8 In 10 Black Americans View Trump As ‘A Racist,’ Poll Finds

[Correll]

He can't. He won't. He knows that if he tries, he loses. So he won't try.


BUt he will never admit it.


IF he starts to try, when you start to crush him, he will change the subject.

i always back up what i say. the link is credible & cannot be debated.

you, cartoon boy - can't even keep it straight that i am a SHE, no matter how many times i've told you. your ability to absorb facts is sorely lacking.

Everyone knows that plenty of people and companies settle lawsuits to just settle them, not because they are guilty.


Your pretense otherwise, is you being dishonest.

mmmmm & everyone knows that plenty of people & companies settle lawsuits to just settle them, not because they are innocent, but to have a lesser 'punishment' imposed.

donny said he never settles & that is just plain lying. also given his track record, it's more than likely he settled cause he was guilty. good people don't rip off other people whether it's for a fraudulent university, a sham charity foundation, or in housing.

So, your primary piece of evidence that he is racist, is an ancient case, that was never ruled on, and you make a number of assumptions, to get to where you want to be.


YOu have NOTHING.

it sure was ruled upon. donny & daddy drumpf had to take out ads for the 'coloreds' to let them know they can rent in their buildings.

donny is also trying to kill anti housing discrimination laws on the books right now.

From your post.



" instead of continuing the case through trial or hearing. "

 

[Correll]

I already explained that all lefties can post are allegations, gish gallop, dismissed cases, propaganda, or secondhand quotes.

Dismissed cases are not evidence. The last thing you should ever consider using as evidence is a dismissed case.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

lol... you are trying to peddle that it was dismissed because there was no evidence & therefore thrown outa court. auCONtraire.

they settled & that is why it was dismissed.

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree, whereby no admission of wrongdoing would be given, however, his management company was ordered to take out ads telling ethnic minorities that they were welcome to seek housing at Trump properties.
The FBI released hundreds of pages related to a 1970s housing discrimination lawsuit against Trump

& CONsidering the most recent activety where trump's HUD will now make it easier to discriminate, doesn't help yer spin.

"no admission of wrongdoing"

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree,

CONSENT DECREE

n. an order of a judge based upon an agreement, almost always put in writing, between the parties to a lawsuit instead of continuing the case through trial or hearing. It cannot be appealed unless it was based upon fraud by one of the parties (he lied about the situation), mutual mistake (both parties misunderstood the situation) or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the case or the parties. Obviously, such a decree is almost always final and non-appealable since the parties worked it out. A consent decree is a common practice when the government has sued to make a person or corporation comply with the law (improper securities practices, pollution, restraints of trade, conspiracy) or the defendant agrees to the consent decree (often not to repeat the offense) in return for the government not pursuing criminal penalties. In general a consent decree and a consent judgment are the same.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

So, everyone claimed victory, and spun the ending to fit their own agenda.


And this is your strongest example?


Only an asshole would smear people with such weak justification.

 

[Correll]

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

There is something REALLY wrong with that guy if his instinct was actually to use a dismissed case as evidence of guilt. Who in their right mind would ever consider using a dismissed case as evidence of guilt in any topic or subject? To make things even worse, he then read the court's wording with his very own eyes and continued to argue that it is evidence of guilt. He did all this AFTER he read my posts explaining how lefties have nothing but allegations, DISMISSED CASES, gish gallop, and propaganda. You can't make this shit up.

They start with their conclusion, and then just grab any random shit to back it up with.


They are used to watching panels of experts on tv, who sit around and all pretend that such shit is actually valid, and then they try it too.



The difference is, that instead of playing along, we call them on their shit.


Which is why so many of them troll with the intent of getting people banned. And why they invented cancel culture. And doxing. And hate speech laws.



They are cowardly and delusional.

 

[playtime]

Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules
New rules may make it easier to deny loans to people of color.

The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods.
[...]
“They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments. The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.
[...]
The administration’s attempts to rewrite the enforcement of laws on housing discrimination and segregation aren’t limited to HUD. Joseph Otting, the Trump appointee who heads the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wants to change the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed to reverse decades of discriminatory government policy discouraging lending and investment in poor neighborhoods.
[...]
Housing advocates say they’re also worried about a dropoff in fair lending enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints rose 8 percent in 2018, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, to the highest level since the group started tracking the data in 1995.
[...]
“I think there’s an effort by this administration to narrow the scope and the sort of meaning of civil rights protections so there’s just a hollowed-out husk of what’s actually protected,” said Thomas Silverstein of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules

nothing to see here... just move along.

