Should Prior Military Service be Required to Serve in Congress?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by longknife, Mar 21, 2018.

?

Should Candidates for Congress Have Prior Military Service

  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
    29.2%
  2. No

    17 vote(s)
    70.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. frigidweirdo
    Online

    frigidweirdo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    31,792
    Thanks Received:
    3,186
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,205
    Having had military service doesn't make you more qualified to serve in Congress. Congress needs people who both understand the military and people who look more negatively about the military. That balance is essential.

    Not that it matters as Congress is just full of people on the take anyway who don't represent the voters.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    118,234
    Thanks Received:
    13,675
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +40,925
    It's an idea that requires a Constitutional Amendment....someone running for Congress should at least have some passing knowledge of the requirements as per Article I.
     
  3. usmbguest5318
    Offline

    usmbguest5318 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    10,929
    Thanks Received:
    1,607
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +5,771
    What's the big deal about his being "under fire for comments he made?" He's running for elected office. Anyone who runs for or wins elected office will, of course, take heat for comments s/he makes, and it really won't matter what they are. It is thus incumbent on audience members, hearing the criticism and surmising it may be germane, to examine the original remark(s) and criticism(s), the context of both, and thus informed, determine whether the original comment and/or ridicule of it are germane.

    In Butner's case, and based on the information provided:
    • Butner's remarks, the opening premise and conclusion of them being normative, are:
      • Initial remarks --> "When you look at anybody for any political office you should look at their past experiences. I served for 23 years. It shows dedication and you’ve been exposed to foreign policy at the tip of the spear. I learned a lot about cultures, in conflict and cooperation. It should be a requirement to have served to even run."
        • Analysis:
          • When you look at anybody for any political office you should look at their past experiences. --> Normative premise. Every employer does that with regard to seekers of a position the employer is offering. One doesn't have it, but it's prudent to do so. I agree with this normative statement.
          • I served for 23 years. --> This is a fact; he did serve for 23 years. That is what it is.
          • It shows dedication and you’ve been exposed to foreign policy at the tip of the spear. --> Two more facts.
            • 23 years in any profession shows dedication.
            • The military is the "tip" of the foreign policy "spear."
              • The military and what it does is just one part of the foreign policy arsenal that includes military and diplomatic "weapons." Too, the "tip of the spear" isn't the only part that's important. Indeed, "the tip" often enough has little or no awareness of what's going on behind it, next to it, etc. Sometimes "just the tip" (lol) is enough, and sometimes it's too much. Butner's remark gives us no indication of the comprehensivity of what he's learned with regard to the remainder of the "arsenal," the "spear," other implements (diplomatic or military) in the arsenal, or how to use/manage either, both or other elements, be it collaboratively or singularly.
          • It should be a requirement to have served to even run. --> Normative conclusion. Most importantly, the statement is a conclusion that does not follow cogently from the premise and facts Butner presented. Because it doesn't, one must take it as nothing more than Butner's opinion.
      • Contextual clarification statement from Butner --> "When I referred to service, I mean some form of National Service. National Service could consist of the Peace Corps, a similar form of national domestic service, or the military."
        • Analysis:
          • I don't believe he meant, at the time he made the initial remarks, "some form" of national service. I don't because:
            • His initial statement referred to his own service, which was military service. He didn't have to specify his own service as the reference point for his initial remarks.
            • If in his mind at the time he was thinking "some form" of national service, it wouldn't at all have been taxing for him to have simply said so, a la: "It should be a requirement to have served, in some form, to even run." Better still: "National service of some form should be a requirement to even run." After all, extemporaneous speakers say pretty much what comes to mind. "Some form" of national service may have been in his head, but insofar as that's such a simple element, it's hard to imagine it did and he yet didn't include that component in his remarks.
            • The man whom Butner will likely (as of now) face in the general election also served in the military. Butner's primary opponent did not. Consequently, Butner's having served as a Navy SEAL neutralizes any opposing party candidate's ability to use military service as a differentiator/advantage. I'm sure Butner knows as much.
          • I don't think Butner meant any slight by his remark. I think political strategy -- showing that/how he's a better candidate (more electable, so to speak) against opposing whomever the opposing party runs is the main reason he said what he did.
    • His competitor's remarks are:
      • Tweeted: "That means ppl with disabilities, obesity, or LGBT ppl during Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would‘ve been prohibited from running."
        • Analysis:
          • It can mean that. It doesn't have to.
            • Some disabilities prevent one from rendering military service, and some don't.
            • During "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT)," LGB (I don't know about "T") people could serve; however, to do so, they had to effectively be "in the closet." That's not terribly different from the circumstance under which LGB people served in the U.S. military before DADT.

