"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. And he was really angry that he saw what was happening, with regard to the Civil War. He said, there's no reason for this."
Trump continued, "People don't realize, the Civil War -- you think about it, why? People don't ask that question. But why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"
I came here to post this. The thing is: I think the confusion from the first paragraph comes from the fact that Trump does not have a good vocabulary or a good grasp of how the English language works (or, if you're being generous, he doesn't think before he puts a sentence together), so there's some tense confusion. I think he wanted to say, "[Jackson] would have been really angry that he saw what was happening...He would have said, there's no reason for this." Past tenses and the conditional are hard for some people; I see it in my students' writing all the time (note: usually people who are ELL, or otherwise lazy AF).
The second part, of course, is what I'm sure Sean Spicer will bungle today at his press briefing.
Sure, he's a rambling idiot but the article also states this "Trump's comments about both the war and Jackson disregard key historical events. Slavery was the underlying issue fueling the fight over states' rights that ultimately led to the Civil War. The federal government tried to avoid a conflict for years, most notably with the Compromise of 1850"
So it appears there is also a substantial lack of understanding of historical events?
I dont imagine that's news to anyone, and of zero imortance to anyone that voted for trump, they don't have any grasp on historical events either. and are probably proud about it
Dev wrote:you're delusional. you are a sad sad person. fuck off. you're mentally ill beyond repair. i don't need your shit. dissapear.
"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. And he was really angry that he saw what was happening, with regard to the Civil War. He said, there's no reason for this."
Trump continued, "People don't realize, the Civil War -- you think about it, why? People don't ask that question. But why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"
I came here to post this. The thing is: I think the confusion from the first paragraph comes from the fact that Trump does not have a good vocabulary or a good grasp of how the English language works (or, if you're being generous, he doesn't think before he puts a sentence together), so there's some tense confusion. I think he wanted to say, "[Jackson] would have been really angry that he saw what was happening...He would have said, there's no reason for this." Past tenses and the conditional are hard for some people; I see it in my students' writing all the time (note: usually people who are ELL, or otherwise lazy AF).
The second part, of course, is what I'm sure Sean Spicer will bungle today at his press briefing.
Sure, he's a rambling idiot but the article also states this "Trump's comments about both the war and Jackson disregard key historical events. Slavery was the underlying issue fueling the fight over states' rights that ultimately led to the Civil War. The federal government tried to avoid a conflict for years, most notably with the Compromise of 1850"
So it appears there is also a substantial lack of understanding of historical events?
“I want to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians,” Trump said. “There is no reason there's not peace between Israel and the Palestinians — none whatsoever. So we're looking at that, and we're also looking at the potential of going to Saudi Arabia.”
Such a big heart he kicked all the Native Americans out of their states. And he supported slavery so how would that have 'helped' in the Civil War? Oh wait, I see. Never mind.
Green Habit wrote:My hatred of Trump rises every time he tries to say positive things about the worst president ever.
Yeah, he is a bit of a narcissist.
I knew someone was going to pounce on that. The unholy Jacksonian trinity is ethnic cleansing, the spoils system and ending central banks. Trump's tiptoed on the first two but I have yet to see him advocate for abolishing the Fed.
I have to assume there has been an explosion in opioid use among Republican members of Congress these last few months. Will that affect the final bill?
It's not amazing how one-sided that budget turned out...but it is amazing which side it was one-sided in favor of.
Planned Parenthood, the EPA, NIH, "Obama's" cancer moon shot, sanctuary cities, defense spending....did the Trump platform gain anything substantial here?
-- Now that the language has posted, here are the eight most notable areas Trump caved in his first big spending negotiation:
1. There are explicit restrictions to block the border wall. We knew last week there would be no money to start construction on a project that the president says is more important to his base than anything else. But the final agreement goes further, putting strict limitations on how Trump can use new money for border security (e.g. to invest in new technology and repair existing fencing). Administration officials have insisted they already have the statutory authority to start building the wall under a 2006 law. This prevents such an end run.
The $1.5 billion for border security is also half as much as the White House requested. Additionally, there are no cuts in funding to sanctuary cities, something a federal judge said last week would be required for the Justice Department to follow through on its threats. And there is also no money for a deportation force.
2. Non-defense domestic spending will go up, despite the Trump team’s insistence he wouldn’t let that happen. The president called for $18 billion in cuts. Instead, he’s going to sign a budget with lots of sweeteners that grow the size of government. Mitch McConnell made sure $4.6 billion got put aside to permanently extend health benefits to 22,000 retired Appalachian coal miners and their families. Nancy Pelosi made sure $295 million was included to shore up Medicaid in Puerto Rico. Chuck Schumer got $61 million to reimburse local law enforcement agencies for the cost of protecting Trump when he travels to his residences in Florida and New York. There is also another $2 billion in disaster relief money for states, which bought a couple votes. (Kelsey Snell, our lead budget reporter, has more examples.)
3. Barack Obama’s cancer moonshot is generously funded. The administration asked to slash spending at the National Institutes of Health by $1.2 billion for the rest of this fiscal year. Instead, the NIH will get a $2 billion boost — on top of the huge increase it got last year. Republican appropriators who care about biomedical research, including Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), delivered.
Trump also failed in his efforts to cut money for other kinds of scientific inquiry. For example, he proposed defunding the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy. Instead, it is getting a $15 million increase.
4. Trump fought to cut the Environmental Protection Agency by a third. The final deal trims its budget by just 1 percent, with no staff cuts. As part of a compromise, the EPA gets $80 million less than last year, but the budget is $8 billion.
5. He didn’t defund Planned Parenthood. Despite the best efforts of social conservatives, the group will continue to receive funding at current levels.
6. The president got less than half as much for the military as he said was necessary. Trump repeatedly prodded Congress to increase military spending by $30 billion. He’s getting $12.5 billion, with an additional $2.5 billion if/when he delivers a detailed plan on how to defeat the Islamic State. Many Democrats from states with bases and manufacturers, especially those up for reelection in 2018, wanted this, too. Like Trump, they will tout the increased spending as a victory. The White House plans to call this a down payment on a much bigger investment down the road.
7. Democrats say they forced Republicans to withdraw more than 160 riders. These unrelated policy measures, which each could have been a poison pill, would have done things like get rid of the fiduciary rule and water down environmental regulations. On the other side of the ledger, this budget blocks the Justice Department from restricting the dispensing of medical marijuana in states where it has been legalized.
8. To keep negotiations moving, the White House already agreed last week to continue paying Obamacare subsidies. This money, which goes to insurance companies, reduces out-of-pocket expenses for low-income people who get coverage under the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration justifies giving up on this because of the potential to resolve the bigger issue by repealing Obamacare.
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
