This election already proved that a good portion of the U.S. doesn't even understand our election process. Why should I be surprised that someone with absolutely no political experience would know about Presidential history?

I thought it was 57 states. But I'm old and my memory ain't what it once was.

My bigger concern with President Trump is the fact that he admires and glorifies Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a slave-owning, violent bigot who is responsible giving the go-ahead to the nearest act to ethnic cleansing that the United States has ever committed: the Indian Removal Act.

 

That whole Trail of Tears thing may have been very tough, but Andrew Jackson really had a big heart, right?

So a business owner embellishes a story to help sell his business how unusual.

 

Unethical and tragic is the words I would use when you decide to spread false history of men who gave the ultimate sacrifice to their country.

Unethical and tragic is the words I would use when you decide to spread false history of men who gave the ultimate sacrifice to their country.

 

Lol I love partisan politics.

Lol I love partisan politics.

 

What partisan politics? I'm not a Democrat. I didn't vote for Hillary. I didn't vote for Trump either.

 

When Bill Clinton ran for President many cited his avoidance of the draft and rightly so.

 

When John Kerry ran he was a Vietnam Veteran but many pointed out his participation in the Anti-War movement and his throwing of his medals over the White House Fence.

 

Now it's okay to bungle history so badly and manipulate it for profit or political point? (even thought it's false?)

 

Come on Lipton. You have to agree this is who we elected and he has some serious flaws in character and PR skills. That said, I hope he makes the right decisions and makes the US a better nation.

Question for the Ds here: If the guy was so bad, why does the Democratic party put Andrew Jackson on a pedestal as one of the founders of the party? Jefferson-Jackson Day ring a bell?

Question for the Ds here: If the guy was so bad, why does the Democratic party put Andrew Jackson on a pedestal as one of the founders of the party? Jefferson-Jackson Day ring a bell?

 

I'm not a Dem but I think that any founder is just that, a founder. Right or wrong, it's history. Didn't know too many still embraced Andrew Jackson in the last 30 years or more.

Shows how out of touch I am Lawcat.

 

Jefferson–Jackson Day - Wikipedia

 

For the record I would change that if I were them.

Question for the Ds here: If the guy was so bad, why does the Democratic party put Andrew Jackson on a pedestal as one of the founders of the party? Jefferson-Jackson Day ring a bell?

 

It may not be terribly prudent for the Democrats to use his name, but the reason they named the day thusly is pretty simple: Jefferson was the first President to be a Democratic-Republican, and Jackson was the first President to be a Democrat. Andrew Jackson was the first President to be elected from their actual party.

 

And for what it's worth, the Democrats downgraded the "day" to a "dinner" two or three years back. I remember reading an article where Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was the DNC chair at the time, specifically cited the fact that both Jefferson and Jackson were slave-owners when she was giving the reason for the downgrade.

Am I missing something here? Early in Trump's admittedly "rambling" statement, he says ..."had Jackson come later"...clearly meaning had Jackson been President later in history, maybe closer to if not during the civil war. He also states there were signs of a possible civil war during his time in office and he (Jackson) was able to do things to quell that. Now if the latter is true, as in factual, or if it's a debatable opinion among historians I don't know, I'm not a presidential historian and haven't studied up on Andrew Jackson lately. Then, as Trump often does, he kid of meanders around spewing things out that kind of leave you scratching your head with his odd meandering speaking style. It's definitely odd and leads to some weird comments at times. But nothing he says indicates whatsoever that Trump thought Jackson was president during the civil war. People are either looking too deep for things to slap him with (and, honestly you don't always have to look that hard), or listening/reading comprehension needs improving. One or the other apply to a lot of people, and both probably apply to some.

Am I missing something here? Early in Trump's admittedly "rambling" statement, he says ..."had Jackson come later"...clearly meaning had Jackson been President later in history, maybe closer to if not during the civil war. He also states there were signs of a possible civil war during his time in office and he (Jackson) was able to do things to quell that. Now if the latter is true, as in factual, or if it's a debatable opinion among historians I don't know, I'm not a presidential historian and haven't studied up on Andrew Jackson lately. Then, as Trump often does, he kid of meanders around spewing things out that kind of leave you scratching your head with his odd meandering speaking style. It's definitely odd and leads to some weird comments at times. But nothing he says indicates whatsoever that Trump thought Jackson was president during the civil war. People are either looking too deep for things to slap him with (and, honestly you don't always have to look that hard), or listening/reading comprehension needs improving. One or the other apply to a lot of people, and both probably apply to some.

 

Here's a good article on the interview. Trump Says Andrew Jackson Could Have Avoided The Civil War

 

I see what you are saying Big V. But if this were the President's answer on an essay he would have flunked making a rambling point.

 

It took til later for him to clarify his answer. Why? My hunch is someone had to bring him up to speed. Hope he's not so rambling in negotiations with leaders. Probably won't be cause he will probably know that subject matter better.

 

Remembering my earlier post, President Trump plays loose with history and facts.

 

As to his assertion about Jackson over Lincoln he is speaking with no real depth of history. Jackson threatened to hang Calhoun for threatening secession. How do you think that would play 25 years later in 1860? Exactly. The war was coming because the compromise route ran out by 1860.

My bigger concern with President Trump is the fact that he admires and glorifies Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a slave-owning, violent bigot who is responsible giving the go-ahead to the nearest act to ethnic cleansing that the United States has ever committed: the Indian Removal Act.

 

That whole Trail of Tears thing may have been very tough, but Andrew Jackson really had a big heart, right?

I agree with your view about Jackson. I suppose he was a product of that era but he was as cruel of a person as could be. What he did to the native population was a shame and disgrace. He doesn't deserve his pic on the twenty or any other accolades.

I agree with your view about Jackson. I suppose he was a product of that era but he was as cruel of a person as could be. What he did to the native population was a shame and disgrace. He doesn't deserve his pic on the twenty or any other accolades.

 

Thankfully he won't be on the twenty for much longer.

I want my President to know way more about Civil War history, or history, in general, than I do. Sadly, that's just not the case now.