|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
07-26-2016, 10:36 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Can you pls. post that link I asked about earlier.
Thanks
|
It's in Wikipedia. Never guilty of anything . You are talking about 1973 for God sake . Things were quite different back then. do you remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 11:10 AM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
It's in Wikipedia. Never guilty of anything . You are talking about 1973 for God sake . Things were quite different back then. do you remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).
In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.
The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.
The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.
After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 11:17 AM
|
#3
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,205
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).
In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.
The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.
The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.
After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
|
What you just posted proved he wasn't found guilty....it states that he settled.
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 11:43 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
What you just posted proved he wasn't found guilty....it states that he settled.
|
Yes it does say he settled. It says nothing about the case being dismissed.
Last edited by PaulS; 07-26-2016 at 11:48 AM..
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:24 PM
|
#5
|
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,205
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Yes it does say he settled. It says nothing about the case being dismissed.
|
weren't you responding to this comment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
It's in Wikipedia. Never guilty of anything . You are talking about 1973 for God sake . Things were quite different back then. do you remember ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:43 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
weren't you responding to this comment?
|
He did ask me to show him where it was dismissed . Democrats are real sticklers when it comes to the law . Hillary broke the law but was not charged with a crime so she is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt . Trump , back in 1973 , was charged with discrimination , was never convicted of anything, but he is guilty as charged .
It really helps to throw the racism thing in wherever you can. That really is the only way to unite the country. Right Paul ?
It really helps if you dismiss logic and reality and you will be able to understand Paul's point of view .
Maybe Paul can tell is what Hillary has done for African-Americans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:51 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Maybe Paul can tell us what Hillary has done for African-Americans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
this is awesome
Last edited by scottw; 07-26-2016 at 12:58 PM..
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 01:08 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
He did ask me to show him where it was dismissed . Democrats are real sticklers when it comes to the law . Hillary broke the law but was not charged with a crime so she is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt . Trump , back in 1973 , was charged with discrimination , was never convicted of anything, but he is guilty as charged .
It really helps to throw the racism thing in wherever you can. That really is the only way to unite the country. Right Paul ? Where I have done that? How many people have I called racist? - Pls. post some links. I'll call you out again - just like I called you on the not guilty statement. You had to change your story from dismissed to not guilty bc I caught you in a lie and you knew it. I was gonna let you go on that and not bring it but....... As I said I do think he is a racist,a bigot and a bully though.
It really helps if you dismiss logic and reality and you will be able to understand Paul's point of view . If you don't think Trump has problems with race your dismissing logic and reality. I guess all those statements about Hispanics, Mexican's, re-tweets from racist websites are all made up.
Maybe Paul can tell is what Hillary has done for African-Americans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
nm
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:55 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
The case was dismissed .
Hillary was a big supporter of Senator Byrd . An actual member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Does it bother you the DNC called an operation to recruit Hispanics , Operation Taco Bowl ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
weren't you responding to this comment?
|
Nope, he claimed it was dismissed (then later changed that to not guilty when I did a little more research an saw it was not dismissed - not guilty is vastly different than dismissed.
Either way, I wasn't sure and asked a few times to post a link. I guess now we know now why he didn't post a link.
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 11:21 AM
|
#10
|
time to go
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).
In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.
The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.
The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.
After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
|
Just the kind of freedom that Democrats want for everyone. You may own it, but the government has the right to control what you do with your property and who is to use it.
I wonder if I will live long enough to see this in the charter fishing business. I can see it now, you open the envelope and read....your captains license is being suspended because you don't take the proper ratio of non-Caucasian customers and that is race discrimination.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Last edited by ecduzitgood; 07-26-2016 at 11:32 AM..
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 11:38 AM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
I searched wikipedia and nothing came up.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342
Case Name United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. FH-NY-0024
Docket / Court 73-1529 ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. We are working to obtain the relevant documents. In the meantime, the facts in the summary are from an article by Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. in the Washington Post, Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Jan. 23, 2016).
In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in federal court in Brooklyn against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.
The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.
The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.
After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation"), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
|
Didn't you call me petty for bringing up Hilary's ethical lapses from 1995? But what Trump did in the 1970s is more relevant? Please explain, I am confused...
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 11:51 AM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Didn't you call me petty for bringing up Hilary's ethical lapses from 1995? But what Trump did in the 1970s is more relevant? Please explain, I am confused...
|
I only brought it up to show how petty it is to look back at things that didn't happen in the recent past. Petty isn't it?
Should we discuss what Rev. Wright said in 2004 or should we continue to discuss what Hillary said in 1995 since you must have brought up both issues hundreds of times since you signed on to the board.
Does that clear up the confusion or do you need me to explain it a little differently?
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:06 PM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
I only brought it up to show how petty it is to look back at things that didn't happen in the recent past. Petty isn't it?
Should we discuss what Rev. Wright said in 2004 or should we continue to discuss what Hillary said in 1995 since you must have brought up both issues hundreds of times since you signed on to the board.
Does that clear up the confusion or do you need me to explain it a little differently?
|
OK, so you weren't really trying to say anything about Trump.
Now, to repeat my earlier question. You believe that Hilary "was wrong" about coming under sniper fire, and it only happened because she was tired.
Aren't you concerned that if elected POTUS, she might become similarly "wrong" if she gets woken up to deal with a crisis? What if she has a sleepless night, and she confuses a girl scout visiting the White House with a sniper, and she orders the secret service to shoot the girl scout?
I guess it was a one-time thing? She only gets delusional from exhaustion once, and then it's out of her system?
I await your answer...
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:15 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
OK, so you weren't really trying to say anything about Trump.No, I actually do think he is a racist. I used that specific example bc I think your a petty person to focus on things from 1995 and 2004 and I knew that was very old.
Now, to repeat my earlier question. You believe that Hilary "was wrong" about coming under sniper fire, and it only happened because she was tired.
Aren't you concerned that if elected POTUS, she might become similarly "wrong" if she gets woken up to deal with a crisis? What if she has a sleepless night, and she confuses a girl scout visiting the White House with a sniper, and she orders the secret service to shoot the girl scout?
I guess it was a one-time thing? She only gets delusional from exhaustion once, and then it's out of her system?
I await your answer...
|
Back to your reading comprehension issue - go see post 228.
|
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:26 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Back to your reading comprehension issue - go see post 228.
|
I don't see in post 228 where you addressed why we needn't be concerned with Hilary's penchant (according to you) for, when tired, of not being able to tell the difference between a warm reception and an assassination attempt. I see no reference to that in post 228, none whatsoever.
Can you clarify? Rather than just pointing to another post, if you have addressed this, just paste your response to you next post.
.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 PM.
|
| |