In 2011, days after Donald Trump challenged
President Barack Obama to “show his records” to prove that he hadn’t
been a “terrible student,” the headmaster at New York Military Academy
got an order from his boss: Find Trump’s academic records and help bury
them.
The superintendent of the private school
“came to me in a panic because he had been accosted by prominent,
wealthy alumni of the school who were Mr. Trump’s friends” and who
wanted to keep his records secret, recalled Evan Jones, the headmaster
at the time. “He said, ‘You need to go grab that record and deliver it
to me because I need to deliver it to them.’ ”
The
superintendent, Jeffrey Coverdale, confirmed Monday that members of the
school’s board of trustees initially wanted him to hand over President
Trump’s records to them, but Coverdale said he refused.
“I
was given directives, part of which I could follow but part of which I
could not, and that was handing them over to the trustees,” he said. “I
moved them elsewhere on campus where they could not be released. It’s
the only time I ever moved an alumnus’s records.”
The
former NYMA officials’ recollections add new details to one of the
allegations that Michael Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer
and fixer, made before Congress last week. Cohen, who told the House
Oversight and Reform Committee that part of his job was to attack
Trump’s critics and defend his reputation, said that Trump ordered him “to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.”
Trump
has frequently boasted that he was a stellar student, but he declined
throughout the 2016 campaign to release any of his academic records, telling The Washington Post then, “I’m not letting you look at anything.”
Cohen on Trump's SAT scores
Michael Cohen said in his
Feb. 27 testimony that President Trump directed him “to threaten”
academic institutions regarding the release of his SAT scores.
(Reuters)
Last year, he said
he “heard I was first in my class” at the University of Pennsylvania’s
Wharton business program, where he finished his undergraduate degree,
but Trump’s name does not appear on the school’s dean’s list or on the list of students who received academic honors in his class of 1968.
Trump
spent five years at the military academy, starting in the fall of 1959,
after his father — having concluded that his son, then in the seventh
grade, needed a more discipline-focused setting — removed him from his
Queens private school and sent him Upstate to NYMA.
At
the academy, which modeled its strict code of conduct after the nearby
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Trump loved competing to win
contests for cleanest room or best-made bed. Although not known as an
academic standout, he was a prominent baseball player and was well known
on campus for bringing women there and showing them around. Despite
getting a series of Vietnam War medical deferments for bone spurs in his
feet, Trump has said that his military academy background provided
“more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the
military.”
He said his parents originally sent him there because “I was a wise guy, and they wanted to get me in line.”
Jones and Coverdale declined to disclose the contents of his transcript.
Those who were aware of the 2011 effort to conceal Trump’s records said the request set off a frenzy at the military academy.
“I
know for a fact that in 2011, the decision was made by the
superintendent to remove those records and secure them so no one on the
staff could get to them,” said Richard Pezzullo, a graduate who worked
closely with school officials in a drive to save the school, which was
then in financial distress. “People had been making inquiries, and there
was a paramount interest in securing those records.”
The
boarding school had no formal archive at the time. Jones said he combed
through the basement of Scarborough Hall on the academy’s sprawling
campus, 60 miles north of New York City, and found the real estate
mogul’s transcript in file cabinets containing student records.
“I
don’t know if we should be doing this,” Jones recalled telling his
boss. “He told me that several wealthy alumni, including a close friend
of Mr. Trump, were putting a lot of pressure on the administration to
put the record in their custody for safekeeping.”
Jones said he did not know whether the original request to remove Trump’s records from the files came from Cohen.
Coverdale
declined to say where he hid Trump’s records or to identify the people
who ordered him to pull them out of the school’s files. “I don’t want to
get into anything with these guys,” he said. “You have to understand,
these were millionaires and multimillionaires on the board, and the
school was going through some troubles. But to hear, ‘You will deliver
them to us?’ That doesn’t happen. This was highly unusual.”
The
White House did not provide a response to The Post’s request for
comment Monday. Leaders of the academy’s board from that time also did
not respond to requests for comment. Nor did Cohen or the school’s
current superintendent, Jie Zhang.
Cohen
said last week that he had sent threatening letters to Trump’s schools,
warning that “we will hold your institution liable” if any of his
records were released. In his letter to the president of Fordham
University, where Trump spent his first two years of college, studying
business administration, Cohen demanded that the records be “permanently
sealed” and said any release was “criminality,” which “will lead to
jail time.”
