Who will be the next President of the United States?

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

It appeals to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office I guess.

You guess incorrectly, Who song notwithstanding.

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation. Such committment is an important attribute for a President to have, wouldn't you agree?

[DeepIron]

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation. Such committment is an important attribute for a President to have, wouldn't you agree?

I imagine each person to whom that question was put would answer according to their convictions... In that context I can neither agree nor disagree.

For myself, I wouldn't question a "prior military service" candidate's committment to the country more or less than someone who had not served militarily. Personally, I don't add any "weight" to it. There have been great politicians in our history who were not accepted for military service but still found ways to serve their country to the best of their abilities. And there have been Presidents who were veterans and were less than committed IMO.

On November 2, 2000, four days before the most disputed election in American history, military veterans in the US Senate lashed out at candidate George W Bush for his failure to explain a six month lapse in his National Guard service. "At the least, I would have been court-martialed. At the least, I would have been placed in prison," Senator Daniel Inouye said.

If I'm not mistaken, FDR, who served as the Secretary of the Navy, as well as 4 terms as President, was not a Veteran.

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

I imagine each person to whom that question was put would answer according to their convictions... In that context I can neither agree nor disagree.

You're hedging. A president not committed to the defense and welfare of their country versus a president who IS committed is an obvious choice to make in my book.

For myself, I wouldn't question a "prior military service" candidate's committment to the country more or less than someone who had not served militarily. Personally, I don't add any "weight" to it.

Well what do you care how we Americans weight our presidential qualifications anyways? I mean didn't you say you were intending to leave this country soon for sunny Canada or do i have you mixed up with Stealth Hunter?

[DeepIron]

Military service has long been seen as an indication of a candidates committment to the nation.

Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...

A resource listing all Presidents from 1789 to 1992, both who did and did not serve in the military: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD...milsvc_T2.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD...milsvc_T1.html

Few of the men either elected or running for the highest political position in the land, even if veterans, could have met military experience or training requirements of any consequence, if such had been established under the Constitution. Of the forty-one individuals who have held the office of President of the United States to date, either by election or accession from their Vice Presidential positions, over one-third -- sixteen in number, or thirty-nine percent -- had no direct experience at all, even fleeting, of life as a soldier or sailor, commissioned or enlisted, before assuming their weighty constitutional responsibilities. These sixteen Presidents gained the status of supreme military commander through their presentation to the electorate of entirely civilian virtues, qualifications, and experience. The other twenty-five men who became President and assumed command of the armed forces could claim service as a soldier or sailor, even though only briefly or unsubstantially in some instances.

It would appear that military service had little or nothing to do with getting most of these men elected.

From an article in the Albuquerque Tribune: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/apr...itary-service/

Since at least the 1992 election, being a war hero hasn't been a ticket to the White House.
Former President Clinton, who never served in the armed forces, defeated two World War II combat veterans - former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and former Sen. Bob Dole in 1996.
President George W. Bush served as a fighter pilot in the Texas Air Nation Guard during the Vietnam era, but never saw combat. Yet he defeated three men who did serve in Vietnam - McCain in the 2000 GOP primaries, Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election and Democrat John Kerry in 2004.
Of the current Democratic front-runners, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 45, was too young to have been drafted during the Vietnam War. Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 53, had a draft number that was never called. And, Sen. Hillary Clinton, 59, like most women her age, would not have been expected to serve. Women weren't subject to the draft.
Among the leading Republican candidates, only McCain, 70, has a military record. The Arizona senator spent more than 20 years in the Navy, almost a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
Draft deferments kept Giuliani, 62, of out Vietnam while he attended law school. In 1968, as the Vietnam War was escalating, he was classified 1-A, or draft eligible. After going to work for a federal judge, he received an occupational deferment. He was classified 1-A again in 1970, but had a high lottery number.

And the same trend continues to the present day...

You're hedging. A president not committed to the defense and welfare of their country versus a president who IS committed is an obvious choice to make in my book.

