# Trump's imaginary history



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
Reagan was really angry over 9-11

Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War

*"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."*

This is in the vein of imagining various alternate histories of the United States.

*"He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart."*

Jackson was known for his temper and his loyalty to his friends, so this is OK.

*"He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."*

Jackson did not, because Jackson was dead.

*"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"*

See above.





.


----------



## candycorn (May 1, 2017)

you’re joking,,,,I hope


----------



## Old Rocks (May 1, 2017)

*Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War*
Jessica Estepa , USA TODAYPublished 10:27 a.m. ET May 1, 2017 | Updated 41 minutes ago

In audio posted on Monday, President Trump said Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, was "really angry" about what was happening with the Civil War.

There's one major problem with that statement: Jackson died in 1845, nearly 16 years before the Civil War began.

Let's dissect the full quote, sentence by sentence.

"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."

This is in the vein of imagining various alternate histories of the United States.

"He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart."

Jackson was known for his temper and his loyalty to his friends, so this is OK.

"He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."

Jackson did not, because Jackson was dead.

"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

See above.

Trump's quote came during an interview with the _Washington Examiner_'s Salena Zito. The two discussed Trump's visit to Tennessee in March, during which he toured the Hermitage, laid a wreath at Jackson's tomb and called him the "people's president."

Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War

*The orange clown is simply the most ignorant President that we have ever had. Ignorant of history, of governmental procedure to get things done, ignorant of all aspects of science. A real fucked up dummy, and he is President. LOL*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.




It is not just that he is ignorant about US History but he claims to be Andrew Jacksons biggest fan and is emulating his Presidency. Read a freak'n book about Jackson
There are dozens of documentaries and videos

But Trump just makes shit up to support his agenda


----------



## BlindBoo (May 1, 2017)

Here is the History Teacher at Trump U.  So what do you expect.


----------



## Zander (May 1, 2017)

Trump derangement syndrome in full bloom.


----------



## Siete (May 1, 2017)

people wonder why he misses his old job.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
Probably what he was talking about..


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> Reagan was really angry over 9-11
> 
> Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War
> ...


Ether your English or intellect are severely challenged. Or both come to think of it.


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents  between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's  second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.


----------



## JohnnyApplesack (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents  between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's  second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.



 first he should succeed at learning basic American History


----------



## EvilCat Breath (May 1, 2017)

Did he say that Jackson was angry about what was going on with the civil war or was he angry about what he saw happening with regard to the civil war?  

Jackson saw what was happening with secession.  He stopped early efforts at secession.  Had he been a little bit later, he might have found a compromise to avoid civil war 

Again, Trump was right.  It took liberal lies to make it appear thst he was wrong.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> ...



Trump said it...not me

I'm not sure what Trump meant by *"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."*

Jackson owned 160 slaves and favored slavery. Does Trump wish that Jackson would have preserved slavery?
Which side does Trump think Jackson would have been on?


----------



## JohnnyApplesack (May 1, 2017)

I believe Trump has a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office..........who now has a tear rolling down his cheek like that Native American in the pollution ad on TV


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Jackson was a consequential president. His leadership was sorely missed in the run-up to the Civil War. "Had" in this case means "if". Ask a native speaker if you have problems. Had you had a better grasp of the English language, you would have had no problem with the third conditional.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



*He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."
*
*"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"
*
Reading is FUNdamental!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.

The point is that Trump really had no grasp of Jackson's presidency and did not really know where he fit in during the first half of the 19th century American history.

Since Jackson was pro slavery, anti First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California in the Union, the CW would have come despite him living a bit later.  His unionism would not have been strong enough to counter the much stronger growth of secessionism later in the 1850s.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
> Probably what he was talking about..


People rate that funny, but no one wants to touch it. This is like the media crucifying him for saying that shit about china and korea.. He was right..


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents  between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's  second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.


The biggest folly that has happened since Clinton's second term is the degradation of respect and honesty coming from our leadership and media. Americans don't know who to trust and with the exponential growth in media outlets all catering to their audience for ratings, Social media, the sea of lies coming from our leaders as they posture, spin and distort positions to gain political favor, and the effectiveness of negative campaigning to smear the opposition... Its created an atmosphere of misinformation and partisan division that seems to only grow and grow.  It's an ugly side of intellectually dishonest humans that do not deserve the spotlight.  It is a false driver of divide and controversy... and our new president seems to be leading the charge down this horrible path we are on.

The civil war, by the way, was a human rights fight for freedom over the issue of Slavery.  Very very different from the bullshit imaginary controversies the talking heads are arguing about in modern times.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 1, 2017)

*Andrew Jackson stopped the Bowling Green Massacre...*



*‘It’s getting worse’: Joe Scarborough sounds alarm on Trump’s ‘rambling and incoherent’ speech patterns*
President Donald Trump’s twin interviews with the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito and CBS’s John Dickerson have drawn significant controversy — and Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough is worried.




*‘Like a third-grade paper’: Internet shreds Trump’s historically illiterate Andrew Jackson comments*
During an interview with the Washington Examiner published on Monday, President Donald Trump claimed that former President Andrew Jackson was “very angry” about the American Civil War.




*‘Completely inept’: CNN pundit says ‘too late’ for Trump to save presidency after bizarre Civil War remarks*


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> ...


Its funny that you try to justify Trumps idiocracy. Keep spinning and it will eventually make sense.


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.
> 
> The point is that Trump really had no grasp of Jackson's presidency and did not really know where he fit in during the first half of the 19th century American history.
> 
> Since Jackson was pro slavery, anti First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California in the Union, the CW would have come despite him living a bit later.  His unionism would not have been strong enough to counter the much stronger growth of secessionism later in the 1850s.


I might be offended, but  then you are a lesser man.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.
> 
> The point is that Trump really had no grasp of Jackson's presidency and did not really know where he fit in during the first half of the 19th century American history.
> 
> Since Jackson was pro slavery, anti First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California in the Union, the CW would have come despite him living a bit later.  His unionism would not have been strong enough to counter the much stronger growth of secessionism later in the 1850s.



I see nothing in Jackson's legacy that says he would not have sided with the south in the Civil War. He was a slave owner who increased his own slaves from 8 to 160.
Is Trump saying he wished that rather than having a Civil War that a solution allowing slavery was found?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (May 1, 2017)

JohnnyApplesack said:


> I believe Trump has a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office..........who now has a tear rolling down his cheek like that Native American in the pollution ad on TV


Even that guy in those commercials wasn't a real Indian. He had lied throughout his whole career until his sister ratted him out.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Using his context and the actual history I posted, it makes sense.
John Adams even seeked help from Jackson with regards to the inevitable war. That was like 60 years or so before the CW


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.
> ...


The Missouri crisis was "a fire bell in the night, We have the wolf by the ears and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." Jackson 1820


----------



## EvilCat Breath (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is clear that what Trump was talking about was the genisis of the civil war.


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Perhaps you are right, but don't you find it odd that this kind of stuff keeps happening? If Trump is this brilliant guy then why can't he just explain what he means when he speaks instead of making these generalized inaccurate statements that require interpretation and explanation by his supporters and surrogates. 

If Trump had a history of displaying in depth knowledge about anything then it could be understandable that he be misinterpreted from time to time due to a vague statement, however, this confusion is becoming the norm... idiotic statements and the scramble to explain and justify by his base... Y'all are gonna need to take a spa day soon!


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Yeah, totally clear!  haha


----------



## EvilCat Breath (May 1, 2017)

Have democrats manufactured this new crisis to cover up Nancy Pelosi 's increasing separation from reality?


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Have democrats manufactured this new crisis to cover up Nancy Pelosi 's increasing separation from reality?


And there's the diversion... You've taken good notes from your leader. But its not going to work.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



That is not clear at all...

What Trump SAID:  *He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."  *current tense

What Trump would have said if he meant a future war: *He was really angry that-- he saw what might happen if there were a Civil War ....*future tense

What Trump said: *"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'" *
There's is a contraction meaning "There is"........current tense

Rather than:  *There would be no reason for this.....*future tense


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.
> ...


Then you, no.  As is RW and so many centrists and right of center and left of center.  You are anti-Jewish among other faults.


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


If he knew Jacksons history, that he was dead before the civil war, he would have phrased his statement differently. If he was talking about the issues that lead to the civil war he would have phrased his statement differently.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> There's is a contraction meaning "There is"........current tense
> 
> Rather than:  *There would be no reason for this.....*future tense


Would is not used for future tense. Conditionals are not future tenses:

Will do
Will be doing
Will have done
Will have been doing

With the variations of going to do and present simple and continuous for future meaning, that's it.


