulating political conversations and debates I've had have been with "the black population."
I'll be "disabling" a large portion of the political "game" which is the entire point. durr
A point that you are unable to grasp.
Nonsense. Don't trouble your mind with concepts that are beyond your grasp. You're better off leaving the thinking to those who can do it.
TBH I was trying to connect your meritocratic fallacy of an idea with the tests blacks had to go through to vote in the Southern States, thus to imply your idea was racist and garner support for my cause amongst the less able-minded.
Which is what would happen if you ever floated your idea on the public stage.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
TBH I was trying to connect your meritocratic fallacy of an idea with the tests blacks had to go through to vote in the Southern States, thus to imply your idea was racist and garner support for my cause amongst the less able-minded.Which is what would happen if you ever floated your idea on the public stage.
🤨
And you still don't see how you're being racist?
You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.
Originally posted by dadudemon
🤨And you still don't see how you're being racist?
You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.
No, I am being racist to an extent... I am purposefully trying to engage the emotions of a people to defeat your shitty idea.
However, I am redeemed by ploughing on seriously in debate while you continue to act like a clown.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, I am being racist to an extent... I am purposefully trying to engage the emotions of a people to defeat your shitty idea.
No, you're just being plain racist and you fail to see why it's racist because you simply cannot grasp the concept behind it.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However, I am redeemed by ploughing on seriously in debate while you continue to act like a clown.
Ahh.
Yes, you are sooo very much intellectually superior. Just like a KKK Dragon. 😐