Obama 2016

[G8trGr8t]

New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano reintroduced a bill in Congress on Friday to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which places term limits on the U.S. presidency.

The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office.

H.J. Res. 15 proposes “an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.”



http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/new-york-congressman-introduces-bill-to-abolish-presidential-term-limits/

The mere fact that it even got referred to committee for further discussion is disturbing

[Gatorrick22]

Is this the secret he had for Putin?

[BobK89]

Good luck getting that through Congress on a super majority and then passed by 75% of the states.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[96Gatorcise]

that passing has as much chance as a bill proposing term limits for Congress

[theorangebluewinagain]

"The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first non US citizen president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office."
Have to wonder how far Jose has been up BO butt, or vice a versa.
Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=257545#ixzz2LgNEAyC6

[reformedgator]

Isn't this Jimmy Carter"s 3rd term?

[VAg8r1]

Serrano introduced his bill abolishing presidential term limits in every Congress beginning in 1997, including the period of George W, Bush's presidency. Whether one agrees with Serrano or not, the legislation is a matter of principle as far as Congressman Serrano is concerned, not somewhat sinister plot to extend the Obama presidency.
First bills of new Congress are often odd -- and old
Paul Singer, USA TODAY12:12a.m. EST January 11, 2013
The opening days of a new Congress become the perfect time to announce "message" legislation, even if lawmakers know the measures have no traction.

Lawmakers introduced about 200 bills in the first two days of the new Congress

WASHINGTON -- In a kind of legislative throat-clearing, lawmakers kicked off the new Congress last week by introducing dozens of oddball bills that have no chance of becoming law -- they are merely intended to get our attention.

Rep. José Serrano, D-N.Y., proposed eliminating presidential term limits; Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., offered a bill to return the United States to a currency tied to gold; and a handful of bills were proposed to cut congressional pay, pensions and other benefits.

Many of the 200 or so bills introduced in the first two days of the 113th Congress are simply new versions of old legislation that went nowhere in previous sessions of Congress. Most of these bills generally appear intended to make a political point, not make new law.

For instance, Serrano's term-limits bill -- which he has introduced in every Congress since 1997 -- would have to be approved by the Congress, then ratified by three-fourths of the states to repeal the constitutional amendment that limited presidents to two terms. USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/08/first-bills-congress-broun-serrano-bachmann/1817143/)

[Emmitto]

Meh. This is about the 10th time it's been introduced by the same dude. And it'll be the 10th time it does nothing more than fuel paranoia.

[gregthegator]

Trolling for bites 'eh:yes:

the facts..."Repealing the 22nd Amendment has been a longtime goal of Serrano’s, regardless of the sitting president’s political party. Serrano proposed similar resolutions in 1997 and 1999, during Bill Clinton’s administration, and in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, during George W. Bush’s administration. He proposed the repeal again in 2009 after Obama took office.""

Has absoluting NOTHING to DO w/current JAIC....:laugh:

[VAg8r1]

"The bill, which has been referred to committee, would allow Barack President Obama to become the first non US citizen president since Franklin Roosevelt to seek a third term in office."
Have to wonder how far Jose has been up BO butt, or vice a versa.
Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=257545#ixzz2LgNEAyC6
Roosevelt was a non-US citizen? How many other non-US citizens have served?

[theorangebluewinagain]

Roosevelt was a non-US citizen? How many other non-US citizens have served?

I believe Roosevelt was a US citizen, they were mistaken on that.

[HudsonGator]

Reagan probably would have gotten a 3rd term had this been done 30 years ago.

[secgator]

IF this were to ever be viable, the sane people in this country wouldn't stand for it--given who is in office now with his current agena--and the retribution could be, uh--shall we say "ugly". Another term of this JAIC would NOT be tolerated. Enough is enough of this pile in office. Nothing will come of it however as has been noted, this goofball has tried to get it repealed on a regular basis and failed every time.

What WOULD be impressive to me is if a congressman had the kahunas to introduce legislation to mandate term limits for both Legislative AND Judicial branches. Now that would be the best move possible--especially for Senators and Congressmen.