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Maybe and maybe not... I know plenty of people like Trump, they are big picture people and not detail people. They don't read books or seek in depth knowledge, they look for headlines and highlights then fill in the gaps with their own assumptions.  He is quick on his feet, influential in presenting arguments, and his confidence gives his listeners confidence in his words.  I'm not yet sure if he really knows what he is talking about.  The majority of the time I really don't think he does.  He paints strong pictures and messages and then relies on his minions to do the work and fill in the gaps.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> The civil war, by the way, was a human rights fight for freedom over the issue of Slavery.



I disagree with that.  It was the Souths fight to preserve slavery and for the right to expand slavery.


----------



## esthermoon (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> Reagan was really angry over 9-11
> 
> Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War
> ...


Don't be so cruel to him lol 

Maybe he just made a mistake history is not easy, you have to memorize many information


----------



## whitehall (May 1, 2017)

Have lefties gotten so incoherent that they don't understand English anymore?


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > The civil war, by the way, was a human rights fight for freedom over the issue of Slavery.
> ...


I don't see the difference in both our statements, mine reflects the Norths position and yours the Souths, but sure, i'd agree with what you said.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > There's is a contraction meaning "There is"........current tense
> ...



"Would be" refers to a future event
While "There's" refers to what is happening now


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


I wont argue with that at all.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

whitehall said:


> Have lefties gotten so incoherent that they don't understand English anymore?



I agree it is difficult to apply proper grammatical rules to someone who has...."the best words"


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If you could go back and finish high school, would you?

Sorry kid, you are way out of you league here.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

^^^ I know.  Meathead actually wrote that.


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...


Dude, whats wrong with you? Grow up.  You don't have to go to attack mode when proven wrong. "would be" refers to the future. Just say "You're right, good point" then move on to a real discussion as these little semantics get exhausting.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Because the South Seceded to preserve the institution.  The North didn't go to war to free anyone.  Kinda like the invasion and occupation of Iraq was about WMD but after that failed, the war rational changed.  It was all about preserving the Union......


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Ok, you can have that, but you can't say that Slavery wasn't the underlying cause. If Slavery wasn't a big deal then the North would have just let it continue in the South and save the country from Civil war. It was definitely the issue that drove the divide and lead to the war.


----------



## Meathead (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Hillary would be president, Is this  supposed to be a future event, Dude? You really haven't got a clue what future tense is, do you?

I despair the dumbing down of Americans.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Slavery was the deal maker for secession.  Every major cause can be traced backed to slavery as the root of that cause: tariff, labor, land, politics, representation, and so forth.


----------



## whitehall (May 1, 2017)

Lefties are definitely wound way too tight these days. President Trump is probably laughing his head off about the flurry of outrage on the left over his comment about Andrew Jackson. Now you have the laughable scenario of  Hillary's daughter and half the idiotic left wing media condemning Old Hickory who founded the democrat party.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

whitehall is wrong in at least three matters above. ^^^


----------



## BlindBoo (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You're right, it was the direct cause of the Souths Secession, or attempt at it anyway.  And that started the war.  Lincoln was willing to allow it to exist, but he certainly opposed expansion of it into the New Territories.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

He would not allowed it, period, in the Territories.

He would have lost his base if he did not stomp it out.  Northern and western Dems were more than willing to give him the votes he needed.


----------



## jknowgood (May 1, 2017)

JohnnyApplesack said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents  between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's  second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.
> ...


You should learn capitalization and punctuation.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Meathead said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



Maybe this will help you and Fat Donny


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Suggested reading for our President


----------



## Winston (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
> Probably what he was talking about..



You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination.  The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798.  Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of  1812, New England states threatening to secede.  Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Winston said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> ...


talked about it for decades - before the civil war


----------



## Winston (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.
> 
> The point is that Trump really had no grasp of Jackson's presidency and did not really know where he fit in during the first half of the 19th century American history.
> 
> Since Jackson was pro slavery, anti First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California in the Union, the CW would have come despite him living a bit later.  His unionism would not have been strong enough to counter the much stronger growth of secessionism later in the 1850s.



I am no Trump fan.  I believe he is an idiot.  But in this case, well some people are making mountains out of molehills and, ironically, displaying an amazing ignorance of American History themselves.

"Had Jackson been later"--as in, had Jackson been president in the 1840's, or most certainly, the 1850's, perhaps there would have been no Civil War.  And it is not as if Jackson would have negotiated a compromise, it is just Jackson would have hung the early secessionists from oak trees on their farms.  

Let's check out some quotes.  First, Andrew Jackson, in response to South Carolina.

*But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. [emphasis added] To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure*.

Now, let's go to James Buchanan, twenty eight years later, his last State of the Union Address.

_I*n order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy*_*, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a merebility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
*
Not very difficult to construct an argument that Trump was exactly right.  Jackson was against the right of secession exempt in extreme circumstances.  Buchanan, although correct about the ramifications of secession, exhibited an almost lackadaisical attitude towards it and appeared to accept it as a "constitutional remedy".

And irony appears everywhere here.  The slavery issue is a red herring and Jackson predicted that the secession of the south was all about an independent Southern Confederacy that, while using the issue of tariffs during his administration, would later use the issue of slavery to sever the South's ties to the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

By the later 1850s the issue was over slavery, and Jackson would have backed the South.


----------



## Winston (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure.  In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Winston said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...


yep. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my original statement. I get why you called me out.


----------



## Winston (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> By the later 1850s the issue was over slavery, and Jackson would have backed the South.



The "issue" was over rather a state, or a collection of states, could secede.  Jackson, as president, was opposed to secession.  What part of *"cannot, from that period, possess any right to secede*" do you not understand?


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

Winston said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > By the later 1850s the issue was over slavery, and Jackson would have backed the South.
> ...


Can you imagine if Trump took that tone with California about the succession talks following the election?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Winston said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > By the later 1850s the issue was over slavery, and Jackson would have backed the South.
> ...


What part of do you understand that 1832 was not 1855 or later.  Jackson would have moved to protect slavery from federal interference, and if that meant secession, he would have Seceder Andy.


----------



## Winston (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Well, "talk" is all that was and it did not deserve a response.  But, Trump may very well be tested by California in response to sanctuary cities.  California has contemplated refusing to remit federal funds in response to the freezing of funding to sanctuary cities.  See, one can "talk" about secession all they want.  But when one refuses to send the Feds their money, things can get ugly in a hurry.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2017)

Winston said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > By the later 1850s the issue was over slavery, and Jackson would have backed the South.
> ...


If push came to shove....what side would Jackson choose?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


If it were white supremacy and the suppression of black slaves, it is no brainer.


----------



## Winston (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve the country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers you have amongst you. Let them meet the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext.  Its burthen was on your coarse woolens---by the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent. for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at 50 per cent., reduces it gradually down to 20 per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle.  The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to 15 per cent. more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens 35 per cent.  If this is not protection, I cannot understand. * Therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a Southern confederacy the real object.  The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery, question.*
*
President Andrew Jackson on Secession and Nullification*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Yep, and if he had been alive in 1860, AJ would have supported secession.


----------



## Billy000 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
> Probably what he was talking about..


lol oh yeah that must be it. Trump is a total history buff. How else would Jackson have been upset by the war years after his death?


----------



## Billy000 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> ...


Lol you dumbasses will defend Trump no matter what he says. Had Hillary said exactly this, you wouldnt stop whining about it.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


You hate it, doncha?


----------



## Billy000 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Nah, I just feel sorry for you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Trump is a dumbass when it comes to history.  Almost all of the far and alt right and libertarian wings are idiots when it comes to history.


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...


For applying context to history?
 I mean, his terminology us shit but he was right


----------



## Political Junky (May 1, 2017)

Trump's so stupid. Andrew Jackson died 16 years before the Civil War.

Trump makes puzzling claim about Andrew Jackson, Civil War
<excerpt>
Speaking to the Washington Examiner, Trump wondered why issues that triggered the war “could not have been worked out” in order to prevent the bloody conflict. Trump praised the accomplishments of Jackson, the populist president he has cited as a role model.

He made the puzzling claim that Jackson “was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard to the Civil War.” But Jackson died in 1845, and the Civil War didn't begin until 16 years later, in 1861.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


No, he was not.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 1, 2017)

already been bantered about in another thread or 2....