Hedging? No, I gave you an honest answer. I have my own convictions you have yours. You are happy with choosing a candidate who conveys an image concerning national security that coincides more with your own convictions.

Well what do you care how we Americans weight our presidential qualifications anyways? I mean didn't you say you were intending to leave this country soon for sunny Canada or do i have you mixed up with Stealth Hunter?

Well dude, whether you like it or not I'm still an American citizen and I will vote so I'm included in the "we".

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...

Ok DeepIron, since you're going to continue to deny the obvious i'll let you win. Obviously military service has no bearing on anything. People will continue to make a big deal about it just so us veterans can feel better that a candidate, how did you put it?, "has been there and done that".

So until you abandon your homeland you just continue to vote on the issues you think are important and i'll continue to vote for the issues that matter to me and we'll see who gets elected m'kay?

[DeepIron]

[quote=August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Unless you have some verifiable resource to back up your "statement" then it's just your "opinion". And in this case, your opinion appears to be questionable in this issue...

Ok DeepIron, since you're going to continue to deny the obvious i'll let you win. Obviously military service has no bearing on anything. People will continue to make a big deal about it just so us veterans can feel better that a candidate, how did you put it?, "has been there and done that".

You can't refute the facts I presented and when you're confronted with your inaccuracies, I'M the one who is "denying the obvious"? :rotfl:and you'll "let me win"? :rotfl:

So until you abandon your homeland you just continue to vote on the issues you think are important and i'll continue to vote for the issues that matter to me and we'll see who gets elected m'kay?

Well dude, seeing as I'm not going anywhere outside the US... fine by me.

[Tchocky]

Military service can indeed be seen as a signifier of commitment to the nation.

So can the act of running for the Presidency, which looks like an enormously demanding role to voluntarily take, and an extremely demanding job to get.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Military service can indeed be seen as a signifier of commitment to the nation. So can the act of running for the Presidency, which looks like an enormously demanding role to voluntarily take, and an extremely demanding job to get.

I think that it's up to the individual as to how much he or she considers a candidates prior military record or service.

Look what happened to Kerry in '04 and Bush in '00... Their respective military records were called into question and in Kerry's case at least, hurt his campaign. In the case of Bush, the scrutiny was deflected and he was elected before the issue was resolved or it could damage his campaign. The sword cuts both ways and people generally tend to seize upon the negative aspects IMO.

I would also expect non-veterans to possibly have a different view because of their lack of military service experieince and the committment it entails. Let's face it, vets tend to support US military policy because they "lived" it. However if all we considered was military service, I'm pretty sure we'd be living in a much different America than we are today...

I actually place more thought on your second point, running for the office. It is a huge responsibility. That is until my cynism kicks in and I realize the guy will get a 6 figure salary for the rest of his life after "retiring"...

My spin on "military service" was in response to August's bait:

Such committment is an important attribute for a President to have, wouldn't you agree?

As I consider the issue a matter of personal opinion, and he considers it mre of a "fact", I refuted the issue and found that historically, military service really didn't figure prominently with the electorate in Presidential elections.

I'm a veteran and what I consider important, is "the been there, done that" aspect. I do feel that a candidate who has served *should* have a better understanding of issues important to veterans than someone who has not served. But that is just my opinion.

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

You can't refute the facts I presented and when you're confronted with your inaccuracies, I'M the one who is "denying the obvious"? and you'll "let me win"

So you're saying that the last three times you've said that to me was because you couldn't "refute the facts I presented" either? I'm letting you win because you are not worth arguing with.

It doesn't matter to me if you think that a candidates military service is not an indicator of commitment to their country, that the only reason it's been made a big deal in every election since George Washington was to "appeal to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office [you] guess".

So yeah you "win" DeepIron...

[DeepIron]

It doesn't matter to me if you think that a candidates military service is not an indicator of commitment to their country, that the only reason it's been made a big deal in every election since George Washington was to "appeal to veterans to see someone "who's been there, done that" in office [you] guess".

