Considering how corrupt Presidents in the US have been(Clinton,Bush,Nixon,Etc.) 2 years would keep them honest
2007-12-12 14:29:47 · 12 answers · asked by David K 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
How about NO MORE PRESIDENTS?
2007-12-12 14:36:32 · update #1
Clinton was corrupt just like Bush
NAFTA was pushed by Clinton which did nothing for Mexico. Just sent more Mexicans to the US and lower wages even further in the US as jobs were sent to Mexico. So yah Clinton was corrupt also.
2007-12-12 14:40:17 · update #2
No.
2007-12-12 14:33:51 · answer #1 · answered by Lars 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Respectfully, David, a shorter term would not keep a dishonest person honest.
Your premise that all Presidents enter office dishonest is faulty.
These people are no less honest than any other person that seeks the control and power of a political office.
Politics has become an institution of disrespect because of the harsh intolerance of partisan politics.
When every action or decision is discussed by mass media and opposing political pundits it tends to force all politicians to hide behind a wall of words spun to keep them from looking incompetent. The eventual outcome of this verbal assault and battery makes all politicians appear dishonest.
What is honesty? Where do you get the information you use to judge Presidents to be dishonest or corrupt? Which mass media organizations do you believe to be impartial? dishonest? stilted? partisan?
Term limits should be applied to Congress, no lifetime Senators or Reprentative should be allowed to exist.
2007-12-12 14:50:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm undecided if there's a cut back on how many cases a presidential candidate can run for workplace, yet i'm tremendously useful that a president can in user-friendly terms be elected for 2 words. The twenty 2d modification to the form outlines this. The modification replaced into exceeded in 1947. FDR replaced into our in user-friendly terms president to certainly be elected to greater effective than 2 words as president.
2016-10-02 08:51:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Presidents need a chance to establish themselves and work with the government and two years isn't enough time. There has even been a push to increase the term to six years and not allow a second term. This goes the other way and establishes a dynasty without citizen intervention (reelection isn't guaranteed).
Four years is just right with a max of two terms.
2007-12-12 14:39:05 · answer #4 · answered by Gordon P 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think 2 years would be too short for a president to do anything... And actually, since no one likes Bush anymore, people still voted him into a second term... So I don't think it matters, corrupt-wise.
2007-12-12 14:33:08 · answer #5 · answered by Tue T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we see this problem with the U.S. house of reps. A two year term would lead to a president unable to do a good job-they spend most of the first year learning to be president and most of the second year running for re-election. the president needs time to learn the job and do it without being worried about campaigning.
2007-12-12 14:37:34 · answer #6 · answered by ianbell 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I was very surprised to see Clinton's name together with Nixon's and Bush...... Check the USA Constitution for your answer.
2007-12-12 14:33:23 · answer #7 · answered by LaBella 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
but is 2 years long enough for a non corrupt person to make good lasting changes.... i don't think so.
2007-12-12 14:33:43 · answer #8 · answered by petesss 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we'd have political debates year round non-stop, I'd go insane.
2007-12-12 14:32:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No but there should be term limits in congress.
2007-12-12 16:20:53 · answer #10 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and go thru this campaign b/s, every four years is enough
2007-12-12 14:34:58 · answer #11 · answered by xyz 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