Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Trump thinks Andrew Jackson would have prevented t
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community    United States Government  ›  Trump thinks Andrew Jackson would have prevented t Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 4 Guests

Trump thinks Andrew Jackson would have prevented t  This thread currently has 617 views. |
2 Pages « 1 2 Recommend Thread
joebxr
May 2, 2017, 1:40pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
6,643
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+14 / -6
Time Online
275 days 17 hours 23 minutes
You give Trump way too much credit and the
American people way too little!

So explain how Jackson could have said "...really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."
when he was dead for 16 years before it started? That comment has nothing to do with your post and historical info
about the Civil War. That comment is a focal point of Trump's comments. So anyone who knowing/not knowing about the
"preceding civil war" history is mute. Trumps whole rant was a comparison of himself to Jackson and made up bull$hit about
Jackson and the war...that's it! That's TRUMP!!!!!!


JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!!  
JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!  
Logged
Private Message Reply: 15 - 24
CICERO
May 2, 2017, 3:40pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
18,214
Reputation
68.00%
Reputation Score
+17 / -8
Time Online
700 days 10 hours 42 minutes
Quoted from joebxr
You give Trump way too much credit and the
American people way too little!

So explain how Jackson could have said "...really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."
when he was dead for 16 years before it started? That comment has nothing to do with your post and historical info
about the Civil War. That comment is a focal point of Trump's comments. So anyone who knowing/not knowing about the
"preceding civil war" history is mute. Trumps whole rant was a comparison of himself to Jackson and made up bull$hit about
Jackson and the war...that's it! That's TRUMP!!!!!!


You cherry pick one sentence and not reading it in context of his entire statement.  You are dismissing the first statement of "Had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later...".  To me Trump acknowledges that Jackson wasn't around during the actual war.  Then Trump said "he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War,".  Granted, most Americans think of the civil war as the military part of the war, not the political lead up to the war.  But if you look at history, Andrew Jackson issued the nullification proclimation and took the first military actions against South Carolina's disobedience to the Union.  He dispatched the federal Navy and 5000 troops to Charleston in response to their nullification.

This doesn't make Trump any less of a buffoon.  But historically, Jackson did deal with rebellious states, and did use the Federal Army to crush the rebellion.  But only 27 years after sending troops to Charleston to crush the tariff nullification, Lincoln started a shooting war with South Carolina and the rest of the confederacy.  

Maybe what trump is saying is that Jackson stopped a state rebellion without plunging the entire nation into a Civil War, and if he had been around a "little bit later" he could have prevented Lincoln's war.

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Andrew-Jackson-Nullification.html


Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 16 - 24
joebxr
May 2, 2017, 4:55pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
6,643
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+14 / -6
Time Online
275 days 17 hours 23 minutes
Quoted from CICERO


You cherry pick one sentence and not reading it in context of his entire statement.  You are dismissing the first statement of "Had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later...".  To me Trump acknowledges that Jackson wasn't around during the actual war.  Then Trump said "he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War,".  Granted, most Americans think of the civil war as the military part of the war, not the political lead up to the war.  But if you look at history, Andrew Jackson issued the nullification proclimation and took the first military actions against South Carolina's disobedience to the Union.  He dispatched the federal Navy and 5000 troops to Charleston in response to their nullification.

This doesn't make Trump any less of a buffoon.  But historically, Jackson did deal with rebellious states, and did use the Federal Army to crush the rebellion.  But only 27 years after sending troops to Charleston to crush the tariff nullification, Lincoln started a shooting war with South Carolina and the rest of the confederacy.  

Maybe what trump is saying is that Jackson stopped a state rebellion without plunging the entire nation into a Civil War, and if he had been around a "little bit later" he could have prevented Lincoln's war.

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Andrew-Jackson-Nullification.html


Well, I disagree on the gist of the comments by Trump. But going along your line, appears that Jackson would have
been an instigator and likely put us in a military conflict if he had indeed been president in 1860's. Not sure what the
slavery outcome would have been since Jackson was proud defiant slave owner. He would have squashed the
cessation, etc. So with that agreement, Trump is still stupid and making ridiculous statements. Definitely a buffoon!

On a side note, it seems that with this topic and with so much of what Trump says, someone always has to defend his statements
and interpret the alternate version of his statements. Not a day goes by that his words have to be explained because of the
rhetoric and missteps and flip-flops, and fabrications and lies, and....................


JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!!  
JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!  
Logged
Private Message Reply: 17 - 24
CICERO
May 2, 2017, 5:43pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
18,214
Reputation
68.00%
Reputation Score
+17 / -8
Time Online
700 days 10 hours 42 minutes
Quoted from joebxr


On a side note, it seems that with this topic and with so much of what Trump says, someone always has to defend his statements
and interpret the alternate version of his statements. Not a day goes by that his words have to be explained because of the
rhetoric and missteps and flip-flops, and fabrications and lies, and....................