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...


Context fakey. You can ignore intent and text and make anything sound like anything.


----------



## Correll (May 1, 2017)

Fascinating. 

Wait, no, it's not. It's that other one. Boring.


----------



## Billy000 (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


What's astounding is that you actually think Trump is smart enough for that.


----------



## Syriusly (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> ...



You mean when Trump announced that he was going to name China as a currency manipulator?

Or when he announced that he found out from the China that solving the NK problem was not quite as simple as he thought?


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Billy000 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I think I said I might be giving him too much credit somewhere in this thread


----------



## TNHarley (May 1, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


No when he said China was controlled korea


----------



## Syriusly (May 1, 2017)

Slade3200 said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



LOL- you mean the guy living in Russia who was trying to get people in California interested in secession?

Yeah imagine if Trump had taken that tone......LOL


----------



## IsaacNewton (May 1, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> Reagan was really angry over 9-11
> 
> Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War
> ...



Alt-right, alt-history, alt-heil. 

Drumpf talking about history is like Barney Fife giving lessons on being a Navy Seal. It's like Pat Robertson talking about evolution. Or like gangrene talking about penicillin.


----------



## cutter (May 1, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.


I bet he knows there are 50 states, not 57 that obama thinks there are. I bet you easily overlooked obamas ignorance.


----------



## Slade3200 (May 1, 2017)

cutter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.
> ...


Good one!


----------



## Syriusly (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


'China was controlled korea'?

What does that even mean?
Well what Trump to believe- the February Trump?
Trump 'not liking' Chinese and North Korean military moves
"I know exactly what's going on between China and North Korea and everybody else," he told Reuters during an interview Thursday. "I'm not liking it."

"Whether they say so or not is up to them, but they have tremendous control over North Korea," he said. "I think they could solve the problem very easily if they want to.”

Or the April Trump?

“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” the president told the Journal. “I felt pretty strongly that they[China] had a tremendous power [over] North Korea. ... But it’s not what you would think.”


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

cutter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.
> ...


That is the best you can do?    So you want Trump to be like Obama.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton (May 1, 2017)

Harry Dresden said:


> already been bantered about in another thread or 2....



Yes, the first one below posted many many hours ago and several threads merged with it.

Trump's imaginary history


----------



## Syriusly (May 1, 2017)

cutter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.
> ...



You mean Obama's gaff compared to Trump's gaff?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 1, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> cutter said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Obama misspoke and Trump misbrained.


----------



## Syriusly (May 1, 2017)

I was re-reading Trump's quote- and its hard to tell whether he misspoke or is ignorant. 

But I am curious how anyone thinks Jackson would prevented the Civil War.

Certainly I suppose if Jackson was elected in the same election that Lincoln was elected, it would have prevented it- because the Slave States would have beaten the abolitionist movement. Is that what Trump meant?


----------



## usmbguest5318 (May 1, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> He made the puzzling claim that Jackson “was really angry that he saw what was happening in regard to the Civil War.”


I think the only way to be puzzled by that claim is to dwell in one's personal version of Oz, whereby it's presumed that Trump is an intelligent man who knows what he's talking about when he says "whatever it is he may say."  Upon discarding that premise, however, one is not at all puzzled about Trump's making such remarks.  Instead one obtains a few new things to consider that are both befuddling and disconcerting, one of which is thus because it must necessarily be internalized.  Which quandary must that be?  The one whereby, having any integrity at all, one ponders how the hell one did not sooner see Trump's abject idiocy and ignorance.

Disturbing as that is, it marks the first step on the road to recovery, and that is a very positive thing.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 1, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...



He was talking about the genesis (that's how it's spelled btw) of the Civil War?

Really?

Jackson DIED 16 YEARS BEFORE IT STARTED!


----------



## Coyote (May 1, 2017)

*Several threads merged - as an FYI you are now in Politics Zone 2.*


----------



## BertramN (May 1, 2017)

.
It is understandable why Der Gropenfürher’s supporters made him their president, his grasp of history is identical to theirs. Like all other issues, Der Gropenfürher continues to impress his minions with “alternate facts” they eagerly accept as truth. And they will defend their own ignorance as well as that of Der Gropenfürher, swearing their complete lack of knowledge makes them superior individuals to the “educated elitists” who rely on facts.

The right-wingers’ alternate facts, alternate reality, and typical delusional flights-of-fantasy are embraced by conservatives everywhere. This will be proven by their responses to this OP and the article at the link below.

Donald Trump ridiculed after asking 'why was there the Civil War?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




 


.


----------



## dcbl (May 1, 2017)

full disclosure - I did not write this piece & I cannot give due credit to the author without violation site rules

more disclosure - I DID know this, but may not have been able to convey the message so eloquently

bottom line - while Trump's comments were unfortunate (for him and those of us who support him) - he was not entirely off base

the perspective:

Ok, let's review a little 7th grade American History: 

Prior to the creation of the income tax, the primary means of federal taxation was tariffs on imported goods to protect yankee manufacturing. The tariffs were primarily paid by Southerners since they lacked domestic manufacturing capacity and thus imported far more than northerners. This created a big bone of contention for the South , particularly South Carolina, which paid the tax and the North where most of those tax dollars were spent on canal and railroad projects.

The issue came to a head when the governor of South Carolina, backed by Jackson's own Vice President, argued that states should have the power to "nullify" federal law by refusing to uphold it (think sanctuary cities for collecting federal tariffs).

The president and the supreme court said that nullification was unconstitutional. South Carolina dared Jackson to enforce it, saying they would secede if he tried. Jackson threatened to send federal troops to South Carolina and hang everyone who threatened secession. South Carolina backed down, and Civil War was forestalled.

When Jackson was dying 20 years later, he remarked how he was afraid that he had only postponed a coming Civil War, and that the next flash point would be over slavery. He feared he wouldn't be around to stop it from happening, and that such a war would be disastrous for the country.

Less than 20 years after Jackson's death, his prediction came to pass. Debates over slavery erupted into Civil War as cooler heads failed, and over 600k Americans died as a result.

Furthermore, much of the impetus for Jim Crow was what a complete disaster Reconstruction was. Because women, confederate veterans, and former Confederate government officials (even at the state level) couldn't vote, basically the only voters were the freed slaves who voted how the carpetbaggers (northerners who bought up distressed southern farms bankrupted by the war) told them to. This built up a ton of animosity which resulted in the disgusting racial politics of Jim Crow as soon as Reconstruction was over.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 1, 2017)

*Two more threads on this topic newly merged starting THIS page.. Please check the forum listings before starting topics.. *


----------



## Pogo (May 1, 2017)

dcbl said:


> full disclosure - I did not write this piece & I cannot give due credit to the author without violation site rules
> 
> more disclosure - I DID know this, but may not have been able to convey the message so eloquently
> 
> ...



Actually that tariff, called the "Tariff of Abominations" in the South, came out of the Quincy Adams administration.  It had talk of secession buzzing in South Carolina -- the first state to later secede and the site of the eventual beginning of the War --- as far back as 1828, before Jackson was elected.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 1, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
> Probably what he was talking about..



No it wasn't, and you know it.


----------



## dcbl (May 1, 2017)

Pogo said:


> Actually that tariff, called the "Tariff of Abominations" in the South, came out of the Quincy Adams administration. It had talk of secession buzzing in South Carolina -- the first state to later secede and the site of the eventual beginning of the War --- as far back as 1828, before Jackson was elected.



ok, great

and thank you for that info

does not change the fact that Trump's statement was really not off base


----------



## EvilCat Breath (May 1, 2017)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That's when the shooting started.  The reasons for the war started long, long before.


----------



## candycorn (May 2, 2017)

Zander said:


> Trump derangement syndrome in full bloom.



And you're patient zero


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> What Trump SAID: *He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." *current tense



yep

and Trump was correct about that

let it go


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> I see nothing in Jackson's legacy that says he would not have sided with the south in the Civil War. He was a slave owner who increased his own slaves from 8 to 160.
> Is Trump saying he wished that rather than having a Civil War that a solution allowing slavery was found?



I'm so sorry that you choose to remain ignorant about American history baw

You wanna know the name of another US president that hung a picture of Ole Hickory in the Oval Office?

just take a peek at the front side of a $5

wanna know why Abe chose that picture?

I can tell you that it wasn't because Jackson supported the Republican Party platform of abolition...