[g8trjax]

Isn't this Jimmy Carter"s 3rd term?

Bill could potentially get four.

[CalSFGator]

Another post of indignation with no research or thought behind it.

[DaveFla]

Another post of indignation with no research or thought behind it.

How so? Did this guy not propose a bill to abolish the 22nd amendment?

Or, does the mere fact that a bill is heinous gets to committee not disturb you?

[PSGator66]

That guy is actually getting paid? Obama does such a great job he would be a shoe in.

[wgbgator]

Who cares? People are fueled with paranoia when the president doesnt have to run for reelection and is unaccountable to voters after winning a second term. Now they are fueled by paranoia over the almost nil possibility that the president would always be accountable to voters by abolishing term limits. STOP BEING SO PARANOID. :)

[108]

How so? Did this guy not propose a bill to abolish the 22nd amendment?

Or, does the mere fact that a bill is heinous gets to committee not disturb you?

Because the OP's intent of the post implied this was all about Obama since it gave no context

[wgbgator]

How so? Did this guy not propose a bill to abolish the 22nd amendment?

Or, does the mere fact that a bill is heinous gets to committee not disturb you?

What's so heinous about returning to the founder's vision? :joecool:

[MichiGator2002]

What's so heinous about returning to the founder's vision? :joecool:

I sure hope you would only support this idea in jest to tweak conservatives. Reagan could have stayed President until he died, and that would have been a better President, and frankly better human being, to try a stunt like this with. Did anyone try, though? Whole thing has a grotesque, "Star Wars Episode III" vibe to it.

[TheGator]

Reagan probably would have gotten a 3rd term had this been done 30 years ago.

I think Clinton would have easily beaten Bush in 2000. For all we know if this bill passed during Clinton's term, he might still be President.

[wgbgator]

I sure hope you would only support this idea in jest to tweak conservatives. Reagan could have stayed President until he died, and that would have been a better President, and frankly better human being, to try a stunt like this with. Did anyone try, though? Whole thing has a grotesque, "Star Wars Episode III" vibe to it.

Of course it was in jest. But I do feel like if you support the repeal of 17th Amendment, then you should support the repeal of the 22nd as well. A little consistency would be nice, whether that's Mr. Serrano or conservatives who want the 17th repealed.

[MichiGator2002]

Of course it was in jest. But I do feel like if you support the repeal of 17th Amendment, then you should support the repeal of the 22nd as well. A little consistency would be nice, whether that's Mr. Serrano or conservatives who want the 17th repealed.

Why? Every amendment stands on its own merits as an argument for repeal. The 17th Amendment, it is like this -- if you are an optimist and idealist, the heightened scrutiny and 24 hour media make it almost impossible to pull off the kind of graft it was meant to address. Or if you are a cynic, you might point put the Senate is as corrupt as its ever been even with it. In either event, it has run its course for its stated purpose and has also had bad collateral effects.

I don't think the 22nd Amendment has even been a bad idea, and certainly hasn't been shown detrimental to the good of the nation.

It is fallacious to say that if you think one amendment should be repealed, then you should think any amendment should be repealed.

[wgbgator]

Why? Every amendment stands on its own merits as an argument for repeal. The 17th Amendment, it is like this -- if you are an optimist and idealist, the heightened scrutiny and 24 hour media make it almost impossible to pull off the kind of graft it was meant to address. Or if you are a cynic, you might point put the Senate is as corrupt as its ever been even with it. In either event, it has run its course for its stated purpose and has also had bad collateral effects.

I don't think the 22nd Amendment has even been a bad idea, and certainly hasn't been shown detrimental to the good of the nation.

It is fallacious to say that if you think one amendment should be repealed, then you should think any amendment should be repealed.

Well, they are more related than juxtaposing it with more random amendments as far as the original intent of the Founders WRT elections & term considerations. But mostly it was just a personal opinion about something that is mostly irrelevant, because the people that tend to adopt repeal of the 22nd or 17th (or almost any ammendment) are deadender cranks for the most part.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, they are more related than juxtaposing it with more random amendments as far as the original intent of the Founders WRT elections & term considerations. But mostly it was just a personal opinion about something that is mostly irrelevant, because the people that tend to adopt repeal of the 22nd or 17th (or almost any ammendment) are deadender cranks for the most part.

