I can't even begin to imagine how hard it is for him to pledge his allegiance to anyone or anything other than himself. Poor guy.

Your patriotic hero and wife....
https://videosift.com/video/Trump-Cant-Even-Mouth-The-Pledge-Of-Allegiance

Yet Trumptard's like bobknight33 will blindly pledge allegiance to said moron... Birds of a feather flock together...

So pre 1944 it seems The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States was accompanied by the Bellamy salute(as seen in the video). If it wasn't for those damn Nazis co-opting it, American kids everywhere would still be doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute

Thanks.
I agree with your comment too. We said the pledge in kindergarten, and would have been punished severely for that behavior even at that age. It's sickening that the "leader of the free world" doesn't have the decorum expected of a 5 year old. Kappernick should make a commercial out of it, juxtaposing his behavior with Trump's, asking the question, "who's disrespecting America?".

I don't let 16 year olds behave this way during the pledge of allegiance.

Do kids still have to do the pledge of allegiance? Ugh

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Technically, neither party should be using religion for anything. Religion is supposed to be separate from the state. Our founders said this, our bill of rights backs it up, and that is the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, it seeps in. In God We Trust was never on money until a reverend asked that it be added to the two cent piece during the civil war. It didn't appear on paper money until the 1950's when President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, declared "In God We Trust" must appear on American currency. It went on to be considered a side motto to E Pluribus Unum because of continued pressure.

Under God was not part of the pledge of allegiance until in 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added.

Both of these broke the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They should have never happened but religious Judges keep allowing them under the pretext of Accommodationism, in that as long as they don't specifically recognize or benefit a 'single' religion they can be considered to be OK. They shouldn't be allowed. Churches should have to pay taxes on profits. Priests should be held by the same laws the rest of us are held by. But because of religious fanatics, we allow the blending of church and state. Many would say, to our detriment.

Engineering frat parties are a decidedly different affair, no crude beer pong here folks. But we still abuse the pledges.

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

Exactly. Meeting Kim is the one thing that Trump has done that on the surface looks good. There is no conclusive evidence about any real results, AFAIK Kim did not promise anything new while Trump made concessions, but Trump fans are happy because their star appears to have scored.

I say good for you, I for one hope that pronounced achievements really get accomplished, that peace will be made and US gets to invest in NK, private ownership and human rights get established, people there get to eat, and everyone will live happily ever after.

However I am not sure that China, NK, SK, Japan and Russia consider this meeting anything more than a fleeting episode in a long struggle over bits and pieces of the far east. Trumps come and go and say things.

So now he is friends with two dictators, one has personally pledged not to interfere with US elections and another has promised not to nuke the US. That would be better if those same dictators had a history of keeping their promises.

It was nothing more than Obama's political pledge. with no legal standing and Trump back ed out of it.

The Iran deal was a joke, a personal pledge from Obama and his circle of cohorts to make a political pledge ti Iran. This agreement has no legal standing, otherwise Trump could not have been able to walk away from it so easily.

It was nothing more than Obama's political pledge.

I think the real real deal was this adventure was a cash cow for those involved.

The agreement was legally worthless.
If it was then Trump would not have been to back away from it.

It was nothing more than Obama's political pledge.

I think the real real deal was this adventure was a cash cow for those involved.

@vil
@StukaFox
@wtfcaniuse

Obama made this mess, not our government, not Trump.

Donald Trump isn’t ripping up a treaty, he’s walking away from Barack Obama’s personal pledge. President Obama made a deal with Iran without support from Congress. Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do” it because Congress had nothing to do with authorizing this.

Iran can’t violate because they never signed it! Therefore, technically they’re incapable of violating. This is just a set of political documents put forth by Obama, never ratified by the Senate, not signed by the Iranians.


Iranian President Hassan Rowhani opposes a parliamentary vote on the nuclear deal reached because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rowhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”



2015 — in the Obama State Department, “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” said that the Iran deal, “is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document…” It was the final document.




State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/


White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

Rowhani: no need for parliament vote on nuke deal
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/08/29/Rowhani-Iran-nuke-deal-doesn-t-need-parliament-approval.html