P45 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 It might not be the right thread but there are some meltdowns on Twitter over Harriet Tubman appearing on the $20 bills from 2030. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the same people that object will be voting for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 It might not be the right thread but there are some meltdowns on Twitter over Harriet Tubman appearing on the $20 bills from 2030. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the same people that object will be voting for Trump. Dammit, I wanted Lucy Parsons to win the nomination for that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow-sheep Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 It might not be the right thread but there are some meltdowns on Twitter over Harriet Tubman appearing on the $20 bills from 2030. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the same people that object will be voting for Trump. The most shocking thing in that post is that they decide these things 14 years in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Anybody see trump activist Kenny Lynch?Total fruitloop Nope and on nightshift so tell me more, I could do with a laugh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It might not be the right thread but there are some meltdowns on Twitter over Harriet Tubman appearing on the $20 bills from 2030. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the same people that object will be voting for Trump. Let a woman accomplish more than one of the dead dudes on our money before we put a woman on our money. Of course, taking Jackson off is especially egregious. He was perhaps the greatest American of all time. Certainly in the discussion. http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html 5 Most Badass Presidents of All-Time Andrew Jackson When the 1828 election rolled around, a lot of people were terrified when they heard Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson was running. If you're wondering how a guy we're calling a bad ass got such a lame nickname, it's because he used to carry a hickory cane around and beat people senseless with it, and if you're wondering why he did that, it's because he was a fucking lunatic. Former Democratic Senator and Secretary of the Treasurey Albert Gallatin feared a Jackson presidency because of his "habitual disregard of laws and constitutional provisions." Or in other words, the man was a loose canon--17th Century Washigton's answer to Martin Riggs. Sure, he probably didn't have an irate black lieutenant to answer to, or a weary partner who was too old for this shit, but he most certainly had a death wish. How do we know? Well, despite everyone's best efforts, Jackson was elected to the top office, and when he wasn't busy shaping the Presidency as we know it today, you could find him out back dueling. In case you haven't been to the 18th century lately, this unmanly sounding activity actually involves standing across from an armed man and shooting at him while he in turn shoots at you. The number of duels that Jackson took part in varies depending on what source you consult; some say 13, while others rank the number somewhere in the 100's, both of which are entirely too many times for a reasonable human being to stand in front of someone who is trying to kill them with a loaded gun. On one occasion, he challenged a man named Charles Dickinson to a duel, (the reason behind it wasn't important, not to us and certainly not to Jackson), and Jackson was even kind enough to give Dickinson the first shot. We're gonna go ahead and repeat that: In a duel with pistols, Jackson politely volunteers to be shot at first. Dickinson happily obliged and shot Jackson, who proceeded to shake it off like it was a bee sting. When Jackson returned the favor, Dickinson was not so lucky, and that's why his face isn't on the twenty. The bullet, by the by, remained in Jackson's body for 19 years because, we assume, Jackson knew that time spent removing the bullets would just fall under the general category of "time not dueling," Jackson's least favorite category. Greatest Display of Badassedry: Andrew Jackson was the first president on whom an assassination attempt was made. A man named Richard Lawrence approached Jackson with two pistols both of which, for some reason, misfired. With the possibility of an assassination taken off the table, Jackson proceeded to beat Lawrence near death with his cane until Jackson's aides pulled him off the assassin. The guns were inspected afterward and it was discovered that they were in perfect working order, leading some historians to believe that it was an odds-defying "miracle" that Jackson survived, while we're pretty sure that the bullets, like everyone else, were simply scared of Jackson. Most Badass Quote: "I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun." That's right. In a life rich with murdering people for little-to-no reason, Jackson's only regret was that he didn't kill quite enough people. People like Calhoun who, it should be noted, was Jackson's vice president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There are some fruit loops posting in this forum these days but the yank mike guy is that worst of the bunch. Hopefully he will f**k off after the presidential election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Tubman accomplished a lot in her life for black people and women. She was a proper humanitarian. She seems a far better person than Jackson. I can see it giving a few more votes to Trump. White males are seeing things like this, a black president, high immigrant birthing rates and increasing numbers of Spanish speakers as them losing their majority status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 There are some fruit loops posting