The Media Is Ignoring a Huge Hole in the 'Trump Cheated on His SATs' Allegation

He had his share of hate before running, much of it back when his wealth was, shall we say, questionable. Keep in mind there was a time period where he had more losses than almost any other taxpayer. He tried using frivolous lawsuits to kill the First Amendment rights of some of those making these criticisms, but he failed.

 

1. I'll research more into that.

2. ALL people are scrutinized more when they run for public office. And, an endorsement from Jackson isn't all that much.

 

All you're doing is calling attention to her book. She thanks you, and so does Joe Biden.

Trump's best chance, maybe his only chance, is to actually address the one issue he seems desperate to ignore--what to do about COVID-19. Does he finally understand the new case count has to come down if he wants to save the economy?

If he doesn't pivot in the next few weeks, he won't get the count down soon enough for him win reelection. Look how many days it took Europe.



Something like one-third of those who test positive have long recoveries, so telling people getting COVID-19 is of little consequence doesn't sell.

This is what people say about the pandemic...



So, then, did Trump cheat on his SATs? I would be surprised given he seems to have a reading problem. Do most folks care? I don't think so.

 

Spot-On.

Just more FREE Publicity for her book.

 

Republicans started the inquiry by appointing Mueller, a Republican, in May 2017.

 

Where in the impeachment was Russia Gate mentioned? Oh right. It wasn't. It all had to do with Ukraine. My you've got a short memory.

 

Since you have zero clue and will follow left wing media like a sheep, how did this guy who started college 4 years AFTER Trump started college do his SAT's?

Go ahead and repeat whatever your left wing mass media tells you to think.

 

I don't watch MSM so I'm not parroting anybody.

I am not questioning if this particular claim is possible or probable, but I don't find it alarming that a student younger than Trump could have taken the SAT for him. I was working at a college level by the time I was in 9th grade and even tutored some junior college students while I was still in high school. I never took anybody's tests for them but I don't see that as particularly impossible in this situation. Now, if you say that they NEVER met until the young Shapiro was in college, it raises some eyebrows.

 

I can leave it at a very low chance they met before college, but then again for someone to take someone elses SAT while still in High School is very improbable. Now, if you parrot what Left Wing Media says about it, that usually means you have a biased opinion and are just parroting how they want you to think. Hence, sheep.

 

I don't watch the news so I'm not parroting anyone. The ONLY people that know the truth are Trump and the late Shapiro. It's highly unlikely either one will speak on the matter.

 

Yes, to deny an allegation is to say the person making the allegation is a liar. Trump is already being sued for exactly that reason. A woman alleged sexual assault by him and he denied it. She is now suing him for defamation of her.

 

Non sequitur. You said Democrats ran the investigation and I pointed out Republicans appointed a Republican, Mueller.

 

Actually you might want to read what I said again.

 

Doesn’t matter anyway, since the SAT is now by the “new normal” paradigm, considered to be a racist test devised by white privileged people to keep people of color oppressed ...

 

They were fully justified in impeaching him for obstruction.

 

Obstruction of Congress while going through the courts is not a legitimate grounds for impeachment. Unless you think every other president in our entire history should be retroactively impeached also? Because each and every single President we've ever had has not given Congress everything they have ever demanded.

But that is besides the point that I made isn't it? Fact is Dems started an impeachment inquiry based on nothing more than 3rd/4th hand information. And here you are trying to deflect from your original point.

 

Makes sense. I could have happened.

 

I disagree. Impeachment is the only remedy that can be applied quickly enough.

It's an important power Congress has not abused. Anyway, Congress can impeach and remove for just about any reason--there is no review by the courts.

No, they had a strong evidence Trump obstructed Mueller.

 

Remedy what exactly?

Sure they can. But there will be consequences to frivolously doing it. As Republicans found out when they impeached Clinton. The House may be able to impeach for whatever reason. But they damn well better make sure a large majority of The People agree with them.

Then why didn't they present that in the impeachment articles? If they had then they at least would have had one criminal charge. As it was nothing in those articles had anything to do with Mueller, his investigation, or Russia.

But again, this still has nothing to do with the point you tried to make. But I get it. Your claim backfired and now you're trying to deflect away from it.

 

A President breaking the law.

No disagreement. I wouldn't have impeached Trump or Clinton for the reason you point out, but I think both of them richly deserved impeachment and conviction. Trump should have been impeached and convicted for obstructing Mueller, not Congress.

Consider this... If Clinton had been tossed out, the 2016 election wouldn't have had sleazy Hillary or sexual assault perp Trump.

No, you don't get it. Trump should have been investigated and Mueller was a good choice. If he had been smart, Trump would have let Mueller proceed without interference, said he was innocent and left it at that. Instead, he obstructed Mueller and ended up with a two-part report instead of being fully exonerated.

 

Rumormongers have become prolific in the post dual world. Eh, one's honor and virtue just aren't worth killing over anymore, or dying for.

Sad really, in the bigger picture, what we not only allow but monetize. We reward gossips, rumormongers and those that bear false witness.

We're losing some dignity in the process.

 

Well, this impeachment was quick. In fact it broke the record for the quickest impeachment in history. Andrew Johnson previously held that title at 3.5 months. Trumps impeachment took 1 month and 19 days from December 18 until February 5. Note: neither of those include the investigation period. Both are from when the impeachment articles were written up. Can't count the investigation phase because they never investigated Andrew Johnson. They just drew up some articles against him.

I said at the time of Clintons impeachment, that the should never have been impeached. I stand by that. And I stand by that with Trump also. As for Trump, he wasn't trying to obstruct imo. He was frustrated by the investigation he knew to be a hoax. He wanted it done as quickly as possible. Not to be stopped. But to be done. IMO he was probably thinking that Mueller was trying to make it last as long as possible because everyone knows it was hampering Trumps ability to get anything done. We all know that firing Mueller would not have stopped the investigation. Even Trump knew that. He just wanted someone to get it done fast. And Mueller was taken his sweet as time.

Yeah, we might have had someone worse. The fence is always greener on the other side....

With all the information coming out...no he shouldn't have been investigated at all. The whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by the likes of Comey, Strozk, Obama, Biden and Hillary. The FBI KNEW before Trump even won that the dossier was made up BS. Yet they used it to gain access to further investigate Trump. And conveniently leaked information from it to the public to further their own ends of smearing Trump to get Hillary elected.

Btw, prosecutors and investigators do not "exonerate" anyone. Mueller using it was the first time any prosecutor or investigator has used such and went completely against protocol. Even Mueller could not remember of a single example where a prosecutor had ever used the word "exonerate". That's because they don't use the word. Because a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty. One cannot be exonerated of anything if they are already considered innocent. Only the guilty can be exonerated.

 

This argument is very sloppy and lacks mental discipline.

An inability to defend against a spurious claim doesn't lend veracity to the claim. Yet you use the reply to the initial claim as justification for continued gossiping.

Sloppy.

 

The only thing sloppy is this "response." At no point did I "lend veracity" to Mary Trump's claims nor have I spread any gossip. I pointed out that the OP is being hypocritical -- a point you can't address and has forced you to, instead, fake an argument I never made as a distraction (aka a strawman)

 

You're doing it with every post.