 

[playtime]

lol... you are trying to peddle that it was dismissed because there was no evidence & therefore thrown outa court. auCONtraire.

they settled & that is why it was dismissed.

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree, whereby no admission of wrongdoing would be given, however, his management company was ordered to take out ads telling ethnic minorities that they were welcome to seek housing at Trump properties.
The FBI released hundreds of pages related to a 1970s housing discrimination lawsuit against Trump

& CONsidering the most recent activety where trump's HUD will now make it easier to discriminate, doesn't help yer spin.

"no admission of wrongdoing"

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree,

CONSENT DECREE

n. an order of a judge based upon an agreement, almost always put in writing, between the parties to a lawsuit instead of continuing the case through trial or hearing. It cannot be appealed unless it was based upon fraud by one of the parties (he lied about the situation), mutual mistake (both parties misunderstood the situation) or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the case or the parties. Obviously, such a decree is almost always final and non-appealable since the parties worked it out. A consent decree is a common practice when the government has sued to make a person or corporation comply with the law (improper securities practices, pollution, restraints of trade, conspiracy) or the defendant agrees to the consent decree (often not to repeat the offense) in return for the government not pursuing criminal penalties. In general a consent decree and a consent judgment are the same.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

So, everyone claimed victory, and spun the ending to fit their own agenda.


And this is your strongest example?


Only an asshole would smear people with such weak justification.

the only asshole that claimed 'victory' was donny & the spinning top he sat on. the case was dismissed with conditions & the 'dismissal' was part of the deal. if he didn't comply, then it would not have been dismissed & the gov'ment was ready to bring criminal charges. oooOOOooo.... you keep fergetting that cartoon boy.

 

[playtime]

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

There is something REALLY wrong with that guy if his instinct was actually to use a dismissed case as evidence of guilt. Who in their right mind would ever consider using a dismissed case as evidence of guilt in any topic or subject? To make things even worse, he then read the court's wording with his very own eyes and continued to argue that it is evidence of guilt. He did all this AFTER he read my posts explaining how lefties have nothing but allegations, DISMISSED CASES, gish gallop, and propaganda. You can't make this shit up.

They start with their conclusion, and then just grab any random shit to back it up with.


They are used to watching panels of experts on tv, who sit around and all pretend that such shit is actually valid, and then they try it too.



The difference is, that instead of playing along, we call them on their shit.


Which is why so many of them troll with the intent of getting people banned. And why they invented cancel culture. And doxing. And hate speech laws.



They are cowardly and delusional.

care to comment on post # 304 & the ongoing present day effort to roll back anti discrimination laws? will you pull out yer own spinning top to sit on regarding that little move by trumpco?

 

[Correll]

Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules
New rules may make it easier to deny loans to people of color.

The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods.
[...]
“They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments. The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.
[...]
The administration’s attempts to rewrite the enforcement of laws on housing discrimination and segregation aren’t limited to HUD. Joseph Otting, the Trump appointee who heads the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wants to change the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed to reverse decades of discriminatory government policy discouraging lending and investment in poor neighborhoods.
[...]
Housing advocates say they’re also worried about a dropoff in fair lending enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints rose 8 percent in 2018, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, to the highest level since the group started tracking the data in 1995.
[...]
“I think there’s an effort by this administration to narrow the scope and the sort of meaning of civil rights protections so there’s just a hollowed-out husk of what’s actually protected,” said Thomas Silverstein of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules

nothing to see here... just move along.

Sounds good. This is not the freaking 1950s, or th 1850s and having some asshole from the government dropping in looking to justify his existence by finding some "discrimination" is a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Correll]

"no admission of wrongdoing"

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree,

CONSENT DECREE

n. an order of a judge based upon an agreement, almost always put in writing, between the parties to a lawsuit instead of continuing the case through trial or hearing. It cannot be appealed unless it was based upon fraud by one of the parties (he lied about the situation), mutual mistake (both parties misunderstood the situation) or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the case or the parties. Obviously, such a decree is almost always final and non-appealable since the parties worked it out. A consent decree is a common practice when the government has sued to make a person or corporation comply with the law (improper securities practices, pollution, restraints of trade, conspiracy) or the defendant agrees to the consent decree (often not to repeat the offense) in return for the government not pursuing criminal penalties. In general a consent decree and a consent judgment are the same.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

So, everyone claimed victory, and spun the ending to fit their own agenda.


