Delaying Tubman image on $20 bill has all the hallmarks of Trumpism

rendering of Harriet Tubman
Department of Treasury/Chris Taylor/Handout via Reuters
Then-Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew looking at a rendering of Harriet Tubman during a visit to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on April 21, 2016.

The Trump administration has announced that it will not follow through with the plan that it inherited from the Obama administration to phase out the $20 bill that bears a picture of Andrew Jackson and replace it with a bill honoring Harriet Tubman.

It’s possible to make too much of this. No lives will be lost either way, and perhaps some money will be saved. But it’s impressive how many of the hallmarks of Trumpism could be jammed into a small symbolic decision.

Racism, sexism, pettiness, egotism, arbitrariness, base-pandering, hatred of and obsession with Obama. They’re all in there.

Jackson, a minor military leader in the War of 1812 (his most famous victory, in the Battle of New Orleans, occurred after the war was already over, but word of the cessation of hostilities hadn’t reached Jackson until the battle was won), Jackson was also a slaveowner and an Indian-hater and -killer, responsible for some horrendous acts against Native Americans including, as president, the sad brutal chapter known as the “trail of tears,” in which the forced expulsion of natives from Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina and Florida led to the death of tens of thousands.

I’m sure there are some nicer things that could be said about Jackson, a key figure in the early history of the Democratic Party. In some states (not Minnesota), an annual Democratic dinner is named the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner.

One of Trump’s favorite figures

But, for some of the reasons mentioned above, Jackson’s place in the national pantheon has been slipping. Trump, whose ignorance of American history is legendary, has adopted Jackson as one of his favorite figures. So there’s that. Although Jackson died in 1845, 16 years before the Civil War, Trump caused some head-scratching during his 2016 campaign by suggesting that the Civil War would not have occurred if people had listened to Andrew Jackson.

All current U.S. currency bears a picture of a white male. During the Obama years, the idea of phasing out Jackson from the $20 bill (under the plan, he would be retained on the back side of the bill) and replacing him on the front with Harriet Tubman was adopted, which would, among other things, add a dose of both race and gender diversity to the lineup.

Tubman, born into slavery in 1822, escaped and became a heroic figure in the tale of the “underground railroad” that helped fleeing slaves make it to the free states of the North. She was also an early activist in the cause of women’s suffrage.

Trump has previously said that it would be “rough” on Jackson to take him off the bill. Now  Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has announced that that transition in the $20 bill will be canceled or at least pushed back several years. He has deflected questions of whether the idea for that came from his boss.

Gee, I wonder. Here’s a list of possible explanatory factors (oops, I already mentioned these at the top): racism, sexism, pettiness, egotism, arbitrariness, base-pandering, hatred of and obsession with Obama.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (74)

  1. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 05/24/2019 - 09:37 am.

    Precisely because it’s so small-minded and petty, it’s quintessential Trump.

    • Submitted by Misty Martin on 05/24/2019 - 11:21 am.

      Mr. Schoch:

      Very true. And sadly, Eric, American history is not the only thing that the P.O.T.U.S. is ignorant about. He once made the comment that “China liked his very ‘LARGE’ brain” – I wonder what China thinks about him now with the U.S. tariffs being imposed? I guess it’s because of that very large brain, that President Trump won’t let us see his academic grades as well. . . or tax returns for that matter. Wish I had over a billion dollars to throw away, or even some of that amount . . .

  2. Submitted by John N. Finn on 05/24/2019 - 09:40 am.

    Could be worse. From the Onion:

    “WASHINGTON—Saying they wished to pay tribute to the legacies of these distinguished, law-abiding Americans, the Trump administration announced Friday that a long anticipated redesign of the $20 bill would honor Harriet Tubman’s owners. “These were patriotic business proprietors who followed the laws of their time to further their economic interests, ……”

  3. Submitted by Max Hailperin on 05/24/2019 - 09:41 am.

    See also https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/own-the-libs-meaning-703845/

  4. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 05/24/2019 - 09:44 am.

    Well, as monstrous as Jackson was, he is also just about the only President who fought the influence of central banks – though I don’t presume that is why Trump admires him.

    That said, I would also suggest it is postmodern delusion to think putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is going to improve economics for black people generally.

