Joined
·
7,020 Posts
Good question. Pretty serious broad brush accusations being made by that poster. Someone's swinging wildly in the air, trying to connect with anything to win a point.
President should Serve
121 - 140 of 149 Posts
Joined
·
151 Posts
For most joining the military is a change of life, it gives discipline a code of conduct, the current government is trying to change this, but this will change too! I served my father served my sons serve. It’s my family tradition to serve. It concerns me the direction our leaders are headed and a lot of the good ones are leaving the military. I expect some will return after the next election. I have a hard time calling him a Commander n Chief !
Joined
·
27,646 Posts
That was in the 1800s. When Dem’s cheap labor was taken away….just sayin…
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
I have to think you are referring to #45 who was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War with imaginary "bone spurs."
Joined
·
2 Posts
Absolutely must have military in their resume like Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida!
Joined
·
6,651 Posts
This clown is obviously a Leftist troll.
Joined
·
378 Posts
I was referring to trump
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
So was I.
Joined
·
325 Posts
All valid - I only gave the short answer. Like i said, those who've been on the receiving end will know.
Glad you made it through.
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Most definitely
Why? If by some miracle John Kerry (or some other liberal who served) wins the Dem nomination, I sure as hell am not voting for them over Trump just because they served but Trump didn't.
I like for presidents, governors, legislators, etc. to have military experience but by no means is it a requirement. If I decide to vote for DeSantis over Trump in the Republican nomination, DeSantis's military experience probably wouldn't even be in the top 5 why I would choose him over Trump.
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
These are just my opinions...
There was/is no criteria for that in the constitution for a reason. The president is a civilian job, period. If the founders thought it was critical the president had a military background (and they surely discussed it), they would have included that (and I trust them over anyone today). In my opinion it is more important that a president can act independently from those in the military (or those who pull the military's strings, not that that likely ever happens since Andrew Jackson).
Getting down to brass tacks, the president is a figurehead who can't tie his shoes without permission in my opinion. As such, I feel we focus too much on the president.
The only presidents I suspect were truly independent of mind (I'm not talking about military experience) were Thomas Jefferson, to a lesser extent James Monroe (who largely followed TJ's example) and Andrew Jackson.
For example, I do NOT believe George Washington or Abraham Lincoln were great or independent presidents, and certainly I know of no one for sure after Jackson (with the possible exception of JFK on certain issues). There might have been a few others (likely ones who were also assassinated), but I have less information about them.
If you read what was essentially Thomas Jefferson's second & last book, "The Anas of Thomas Jefferson" (published posthumously), the former first secretary of state took notes for every cabinet and personal meeting he ever had with President Washington, and he details why the latter was "bottomed" on Alexander Hamilton (who Jefferson felt was "bottomed on corruption).
Moreover, he tells us how Washington didn't understand finance, and how he dropped the ball by unconstitutionally approving the first national bank which was neither necessary or proper (on top of being illegal, of course). Jefferson also believed John Adams was too reliant on the leaders of the Federalist Party (which included Hamilton who was out of office at the time).
Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley shows us how slavery had nothing to do with the American Civil War. In fact, Lincoln tells us categorically that his only reason for the war was to preserve the union. Understand, however, that presidents aren't supposed to wield such power unconstitutionally. Unlike the Articles of Confederation that were superseded by our current constitution, the latter has absolutely no proviso for states to belong to the union in perpetuity (again, like the Articles); as such, the Tenth Amendment made compulsion utterly unconstitutional.
You would think when a president violates the Constitution killing more Americans than any other war we've participated in he would have provided a firm reason for preserving the union in its entirety, but he never did. After all, it was not a forgone conclusion that preserving and GROWING the union was a good thing. Thomas Jefferson and many others were of the mind the that the United States would one day get too large and need to be broken down into three or four republics (population-wise, Jefferson thought this would be necessary by the time we reached manifest destiny).
