RobertA's Waterfall
Also, if a president chooses to serve more than 2 terms, they would have already gotten familiar with the American public and would know what to implement next to make the citizens happy. For example, as Emma said, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was very well respected due to his achievements, and because of how loved he was by the American public. However, he had accomplished some of these achievements after two terms, due to the fact that he already got familiar with the American public in those two terms. Also, Franklin D Roosevelt was a commander in chief during World War II.
I think what you are trying to say is that presidents start to lack ideas after two terms of serving. However, this is not true, since when a president is in office for a longer amount of time, they have more time and can make a more obvious and important change to the US. An example of this is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of America's few presidents that were in office for more than 8 years, exactly 4 terms, ended up ending world war II & the Depression era. These are very important and difficult achievements to have achieved withing two terms of serving.
This is true, however, there are other long-serving presidents which are very well respected and loved by the citizens of the nation. Since as I said before, Abdullah II, ruling Jordan for around 20 years, is showing no signs of corruption throughout his whole leadership. This is also stating that there can be long-serving presidents which are not considered dictators but instead considered as very well respected presidents by many.
This is not always true, since as I said in my argument, Abdullah II, the king of Jordan, had ruled Jordan for around 20 years, and is causing barely any to no harm, and instead, he is working to enhance the country by holding official talks with PM Narendra Modi. Defence, security and investments were the main parts of discussion on the bilateral agenda.
Presidents should be allowed to stay longer than two terms, since if the American public wants the president to stay, then the president should stay. A true democracy is choosing a leader that the people want. Why limit a leader to only two terms if the leader is doing great economically and politically? Also, this is potentially preventing the American public from getting the president they want. For example, On November 7, 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented fourth term in office, since the American public really liked the way he controlled the country. The people who say that presidents would show signs of corruption in the election after serving for 2 terms should know that presidents were allowed to serve more than two terms before Harry Truman, and there was no corruption in the elections. People who say that president should not be able to serve for more than 2 terms also say that 8 years is long enough, but what if those 8 years were the best years economically and politically? Lastly and simply, once the current president starts to make mistakes or a better candidate comes around, then the president won't be re-elected, and a new president will be selected. Another example of a long-serving and well-respected leader would be Abdullah II, the king of Jordan. He administered the overhauling of Jordan's military, which enabled Jordan to maintain a strategic distance from the viciousness that tormented its neighbors. Abdullah likewise advanced financial and social change, presenting free-showcase approaches and activities to enhance the nation. He still serves as the leader of Jordan today.
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/harry-truman
http://www.toptenz.net/
Nowadays, in the 21 century, the word "football" is said more often. For example, close to all parts of South America calls the sports "football". Also, most of Africa, Europe, and even Greenland, in North America call the sport "football". This shows that more than half of the world calls this sport "football", instead of "soccer".
