Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2017, 07:44 AM
miu
 
Location: MA/NH
17,769 posts, read 40,163,673 times
Reputation: 18100

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2017, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Boston
20,104 posts, read 9,011,934 times
Reputation: 18759
appreciate those that choose to serve but it's a job you enter knowing the risks. Don't see the need to kiss everyone's aas that volunteered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,222 posts, read 27,592,812 times
Reputation: 16061
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
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?
yeah, exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Kansas
25,962 posts, read 22,107,325 times
Reputation: 26692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero View Post
Out of curiosity, who would you consider to be the five most effective Presidents in U.S. History?
Military veterans, of course: https://www.va.gov/health/NewsFeatures/20110221a.asp Top 5? George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy (Abraham Lincoln too)

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!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 07:51 AM
 
8,497 posts, read 4,558,569 times
Reputation: 9751
No. Military experience is an asset but so are many other experiences. No one single experience should however be mandatory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,222 posts, read 27,592,812 times
Reputation: 16061
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 08:04 AM
 
18,069 posts, read 18,812,184 times
Reputation: 25191
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,597,011 times
Reputation: 7477
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,222 posts, read 27,592,812 times
Reputation: 16061
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
A requirement of military service would also have disqualified Hillary.
I think a lie detector test should be a requirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2017, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,444,101 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
I think a lie detector test should be a requirement.

ROTFLMAO!

That would narrow the field!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top