Indeed. I thought there was something irritating about those "Google suggestions." They're not drawings, they're photos.
I will be surprised if she makes it onto the $20 at all. Not to be political, but the current POTUS doesn't want her on the bill. If the opposing party wins in 2020, then she might get on. I really don't care either way. As long as people keep accepting my money in trade for goods and services, hopefully I can keep fooling them until I am no longer around.
Hehehe. If you look at the one that I linked to, you'll see that in msg #2 @SteveInTampa pointed at two even earlier topics about the very same issue ... Christian
No, remember the timeline: the next $20 design is due to come out in 2028-ish. Neither the current administration nor the winner of the 2020 election has much control over it. The final decision will come from a Treasury secretary appointed by the winner of the 2024 election.
I said I am not being political, because I absolutely do not care one way or the other who is the President or what party they belong to, as they are all crooks. Or anything else political. It is completely meaningless to me. The reason why this was not carried out as planned for one thing is the reason I posted. You can have all the rules you want, but that doesn't make something true or untrue without being allowed to speak about it.
Ah, an excellent post today reminded me of this thread. (If there's discussion to be had about this point, though, let's keep it in this thread, rather than derailing the new one.) So, for those of you who say "I won't use a $20 bill if I don't like its portrait", there is precedent for your choice.
The opposition is not to the portrait, but to the redesign itself- which is politically motivated and not aesthetically pleasing. Amazing how those same American Indians don’t get bombarded with insults and slander over their beliefs. However, should you oppose the dumb 2026 redesign, you are automatically the worst “misogynist”, or even a “racist”. As Mountain Man said, it’s a mute point. Let’s leave it at that. The phrases “Don’t sell the pelt before the bear is shot” or “Don’t count chickens before they are hatched” would best apply here. After all, 2026 is 7 years away, and hopefully the design change can be avoided before then.
Odd. Have you ever seen an actual Tubman design, apart from those strange photomontage images? I don't think so. As for "politically motivated" designs, well, they all are - the ones that are questionable, and those that are not or hardly an issue ... Christian
Selective moral outrage is common in this country and throughout history. There are clowns who insist that no currency or buildings or public locations be named after ANY president or individual who owned slaves. This is insanity as slavery was the norm for hundreds of years in Western civilization -- and even longer in other cultures. Only 3% of the slaves sent from Africa to the New World went to what would become the United States. Over 40% went to Brazil alone. Slavery existed in Africa widespread until the 1970's. Most people on their moral high horse are simply uninformed and ignorant, especially on Twitter.