I would repeal the 17th Amendment for mootness and the 16th Amendment for the gross, demonstrated malfeasance of the federal government in handling that much power.

In an essay as a kid, I surprised my teacher by arguing that the most important amendment is the 21st Amendment. I won't explain why because... really it should be intuitive. The Amendment process is the real instrumentality of the "living Constitution", because anything that so obviously needs change can get the necessary support.

[mdgator05]

How so? Did this guy not propose a bill to abolish the 22nd amendment?

Or, does the mere fact that a bill is heinous gets to committee not disturb you?

You realize sending a bill to committee is actually the least active thing the leadership can do when a bill is introduced, right? So why would it disturb me that the leadership took the slowest route with the least likelihood of any actual consideration that is available to them?

[wgbgator]

I would repeal the 17th Amendment for mootness and the 16th Amendment for the gross, demonstrated malfeasance of the federal government in handling that much power.

In an essay as a kid, I surprised my teacher by arguing that the most important amendment is the 21st Amendment. I won't explain why because... really it should be intuitive. The Amendment process is the real instrumentality of the "living Constitution", because anything that so obviously needs change can get the necessary support.

Seems like your thesis WRT the 21st is challenged by your views on 16 & 17. If said mootness or malfeasance was as obvious as you say, then garnering the necessary support should be a cinch.

[MichiGator2002]

Seems like your thesis WRT the 21st is challenged by your views on 16 & 17. If said mootness or malfeasance was as obvious as you say, then garnering the necessary support should be a cinch.

Well, it isn't like there are much in the way of organized formal campaigns going on, i.e. as formal agenda of a major political party with its machinery deployed, so we don't really know how much support. I guarantee it would be much more likely to get both through the state ratification than it would be to get through Congress.

[wgbgator]

Well, it isn't like there are much in the way of organized formal campaigns going on, i.e. as formal agenda of a major political party with its machinery deployed, so we don't really know how much support. I guarantee it would be much more likely to get both through the state ratification than it would be to get through Congress.

I dont know. I think the amendment process repeal/or ratification is more or less obsolete now, hopelessly byzantine for the most part, as the country's and state's interests have niche-ified. It shouldnt be easy to change the Constitution of course (see state referendums for that at work), but I'm not sure it should be exceedingly difficult either. When I think of the sort of bullying and graft needed to pass even the 13th (not to mention that the states most likely to be against it had no say because they were in rebellion/not readmitted), I wonder about the wisdom of the process.

[MichiGator2002]

It is Byzantine on purpose -- although clearly not so Byzantine that it hasn't happened 27 times, or even if you don't count the Bill of Rights, we average one a generation of so -- because the supreme law of the land should require a supermajority par excellence to change.

What do you think would be a greater reflection of the popular will -- a single payer bill out of Congress, or a constitutional amendment that formally expresses to Congress legislative authority to create one? Do you think abortion would be nearly as divisive if America's pro-life movement had so little influence as to prevent ratification of a constitutional amendment protecting it textually? The only reason to get to "penumbras" is because they are a great place to stash constitutional authority for positions that could never gain enough support for constitutional ratification.

[wgbgator]

It is Byzantine on purpose -- although clearly not so Byzantine that it hasn't happened 27 times, or even if you don't count the Bill of Rights, we average one a generation of so -- because the supreme law of the land should require a supermajority par excellence to change.

What do you think would be a greater reflection of the popular will -- a single payer bill out of Congress, or a constitutional amendment that formally expresses to Congress legislative authority to create one? Do you think abortion would be nearly as divisive if America's pro-life movement had so little influence as to prevent ratification of a constitutional amendment protecting it textually? The only reason to get to "penumbras" is because they are a great place to stash constitutional authority for positions that could never gain enough support for constitutional ratification.

