First Termers... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15055122
This is something I never really see discussed.

Should someone elected to the Senate be required to fulfill their obligations; that is, serve the six year term before running for President and, if not, should a sitting Senator be required to resign his seat upon announcing his candidacy for the Presidency?

If a Senator decides to run for President, that means that Senator will, in all probability, be more focused on winning the Presidency than he will be on working on the issues important to his constituents.

I can see arguments for both sides...
By Finfinder
#15055130
BigSteve wrote:This is something I never really see discussed.

Should someone elected to the Senate be required to fulfill their obligations; that is, serve the six year term before running for President and, if not, should a sitting Senator be required to resign his seat upon announcing his candidacy for the Presidency?

If a Senator decides to run for President, that means that Senator will, in all probability, be more focused on winning the Presidency than he will be on working on the issues important to his constituents.

I can see arguments for both sides...



According to the Democrats if you run for president that gives you immunity from any other candidates discussing your history.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15055133
Finfinder wrote:According to the Democrats if you run for president that gives you immunity from any other candidates discussing your history.


That's not really addressing the point...
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15055142
Finfinder wrote:I adds to it. Your question is rhetorical to me. Term limits is the answer.


Respectfully, that's not the answer at all, simply because it doesn't address whether or not someone who's been a Senator for only two years should be allowed to run for President. I agree with you on term limits, but that's not an issue with regards to my question...
By Finfinder
#15055143
BigSteve wrote:Respectfully, that's not the answer at all, simply because it doesn't address whether or not someone who's been a Senator for only two years should be allowed to run for President. I agree with you on term limits, but that's not an issue with regards to my question...


Should they? Yes. Do they? No. What esle is there to comment on?
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15055144
Finfinder wrote:Should they? Yes. Do they? No. What esle is there to comment on?


That's all I was looking for. Thanks...
By Patrickov
#15055303
In countries like the United States, presidents are practically little more than figureheads to the team or party behind. Ultimately the rate of success of the candidates' campaigns depend on how capable the team is, rather than the individual.

Besides, candidates have to go through 50 primaries.

And most of them lose, of course, because ultimately only one of them wins.

Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to force any candidate to give up their current public office.

I mean, if the incumbent President (or Governors) can still stay in office while campaigning for re-election, why is resignation required for Senators, who obviously need to handle less?
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#15055317
BigSteve wrote:This is something I never really see discussed.

Should someone elected to the Senate be required to fulfill their obligations; that is, serve the six year term before running for President and, if not, should a sitting Senator be required to resign his seat upon announcing his candidacy for the Presidency?

If a Senator decides to run for President, that means that Senator will, in all probability, be more focused on winning the Presidency than he will be on working on the issues important to his constituents.

I can see arguments for both sides...


Honestly, their shouldn't be any limitations on who can run for president besides perhaps being 18 and being a citizen of the country you are running in. Everyone should have an equal chance to run for the top office of president from the lowest scum to the highest monarch. (Or prime minister in some countries)
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15055325
JohnRawls wrote:Honestly, their shouldn't be any limitations on who can run for president besides perhaps being 18 and being a citizen of the country you are running in. Everyone should have an equal chance to run for the top office of president from the lowest scum to the highest monarch. (Or prime minister in some countries)


We might disagree on the age, but we'll part ways on the topic of simple citizenship. Only someone born here should be President.

My question, though, goes to those who are elected to a first term. Shouldn't they have a responsibility to their constituency to do the job they were elected to do?

I don't think too many people vote for a Senator so that the Senator can run for President...
By late
#15055330
BigSteve wrote:
We might disagree on the age, but we'll part ways on the topic of simple citizenship. Only someone born here should be President.

My question, though, goes to those who are elected to a first term. Shouldn't they have a responsibility to their constituency to do the job they were elected to do?

I don't think too many people vote for a Senator so that the Senator can run for President...



A candidate should have experience in government. One of the few things Carter and Trump have in common is they were both terrible at foreign affairs. Most people in Congress would have known better than to make the mistakes they made. They might not be expert, but most in Congress learn a lot.
By Patrickov
#15055333
late wrote:One of the few things Carter and Trump have in common is they were both terrible at foreign affairs.


Disputable for the case of Carter. If My Friend is referring to the Iranian Revolution it is probably not Carter's fault.

Meanwhile, I will exonerate Trump due to his exposure of China's vulnerability. The current World Order has its problems and I am not totally against it if someone actually did something to stir it up.
By late
#15055335
Patrickov wrote:
1) If My Friend is referring to the Iranian Revolution it is probably not Carter's fault.

2) Meanwhile, I will exonerate Trump due to his exposure of China's vulnerability. The current World Order has its problems and I am not totally against it if someone actually did something to stir it up.



1) Not at all.. I was thinking Israel and Afghanistan.

2) Again, not at all. Trump ran the country into a wall where foreign affairs are concerned. It's a long list of screwups.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15055375
late wrote:A candidate should have experience in government. One of the few things Carter and Trump have in common is they were both terrible at foreign affairs. Most people in Congress would have known better than to make the mistakes they made. They might not be expert, but most in Congress learn a lot.


So, do you think a first term Senator should be required to fulfill his first term before running for President?
#15055473
late wrote:1) Not at all.. I was thinking Israel and Afghanistan.

2) Again, not at all. Trump ran the country into a wall where foreign affairs are concerned. It's a long list of screwups.


(1) Elaboration strongly required. Camp David agreement is a screwup? Soviet screwing up in Afghanistan and Carter is blamed?

(2) I disagree. It is China which screwed up big time recently. This Member simply does not see what is going on at the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

Trump is surely not acceptable to whoever having any kind of virtue, but ironically it is this pariah who exposed an even bigger one. I accept that whoever wants to pull him down will never understand how we grateful to the change Trump and his trade war had brought. (Note: We do not give a damn on whether he actually cares. It's just the outcome that he somewhat succeeded where the Democrats failed. Period)
By late
#15055474
Patrickov wrote:
(1) Elaboration strongly required. Camp David agreement is a screwup? Soviet screwing up in Afghanistan and Carter is blamed?

(2) I disagree. It is China which screwed up big time recently. This Member simply does not see what is going on at the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

Trump is surely not acceptable to whoever having any kind of virtue, but ironically it is this pariah who exposed an even bigger one. I accept that whoever wants to pull him down will never understand how we feel.



Yup, Camp David was a big screwup. We suckered Russia into invading Afghanistan. It was Brezninski's plan.

I'd agree, China could have handled things better. But short of WW3, we couldn't have handled things worse.

I don't understand your last sentence.
#15055475
late wrote:Yup, Camp David was a big screwup.


Not enough elaboration, but I start to see what side this Member is on.

late wrote:I'd agree, China could have handled things better. But short of WW3, we couldn't have handled things worse.


Making China handle things as bad as they do now is one of the best way the United States could have handled things.

late wrote:I don't understand your last sentence.


I have elaborated that post a bit after this reply.

Yes, BJ, I think socialism is going to improve th[…]

@SpecialOlympian Yeah. That Trump is a subtle[…]

In a new federal court filing, the Manhattan dist[…]

Trump's Miracle

It is important that we call out Trump supporte[…]