And this is your strongest example?


Only an asshole would smear people with such weak justification.

the only asshole that claimed 'victory' was donny & the spinning top he sat on. the case was dismissed with conditions & the 'dismissal' was part of the deal. if he didn't comply, then it would not have been dismissed & the gov'ment was ready to bring criminal charges. oooOOOooo.... you keep fergetting that cartoon boy.

Everyone mentioned in your post claimed victory. No one admitted any wrong doing. That you need to se this as "evidence" to support your side, just shows that your side needs to drop this whole line of argument.


There is no evidence that Trump is racist, and plenty that he is not.


You would do better to talk about policy.


Ok, that is a lie. We both know why you want to avoid that at all costs.

 

[Correll]

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

There is something REALLY wrong with that guy if his instinct was actually to use a dismissed case as evidence of guilt. Who in their right mind would ever consider using a dismissed case as evidence of guilt in any topic or subject? To make things even worse, he then read the court's wording with his very own eyes and continued to argue that it is evidence of guilt. He did all this AFTER he read my posts explaining how lefties have nothing but allegations, DISMISSED CASES, gish gallop, and propaganda. You can't make this shit up.

They start with their conclusion, and then just grab any random shit to back it up with.


They are used to watching panels of experts on tv, who sit around and all pretend that such shit is actually valid, and then they try it too.



The difference is, that instead of playing along, we call them on their shit.


Which is why so many of them troll with the intent of getting people banned. And why they invented cancel culture. And doxing. And hate speech laws.



They are cowardly and delusional.

care to comment on post # 304 & the ongoing present day effort to roll back anti discrimination laws? will you pull out yer own spinning top to sit on regarding that little move by trumpco?

I did, and will again. "anti-discrimination" is too often a solution that has to invent a problem to justify it's existence, and too often ends up making things worse, and just messing with people's lives.


Hell, the Housing Bubble, to a great extent, was caused by such shit. And you know it.

 

[EvMetro]

Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules
New rules may make it easier to deny loans to people of color.

The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods.
[...]
“They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments. The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.
[...]
The administration’s attempts to rewrite the enforcement of laws on housing discrimination and segregation aren’t limited to HUD. Joseph Otting, the Trump appointee who heads the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wants to change the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed to reverse decades of discriminatory government policy discouraging lending and investment in poor neighborhoods.
[...]
Housing advocates say they’re also worried about a dropoff in fair lending enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints rose 8 percent in 2018, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, to the highest level since the group started tracking the data in 1995.
[...]
“I think there’s an effort by this administration to narrow the scope and the sort of meaning of civil rights protections so there’s just a hollowed-out husk of what’s actually protected,” said Thomas Silverstein of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules

nothing to see here... just move along.

Allegations, dismissed cases, gish gallop, secondhand quotes, and propaganda. If you are attempting to submit evidence of racism with this, isolate a single item from the above list of shit that doesn't qualify as evidence, and post it. If it is something Susan Rice alleges, either don't submit it, or explain how exactly it proves that Trump thinks his race is superior. If it is a policy headed up by Ben Carson, don't hide the fact that it is a black man doing this, explain how the black man's actions prove trump thinks his race is superior. Please isolate a single item from allegations, dismissed cases, gish gallop, secondhand quotes and propaganda and post it here with an explanation of how it isn't part of this list of non evidence items.

 

[EvMetro]

"no admission of wrongdoing"

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree,

CONSENT DECREE

n. an order of a judge based upon an agreement, almost always put in writing, between the parties to a lawsuit instead of continuing the case through trial or hearing. It cannot be appealed unless it was based upon fraud by one of the parties (he lied about the situation), mutual mistake (both parties misunderstood the situation) or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the case or the parties. Obviously, such a decree is almost always final and non-appealable since the parties worked it out. A consent decree is a common practice when the government has sued to make a person or corporation comply with the law (improper securities practices, pollution, restraints of trade, conspiracy) or the defendant agrees to the consent decree (often not to repeat the offense) in return for the government not pursuing criminal penalties. In general a consent decree and a consent judgment are the same.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to a dismissed case as evidence of guilt? You simply cannot go back and overturn the court's ruling on this, any more than you can go back and make hillary the winner of the 2016 election. Dismissed cases are not evidence. The last thing you should EVER consider using as evidence is a dismissed case.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

lol... cling? uh - no. do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to the notion that a dismissed case with conditions is really an exoneration of guilt?

hell, that case was back in the 70s. donny has said & done things over the years that only demonstrates his special thoughts & feeling about them 'c's. you are such a good little cheerleader - perhaps he'll hire you next after another of his minions resigns or go to jail.