Well, I think the Constitution as conceived was a document that reflects an excessive fear of the idea of "popular will" and the democratic impulses of the people, especially with the added power of judicial review. Fortunately, that has been softened by subsequent amendments (many passed in times of crisis or social upheaval, often to circumvent a hostile SCOTUS), but the fundamental anti-democratic impulse of the document still remains inbedded within. The idea that any "big" law like national healthcare or an abortion ban should be done via Constitutional supermajority, is itself, anti-democratic. If we had a judiciary that didnt have the power to strike down laws via judicial review, then the Amendment process end-around the courts would be unnessessary. So, if we had simply enacted an income tax via legislative action (which we did, but it was thrown out by a hostile supreme court, making the 16th necessary), the fair-taxers would have a much easier path to replacing the income tax. To me, this seems more in keeping with the "experiment" in self-rule, in which we arent bound by the past so much. So, while a Constitutional amendment on healthcare may reflect some kind of popular will in the time it is enacted, will it 50 years later, or 100 years? So, I think you can make an argument that a law passed or repealed by Congress is a greater reflection of popular will. Amendments seem suited for big questions to be answered more or less conclusively, for all time. That is what I would call a consensus, not popular will.

[HudsonGator]

I would repeal the 17th Amendment for mootness and the 16th Amendment for the gross, demonstrated malfeasance of the federal government in handling that much power.

In an essay as a kid, I surprised my teacher by arguing that the most important amendment is the 21st Amendment. I won't explain why because... really it should be intuitive. The Amendment process is the real instrumentality of the "living Constitution", because anything that so obviously needs change can get the necessary support.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

I was wondering how long it was going to take before someone brought up the Holy Grail of the Right-Wing, the repeal of the of 16th Amendment.

[MichiGator2002]

And I was wondering how long it would take for there to be a bombastically self-congratulatory but nonetheless completely off-topic post on the thread. Everybody is happy now.

[HudsonGator]

Indeed

[VAg8r1]

I believe Roosevelt was a US citizen, they were mistaken on that.
So is Obama for that matter.

[mdgator05]

While I agree with the Amendment, I would point out that this is one of the most severe limitations of individual rights found within the Constitution. It says both that a person does not have the right to seek the job of the President if they have been so for two complete terms and takes away the right of individuals to attempt to reelect the person they might feel is best for the job.

In addition, the amendment also monotonically lowers the quality of people in that job, as every restriction on an employer on who they may hire does. In this case, it is a restriction on who the employer, the US people, hire to perform the job of the Head of the Executive.

While I agree with the idea that it helps to reign in a variety of potentially socially negative outcomes, such as the use of the office to consolidate long-term power in multiple elections, it is interesting how much of a loss of freedom this amendment entails. ON aggregate, I am in favor due to the ability to restrict the socially negative outcomes, but I can certainly see the position of why somebody would oppose this, especially if they found the likelihood of the socially negative outcome less likely.

[JerseyGator01]

You never know what will happen in this age of media brainwashing in which 30% of the age-eligible voting population re-elected their messiah. The media may consider this their next challenge to bring advocacy journalism to a whole new level.

[GatorAvatar]

Meh. This is about the 10th time it's been introduced by the same dude. And it'll be the 10th time it does nothing more than fuel paranoia.

But but but Obama yada yada communist/socialist/hates America BS BS lol

[GatorAvatar]

Another post of indignation with no research or thought behind it.

As long as it spreads lies about Obama, its worth it.

[Gatorrick22]

And I was wondering how long it would take for there to be a bombastically self-congratulatory but nonetheless completely off-topic post on the thread. Everybody is happy now.

:laugh::laugh::yes:

[HALLGATOR]

You never know what will happen in this age of media brainwashing in which 30% of the age-eligible voting population re-elected their messiah. The media may consider this their next challenge to bring advocacy journalism to a whole new level.

And just whose fault was it that more who opposed Obama didn't get up off their Azz and go vote? Who do you blame that on?

[HudsonGator]

And just whose fault was it that more who opposed Obama didn't get up off their Azz and go vote? Who do you blame that on?

