3 more cops assassinated, Obama says we eed to focus on words that unite

[buckman]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1105091

I will admit, since my party shot ourselves in the foot with our nominee, it would be tempting to wish that the party heads would step in and override the folks and pick someone with a better chance of winning. But the man won fair and square. Somehow.[/QUOTE]

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed, but you have to win, before you can change anything. And it's harder to win, when your candidate is such a jerk, that he makes fun of John McCain's incarceration or Carly Fiorina's appearance, and he doesn't apologize until one of his handlers tells him to.

We are broken, and we need some fixin'.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Agreed, but you have to win, before you can change anything. And it's harder to win, when your candidate is such a jerk, that he makes fun of John McCain's incarceration or Carly Fiorina's appearance, and he doesn't apologize until one of his handlers tells him to.

Apparently, making fun of McCain made it easier for Trump to win. Maybe that's why he did it. To win. And then be able to change anything.

Nicey-nice McCain (except when he disparaged or "eviscerated", as you like to put it, anyone who disagreed with him) apparently didn't know how to win the Presidency. His machine makes it possible to get re-elected over and over in Arizona, but he maxes out at that point.

Maybe Trump understands the gutters that must be waded through in order to cross over into "winning" the Presidency.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently, making fun of McCain made it easier for Trump to win. Maybe that's why he did it. To win. And then be able to change anything.

Nicey-nice McCain (except when he disparaged or "eviscerated", as you like to put it, anyone who disagreed with him) apparently didn't know how to win the Presidency. His machine makes it possible to get re-elected over and over in Arizona, but he maxes out at that point.

Maybe Trump understands the gutters that must be waded through in order to cross over into "winning" the Presidency.

Trump's antics allowed him to distinguish himself from the other 85 Republicans running, that's for sure. And in this brain-dead culture, that kind of bombastic behavior will win you some fans who will ignore a more mild mannered candidate. We'll see what effect it has in the general. Unchartered waters here. I don't remember a race where I found both candidates to be morally gross.

Who did McCain ever eviscerate?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

The trouble is the party would've never put in somebody that would bring change to the system. A totally corrupt system that is run by both the GOP and the Democrats .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you pls. post that link I asked about earlier.

Thanks

[buckman]

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

[PaulS]

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.”

[The Dad Fisherman]

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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?

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

[ecduzitgood]

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

[Jim in CT]

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...

[PaulS]

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?

[Jim in CT]

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...