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Since Jackson was pro slavery, anti First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California in the Union, the CW would have come despite him living a bit later. His unionism would not have been strong enough to counter the much stronger growth of secessionism later in the 1850s.



wrong

the proof has already been posted ITT


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> Reagan was really angry over 9-11
> 
> Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War
> ...


You can't even read the first line you quoted in your post.
You're a moron.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

More lefty propaganda. Not that Trump comes across as anything remotely resembling a historian, but these leftist journalists continue to do a disservice to the people while fueling Trump's assertions about biased media. Crap like this inundates MSM daily.
What part wasn't clear about Trump saying "had Andrew Jackson been a little later"?

BTW, the first unrecorded battle of the Civil War occurred in 1837, during Jackson's life.

www.altonweb.com/history/lovejoy/


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What Trump SAID: *He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." *current tense
> ...


When Trump first made his comments about slave-owner Andrew Jackson being troubled that the Civil War wasn’t avoided,* he clearly didn’t know that Jackson had died 16 years before one of America’s bloodiest wars even began.*

Instead of admitting that he has a worse-than-elementary level grasp of American history, Trump doubled down and now claims that Jackson could predict the future. 
*
Andrew "Ms Cleo" Jackson...how come he never saw the Bowling Green Massacre coming ?
*




 Donald J. Trump *✔* @realDonaldTrump  

*President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry*. Would never have let it happen!

 8:55 PM - 1 May 2017


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> More lefty propaganda. Not that Trump comes across as anything remotely resembling a historian, but these leftist journalists continue to do a disservice to the people while fueling Trump's assertions about biased media. Crap like this inundates MSM daily.
> What part wasn't clear about Trump saying "had Andrew Jackson been a little later"?
> 
> BTW, the first unrecorded battle of the Civil War occurred in 1837, during Jackson's life.
> ...


You are making history here announcing that the Civil, War actually started in 1837 who the fuck knew lol waaaaaaaaaaaa huyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Trump is a Fucking MORON


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You are an asshole...Orange God is a moron who did not know Andrew Jackson was dead for more than  15 years by the time the civil war started,,,,you are so submissive to Trump you are rewriting history to avoid the Fact he is a blow hard ignorant piece of shit 
*"I don't stand by anything "......................Classic Donald Trump Quote*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

*‘Trump’s mouth is only good as Vladimir Putin’s c*ck holster’: *


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> You're not only a troll, you're ignorant, too.





*‘For the love of god, stop digging you fool!’: Internet aghast after Trump digs in heels on Andrew Jackson praise*
"When the cleanup makes less sense than the gaffe," you can bet on Trump to make things worse.


----------



## Correll (May 2, 2017)

BertramN said:


> .
> It is understandable why Der Gropenfürher’s supporters made him their president, his grasp of history is identical to theirs. Like all other issues, Der Gropenfürher continues to impress his minions with “alternate facts” they eagerly accept as truth. And they will defend their own ignorance as well as that of Der Gropenfürher, swearing their complete lack of knowledge makes them superior individuals to the “educated elitists” who rely on facts.
> 
> The right-wingers’ alternate facts, alternate reality, and typical delusional flights-of-fantasy are embraced by conservatives everywhere. This will be proven by their responses to this OP and the article at the link below.
> ...




Your use of the slur, "Der Gropenfürher’s" makes a complete mockery of your pretense of intellectual superiority, and a fool of you, on so many levels,


not that you have the self awareness nor honesty to face that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 2, 2017)

dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump.  Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, and if he had been alive in 1860, AJ would have supported secession.



I think Jackson would have been irate at the election of Abe Lincoln


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
> Probably what he was talking about..



lol, yeah like Trump is a scholar when it comes to the minute details of the Andrew Jackson presidency.

Maybe what Trump was trying to say was that a Democrat like Jackson could have prevented the terrible war that the Republican Lincoln couldn't.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...





TNHarley said:


> But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.


No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> I was re-reading Trump's quote- and its hard to tell whether he misspoke or is ignorant.
> 
> But I am curious how anyone thinks Jackson would prevented the Civil War.
> 
> Certainly I suppose if Jackson was elected in the same election that Lincoln was elected, it would have prevented it- because the Slave States would have beaten the abolitionist movement. Is that what Trump meant?



Jackson would have been 95 at the time but he would have despised Lincoln
If any southerner had been elected in 1860 there would have been no secession. The election of Lincoln threw the south into a "Lincolns going to take your slaves" panic


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 2, 2017)

I think Trump is just mesmerized by Jackson's hairdo.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

Look - I get it that many of you hate Trump

Really, I do get it. I hated Obama. I hated Carter

I didn't really hate Clinton, but I sure didn't like him...

Anyway - Jackson actually predicted the Civil War

He even said that the tariff was nothing more than a pretext for Southern succession & predicted that the "negro" would be used later.

Quote:
*I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve the country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers you have amongst you. Let them meet the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext. Its burthen was on your coarse woolens---by the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent. for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at 50 per cent., reduces it gradually down to 20 per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to 15 per cent. more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens 35 per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand. Therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery, question.*


President Andrew Jackson on Secession and Nullification

Trump is not stupid, as many believe.

He also has a portrait of Ole Hickory hanging in the Oval Office (as did Abe Lincoln)

So, yes, I do believe Trump was referring to this piece of history when he made his statement

On this issue, Trump is correct. This is backed up by an understanding of the historical record

you know, facts & shit...


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> ...


Seems he did. I mean, he did say it..


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> ...


I'm sorry, but you need to read EVERY line Trump said. It showed he is a moron of the caliber of Sarah Palin and Paul Revere


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


It is to people that know history.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> If any southerner had been elected in 1860 there would have been no secession. The election of Lincoln threw the south into a "Lincolns going to take your slaves" panic



close, but not quite 100% accurate

the real issue was whether or not the practice of slavery would be allowed into new lands as the US expanded it's territories

many "historians" (presumably intelligent, from places like Yale) have chimed in that "Trump was wrong" & that Jackson could not have prevented the War Between the States because the war was "all about slavery"

they are wrong - revisionist history is fun and all, but Andrew Jackson used the might of the federal government to quash succession well before the War Between the States

and Jackson was no abolitionist, not by a long shot

it's worth noting that slavery existed just about everywhere in the world & ended without wars as bloody as the one fought here in the US

slavery in the USA would have ended with or without the war & would have ended even if the South had won the war

had we settled the slavery issue peacefully, we'd be far better off as a country for it today

the secessionist movement had been around for a long time - most people don't realize this & many historians whitewash the other factors that contributed to causing that war

whether you like it or not, Trump's statements were not unreasonable & a credible argument can be made that he is correct here


----------



## bodecea (May 2, 2017)

Meathead said:


> If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents  between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's  second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.


With the exception of Polk????


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

Winston said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Except he already did.. His actions and rhetoric actually helped with the compromise of 1850 on top of stopping secession during his administration.  Maybe you need to learn some history, homie.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If any southerner had been elected in 1860 there would have been no secession. The election of Lincoln threw the south into a "Lincolns going to take your slaves" panic
> ...



If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow

With the war, slaves were free in five years and had the right to vote in ten


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump. Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.



you must have missed my post that links the private letter Jackson wrote where he predicted that a war would come over the succession issue

you know that Abe Lincoln had Jackson's portrait hanging in the Oval Office - right?

why do you think he chose that picture?

I can tell you it was not because of his abolitionist views...

*Rightwinger *was 100% correct in stating that had Jackson, or any other Democrat, been president in 1860, there would have been no secession 

Trump simply said that he thinks that Jackson could have prevented the Civil War had he been in office 24 years after his actual presidency 

So basically, he offered an opinion. Historians can disagree with that opinion, but the argument cannot be "proven" either way (but logic suggests that Trump is correct and the leftist historians are flat out wrong)

So, you will have to forgive me for not being convinced by the opinion of leftist historians in the leftist world of academia

oh hell, I am having fun - let's dive a little deeper

YES - the "historians" are truly demonstrating that they are bad at their job - they should feel bad, I really mean that

Let's look at this logically...

IF Jackson had been elected President in 1860, he would NEVER have supported preventing slavery from expanding into new territories (the expansion of slavery was the real hot button issue - no one was advocating for ending slavery where it already existed, or at least, no one that had any power, certainly not Abe Lincoln)

Furthermore, Jackson was a Southerner and a Democrat. So, again, just by applying logic, we can show that these historians just don't know their stuff (must suck to be that bad at one's job...)