A Fordham spokesman last week confirmed that the school received Cohen’s
letter, as well as a call from the Trump campaign, and responded that
the university was bound by federal law not to reveal any student
records without Trump’s permission. A spokesman for the University of
Pennsylvania declined to comment....
(continued in next post)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
In
2011, when the military academy was asked to secure Trump’s records, he
had not entered politics formally. But he was considering challenging
Obama in the 2012 election and had been making the rounds on TV,
stepping up his criticism of the president, including insinuating that
Obama was not qualified for admission to Columbia, where he finished his
undergraduate degree, or Harvard, where he went to law school and
graduated magna cum laude. During the 2012 campaign, Trump offered to donate $5 million to charity if Obama released his college transcripts.
At
New York Military Academy, the decision to remove Trump’s records from
the files was unique, said Jones, a management consultant who served as
headmaster from 2010 to 2011. “It was the only time in my education
career that I ever heard of someone’s record being removed,” he said.
“But people were fearful as a result of whatever call was made from Mr.
Trump’s friends. I was told we’re getting a lot of heat about this.”
Coverdale,
who was the school’s superintendent from 2010 to 2013 and is now a
public school administrator in Florida, said he does not know what
happened to Trump’s file after he left the academy in 2013.
The
school’s willingness to move the records stemmed from Trump’s special
status and the school’s precarious position at the time, according to
several academy graduates and former staff members.
The academy, founded in 1889, has had a mixed relationship with Trump through the years.
The
school was in debt, and was openly discussing selling its 113-acre
campus and shutting down, when a group of graduates and others trying to
save the school visited Trump at his Manhattan office in 2010. The
group was seeking a $7 million donation that they hoped to use to raise
an additional $30 million from graduates and other sources.
The meeting did not go well.
First, Pezzullo, Trump’s fellow graduate, spilled a
glass of Diet Coke on Trump’s cream-colored carpet, which caused Trump
to blurt an expletive, according to two participants in the meeting.
Then,
according to Pezzullo, when the school’s graduates made their pitch,
Trump responded by asking, “What do I get for my $7 million?”
The
military academy was prepared to offer to name a summer program, a
building or potentially even the school itself after Trump, according to
academy officials.
But Trump said no
investment in the school was worthwhile. “It’s not a good business
proposition,” he said, according to Pezzullo. “The school has had a good
run.”
A decade before that meeting, Trump
offered to build a facility on campus in honor of his coach and mentor,
Theodore Dobias, according to two former school officials. But the
school’s board turned down the offer, preferring a cash donation. Trump,
who had “just wanted to build something for this man he loved,” gave
nothing, Pezzullo said.
The Trump Tower meeting in 2010 ended with Trump’s “firm ‘No,’ very polite, but firm,” Pezzullo said.
After
the meeting with Trump, the group from the academy met with Cohen, who
delivered the same message but in a less gracious manner.
“Cohen told us he would love to have enough money to buy the school so he could bulldoze it,” Pezzullo said.
Michael E. Miller and Karen Heller contributed to this report.
...... This is so weird to me. And to me, it says a LOT about how Trump operates in general, and it's extremely worrisome.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'd love to see Trump's grades/SAT scores. One of the late night hosts had a funny joke that was something like "Trump doesn't want his SAT scores revealed because they may force him move from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 920 Pennsylvania Avenue."
So in December he is losing to a generic candidate by 14 points...
In March that is down to 7 points... yeah, thats not exactly a good thing
I'm not sure what you achieve by constantly pointing out he is unpopular... he's been unpopular since he rode the escalator down... i sure hope the hubris we saw in 2016 doesn't come back, that shit killed us... i heard every day how far ahead Hillary was in the polls and that Trump had slim chances of winning... the last nbc/wsj poll has him at 47% with registered voters... that is after Cohen... so pardon me if i'm not on cruise control thinking this is in the bag
And the messenger was not mistaken, did you read the article? His numbers ticked up.... Also the only polls i'm concerned with are registered voters and likely voters, not concerned with generic polls
Hubris is the enemy
That NBC poll had Trump at 46%. But, even in your poll it ain't looking to good:
The bigger reveal in that poll:
"The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 41 percent of registered voters plan to vote for Trump while 48 percent said they plan to vote for whoever ends up becoming the Democratic candidate.
By contrast, at about this point in former President Barack Obama's presidency, 45 percent of voters said they planned to vote for Obama while 40 percent preferred a generic Republican candidate. "
That Obama +5 turned out to be a very accurate predictor.
Trump -7 against any democrat aint too good for this era of very low unemployment.
We're in an "anybody but Trump" era.
That describes me and my plan for 2020, which is to vote in the Republican primary for whomever is the front-running challenger (I don't care who it is). And then to vote for the Dem candidate in the general (I don't care who it is). Simple strategy. Anyone but Trump. Every chance I get.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,501
I'm not sure why we are arguing about polls. If there is anything we have learned about polls from 2016 is that they do not seem to be reliable indication in regards to Trump specifically.
I personally don't care if it's 46, 47, 37, 38, wth ever. I especially don't care about the polls in March 2019. So keep arguing over "data" that has a 50% chance (my own data polling) to be shit.
Not arguing. I was correcting his interpretation of the data. Also national polling in 2016 was pretty darn accurate considering the pop vote totals.
I keep seeing that written and no it wasn't. The election is not based on popular vote. The polls know that. If they are using popular vote to say who is going to win the election and their polls do not account for the electoral college...well then their polls are even worse than I thought. There were election polls...they were very wrong. I don't understand why people feel the need to keep saying the polls were actually right, they weren't, they didn't meet their objectives. Anyhow - not meaning to 'attack' you personally on this point. I've just seen it over and over and over.
I'm sorry but this is wildly inaccurate (much like the election projections in '16)
They're not using popular vote to say who was going to win the election and there were not election polls, there were election projections based on statewide polling. And as we've seen there were a few swing states where polling was curiously off by quite a bit. All of those projections that had HRC with 70%, 80% chances of winning? They were based off of state wide polling to then get a feel for how the electoral college would turn out. They were not based on national polling.
Point of national polling and approval rating is to get the feel for how the country as a whole feels about a candidate or their president. Totally different than projecting the outcome of the electoral college.
Nobody feels a need to just say national polling was right. People feel the need to correct those who say they were just wrong. Usually those who say they were wrong are confusing them with all the electoral college projections like you've done here. Two different things.
We will just have to disagree. I'm probably not articulating what I mean as well as I should.
When talking about the polls that were wrong I was referring to them projecting a winner in the election. But anyhow, you are right in that there are many different levels of polling, etc and it's detail oriented and I guess I don't feel like going back into the details on it since it doesn't matter.
Maybe you meant what people inferred from the national polling? Because a lot of people saw the polls and assumed he had no chance. But, obviously, a national poll is not always indicative of how the electoral college will turn out. It's the mood of the nation basically.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,501
Not to belabor this point about polling and how Trump's figures are historically low for an incumbent with this kind of economy: he's doing very poorly even in the state by state polling right now.
This site provides comprehensive state by state polling. Trump started with a net approval in 38 states a couple years ago. Now? 17...and these are the mostly red mid western states that you'd give to him right off the bat anyway: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/
You can what you want but he's in trouble, folks. Hopefully the democrats don't fuck this up again.
I'd love to see Trump's grades/SAT scores. One of the late night hosts had a funny joke that was something like "Trump doesn't want his SAT scores revealed because they may force him move from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 920 Pennsylvania Avenue."
And if you’re the highest IQ POTUS ever and smarter than all your generals, why wouldn’t you want all of your grades and scores released? Oh yea, because you’re not and you’re full of shit.
Some people's tones are changing from no way he gets re-elected to maybe. These forums will be fun if that happens.
You should come out of the closet and just admit it you are a baffoon supporter lol , there's nothing fun watching the country being run by a total idiot ...
I agree that splitting hairs on polls in March of an odd-numbered year is kinda silly. That said, I think most of M2H's point is spot-on. I don't care what the exact number is, but Trump's not as unpopular as many think...so when it comes to 2020, it seems crazy to sit around and say "no way this moron gets re-elected" after we spent 2016 saying "no way this moron gets elected." I thought the complacency (when he was running against the most hated candidate ever) was bad enough...but this time we have history to learn from and it's starting to look like we haven't learned. A legitimately good candidate is needed. A pragmatist to bring in the moderates? A liberal to bring in the harder left? Doesn't matter; it needs to be someone that will bring people to the polls. Obama did that. Hillary did not (at least not for her).
Even if M2H's and my tone that he's not as unpopular as you think (Trumpies don't respond to polls) is off-base, that might not really matter when it comes to 2020. It's about who votes. And that 37-46%? They're all voting. Every single one of them. The rest? Well, maybe roughly the same proportion hates him enough that they'll be voting against him for sure, which with the Electoral College is not enough. Who gets the rest of the people out...those people that don't think Trump's doing a good job but don't necessary see the importance in getting him out? That's what matters. And that's what I hope Democrats figure out. But right now, they kinda seem to think "not Trump" is enough. And it's not.
Remember, whatever his popularity, a huge chunk of the rest of the people (54% to 63%) don't hate him like most of us do.
Thank fucking Jesus!
I'm not saying trump is popular, i'm not saying he is going to win, i understand if tge election happens today he is at a statistical disadvantage.... parsing over a few % on poll's is silly, i'm simply making a bigger picture point which i think is obvious... stop yodeling in the echo chamber and maybe challenge purselves and our assumptions? The echo chamber is boring, and it needs to be challenged
He could be at 25% and i would be concerned, i lived through 2016
Some people's tones are changing from no way he gets re-elected to maybe. These forums will be fun if that happens.
You should come out of the closet and just admit it you are a baffoon supporter lol , there's nothing fun watching the country being run by a total idiot ...
Nope. Farthest from the truth. Nice try though. I am a Canadian who is enjoying this clown show. I will admit that. Until Americans own up and admit that they have caused so much unnecessary chaos in other countries I will continue to enjoy. Maybe a Trump presidency is kind of like karma. Has that occurred to you? When did the US sanction Venezuela? 2014, something like that. It seemed before then at least people were housed, fed had medical care...now the country is in complete chaos...millions have left. Shall we discuss Yemen, Iraq maybe Afghanistan...
Do you not think the average American revels in all the unnecessary chaos they cause? They either revel or don't give it shit They need to feel what other countries feel. But they never will, they will continue to bully the world. Americans are very self-centred people. Their needs are what matters most. Just look at all the other really interesting topics that some people start here an hardly anyone looks at them...but we'll discuss 5 pages about Trump's weight. It is fucking hilarious. I wouldn't bet against most poster only being able to only find other countries on a map from the PJ shows they travel to.
Give Peas A Chance…
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,501
I agree that splitting hairs on polls in March of an odd-numbered year is kinda silly. That said, I think most of M2H's point is spot-on. I don't care what the exact number is, but Trump's not as unpopular as many think...so when it comes to 2020, it seems crazy to sit around and say "no way this moron gets re-elected" after we spent 2016 saying "no way this moron gets elected." I thought the complacency (when he was running against the most hated candidate ever) was bad enough...but this time we have history to learn from and it's starting to look like we haven't learned. A legitimately good candidate is needed. A pragmatist to bring in the moderates? A liberal to bring in the harder left? Doesn't matter; it needs to be someone that will bring people to the polls. Obama did that. Hillary did not (at least not for her).
Even if M2H's and my tone that he's not as unpopular as you think (Trumpies don't respond to polls) is off-base, that might not really matter when it comes to 2020. It's about who votes. And that 37-46%? They're all voting. Every single one of them. The rest? Well, maybe roughly the same proportion hates him enough that they'll be voting against him for sure, which with the Electoral College is not enough. Who gets the rest of the people out...those people that don't think Trump's doing a good job but don't necessary see the importance in getting him out? That's what matters. And that's what I hope Democrats figure out. But right now, they kinda seem to think "not Trump" is enough. And it's not.
Remember, whatever his popularity, a huge chunk of the rest of the people (54% to 63%) don't hate him like most of us do.
Thank fucking Jesus!
I'm not saying trump is popular, i'm not saying he is going to win, i understand if tge election happens today he is at a statistical disadvantage.... parsing over a few % on poll's is silly, i'm simply making a bigger picture point which i think is obvious... stop yodeling in the echo chamber and maybe challenge purselves and our assumptions? The echo chamber is boring, and it needs to be challenged
He could be at 25% and i would be concerned, i lived through 2016
Ha....dude, YOU'RE the one who posted a poll in the first place. And then you decided to parse it.
But, yeah, absolutely it's good to be concerned no matter where he's at.The big picture is, he's low. He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
Post edited by The Juggler on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,501
Do you not think the average American revels in all the unnecessary chaos they cause? They either revel or don't give it shit They need to feel what other countries feel. But they never will, they will continue to bully the world. Americans are very self-centred people. Their needs are what matters most. Just look at all the other really interesting topics that some people start here an hardly anyone looks at them...but we'll discuss 5 pages about Trump's weight. It is fucking hilarious. I wouldn't bet against most poster only being able to only find other countries on a map from the PJ shows they travel to.
