The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[GannonFan]

Some brilliant historical analysis by our glorious leader

President Trump during an interview that airs Monday questioned why the country had a Civil War and suggested former President Andrew Jackson could have prevented it had he served later.

"I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump said during an interview with the Washington Examiner's Salena Zito.

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

Jackson, the nation's 7th president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.

The president further questioned why the country could not have solved the Civil War.

"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?" Trump said during the edition of "Main Street Meets the Beltway" scheduled to air on SiriusXM.

"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -civil-war

Well, Trump is a buffoon, I'm not sure anyone could argue otherwise, and his grasp of history is equally so. With that said, though, he's not terribly incorrect when he says that the presence of an Andrew Jackson type personality could have prevented the Civil War happening when it did. It was Andrew Jackson's presence that did stop a Civil War from happening in the 1830's during the nullification crisis, and plenty of people have argued that, in the run up to the Civil War, what helped to bring it about was the succession of three straight Presidents (Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan) who, as being three of the weakest and worst Presidents ever, helped to make conditions right for a Civil War to break out. Trump says about 90-95% of things wrong in a given day - that doesn't mean he doesn't accidentally say something in the vicinity of being true sometime during the day.

[∞∞∞]

If Trump doesn't like to read (and from most sources, he hates reading), the American History Museum is literally a 4 minute drive from the White House.

On a side note, I wonder if Trump knows how many Amendments the Constitution has?

[Skjellyfetti]

Some brilliant historical analysis by our glorious leader



http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -civil-war

Well, Trump is a buffoon, I'm not sure anyone could argue otherwise, and his grasp of history is equally so. With that said, though, he's not terribly incorrect when he says that the presence of an Andrew Jackson type personality could have prevented the Civil War happening when it did. It was Andrew Jackson's presence that did stop a Civil War from happening in the 1830's during the nullification crisis, and plenty of people have argued that, in the run up to the Civil War, what helped to bring it about was the succession of three straight Presidents (Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan) who, as being three of the weakest and worst Presidents ever, helped to make conditions right for a Civil War to break out. Trump says about 90-95% of things wrong in a given day - that doesn't mean he doesn't accidentally say something in the vicinity of being true sometime during the day.

That's not what he said, though.

And, trying to tease out "in the vicinity of being true" is a pointless exercise. Like Spicer's statement about Hitler never using gas on his own people as "in the vicinity of being true."

It's a really dumb comment and best left there.

[CID1990]

Donald Trump has blamed the US constitution for the problems he has encountered during his first 100 days in office.

In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.

“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 10781.html

Sounds like he's bucking for the progressive vote


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Some brilliant historical analysis by our glorious leader



http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -civil-war

Well, Trump is a buffoon, I'm not sure anyone could argue otherwise, and his grasp of history is equally so. With that said, though, he's not terribly incorrect when he says that the presence of an Andrew Jackson type personality could have prevented the Civil War happening when it did. It was Andrew Jackson's presence that did stop a Civil War from happening in the 1830's during the nullification crisis, and plenty of people have argued that, in the run up to the Civil War, what helped to bring it about was the succession of three straight Presidents (Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan) who, as being three of the weakest and worst Presidents ever, helped to make conditions right for a Civil War to break out. Trump says about 90-95% of things wrong in a given day - that doesn't mean he doesn't accidentally say something in the vicinity of being true sometime during the day.

Buchanan wasn't straight.

[Ibanez]

If Trump doesn't like to read (and from most sources, he hates reading), the American History Museum is literally a 4 minute drive from the White House.

On a side note, I wonder if Trump knows how many Amendments the Constitution has?

He was elected to LEAD not to READ.


Besides, reading is for poor and ugly people.

[GannonFan]

Well, if there's anything that unites the right side of the political spectrum with the left side, it's the ignorance of American history. As I pointed out earlier, Trump's stumble through the English language just to form semi-coherent sentences around Andrew Jackson did, at least, have a tiny sliver of truth in it - Andrew Jackson, for all of his faults (which are legion) did forestall a Civil War happening in America. Of course it still came to pass, but the chance of a Civil War coming out of the Nullification Crisis in the 1830's was very real. Could Andrew Jackson, if he was born later and happened to be alive in 1860, have again postponed a Civil War? Eh, hard to tell.

The left, of course, can't let Trump get away with being the only stupid side in the room and has jumped into historical ignorance with both feet. Somehow being a slaveholder (which makes him evil today of course) means that Jackson never could've prevented a Civil War. His genocide of Native Americans also somehow disqualifies him from this historical action. Those two things together, and the fact that Trump seemingly likes Jackson's heritage, has made Jackson anathema to the left (nevermind that the Dems have been celebrating Jackson for almost two centuries as the founding father of the modern Democratic party with their J&J celebrations). And of course, the third grade answer that Jackson died in the late 1840's and clearly couldn't stop the Civil War that happened more than a decade later. Newsweek throws out this gem:

He was quoted as saying he had two regrets from his presidency: "that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun." Trump is similarly unstable and obsessed with his enemies, though he generally prefers insulting people on Twitter to fighting duels. Maybe if Twitter was around in 1830 Jackson could have just done that instead of shooting people who pissed him off.
There is one more thing that Trump and Andrew Jackson have in common: Neither of them seem to know anything about the Civil War—Jackson, because he is dead, and Trump, because he is merely ignorant.

