Presidential Candidates Without Military Service:

Showing 11 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • jules rensch
    commented 2016-05-13 14:07:39 -0400
    Modern Whigs have the right idea…in seeing that Moderates are far more likely to get things done….experience has proven that fringes of the Left or the Right seem to contribute to a more divided, polarized society…
    America is now finding ourselves at a junction….Here is a bit of logic that most thinking folks will find very hard to ignore:

    Yesterday Steven Yaccino wrote an article for Bloomberg politics that reported on the independent movement that is growing exponentially across the country. At the top of the story: our official endorsement of Independent candidate Margaret Stock in her race to win a U.S Senate seat in Alaska.
    We are excited to endorse Margaret for two reasons. First, she is an incredibly impressive individual that served her country for 28 years in the U.S Army Military Police Corps, earned three degrees from Harvard, and won the 2013 MacArthur “genius grant” for her legal work on immigration and national security. And second, since over 50% of Alaskan voters are not registered with either of the major parties Stock’s candidacy presents an opportunity for independent voters to support a qualified candidate without a ‘D’ or ‘R’ next to their name (Click here to read more about Stock and our endorsement)
    To us, Stock’s campaign is about more than just a Senate seat or a state. It is about the growing number of Americans who are looking at our current political landscape and realize that we need something different. Our colleagues in the Oregon, Minnesota, and Massachusetts independence parties are witnessing the results of this anti-partisan sentiment firsthand as they watch their membership skyrocket and successfully field independent candidates to run for positions up and down the ballot.
    Here at Centrist we like to say that the cracks have been forming in the dam that the parties built to keep themselves in power. I think we are starting to see the water come through.
    Help us keep building the momentum and click here to become a monthly donor. With your help, this can be the year we breakthrough politics.

    Stay Centered,
    Pam Peak
    Executive Director
  • jules rensch
    commented 2016-05-12 22:03:35 -0400
    Love all of the great points being made by our fellow Modern Whigs….
    please don’t attribute my suggestion of going 3rd party as an absolute, sure-fire, cure for what is ailing the nation.
    The reality is; thinking out of the box (well defined as that box is) is being demonstrated right now, before our eyes…with Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has no chance of being elected as a Democrat or anything else.
    Worrisome to Democrats and Republicans alike, his impressive numbers are solid among Americans below the age of 45.
    In fact, Sanders is"singlehandedly" changing the political landscape, not only for 2016, but for generations to come.
    When Bernie folds his tent, eager, energized voters could find a real home at the Green Party (Dr. Jill Stein)….where upon just a cursory examination of the GP Platform reveals… 90% of Sanders talking points!
    That is how viable 3rd parties in modern & enlightened countries come into existence. Much as we would like to think that can happen quickly…. It is never an overnight sensation…..

    respectfully, Observer Jules
  • Douglas Harvey
    commented 2016-05-12 21:38:25 -0400
    Jules, most of our founding fathers were “unproven, filthy rich neophytes” in their day. And Robert, I agree with you that there is currently no Whig or Third Party candidate who would be viable come this November. However, I am thinking that perhaps a Trump Presidency would set the conditions that would make that choice possible in 2020 while a Clinton Presidency would not.
  • jules rensch
    commented 2016-05-12 19:27:39 -0400
    As for the likely Republican vs. likely Democrat appearing on our November ballot….this seems a worthwhile thought to ponder:

    “Those who support Mister Trump, no matter how reluctantly, have crossed a moral boundary. They are standing with a leader who encourages prejudice and despises the weak. They are aiding the transformation of a party formed by Lincoln’s blazing vision of equality into a party of white resentment. Those who find this one of the normal, everyday compromises of politics have truly lost their way.”

    While those may be stiff words, some would say that Hillary Clinton is also an immoral choice, and for that reason, they’re reluctantly backing Trump.
    Others feel uncomfortable making a moral judgment at all, or don’t see this as a moral choice.

