Honduras Military Kicks Out President

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Washington only served a second term because he was pressured to, he didn't stand for a third because he hadn't wanted to stand for the second in the first place.
As such that shows no precedent in relation to term limits

---

:laugh4:

Of course it shows a precedent; it set the precedent for over a hundred years in America.

As for being pressured into running for a second term, what's to say he didn't give in to pressure because he thought a second term for him would be best for the Republic?

Heck, Washington, in the very quote you used, said as much:

Quote:

---

The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
CR

Quote:

---

Of course it shows a precedent

---

It shows a precedent of a tired bloke wanting to give up the job, it sets no precedent on the imposition of term limits.
For it to make the precedent you imply it would require that each following Presidents chose not to stand because they wanted to get back to their plantation.

Quote:

---

As for being pressured into running for a second term, what's to say he didn't give in to pressure because he thought a second term for him would be best for the Republic?

Heck, Washington, in the very quote you used, said as much:

---

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

It's basically so that around the time of George Washington Americans still cared about what was good for the republic but around 1951 all Americans turned into crooks who cannot be trusted and don't care a flying monkey about what's best for the republic so it was decided to limit one crook to just one reelection before the people have to decide for another crook who does not care about the republic and should only be reelected once. Which is why the world should be rolled back to around 1800 when everybody was still an honest citizen, heroic music played in the atmosphere all the time and everybody had only the best of everybody else in mind. :rolleyes:

In other words, what HoreTore said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

His methods of getting elected are very similar to those of Putin. Yes, Putin left the presidential office, but he will be back. As for importance of term limits, they exist to make sure that nobody tries to run a republic as if it were a kingdom. This is very important for any presidential republic. No so for countries like Germany, where the Chancellor is not the head of state. As for Clinton, he is gone. Done. Even if Hillary won, it would have been her who would run the show, not Bill.

P.S. Uribe is the Columbian prez. Hates Chavez but wants to be just like Chavez. Same bad apples.

---

I understand your point regarding term limits, but you cannot legislate the concept of a Cinncinatus. You either have a mindset that centers on acquiring executive power to accomplish a simple concrete goal and then set aside power when you're done, or you do not. Term limits just beget loophole exploitation.

e.g. I can't run for the Senate again, so I'll run for the HOR, due two terms there, then go back into the Senate.

Politicians seek power, and for many of them that power is an end goal in itself. Moreover, once you are exercising power, it is easy to come to view your exercise of that power as VITAL to the furtherance of the political program you hold dear.

Creating political leaders who seek to serve for a stretch as leader and then leave office and leave "the game" can only be accomplished on a cultural level.

So, ultimately, I disagree with term limits. If the voters, in a free and fair election, truly wish to have such leadership repeat, that IS their prerogative. I think you end up with a BOHICA situation, but that's their choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Term limits just beget loophole exploitation.

---

In case of Russia, absolutely. In case of us, I do not see how. Once the two terms are up, you permanently lose the eligibility to run for office. That's pretty effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

In case of Russia, absolutely. In case of us, I do not see how. Once the two terms are up, you permanently lose the eligibility to run for office. That's pretty effective.

---

Governor Long of Louisiana being "succeeded" by his wife. A few other such incidents. For the most part, we DON'T have term limits. Federally, only the POTUS is limited (2.49 terms or less; elected no more than twice). There, that ammendment was made to prevent another chap running against the precedent GW put in place at the outset -- in other words it did little but codify an extant cultural norm.

Even so, I think it should be repealed. The people should vote for whomever they wish to see serve (save for the constitutional minimum restrictions imposed).

Oh well it seems as if the coup is fracturing , politicians are jumping ship and much of the section of the populace who originally supported the coup are now getting sick of the errrrr....dictatorial policies imposed by the new "government" and their flagrant and very serious violations of the constitution which are increasing in number on a regular basis.