The fact that Lincoln was viewed as a radical from an upstart party (the Republican Party) & was not even on the ballot in 10 Southern states, was a stick in the eye and fueled the secessionist flames.

So, playing this fantasy game to its natural conclusion:

Jackson as President in 1861 would have been a member of the Democrat Party & would have enjoyed the support of most Southern state legislatures & governors, thereby preventing secession 

So yes, *Jake*, yes by God!

The historians are wrong

Jackson as President in 1861 would have likely prevented the Civil War


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Trump is right in that if Jackson was President, there would have been no reason for secession. A slaveholder would be in the White House


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow
> 
> With the war, slaves were free in five years and had the right to vote in ten



absolutely slavery would have ended, as it did EVERYWHERE else in the "civilized world"

I disagree about how the "Jim Crow" stuff would have gone down - I think it is probable that the bitterness & animosity on race issues would not be as pronounced as what we are dealing with today

but we will never know...


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

so, I will throw y'all a bone

I do not doubt that Trump did not come up with this, in fact I would even guess that this is new info for him

probably, he likes Jackson & has decided to learn more about his presidency recently

saw this opinion, agreed with it & decided to share it


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.



I concur, see, we can agree on some things!



Hutch Starskey said:


> Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.



100% incorrect, as *Rightwinger *(a left leaning member of this forum) & I have both demonstrated

ANY Democrat in office in 1860 would have prevented the war, as the Southern states would not likely have succeeded


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


OMG OK hack boi. Ignore history if you want.
Good day!


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



No, dope.
Trump was clearly speaking of _the_ civil war.
Not an earlier event.


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Rights?
*"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."*
Lets ignore that too.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
> ...



That's not what Trump suggested.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Trump was clearly speaking of _the_ civil war.
> Not an earlier event.



when Trump talked about how Jackson was angry about "what happened with the civil war" he was talking about an earlier event

Jackson DID express anger towards his Southern brethren over their secessionist views decades before the war

the seeds of discontent had been sown before Jackson was president & Jackson was furious about it

he even stated that the best government in the world was at risk because of it


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



In defense of Trump....technically, he is right
There would have been no secession if Jackson was in the White House. The south would have been thrilled and Jackson would have bullied through legislation to protect the rights of slaveholders

But is THAT what Trump is trying to say?  We would have been better off if we had accommodated the slave holders?


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> That's not what Trump suggested.




oh, but it is

again, this is not an unconventional theory

again, I believe that this is something Trump has come across recently & that he was (poorly) expressing that opinion


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Even if trump was wrong(which he wasn't) it still isn't as bad as our POTUS thinking we have 57 states. I am sure that is somehow different, with some, though..
That was a big blunder. I am sure bush said something crazy as hell too.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> But is THAT what Trump is trying to say? We would have been better off if we had accommodated the slave holders?



see, I knew that if my friends on the left really looked at this that they could find something to be outraged about

good job!


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Winston said:
> ...



You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement. 
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.



there are numerous accounts that suggest that Jackson's slaves were weeping & distraught when he died

I am not defending all of Jackson's policies & actions, but judging him by today's morality is not really fair either


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow
> ...



The rest of the civilized world gave up slavery without bloodshed. After the Civil War, it still existed in the Caribbean and South America for about another 20 years

The Civil War was like ripping a bandaid off of slavery. It was quick and final but far from painless

If we had "peacefully" ended slavery, I think we would have ended up with a country like South Africa with a subclass of blacks who had limited rights


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Of course not.
Trump was just being Trump giving a stream of consciousness about his hero Jackson that is in  no way linked to reality


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



What does that even mean?
In what way(s) is Trump asserting that Jackson would have changed the equation? As President?  Wouldn't that be true of just about anyone other than Lincoln?


----------



## Camp (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


When Jackson stole the farms and homes of the Cherokee and looted their property he marched them away in what became known as the Trail of Tears. True, many died during that march, but the fact that he did not massacre and outright murder all of them in place proved he had a "heart".


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Jackson may have been a kind "master" but would still whip slaves who ran away. Make not mistake about it, he was a man of the south and of his times. He had strong views on the rights of "subhumans" such as Indians and Negroes and they are not politically correct today


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> dcbl said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


The barbury slave trade ended in a couple rounds of bloodshed.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
> ...



North Koreans weeped at the death of Kim Jung Il
Doesn't make him a great man


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Camp said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Sounds similar to Lincoln, except it was Americans


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > But is THAT what Trump is trying to say? We would have been better off if we had accommodated the slave holders?
> ...



That seems to be his premise as you presented it.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Wouldn't that be true of just about anyone other than Lincoln?



yes, well, anyone that was not a Republican anyway...


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes. That's my point.
Trump suggested that Jackson, through his
 ' tough but fair' character would have avoided the war. Not simply by virtue of being a pro-slavery Dem.

The rabbit hole of Trumpsplainnin' is deep, dark and wide and mostly full of shit.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

*From Trump's Alternative History Chronicles *

Trump bombed the Syrian because he is still mad at them for bombing Pearl Harbor..................


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Trump lives in his own world unconnected to reality

He has never read a book on his hero Andrew Jackson and gets his information from snipets he has seen on TV. As usual, Trump creates his own "facts" and leaves it up to his staff to find some element of truth to it


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> The rabbit hole of Trumpsplainnin' is deep, dark and wide and mostly full of shit.


More shit than a constipated Whale....


----------



## Crixus (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> Reagan was really angry over 9-11
> 
> Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War
> ...





57 states, Navy Corps-Man, R-S-P-CT Half-Black Jesus fucked up allot especially on his geography. He even called Hawaii Asia. Hawaii is a state most pre K kids get down pretty fast and he was born there, yet he thinki his home state is Asia. Bammer was dumb as a box of rocks. Hell, even dubya did not fuck up his geogrophy as much as black Jesus does.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

Donald Trump added that 246 Marines would not have been killed by a single terrorist in Lebanon with  a truck loaded with explosives if Ronald Reagan had been President at the time


----------



## JohnnyApplesack (May 2, 2017)

dopey Jared appears to be more literate than donnie, maybe he can explain why we had a Civil War after he explains why there was a Holocaust, so there's that


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Crixus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
> ...



Trump has the best words...believe me


----------



## Winston (May 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump.  Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.



Yet not a single one of those issues would have "trumped" Jackson SWORN commitment to the Constitution.  As has been pointed out, Jackson eloquently predicted the use of slavery as an "excuse" for secession.  And if Jackson had no problem subjugating First People he would have no problem "subjugating" seceding traitors.  

Hell, by your logic, President Grant, WHO OWNED SLAVES, would have promptly nullified the Emancipation Proclamation.  Afterall, he was a SLAVE OWNER, he would support the Confederacy. Oh, wait a minute.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Trump has the best words...believe me


----------



## Crixus (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




You know it gets me to thinking, with all these politicians doing interviews there always seems to be a moment where they look like deer cought in head lights when they get asked a question l, then they say something stupid. With Obama you could see he caught it, as well as others. But with others Trump included it almost seems like one of those "stream of consciousness" type thing.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's why it's curious why Trump would choose to extol the virtues of such a man within the context of preventing civil war.


----------



## Crixus (May 2, 2017)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...




On that part I can agree. Would have been way better had there been no war.


----------



## Winston (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> dcbl said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Slavery was already becoming commercially untenable by the turn of the 19th century.  Why do you think they started disappearing from the North, because Yankees all suddenly became abolitionists?  Please, that movement started in the South.  Hell, by almost every commentator of the times, the North was more racist than the South despite the institution of slavery.

But it was the cotton gin that saved slavery.  The cotton gin that "caused" the Civil War.

Now, think about that.  That massive increase in productivity, provided by a "capital" investment, generated a huge amount of WEALTH.  It took the blood of an entire generation, and over twenty years of "reconstruction", to wrestle that wealth away from the powerful and to the people.  The tariffs, the Civil War, and Reconstruction were all about the control of that wealth.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 2, 2017)

Winston said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump.  Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.
> ...


Julia Dent, the president's wife, owned a few slaves and sold them.

Winston can substitute  his desires for facts and evidence, and the result still is that Jackson would have supported secession in 1860.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 2, 2017)

Winston is in the upper left of the picture.


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.
> ...


he does make shit up but he does it effectively. Of course the GOP wants the next andrew jackson- push the brown skins back to mexico, fight terrorism, white power ya know... If he had said he wants to emulate lincoln the GOP would have booed him.

