2026 Harriet Tubman $20 bill

Discussion in 'Paper Money' started by Williammm, Jun 22, 2019.

  1. SteveInTampa

    SteveInTampa Always Learning

    Both threads are tired.
     
    RonSanderson and chrisild like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Because this is the first case of duplicate threads on this site ever.
     
  4. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    Indeed. I thought there was something irritating about those "Google suggestions." They're not drawings, they're photos.
     
  5. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  6. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    Not to be political, but I think you're being political.
     
  7. SteveInTampa

    SteveInTampa Always Learning

    Wish I could “like” this post more than once....
     
  8. Collecting Nut

    Collecting Nut Borderline Hoarder

    I'll second that.
     
  9. chrisild

    chrisild Coin Collector

    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
     
  10. Numbers

    Numbers Senior Member

    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.
     
    NOS likes this.
  11. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  12. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Tell your dog I said hi!

    I think the other threads pointed out that the reason you posted is not in fact the reason.
     
    masterswimmer likes this.
  13. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    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.
     
  14. Legomaster1

    Legomaster1 Cointalk Patron

    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.
     
  15. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Tell your dog I said hi!

  16. desertgem

    desertgem Senior Errer Collecktor

    Or we may all be dead chickens and cows :)
     
  17. chrisild

    chrisild Coin Collector

    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
     
  18. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Legomaster1 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page