Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as military service is voluntary, I disagree. There are several types of people that are drawn to serve in the military, and not all of them are for reasons that would make for a good POTUS. Plus not every member of the military ends up in active service on the frontlines. Many are support personnel.
So would a remote drone operator be eligible to run for President? What about someone on KP duty? And what about someone who signed up because of their love for weaponry?
As long as military service is voluntary, I disagree. There are several types of people that are drawn to serve in the military, and not all of them are for reasons that would make for a good POTUS. Plus not every member of the military ends up in active service on the frontlines. Many are support personnel.
So would a remote drone operator be eligible to run for President? What about someone on KP duty? And what about someone who signed up because of their love for weaponry?
And, yes, I would support the military requirement. Commander-In-Chief is such an important part of the job of the POTUS, well, either that or making Commander-In-Chief a separate position.
I am hoping to see the first female POTUS be a retired military general!
I do respect infantry officers. The journey to earning a leadership position in a unit of professional soldiers is like no other. This experience will be a bonus, but still, not a requirement.
There has been talk of this for many years, going back to the Clinton era. The best possible preparation for the Presidency is being a military officer, as it makes a potential POTUS aware of what the serviceman and servicewoman have to go through. It gives them leadership experience and awareness of the wider world. Fewer veterans than ever in our national politics means that veterans' issues get ignored, and the lives of servicepeople become more abstract.
This is why there needs to be a Constitutional amendment requiring service in order to hold the nation's highest office, with the immediate removal of a current holder of the office if he has not served. (in that case the Presidency would go to whoever was next in the line of succession who had actually served.) National Guard, Coast Guard, and Reserves service would be considered service as well as service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. This would raise the quality of the men - and potentially women - who would hold the office.
Stupid idea.
Military service is just one of many factors in determining a president, plus, the military is not equal opportunity, and a person cannot be able to serve for numerous reasons, all having nothing to do with their ability to be a leader and successfully carry out the duties to be president.
Given you statement in bold above, your post has one desperate topic to it; to get rid of Trump, which is not going to happen. You will be lucky if he is not reelected.
Interesting concept but having most of the population disenfranchised is a road to instability.
PS to whoever is promoting the original idea: YOU LOST. You LOST A GIMME by foisting someone even worse than Trump with no good message and a crappy crappy campaign.
A requirement of military service would also have disqualified Hillary.
I think a lie detector test should be a requirement.
ROTFLMAO!
That would narrow the field!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.