    I guess my point is, Trumpism might be all that you describe, in reference to this decision – but it does not follow that this decision by the Obama Administration is somehow inherently good.

    Income inequality soared in Obama’s time. His economic policy did not make life easier for black people, or working people generally. Through much of his presidency he in fact made life harder for many black people, with local law enforcement flooded with the hardware of war, while trained in the tactics of war by Homeland Security, such that law enforcement came to resemble a military tactical force. He said nothing about this until it was so starkly revealed in Ferguson.

    Anyway, Tubman is better than window dressing for elitist economic policies. She doesn’t deserve to be feel-good for postmodern sentiment.

    (None of which is an excuse for Trumpian arrogance. He is offering nothing better.)

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/24/2019 - 11:40 am.

      “That said, I would also suggest it is postmodern delusion to think putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is going to improve economics for black people generally.”

      I seriously doubt that anyone thought putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill would have any economic impact on African Americans, generally. Instead, it was intended to expand the ranks of the people our country wishes to honor, by including an African American woman. We no longer are limiting our honors to white males, and we are tacitly recognizing that there are people other than the Andrew Jacksons of America who deserve accolades.

      In other words, this is one of those things that can’t be monetized.

  5. Submitted by Robert Ahles on 05/24/2019 - 10:54 am.

    And Tiger Woods gets a Medal of Freedom for playing golf. Oh yes, he is a buddy with President Trump and keeps his mouth shut when Trump cheats when on the fairway and in the ruff.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/24/2019 - 12:50 pm.

      Is a Presidential Medal Freedom worth less than $130,000? Because that used to be the going rate for keeping quiet about Trump’s cheating.

  6. Submitted by Frank Phelan on 05/24/2019 - 11:31 am.

    The more dangerous part is that it’s more about Trumpism (which existed prior to, and will survive, Don Trump) than it is about Don Trump.

  7. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 05/24/2019 - 11:52 am.

    I would like to add, it is a common meme among Dems and Liberals, that Trump voters are primarily motivated by racism and sexism. Contrary to experience however, actually talking with working class Trump voters, many are neither; instead, primarily motivated by a sense that both parties have sold them out to corporations, banks and billionaires, Trump being the first politician in forty years who could speak directly to their concerns.

    Whether his policies help such people, I am inclined to say they do not. However, if the Dem party wants to defeat Trumpism at the polls, they can start by letting go of “they are racists and misogynists”, etc smear, which sounds a lot like hypocritical snobbery to this working class fellow.

    • Submitted by Roy Everson on 05/24/2019 - 12:45 pm.

      Perhaps that is true of many or most of them, but they seem to have widespread tolerance of bigotry in their leader and many of their fellow travelers–is that within the scope of acceptable criticism?

    • Submitted by ian wade on 05/24/2019 - 01:14 pm.

      I guess if one doesn’t like to be characterized as misogynist and racist, one should stop the actions that perpetuate that belief. Sorry, but after seeing many Trump supporters double down on incivility and wearing t-shirts at rallies that say “**** your feelings ” and calling liberals “snowflakes,”I find the whining about how they’re perceived rather amusing.
      The reality is that the vast majority of Trump’s policy decisions are mean spirited and designed to work his base into a lather. “Owning the libs” is a not a viable, long-term political ideology.

      • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 05/24/2019 - 03:02 pm.

        Ian,

        That may be true about his most hard-core followers who show up at rallies and online, flaunting their Messianic, unquestioning devotion; however, there is a large contingent of working class people of many colors and backgrounds who voted for him but do not readily say so, who voted for him if only because he spoke directly to them, and made all the “right” people nuts. They are open to voting for someone else, but no one on the left other than Bernie can speak to their economic concerns.

        • Submitted by ian wade on 05/24/2019 - 05:26 pm.

          Sorry, William, but I’m not buying the “economic anxiety” angle either. Promising folks a chicken in every pot is one of the oldest political ploys going. Trump hasn’t delivered economic relief to anyone, in fact, he’s exacerbated their problems, possibly long term. But you did point out a key point of my response by stating that “he made all the right people nuts.” My contention is Trump’s supporters voted for him as payback for a changing culture. He made it alright to ridicule people and sound dumb doing it. The factory worker that didn’t update his skill set is just as hosed now as he was before Trump was elected.

          • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 05/28/2019 - 11:07 am.

            Most of the Democratic Party and liberals generally seem to have agreed that it is only racism and misogyny, or just plain backwardness that led anyone to vote for Trump, which I will repeat again and again, is much of the reason Dems have lost so many State legislatures, governorships and the Senate.

            “The Factory worker who didn’t update his skills” is the kind of sneering mockery against the working poor that has caused many to abandon whatever the Democratic cause has become. It is all up and down the commentariat of MInnpost, and among many of the writers, this attitude that everything is fine economically and anyone who complains is clearly delusional, if they are left behind it is their fault, the only people who suffer economically do so because of race, otherwise this system is great….

            As long as Democrats and Liberals contend that the economy is basically fine, suck it up and get with the program and over your backwardness, while corporations, banks and billionaires get every advantage and most people particularly those working in the service industry and certain trades, get ever more economically insecure, Republicans are going to role. But at least when they do, Dems and Libs can rest self-assured that it is only the other side that is pathological….

            • Submitted by ian wade on 05/28/2019 - 09:24 pm.

              The fact that you look at that statement as “sneering mockery” is one of the problems. It’s a factual characterization. I’m baffled as to why keeping skill sets relevant and updated is required in nearly all career paths, but factory workers are supposed to get a pass? At some point, one most take charge of their own career rather than expect to be guaranteed the same job for life, without regard to changing technical or market conditions.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 05/24/2019 - 10:17 pm.

      What cannot e denied is that supporters of Don Trump are plenty comfortable enough with his racist comments and attitudes that they are not a deal breaker for them.

      If the Dear Leader’s bother them, they don’t bother them enough to not vote for him.

      So if I tolerate a racist, does that make me a racist?

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/26/2019 - 08:37 pm.

      People are not always honest about their motivations; in fact they may not themselves be aware of the reasons underlying their actions.
      You might look up ‘implicit motivation’.

  8. Submitted by Maria Jette on 05/24/2019 - 12:02 pm.

    WaPo had a great piece on this artist today– he’s created a Harriet Tubman stamp for use on existing twenties. Perfectly legal, as long as none of the numbers are covered. The stamps are currently out of stock, but anyone interested in Tubmanizing their own currency should check back with his Etsy shop over the next couple of weeks. https://tubmanstamp.com

    • Submitted by Joe Musich on 05/26/2019 - 09:12 pm.

      How about a stamping party. 10 people get stamps get together and stamp 20 dollar bills for twenty minutes in a nationwide competition to break a record number in the time.

  9. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 05/24/2019 - 03:17 pm.

    Let’s not minimize the main factor in this unexplained cancellation by Trump’s regime of the Tubman twenty: Donald J. Trump simply cannot stand black women. Especially black women who are smart, accomplished, and outspoken, and contradict him. As most of them wisely do.

    I know. Nancy Pelosi also drives Trump crazy, and she’s only smart, accomplished, outspoken, and contradicts him regularly. But check back in your mind’s history for how he responds to other black women–the Florida legislator whose black military constituent family Trump vilified before he attacked her for standing up for them; Maxine Waters, the Democratic Congresswoman from California, for just two examples.

    Mnuchin offered no reason for cancelling the Tubman $20 bill. Ergo, there is no “reason” to the move, just the ugliest side of Donald Trump.

    And the ugly sides of his supporters. Because Trump is fully immersed in 2020 campaign tactics, and he WILL NOT honor anyone who is black, because hie followers wouldn’t like that.

  10. Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/27/2019 - 09:09 pm.

    Or, “Tubman image on $20 bill has all the hallmarks of Obamaism”.

    Interesting FRED chart (Bereau of Labor Statistics) showing historically low unemployment numbers for African Americans. Trump economy delivering real economic progress, not just window dressing.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000006

    • Submitted by Robert Lilly on 05/28/2019 - 08:35 am.

      You have to ignore everything from 2010 to 2016 to give him credit there. The willful ignorance on the right is astounding.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/28/2019 - 08:58 am.

      And it’s all because Andrew Jackson’s picture is on the $20 bill!

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/28/2019 - 09:20 am.

