Should the President have Military Experience?

a reply to: Caver78

That's odd you say that, because neither Thomas Jefferson nor John Adams had military experience. Thomas Jefferson drafted the damn thing and was the third President and John Adams is a signer and the second President.

As a retired military person, I would always like to see the POTUS have spent time in the military. However, it is unlikely given today's politicians that would be unlikely. Today's politicians are career politicians they have taken the easy way. What I would like to see are term limits (3) max. I would also like to see the lobbyist removed from the political landscape 100%.

a reply to: Ceeker63

You say "today's politicians are career politicians" like it is a recent thing. Career politicians have existed in our government since it was founded. Many without military backgrounds.

I do agree with term limits for Congress though.

I think they should, It be nice! Back in the day, up into my early 20's I always thought they had too. lol Also, even though those other candidates don't have experience The current POTUS... They have a pile of Generals and Advisers who handle the running of the Military..... (I hope)

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't think it should necessarily a prerequisite, but I do tend to find it an appealing attribute.

In our history we have had many with prior military experience. However I don't think it should be a major factor in electing one. It has it's pro's and cons. Military experience proves discipline and commitment. But, we need so much more than that for this position, a sound background in business, economics and diplomacy. It's a big job and takes a mature individual to control it wisely. I'm not seeing that at all from those drones who are dancing in front of us now... The Democrats are hiding and the GOP are all still trying to be Reagan. I see no one out there capable of running this nation.

Perry's out, so I guess we're down to -0-.

I think it's a valid consideration when making a personal decision about who to vote for, but no way can it be a requirement without amending the Constitution.

Trump sort of felt like he was in the military when he was in prep school, so there's that.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

In your opinion, who are these shady and mysterious people that give the POTUS orders? I hear a lot of people throw around "they" or "the man" or "TPTB" -- but I never hear any real concrete ideas as to who they are. So far, I have an image of some cloaked figures that live in the dark corners of the Oval Office.

Any ideas who Obama takes orders from?

Can you name the Presidents who were Veterans?

Twenty-six of our 44 Presidents served in the military. Presidential Veterans often coincided with America’s military engagements. Until World War II, a majority of our presidents had served in the Army. Since then, most have served in the Navy.

So a little over half of our Presidents have had military experience.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The ones who paid for his campaign I suppose, the corporations and lobbyists with special interests. I can't give names but their involvement is obvious to anyone who looks into it. This is why they passed a bill to allow people to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigning anonymously, they don't want to be named.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

In your opinion, who are these shady and mysterious people that give the POTUS orders? I hear a lot of people throw around "they" or "the man" or "TPTB" -- but I never hear any real concrete ideas as to who they are. So far, I have an image of some cloaked figures that live in the dark corners of the Oval Office.

Any ideas who Obama takes orders from?

This guy

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's him alright! He has all the signs: smoking a cigarette, shady look on his face, dark room... I think we found him guys. Good work Krazy.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Alright, get William B. Davis on the phone! He's got some 'splaining to do!

He does have military experience! Who told you he didn't?

It's called, "Terrorist Training!"

Just look at the National Deficit sitting at 19 Trillion!

originally posted by: CitizenNum287119327
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

We should legislate to return to the lore-of-old.

If Senators & Presidents want to start Military Campaigns, It should be them and their over 18 year old relatives fighting ON the front line.

You would see absolutely no war and a lot more intelligent negotiations.

Divorcsing themselves from the death/carnage they create is the problem.

I agree in theory but not in practice. I think you're overlooking the enormous amount of ambitious warmongers who actually like the violence, as well. I mean people like Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater/Xi/Academi, and Allen West, the retired lieutenant colonel who had to retire in order to avoid being court-martialed. Plus there are a lot of powerful mercenaries that would be more than willing to become Commander in Chief of the most heavily equipped military on the planet.

In other words, this policy would simply encourage American warlords. Maybe it would make sense when we had an involuntary draft, but not now. Some people who serve in the military are good people, and others are complete sickos. I've even lost some really good friendships because those friends became very "different" after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean bragging about killings, describing how they shot people in the face if they approached their vehicles, etc. And one of my former girlfriends became a literal weapons dealer after her time in the Navy (all legal). She would joke about people "coincidentally" being killed if certain deals didn't go through. No way in ---- I'd want her to run for President, regardless of her other qualifications.

a reply to: Citizen47

Damn did he do all 19?!
That is a new one.

How much of his contribution was from the two wars he inherited?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Having retired myself from Active duty, I would say Yes and No, yes because he or she would have a better understanding on how the military works, and NO because you may end up getting someone that like the fact that they can use the Military any way they want or choose.

no, but if they don`t have military experience then they shouldn`t be given the title or responsibilities of " commander in chief of the armed forces", maybe give them the title of "custodian of the armed forces"?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I wonder if a study has ever been done to see how many presidents who have no clue what war and battle are really like have sent us into war versus presidents who have experienced the horrors of war?I am willing to bet that those presidents who don't really comprehend what warfare is would be more likely to send us off to fight. I think anyone who has the potential responsibility of sending someone's sons and daughters off to die on some foreign soil should have at least some inkling of what it's like to go into battle. Maybe thats more an emotional viewpoint than an intellectual one but I believe it.

If you are looking to get president just for the sake of War, do i say more?