Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by spaightlabs, Dec 8, 2015.
Somehow the totality of this thread's life brings to mind the notion of fingernails on a blackboard.
Obama-ites and the Democratic Party are plenty of evidence that stupid people in large groups can usurp a nation.
For sure the stupid ones are difficult to carry around.
At first I had an eye on Carson, but like some others he just doesn't seem ready for the job. On the other hand, being "ready for the job" was not a significant voter concern in 2008 or 2012. Ya wonder how long we will be paying for that over sight.
I think that greatly depends on who we put in that house next.
I believe in the Constitution enough to know the actual words of the oath one takes to defend it.
Good point. Who do ya see as the one most likely to charm the stupid vote?
With Rubio having the best odds of filching some off and beating her.
For the record:
Off course, there is an implied assumption that the oath taker is loyal enough and has the capability, willingness, fidelity, and desire to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Lacking those requisites pretty much renders the presidential oath taking to a meaningless ceremony.
Considering the totality of demographics, also probably true. Being true and pure is a tough sell. Reality is that in politics the harlots tend to win.
Dude, I am not sure of much in this world, but I am sure that nobody posting in this forum has ever taken the version of the oath that you quote.
I looked to see who takes an oath to "uphold, protect and defend" the Constitution and I couldn't find anything except something about the Kiwanis club. So maybe that's it.