Verified answer

Completely irrelevant. We've had great Presidents and horrible Presidents who served in the military. Richard M. Nixon was a World War II Navy vet. Carter served on nuclear submarines. U.S. Grant commanded the Union Army, and was a mediocre President. Reagan's military service was making movies as a reservist in Hollywood, hardly a military life, but most people would agree he was an effective President. FDR, who never served due to polio, led this nation through the Great Depression and World War II.

Putting on a uniform doesn't magically make you a good person. Timothy McVeigh was a decorated veteran. He's also the worst domestic terrorist in American history.

They would have had less experience with politics and things like that in most cases. It would be more important to have had experience in all different types of jobs, than just one. If you vote for someone just because of one job they had, you aren't making sure they are the best person. Same with people who will only vote for democrats or republicans, one election someone on one side may be better but the next one on the other side may be. If you only vote for one side you aren't actually caring who is better, just which side they are on. i would prefer vote for someone who has been in multiple different careers, because then they know about how everything works different, and not assume every job/career works like the one or two they had been in.

that is not important to me if a candidate has protection rigidity experience or not. for occasion, Abraham Lincoln had no protection rigidity experience (a minimum of not in any battles) and he grow to be the final president in US background. His counter-section, Jefferson Davis, had fought interior the Mexican conflict and fought nicely. The latter grow to be a destructive president. yet another occasion is invoice Clinton, who certainly left the U. S. to ward off scuffling with interior the Vietnam conflict on a Rhodes Scholarship. different examples of large presidents without protection rigidity experience are Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson (by no potential fought, yet did lots for the U. S. along with his quill), John Adams (comparable as Jefferson), and James Madison (conflict of 1812 not secure). the U. S. obsession with protection rigidity experience has in hassle-free terms come interior the 20 th century with the likes of Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who have been all large presidents not because of the protection rigidity, yet considering that grow to be who they have been.

I bekieve it is very important and i would argue that even more important is the candidates sons or daughters serve in the military as well.Say what you want about the Royals..they all serve in the military

Obviously, not very important since Ron Paul is almost non existent in the polls.

Actually, someone did a list of war-time presidents, comparing who did well or didn't, vs who had military experience or didn't, and didn't really find a correlation.

However, I would take Ron Paul over those other bozos any day.

Very important

i think it is verry important