A woman will appear on redesigned $10 bill in 2020. Who will it be?

[joG]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f7c3ee-153c-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

Who is your pick?
Has a person already been picked?
Should it be Hillary if elected to president?
Should it be put to a vote by the people?

A joke from Good Morning America was Rosa Parks on the back of the bill. OUCH.

I don't like Hillary but I would be OK with her on the 10 dollar bill if she indeed became the first woman president.
I would be OK with multiple women featured on the 10 dollar bill the way we did with the quarters.

I think that a woman would be an insult to the really challenged.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Here's my list of potentials:

Mary Musgrove - 1700-1765 - A Georgia woman of mixed race, she and her husband started a fur trade with the Creeks. As an important interpreter, she helped to avoid a war.

Abigail Adams - 1744-1818 - She wrote unusually detailed accounts about her life and time in letters, and exerted political influence over her famous president husband John, and son, John Quincy.

Phillis Wheatley - 1753-1784 - The first significant black poet in America, the former slave exemplified the superiority of the human spirit over the circumstances of birth (read the last sentence in my signature below - this remarkable woman is the inspiration).

And, my personal favorite:
Molly Pitcher - 1754-1832 - At the Battle of Monmouth, an American Revolutionary War battle fought on June 28, 1778, she brought water to Continental soldiers, attended the wounded and also replaced her fallen husband at a gun.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

With all the women in the history of this country that have and had integrity and that had actually done something for the country, why would you bring up Hillary? I am just curious.

If she does become the first woman to become president that is pretty significant part of our history whether I like her or not.

 

[Henrin]

Here's my list of potentials:

Mary Musgrove - 1700-1765 - A Georgia woman of mixed race, she and her husband started a fur trade with the Creeks. As an important interpreter, she helped to avoid a war.

Abigail Adams - 1744-1818 - She wrote unusually detailed accounts about her life and time in letters, and exerted political influence over her famous president husband John, and son, John Quincy.

Phillis Wheatley - 1753-1784 - The first significant black poet in America, the former slave exemplified the superiority of the human spirit over the circumstances of birth (read the last sentence in my signature below - this remarkable woman is the inspiration).

And, my personal favorite:
Molly Pitcher - 1754-1832 - At the Battle of Monmouth, an American Revolutionary War battle fought on June 28, 1778, she brought water to Continental soldiers, attended the wounded and also replaced her fallen husband at a gun.

Since apparently scumbags are not allowed it should be noted that Abigail Adams was a terrible mother.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Since apparently scumbags are not allowed it should be noted that Abigail Adams was a terrible mother.

Link?

 

[Mason66]

If she does become the first woman to become president that is pretty significant part of our history whether I like her or not.

So 50 years after she is dead people can talk about it.

 

[Your Star]

Jackson shouldn't be on the 20 for numerous reasons. Most of all is the Trail of Tears.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Jackson shouldn't be on the 20 for numerous reasons. Most of all is the Trail of Tears.

Remember that he could only accomplish such things with the support of the people. There were a whole lot of nails already driven into the Indian coffin before Andrew Jackson. Taking land by force was acceptable behavior for over 10,000 years at that time. It is even supported today by a lot of Americans as long as it favors our rich and powerful.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, let's put the most vile, corrupt, lying, enabling, screeching bitch in American history on our money.

You do realize this person would be replacing Andrew Jackson, right?

I'd be fine with Harriet Tubman

Sounds like you got one of your wishes.

Wouldn't it be wise to at least see *how* she performs as President first, before honoring her with what would essentially be a permanent memorial?

Crazy thoughts, I know. :shrug:

I mean, Lincoln was President when half the country said they didn't want to be here and he promptly suspended Constitutional rights as he played whack a mole with finding a general who could win a battle. Andrew Jackson forcibly removed Native Americans from their land, which led to a massive loss in life, not to mention simply ignored a Supreme Court ruling because he didn't like it. Grant was a drunkard and generally is seen as a lackluster President.

No, I don't think "how" someone performs as President seems to be too relevant. Now I read somewhere last night there is a law which prohibits living people from being on the currency, and if that's true, then obviously Clinton would be disqualified. But that at least would be a legitimate reason for her not to be on there, not like "morals" or "how they performed".

