Less than four, more than four, none at all?

No. There are two different types of good presidents. The Native Americans had it down. With a war chief and a peace chief, it worked well. Some presidents do well in peace times and some do well in war times. A former soldier would do well as a warring president, while some former schoolboys would do well in peace.

a president should be smart enough to implement oil alternatives so we don't need oil war. or rare earth alternatives so we don't need resource wars. or domestic production so we don't need trade wars.

That is a good point

Oh! That's neat to know!
I definitely agree with you. That sounds like a nice system if the US could implement that.
Although I do wonder if the current system with the presidential cabinet makes up for the lack of having two presidents.

Well I didn’t mean there should be two, just that there are many different “good” presidents.

Ah, but look at Eisenhower. He was certainly a soldier, but only a few months after he got into office he had worked out an end to the Korean war.

Yeah. There are a few like that who are well-rounded. Those tend to be the best presidents because they can handle anything, but unfortunately, not many are/were like that.

Yes and no... Presidents should need to do a minimum amount of public service, whether that is in the military or through non-religious, non-political charities.

unlike trump who's mob of conservatards said obamas only other job was "community organizer"

No. Because time in the military doesn't make you a good president. I think it's more important for a president to have some kind of diplomatic experience than military experience.

You absolutely do not need to be a soldier to prove you can be a good leader. That's BS. We've had plenty of not so good presidents who served...hell, we had a taylor become president and he did pretty good!

lol

Military service is nice, but I’m indifferent to military service as a requirement for POTUS, most politicians don’t have it, and such a requirement would unfairly exclude a lot of talented politicians with ideas and the communication and organizational skills to put them into effect.

I think Presidents should have held *some* sort of public office. A Congress seat. A governorship. Heck, even a mayor.

The idea that billionaires can run for President and have a good chance of winning, even without any governing experience, simply because they have a TON of cash on hand, is kind of F’d up. And the results we got from 4 years of a celebrity billionaire President weren’t exactly great (let’s be honest).

Not just Trump btw. Tom Steyer ran in the Democratic primaries and that was awkward. Marianne Williamson too (not a billionaire, but it was pretty clear she ran just for the fame).

Michael Bloomberg is a multibillionaire, but he was mayor of NYC for 12 years so he would be allowed under that rule.

I don't like Trump, but I think it's also not a good thing that we have all these corrupt career politicians.

Trump is no doubt corrupt, but their comment seemed to be more anti-not-career-politicians and not as much anti-trump.

Personally I prefer lawyers work on laws and not big business.

The last time I checked, a mechanic in Michigan is legally called a mechanic.

if our government is to work for the people and not themselves, we need real people in the office. not career politicians.

You mean real people like

what why ...(n-o-0

4 years of public service. They also have to be a politician. Not a reality TV star

What you’re referring to as amendment and constitutional law are two completely different things. Should I think that all running presidents should have military experience? Not necessarily because the president doesn’t have complete control over the military.

After the declaration of war by congress, the president pretty much has complete control over the military, within the bound of law.

Not in this current situation, it was said that each military branch runs in itself during the middle of a pandemic.

Were not always in the middle of a pandemic though.

We are never out of a pandemic if you think about it

Wdym?

From past pandemics the disease continues to contaminate people but we just have better control of it.

Then it isn't a pandemic anymore.

It wasn’t a pandemic from the start

Yes, it was. it wasn't as serious as people were saying, but it was still a pandemic.

Yea, a plandemic

Lmao no that's one of the stupidest things i've ever heard

If it's one of the stupidest things you've ever heard, then you haven't heard much or don't like America.

We need presidents who can prevent wars from starting and presidents who can finish them if they do start.

It's an interesting idea. It might show better who cares about the country and who doesn't.

not if it means trump and bush wouldn't get to be president :)

Bush served, sorta.

...in the bone spurs coast guard LOL

who?

oh duh lol

LOLLLLLL!

I'd be willing to extend that to the right to be elected to any office, and also to vote.

I think that's a little harsh, especially to vote. That eliminates anyone under the age of 21 from voting, while 18-year-olds can be drafted. I think the age of voting should be the same as the draft age.

Heck, have you met any 30 year olds recently?

There are going to be immature people in any age group, if that is indeed your point. I still don't think it's right for people to be drafted before they can make decisions in our government.

Have you met any 22 year olds recently?