The United States Presidency and the Two-Term Limit

No, it isn't time for term limits. It's time for revolution. Who else is sick of the same old political games? Who else is sick of the corruption?

Remember, this is a democracy, and the will of the people always triumphs! We need only a strong leader to put our faith in, who speaks the will of the people, who acts the will of the people, who IS the will of the people!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good, we agree about something. I think there are a few reasons for this. People vote for names they know. They are more likely to know the name of someone in office unless he or she is running against Brad Pitt. Contributions - which allow a candidate to spread his or her name - are easier to get for a sitting Congressperson. People in office are much more likely to get endorsements. they are in office and can quid pro quo. They have a home court advantage and a very strong one.

This says many sad things about current democracy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is time to head for the hills or the border when someone claims to BE the will of the people.

Look out!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why? The current government hasn't done a damn thing; the liberals, the conservatives, the republicans, the democrats....they all haven't done a damn thing. It's only a wonder the people put up with it.

A new direction, the will of the people, the voice of the people! Remember, the nation is made up of it's people, not the other way around. We need now only the man who embodies that will. All is possible with enough willpower.

 

Hitler was the will of the German People.

 

Yes.

 

The people not have one will. They are a diverse lot. Anyone claiming to be the will of the people wants to replace their will with his own.

Would he be pro-abortion or anti abortion?
I could make a list of 500 hundred such questions off the top of my head and it would be very hard for a fascist in the making to say what the will of the people would be.

 

The will of the people depends on the area; therefore such a leader could localize governments. He could compromise. He could make progress with efficiency. He could take the will of the people when unified and enact it, and he can take the differeing wills of the people and work out a solution efficiently. Focus on what makes us together, not what makes us apart.

 

Sigh. What would he do in NYC, for example? Dictators tend to do what they want and they find that portion of the population that also wants this to be their allies. They twist statistics so that it seems they are the will of the people. It has not worked well. I see no reason to believe it will work well in the future. I think you see pretty images in your mind.

 

What do you mean, what would he do in NYC? In regards to what?

Dictators, have always been corrupt. But not everyone is corrupt. The system itself is efficient. It has great potential. We need only the perfect person to utilize that potential.

 

Just pointing out how hard it would be to be the will of NYC.

No, not everyone is corrupt. I don't know any perfect people. Power tends to corrupt and it is all I can do to restrain myself from mentioning the saying that fits this discussion so well, but really should have to be said.

 

Not hard at all if you realize that most division is unnecessary; for instance, here in America we have arguments, within one city, from left wingers and right wingers. Why not just move into your own society? Then, it's peace, and the will is uniform.

Power corrupts only in so far as power is your goal. For a man whose goal is truly the welfare and benefit of his nation, power does not corrupt, it is a tool, a tool for him to achieve his goal.

 

Like Israel and Palestine?

Russia and Georgia?

Islam and Everybody else?

Moslem and Infidel?

We are talking Humans here, Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely,

The is no Man/Woman, in this world, who doesn't believe that he know what is better for his neighbor, than his Neighbor know's whats best for for himself.

 

The problem is that voting is not "the direct will of the people" because it is influenced by other factors like: the mechanics of the election process, the ability to manipulate voter pereceptions (i.e. lie and or twist the truth in ways that are hard for people with full time lives to figure out), the power of money and special interests in the election process (which heavily tilt the playing field in favor of incumbents), etc.

There are a variety of ways for incumbents to shore up their re-election chances, and the longer they are in, the more difficult it can be to displace them. The winner of an election isn't always the better statesman, sometimes it's the guy or gal willing to lie to your face and tell you "The future is bright!" rather than the hard truth. Sometimes the winner is the guy or gal who is just better at the "game" of "Elections" than his or her opponent, regardless of how good or bad he or she may be as a policy maker.

Politicians are more likely to be charismatic than smart. While "the People" can vote for intelligence and wisdom over charisma, in theory, those things are very hard to guage in an election (especially where, as in the U.S., politicians have a habit of not writing their own speeches, unless they are Bill Clinton level glib). Besides, the reason we have a term "charisma" is that some people can sway us, notwithstanding the relative merits of their positions. A person who gives you $10 every day you see him, so therefore you look forward to seeing him, need not be charismatic. You have a good reason to look forward to encountering him. The person who borrowers $10 every day and never pays you back, but you like him anyway, that's the guy who needs (and has) charisma.

 

So the left wingers will move to the Bronx and the right Wingers will get Brooklyn? I really think you should consider that what seems easy in your mind is vastly harder and incredibly less likely in reality. I think you are using mental images as test cases. You are certainly not using history.

That is actually quite incorrect. People who are given power, who were not interested in it before, are also corrupted and dozens of sociological studies back this up. Studies where half the group is made prisoners and half guards for example.

And the odds get much much worse when someone starts saying they are the will of the people. This always translates into abuse of power.

 

1) power corrupts.
2) there are millions of Citizens that can do the job, while you may think it's "good" it probably could be a lot better.
3) people don't like change, politians included. What worked for 8 years probably will not work for the next 8
4) people in the USA have already elected a son and were looking to elect a wife - that's how stupid people are naturally. people want someone to tell them what to do, becuase they are too fat and lazy to think for themselves - I think it should be illegal NOT to vote. make people get off their arse and do something.

 

Which is the fault of the inefficient and silly democracy system.

What is your point? We need the perfect leader whom the people love, not because of nonsensical bribes, but because of his amplification of their will.

Why not? It eliminates all the fuss, doesn't it? Stability, and happiness.

They don't have to be.

The will of the people exists, it needs only to be exercised efficiently

1) Does it?
2) Sure, but that's why there is still a limit on the length of each term. If they like a different guy, they can vote for him
3. Ok...
4. I like compulsary voting as well