Biden working towards putting Harriet Tubman on $20 notes after Trump delayed move

[TBoneTX 43,435]

14 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

If we want to honor a black person with their own money, wouldn't dr. King be more fitting ?

They wanted black + woman.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,330]

58 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

They wanted black + woman.

Ahhh i c.  If she was transgender it would be the tri fecta of we care 

[Dashinka 23,390]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ahhh i c.  If she was transgender it would be the tri fecta of we care 

Maybe Rachel Dolezal can come out and declare she is now a man.

[Lemonslice 4,596]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

Maybe Rachel Dolezal can come out and declare she is now a man.

Na, if official representative art is useless, then let's remove it all.   No Lincoln monuments, no Columbus statues, no portraits. Useless, totally useless - burnt it all.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Lemonslice

[Dashinka 23,390]

18 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

Na, if official representative art is useless, then let's remove it all.   No Lincoln monuments, no Columbus statues, no portraits. Useless, totally useless - burnt it all.

Those that control the present...

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Ahhh i c.  If she was transgender it would be the tri fecta of we care 

 

   If you are familiar with Harriet Tubman, or if you read about her life, do you think there is any major reason she shouldn't be on the bill?

 

   I didn't take part in the vote so I'm not going to complain about the results. I think we could come up with many, many people who would be fitting. Harriet Tubman is one of the many who would be a fine choice, and ultimately she was the choice that people voted for. It would have been good to hear reasons to select alternatives before it was actually voted on, but at this point, if there is an issue, I'd rather hear people state why they don't think Tubman was the right choice.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Steeleballz

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,330]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   If you are familiar with Harriet Tubman, or if you read about her life, do you think there is any major reason she shouldn't be on the bill?

 

   I didn't take part in the vote so I'm not going to complain about the results. I think we could come up with many, many people who would be fitting. Harriet Tubman is one of the many who would be a fine choice, and ultimately she was the choice that people voted for. It would have been good to hear reasons to select alternatives before it was actually voted on, but at this point, if there is an issue, I'd rather hear people state why they don't think Tubman was the right choice.

I dont have a problem with Tubman. I didn't know all the back story about the Vote or that they were going to change it anyway. Honestly stuff like this stirs passions but in the long run is 100 out of 100 problems this country faces. A black person on a bill might be overdue. I still think dr King would be my 1st choice but, heck what do I know

[yuna628 9,547]

Who is better to have than an African American, sharpshooting, gun totin', soldier, freedom fighter, nurse, god-fearin', liberty and justice for all believin', freedom fighter lady? To be honest she deserves so much more and is representative of an exemplary American.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

25 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I dont have a problem with Tubman. I didn't know all the back story about the Vote or that they were going to change it anyway. Honestly stuff like this stirs passions but in the long run is 100 out of 100 problems this country faces. A black person on a bill might be overdue. I still think dr King would be my 1st choice but, heck what do I know

 

  I'm not really a fan of having people on money anyway. Some of the things like state quarters were cool, and other countries where they have something else, like animals or scenery. Mainly as long as I have enough money, I'm not really that interested in who is on it or what it looks like.

 

  Although if we could get something like the Canadian Toonie that glows in the dark,  I would go for that.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Funny thing.. if it was going to be done, they could've just done it with little fanfare. It may not even require legislation. Just boom, done. Onto something else. There's a reason this is being kept in the discourse in the poisonous way it is. Unfortunately people are a bit too busy mindlessly marching to their side of the wedge rather than challenging those who are doing the wedging. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Funny thing.. if it was going to be done, they could've just done it with little fanfare. It may not even require legislation. Just boom, done. Onto something else. There's a reason this is being kept in the discourse in the poisonous way it is.

 

   The other funny thing is that it actually was going to be done and probably was going to be done with little fanfare. There wasn't really a whole lot of attention paid to this until Trump decide not to go forward with the change after it was already slated to happen in 2020. This change would have been something already in place if it wasn't specifically targeted to be delayed. It get's a lot more attention now because there are people who are focused on it being something Trump did, and another thing that has to be undone, instead of focusing on it as something that had been supported, planned and approved several years ago. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

19 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   The other funny thing is that it actually was going to be done and probably was going to be done with little fanfare. There wasn't really a whole lot of attention paid to this until Trump decide not to go forward with the change after it was already slated to happen in 2020. This change would have been something already in place if it wasn't specifically targeted to be delayed. It get's a lot more attention now because there are people who are focused on it being something Trump did, and another thing that has to be undone, instead of focusing on it as something that had been supported, planned and approved several years ago. 

It wasn't done with little fanfare, it was done publicly in Obama's 8th year, an election year, after a 1+ year long public campaign by media, celebrities, etc. That part is very wrong.

 

As an aside, I saw it first mentioned (her name on a nonspecific bill) during the Bush administration when people in Congress were talking about counterfeit improvements, and for all I know the idea could've been around for longer. While changing the portrait of any bill isn't going to be without controversy of some kind (there's always going to be someone whining about it), like a number of things, Obama had an entire Presidency to do it, if he needed Congress at all it could've been done very easily early on, and there was no need to implement it during his successor's term.. this was done strategically, like many things politicians do, and very much for a similar reason many other issues are dangled in this fashion in the public discourse.

[Dashinka 23,390]

As long as the bill is still worth $20 I could not care less who or what adorns it.  Beyond that, the whole fanfare thing is simply virtue signaling.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It wasn't done with little fanfare, it was done publicly in Obama's 8th year, an election year, after a 1+ year long public campaign by media, celebrities, etc. That part is very wrong.

 

As an aside, I saw it first mentioned (her name on a nonspecific bill) during the Bush administration when people in Congress were talking about counterfeit improvements, and for all I know the idea could've been around for longer. While changing the portrait of any bill isn't going to be without controversy of some kind (there's always going to be someone whining about it), like a number of things, Obama had an entire Presidency to do it, if he needed Congress at all it could've been done very easily early on, and there was no need to implement it during his successor's term.. this was done strategically, like many things politicians do, and very much for a similar reason many other issues are dangled in this fashion in the public discourse.

 

    It was finalized in 2015 and scheduled to change in 2020. So yeah all politicians seem to attempt to undo things that were approved during their predecessors term, especially at the end before the change becomes accepted. Trump was no different than any of the other swamp dwellers in that regard.

 

   Biden actually campaigned on undoing everything Trump did, or at least as much as he can, so I'll bet you a Tubman we see more of it. Things only seem inconsequential by degree. They are a consequence of something.

   

[Dashinka 23,390]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    It was finalized in 2015 and scheduled to change in 2020. So yeah all politicians seem to attempt to undo things that were approved during their predecessors term, especially at the end before the change becomes accepted. Trump was no different than any of the other swamp dwellers in that regard.

 

   Biden actually campaigned on undoing everything Trump did, or at least as much as he can, so I'll bet you a Tubman we see more of it. Things only seem inconsequential by degree. They are a consequence of something.

   

Was it approved via EO?  If so, quite easy to undo.