"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Yeah, I'd love that.
I'll do anything to get rid of that dastardly bit socialist propaganda.
Its like people in a city arguing if they should change the name of the Chicago Bears to the Chicago Polticians or keep the name the same and so you go with the third option...move them to Oklahoma City. The third option isn't going to create less arguments within your base (in our case the citizenry), it's going to create an argument even larger than either of the two by joining them together with their common disdain.
Bears aren't synonymous with Politicans, so I'm probably go with the "Chicago hairy gay guys"
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Adding "under God" didn't violate the Constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad idea. The original version was better. I should be allowed to pledge allegiance to my country without making a religious statement that I disagree with. I would feel the same about this if I did believe in God. Do we want atheists to pledge allegiance to this country? Do we want them to lie when they do it? To those who say you can skip "under God", the purpose of the POA is to unite the people. The opposite happens if you have people making different pledges.
If you expect people to be rational, you aren't being rational.