Adams once said of jackson that he was a "brute who could barely write his own name"- seems like jackson and trump have more in common than we knew.


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It is amazing what people will ignore for agenda.


----------



## Crixus (May 2, 2017)

Winston said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dcbl said:
> ...





Yup basically the war was about industrial might. People have to remember that the south was the bread basket at the time and supplied allot of raw material to the north. No way any sitting president would let that go.


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

Aries said:


> he does make shit up but he does it effectively. Of course the GOP wants the next andrew jackson- push the brown skins back to mexico, fight terrorism, white power ya know... *If he had said he wants to emulate lincoln the GOP would have booed him*.


So you think the GOP doesn't support tyranny?


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Aries said:
> 
> 
> > he does make shit up but he does it effectively. Of course the GOP wants the next andrew jackson- push the brown skins back to mexico, fight terrorism, white power ya know... *If he had said he wants to emulate lincoln the GOP would have booed him*.
> ...


I think the GOP doesn't know what they support anymore. They don't know which way is up and which way is down lol. Major identity crisis!


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Winston said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dcbl said:
> ...



No doubt cotton was king. It was the most valuable commodity being produced in this country and huge fortunes were being made. There was enough money being made to actually pay your labor and still make a big profit. But why pay for labor when you can get it for free?
The Confederacy was not a country worthy of admiration. Almost 40% of its population was in bondage. States like South Carolina and Mississippi had almost 60% of their populations in bondage


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Aries said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Ever see Trump write his name?
Looks like a lie detector


----------



## Winston (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump. Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.
> ...



I am a progressive.  I think Trump is an idiot.  But history is not right or left and in this case, Trump is SPOT ON.  I posted Jackson's letter in this now merged thread as well.  I posted his quoted public response to the nullification crisis.  It is rumored that when Jackson heard of Calhoun's support for secession Jackson threatened to separate Calhoun's head from his body.  He was forced to resign.  A pretty strong signal that Jackson would have taken a harder line than Lincoln.

Besides, it is one thing to secede when the President is some little known short time representative.  Quite another to secede when the President is a foul talking, hard drinking, war hero known to have taken a gut shot during a duel and THEN calmly squeezing off a kill shot to his opponent.


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

Winston said:


> dcbl said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Trump is not spot on. That succession threat was over taxation, not slavery. We do not know how he would have handled the civil war, as he was long dead. But we do know he was a slave owner, if he was pres there would have been no war- and no freedom for the slaves.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 2, 2017)

Winston and dcbl are wrong based on all of the evidence and Jackson's character.

If he had been compos mentis, he would have been a fabulous war secretary, and would have made the CSA states exactly what he wanted in the war effort.


----------



## Meathead (May 2, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> > If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents  between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's  second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.
> ...


Polk was an exceptionally good president. I don't expect people unschooled in US history to be aware of this.


----------



## CowboyTed (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
> ...



Dude, you are talking about the nullification crisis, which had next to nothing to do with the Civil War...

Why does the Right need to keep pumping false narratives..


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 2, 2017)

Polk had four goals and accomplished them all.

If one can be pointed to as the Prior Cause for the CW, point at Polk.

The introduction of Texas and the great Southwest into the Union exacerbated the slavery issue until the point of national break down.


----------



## dcbl (May 2, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Winston and dcbl are wrong based on all of the evidence and Jackson's character.
> 
> If he had been compos mentis, he would have been a fabulous war secretary, and would have made the CSA states exactly what he wanted in the war effort.



people have different opinions

opinions are like noses (or assholes)

some smell more than others...

the point is, this big "GOTCHA"

isn't

because a credible argument can be made to support Trump's statements


----------



## CowboyTed (May 2, 2017)

Meathead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Meathead said:
> ...




First Three quotes from Wiki on him:

_No president who performs his duties faithfully and conscientiously can have any leisure.
Trump: Golf....._

_Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy...._

_One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights.
Trump: Hispanics, Muslims, Blacks, Women.... Anyone who is not white and male...

But Trump is better in the Slave Owning Department..._


----------



## TNHarley (May 2, 2017)

CowboyTed said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


No shit.
Read what Jackson said about it and how he handled it.
Maybe if you learn some history, history will make sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Winston and dcbl are wrong based on all of the evidence and Jackson's character.
> ...


Your lead up does  not support the conclusion.  There is no credible argument to support Trump.  He clearly did not understand the situation or the history.

Let's see if the snitch, TNHarley, now supports the insupportable, Trumps's comments.  Ok, we have a funny emoticon.


----------



## Political Junky (May 2, 2017)

Trump s functionally illiterate about history.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sarah Palin was essentially correct in what she said. The sound of muskets firing were the volunteers emptying the musket load before muster. Standard practice was to muster at the Inn or Pub and the weapons needed to be safed..

Even written statements from the British Commander back her up...


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Trump s functionally illiterate about history.



Trump is just plain functionally illiterate


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



You forgot about ringing the bells


----------



## flacaltenn (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Statements from the after action reports of British Commanders back up MOST of her statements. 

You won't succeed in re-writing that history. Stick to the easier targets.. Like El Loco Cheetoh Grande..


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Trump s functionally illiterate about history.


No doubt about that. It is a critical problem as he is not able to put US-foreign relations into perspective. Same reason he had to have NATO explained to him.


----------



## Political Junky (May 2, 2017)

Little wonder Trump said he likes the undereducated, he identifies with them and they are the ones who put him in the Whitehouse.


----------



## Aries (May 2, 2017)

Political Junky said:


> Little wonder Trump said he likes the undereducated, he identifies with them and they are the ones who put him in the Whitehouse.


they are easy to dupe if you get a few good chants going.


----------



## gipper (May 2, 2017)

Trump's right again, but dummies get fooled by DNC media over and over again.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> Trump's right again, but dummies get fooled by DNC media over and over again.



Trump is once again correct
Andrew "Stonewall" Jackson was a major leader in the Civil War


----------



## gipper (May 2, 2017)

I


rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Trump's right again, but dummies get fooled by DNC media over and over again.
> ...


Imagine if Trump said....

*"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."*


----------



## MACAULAY (May 2, 2017)

*"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
*
I submit that the O. P is a *Numbskull* who should read a little American History and by doing so he might not look like a *pompous ass and an uneducated fool.*

The above quote from his o.p. attributed to Trump shows Trump knew exactly what he was talking about and knows way more than the *Turd* who is making fun of him.

Secession was a serious issue during Andrew Jackson's term.  And it would have likely meant civil war just as it did a few years later.

South Carolina (where Jackson was born) was about to secede over the Nullification Controversy...and likely would have if Jackson had not told them he would come down there an HANG every single one of the Secessionists, starting with the leader----John C. Calhoun.

South Carolina backed down, and Civil War was avoided, because they knew Jackson would do what he said.

That's what Trump is talking about* you Ignorant Fool.*


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> I
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> ...



Imagine if Obama had said...

*"I like to grab em by the pussy"*


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

MACAULAY said:


> *"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
> *
> I submit that the O. P is a *Numbskull* who should read a little American History and by doing so he might not look like a *pompous ass and an uneducated fool.*
> 
> ...



No, that is what YOU are talking about. Trump has no understanding about Andrew Jackson. He can't even spend the time to Google

What Trump actually said was....

*He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."
*
*"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"
*
What "was happening" with regard to the Civil War
Not what the current situation could lead to, not the risk....what WAS HAPPENING

Jackson did not say....There's no reason for this


----------



## Camp (May 2, 2017)

Trump is the President that gets mocked,  made fun of, and called a liar whenever he speaks.  He has no credibility and receives great and consistent disrespect.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 2, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Did he say that Jackson was angry about what was going on with the civil war or was he angry about what he saw happening with regard to the civil war?
> 
> Jackson saw what was happening with secession.  He stopped early efforts at secession.  Had he been a little bit later, he might have found a compromise to avoid civil war
> 
> Again, Trump was right.  It took liberal lies to make it appear thst he was wrong.



I was going to joke that the RWNJs would be changing the history books but, right on cue, proud Trump University grad, Tipsycatlover twists herself into a pretzel to do just that.

[emoji90]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Don't blame me for your ignorance.
Read my link.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > You're not only a troll, you're ignorant, too.
> ...


Don't blame others for your own ignorance, troll.


----------



## gipper (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...


He said much worse.


----------



## Seawytch (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



For example?


