Thread: Is military service a sufficient qualification to be president of the United States?

One last jibe, how are the ill-treated veterans with poor or limited medical treatment going to react to a "returned hero"
The Oz government tried to kick us in the head a few years back, they were going to ignore a commissions advise to increase pensions and medical service; but the report was leaked and they had to back down.
Never liked that bastard Howard since.

I don't know about the older ones, but didn't Clinton get head jobs in his office? wasn't Hoover a bit of a commie basher, and afraid of dirt?

Just goes to show there's always a bad egg in a basket

Originally Posted by Texpat

FDR

A cripple with no military experience! How in the world did the allies win WW2 with such an incompetent member?

As a non-american can I ask a question.

Doesn't the fact that your politicians wallow in the war hero thing, and you all have a thing about guns, and you all get very excited about killing and shooting stuff, and full on blood letting seems to be the national pastime, all kind of links together to suggest that a fanatically patriotic, anti Islamic ( read. any non fundamentally Christian belief) Arnie/Stallone type character, will in all likely hood take power in the not too distant future.

This whole thing is total crap. Nobody judges someone's ability to be President by their military service. Rather, they judge the totality of their life experience and leadership ability.

I'm sure both of the candidates are well enough situated for this, although the best candidate would be a corporate leader who had led international teams building companies, rather than just spending tax dollars. But, unfortunately, no private sector person would be idiot enough to try it on, except for Ross Perot, who was a bit of a nut.

Originally Posted by chinthee

This whole thing is total crap. Nobody judges someone's ability to be President by their military service. Rather, they judge the totality of their life experience and leadership ability.

I'm sure both of the candidates are well enough situated for this, although the best candidate would be a corporate leader who had led international teams building companies, rather than just spending tax dollars. But, unfortunately, no private sector person would be idiot enough to try it on, except for Ross Perot, who was a bit of a nut.

Your point being that there is no hope for the Western World as we know it.

Originally Posted by chinthee

But, unfortunately, no private sector person would be idiot enough to try it on, except for Ross Perot, who was a bit of a nut.

So, what's the bloody answer?

Originally Posted by Texpat

No, his point that your stereotype, along with most other American stereotypes on this forum, is wrong.

Yes, of course Texpat you got it right. All these candidates are merely human, and not that successful as compared to the real top winners, or they would be in the private sector knocking down the big bucks and not caring much about which idiot throws his hat in the ring next.

But, they are the best we've got in this system that rewards the true performers with extraordinary gains for their success, and leaves a large place for the middling performers, e.g., in politics. These people have a gift for rhetoric,
speech-making, and an addiction to Public adoration. They also seem to be gluttons for punishment exposing their personal lives like this...oh, well.

So, we see the same types year after year, decade after decade. These political types, who've done well, but nowhere near the expectations for people of their education and intellect. But, we accept that this is the best we can get in public servants, and I suppose that's true.

So, we'll elect another of these in November, probably the first black. I hope the power doesn't go to his head.

Originally Posted by chinthee

I hope the power doesn't go to his head.

Surely it must have done already.