I agree that Trump isn't an eloquent speaker.  And his generalizations of complex topics give his political opponents plenty of ammo to attack his character.  He certainly isn't a polished speaker and isn't skilled in measured political speak that Americans are accustom to.  But instead of the media questioning more relevent policies of the Trump Administration like the legality of his military actions in Syria, which no congressional authority has be given.  The media spends their time attacking his statements made during a radio interview and his historical knowledge of the Civil War.

There is plenty policy positions that can used to attack Trump.  Picking two sentences out of an interview and attacking him on them seems petty.


Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 18 - 24
joebxr
May 2, 2017, 6:25pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
6,643
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+14 / -6
Time Online
275 days 17 hours 23 minutes
Quoted from CICERO
...questioning more relevent policies of the Trump Administration like the legality of his military actions in Syria, which no congressional authority has be given.  The media spends their time attacking his statements made during a radio interview and his historical knowledge of the Civil War.

There is plenty policy positions that can used to attack Trump.  Picking two sentences out of an interview and attacking him on them seems petty.

Bombing in Syria was through authority of military leaders given by Congress under previous administration. Trump didn't take credit initially,
but has since taken credit, even though his approval was not needed...and rumored that he was not requested to give it, either. Rumor is that
he was told "this is what we are about to do". Don't know how much of that is true.

Civil War gaff is just part of the daily, ongoing fodder that Trump provides. You say it's petty, but I believe it is important to point
these items out because it cuts right to the core of who this person IS NOT! The public needs to wake up at some point and
realize that re-electing this guy (and he's campaigning for re-election already) would be the wrong thing.  Of course, if Hillary was
POTUS, not sure we'd be in better shape, and I'm sure she'd make many gaffs too! One thing for sure, she'd be just as ineffective as Trump.


JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!!  
JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!  
Logged
Private Message Reply: 19 - 24
CICERO
May 2, 2017, 7:07pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
18,214
Reputation
68.00%
Reputation Score
+17 / -8
Time Online
700 days 10 hours 42 minutes
Quoted from joebxr

Bombing in Syria was through authority of military leaders given by Congress under previous administration. Trump didn't take credit initially,
but has since taken credit, even though his approval was not needed...and rumored that he was not requested to give it, either. Rumor is that
he was told "this is what we are about to do". Don't know how much of that is true.


I disagree.  The authorization for use of force was in response to 9-11 attacks in 2001.  I haven't heard an argument that carries any water that can say the bombing Syrian military air bases in response to a sarin attack in a civil war was the spirit of the 2001 authorization of force.  The authorization was to prevent terror attacks in America (another 9-11). Does the 2001 authorization give every president from 2001 forward the authorization to use military force on any country in any part of the world for any reason?


Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 20 - 24
joebxr
May 2, 2017, 7:47pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
6,643
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+14 / -6
Time Online
275 days 17 hours 23 minutes
Not saying it's right, but been going on for long time.

Quoted Text
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/7/15217832/aumf-trump-syria-congress
It would be perfectly normal for the Trump administration to argue it doesn’t need Congress’s approval to go after Assad.
It would court a fight over when and why the executive branch can get America’s military involved in operations overseas
without input from Congress — but that fight has been going on for decades. Indeed, the Obama administration made legal
arguments for justifiable unilateral force that could be interpreted to validate what Trump did on Thursday night.


JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!!  
JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!  
Logged
Private Message Reply: 21 - 24
CICERO
May 2, 2017, 7:56pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
18,214
Reputation
68.00%
Reputation Score
+17 / -8
Time Online
700 days 10 hours 42 minutes
Quoted from joebxr
Not saying it's right, but been going on for long time.



That's what I mean by the public debate the media chooses to promote.  Instead of reporting on real life and death policies, they nit pick each and every off the cuff public comment he makes.  They report the personality of Trump instead of the policies of the government.


Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 22 - 24
joebxr
May 3, 2017, 3:24am Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
6,643
Reputation
70.00%
Reputation Score
+14 / -6
Time Online
275 days 17 hours 23 minutes
Quoted from CICERO


That's what I mean by the public debate the media chooses to promote.  Instead of reporting on real life and death policies, they nit pick each and every off the cuff public comment he makes.  They report the personality of Trump instead of the policies of the government.


I think media does both...but Trump issues dominate, both because of mistakes and because them man himself
intends to stay on the forefront to have his ego stroked.


JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!!  
JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!  
Logged
Private Message Reply: 23 - 24
Sombody
May 3, 2017, 12:13pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
2,047
Reputation
63.64%
Reputation Score
+7 / -4
Time Online
220 days 18 hours 12 minutes
Quoted from CICERO
I don't understand?  He said if Andrew Jackson had been a little bit later, he feels he could had prevented the civil war.  That would be the equivalent as saying if Jimmy Carter was a little bit later, he could have prevented the invasion of Iraq.

Trump's a moron, but his opinion on how he believes a former president would have handled waging war doesn't rank high on the list of moronic things he has done.


a little bit later Jackson became the President

a little bit later  for Carter he was  no longer president  and went back to woodworking


Oneida Elementary K-2  Yates 3-6
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 24 - 24
2 Pages « 1 2 Recommend Thread
|

Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community    United States Government  ›  Trump thinks Andrew Jackson would have prevented t

Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread