Most = more than half = majority.

For one, Clinton was the PRESIDENT of the US. McCain was not. Clinton clearly abused his power with Lewinsky, and thought that b/c he was the President that he would get away with that he did. Moreover, McCain didn't deny anything, and Clinton denied UNDER OATH that he had any sort of sexual relationship with Lewinsky.

I think we're trending towards (and I don't particularly like this either) accepting politician's mistakes if they're open and honest about making them. Not that all can be overlooked, but clearly some sins can be forgiven.

<3 you.

semantics...


here is a shovel.

While I appreciate your point, I again would like to point out that the only duty that a President is constitutionally bound to is that of Commander-in-Chief. Our forefathers realized that task as a keystone of the President's responsibility to our country and the world, and thus was sure to put it in.

Now I think other things are important as well, we should not be so short-sighted to turn our backs on the Constitution or the history of the country.

President of the US, also known as, commander-in-chief. That in turn makes him the highest ranking military officer.

I'm not the one with the arguments ranging from ridculous to just plain wrong. I think you better keep that shovel for yourself.

prove me wrong...

Please.

Daemon doesn't like John McCain. This has translated into a lack of interest regarding his military service. Yet, less people still find it an important consideration when voting.

I don't see what the big dispute is about.

Very much in the ballpark shiner!

it's not that I don't 'like' McCain.

It's that he is the least likey person I would vote for because what I would like to see done and what he has planned don't mesh.

HOWEVER...if he is to be the next POTUS, we need to worry less about is military record and more about his senatorial one.

I have no reason to try and prove you wrong.


Your opinion is that military experience doesn't matter. Ok. That's your opinion.

Your opinion is that if we weren't at war, military experience wouldn't be as important to some as it is. Ok. But we are at war. Moot point.

Your opinion is that "most" repubs don't want otherwise. The numbers say different.

What do you want to be proven wrong on?

haha, I actually misspoke and you may be more reluctant to agree with me...

I meant to say "less biased people still find it..."

You tell me...you said it.

I'm not suggesting the president's "Commander in Chief" title be removed. He/she can still be Commander in Chief and seek the professional counsel of people with much experience below him/her. Any good CEO or boss does the same. A good president also has humility.

Oh, silly me, adding in "she" and "her"...our founding fathers never expected a woman to be a serious contender for president, either! Tell me, what happens one day if a woman is a party's chosen candidate for president - though women can be in the military, they officially cannot be in combat (say what you will about women being on the front lines right now - they're not supposed to be, and the military is taking actions to correct that). Because I don't think simple military service is enough to the people who talk it up as a "must" - I think what they're really looking for is combat experience. Will military service then become a moot point, or will it become yet another reason why some people don't want a female president?

ETA: By the way, the President has many duties required of him/her in the Constitution, not just commander of the military. He/she is also Head of State and has the power to meet and form treaties with the heads of other nations, among other duties specified such as appointing other heads in the govt. and judges, and giving a state of the union address "from time to time."

Seid, the thing is dude, you're running a semantic/rhetorical argument ("his experience doesn't matter to me because it was in the past" while drawing a distinction with later experiences), so getting the semantics correct is important, because otherwise it deteriorates into quibbling, like in so many other threads.

I don't think anyone is saying military service is a prerequisite - just that, as part of the job, it is potentially useful due to the many and varied (and sometimes contentious) interactions between government (and specifically the Executive Branch) and the military (if not the military/industrial "complex"). It's another piece to consider, for many people, when examining the potential pros of a candidate - and certainly more specific and universal than claiming that "a good President also has humility," which is certainly arguable and 100% unprovable as an assertion.

Right - this is why we simply don't elect the highest-ranking general every four years. Additionally, this is why we don't elect the highest-ranking diplomat, the head of HUD, or Tom Hanks (who certainly seems like a worthy and talented man on the whole).

Agreed...and I would LOVE to stay on point without people picking over the tiny shyte!