in this forum these days but the yank mike guy is that worst of the bunch. Hopefully he will f**k off after the presidential election. I'll probably stick around through Trumps 8 years in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I'll probably stick around through Trumps 8 years in office. I would not bet on it. Billary has a around 7 to 10% lead over Trump in the polls. Sanders' lead would be a whopping 13 to 17%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I'll probably stick around through Trumps 8 years in office.The only things that would see the end of Trump's notional 8 years in office would be giant, radioactive cockroaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul-r-cfc Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The only things that would see the end of Trump's notional 8 years in office would be giant, radioactive cockroaches. Bruce Forsyth will probably still be kicking about to introduce said cockroaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 The Gunner in Pennywell will survive the coming apocalypse, after all, if it can serve the good patrons of Granton, it can survive a few warheads aimed at it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I would not bet on it. Billary has a around 7 to 10% lead over Trump in the polls. Sanders' lead would be a whopping 13 to 17%. Eh. Polls are meaningless this far out. The number the Trump people keep throwing out is that Reagan was at 30% positive rating, roughly the same as Trump, in April of 1980. If I remember correctly, Carter was over 50%, Ted Kennedy who was challenging Carter in the Democrat primaries was over 60%, and John Anderson who was a liberal Republican and ended up running 3rd party was I think also over 50%. Certainly you'd have to bet Hillary at this point (Trump voice: "Assuming she's even allowed to run. Who knows? She might be in jail.). But you can't underestimate how bad of a candidate she is. Every time she enters the national discussion, she does so with high ratings and then they collapse. It happened as first lady. It happened as Secretary of State. It's happened with both Democratic Presidential primaries. She lucked out in the NY Senate race because Rudy Giuliani had to drop out with cancer before the election. Sanders would get destroyed in a general election when he'd actually have to explain his revolution. Trump's advantage on that front is that he's run massive projects and large organizations so people tend to buy his contention that generalities are enough. Plus, to the extent that Trump is attempting a revolution, he's leading a cultural counterrevolution. He just wants tweeks in the political and economic system. Voters can easily imagine Trump's America. Sanders would attempt to remake America and middle of the road voters are going to want specifics. Sanders was the type who had trouble keeping the power in his house on and his belly full before he lucked into becoming mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He flubbed the first interview that really pressed him on a plan to break up the banks before the NY election. It was clear he knew nothing on the matter beyond his general talking points. Sanders certainly has a talent at getting upper middle class lefty whites to vote for him and he's good at sticking to his core message. He's demonstrated roughly zero other talents in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 That Reagan number is false though, because the "Trump team" are shameless yet also delusional liars. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-about-1980-ronald-reagan-race-a/ Unlucky, you banjo-strumming simpleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Tubman accomplished a lot in her life for black people and women. She was a proper humanitarian. She seems a far better person than Jackson. I can see it giving a few more votes to Trump. White males are seeing things like this, a black president, high immigrant birthing rates and increasing numbers of Spanish speakers as them losing their majority status. Tubman obviously meant a lot to the individuals she helped rescue from slavery. And she was obviously ahead of her time on a couple of beliefs about equal rights for blacks and women within our society. But there's nothing about her actions that led to great change. History plays out the same way whether she exists or not. The folks who are currently on our dollar bills are all people without whom it would be impossible to tell the story of America and who affected great change in our country. Andrew Jackson was the orphaned son of penniless immigrants. His dad died young and the rest of his family died during the American Revolution. He rose to become one of the richest men in America. He was the general at one of the greatest military upsets in a war which established the US as an independent power that could not be pushed around. He played a huge role, perhaps the biggest role, in winning Florida for the US. Andrew Jackson broke the monopoly on a Presidency chosen by the traditional elite and ushered in the era of popular democracy in choosing our executive. The original design of the Founders envisioned a popular House of Representatives, but a President chosen by back room deals among elite society. Jackson founded the Democratic Party out of the ashes of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. He ended the low intensity civil war that had been brewing for generations between the Indians and whites in the southern Appalachians. The early US political elites had been content to let the bloody conflict simmer and hope that the Indians would eventually adopt British ways. Trump has come out against the change. This shows why he's winning. Establishment Republicans would immediately surrender to the multiculturalists and PC crowd. They wouldn't