Post by: wmenorr67 on July 19, 2008, 07:47:09 PM
Here is a website that breaks down the military service of all three branches of the government. It is rather interesting.
For example in the Senate 29% of them have military service. Of the 29%, 16% are Republicans and 13% are Democrats.
In the House 22.4% have military service and 12.5% are Republicans and 9.9% are Democrats.
Post by: RevDisk on July 19, 2008, 09:21:35 PM
Republicans with military service: 13.1%
Democrats with military service: 10.5%
So roughly a quarter total have served. How odd that they do not remember their old oath.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 19, 2008, 09:22:58 PM
Post by: Werewolf on July 20, 2008, 06:54:10 AM
Maybe Heinlein did get it right...
Post by: Finch on July 20, 2008, 07:26:34 AM
We need a constitutional amendment to the effect that unless you've served in the military for at least 2 years you don't get to run for political office.
Maybe Heinlein did get it right...
Maybe Heinlein did get it right...
Yeah, that just screams of a free republic...
Post by: Werewolf on July 20, 2008, 08:25:15 AM
We need a constitutional amendment to the effect that unless you've served in the military for at least 2 years you don't get to run for political office.
Maybe Heinlein did get it right...
Maybe Heinlein did get it right...
Yeah, that just screams of a free republic...
What it screams of is having people in politics willing to serve the nation prior to trying to run it. Military service, especially if one experiences combat provides one a perspective on things one can get no where else.
Consider military service part of their prospective leader of the nation training.
Besides doing it would eliminate most of the weenies like schumer and obama. Wesley clark being a notable exception.
Post by: Antibubba on July 20, 2008, 02:44:33 PM
Post by: Werewolf on July 20, 2008, 02:50:59 PM
Heinlein's "soldiers" included those who wouldn't fight but who volunteered to test vaccines or underwent similar dangerous duty. Would you include them as well?
Sure why not. If one isn't willing to serve ones country in some capacity that demands a bit of personal sacrifice then why should one be permitted to lead it? One should be invested in one's country in some matter if one is to lead it.
Post by: Finch on July 20, 2008, 04:05:07 PM
What it screams of is having people in politics willing to serve the nation prior to trying to run it. Military service, especially if one experiences combat provides one a perspective on things one can get no where else.
I don't know, I guess I'm one of the few who view being a politician as being a statesman. I view being a politician as serving ones country. Now granted, a good 98% percent of those in office do not reflect that sentiment...
And I also fail to see how being in combat better prepares one to make laws and juggle our liberties. What perspectives are you speaking of?
Post by: Tallpine on July 20, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 20, 2008, 07:25:39 PM
Post by: Phantom Warrior on July 20, 2008, 08:38:05 PM
Quote
And I also fail to see how being in combat better prepares one to make laws and juggle our liberties. What perspectives are you speaking of?
Exactly. Speaking as a serving military member, I always roll my eyes when people talk about how important military service is in a candidate. Do we expect politicians to have a J.D. since they make laws? What about a degree in economics or experience in the financial sector since they deal with so much financial/economic stuff? What about education, technology, health care, the environment or any of the other dozens of issues they routinely deal with?
But it comes to military service and all of a sudden it's a big deal that they have first hand, personal experience with the issue. And for what? Usually so that they can understand "what war is really like." Here's a clue for you. War sucks. Go read a book or watch "Saving Private Ryan." Is it really that hard to imagine that being far away from home in a foreign country getting shot at and blown up might suck? Do we have to require first hand experience too?
Military service means you've served in a bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient organization that has little to no bearing on reality because it's a government organization with no competition. Yeah, there are some great Americans in the military. I've worked with some of them. And we happen to win wars and keep the country safe, mostly. But there are a lot of morons in the military too. The thought of my old battalion commander running for office fills me with terror. Don't give someone an automatic pass just because they've served.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 20, 2008, 08:47:09 PM
Quote
Military service means you've served in a bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient organization that has little to no bearing on reality because it's a government organization with no competition. Yeah, there are some great Americans in the military. I've worked with some of them. And we happen to win wars and keep the country safe, mostly. But there are a lot of morons in the military too. The thought of my old battalion commander running for office fills me with terror. Don't give someone an automatic pass just because they've served.
See you just won the argument for a candidate having a military background.
Phantom I have BTDT also. Of course thankfully I have not seen some of the things you have seen just based on my MOS. But I see enough to know that the ground pounders have my utmost respect, and I will do my damndest to make sure that the info I give them is the best info they can have.
Post by: wideym on July 21, 2008, 02:45:07 AM
Just like R.A.H's Starship Trooper, everyone should fight, no one gets to sit back in the rear because they are support personnel. Besides in the book as well as the movie, SERVICE EQUALS CITIZENSHIP! No service, whether as military or civilian type job, means you cannot VOTE or HOLD OFFICE.
It remindes me of what my grandfather told me "If you don't earn it, you won't appreciate it."
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 21, 2008, 02:53:20 AM
Post by: wideym on July 21, 2008, 03:35:34 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 21, 2008, 05:00:27 AM
I thought it was a Mobile Infantry tradition to send everyone into combat drops, not necessarily anyone else.
