Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 05:07 AM

I'll just post my thoughts on it as I didn't read everyone's comments here...

8 years is more than enough. The switch from one President to another helps to get new blood into the government. Recycling old ideas after a 4 year break doesn't help to move the country forward, IMO. It would be easier for me to buy into a single 6 or eight year term for a President than it would be for me to buy into more than 8 years for an individual. Four years isn't quite enough, IMO, to let the President push his/her agenda and it isn't enough to force cooperation within Congress with the President. Basically, if the Congress is held by the party not holding the Presidency you can spend 4 years fighting with little real incentive to work together. If the Congres (or the President) knew they HAD to work together for the next 8 years I think there's a shot at putting the partisanship aside.

Now, as far as a foreign born President...

I say absolutely. There is no reason in the world for the restriction. There are checks and balances in place to offset the power of the Presidency and the odds of some foreign influence corrupting a foreign born President are not really any greater than an American born leader.

Pan's point about not needing to go outside the US for a leader doesn't resonate with me. It's not about "needing" to go outside but about finding the best person for the job. Where you're born doesn't preclude you from being a great leader and loving America.

My vision of the world is more of unity than separation. I think it's inevitable that we will be more and more an international community rather than strictly a nationalistic state. Opening our system to those outside of the US is but a small step toward the inevitable.

09-17-2004, 05:07 AM	#41 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I'll just post my thoughts on it as I didn't read everyone's comments here... 8 years is more than enough. The switch from one President to another helps to get new blood into the government. Recycling old ideas after a 4 year break doesn't help to move the country forward, IMO. It would be easier for me to buy into a single 6 or eight year term for a President than it would be for me to buy into more than 8 years for an individual. Four years isn't quite enough, IMO, to let the President push his/her agenda and it isn't enough to force cooperation within Congress with the President. Basically, if the Congress is held by the party not holding the Presidency you can spend 4 years fighting with little real incentive to work together. If the Congres (or the President) knew they HAD to work together for the next 8 years I think there's a shot at putting the partisanship aside. Now, as far as a foreign born President... I say absolutely. There is no reason in the world for the restriction. There are checks and balances in place to offset the power of the Presidency and the odds of some foreign influence corrupting a foreign born President are not really any greater than an American born leader. Pan's point about not needing to go outside the US for a leader doesn't resonate with me. It's not about "needing" to go outside but about finding the best person for the job. Where you're born doesn't preclude you from being a great leader and loving America. My vision of the world is more of unity than separation. I think it's inevitable that we will be more and more an international community rather than strictly a nationalistic state. Opening our system to those outside of the US is but a small step toward the inevitable. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.