2007-11-14 13:14:51 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No.
It should be replaced with one 1 year term.
That way, we can have a new President with fresh ideas every year. The ex-President's will get a lifetime annuity, secret service protection, and their own library. More people can take a turn being President and implement their own agendas.
With more people taking turns being President, we can accelerate our ideal of having greater diverse representation that would include women and minorities.
Now this is a great idea. Let's push it.
2007-11-14 13:25:48 · answer #1 · answered by (:P) 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually if you take a look you would realize that a president can serve 10 years in office but that is in rare cases where a vice president becomes president and then serves 2 full 4 year terms.
2007-11-14 17:24:19 · answer #2 · answered by dancelovetigger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Part of politics is the fact that they have to accomplish something or answer to the voters. If the president doesnt have to worry about re-election they could make far more radical choices and not worry about the consequences.
2007-11-14 13:21:23 · answer #3 · answered by asylum922 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think 10 years is too long. Look at the damage Bush has done in just 6.
2007-11-14 13:24:24 · answer #4 · answered by psatm 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, eight years is plenty. More likely, if Hillary wins, can we have a six week term limit?
2007-11-14 13:21:53 · answer #5 · answered by Shoot-em-All 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Nope.
2007-11-14 13:18:54 · answer #6 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NOWAY...what good could possibly come out of that?
2007-11-14 13:26:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It sounds good but then Jimmy Carter was elected.
So no!
2007-11-14 13:18:25 · answer #8 · answered by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No way.
2007-11-14 13:18:17 · answer #9 · answered by redphish 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-11-14 13:20:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