Trump's imaginary history

[esthermoon]

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.





.

Don't be so cruel to him lol
Maybe he just made a mistake history is not easy, you have to memorize many information

 

[whitehall]

Have lefties gotten so incoherent that they don't understand English anymore?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I don't see the difference in both our statements, mine reflects the Norths position and yours the Souths, but sure, i'd agree with what you said.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

"Would be" refers to a future event
While "There's" refers to what is happening now

 

[TNHarley]

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 know 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.

I wont argue with that at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Have lefties gotten so incoherent that they don't understand English anymore?

I agree it is difficult to apply proper grammatical rules to someone who has...."the best words"

 

[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.

"Would be" refers to a future event
While "There's" refers to what is happening now

If you could go back and finish high school, would you?

Sorry kid, you are way out of you league here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^ I know. Meathead actually wrote that.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

"Would be" refers to a future event
While "There's" refers to what is happening now

If you could go back and finish high school, would you?

Sorry kid, you are way out of you league here.

Dude, whats wrong with you? Grow up. You don't have to go to attack mode when proven wrong. "would be" refers to the future. Just say "You're right, good point" then move on to a real discussion as these little semantics get exhausting.

 

[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.

I don't see the difference in both our statements, mine reflects the Norths position and yours the Souths, but sure, i'd agree with what you said.

Because the South Seceded to preserve the institution. The North didn't go to war to free anyone. Kinda like the invasion and occupation of Iraq was about WMD but after that failed, the war rational changed. It was all about preserving the Union......

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I don't see the difference in both our statements, mine reflects the Norths position and yours the Souths, but sure, i'd agree with what you said.

Because the South Seceded to preserve the institution. The North didn't go to war to free anyone. Kinda like the invasion and occupation of Iraq was about WMD but after that failed, the war rational changed. It was all about preserving the Union......

Ok, you can have that, but you can't say that Slavery wasn't the underlying cause. If Slavery wasn't a big deal then the North would have just let it continue in the South and save the country from Civil war. It was definitely the issue that drove the divide and lead to the war.

 

[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.

"Would be" refers to a future event
While "There's" refers to what is happening now

If you could go back and finish high school, would you?

Sorry kid, you are way out of you league here.

Dude, whats wrong with you? Grow up. You don't have to go to attack mode when proven wrong. "would be" refers to the future. Just say "You're right, good point" then move on to a real discussion as these little semantics get exhausting.

Hillary would be president, Is this supposed to be a future event, Dude? You really haven't got a clue what future tense is, do you?

I despair the dumbing down of Americans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was the deal maker for secession. Every major cause can be traced backed to slavery as the root of that cause: tariff, labor, land, politics, representation, and so forth.

 

[whitehall]

Lefties are definitely wound way too tight these days. President Trump is probably laughing his head off about the flurry of outrage on the left over his comment about Andrew Jackson. Now you have the laughable scenario of Hillary's daughter and half the idiotic left wing media condemning Old Hickory who founded the democrat party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

whitehall is wrong in at least three matters above. ^^^

 

[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.

I don't see the difference in both our statements, mine reflects the Norths position and yours the Souths, but sure, i'd agree with what you said.

Because the South Seceded to preserve the institution. The North didn't go to war to free anyone. Kinda like the invasion and occupation of Iraq was about WMD but after that failed, the war rational changed. It was all about preserving the Union......

Ok, you can have that, but you can't say that Slavery wasn't the underlying cause. If Slavery wasn't a big deal then the North would have just let it continue in the South and save the country from Civil war. It was definitely the issue that drove the divide and lead to the war.

You're right, it was the direct cause of the Souths Secession, or attempt at it anyway. And that started the war. Lincoln was willing to allow it to exist, but he certainly opposed expansion of it into the New Territories.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He would not allowed it, period, in the Territories.

He would have lost his base if he did not stomp it out. Northern and western Dems were more than willing to give him the votes he needed.

 

[jknowgood]

If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.

first he should succeed at learning basic American History

You should learn capitalization and punctuation.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

"Would be" refers to a future event
While "There's" refers to what is happening now

If you could go back and finish high school, would you?

Sorry kid, you are way out of you league here.

Maybe this will help you and Fat Donny

 

[rightwinger]

Suggested reading for our President