Why USA does allow bad president to stay for 8 years?

Answer 1

Because once you elect a bully who beats up your enemies and scares away your friends, you have to keep electing that bully out of fear that no one will be there to watch your butt for you when that bully is gone.

Answer 2

Unlike some societies, when a person is elected president (leader of the country) in the US he holds the office for four years whether he is any good at it or not. He can only be removed by death or impeachment. Impeachment is basically a trial by the senate. To be impeached, being a bad president is insufficient cause. There has to be violaton of the law.

As for granting him the second term of four years, it appears that more americans thought that he was doing a better job than would have been performed by his competition than thought otherwise.

Whether this was a wise choice or not can be argued. It is nevertheless the choice that was made. And that is just the way it is.

It is pretty clear from the level of dissent in the country at the present time that a large proportion of the american people have serious misgivings with the direction that the country has taken under the present president.

I am not so sure that the next president will be much of an improvement.

Answer 3

Prime Ministers are voted out of the office once in a while only in rare cases and when the governing coalition don't actually hold majority in the parliament. Look for Nordic democracies such as Sweden or Finland for example which have very stable multi-party governments.

I think the president has too much power due to his Veto which can quite easily stop any iniatives by Congress: one man can decide against the will of both House of Representatives and Senate. 2/3 Super-majority is almost impossible to achieve in bitter partisan environment and as the party the president is from benefits from having the support of White House, the people are effectively doomed to tolerate unpopular president for four years.

Answer 4

Some of the responders to this question raise some very good points. However, in addition to the Constitutional guidelines (4 year term, service limited to 2 terms, removable only by impeachment for certain significant offenses) there is an underlying desire for stability. The framers of the Constitution obviously felt that the nation would be served best by a person who was guaranteed a certain term of office. Otherwise, we would have "prime ministers" who could be voted out periodically when the people lost their confidence in them.

Maybe we need to have a prime minister instead of a president. (But to see a prime minister form of government gone awry, see Italy. It's not a perfect form of government either.) Or, perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment to allow for the removal of a president before his or her term is up by initiative petition and a majority vote of the people rather than just by impeachment by Congress. (A number of states already have such a process for their governors and other elected officials.) If we had either of these processes in place, this president would be gone by now.

The Consitution saddled us to suffer this fool until the end of his term because it was felt that it was better to have a fool we knew than a series of fools that we don't have the time to get to know.

Maybe it's time to change the Constitution.

Answer 5

Bad Presidents = Administering Bad Elections

Answer 6

Our constitution sets the term a president stays in office. If if he guilty of gross misconduct or treason he may go through the impeachment process which can remove him from office. Clinton went through the process and was impeached because he lied to the congress. Clinton was not removed from office however. I don't think that could have happened because what he lied about was personal sexual conduct and that has no bearing on how the nation is administered.

I think the reason Bush is still around is because it takes too much time and effort to impeach. We will elect a new president just over a year from now and "W" will not be able to ravage the country any more after the new president is innagurated the following January. Bush certainly deserves impeachment much more than Clinton did. He daily lies to congress and all of us to promote his own agenda. He looks for what will further his and his cronies cause and could care less about what is right for the "collective" we call America. Bush lies have cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Clinton lied about fessing up to getting blown by Lewinski. To me there is a big difference there. I am not saying I thought what he did was ok, it wasn't. But I do feel "W" should be impeached because his conduct is sedicious. If you are going to impeach one president for lying about sex, then isn't much more important to impeach one who is killing our children for oil and personal gain?

Don't listen to the Bush cronies. The surveys tell you the truth. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe he is a terrible president.

Answer 7

It's not a question of 'allowing'. There are two points here. Firstly the President has been elected by a majority of voters who took part in the presidential election. One assumes therefore that he is the people's choice. Secondly, unless he commits an impeachable offence, he stays in office for the full term of four years with a maximum of two terms. He will not be in power after this current term ends. To get him out before that someone would have to prove that he committed a felony and, unfortunately, entering into and illegal conflict does not count as he had the full backing of the Senate and House of Representatives not to mention having that idiot Tony Blair as a puppy dog ally.

Answer 8

because of the electoral system. bush did not win the popular vote in his first election he just won the electoral college. the people actually elected al gore. once elected most incumbents then are re-elected that is why term limit should be for every elected office.

bringing up clinton being impeached is giving inaccurate information. house of representatives voted to charge him the senate disagreed and did not vote for impeachment.

Answer 9

i in my view theory this became a extreme question. All it takes to be a competent Republican is to have confidence however they want as long simply by fact the government retains their palms off OUR money. individuals are greater suited off coping with their own money than the government is. in basic terms seem at what Bush and our congressional "politicians" have been given us into. undesirable Republicans are the two rednecks or non secular freaks.

Answer 10

George W. won the presidential election twice in a row. So you could say the majority of the people in the U.S. wanted him in office. To put it simply, he won the popular vote for two terms which adds to 8 years.
He won't be back for another 4 years. That's a guarantee.

Answer 11

I'm not American, but I feel that he is quite a good president actually. Maybe that is why he stayed for 8 years. =) Hope there are more years to come. Hahas