Do you not think the average American revels in all the unnecessary chaos they cause? They either revel or don't give it shit They need to feel what other countries feel. But they never will, they will continue to bully the world. Americans are very self-centred people. Their needs are what matters most. Just look at all the other really interesting topics that some people start here an hardly anyone looks at them...but we'll discuss 5 pages about Trump's weight. It is fucking hilarious. I wouldn't bet against most poster only being able to only find other countries on a map from the PJ shows they travel to.
actually I think most americans are like most canadians. nice, decent human beings who want the best for each other.
are there others that hope others are miserable? as you pointed out with your very own post, yes, but they aren't the majority.
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
the only one that seemed to have that it factor is Beto, and he's out.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,501
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
My point is even if someone has a "John Kerry vibe" ---just merely the fact that he or she won't be Hillary Fucking Clinton means that person will be way more popular....and will be running against the most unpopular president ever (or one of, depending on what day you check his numbers).
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
the only one that seemed to have that it factor is Beto, and he's out.
Says who? I don't think he's announced either way yet, has he?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
the only one that seemed to have that it factor is Beto, and he's out.
Says who? I don't think he's announced either way yet, has he?
no, I don't think he has, but his polling numbers are incredibly low for potential candidates. mind you, trump's were probably similar, lol, so who knows.
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
My point is even if someone has a "John Kerry vibe" ---just merely the fact that he or she won't be Hillary Fucking Clinton means that person will be way more popular....and will be running against the most unpopular president ever (or one of, depending on what day you check his numbers).
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
She got the third-most votes ever in a U.S. presidential election behind only Obama's two wins. She had a lot of baggage, but also a lot of resources like experience, an enormous amount of money that none of the 2020 democrats will likely be able to raise, and she was married to a popular president. For how unlikeable she was, she had a lot of good stuff going for her too. I can't fathom Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren doing as well as her. Even Biden and Sanders' time might have come and gone with the democrats, though I'd have more faith in them against Trump than I would any of the others.
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
My point is even if someone has a "John Kerry vibe" ---just merely the fact that he or she won't be Hillary Fucking Clinton means that person will be way more popular....and will be running against the most unpopular president ever (or one of, depending on what day you check his numbers).
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
She got the third-most votes ever in a U.S. presidential election behind only Obama's two wins. She had a lot of baggage, but also a lot of resources like experience, an enormous amount of money that none of the 2020 democrats will likely be able to raise, and she was married to a popular president. For how unlikeable she was, she had a lot of good stuff going for her too. I can't fathom Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren doing as well as her. Even Biden and Sanders' time might have come and gone with the democrats, though I'd have more faith in them against Trump than I would any of the others.
See, I think what you say here supports my argument. Think about it: the most unlikable candidate got the third most votes in this country's history because she was running against someone equally or more so unlikable. Whoever the dems nominate will be immensely more popular than Hillary Clinton and won't have an ounce of her baggage.
The money and resources you mention are overblown because all of those resources and money will be put into whoever the nominee will be this year anyway. You think they will hold back with this fucking guy on the ballot after what happened in '16? Hell no. I'd argue the money and resources will be greater than before, only because Trump's had such a head start since he technically declared he was running the day he was inaugurated (or close to that---they've been raising money for two years).
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
My point is even if someone has a "John Kerry vibe" ---just merely the fact that he or she won't be Hillary Fucking Clinton means that person will be way more popular....and will be running against the most unpopular president ever (or one of, depending on what day you check his numbers).
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
She got the third-most votes ever in a U.S. presidential election behind only Obama's two wins. She had a lot of baggage, but also a lot of resources like experience, an enormous amount of money that none of the 2020 democrats will likely be able to raise, and she was married to a popular president. For how unlikeable she was, she had a lot of good stuff going for her too. I can't fathom Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren doing as well as her. Even Biden and Sanders' time might have come and gone with the democrats, though I'd have more faith in them against Trump than I would any of the others.
See, I think what you say here supports my argument. Think about it: the most unlikable candidate got the third most votes in this country's history because she was running against someone equally or more so unlikable. Whoever the dems nominate will be immensely more popular than Hillary Clinton and won't have an ounce of her baggage.
The money and resources you mention are overblown because all of those resources and money will be put into whoever the nominee will be this year anyway. You think they will hold back with this fucking guy on the ballot after what happened in '16? Hell no. I'd argue the money and resources will be greater than before, only because Trump's had such a head start since he technically declared he was running the day he was inaugurated (or close to that---they've been raising money for two years).
There'll be plenty of fake baggage. I am sure it's well under development for everyone that's considering running.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Some people's tones are changing from no way he gets re-elected to maybe. These forums will be fun if that happens.