Urban Meyer, obviously

[Gatorrick22]

And just whose fault was it that more who opposed Obama didn't get up off their Azz and go vote? Who do you blame that on?

Maybe their vote was suppressed/un-counted?

[HALLGATOR]

Maybe their vote was suppressed/un-counted?

Don't buy it rick. I think the problem was Romney. Obviously they were not sold enough on Romney to turn out in sufficient numbers to oust Obama. Basically the Rep party screwed the pooch and now it's time to blame the loss on something else. If something doesn't change you could be looking at another Dem POTUS in 2016.

[Gatorrick22]

Don't buy it rick. I think the problem was Romney. Obviously they were not sold enough on Romney to turn out in sufficient numbers to oust Obama. Basically the Rep party screwed the pooch and now it's time to blame the loss on something else. If something doesn't change you could be looking at another Dem POTUS in 2016.

I think it was Fat ba$tard's....err..... I mean Karl Rove's fault for separating the Tea Party from the Pub Party - that was a huge mistake. That was a master stroke of idiot savant on his part.

[rivergator]

I think it was Fat ba$tard's....err..... I mean Karl Rove's fault for separating the Tea Party from the Pub Party - that was a huge mistake. That was a master stroke of idiot savant on his part.

I think it was really simple: Of all the GOP candidates, Romney was the only one who even close to being electable. Even close. And when it went to the American people, they chose Obama over the best the Republicans had to offer.
Complain all you want, that's what happened.

[Gatorrick22]

I think it was really simple: Of all the GOP candidates, Romney was the only one who even close to being electable. Even close. And when it went to the American people, they chose Obama over the best the Republicans had to offer.
Complain all you want, that's what happened.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, but that opinion are far from a provable fact.

I stand pat.

[rivergator]

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, but that opinion are far from a provable fact.

I stand pat.

Really? It's not a provable fact that Obama got more votes than Romney? Let me guess, aliens stole the Romney ballots?

[Gatorrick22]

Really? It's not a provable fact that Obama got more votes than Romney? Let me guess, aliens stole the Romney ballots?

I love the Leftists Hollywood dreaming state of mind. Keep on dreaming...... you might find a suitable substitute for the truth.

[rivergator]

I love the Leftists Hollywood dreaming state of mind. Keep on dreaming...... you might find a suitable substitute for the truth.

and the truth is ???

[Gatorrick22]

and the truth is ???

It's not one thing.... That's just it, but if the Tea Party was included n the process I think the Pubs would have won, IMHO.

The ultimate truth is that America lost on election day.... China, India, Russia...et al won.

[GatorAvatar]

Urban Meyer, obviously

Nailed it!!

[DaveFla]

Because the OP's intent of the post implied this was all about Obama since it gave no context

No he didn't...

There IS someone jumping in here, over his head, but its not the OP.

[DaveFla]

You realize sending a bill to committee is actually the least active thing the leadership can do when a bill is introduced, right? So why would it disturb me that the leadership took the slowest route with the least likelihood of any actual consideration that is available to them?

I notice you failed to address the question... Again.

Of course, it was not asked of you in the first place.

[DaveFla]

And I was wondering how long it would take for there to be a bombastically self-congratulatory but nonetheless completely off-topic post on the thread. Everybody is happy now.

In fairness, md seems to have beat him to it by a post or two.

[HudsonGator]

It's not one thing.... That's just it, but if the Tea Party was included n the process I think the Pubs would have won, IMHO.

The ultimate truth is that America lost on election day.... China, India, Russia...et al won.

The so-called Tea Party is killing the Republican Party. Republicans would very likely control the Senate had the Tea Party not put forward so many unelectable candidates.

[MichiGator2002]

The so-called Tea Party is killing the Republican Party. Republicans would very likely control the Senate had the Tea Party not put forward so many unelectable candidates.

Were there no Tea Party, the Democrats would have had uninterrupted control of Congress since 2006 and a wider majority in the Senate, probably still filibuster proof. There is just no rational argument the other way.

[g8tr80]

By getting rid of term limits, you effectively remove a governor to any and all voter fraud which successfully keeps a certain politician in office.