----------



## Seawytch (May 2, 2017)




----------



## BlindBoo (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> I
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> ...



Don't be so silly, Grumpster wouldn't put this on Twitter.....Gezzzzzzzz

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Obama's Nomination Victory Speech In St. Paul | HuffPost


----------



## BlindBoo (May 2, 2017)

Camp said:


> Trump is the President that gets mocked,  made fun of, and called a liar whenever he speaks.  He has no credibility and receives great and consistent disrespect.



To his credit, he did it the old fashion way, he earned it!


----------



## Winston (May 2, 2017)

MACAULAY said:


> *"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
> *
> I submit that the O. P is a *Numbskull* who should read a little American History and by doing so he might not look like a *pompous ass and an uneducated fool.*
> 
> ...



Absolutely correct.  I mean this is beyond stupid.  Let's make it simple.

Shortly after Jackson was elected the state of South Carolina threatened to secede.  It was called the "Nullification Crisis". And I admit, it is comically ironic that in order to support Trump's statement the Trump supporters, who have consistently supported a state "nullifying" federal law, have suddenly became experts in Andrew Jackson's response to such nonsense.  His response, the South Carolina, was that if he heard anymore of that talk he would come down to South Carolina and hang those responsible from the closest oak tree.  He told his VP, who was also a SECESSIONIST, that he would personally secede the VP's head from his body.

The MOMENT, and I mean the MOMENT, that Lincoln became president, from his inaugural address,

*I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do s*o.

In short, please be nice and don't leave.  I won't touch slavery.  I support the Corwin amendment, constitutional protection for the institution of slavery in those states where it currently exists. 

You seeing a difference here?  Basically, Lincoln was a big old wuss and the South Carolina didn't give the consequences of secession a second thought.  Jackson was a known BADASS more than willing to yield some military muscle or even personally challenge someone to a duel.  South Carolina didn't give another thought to seceding against such a president and promptly moved the discussion underground for the next eight years.


----------



## gipper (May 2, 2017)

Seawytch said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


See?  Now there it is AGAIN.  A lefty unaware of the facts.  I hope this surprises you as facts must often do.

"...this was the moment when the raise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."

“We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad.”

“The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.”

“No, no. I have been practicing…I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”

“I’ve now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.”

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”

If Trump said such stupidity, the MSM would crucify him...hardly a peep from them when Obama said stupid shit...and dupes still can't see the distortion.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



*I prefer those who were not captured*


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


LOL

Thats the best you got after eight years!


----------



## gipper (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Well I could have posted pages and pages, but would it do any good?  Nearly EVERYTHING he said was dumb, untrue, ridiculous, and stupid.

90% of the MSM loves Big Ears.  

90% of the MSM hates The Donald.

funny....dummies can't see they are being duped even though it is patently obvious.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


The rest of it isn't funny.


----------



## rightwinger (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Trump humiliates himself more in a late night tweetfest than Obama did in eight years


----------



## gipper (May 2, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


duped again by the MSM...you will never learn.


----------



## Seawytch (May 2, 2017)

gipper said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



None of that is worse than "grab them by the pussy"...by any stretch of the imagination. 

Trump:
_“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” _

_“If I were running _The View_, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’” _

_“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”_

_“A person who is flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.”_

_“I like kids. I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them; I’ll supply funds, and she’ll take care of the kids.”_

_“If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

_


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

Seawytch said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Yet he was _still_ a better choice than a democrat.


----------



## Flash (May 2, 2017)

Crooked Hillary's imaginary history:


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (May 2, 2017)

If Obama had been earlier he could have prevented the war between the 57 states.


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> Even if trump was wrong(which he wasn't) it still isn't as bad as our POTUS thinking we have 57 states. I am sure that is somehow different, with some, though..
> That was a big blunder. I am sure bush said something crazy as hell too.



That's not a "blunder" at all, and I can't believe summa y'all are still trying to run with this.

He was obviously going for "*forty*-seven states" ("one more to go" making *48* since by gentleman's agreement the two Party completely ignore Alaska and Hawaìi)  --- and blurted out "fifty", from the common phrase "the fifty states", and moved on without correcting "fifty" to "forty".

Not rocket surgery and never was, except for those deliberately feigning stoopidity.


----------



## Pogo (May 2, 2017)

dcbl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump. Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.
> ...



Actually (a) Lincoln wasn't on ballots in the South because the Republican Party -- only six years old in 1860 --- didn't put those ballots there, because it hadn't organized in the South, believing (correctly) that its support lay in the North, Midwest and West.  In those days you didn't stroll to the polls and get a single sheet with all the candidates and referenda on one sheet --- you picked up a ballot from the political party, which had its whole roster listed.  The RP didn't do that in Lincoln's runs.  Didn't do it for their first candidate Frémont either.  The first Republican to appear on presidential ballots in the South was Grant.

And (b) as far as the Democrat*ic* ("Democrat" is a noun) Party, that party's candidate Stephen Douglas pulled exactly the same number of electoral votes from the South as Lincoln did, which was zero.  That's because several months prior the South had already seceded from that party and run its own candidate.  So Democrats weren't selling in the South in 1860 anyway.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 3, 2017)

dcbl said:


> Look - I get it that many of you hate Trump
> 
> Really, I do get it. I hated Obama. I hated Carter
> 
> ...



By the sounds of that quote, Jackson would have not been reluctant to go to war against those states who might secede.
He does correctly  predict that slavery will be the real reason for secession, thus disagreeing with the multitude of RW types around here who insist that slavery was not the reason for secession.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 3, 2017)

Pogo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Even if trump was wrong(which he wasn't) it still isn't as bad as our POTUS thinking we have 57 states. I am sure that is somehow different, with some, though..
> ...



They cling to the 57 states lie like a security blanket.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

That's because the far RW can't count to 57.


----------



## gipper (May 3, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...





JakeStarkey said:


> That's because the far RW can't count to 57.



If Trump said the exact same quote that your Messiah said, the MSM (really DNC media) would rip him mercilessly...and you dummies would eat it up...dutifully.


----------



## rightwinger (May 3, 2017)

Pogo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Even if trump was wrong(which he wasn't) it still isn't as bad as our POTUS thinking we have 57 states. I am sure that is somehow different, with some, though..
> ...



You would think that a person born in the 50th state knows there are 50 states. But Republicans still swear he was born in Kenya


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Of course intelligent people would tear him apart.  Why?  Because Trump would think it was true, while Obama misspoke.


----------



## gipper (May 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Oh Jake...too funny...you are such a good dupe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Says the Master Dupe.


----------



## gipper (May 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Says the one who loves big government run by criminals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


You are trolling as usual, snitch, when you can't talk with sense and purpose.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 3, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



It took Trump 8 years to finally admit he was full of shit with his Birther nonsense.  I guess by that scale, about 7 years from now Trump will be getting around to making a few dozen admissions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

Fuck Trump and his stupid supporters.


----------



## protectionist (May 3, 2017)

Trump is aware of Eisenhower's Operation Wetback.  If that was all the history he knew, that would be plenty.


----------



## protectionist (May 3, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> It took Trump 8 years to finally admit he was full of shit with his Birther nonsense.  I guess by that scale, about 7 years from now Trump will be getting around to making a few dozen admissions.


Since Obama is a Muslim (and a jihadist no less), it doesn't matter where he was born.  He has no nation other than *the Umma* (worldwide community of Muslims).  This is all that is relevant about Obama's non-nationality


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

Obama is neither, but protectionist is an alt right reactionary who wants to return America in all ways to post-1945 society.  Won't happen.


----------



## protectionist (May 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama is neither, but protectionist is an alt right reactionary who wants to return America in all ways to post-1945 society.  Won't happen.


Returning to post-1945 society is a good thing.  Michael Savage has a whole chapter on this in his GREAT book >> *Trump's War.  *A must read.  Especially for those suffering from the mental disorder of liberalism.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

protectionist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is neither, but protectionist is an alt right reactionary who wants to return America in all ways to post-1945 society.  Won't happen.
> ...


There is no such thing, but those, like you, who embrace the values of anti democracy, anti republicanism, ultra xenophobia and uber nationalism and filthy racialism, yeah, you folks are sick in the head.


----------



## protectionist (May 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> There is no such thing, but those, like you, who embrace the values of anti democracy, anti republicanism, ultra xenophobia and uber nationalism and filthy racialism, yeah, you folks are sick in the head.


