His track record is shocking. This is a 14 minute YouTube video, amazing stuff
https://youtu.be/jPUFwmZN9eo
https://youtu.be/jPUFwmZN9eo
Last edited by a moderator:
Truth hurts....Go away.
Are you alt-right? Want to know why you would support a guy who has a track record like that when it comes to basic civil rights.Go away.
...a very long and substantial track record...Are you alt-right? Want to know why you would support a guy who has a track record like that when it comes to basic civil rights.
Both are better than the alternative.If Biden goes away it will be Harris, is she better?
Thought it would be a blowout but this one is going down to the wire.Both are better than the alternative.
I've always predicted a blowoutThought it would be a blowout but this one is going down to the wire.
Is there context for that very first excerpt of him using the N-word? Like was he quoting someone or something?His track record is shocking. This is a 14 minute YouTube video, amazing stuff
https://youtu.be/jPUFwmZN9eo
https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9146840045Is there context for that very first excerpt of him using the N-word? Like was he quoting someone or something?
So basically a new poster started an inflammatory thread about a candidate using false accusations right off the bat.
Wow, the crime bill stuff from the 7:48 mark is pretty devastating, especially in the current environment.His track record is shocking. This is a 14 minute YouTube video, amazing stuff
https://youtu.be/jPUFwmZN9eo
I was pretty shocked by that opening sequence, which led me to inquire as to whether there was context I was missing.False accusations?
Imagine being so desperate to find reasons to support the guy that you are making excuses for a guy who tried to enforce segregation laws.
It was dumb to include that and takes away from the rest of it.I was pretty shocked by that opening sequence, which led me to inquire as to whether there was context I was missing.
Eh, still weird for a white man to drop the hard r like that.It was dumb to include that and takes away from the rest of it.
That doesnt count. They were having a debate.Widbil83 said:Kamala Harris tried to warn us about Biden last year.
Curious, can you provide examples of Trumps racism that dont require you to resort to mental gymnastics and long leaps of faith? Name a few please.Like most people his age, Biden is probably a little racist.
Given a choice between Biden (slightly racist) versus Trump (very overtly racist), this is a pretty easy decision.
Must have been that "Muslim Ban".Curious, can you provide examples of Trumps racism that dont require you to resort to mental gymnastics and long leaps of faith? Name a few please.
Biden was advocating policy that enforced segregation. And thats just the tip of the iceberg.
Just asking questions bro.I was once opposed to shutting this forum down because I did not want the trolls to win.
Spellcheck - check.See what you want to do now that those uncomfortable questions are being asked and you cant virtue signal with impunity is report this to the moderators and pray that one of the more left leaning mods takes action to silence any and all wrong think that upsets your feelings.
You're spelling is impeccable. Seriously. It's weird that you did not come to your own defense.
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-caseYeah, the audacity to try and limit travel from a part of the world that was a breeding ground for terrorism. I wonder how ISIS is doing these days we dont really hear much about them its almost like they were kind of dealt with.
I look forward though to genuine examples of Trumps racism.
The proposed ban included Americans who happened to be Muslim.Yeah, the audacity to try and limit travel from a part of the world that was a breeding ground for terrorism.
People who bring this up, always seem to fail to mention that this suit was dismissed with prejudice that is, dismissed permanently.
...if they were traveling from a country that breeds terrorists.The proposed ban included Americans who happened to be Muslim.
It was dismissed because of settlement by the Trump Org agreeing to make remediation. Trump's suit against the FHA - because he did sue them, was always frivolous - was dropped as part of the overall agreement. As typically happened Trump Org accepted no responsibility - much like his administration - but took all sorts of remedial steps by court order signifying racial practices that had to be remedied.People who bring this up, always seem to fail to mention that this suit was dismissed with prejudice that is, dismissed permanently.
Wrong again.It was dismissed because of settlement by the Trump Org agreeing to make remediation. Trump's suit against the FHA - because he did sue them, was always frivolous - was dropped as part of the overall agreement. As typically happened Trump Org accepted no responsibility - much like his administration - but took all sorts of remedial steps by court order signifying racial practices that had to be remedied.
The suit was dismissed as part of an agreed upon settlement in which the Trump organization was required to take remedial action.People who bring this up, always seem to fail to mention that this suit was dismissed with prejudice that is, dismissed permanently.