I see you cannot let go of the notion that a dismissed case somehow proves guilt. I cannot fix your understanding of how our legal system works in this country, but I can assure you that dismissed cases are absolutely NOT evidence of guilt.

If you really think it was some kind of punishment for Trump to have been required to comply with the SAME fair housing laws as everybody else, then it is you who is the bigot. Can you name a real estate company that does not include a fair housing logo in their advertisments? What is it you think Trump had to do that other real estate companies don't do?

 

[EvMetro]

The case was in fact dismissed, and all allegations predating the order. Read again, DISMISSED and ALLEGATIONS. This is not my wording, its is the court's.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

uh, ya cause they settled. they complied with the judges orders in order not to have the case continued cause they knew they were screwed if it did.

they settled & the case was dismissed. if they were innocent the judge wouldn't have had them take out ads for coloreds.

Assumptions and opinions about this are worthless. What matters is that the case was in fact dismissed by the court, and anything they had on him was in fact classified as allegations by the court.

Again, lefties have zero evidence that proves Trump is a racist. All they have are allegations, dismissed cases, secondhand quotes, gish gallop, and propaganda.

they settled & complied with the court order in order to have the case dismissed. they paid big bucks for advertising - which is akin to a fine being imposed.

You are a bigot if you think it is some kind of punishment for Trump to have to comply with the SAME fair housing laws as EVERYBODY ELSE.

Are you denying that the case was dismissed as nothing more than allegations? If so, read this wording from the court:

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

The fucking case was dismissed as allegations, and you cannot change this.

were he & daddy drumpf able to walk outa that court without conditions? or did they have to comply with the order to advertise that their rentals were available to brown people?

There was no order for Trump to advertise that his rentals were available to brown people. "Brown people" is a bigoted term used by lefties that generalizes against several races and nationalities and combines them into a single term. You don't seem to understand fair housing laws.

 

[EvMetro]

Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules
New rules may make it easier to deny loans to people of color.

The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods.
[...]
“They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments. The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.
[...]
The administration’s attempts to rewrite the enforcement of laws on housing discrimination and segregation aren’t limited to HUD. Joseph Otting, the Trump appointee who heads the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wants to change the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed to reverse decades of discriminatory government policy discouraging lending and investment in poor neighborhoods.
[...]
Housing advocates say they’re also worried about a dropoff in fair lending enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints rose 8 percent in 2018, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, to the highest level since the group started tracking the data in 1995.
[...]
“I think there’s an effort by this administration to narrow the scope and the sort of meaning of civil rights protections so there’s just a hollowed-out husk of what’s actually protected,” said Thomas Silverstein of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules

nothing to see here... just move along.

Sounds good. This is not the freaking 1950s, or th 1850s and having some asshole from the government dropping in looking to justify his existence by finding some "discrimination" is a cure worse than the disease.

I wonder why his gish gallop list avoids mentioning that it is a black man named Ben Carson who is behind much this?

 

[Correll]

Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules
New rules may make it easier to deny loans to people of color.

The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods.
[...]
“They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments. The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.
[...]
The administration’s attempts to rewrite the enforcement of laws on housing discrimination and segregation aren’t limited to HUD. Joseph Otting, the Trump appointee who heads the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wants to change the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed to reverse decades of discriminatory government policy discouraging lending and investment in poor neighborhoods.
[...]
Housing advocates say they’re also worried about a dropoff in fair lending enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints rose 8 percent in 2018, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, to the highest level since the group started tracking the data in 1995.
[...]
“I think there’s an effort by this administration to narrow the scope and the sort of meaning of civil rights protections so there’s just a hollowed-out husk of what’s actually protected,” said Thomas Silverstein of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules

nothing to see here... just move along.