You should come out of the closet and just admit it you are a baffoon supporter lol , there's nothing fun watching the country being run by a total idiot ...
Nope. Farthest from the truth. Nice try though. I am a Canadian who is enjoying this clown show. I will admit that. Until Americans own up and admit that they have caused so much unnecessary chaos in other countries I will continue to enjoy. Maybe a Trump presidency is kind of like karma. Has that occurred to you? When did the US sanction Venezuela? 2014, something like that. It seemed before then at least people were housed, fed had medical care...now the country is in complete chaos...millions have left. Shall we discuss Yemen, Iraq maybe Afghanistan...
You can discuss what ever you desire , Karma ? i don't believe in it ...
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
My point is even if someone has a "John Kerry vibe" ---just merely the fact that he or she won't be Hillary Fucking Clinton means that person will be way more popular....and will be running against the most unpopular president ever (or one of, depending on what day you check his numbers).
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
She got the third-most votes ever in a U.S. presidential election behind only Obama's two wins. She had a lot of baggage, but also a lot of resources like experience, an enormous amount of money that none of the 2020 democrats will likely be able to raise, and she was married to a popular president. For how unlikeable she was, she had a lot of good stuff going for her too. I can't fathom Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren doing as well as her. Even Biden and Sanders' time might have come and gone with the democrats, though I'd have more faith in them against Trump than I would any of the others.
See, I think what you say here supports my argument. Think about it: the most unlikable candidate got the third most votes in this country's history because she was running against someone equally or more so unlikable. Whoever the dems nominate will be immensely more popular than Hillary Clinton and won't have an ounce of her baggage.
The money and resources you mention are overblown because all of those resources and money will be put into whoever the nominee will be this year anyway. You think they will hold back with this fucking guy on the ballot after what happened in '16? Hell no. I'd argue the money and resources will be greater than before, only because Trump's had such a head start since he technically declared he was running the day he was inaugurated (or close to that---they've been raising money for two years).
Yeah...the bolded part's actually a pretty good point. But as for your second paragraph, I dunno, you said it pretty well a few posts ago: "But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win."
He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
I'm not so sure about that. His opponent might be less loathsome than Hillary, but I'm not sure that nominee will be truly "popular" in a way that people will be energized and excited to vote for them. I wouldn't be surprised if the democratic nominee has a "John Kerry vibe" to him/her. And by that I mean "Ugh...I am in no way excited to vote for this person, but I have to because I don't want to vote for Bush." That's how I was in 2004. That's how I was in 2016. And more than likely, that's how I'll be in 2020: "Fine, Bernie/Biden/Warren/Harris/Whoever, I'll vote for you but just because Trump is awful." While that may be enough to get my vote, I'm not sure about the electorate at large.
My point is even if someone has a "John Kerry vibe" ---just merely the fact that he or she won't be Hillary Fucking Clinton means that person will be way more popular....and will be running against the most unpopular president ever (or one of, depending on what day you check his numbers).
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
She got the third-most votes ever in a U.S. presidential election behind only Obama's two wins. She had a lot of baggage, but also a lot of resources like experience, an enormous amount of money that none of the 2020 democrats will likely be able to raise, and she was married to a popular president. For how unlikeable she was, she had a lot of good stuff going for her too. I can't fathom Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren doing as well as her. Even Biden and Sanders' time might have come and gone with the democrats, though I'd have more faith in them against Trump than I would any of the others.
See, I think what you say here supports my argument. Think about it: the most unlikable candidate got the third most votes in this country's history because she was running against someone equally or more so unlikable. Whoever the dems nominate will be immensely more popular than Hillary Clinton and won't have an ounce of her baggage.
The money and resources you mention are overblown because all of those resources and money will be put into whoever the nominee will be this year anyway. You think they will hold back with this fucking guy on the ballot after what happened in '16? Hell no. I'd argue the money and resources will be greater than before, only because Trump's had such a head start since he technically declared he was running the day he was inaugurated (or close to that---they've been raising money for two years).
Yeah...the bolded part's actually a pretty good point. But as for your second paragraph, I dunno, you said it pretty well a few posts ago: "But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win."
I think they could screw it up if they go too far left.....
Comments
Trump promised to shrink the trade deficit. Instead, it exploded.
https://apple.news/AN_MOhqBrQhucPWNPNpljlw
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
‘Grab that record’: How Trump’s high school transcript was hidden
In 2011, days after Donald Trump challenged President Barack Obama to “show his records” to prove that he hadn’t been a “terrible student,” the headmaster at New York Military Academy got an order from his boss: Find Trump’s academic records and help bury them.