Oddly, the comment about hanging Calhoun refers to that actual crisis that Jackson avoided that could've started a Civil War in the 1830's. I'm sure the writers at Newsweek missed the irony while rushing to call Trump, rightfully of course, ignorant.


http://www.newsweek.com/understanding-d ... yptr=yahoo

[Ibanez]

Well, if there's anything that unites the right side of the political spectrum with the left side, it's the ignorance of American history. As I pointed out earlier, Trump's stumble through the English language just to form semi-coherent sentences around Andrew Jackson did, at least, have a tiny sliver of truth in it - Andrew Jackson, for all of his faults (which are legion) did forestall a Civil War happening in America. Of course it still came to pass, but the chance of a Civil War coming out of the Nullification Crisis in the 1830's was very real. Could Andrew Jackson, if he was born later and happened to be alive in 1860, have again postponed a Civil War? Eh, hard to tell.

The left, of course, can't let Trump get away with being the only stupid side in the room and has jumped into historical ignorance with both feet. Somehow being a slaveholder (which makes him evil today of course) means that Jackson never could've prevented a Civil War. His genocide of Native Americans also somehow disqualifies him from this historical action. Those two things together, and the fact that Trump seemingly likes Jackson's heritage, has made Jackson anathema to the left (nevermind that the Dems have been celebrating Jackson for almost two centuries as the founding father of the modern Democratic party with their J&J celebrations). And of course, the third grade answer that Jackson died in the late 1840's and clearly couldn't stop the Civil War that happened more than a decade later. Newsweek throws out this gem:

He was quoted as saying he had two regrets from his presidency: "that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun." Trump is similarly unstable and obsessed with his enemies, though he generally prefers insulting people on Twitter to fighting duels. Maybe if Twitter was around in 1830 Jackson could have just done that instead of shooting people who pissed him off.
There is one more thing that Trump and Andrew Jackson have in common: Neither of them seem to know anything about the Civil War—Jackson, because he is dead, and Trump, because he is merely ignorant.

Oddly, the comment about hanging Calhoun refers to that actual crisis that Jackson avoided that could've started a Civil War in the 1830's. I'm sure the writers at Newsweek missed the irony while rushing to call Trump, rightfully of course, ignorant.


http://www.newsweek.com/understanding-d ... yptr=yahoo

The problem with trying to whitewash history in search of the perfect person, is that that person doesn't exist. Jefferson-Jackson dinners have been renamed in states like Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

New Hampshire went the extra mile and renamed it to the Kennedy-Clinton dinner. In 20 yrs that'll have to change as we know Clinton was opposed to Gay Marriage and i'm sure a guy like JFK did as well. You know...being a product of his era.

So, they got rid of the guys that treated blacks and Native Americans like shit and replaced them with men that treated women like shit. Progress.

If you google it, you see that a lot of hubbub was made in 2015 about the name...but since has gone silent.

And the name continues in Virginia.

[JohnStOnge]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

[Ivytalk]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

Perfesser Ganny in 3-2-1...

[Skjellyfetti]

[Ibanez]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

[Ibanez]

This can't possibly be Trumps....it's not written in crayon.

[GannonFan]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

Buchanan was a pretty big factor too. A lot of the South had already seceded before Lincoln even took office because Buchanan made it perfectly clear that although he didn't approve, he certainly wouldn't get in their way.

[Ibanez]

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

Buchanan was a pretty big factor too. A lot of the South had already seceded before Lincoln even took office because Buchanan made it perfectly clear that although he didn't approve, he certainly wouldn't get in their way.

He certainly was. His poor leadership can't be overlooked.

[kalm]

Buchanan was a pretty big factor too. A lot of the South had already seceded before Lincoln even took office because Buchanan made it perfectly clear that although he didn't approve, he certainly wouldn't get in their way.

He certainly was. His poor leadership can't be overlooked.

When in doubt, blame the Irish. That's what I say....

[Chizzang]

Hey,
did we win Vietnam at least..?

[Grizalltheway]

Hey,
did we win Vietnam at least..?

[kalm]

Ouch.

phpBB [video]

[houndawg]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

It was a war to replace the southern system of slavery with the northern system of wage slavery.

[CID1990]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

Glenn McConnell is going to come personally revoke your Charleston card because you forgot the real final nail: the Morrill Tariff.

[Ibanez]

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

Glenn McConnell is going to come personally revoke your Charleston card because you forgot the real final nail: the Morrill Tariff.

Ha. Glenn is a good guy, I'm safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

The govt's unemployment figure hit a 10 year low of 4.4%, but that's not the important #. The more important:
-211k jobs created
-The U6 fell from 8.9% to 8.6 % (for almost the entire Obama presidency was in the double digits).
-The labor force participation rate rose..
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... lls-to-4-4

[houndawg]

Lots of things could have happened that might have prevented the Civil War. If any of the candidates for President other than Lincoln would've won the 1860 Presidential election it might not have happened.You can say that would've been a bad thing or you can say that would've been a good thing. But I think Lincoln getting elected was in and of itself a pretty big factor in the Civil War happening.

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

aka the Great Georgia BBQ.

[houndawg]

Lincoln was the nail in the coffin, IMO. Other than slavery itself, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act (which gave us Bleeding Kansas) are contributing factors to the divisions which were emerging due to the peculiar institution and lead ultimately to the 2nd American Revolution aka The Late Unpleasantness aka The War of Northern Aggression aka The War of Southern Independence.


Just don't let anyone tell you the Union went to war to free the slaves. B/c that is certainly not true (at least not until after Gettysburg). It was a war to preserve the union and economics.

Glenn McConnell is going to come personally revoke your Charleston card because you forgot the real final nail: the Morrill Tariff.

Jesus, a century and a half later and you're still whining about that? Talk about special snowflakes.

Its like Trump said: You lost. Get over it.