How important is it?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Mar 21, 2013.

?

Should a President of the US have military service

  1. 1) No- should not even be a factor

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. 2)

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. 3)

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. 4)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 5)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. 6)

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  7. 7)

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  8. 8)

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  9. 9)

    2 vote(s)
    16.7%
  10. 10) Should be a constitutional requirement

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,070
    Likes Received:
    216
    How important is it for the President of the United States to be required to have been in the Military?

    vote on a scale of 1 -10 : 1=not important at all / 10= must have military experience


    Lets discuss is important how long he was in, combat service, component ( regular,Guard, Reserve), type of discharge, ect.....
     
    #1 Salty, Mar 21, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2013
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Not even the president can honor his oath to protect and defend the constitution while in the service of globalists who violate the constitution daily.

    I know it's a taboo subject among those who still prefer to believe that service in a military controlled by international corporate fascists is the same as serving your country, but it ain't.

    No matter how much red white and blue paint you color it with.

    Besides, Obama is using the military to protect, defend and expand the new international economic order now so that must count for something, right?
     
    #2 poncho, Mar 25, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2013
  3. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Well after I take off my tinfoil hat...

    The issue is an important one, but not that important imho. It clearly shouldn't be a requirement, that has never been part of the US system. I voted for #2 because it is something to consider but it doesn't make or break my voting for a Commander-in-Chief.

    We have a civilian led military. It was set up that way since the inception of the republic because it provides a good check and balance. Having a President with military experience is fine but few Presidents (with notable exceptions) would ever serve in a capacity where they would have decision making for the entire corps. That's why we have the Joint Chiefs. They are apt advisors but the decision comes down to a civilian. This is good.
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Maybe you should take off your blinders instead of worrying about tin foil hats so much. Our civilian "leaders" all serve the global banks and corporations now. It's what the founders would say is "self evident" (for those willing to put aside all the red white blue propaganda and look at just the facts.) So our military serves corporate interests these days not the interests of the people of the United States.

    If the joints chiefs were on our side they wouldn't go along with one unconstitutional war after another.
     

Share This Page

Loading...