This is totally ludicrious. You continue to try and twist my opinion into something "factual". You think it's important for "your" reason, I don't... so what? Do you think that each and every veteran out there thinks the way you do? Is there something about your OPINION that makes it any more valid than mine or anyone else's?

And on the other point, you're just plain wrong. Military service WASN'T made a "big deal" of "in every election since George Washington" ... If you'll actually take the time to read the links I've provided, you see this is historically (factually) true. While a number of Presidents DID HAVE "military service" only in A FEW CASES was this of any primary concern to the electorate. And that electorate would include veterans as well so I would assume that they voted for a particular candidate based on their own convictions.

Be content to have your opinion and gracious enough to let me have mine. I'm a veteran too dude, and I didn't serve my country just to have you tell me what I should say, do, or believe... Or be cuckolded for having an opinion that differs from yours.

[August]

You see DeepIron this is why it's useless to discuss anything with you. I never said "primary concern", i said "an indicator of commitment", if you can't fathom the difference in meaning between the two phrases then why should i bother taking anything you say even remotely seriously?

The truth is, I can't so really Dude "you win".

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

You see DeepIron this is why it's useless to discuss anything with you. I never said "primary concern", i said "an indicator of commitment", if you can't fathom the difference in meaning between the two phrases then why should i bother taking anything you say even remotely seriously?

"While a number of Presidents DID HAVE "military service" only in A FEW CASES was this of any primary concern to the electorate..."

Criminy... If you actually applied a little thought and less time trying to nitpick the verbage, you may have deduced or inferred from my statement that military service evidently wasn't important as an "an indicator of committment" and hence a not "primary concern" of the people. On the other hand, there were some elections were folks were very concerned with the candidates military background so you could say it was a "prmary concern" as it figured prominently into the campaign.

The election of Truman (a veteran) over Dewey (non-veteran) and Eisenhower (a veteran) over Adlai Stevenson (non-veteran) are good examples of this. People wanted to know that someone with military experience would be able to prosecute the end of WWII and in Korea. Truman taking over from Roosevelt and Eisenhower after Truman. And yes, I know Truman took the office after FDR died, but he also was elected to his full term during the Korean War.

Time to move on August. You were wrong, we both know it and you lack even the simple grace to admit it.

[August]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Time to move on August. You were wrong, we both know it and you lack even the simple grace to admit it.

Military service has long been seen as an indicator of a candidates commitment to the nation. Not one single thing you have said refutes that simple fact DeepIron so it seems if anyone lacks simple grace it is you.

[DeepIron]

Originally Posted by August

Military service has long been seen as an indicator of a candidates commitment to the nation. Not one single thing you have said refutes that simple fact DeepIron so it seems if anyone lacks simple grace it is you.

:rotfl:August, not once have you substantiated your simple "fact" that "Military service has long been seen as an indicator of a candidates commitment to the nation". You "state" it as such and just expect people to accept it. Well I don't accept it and I have more than refuted your "fact" and proved that once again, your long on mouth and real short on substance.

And what of those who did military service not because they wanted to, but because they HAD to as mandated by law? They didn't want to be there in the first place. I guess you think that because someone was "drafted" or that Daddy pulled some strings and they went in, got their time done and got out as soon as possible, that they display some worthy "indicator of committment"? And when people find out that "So and so" has some special treatment in the service, that they look upon it as a positive aspect? Your "fact" disintegrates at every turn.

August, show me ONE, just ONE scrap of evidence to support your opinion. C'mon, August it can't be that hard. If what you say is accurate, and is accepted as factual by more people than just yourself, then it should be a simple matter to substantiate your point of view. There must be some reputable source you can link to? Isn't there?

[August]

Why should i bother DeepIron? You don't think George Washingtons military service played a significant factor in his election to the presidency? How about Grants? Teddy Roosevelts? Ikes? Kennedys? Bah. You've already said that a candidates previous service means absolutely nothing to you, so why should i carry on a serious conversation with someone who just doesn't get such a basic fact? Answer is i'm wasting my time, so you "win", kthnksbye.