English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2 answers

yes 2 yrs was until FDR because he was called a wartime president. He had great policy for Euro because he was worldly with worldly financial interests in Euro, and they had relatives there in Germany , Britain etc., easier to talk to a liason than try your luck with a stranger eh?
But it is absolutely wrong to keep anyone in there past 2 terms, an ex-President can be an advisor to the new one. Like in Bush's case, when his term is over and we need him we will ring the bell and that is that? Not that anyone will want him but just in case they drug in Clinton, and Carter, and the old man Bush and Ford right after 9/11 for advisor's. We have only 3 left and with Bush there will be four when he leaves, Enough is Enough, do you know how much they cost this government? We actually should have a president for 1 term only because of the times, everything is sped up today and if they can't get it done in 4 yrs than play musical chairs and that is it, That will make that office less able to be corrupt, less time in there less time to Rot?
Then they won't be able to polarize anymore? And the same with Congress the Senate and the House 1 term. That way we may find the right ones? The politicians did this to control, and they knew it would be hard to get them out? Get it? Back in the day of Washington it was a slow pace and that was necessary to take longer for policy, we had less land to develop but less equipment. Hell we only had a few horses for travel? I took 3 months to cross the oceans sometimes by ship? Speed things up to today's standard.

2007-01-28 19:22:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Voluntarily limited the terms of Presidents to 2. Remained at 2 until FDR.

2007-01-28 19:03:58 · answer #2 · answered by jack w 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers