Why so much pushback on Andrew Jackson leaving the 20?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Lumenari

Trump certainly identifies with Jackson's personality.

Unfortunately he may be a lot more like obama as far as monetary policy. Probably even obama plus.

Guess you haven't seen the news in the last three years or so...

He's getting things done that Obama said were not even possible.

No, if you want to compare recent Presidents and monetary policy, you should go with Bush and Obama.

All Obama did is keep the Bush policies going.

See where that got us by 2916... blah.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Lumenari

Trump certainly identifies with Jackson's personality.

Unfortunately he may be a lot more like obama as far as monetary policy. Probably even obama plus.

Guess you haven't seen the news in the last three years or so...

He's getting things done that Obama said were not even possible.

No, if you want to compare recent Presidents and monetary policy, you should go with Bush and Obama.

All Obama did is keep the Bush policies going.

See where that got us by 2916... blah.

Lol I guess you haven't seen the largest debts for national, personal, and business debt in history. The largest market intervention in recent history (larger than tarp) and the highest corporate debt in history.

We have one of the largest expanding economies and also the largest debt yearly ever under those circumstances.

Bravo trump supporters are Democrats from the 80's

a reply to: DBCowboy

Nah i think we should drag out the Susan B coins and hand to the ones bitching.
They can call it a $20 but that won't hold up when they go to cash it in.

LOL just my opinion

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Lumenari

Personally my favorite thing to do would be revert the banks back to Andrew Jackson's wishes and keep him on the 20 in honor of the change.

But I'm a realist more than a dreamer, so I know the odds of that.

Within days of Jackson approving a law to ban a Bank of the US, the 1st ever assassination attempt of a sitting President occurred. Probably worthy of note the perp Richard Lawrence was in an opposition party. He was prosecuted by Francis Scott Key who wrote the the Star Spangled Banner during the War of 1812 and the perp was found not guilty do to insanity. Lawrence did spend the rest of his days in a Mental Hospital. Some of our Prog Congress Alligators could use a trip there too right now.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Not sure. It's a mystery.

a reply to: Justoneman

So there are a few fiscal conservatives left....thank God most people have forgotten that history.

Free yourself though and realize the prog congress is as bad as the conservatives....rand paul and justin amash are the only consistant fiscal conservative voters in Congress.

If Harriet Tubman is on the 20 and someone wants to borrow money, they're going to ask for a Tubbie.

I agree with Killer Mike, this should be the picture of Tubman on the $20.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ah, so those who support the man are bigots??? Hardly the first time that accusation has been made...why not come up with something a bit more original. That old chestnut is getting a trifle worn, and stale.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
How about we take all portraits of our money?

The only reason anyone is suggesting a change is to make a stupid gesture for one half baked reason or another.

We can go a few steps further. Remove all that Masonic stuff, too. Just go with a white piece of paper with an imbedded chip and the words "Federal Reserve Note", the denomination, and "This is your God". Also in braille, for the visually impaired.

Jackson was the last President to leave office with the United States having zero national debt.
He owned slaves, killed and displaced Native American tribes.
Pretty obvious why many would want him removed.
The man was a product of his times, raised on the frontier under very difficult conditions.
He rose above by pluck and bravado to become an American institution.
Leave him on the $20 so people will at least know his name if not his legacy.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So this "debate" has had me thinking.

I admire Andrew Jackson for several reasons, but one came to mind.

The man was adamantly opposed to a central banking system for several reasons. In my mind, having him on currency in a system that he opposed is more disrespectful than taking him off.

So is it just who's getting put on, and if so why?

“Why would they want to take him off?” would be a better question, because there is no reason to.

The stated excuse is that we need more "diversity" in our currency and you know that Jackson was an evil white slave owner, so he and his legacy should be erased from modern memory.

You know... revisionist history.

Ask a Native American what they think of Jackson.

a reply to: DBCowboy
I cant afford it. That's all I'm saying.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So this "debate" has had me thinking.

I admire Andrew Jackson for several reasons, but one came to mind.

The man was adamantly opposed to a central banking system for several reasons. In my mind, having him on currency in a system that he opposed is more disrespectful than taking him off.

So is it just who's getting put on, and if so why?

“Why would they want to take him off?” would be a better question, because there is no reason to.

The stated excuse is that we need more "diversity" in our currency and you know that Jackson was an evil white slave owner, so he and his legacy should be erased from modern memory.

You know... revisionist history.

Well I haven't seen or touched paper notes in years. I have the great white privilege of owing large amounts of debt on multiple credit cards!

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So this "debate" has had me thinking.

I admire Andrew Jackson for several reasons, but one came to mind.

The man was adamantly opposed to a central banking system for several reasons. In my mind, having him on currency in a system that he opposed is more disrespectful than taking him off.

So is it just who's getting put on, and if so why?

“Why would they want to take him off?” would be a better question, because there is no reason to.

The stated excuse is that we need more "diversity" in our currency and you know that Jackson was an evil white slave owner, so he and his legacy should be erased from modern memory.

You know... revisionist history.

Ask a Native American what they think of Jackson.

As a Cherokee I can answer that for you.

He was a man of his time and did some pretty amazing things for America.

He was also smart enough to understand the danger of a central bank.

Not all of us NA live in the past and carry around a victim card others can virtue signal about.

So thanks for the bigotry and have a nice day.

All i will say is without Andrew Jackson the States would not have existed. his battle with the british was a major turning point in the war for independence. With a revisionist history in play his contributions to the United States will be lost to history. Again without Jackson, we would still be a British colony

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ah, so those who support the man are bigots??? Hardly the first time that accusation has been made...why not come up with something a bit more original. That old chestnut is getting a trifle worn, and stale.

Well, if the shoe fits... But, I didn't say anything about bigots. I said, in 2016, that Trump campaigned against the "political correctness" of putting Harriet Tubman on the bill, and that he's keeping a campaign promise to satisfy his base.

Why would Trump and his base not want Harriet Tubman on the bill, that's the question. Could it be racism and bigotry? Could be. Does putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill force Trump and his supporters to embrace political correctness?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I look at it more like a tradition. For example there has been discussions of putting Ronald Reagan on the 50 replacing grant. That isn't a good idea either. The people chosen each played an important role in either creating or saving the United States. I dont feel Reagan meets that standard.

a reply to: dragonridr

Apparently, there was some discussion of the Trump Administration holding nominations for a woman to replace Hamilton on the $10 dollar bill. But there was incredible push back, people love Hamilton since the play...and accusations about it being a subtle attack on its cast members and their political activism, especially Lin Manuel Miranda and his work in Puerto Rico.

What if it's more the departure from tradition? If we are inferring POTUS' reasoning/justification, this would be my guess.

Nearly all US currency bills honor dead presidents and founding fathers (Franklin, Hamilton).
Chase (obsolete bills) seems to be the sole exception, and even he was both Treasury Secretary & SCOTUS Chief Justice.

U.S. Coinage on the other hand has traditionally where other historical figures, heroes, places and events have been honored, many commemorative coinage issues throughout our history proves this is both tradition and policy.

I'm not going to comment on the impetus behind POTUS' decision to delay this, only presenting alternate scenario above.

Since this is a conspiracy site, perhaps POTUS knows something of the "GCR" (Global Currency Reset) and doesn't want to be changing currency in anticipation of that event. Maybe we're going back to Gold and Silver Certificates. Maybe David Wilcock, Corey Goode and/or the Ancient Astronaut Theorists have an idea about the timing of this.

ganjoa