As a Service Member, could you vote for a Presidential candidate that would be great for the American people, but not for the military?

2018-12-17T16:06:32-05:00

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Dec 17 at 2018 4:15 PM

2018-12-17T16:15:28-05:00

You might want to rephrase that. I have no clue on what you are asking.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2018 4:23 PM

2018-12-17T16:23:22-05:00

The President of the United States has a very demanding job and a plethora of duties and responsibility. I vote for the person who I think will be able to do the best job.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Dec 17 at 2018 5:04 PM

2018-12-17T17:04:50-05:00

The MIL track record on this stuff changes depending on what's going on in the world. I remember a heavy vote for Nixon because he was going to get us out of 'Nam. If you aren't in some hopeless hole out there, the vote tends to go more broad based. With an ever small percentage of the vote, the MIL side doesn't have much impact on National Level. However, in a MIL Town, the House vote is definitely affected by the MILs.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Dec 17 at 2018 5:07 PM

2018-12-17T17:07:42-05:00

I would vote for the overall candidate, one I would believe would do great at all aspects of the office.

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made Dec 17 at 2018 7:38 PM

2018-12-17T19:38:25-05:00

I vote for candidates based on 1) professional experience applicable to the position, 2) any military or civil service experience, 3) overall character, 4) personal and professional history that could either interfere with the performance of their duties or produce a flaw that I believe should disqualify them from service in the office, 5) political philosophy, affiliation, and position on certain issues that affect each citizen.
The idea that "Commander-in-Chief" can be separated in the mind from "POTUS" is idiotic. The position is and should be thought of as one and the same. One cannot elect someone who would mis-utilize or injure the military just as one cannot elect someone who would be unable to properly manage the civil sector of the government.

Response by CPO Nate S. made Dec 18 at 2018 8:03 AM

2018-12-18T08:03:01-05:00

I am surprised a United States Marine like you Cpl Kevin Henderson would ask this kind of question. Yet the answer is simple - BOTH:

(1) President of the American People: Have they proven they can MANAGE and LEAD large complex operations/organizations with the axiom the "greatest good for the greatest number of people" with an understanding that every person has VALUE and requires respect and those in the majority and the minority are considered EQUITABLY.

(2) Commander-in-Chief: RESPECTS & UNDERSTANDS the role of military in both WAR and PEAC and knows that for our military to be effective the President at both a LEADERSHIP and HUMAN level must set example in KNOWING, ARTICULATING and SUPPORTING those roles and the people that make-up the military with appropriate resources to facilitate SUCCESS when called on to execute the respective functions that will MAXIMAL IMPACT AGAINST the ENEMY and MAXIMAL SURVIVABILITYof OUR TROOPS to return home to their families after VICTORY.

Finally, what SGT Joseph Gunderson is spot on "The idea that "Commander-in-Chief" can be separated in the mind from "POTUS" is idiotic. The position is and should be thought of as one and the same. One cannot elect someone who would mis-utilize or injure the military just as one cannot elect someone who would be unable to properly manage the civil sector of the government." Well said SGT Joseph Gunderson!!! Also, Cpl Kevin Henderson your response to SGM Steve Wettstein is a must better question, it is the question you have led with. However, for anyone to understand the AMERICAN PRESIDENT they understand the American Presidency as laid out in the Constitution and it has been understood by both the American People juxtaposition via both World and US history's lens.

Again, the role of the US President is to unify so they can think and act in support of ALL the American People.

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member; MCPO Mark Durland; SCPO Morris Ramsey; MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi; SSG Carlos Madden; SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth; Sgt Elizabeth Scheck; HN Charles H.; Cpl Thomas Kifer; MSgt Paul Connors (Publishing); LTC Private RallyPoint Member; SFC Robert Escher; SSG Phillip Trezza

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Dec 18 at 2018 8:08 AM

2018-12-18T08:08:57-05:00

The main thing is to Vote. Vote in all elections.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Dec 18 at 2018 8:10 AM

2018-12-18T08:10:54-05:00

When you take up the Sword you do not lay down the Citizen. Vote and encourage other members of your unit to Vote.

Response by SGT David T. made Dec 18 at 2018 9:44 AM

2018-12-18T09:44:13-05:00

Both since they are both lol

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2018 2:06 PM

2018-12-18T14:06:30-05:00

I think that's a short sighted question. None of the presidents are ever bad for the military. That's a question where people usually imply that a president is good for the military if they support big spending packages and bad for it if they don't. In reality, the military grows and shrinks in accordance with the needs of Congress. For instance, the military doubled in size during the surge. President Bush authorized insanely large amounts of money for the military. Units were allowed to buy all kinds of things for their Soldiers. Tons of new gear was issued and that was great. For the first time in decades, the USMC wasn't wearing old Army hand me down equipment and they even fielded the new uniforms you see now. The president managed to bring military pay on par with civilian wages for the first time in decades. On the down side, the huge spending led to fiscal irresponsibility, moral waivers from applicants were higher than ever and a large majority of those applicants were later kicked out.
Then the next president oversaw a major reduction in the force size and shrank the budget. The branches got more lean, focused on supply and financial discipline and learned to spend their money better. While reducing the overall budget and size Obama increased spending and expanded existing support programs for the military such as paying for daycare, chaplain programs, MyCAA for spouses, and other programs designed to support families.
Now our current president is increasing the military budget while reducing funding for several of the family programs and looking to cut expenses through initiatives like removing BAH w/dependents rate for dual military.

None of these presidents were bad for the military. The military adapts to the needs of the country. Eisenhower, one of the greatest generals ever, was skeptical of throwing money at the military. He believed the military owed it to the country to do more with less. I have yet to see a candidate come in with any proposal that would be bad for the military.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 19 at 2018 12:58 AM

2018-12-19T00:58:04-05:00

Cpl Kevin Henderson yes, I expect that most service members would be focused on what is best for the nation as a whole and the American people's common interest.
There is no policy or position that is great for the DoD and military services across their depth and breadth.
1. For instance some may opine that ending all wars would be great for the military even though it would result in a significant reduction in force is truly enacted.
2. Dramatically increasing the salary of all military service members may appear good for the military however it would most likely impact loved ones who are not in the military with a higher tax burden or reduced service or both.
Thanks for mentioning me, my friend CPO Nate S.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Dec 19 at 2018 8:59 AM

2018-12-19T08:59:10-05:00

Interesting question.