Every POTUS or candidate should have to serve in the Armed forces, any branch , for at LEAST 2 to 4. And have lived on a realistic budget at one time in their lives
Can't argue with that but shouldn't it be even more important to require that of congress and senate? They are the ones who pass the budget and spending bills.
@FelixLegion I still have some reservations about term limits. My thoughts have been if we limit them to one or two terms they'll get elected, do as they please because they can't serve more than one or two terms anyway. And we'd be no better off. Does that make sense?
@FelixLegion Oh I completely agree, they don't need to be there that long, I'm just unsure where the cutoff should be. If you make it too short you run the risk of having the same problems because they cant run again anyway so they might act like asshats then too. You know what I mean?
This is highly debatable, FDR never served in the armed services even though he volunteered to and I consider him to be really good with leadership. Its hard to make the conclusion that military service equates to good leadership. The last two presidents we had kinda lived affluently so the budget thing I can see, my parents told me that Obama pretty much lived in the "richy rich" part of Hawaii.
@FelixLegion its all fluff or a distraction to be honest. Who knows what past presidents such as FDR, Kennedy or Nixon would of done if they had twitter.
Only prior service members I don’t agree with. Your talking about nixing out very capable candidates. Leadership and selflessness are not exclusive traits to only the military.