              [Off-topic: To this day, I don't know how anyone came to think DADT made any friggin' sense. All DADT did was put a term to what was already the way LGB US armed forces personnel were treated. If one didn't give one's peers and superiors reason to think one was gay (DT), they didn't think one was nor did they ask about it (DA).]
            • Obesity: In some, maybe many, cases, bootcamp will "cure" obesity. If one is so extremely obese that one cannot make it into bootcamp, or one cannot perform "up to snuff" during bootcamp, weight training and diet discipline prior to enlisting (or after getting booted from bootcamp) will resolve obesity.
    My Conclusions:
    • Re: Butner's remarks:
      • He should have:
        • Let his original remark stand as it was, offering no subsequent clarification, or
        • Thought more carefully when responding to the San Diego Union-Tribune's (SDUT) inquiry.
      • Butner made the initial remark on Sunday; his primary opponent chided it/him on Sunday. The SDUT asked Butner about it on Monday.

        It strains credulity to think Butner wasn't aware of his opponent's comment/tweet before the SDUT asked for a response to it. Both men's remarks are straightforward enough, and Butner, having 23 years of military service should know damn well that his opponent's comment had material logical holes in it.
    • What I'd have advised Butner to do/say:
      Butner should have "attacked" the logical gaps in his opponent's tweet and doubled-down on his initial remark by, in his own words, saying something like all three of the following:
      1. My opponent's remarks aren't entirely accurate and here's why...
      2. I believe military service is beneficial quality for Congressmen to have, particularly since part of the job calls for voting on military/DOD policy and budgets, to say nothing of possibly having to vote on whether our troops are sent to fight a war. Having served in the military will give a Congressman a measure of perspective that no one who's never served can have about the merits of all three of those decisions.
      3. To that end, I'll retract the "required to run" part of my initial remark; however, I stand by the fact that I think military service -- mine in particular as goes my fitness for representing the people of the Fiftieth District -- provides useful and good preparation for serving in Congress, and I'm not retreating from that position.

        My military service, IMO, will make me a better representative of CA's Fiftieth District, which has thousands of active, reserve and retired veteran families, many of whom having sons and daughters connected to San Diego's Marine and Coast Guard installations, to say nothing of Naval Base San Diego which, of course, is home to the Navy's Pacific Fleet.

        Agree with me or don't, at your discretion, but that's my position and I'm sticking to it.

    Aside:
    Now sure as it took a few minutes to type the above, it took all of half a second to think it....What is there to say? Thoughts happen at light speed, but my fingers, tongue and lips don't. (I drafted the post using speech-to-text and completed it by typing.)​
     
  4. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,668
    Of course you do.

    While you ignore the comments made by other fellow prisoners in the Hanoi Hilton.

    Because of course that is how the fringe far right treat our combat veterans- giving empty platitudes about 'honoring' our veterans'- unless you disagree with them politically in which case you happily shit all over them.
     
  5. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,668
    Sounds like someone missed her nap.
     
  6. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,668
    And of course that goes beyond the original intent of the Founders also.

    While I am not completely opposed to the concept of mandatory public service- if it were universally applied- in other words- not just imposed on 18 year old's and everyone older would be grandfathered in- so for example Donald Trump would have to serve his two years just like the kid graduating high school- the idea of compulsory mandatory service for everyone is certainly also beyond the original intent of our Founding Fathers also.
     
  7. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,668
    Of course you are pissed off that John McCain was willing to work in Congress to get things done rather than just be a rigid right wing idealist- that McCain was more like Reagan and less like Steve Bannon.

    And yes- John McCain- volunteered- both to join the military and to go into combat.
    I respect that from any veteran and I don't denigrate it by saying that its just another job that they get paid for.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. pismoe
    Offline

    pismoe Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    28,151
    Thanks Received:
    2,975
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,733
    --------------------------------------- Good morning . and you can do as you like but i see 'pro immigration' 'juan mcstain' and others like him [bush family] and others as scum . What a country that previous / earlier generations of AMERICANS have built as we can have different opinions that we can freely express eh Syriusly .
     
  9. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,668
    You can express whatever opinions you want- you are free to do so- that doesn't mean you are free from criticism for your stupid thoughts or for your shitting on American veterans.
     
  10. pismoe
    Offline

    pismoe Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    28,151
    Thanks Received:
    2,975
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,733
    'juan mcstain' was flying a state of the art flying target at some huge height and speed . He got shot down . Did you ever see 'juans' surrender statue at the site that he was captured at . I'll get it if i can find it again Syriusly .
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

azs