Are you saying if Clinton wins, she should be immediately killed to be put on the money?

There are no living people on money and shouldn't be.

I read somewhere last night there was a law passed in the 1800s which prohibit living people from being on money. If it is against the law to do it, then she shouldn't be on. But if there isn't a law, then "no living person is on money" is not a valid reason.

What would that accomplishment be? Getting elected?

The first female President.

nope I think there are just better people that should be on it than Clinton.
nothing she has done has earned her the right to be on our money.

there are other females that have accomplished a lot more than her that should go on there.

My point is there are a lot of better people to be on our money than Hamilton or Grant. And the next person (who has now been said to be Tubman) is only replacing Jackson, who was hardly someone who looks good as we gaze back on him now. As such, I don't really buy much into that argument.

 

[ludin]

My point is there are a lot of better people to be on our money than Hamilton or Grant. And the next person (who has now been said to be Tubman) is only replacing Jackson, who was hardly someone who looks good as we gaze back on him now. As such, I don't really buy much into that argument.

Jackson wasn't a great president, but he was a great military leader.
sometimes the two don't go hand in hand.

I am fine with tubman on the bill I have no issues with her at all.

Clinton has done nothing to deserve the honor.

 

[radcen]

I mean, Lincoln was President when half the country said they didn't want to be here and he promptly suspended Constitutional rights as he played whack a mole with finding a general who could win a battle. Andrew Jackson forcibly removed Native Americans from their land, which led to a massive loss in life, not to mention simply ignored a Supreme Court ruling because he didn't like it. Grant was a drunkard and generally is seen as a lackluster President.

No, I don't think "how" someone performs as President seems to be too relevant. Now I read somewhere last night there is a law which prohibits living people from being on the currency, and if that's true, then obviously Clinton would be disqualified. But that at least would be a legitimate reason for her not to be on there, not like "morals" or "how they performed".

You seem to be defending your position more out of a feeling the need to defend your position because it's your position than actually believing in your position.

For example, you say that having a law that bars living people from being on currency makes more sense, but did you stop to think *why* we have that law? Seems you did not. Could it be that we want to make sure that the person doesn't end up getting outed as a criminal or something then we're stuck with them on what bills have been printed so far forever?

Stop, think it through, check the ego that wants to win the debate, and connect the dots.

 

[TheGoverness]

Jackson wasn't a great president, but he was a great military leader.
sometimes the two don't go hand in hand.

I am fine with tubman on the bill I have no issues with her at all.

Clinton has done nothing to deserve the honor.

Clinton is the last woman that deserves to be put on the bill. I'd put a random American citizen on the bill before her.

 

[Slyfox696]

Jackson wasn't a great president

But he wasn't really a great person either. That was your initial argument, that Clinton didn't deserve it because of morals. My point was the we shouldn't hold women to a different standard than we hold the men.

You seem to be defending your position more out of a feeling the need to defend your position because it's your position than actually believing in your position.

They already decided on Tubman. I'm defending the fact that Clinton, were she to be elected and the law allowed living people on the money, would be every bit as deserving as others.

For example, you say that having a law that bars living people from being on currency makes more sense

No, I said that is a more legitimate reason to keep a President Clinton off currency than "morals" as ludin suggested or "how they perform" as you suggested.

but did you stop to think *why* we have that law? Seems you did not. Could it be that we want to make sure that the person doesn't end up getting outed as a criminal or something then we're stuck with them on what bills have been printed so far forever?

No, it was because they didn't want to invoke memories or a perception of a monarchy.

By legislation created during the Revolutionary years of the U.S., no living person can be featured on a coin. It was to ensure that the U.S. would not appear like a monarchy, as living kings during the era were cast onto their country's coinage.

10 Fascinating Facts About Money - Business Insider

So that's not really a point in your favor on the whole "how they perform" thing.

Stop, think it through, check the ego that wants to win the debate, and connect the dots.

Umm, what are you talking about? I've already admitted I was unaware of the law yesterday when I said Clinton was as deserving as any, I've already noted it is Tubman who is going to be on the bill. Now I'm merely saying that, absent the law, a President Clinton would have just as much claim to be on the currency as anyone and that your argument of "how they perform" is not applied to other people on the currency, nor is it the reason why the law exists.