Allegations, dismissed cases, gish gallop, secondhand quotes, and propaganda. If you are attempting to submit evidence of racism with this, isolate a single item from the above list of shit that doesn't qualify as evidence, and post it. If it is something Susan Rice alleges, either don't submit it, or explain how exactly it proves that Trump thinks his race is superior. If it is a policy headed up by Ben Carson, don't hide the fact that it is a black man doing this, explain how the black man's actions prove trump thinks his race is superior. Please isolate a single item from allegations, dismissed cases, gish gallop, secondhand quotes and propaganda and post it here with an explanation of how it isn't part of this list of non evidence items.

She won't. Libs can't. THey can throw shit against a wall, like a monkey. And that is as far as they can go, when it comes to debate.

 

[Correll]

Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules
New rules may make it easier to deny loans to people of color.

The Trump administration is working to roll back former President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat racial segregation — potentially making it easier for banks to deny loans to black and Hispanic people or for cities to confine poor families to minority neighborhoods.
[...]
“They’re trying to eliminate the ability to enforce fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. “They do not want to promote fair housing. They do not want to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination.”

One of President Donald Trump’s targets is the same law — the Fair Housing Act — that his family real estate company was accused of violating in the 1970s for trying to keep black people from renting Trump apartments. The Trump Organization settled the case, brought by former President Richard Nixon’s Justice Department, and Trump himself has always denied the charges of racial bias.
[...]
The administration’s attempts to rewrite the enforcement of laws on housing discrimination and segregation aren’t limited to HUD. Joseph Otting, the Trump appointee who heads the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wants to change the rules governing the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law designed to reverse decades of discriminatory government policy discouraging lending and investment in poor neighborhoods.
[...]
Housing advocates say they’re also worried about a dropoff in fair lending enforcement. Housing discrimination complaints rose 8 percent in 2018, according to the National Fair Housing Alliance, to the highest level since the group started tracking the data in 1995.
[...]
“I think there’s an effort by this administration to narrow the scope and the sort of meaning of civil rights protections so there’s just a hollowed-out husk of what’s actually protected,” said Thomas Silverstein of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Trump moves to gut Obama housing discrimination rules

nothing to see here... just move along.

Sounds good. This is not the freaking 1950s, or th 1850s and having some asshole from the government dropping in looking to justify his existence by finding some "discrimination" is a cure worse than the disease.

I wonder why his gish gallop list avoids mentioning that it is a black man named Ben Carson who is behind much this?

Because libs just say shit.

 

[IM2]

In 1975, Trump agreed to a consent decree,

CONSENT DECREE

n. an order of a judge based upon an agreement, almost always put in writing, between the parties to a lawsuit instead of continuing the case through trial or hearing. It cannot be appealed unless it was based upon fraud by one of the parties (he lied about the situation), mutual mistake (both parties misunderstood the situation) or if the court does not have jurisdiction over the case or the parties. Obviously, such a decree is almost always final and non-appealable since the parties worked it out. A consent decree is a common practice when the government has sued to make a person or corporation comply with the law (improper securities practices, pollution, restraints of trade, conspiracy) or the defendant agrees to the consent decree (often not to repeat the offense) in return for the government not pursuing criminal penalties. In general a consent decree and a consent judgment are the same.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to a dismissed case as evidence of guilt? You simply cannot go back and overturn the court's ruling on this, any more than you can go back and make hillary the winner of the 2016 election. Dismissed cases are not evidence. The last thing you should EVER consider using as evidence is a dismissed case.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

lol... cling? uh - no. do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to the notion that a dismissed case with conditions is really an exoneration of guilt?

hell, that case was back in the 70s. donny has said & done things over the years that only demonstrates his special thoughts & feeling about them 'c's. you are such a good little cheerleader - perhaps he'll hire you next after another of his minions resigns or go to jail.

I see you cannot let go of the notion that a dismissed case somehow proves guilt. I cannot fix your understanding of how our legal system works in this country, but I can assure you that dismissed cases are absolutely NOT evidence of guilt.

If you really think it was some kind of punishment for Trump to have been required to comply with the SAME fair housing laws as everybody else, then it is you who is the bigot. Can you name a real estate company that does not include a fair housing logo in their advertisments? What is it you think Trump had to do that other real estate companies don't do?

The case was not dismissed.

 

[EvMetro]

And so, there was never an official ruling, or judgement. And you have nothing but your self serving assumptions.


"no admission of wrongdoing "


And that is your best piece of evidence....


you lose.