A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court.
All cases that are resolved as part of a settlement are dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise, they wouldn't be settled. As part of the settlement, the Trump organization did not admit guilt - again, this is very typical of settlement arrangements, but they did agree to take remedial action as part of the settlement. In other words, the resolution of the suit against the Trump organization is not in any way a vindication that they did nothing wrong (to the contrary). It is the evidence that led to the enforcement action in the first place that is evidence of their discriminatory practices. If you want to ignore or dismiss that evidence, fine, but that is precisely what you were asking for, which is why I cited it.Wrong again.
The Trumps admitted no wrong doing and promised to obey the laws in place.....FAR way from any admission of, or proof of guilt.
The suit was dismissed with prejudice.
The first of many baseless accusations that would follow...magically AFTER Mr. Trump announced his candidacy for POTUS.
Wrong again. The Trumps admitted no wrong doing and promised to obey the laws in place.....FAR way from any admission of, or proof of guilt. The suit was dismissed with prejudice. ...
Trump was enjoined from doing all of the above - that means he had to stop doing these things.It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, are hereby permanently enjoined from:
1. Refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise making unavailable or denying any dwelling to any person on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 2. Discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 3. Making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, or an intention to make such preference, limitation or discrimination. 4. Representing to any person because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. 5. Influencing the residential choice of any person on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 6. Coercing, threatening, or interfering with, or attempting to coerce, threaten or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunity protected by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, or in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to assist others to secure equal housing opportunity. 7. Engaging in any act or practice which has the purpose or the effect of denying or abridging the right to equal housing opportunity protected by the Fair Housing Act. In this connection, defendants shall not, in determining the income qualification for rental of any person, family, or other group of persons, fail or refuse to fully count a woman's total income, including salary, wages, alimony, support payments or other income from whatever source received.
They were also required to personally inform themselves of the requirements of applicable Fair Housing laws, communicate those requirements to all of their staff through implementation of an education and training program, implement an affirmative compliance program to ensure compliance with Fair Housing laws, undertake a public advertising campaign designed to inform minorities of the new compliance program, and comply with a detailed reporting procedure (among other things).Trump was enjoined from doing all of the above - that means he had to stop doing these things.
Anybody...and I mean anybody can file a lawsuit.All cases that are resolved as part of a settlement are dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise, they wouldn't be settled. As part of the settlement, the Trump organization did not admit guilt - again, this is very typical of settlement arrangements, but they did agree to take remedial action as part of the settlement. In other words, the resolution of the suit against the Trump organization is not in any way a vindication that they did nothing wrong (to the contrary). It is the evidence that led to the enforcement action in the first place that is evidence of their discriminatory practices. If you want to ignore or dismiss that evidence, fine, but that is precisely what you were asking for, which is why I cited it.
The feigned outrage over racism is pretty hilarious.Another day closer to the election. Another day of straw grasping in desperation. It's all they have...doctored videos decades old. It's comical. Wait 'till tomorrow. The countdown intensifies each day.
Lawsuits are ALWAYS dismissed with prejudice when there is a settlement. Because if you could get sued again for the same conduct, you wouldn’t settle. And an agreed injunction is an actual remedy against you. Also, they didn’t just agree to follow the law. They had to take all sorts of remedial actions - implement training and education programs, personally familiarize themselves with the Fair Housing requirements, implement affirmative compliance programs, take out advertising targeted at minority populations, including dedicating a percentage of their advertising budget to placing housing ads in publications with minority readership, report quarterly on their housing statistics and minority applicants, and on and on. As part of the settlement, they were required to expend both time and money to implement a wide range of remedial measures designed to eradicate discriminatory housing practices. You are free to disregard all of this for sure (as I would certainly expect you to), but it is objectively responsive to your request.Anybody...and I mean anybody can file a lawsuit.
Nothing else is needed....except, maybe greed.
The proof comes in the outcome.
This particular one was dismissed with prejudice
."A case will be dismissed with prejudice if there is reason for the case not to be brought back to court; for example, if the judge deems the lawsuit frivolous or the the matter under consideration is resolved outside of court."
The Trumps merely claimed that they would follow the law....as they always had.
No racism proven....only alleged....must as it has been since he announced his candidacy.
Seriously...if this is the best example that you've got of President Trump's supposed, racism....
.