So let's see if you take your own advice and acknowledge your position is found to be quite wanting, giving the lackluster Presidency of Grant or the fact both Lincoln and Jackson have their own presidential blemishes.

 

[Mason66]

You do realize this person would be replacing Andrew Jackson, right?

Sounds like you got one of your wishes.
I mean, Lincoln was President when half the country said they didn't want to be here and he promptly suspended Constitutional rights as he played whack a mole with finding a general who could win a battle. Andrew Jackson forcibly removed Native Americans from their land, which led to a massive loss in life, not to mention simply ignored a Supreme Court ruling because he didn't like it. Grant was a drunkard and generally is seen as a lackluster President.

No, I don't think "how" someone performs as President seems to be too relevant. Now I read somewhere last night there is a law which prohibits living people from being on the currency, and if that's true, then obviously Clinton would be disqualified. But that at least would be a legitimate reason for her not to be on there, not like "morals" or "how they performed".
I read somewhere last night there was a law passed in the 1800s which prohibit living people from being on money. If it is against the law to do it, then she shouldn't be on. But if there isn't a law, then "no living person is on money" is not a valid reason.
The first female President.

My point is there are a lot of better people to be on our money than Hamilton or Grant. And the next person (who has now been said to be Tubman) is only replacing Jackson, who was hardly someone who looks good as we gaze back on him now. As such, I don't really buy much into that argument.

You think getting elected the first female President is an accomplishment?

 

[radcen]

You think getting elected the first female President is an accomplishment?

Low standards.

 

[Slyfox696]

You think getting elected the first female President is an accomplishment?

Of course it is. In the nearly 250 years of our country, she would be the first. And considering women weren't even allowed to vote until the 1900s, having a woman become President would most definitely be an accomplishment. Hell, a man becoming President is an accomplishment and they've all been men so far.

So, yes, becoming the first female President would be an accomplishment. If it's not an accomplishment, then how come no one else has ever done it?

Low standards.

How is being a President not an accomplishment?

 

[Mason66]

Of course it is. In the nearly 250 years of our country, she would be the first. And considering women weren't even allowed to vote until the 1900s, having a woman become President would most definitely be an accomplishment. Hell, a man becoming President is an accomplishment and they've all been men so far.

So, yes, becoming the first female President would be an accomplishment. If it's not an accomplishment, then how come no one else has ever done it?
How is being a President not an accomplishment?

Was Obamas election an accomplishment because he was not Bush?

 

[Mason66]

Of course it is. In the nearly 250 years of our country, she would be the first. And considering women weren't even allowed to vote until the 1900s, having a woman become President would most definitely be an accomplishment. Hell, a man becoming President is an accomplishment and they've all been men so far.

So, yes, becoming the first female President would be an accomplishment. If it's not an accomplishment, then how come no one else has ever done it?
How is being a President not an accomplishment?

Isn't it an accomplishment when anybody gets elected?

I think you are using the wrong word.

 

[radcen]

There are what... half-a-dozen-ish denominations in circulation at any given time? By that restriction alone, merely accomplishing something is not enough. You need to be elite of the elite.

 

[Slyfox696]

Was Obamas election an accomplishment because he was not Bush?

Being elected President is an accomplishment. After 200+ years, being elected the first *insert relevant criteria/demographic* President could very easily be an accomplishment, which first female President would be.

Isn't it an accomplishment when anybody gets elected?

Absolutely it is. And we've had 43 men be President, so if our 45th President were to be female, that would be quite the accomplishment.

I think you are using the wrong word.

No, I'm most definitely using the correct word.

 

[LowDown]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...f7c3ee-153c-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html

Who is your pick?
Has a person already been picked?
Should it be Hillary if elected to president?
Should it be put to a vote by the people?

A joke from Good Morning America was Rosa Parks on the back of the bill. OUCH.

I don't like Hillary but I would be OK with her on the 10 dollar bill if she indeed became the first woman president.
I would be OK with multiple women featured on the 10 dollar bill the way we did with the quarters.

I thought they had dropped the idea of putting a woman on the tenner (because it was beneath them) in favor of putting Ms. Tubman on the $20.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I thought they had dropped the idea of putting a woman on the tenner (because it was beneath them) in favor of putting Ms. Tubman on the $20.

They did. However every time new elected leaders get in things change.