Trump's imaginary history

[TyroneSlothrop]

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]

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..

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

 

[Meathead]

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]

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]

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]

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..

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

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]

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?

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]

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.





.

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

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?

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.

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!

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

 

[Slade3200]

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..

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

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

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]

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.





.

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

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?

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.

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!

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

Yeah, totally clear! haha

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

 

[Slade3200]

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]

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..

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

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

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!

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

 

[rightwinger]

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.





.

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

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?

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.

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!

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

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]

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.

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]

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..

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

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

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!

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

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]

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..

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

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

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!

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

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.

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

 

[Meathead]

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]

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

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

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!

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

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.

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

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]

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.