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to a dismissed case as evidence of guilt? You simply cannot go back and overturn the court's ruling on this, any more than you can go back and make hillary the winner of the 2016 election. Dismissed cases are not evidence. The last thing you should EVER consider using as evidence is a dismissed case.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

lol... cling? uh - no. do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to the notion that a dismissed case with conditions is really an exoneration of guilt?

hell, that case was back in the 70s. donny has said & done things over the years that only demonstrates his special thoughts & feeling about them 'c's. you are such a good little cheerleader - perhaps he'll hire you next after another of his minions resigns or go to jail.

I see you cannot let go of the notion that a dismissed case somehow proves guilt. I cannot fix your understanding of how our legal system works in this country, but I can assure you that dismissed cases are absolutely NOT evidence of guilt.

If you really think it was some kind of punishment for Trump to have been required to comply with the SAME fair housing laws as everybody else, then it is you who is the bigot. Can you name a real estate company that does not include a fair housing logo in their advertisments? What is it you think Trump had to do that other real estate companies don't do?

The case was not dismissed.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

 

[playtime]

Despite Trump’s claims that he hated to settle, he and his father authorized Cohn to make a deal.

Nearly two years of fighting was about to come to an end. But a hitch delayed the signing of a consent decree.

The Justice Department wanted the Trumps to place advertising in local newspapers that assured prospective renters that they were open to people of all races.


The hitch was the cost. Donald Trump went into negotiating mode.


“This advertising, while it’s, you know — I imagine it’s necessary from the Government’s standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us,” Trump said, according to a court transcript. “It is really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed to do it.”

When government officials persisted, Trump said, “Will you pay for it?”

The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps 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.

The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.

The Justice Department claimed victory, calling 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.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to a dismissed case as evidence of guilt? You simply cannot go back and overturn the court's ruling on this, any more than you can go back and make hillary the winner of the 2016 election. Dismissed cases are not evidence. The last thing you should EVER consider using as evidence is a dismissed case.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

lol... cling? uh - no. do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to the notion that a dismissed case with conditions is really an exoneration of guilt?

hell, that case was back in the 70s. donny has said & done things over the years that only demonstrates his special thoughts & feeling about them 'c's. you are such a good little cheerleader - perhaps he'll hire you next after another of his minions resigns or go to jail.

I see you cannot let go of the notion that a dismissed case somehow proves guilt. I cannot fix your understanding of how our legal system works in this country, but I can assure you that dismissed cases are absolutely NOT evidence of guilt.

If you really think it was some kind of punishment for Trump to have been required to comply with the SAME fair housing laws as everybody else, then it is you who is the bigot. Can you name a real estate company that does not include a fair housing logo in their advertisments? What is it you think Trump had to do that other real estate companies don't do?

The case was not dismissed.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

because they accepted the condition/fine imposed & agreed to abide by the order. if they didn't comply, then would it have been 'dismissed'?

nope. nada. nyet.

 

[IM2]

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 ... 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 assessment. The New York Amsterdam News, for example, titled its article “Minorities win housing suit,” and 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.”

https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15342

 

[EvMetro]

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to a dismissed case as evidence of guilt? You simply cannot go back and overturn the court's ruling on this, any more than you can go back and make hillary the winner of the 2016 election. Dismissed cases are not evidence. The last thing you should EVER consider using as evidence is a dismissed case.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

lol... cling? uh - no. do you realize how ridiculous it is to cling to the notion that a dismissed case with conditions is really an exoneration of guilt?

hell, that case was back in the 70s. donny has said & done things over the years that only demonstrates his special thoughts & feeling about them 'c's. you are such a good little cheerleader - perhaps he'll hire you next after another of his minions resigns or go to jail.

I see you cannot let go of the notion that a dismissed case somehow proves guilt. I cannot fix your understanding of how our legal system works in this country, but I can assure you that dismissed cases are absolutely NOT evidence of guilt.

If you really think it was some kind of punishment for Trump to have been required to comply with the SAME fair housing laws as everybody else, then it is you who is the bigot. Can you name a real estate company that does not include a fair housing logo in their advertisments? What is it you think Trump had to do that other real estate companies don't do?

The case was not dismissed.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."

because they accepted the condition/fine imposed & agreed to abide by the order. if they didn't comply, then would it have been 'dismissed'?

nope. nada. nyet.

Stop lying about the fine, unless you can post how much it was.

"It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order."