Those things are what YOU liberals embrace.

anti-democracy - you want to flood the country with foreigners, thereby lessening/diluting the AMERICAN VOTE

anti-republicanism - same thing

ultra-xenophobia - you are hostile to AMERICAN culture

uber nationalism - a GOOD thing

filthy racialism - your support of Affirmative Action, your hostility to whites, and your support of the Obama/Sharpton/Holder/ Crump/Jackson race hustlers campaign that gave us riots in Ferguson, MO, Baltimore MD, Lousiana, Charlotte, NC, New York City, etc.

As for "sick in the head" - that's what YOU are.


----------



## BlindBoo (May 3, 2017)

gipper said:


> "...this was the moment when the raise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."



Let's see the "... denote something was said before the quote, correct?  Here is what then Candidate Obama said before and after  ....

"The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. *I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations*. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; "......*your 19 word snipit* ....."this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America."

It is another example of the disingenuous nature of the RWNJ's and the dumb asses who are duped into believing the fake news based completely on fiction like the above out of context quote.

Obama's Nomination Victory Speech In St. Paul | HuffPost


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

Those things are what YOU liberals embrace.

anti-democracy - these people want to create obstacles to their enemies so they cannot perform their civil duty to AMERICAN VOTE

anti-republicanism - same thing

ultra-xenophobia - these people are hostile to all Americans who do not look like, think like, or act like them

uber nationalism - a BAD thing

filthy racialism - this is the core of the far right and the alt right

They are sick in the head.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 3, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> That's because the far RW can't count to 57.





protectionist said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > It took Trump 8 years to finally admit he was full of shit with his Birther nonsense.  I guess by that scale, about 7 years from now Trump will be getting around to making a few dozen admissions.
> ...



Are you that starved for attention?


----------



## gipper (May 3, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > "...this was the moment when the raise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
> ...


If Trump said those same words, how would the MSM respond?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 3, 2017)

gipper said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


He would not.


----------



## protectionist (May 3, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Are you that starved for attention?


What would that have to do with the Umma ?


----------



## BlindBoo (May 3, 2017)

gipper said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



There were a lot of words in that acceptance speech.  They would probably be amazed that he could string so many cognitive sentences together!


----------



## gipper (May 3, 2017)

BlindBoo said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Exactly. Because he is a dumb fuck... right?


----------



## BertramN (May 4, 2017)

Correll said:


> BertramN said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



The term "Der Gropenfürher" is based on his questionable boast that it is his right to sexually assault any woman he chooses because he is a wealthy celebrity. You conservatives consistently defend his "right" to commit these offenses as shown by your response to my post in this thread. 

The deep seated pride you conservatives feel for your willful ignorance does NOT make you or any other right-winger superior to well informed individuals. This is despite the many years the GOP leaders have told you that ignorance is one of the virtues of conservatism.

.


----------



## protectionist (May 5, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Those things are what YOU liberals embrace.
> 
> anti-democracy - these people want to create obstacles to their enemies so they cannot perform their civil duty to AMERICAN VOTE
> 
> ...


Those things are what YOU liberals embrace.

anti-democracy - you want to flood the country with foreigners, thereby lessening/diluting the AMERICAN VOTE

anti-republicanism - same thing

ultra-xenophobia - you are hostile to AMERICAN culture

uber nationalism - a GOOD thing

filthy racialism - your support of Affirmative Action, your hostility to whites, and your support of the Obama/Sharpton/Holder/ Crump/Jackson race hustlers campaign that gave us riots in Ferguson, MO, Baltimore MD, Lousiana, Charlotte, NC, New York City, etc.

As for "sick in the head" - that's what YOU are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2017)

Those things are what YOU filthy alt right support

anti-democracy - these people want to create obstacles to their enemies so they cannot perform their civil duty to AMERICAN VOTE

anti-republicanism - same thing

ultra-xenophobia - these people are hostile to all Americans who do not look like, think like, or act like them

uber nationalism - a BAD thing

filthy racialism - this is the core of the far right and the alt right

They are sick in the head.

You people are losing this battle, protectionist.


----------



## Correll (May 5, 2017)

BertramN said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > BertramN said:
> ...




Your lies about Trump are noted. 

All that did was show that you are a liar.


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2017)

protectionist said:


> Trump is aware of Eisenhower's Operation Wetback.  If that was all the history he knew, that would be plenty.


Andrew Jackson was adamantly opposed to operation wetback


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2017)

Correll said:


> BertramN said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Correll's so often and failed tactic is to attack the other board member not defend Trump.  I so owned him, he won't talk to me.  So stay on his ass.


----------



## Correll (May 5, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Trump is aware of Eisenhower's Operation Wetback.  If that was all the history he knew, that would be plenty.
> ...




RW! Do you still believe that whites will stand for being politically and economically marginalized in your hoped for One Party Utopia of Permanent Democratic Rule?


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...



The night Obama got elected.....Andrew Jackson wept


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> > Trump is aware of Eisenhower's Operation Wetback.  If that was all the history he knew, that would be plenty.
> ...


Jackson yelled at Eisenhower about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


He wept so hard!


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > protectionist said:
> ...


Jackson liked Ike. He was always partial to good generals
But allowing Mexicans in was more than he could take

He told Ike they were all murderers, rapists and drug dealers
Build a wall said Jackson


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Using slave and convict labor!


----------



## rightwinger (May 5, 2017)

Andrew Jackson hates Elizabeth Warren
He never did like Indians


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Andrew Jackson hates Elizabeth Warren
> He never did like Indians


Yet he adopted her son, named him Andrew Jackson Jr.


----------



## Correll (May 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




When we discussed your vision of "the next gop president not being born yet" you insisted that whites would accept the results of "democracy" even if it meant never having their interests represented in national policy again.

Yet with the anti-Free Speech shit going on in Berkeley, we see that dems don't stop with just malign neglect but are quick to move on to active oppression, if not checked.


And we saw that whites/Middle America are not prone to meekness. 


This disproves your belief that your ONe Party State would be an utopia, and supports mine that it would be a dystopia.


Now, the question is, now that you see that your path is doomed to be a nightmare for the nation and the world, do you still want it?


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2017)

I was watching Andrew Jackson on Hannity last night.  He thinks Trump is too soft on Kim Jong Un


----------



## Correll (May 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> I was watching Andrew Jackson on Hannity last night.  He thinks Trump is too soft on Kin Jong Un











This is what you wanted. THis is what you have been gloating about for years.

It is only going to get worse.

Like I told you.

Any doubts yet?


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I was watching Andrew Jackson on Hannity last night.  He thinks Trump is too soft on Kin Jong Un
> ...



It would make Andrew Jackson proud...he enjoyed a good political fight


----------



## Correll (May 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




It's NOT going the way you thought it would, is it?

Is that why you've gotten so... obtuse?


It is going just the way I told you it would. 

Increasing oppression, and increasing resistance and anger.


I hear that antifa is talking about escalation. 


Change. Is it always Good?


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


You are the one trying to divert the thread

Andrew Jackson always hated off topic posts


----------



## Correll (May 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





You are one of the few liberals brave enough to honestly discuss this issue. And the plans of your movement.

Or at least you were.


This trend, is the Destiny of this nation. It will define our lives and the lives of our descendants forever.


You believed that it would be all rainbows and unicorns.

I said it would be fire and blood.


We are now seeing the beginning. 


I am being proved right. 


I want to hear what the Left is thinking about these important developments.


Are you having second thoughts?


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



As Andrew Jackson once said.......The Internet is not for the weak at heart


----------



## Correll (May 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




You seem to be running away from your previous position without the bravery to admit it.


Actually, I think you still support it, but now that you see that my Blood and FIre prediction is coming true, you are no longer willing to openly support the end of the US as a Free Society.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Correll is amazed that calm, thinking people do not accept his predictions of a blood and fire White America.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Correll is gearing up for Helter Skelter


----------



## Correll (May 6, 2017)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...





You are the one that started the tread, "the next gop president hasn't been born yet".

I'm just the one taking your ideas and thoughts seriously, as you are, or were, clearly and honestly stating the intentions of the Left.


But with the passage of time, our guesses and predictions now can be checked against real life hard data.


And you respond by hiding and running from the most important discussion of our time, 

From YOUR discussion. 


I warned you that this would not work out the way you thought it would.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Trump's election is a blip on the road, a slight diversion, and not the pathway to Correll's white _Götterdämmerung_.


----------



## rightwinger (May 6, 2017)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Learn what thread topics mean


----------

