2 year term. Good or bad.
 

As I understand it, unless in time of war no U.S. president can hold office for more than two consecutive terms. This might have made sense in the days when large sections of the public were denied the vote but now?

If you have a spectacularly good president, someone universally respected, why should they be forced from office after 8 years?

We've already had one President for Life in spite of G. Washingtons' disapproval.

Be careful, the GOP will reanimate Reagan :)

Btw, no exceptions, war, whatever. It never ceases to amaze me that we held elections at all during the civil war.

Pete

Do some research on why the two limit term came about. Yeah the Republicans were behind it....

Washington was a Republican?

One of the reasons I strongly dislike FDR was his cavalier attitude towards it.

Pete

I know you meant 2 term limit in your thread title, but Freud got to you. Now we know you really favor reducing each term to only 2 years, and I kinda agree. Between moving in and moving out, they'd barely have time to feck up anything.

Washington wasn't behind it.

FDR was certainly one of the two greatest presidents we ever had and Washington isn't the other one.

John

That could be argued. FWIW, David McCullough considers him the best as he had the opportunity to essentially become our own King George and chose not to. Instead, he restrained any ambition he may have had in service of the nation and set the precedent for all future Presidents.

So, he's one of out greatest because of what he didn't do. ;)

John

Some would say that is the definition of a great politician. :)

He would have to run as a Dem...:D