      Now take a look at the employment figures to see how many people have dropped out of the labor force and are not counted as unemployed.
      Also look at median wages (more representative than the mean/average) to see who’s profiting the most.

    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/28/2019 - 02:20 pm.

      If you really care to participate in the conversation, bring your data, sources, a graph of sourced data. “Everything from a 7 year period” is not a data set. Faces on currency, was previously and accurately labeled window dressing. Employment participation was the truly bad news of the Obama years.

  11. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/28/2019 - 09:50 am.

    Why are we creating a euphemism here? It’s not “Trumpism” it’s racism.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/28/2019 - 11:23 am.

      It’s because Trumpism is so much more than racism. It’s the reflexive rejection of anything done by the Obama administration. It’s collecting a mass of grievances and hurt feelings, and turning them into national policy. It’s trying to spin a collection of hatreds and grievances as economic insecurity.

      Racism is an important part of the mix, but it isn’t the only ingredient.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/28/2019 - 03:25 pm.

        Do I have to point out the fact that Obama is black? The rest of your observations are well documented features of racism as well. Racism isn’t just an ingredient, the core of the politics behind delaying the Tubman $20. Any idea that whatever else Trump does is more important than his racism could be viewed as a racist critique in and of itself.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/28/2019 - 03:59 pm.

          Are you going to say that his sexism and misogyny are unimportant? Or that we should overlook the fact that his incredibly fragile ego gets a real boost when he hears the goobers cheering him on for “owning the libs?”

          Trumpism is multifaceted. It’s a sad commentary on the ugliness of American society, but it is multifaceted.

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/29/2019 - 02:19 am.

            The ugliness of American society is on full display right here. Dare to support a statement or action of the President, you will be labeled a Goober; to Hillary, a deplorable. While the Democrats give lip service to diversity, there is little respect for true diversity. They are all about surface diversity; observations easily made regarding a person across the street. True diversity is deeper, what a person thinks and believes. If they don’t agree with your world view, you apply ugly labels while bemoaning the ugliness of American society in the following sentence. No need to make this stuff up, read it here.

            • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/29/2019 - 08:33 am.

              Steve, “diversity” isn’t about endorsing or tolerating toxic and psychopathic behavior. That’s not a “liberal” thing, it’s human society. When you attack people you will provoke a response. If you defend or endorse toxic and prejudiced policies whether their Trump’s idea or anyone else’s you will provoke a response… that’s because we live in a free country and we’re not required to tolerate oppression. We fought a war against Fascism, don’t expect us to welcome or tolerate it.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/29/2019 - 08:53 am.

                You can respect another’s right to a differing opinion or interpretation or you can hold them in contempt with smearing labels like “toxic and psychopathic”. You have chosen the latter; you sit in judgment of those who dare disagree.

                Your comment is just more of the same. It is a big part of what got him into office. Double down and keep him there.

                • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/29/2019 - 09:47 am.

                  Some opinions deserve contempt.

                  • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/29/2019 - 11:14 am.

                    Exactly. We have a responsibility as adults and as responsible citizens to make certain judgments. It’s also kind of funny to hear the most judgmental and intolerant among us complain about being subjected to their own standards. Contempt, like respect, has to be earned beyond basic comity.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/30/2019 - 04:00 pm.

                      You are willingly conflating making judgments with judging people. It is more of the same bemoaned ugliness of American society, and not so adult.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/29/2019 - 08:37 am.

              “True diversity is deeper, what a person thinks and believes.”

              Where is it written that one is supposed to tolerate bigotry and misogyny? Does tolerance extend to standing by when the President of a democratic republic starts to exhibit authoritarian tendencies?

              Racism and misogyny are not just different points of view. They are, to put it bluntly, evil. They are opposed to what are supposed to be the fundamental values of American society. Deflecting a discussion that is calling out that racism and misogyny (Look at this chart! And these numbers! Never mind the semiotics! Window dressing!) is moral blindness, at best.

              Incidentally, I don’t understand why conservatives are so fragile that they cannot endure being criticized for their opinions. I also don’t understand why Trump defenders feel that no one should be allowed to push back.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/29/2019 - 09:26 am.

                Name calling is not criticism; it is merely a key feature of the ugliness of American society that you bemoaned.

                Go ahead and build a lucid argument that Trump is a racist. Endless parroting does not make it so.

                • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/29/2019 - 09:49 am.

                  Most people on the left agree that Trump himself is not a racist (that would be a consistent belief), but that he has no compunctions about using racists.

                  • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/29/2019 - 11:18 am.

                    I don’t think can we say that most people on left agree that Trump is NOT a racist, on the contrary. We can say if we want, that since we have access to his soul we can’t “prove” he’s a racist, but his behavior is clearly racist and most people on the left recognize that and have done so for years.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/31/2019 - 02:25 pm.

                      You heard it here first, “Most people on the left agree that Trump himself is not a racist”.

                      There is a lot of trash talking, with little merit nor substance. It has all been said before and repeated everyday.

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/29/2019 - 10:31 am.

                  Can we start with the Trump Organization’s violation of Fair Housing laws? How about his calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, and the refusal to backtrack after their exoneration? Birtherism? His hostility towards Native tribes that dared to compete with his casino business? The understanding among casino employees that African Americans should not be on the casino floor when he was there?

                  His nativism, his cultivation of racist supporters, his feigned ignorance of David Duke, the “fine people on both sides” – is that enough for a lucid argument? Or are we going to see more economic charts?

                  • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/29/2019 - 11:43 am.

                    “Fine people”, even Politifact admitted that “Full Context is Needed”.

                    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

                    Two quotes from the President, same press conference.

                    “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

                    “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

                    You don’t have to bring sources, quotes in context, charts, to the conversation; I am doing that.

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/30/2019 - 09:01 am.

                      You’re also refuting only one minor point.

                      The man is a racist, regardless of what he meant in one isolated sentence.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/30/2019 - 11:13 am.

                      The other points, you don’t actually make; vague references to allegations lacking sources.

                • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 05/29/2019 - 06:35 pm.

                  Steve Rose might try to give this discussion some actual reasons for Mnuchin’s decision to delay putting Tubman on the $20 bill, as planned and almost completely implemented.

                  If it’s not racism and hatred/fear of women, especially black women, why was this done? The symbolism of putting Tubman on the racist/anti-Indian Jackson bill is no stronger than taking her planned addition off is (note: I understand that Jackson will be on one side of the bill, Tubman on the other; talk about strange cash bedfellows!).

                  Mnuchin has given no reason. I challenge Mr. Rose to invent some for us.

                  • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/30/2019 - 10:52 am.

                    In testimony before Congress, the Treasury Secretary made it clear, “The primary reason we have looked at redesigning the currency is for counterfeiting issues. Based upon this, the $20 bill will now not come out until 2028. The $10 bill and the $50 bill will come out with new features beforehand.”

                    You will have to be patient.

                    • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 05/30/2019 - 11:45 am.

                      Not a valid reason, Mr. Rose! You surely don’t mean to tell us that Secretary Mnuchin has determined that the longer-in-the-works Tubman bill can not be made safe from counterfeiting, while the other bills can? Really?

                      Really?

                      Try again. There is no valid reason to delay the issuance of the $20 bill honoring Harriet Tubman.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/30/2019 - 03:43 pm.

                      Really.

                      I find it commonplace with those on the left to find racism and misogyny where there is neither.

                      I am totally down with Tubman’s image on U.S. currency, but I don’t share your sense of urgency. If not now, then when? 2028. Sounds good to me.

          • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/29/2019 - 08:22 am.

            Yes, Trump is a multifacited racist and he’s soooooooo unique in that regard we need a new term named after him to describe it… he’s just THAT special. No one has ever in the history of the world seen a human being who’s bigotry isn’t confined to one singular and specific group or agenda. And it just so happens that this historically unique bigot in a white male.

            Look, when he does something racist you call it racist, when he does something sexist, you call it sexist. When he behaves like a misogynist you call him a misogynist… it’s not that difficult. When collect his various prejudices and put them ALL under the rubric of his own identity you not only obscure his pathology, you celebrate his pseudo-unique status.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/29/2019 - 09:04 am.

              We’re arguing over minor details here.

              Trump’s blatant racism and sexism is hardly unusual in American life. It stands out because for years, it had been deemed unacceptable, or it was unacceptable to say it out loud without dressing it up in euphemisms. The need for euphemisms has passed, it seems.