The superintendent of the private school “came to me in a panic because he had been accosted by prominent, wealthy alumni of the school who were Mr. Trump’s friends” and who wanted to keep his records secret, recalled Evan Jones, the headmaster at the time. “He said, ‘You need to go grab that record and deliver it to me because I need to deliver it to them.’ ”
The superintendent, Jeffrey Coverdale, confirmed Monday that members of the school’s board of trustees initially wanted him to hand over President Trump’s records to them, but Coverdale said he refused.
“I was given directives, part of which I could follow but part of which I could not, and that was handing them over to the trustees,” he said. “I moved them elsewhere on campus where they could not be released. It’s the only time I ever moved an alumnus’s records.”
The former NYMA officials’ recollections add new details to one of the allegations that Michael Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, made before Congress last week. Cohen, who told the House Oversight and Reform Committee that part of his job was to attack Trump’s critics and defend his reputation, said that Trump ordered him “to threaten his high school, his colleges and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores.”
Trump has frequently boasted that he was a stellar student, but he declined throughout the 2016 campaign to release any of his academic records, telling The Washington Post then, “I’m not letting you look at anything.”
Michael Cohen said in his Feb. 27 testimony that President Trump directed him “to threaten” academic institutions regarding the release of his SAT scores. (Reuters)
Last year, he said he “heard I was first in my class” at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton business program, where he finished his undergraduate degree, but Trump’s name does not appear on the school’s dean’s list or on the list of students who received academic honors in his class of 1968.
Trump spent five years at the military academy, starting in the fall of 1959, after his father — having concluded that his son, then in the seventh grade, needed a more discipline-focused setting — removed him from his Queens private school and sent him Upstate to NYMA.
At the academy, which modeled its strict code of conduct after the nearby U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Trump loved competing to win contests for cleanest room or best-made bed. Although not known as an academic standout, he was a prominent baseball player and was well known on campus for bringing women there and showing them around. Despite getting a series of Vietnam War medical deferments for bone spurs in his feet, Trump has said that his military academy background provided “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
Trump told The Post during the 2016 campaign that he “did very well under the military system. I became one of the top guys at the whole school.”
He said his parents originally sent him there because “I was a wise guy, and they wanted to get me in line.”
Jones and Coverdale declined to disclose the contents of his transcript.
Those who were aware of the 2011 effort to conceal Trump’s records said the request set off a frenzy at the military academy.
“I know for a fact that in 2011, the decision was made by the superintendent to remove those records and secure them so no one on the staff could get to them,” said Richard Pezzullo, a graduate who worked closely with school officials in a drive to save the school, which was then in financial distress. “People had been making inquiries, and there was a paramount interest in securing those records.”
The boarding school had no formal archive at the time. Jones said he combed through the basement of Scarborough Hall on the academy’s sprawling campus, 60 miles north of New York City, and found the real estate mogul’s transcript in file cabinets containing student records.
“I don’t know if we should be doing this,” Jones recalled telling his boss. “He told me that several wealthy alumni, including a close friend of Mr. Trump, were putting a lot of pressure on the administration to put the record in their custody for safekeeping.”
Jones said he did not know whether the original request to remove Trump’s records from the files came from Cohen.
Coverdale declined to say where he hid Trump’s records or to identify the people who ordered him to pull them out of the school’s files. “I don’t want to get into anything with these guys,” he said. “You have to understand, these were millionaires and multimillionaires on the board, and the school was going through some troubles. But to hear, ‘You will deliver them to us?’ That doesn’t happen. This was highly unusual.”
The White House did not provide a response to The Post’s request for comment Monday. Leaders of the academy’s board from that time also did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did Cohen or the school’s current superintendent, Jie Zhang.
The academy closed in 2015 after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, but it quickly reopened after a nonprofit entity led by a Chinese investor, Vincent Mo, bought it at a bankruptcy auction and said it would pay off the school’s $16 million debt.
Cohen said last week that he had sent threatening letters to Trump’s schools, warning that “we will hold your institution liable” if any of his records were released. In his letter to the president of Fordham University, where Trump spent his first two years of college, studying business administration, Cohen demanded that the records be “permanently sealed” and said any release was “criminality,” which “will lead to jail time.”
A Fordham spokesman last week confirmed that the school received Cohen’s letter, as well as a call from the Trump campaign, and responded that the university was bound by federal law not to reveal any student records without Trump’s permission. A spokesman for the University of Pennsylvania declined to comment....