And man oh man was there voter fraud this time around. Vote early vote often. The biggest scam in American political history.

[g8orbill]

Prezbo and his class warfare mantra was vey successful- the pubs once again nominated someone who was not conservative- until they nominate a true conservative they will not win

[rivergator]

Prezbo and his class warfare mantra was vey successful- the pubs once again nominated someone who was not conservative- until they nominate a true conservative they will not win

Who might the Republicans have nominated instead of Romney?

[theorangebluewinagain]

So is Obama for that matter.

It has not been proven.

[CHFG8R]

Good luck getting that through Congress on a super majority and then passed by 75% of the states.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

Exactly. Which is why I say push it forward (D)s! :laugh:

[VAg8r1]

It has not been proven.
Very old issue, but as I previously mentioned (and included links), the Republican Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, who was appointed by the state's Republican governor, reviewed Obama's original Hawaiian birth documents, which definitively proved the Obama is a natural born US citizen. Seems to me to be more than sufficient rational proof. If you want to read more on the subject see the relevant excerpt below and/or click here USA Today (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm) to read the article in its entirety.
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among "birthers" that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.

Despite Fukino's statements, the issue has continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves.

[theorangebluewinagain]

Like I said nothing has been proven.

[RealGatorFan]

that passing has as much chance as a bill proposing term limits for Congress

Which 100% of american voters want.

[DCGATORS]

What's heinous about it? Obama is the best president we've had in a long time!

[Allanon]

What's heinous about it? Obama is the best president we've had in a long time!

NOT.

[mdgator05]

I notice you failed to address the question... Again.

Of course, it was not asked of you in the first place.

So let me ask you a question: what would you prefer compared to sending the bill to committee? There are three options for what to do with the bill. Which would you prefer and why?

And what question would you like me to answer?

[mdgator05]

In fairness, md seems to have beat him to it by a post or two.

I'm not sure you understand what Michi's words mean then, as nothing I said was bombastic or self-congratulatory by any accepted definition of the words. Look them up and try again.

[reformedgator]

What's heinous about it? Obama is the best president we've had in a long time!

Is that you, Al Sharpton? That must have hard to type with a straight face.:laugh:

[cocodrilo]

Who might the Republicans have nominated instead of Romney?

They were all losers.

What the Republicans need to do is find someone who is not a loser and talk him into running for the nomination. Bribe him, blackmail him, or whatever is necessary to get him to run for president. For whatever reason, no winning Republican wants the job. My guess is, the next nominee will be a Bush. Not because he's a winner but because he's another damn Bush. And I hope he loses in a landslide.

[T3goalie]

The Republicans have no shot. ZERO! They stand for nothing. They are simply not believable. Trying to package Romney as Reagan was a joke. I know a lot of people who voted for the President and i know a lot of people who voted against the President... I know very few who voted for Romney. The RNC/GOP are the ultimate ship of fools adrift in the night without power, without sail and without rudder. You need to look no further than the republican leadership in the house and senate to know...

[Dreamliner]

Isn't this Jimmy Carter"s 3rd term?

No, it's Bush's fourth term.

Thanks, Obama voters.

[HudsonGator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3KHBczTYxA

[DaveFla]

I'm not sure you understand what Michi's words mean then, as nothing I said was bombastic or self-congratulatory by any accepted definition of the words. Look them up and try again.

Obviously, it was the "completely off-topic" part, that you seem to have ignored altogether, that I was speaking to.

Although, this post of yours might just meet the definition of "bombastic self-congratulatory" that Michi was referring to.

Nice try.

[mdgator05]

Obviously, it was the "completely off-topic" part, that you seem to have ignored altogether, that I was speaking to.

Although, this post of yours might just meet the definition of "bombastic self-congratulatory" that Michi was referring to.

Nice try.

You asked the question:

Or, does the mere fact that a bill is heinous gets to committee not disturb you?


I asked which of the other options available to leadership you would prefer. If it is off-topic, it is only because you asked an off-topic question. And I notice, you still haven't been able to answer that question. What would you prefer leadership to do?