    Do Modern Whigs see any of this as a moral choice?

    respectfully, Observer Jules
  • jules rensch
    commented 2016-05-12 19:16:16 -0400
    Lucky for us in Ohio…we will have more than “same old, same old” to choose from, on our ballot in November !

    Interestingly, how is it that anyone can draw a conclusion based on the idea that we have had far worse sitting Presidents….vs. what an unproven, filthy rich neophyte might be?
    Some crystal ball! LOL

    respectfully, Observer Jules
  • Douglas Harvey
    commented 2016-05-12 18:54:48 -0400
    I would respond to Robert Edwards with this one statement: The reason we have a Third Party which we are trying to build and promote new ideas with is because the “status quo” is not working. So no, a criminal who maintains the status quo is not a better option since our entire premise is to change the status quo. At this point, while Mr. Trump seems personally objectionable, it is a fact that he somehow managed to get filthy rich, and to do that you need to know at least two things: 1) how to negotiate, and 2) how to build a functional leadership team. At this point, he seems to be the best option on the likely ballot, and I have faith in our form of government and our constitution. There have been far worse sitting Presidents than Trump is likely to be. We’ll survive.
  • jules rensch
    commented 2016-05-12 18:27:04 -0400
    Well, there is this thing, it’s called "settling for the lessor of two evils..something that Americans seem to do year after year, election after election.
    Unless voting citizens begin to see that there is a more sensible way of thinking, a more imaginative way of voting…we are doomed to a continuum of never having the most righteous, the truly just and best people becoming elected. Such the pity!
    Voting for the “best of the best” certainly seems like what we must endeavour to do….if we are to take our role seriously.
    We simply cannot break the “two-party stranglehold” by repeating our same old, same old, voting habit.
    Go ahead, vote your conscience…Libertarian, Green Party, Democratic Socialist, Constitution Party or whatever….be part of a constructive change for America!

    respectfully, Observer Jules
  • Douglas Harvey
    commented 2016-02-22 17:37:04 -0500
    Aaron, always interesting debating issues with you! Now don’t get me wrong, I fully appreciate your sarcastic take on contemporary politics, but despite my decades of personal military service, I myself am looking for one quality above all for our Nation’s leadership. If we limit our discussion to the presidential race, just as an example, I want a truly good human being elected. By this I mean a decent, moral individual with a good grasp of that rare quality COMMON SENSE, a respect for law, and a deep desire to serve the Nation. That military members and veterans tend to have these qualities more than the average member of the public at large does not exclude others from the pool. I probably should just put a plate of milk and cookies by the chimney and wait for Santa to slide down, but a truly good and intelligent individual could easily do the job. Given my criteria, Hillary (criminal) would be eliminated right up front, as would Sanders (socialist fool), Trump (Egotistical Blowhard), Cruz and Rubio (Evangelical Right Wing Tools). Only Ben Carson even comes close, and I’m not sure he would survive the environment inside Dante’s 9th circle of Hell (The Washington Beltway). Perhaps we really should let Trump swing a wrecking ball through government in the hopes that whomever comes after will do a better job at reconstruction?
  • Douglas Harvey
    commented 2016-02-22 13:54:39 -0500
    I myself am not so disappointed with the lack of military service by presidential candidates as I am with the lack of experience overall in dealing with issues on a world level. Hillary was Secretary of State, but she wasn’t qualified for that position in the first place, and the results speak for themselves. What really bothers me though, is the tendency of politicians of all sorts to be only interested in their own job security and not the benefit of the nation as a whole.
  • Steve Robert
    commented 2016-02-07 18:23:31 -0500
    Sorry. I was just hoping to put a quick thought for others to consider. Obviously I screwed up the posting. I just wanted to say I was disappointed that no major player running for president has any military service. Very sad.
  • Steve Robert
    published this page in Whig Forums 2016-02-07 18:21:24 -0500