Jefferson also told us that Congress had been corrupted and under the influence of the bankers (who Hamilton represented) since Washington's first administration. He didn't think it was even the majority of congressmen, but he felt it was just enough that the banks could get their way on any vote they chose, and that's what happened when the Congress approved the first national bank that Washington signed into law (a move Jefferson warned would put the country into debt and invite more malfeasance, and he was right [e.g. the conspiracy to usher in certain elements of British common law into our system of government despite how they conflicted with the constitution and concentrated power over states in Washington).
There was/is no criteria for that in the constitution for a reason. The president is a civilian job, period. If the founders thought it was critical the president had a military background (and they surely discussed it), they would have included that (and I trust them over anyone today). In my opinion it is more important that a president can act independently from those in the military (or those who pull the military's strings, not that that likely ever happens since Andrew Jackson).
Getting down to brass tacks, the president is a figurehead who can't tie his shoes without permission in my opinion. As such, I feel we focus too much on the president.
The only presidents I suspect were truly independent of mind (I'm not talking about military experience) were Thomas Jefferson, to a lesser extent James Monroe (who largely followed TJ's example) and Andrew Jackson.
For example, I do NOT believe George Washington or Abraham Lincoln were great or independent presidents, and certainly I know of no one for sure after Jackson (with the possible exception of JFK on certain issues). There might have been a few others (likely ones who were also assassinated), but I have less information about them.
If you read what was essentially Thomas Jefferson's second & last book, "The Anas of Thomas Jefferson" (published posthumously), the former first secretary of state took notes for every cabinet and personal meeting he ever had with President Washington, and he details why the latter was "bottomed" on Alexander Hamilton (who Jefferson felt was "bottomed on corruption).
Moreover, he tells us how Washington didn't understand finance, and how he dropped the ball by unconstitutionally approving the first national bank which was neither necessary or proper (on top of being illegal, of course). Jefferson also believed John Adams was too reliant on the leaders of the Federalist Party (which included Hamilton who was out of office at the time).
Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley shows us how slavery had nothing to do with the American Civil War. In fact, Lincoln tells us categorically that his only reason for the war was to preserve the union. Understand, however, that presidents aren't supposed to wield such power unconstitutionally. Unlike the Articles of Confederation that were superseded by our current constitution, the latter has absolutely no proviso for states to belong to the union in perpetuity (again, like the Articles); as such, the Tenth Amendment made compulsion utterly unconstitutional.
You would think when a president violates the Constitution killing more Americans than any other war we've participated in he would have provided a firm reason for preserving the union in its entirety, but he never did. After all, it was not a forgone conclusion that preserving and GROWING the union was a good thing. Thomas Jefferson and many others were of the mind the that the United States would one day get too large and need to be broken down into three or four republics (population-wise, Jefferson thought this would be necessary by the time we reached manifest destiny).
Jefferson also told us that Congress had been corrupted and under the influence of the bankers (who Hamilton represented) since Washington's first administration. He didn't think it was even the majority of congressmen, but he felt it was just enough that the banks could get their way on any vote they chose, and that's what happened when the Congress approved the first national bank that Washington signed into law (a move Jefferson warned would put the country into debt and invite more malfeasance, and he was right [e.g. the conspiracy to usher in certain elements of British common law into our system of government despite how they conflicted with the constitution and concentrated power over states in Washington).
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
You don't have to serve in the military to serve, and if you're an honest and brave (or stupid) person who finds his or her way into elected or appointed head of office, you are going to suffer in my opinion. I know of someone personally who served as such who has PTSD after his life was destroyed taking on both parties refusing to compromise himself. No one will ever know or publically lend a hand to him because of this fiction that serving only happens for military & police or first-responders. His story demonstrated to me that some of the worst things can happen to honest brokers who enter politics professionally who refuse to tow the line or even break laws. Knowing what I know, anyone with uncompromising integrity will not last more than one or two terms/appointments in my opinion (and far worse happens than being out of a job). That doesn't say much about our career politicians whether or not they served in the military. They are all cheaters and liars in my opinion. Even most of the first-termers who are selected for a reason.
121 - 140 of 149 Posts