want to use valuable political capital that could be used down the road winning a 1% cut in the top marginal tax rate. Trump has recognized what conservatives view as a threat to the type of society in which they want to live, and it's not the same as the issues which brought together the post-WWII conservative movement. The top tax rate isn't 90% anymore. Industries have been deregulated. The idea that elite bureaucrats, unions, and corporations would get together to direct the economy seems ludicrous today. Communism is dead and gone. Political correctness and multiculturalism are what we oppose. I suppose this is as good a time as any to post a clip of the Republican candidates debating this. Jeb Bush said Thatcher. Lol. What a tool? If he couldn't think of an American woman than he should have said that no woman has yet accomplished enough. Carly Fiorina was the only one who correctly identified what's really going on with this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 Incidentally pretty much all of the criticisms of Jackson would apply to any of the US independence leaders. Partly because they simply lived with an entirely foreign set of social norms, partly because they were also just terrible people really. They could ditch any of them for the same reasons as Jackson. But no, Trump is not 'winning'. Nothing short of the world's biggest Hibsing by Clinton would stop Trump joining Mittens in irrelevant, loser's row. She's certainly capable of it but she's also 70+% chance of winning the presidency for a reason. Democrats now demographically own Republicans in the states that matter; Trump's more diverse Catherine wheel support is still floored by either Democratic candidate in, as it won't actually win many general election states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 That Reagan number is false though, because the "Trump team" are shameless yet also delusional liars. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-about-1980-ronald-reagan-race-a/ Unlucky, you banjo-strumming simpleton. From your article: Comparing Reagan and Trump on favorability ratings Trump is also off-base on favorability ratings. We didn’t find many questions on favorability in the Roper database, but one April 1980 poll from Cambridge Reports found Reagan at 39 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. That’s five percentage points "under water" -- favorable minus unfavorable. From the Washington Post on April 15, 1980: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/15/anderson-cancels-five-state-campaign-swing/b0827503-2af3-4d35-81d1-ee09242f7d82/ The other poll was taken by the Los Angeles Times on March 25, the day of the New York primary. It asked Republican and Democratic voters to record favorable and unfavorable impressions of candidates. Anderson finished in the poll with a 68 percent favorable rating. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy was second with a 60 percent favorable rating followed by President Carter with 51 percent and Ronald Reagan with 30 percent. That's where Trumps number came from, but it seems there's controversy as Gallup today can't locate the original poll cited by the Washington Post in 1980. Any of this sound familiar? http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0305/030542.html Is defeat probable for GOP if Reagan wins nomination? Washington — The nation's Republicans are working against the clock to answer two key questions: Can conservative Ronald Reagan possibly attract enough independent and Democratic votes to win in November? An if he is likely to lose, has former President Gerald Ford time enough to challenge him for the GOP nomination? . . . But some experts caution: Don't count Ronald Reagan out as a national candidate for the fall. He is not, they say, "a McGovern or a Goldwater" -- fringe candidates who led their parties to one-sided defeats in 1972 and 1964. Intellectuals don't want to take him seriously, but he does well with working-class voters. . . . "Reagan is the opponent of choice for Carter," says I. A. Lewis, director of the Los Angeles Times Poll, a point on which most analysts agree. "But Reagan can reach across and cause mischief in the Democratic constituency," Mr. Lewis says. "Reagan appeals to blue collar, working-class voters. He can win Democratic votes." "Carter could beat Reagan more easily than he could Bush or Baker," Mr. Lewis says. "A moderate Republican would appeal to moderate Democrats, while upper-income Republicans might defect from Reagan to the Demcorats. Ford is of course, the strogest in the polls against Carter. . . . Austin Ranney, American Enterprises Institute authority on the US election system, sees only difficult scenarios ahead for a late Ford entry into the race. First, if Mr. Reagan takes perhaps 40 percent of the delegates to the convention , then "theoretically there could be a brokered convention with Bush and [sen. Howard H.] Baker throwing support to Ford." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 But no, Trump is not 'winning'. Nothing short of the world's biggest Hibsing by Clinton would stop Trump joining Mittens in irrelevant, loser's row. She's certainly capable of it but she's also 70+% chance of winning the presidency for a reason. Democrats now demographically own Republicans in the states that matter; Trump's more diverse Catherine wheel support is still floored by either Democratic candidate in, as it won't actually win many general election states. Clinton is the Hibs of American politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arabdownunder Posted April 22, 2016 Share Posted April 22, 2016 All Trump needs is an American embassy to be taken over and a bunch of hostages taken, followed by US special forces Hibsing a rescue attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.