09-20-2015, 09:52 PM
The last U.S. President who actually served in combat was Bush Sr,, who fought for the U.S. back in the mid 1940s.
Personally, living in the here and now, I'd rather have a President who is adept at choosing key post leaders with the right direct experience to manage their staffs in today's world (including militarily) than a President who is war-experienced but deficient in other qualifications.
A well-rounded, top-notch leader is by far a bigger asset to the country than a leader who served in combat but doesn't have the essential appointment, delegation, political, diplomatic, and economic savvy to run the nation efficiently in times of both peace and war, in my opinion.
I wouldn't vote for Graham or Webb simply because they're the only two candidates in the running who've actively served.
(And, it makes no difference to me whether key post leaders are straight, bi, homosexual, asexual...so long as they're well-qualified and focused on getting the job done.)
Personally, living in the here and now, I'd rather have a President who is adept at choosing key post leaders with the right direct experience to manage their staffs in today's world (including militarily) than a President who is war-experienced but deficient in other qualifications.
A well-rounded, top-notch leader is by far a bigger asset to the country than a leader who served in combat but doesn't have the essential appointment, delegation, political, diplomatic, and economic savvy to run the nation efficiently in times of both peace and war, in my opinion.
I wouldn't vote for Graham or Webb simply because they're the only two candidates in the running who've actively served.
(And, it makes no difference to me whether key post leaders are straight, bi, homosexual, asexual...so long as they're well-qualified and focused on getting the job done.)