              When future historians write the history of the Trump administration, they will of course mention the bigotry. They will also note the corruption, the incompetence, the erratic behaviors, and, most notably, the utter disregard for constitutional norms. It’s a seamless web.

              • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/29/2019 - 11:36 am.

                Whatever future historians do is yet to be seen. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about Trumps racism today. Just as tomorrow there we be no reason we can’t talk about his corruption or incompetence. And when we do talk about Trump’s incompetence, I doubt we’ll discuss it under the euphemism of “Trumpism”. What’s so special about trumps racism that we need to bury it in a pile of all his other toxic characteristics?

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 05/28/2019 - 12:35 pm.

      For the same reason the media talks about “a racially tinged incident” instead of a racial incident.

  12. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/30/2019 - 08:47 am.

    Actually Steve Rose, no one is calling Trump names, “Trump” is actually the guy’s name. What we are doing is describing his behavior, apparently you would rather we didn’t to that, but we’re not going to stop.

    We are disagreeing a little bit on the best way to describe his behavior, some think it’s a good idea to create a new classification for Trump’s behavior under the rubric of: “Trumpism” and some of us don’t that’s a good idea, but that’s still not name calling.

    The debate game strategy of avoiding the subject by attacking the observation is obvious, but this isn’t a debate game. If you really want to defend Trump you need to tell us why you don’t think the behavior we’re labeling as racist, incompetent, misogynist, etc. is not what we say it is. You can’t just dismiss the observations by declaring them to be “liberal” bias or rude. We’re not going to normalize Fascism for the sake of courtesy, the world tried that once before… it didn’t work out so well.

    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/30/2019 - 10:40 am.

      Correct, no one is calling Trump names. I took exception to a different commenter labeling those who supported one or more Presidential actions or policies “Goobers”.

      Above, I refuted one of the racist claims, one of the popular false claims. Vague references were made to other claims with which I am unfamiliar. No sources.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/30/2019 - 11:47 am.

        “Vague references were made to other claims with which I am unfamiliar. ”

        Look them up. They are well documented, although I have to question how anyone in the United States could not have become familiar with Trump’s birtherism.

        No Trump supporter should raise his hackles over name-calling. None.

        • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/31/2019 - 02:20 pm.

          Here is a very fair and interesting article regarding birtherism from the Hill:

          https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/296548-how-birtherism-became-hillarys-waterloo

          Excerpts:

          Donald Trump:

          “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period,” Trump said in response. “Now, we all want to get back to making America strong and great again.”

          Hillary Campaign:

          “Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary’s campaign manager until the Iowa caucuses in 2008, admitted first in a tweet and second in a CNN interview that a Hillary staffer first spread the birther issue. While the staffer was fired, the termination happened after the cat was let out of the bag. Patient Zero, thus, was a member of Team Hillary.”

          • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/03/2019 - 10:57 am.

            Trump did not admit Obama was born int eh US until September of 2016. He started promoting the theory in 2011. That, in case you were wondering, was five years, quite a long time.

            What does it matter that a Clinton staffer first brought the idea up? Trump was not the only one to spread the idea, and it was racist no matter who started the idea (in case you were wondering, I have never claimed that Donald Trump is the only racist in America).

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 06/03/2019 - 01:59 pm.

              It was started by Hillary’s campaign and repeated by Trump. That makes it racist? Was the talk of Ted Cruz being born in Canada racist too? Please explain.

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/03/2019 - 04:55 pm.

                “It was started by Hillary’s campaign and repeated by Trump. That makes it racist?”

                It was racist no matter who started it. Trump repeating it did not make the statement racist, but his repetition of it is yet further evidence of his racism.

                Some other time, we can address the sexism in the practice of referring to Senator Clinton by her first name, rather than by the title she earned.

                “Was the talk of Ted Cruz being born in Canada racist too? Please explain.’

                Ted Cruz was born in Canada. That “talk” was factual, unlike the birtherism surrounding President Obama.

                • Submitted by Steve Rose on 06/04/2019 - 11:39 am.

                  Cruz’s citizenship was challenged in court, and he has been disparaged regarding his birthplace. I found no commentary that considered this political play to be racist. Explain the difference, if you can.