Post by: RevDisk on July 21, 2008, 06:50:23 AM
Just like R.A.H's Starship Trooper, everyone should fight, no one gets to sit back in the rear because they are support personnel. Besides in the book as well as the movie, SERVICE EQUALS CITIZENSHIP! No service, whether as military or civilian type job, means you cannot VOTE or HOLD OFFICE.
It remindes me of what my grandfather told me "If you don't earn it, you won't appreciate it."
Actually, in the book, plenty of people sit in the rear. Doctors, Navy support, Games and Theory folk, etc. Plus REMF jobs were still necessary, contractors were doing jobs previously requiring military folks, which has it's own good and bad sides. Mobile Infantry dropped everyone, not the entire military. But even in Heinlein's book, four years of peace time REMF work was exactly equal to four combat tours with multiple drops.
I don't think many folks believe manditory military service would be a good thing. Let alone a requirement for political office, or a requirement for citizenship. I personally tend to put an ounce more trust in someone if they are prior service. Bit more than an ounce for someone that did an OCONUS tour in an unfriendly place. But I don't use that as my sole determinating factor.
Post by: 41magsnub on July 21, 2008, 07:27:02 AM
I vehemently oppose the wannabe "ruling class" of folks who immediately get a job after graduating college in politics as an aide of some kind or another and eventually run for office themselves without ever working outside of government.
Post by: Werewolf on July 21, 2008, 08:01:16 AM
So how does society rid itself of the current crop of sleazeballs that make up Congress short of a revolution?
Because they are sleazeballs. Congress' approval ratings are in the teens so most Americans (if one believes the polls) would seem to agree or they just think all the other congresscritters except theirs are sleazeballs.
Are we stuck with what we've got?
Are we getting what we deserve? (I'm guessing a lot of you will say yes to that).
If so then an ill wind is blowing in the direction of the USA's future.
Post by: HankB on July 21, 2008, 08:57:48 AM
. . . One should be invested in one's country in some matter if one is to lead it. . . .
More of my labor goes to pay government TAXES than to food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. Is that enough of an . . . investment?I endeavor to inform myself of the issues, and vote in every election . . . is that investment enough?
When called, I report to jury duty . . . and have served as a juror. Does this count as an . . . investment?
Or would it make you happy that sterling examples of political leadership like John Kerry, John Murtha, Charlie Rangel, Al Gore, etc. would be the only ones eligible to hold office?
People who've served honorably in the military deserve a modicum of respect for their service, especially if they went in harm's way . . . but I've no doubt that there are plenty of people with no military service at all who'd make better leaders than the examples I cited above.
Post by: RevDisk on July 21, 2008, 09:31:30 AM
I stand corrected...
So how does society rid itself of the current crop of sleazeballs that make up Congress short of a revolution?
Because they are sleazeballs. Congress' approval ratings are in the teens so most Americans (if one believes the polls) would seem to agree or they just think all the other congresscritters except theirs are sleazeballs.
Are we stuck with what we've got?
Are we getting what we deserve? (I'm guessing a lot of you will say yes to that).
If so then an ill wind is blowing in the direction of the USA's future.
So how does society rid itself of the current crop of sleazeballs that make up Congress short of a revolution?
Because they are sleazeballs. Congress' approval ratings are in the teens so most Americans (if one believes the polls) would seem to agree or they just think all the other congresscritters except theirs are sleazeballs.
Are we stuck with what we've got?
Are we getting what we deserve? (I'm guessing a lot of you will say yes to that).
If so then an ill wind is blowing in the direction of the USA's future.
How does Congress reform itself short of revolution? It can't. Oh, don't get me wrong. Good times come and go. There ARE reforms here and there, token ones usually. But sometimes something decent comes along, like FISA, 401k's or whatnot. In general, governments get steadily more corrupt until they fall. Then a new one pops up. The cycle continues indefinitely. We have two nearly identical political parties whose only real concern is maintaining the status quo. They will screw each other over, but usually only to a certain extent. They have their "hot topics" to drum up some public support, but in the end, on almost all major points, they are identical.
We are stuck with what we have, but there is SOME room for possible improvement. It's worth the effort. And no, I'd have to say we do not deserve what we're getting. I have no idea how much I really pay in taxes due to the multitude of hidden taxes on goods and services. I know how much is taken directly out of my pay. For very little in return. I do expect it to get much worse as time continues. But I don't think things will come to a head for many years to come.
Post by: Antibubba on July 21, 2008, 08:21:42 PM
Quote
Because they are sleazeballs. Congress' approval ratings are in the teens so most Americans (if one believes the polls) would seem to agree or they just think all the other congresscritters except theirs are sleazeballs.
No, I think my Congresscritters are a waste of human flesh, too.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2008, 11:59:49 PM
I'd rather have people like them than practically any modern politician with a military record.
Post by: De Selby on July 22, 2008, 12:30:27 AM
I search in vein for any reference for the military service records of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, James Madison or James Monroe.
I'd rather have people like them than practically any modern politician with a military record.
I'd rather have people like them than practically any modern politician with a military record.
There's a reason they made the commander in chief a civilian, also.
For folks who demand military service as a condition to hold office, I say look south...the more distinctions and divisions you have been military/civilian life, the more risk you have of rule by military.
There are some things the founders did that should be monkeyed with, but this isn't one of them.