Ending Term Limits go against Democracy

[ck4829]

Bush either cheated or was elected by idiots.

Intelligence is definitely in the Minority.

Either way, ending term limits can go in the category of Tyranny by the Majority.

This causes a necessary shake up in the government and helps to oil the gears of our Republic.

That is why Term Limits for the President must remain.

[Wetzelbill]

1. yeah

[acmejack]

2. The Democratic House Whip Heny Stoyer is a sponsor!

Still wishing I could figure that out. Must be some DLC thing. I wrote and inquired, still waiting for a reply...

[MercutioATC]

3. I agree they should remain, but they are are LESS "democratic".

Term limits subvert the will of the people by only allowing them to elect the same official a limited number of times. True democracy would allow people to vote for whichever qualified candidate they chose.

I understand the practical matters and I do think term limits are a good idea, but ending term limits does not "go against democracy".

[Selatius]

5. Actually, I agree with you

If people like a leader, then the more democratic route would be to allow the people to continue to have such a leader.

However, I'm of the opinion that the issue is that people rely too much on others to do things that they themselves have always had the power to do themselves in a collective manner.

[jobycom]

4. I'll oppose term limits until I die, thank you very much

As undemocratic a concept as I've ever heard. The government will allow us democracy, but we can only vote for people they approve. Our government is "allowing" us too many of our rights.

Democracy means we can vote ANYBODY we want as president, dog catcher, or whatever else. The only reason W is in office now and the WTC is a memory is because term limits prevented Clinton from running again.