(continued in next post)
In 2011, when the military academy was asked to secure Trump’s records, he had not entered politics formally. But he was considering challenging Obama in the 2012 election and had been making the rounds on TV, stepping up his criticism of the president, including insinuating that Obama was not qualified for admission to Columbia, where he finished his undergraduate degree, or Harvard, where he went to law school and graduated magna cum laude. During the 2012 campaign, Trump offered to donate $5 million to charity if Obama released his college transcripts.
At New York Military Academy, the decision to remove Trump’s records from the files was unique, said Jones, a management consultant who served as headmaster from 2010 to 2011. “It was the only time in my education career that I ever heard of someone’s record being removed,” he said. “But people were fearful as a result of whatever call was made from Mr. Trump’s friends. I was told we’re getting a lot of heat about this.”
Coverdale, who was the school’s superintendent from 2010 to 2013 and is now a public school administrator in Florida, said he does not know what happened to Trump’s file after he left the academy in 2013.
The school’s willingness to move the records stemmed from Trump’s special status and the school’s precarious position at the time, according to several academy graduates and former staff members.
The academy, founded in 1889, has had a mixed relationship with Trump through the years.
The school was in debt, and was openly discussing selling its 113-acre campus and shutting down, when a group of graduates and others trying to save the school visited Trump at his Manhattan office in 2010. The group was seeking a $7 million donation that they hoped to use to raise an additional $30 million from graduates and other sources.
The meeting did not go well.
First, Pezzullo, Trump’s fellow graduate, spilled a glass of Diet Coke on Trump’s cream-colored carpet, which caused Trump to blurt an expletive, according to two participants in the meeting.
Then, according to Pezzullo, when the school’s graduates made their pitch, Trump responded by asking, “What do I get for my $7 million?”
The military academy was prepared to offer to name a summer program, a building or potentially even the school itself after Trump, according to academy officials.
But Trump said no investment in the school was worthwhile. “It’s not a good business proposition,” he said, according to Pezzullo. “The school has had a good run.”
A decade before that meeting, Trump offered to build a facility on campus in honor of his coach and mentor, Theodore Dobias, according to two former school officials. But the school’s board turned down the offer, preferring a cash donation. Trump, who had “just wanted to build something for this man he loved,” gave nothing, Pezzullo said.
The Trump Tower meeting in 2010 ended with Trump’s “firm ‘No,’ very polite, but firm,” Pezzullo said.
After the meeting with Trump, the group from the academy met with Cohen, who delivered the same message but in a less gracious manner.
“Cohen told us he would love to have enough money to buy the school so he could bulldoze it,” Pezzullo said.
Michael E. Miller and Karen Heller contributed to this report.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Trump has said that his military academy background provided “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
Even in Florida, traditionally a swing state that some dems were thinking might just turn a reliable red not too long ago, his approval is in the low 40's:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/06/biden-trump-2020-florida-poll-1206260
This site provides comprehensive state by state polling. Trump started with a net approval in 38 states a couple years ago. Now? 17...and these are the mostly red mid western states that you'd give to him right off the bat anyway:
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/
You can what you want but he's in trouble, folks. Hopefully the democrats don't fuck this up again.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm not saying trump is popular, i'm not saying he is going to win, i understand if tge election happens today he is at a statistical disadvantage....
parsing over a few % on poll's is silly, i'm simply making a bigger picture point which i think is obvious... stop yodeling in the echo chamber and maybe challenge purselves and our assumptions? The echo chamber is boring, and it needs to be challenged
He could be at 25% and i would be concerned, i lived through 2016
But, yeah, absolutely it's good to be concerned no matter where he's at.The big picture is, he's low. He's real low and, if still in office, will be running against someone immensely more popular than the person he ran against 3 years ago. These things matter greatly.
But, hey, if these democrats are good at anything, it's screwing up elections they should win. So....yeah don't assume things.
are there others that hope others are miserable? as you pointed out with your very own post, yes, but they aren't the majority.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
www.headstonesband.com
You cannot stress enough how much baggage she had/has and how deeply people despised both her and her husband for 25 years prior to running in '16. Nobody else can come close to that.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
The money and resources you mention are overblown because all of those resources and money will be put into whoever the nominee will be this year anyway. You think they will hold back with this fucking guy on the ballot after what happened in '16? Hell no. I'd argue the money and resources will be greater than before, only because Trump's had such a head start since he technically declared he was running the day he was inaugurated (or close to that---they've been raising money for two years).
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com