                  Is it sexist that some MinnPost commenters refer to the President as Bone Spurs? While it may be disrespectful, I wouldn’t call it sexist. Same for Hillary Rodham.

                  Get ready for Biden to be referred to as 5-Deferment Joe.

                  • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/05/2019 - 09:07 am.

                    Do you know what a false claim is? It was false to claim that President Obama was not born in the United States. It was racist to spread that lie.

                    Ted Cruz was not born in the United States. Do you understand that? It is a fact that he was born in Canada. “Canadian” is not a race. Is that distinction clear?

                    “President Bone Spurs” is a moniker based on the fact that, like many other wealthy young men, Donald Trump was able to buy a medical deferment from the draft. It is not a nickname based on his gender. Again, do you appreciate the difference? It’s not difficult, if you put your mind to it.

                    “Get ready for Biden to be referred to as 5-Deferment Joe.” How much do you suppose his father had to pay for those five deferments? Was it a break on rent for his pet podiatrist?

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 06/05/2019 - 12:03 pm.

                      It was false, therefore it was racist. That is quite a leap. Why don’t you show your work?

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/06/2019 - 10:04 am.

                      Sorry, but I can’t be bothered. If you think the true story of Senator Cruz’s birthplace (even with the frivolous litigation it engendered) is in any way equivalent to the “birtherism” lies, there is just nothing left to say.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 06/06/2019 - 04:05 pm.

                      President Obama was not forthcoming with his birth certificate; it was three years (2011) before he released it. Asking for proof of citizenship is not a lie; it is a question.

                      Ted Cruz’s citizenship was challenged in court. President Obama’s citizenship was questioned too, but not in court. Explain, if you can, how one is racist and the other is not.

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/06/2019 - 05:04 pm.

                      Yes, Obama’s citizenship was challenged in court. Google Orly Taitz.

                      There were plenty of lies told about Obama’s citizenship that you obviously have chosen to ignore. The idea that he, unlike other candidates, would have to answer such questions is racist.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 06/07/2019 - 11:04 am.

                      I stand corrected regarding President Obama’s birthplace court challenge. I had never heard of Orly Taitz.

                      From the Huff Post, February 3rd of this year, “By now, if you haven’t heard of Orly Taitz — well, read no further. You are winning at the game of life. Whatever amount of time you are spending on the internet is the right amount, yay!”

                      Well, I was winning the game of life.

                      Both Cruz and Obama have had their birthplace and right to seek the presidency challenged in court. Why is that one is racist and the other is not?

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/31/2019 - 09:29 am.

        Steve Rose says:

        “Above, I refuted one of the racist claims, one of the popular false claims.”

        Thanks for addressing the actually issue, note that no one is attacking you for doing so.

        I assume your claim to have “refuted” the charge of racism is a reference to Mnuchin’s claim that the delay is about security features?

        There are several problems with Mnunchin’s claim that undermine YOUR claim of having refuted the charge of racism.

        First, we have an historically dishonest, ignorant, petty, and vindictive president in Donald Trump. We also know from previous experience that Trump is prone to racist behavior and attitudes. Furthermore we know that Trump has populated his cabinet with like-minded staff who will cater to his petty grievances (Consider for instance the recent attempts to hide John McCain’s name from his sight).

        So when Mnunchin steps up and “explains” that they’re suddenly delaying a scheduled roll out for “security” reasons he simply lacks credibility. One problem with being dishonest is that you don’t get the benefit of the doubt otherwise honest people are entitled to.

        • Submitted by Steve Rose on 05/31/2019 - 04:16 pm.

          No, if you follow the thread, I was refuting the charge of racism falsely based on the “fine people on both sides of the argument” sound bite.

          While that is an impressive string of negative adjectives, you have built no case that they apply to the President. Just sayin’ so doesn’t make it so.

          • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/31/2019 - 05:23 pm.

            Steve, no “case” needs to be made at this point, anyone with any integrity who’s been paying attention can provide multiple documented examples. This isn’t Trump’s first week in office.

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 06/02/2019 - 05:47 am.

              Not the first week indeed; Trump took office about 125 weeks ago. How many more weeks will he be allowed to continue? If no case against him needs to be made, the House should have no greater priority than articles of impeachment. When will they take up this important duty?

Leave a Reply