Posted on 01/22/2016 8:53:49 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
...
The ad goes on to say that Trump bulldozed the home of an elderly widow in Atlantic City to build a limousine parking lot at his casino.
"Trump won't change the system. He's what's wrong with it," it says in the end.
Cruz tweeted his ad Friday morning saying "It's time we change the system and break the #WashingtonCartel -- together!"
...
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
He certainly tried. Thank goodness Ms. Coking was able to find pro bono lawyers to fight Trump in court for years.
Yup. And crony capitalists who try to use brute force (government) to force those idiots out of their homes are still crony capitalists. Even if their intended victims are idiots.
Enough of the acrimony, can’t we all just get along and vote Democrat?
/MSM Provocation
It's a "public" government agency that was executing eminent domain. And even though the attemps on Trumps development projects failed, didn't SCOTUS recently back such attempts.
Trump did not seize the property. The widow sued and won. Then she later sold the property for about half what Trump offered her. This ad is not very truthful.
Your way works for you.
Sure doesn't sound like the Donald Trump I see on TV!
The new owner, one of Trump’s business partners.
But they never say that Trump didn’t succeed in the ad. Half truths can be just as dishonest as complete lies.
The ad is carefully crafted, with the image of the bulldozer, to leave the low information viewer with the impression that the property WAS bulldozed by Trump.
“I’m Ted Cruz, and I approve this ad”
That says a lot about Cruz.
He never said he bulldozed it, he said Trump colluded to have it bulldozed for his limo parking lot. 100% true.
Yes, that "public" government agency tried to execute eminent domain in order to transfer the property into Trump's "private" hands. The Constitution doesn't say "by a public agency," it says "for public use."
And even though the attemps on Trumps development projects failed, didn't SCOTUS recently back such attempts.
Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain for private development projects in Kelo v. New London, back in 2004. The decision has been universally criticized by conservatives and anyone else who believes in private property rights (while at the same time being praised by Trump). Are you saying you agree with Kelo?
“But they never say that Trump didn’t succeed in the ad.”
That’s not a lie, though.
The main issue is that Trump has no problem with using the brute force of government to take from private citizens for his own benefit, because he’s a crony capitalist. That he didn’t succeed, in this instance, isn’t really relevant to the message.
That ad would be much better if they showed Trump running over the poor widow with a bulldozer. Or maybe put her in a wheelchair and push her off the roof of the casino.
Oh, so does that erase the fact that Trump is a crony capitalist who tried to use the force of government to take property from private citizens and REDISTRIBUTE it to his businesses, to enrich himself?
No, it does not.
Exactly! Why did she have to go to court against Trump, and, more importantly, what would have happened if she hadn't caught the attention of the extremely talented pro bono lawyers from the Institute for Justice?
So one should never hear the whole story just the part of the statement one prefers. So,you believe Obama when he starts out, “I don’t want to take away your guns”. Guess that is all you need to know.
“Lies do not enhance your reputation. She was offered 400% of market value.”
Before she won her appeal, the government was only going to give her 250k compensation, before handing it over to Trump.
I really hope nobody on this board is stupid enough to think that a house in downtown Atlantic City, in the heart of the casino district is worth 25% of 250k on the market.
The ad says Trump colluded with others to use eminent domain to bulldoze the lady’s house to make room for a parking lot for his Casino.
In fact Trump did try to use eminent domain so that he could bulldoze the lady’s house for his parking lot.
The fact that the lady challenged Trump in court and won is a good thing but not relevant. What is relevant is that Trump believes in using eminent domain to sieze private property for his own private business interests.
Trump tries to equate his Casino parking lot with interstate highways and railroads. That is what is really dishonest in all this.
What her motivations were is irrelevant. It was her property, to dispose of as she saw fit. Or do you not believe in the sanctity of private property rights?
We have a name for people who dismiss the sanctity of private property rights, you know?
I’m saying that even though the local governments lost in Trumps two cases, that the Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain for that purpose.
So what the governments were doing on behalf of Trump may have failed at the time, but were deemed legal by SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.