Posted on 01/09/2016 5:24:06 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Seriously?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Try doing a little research on your own and stop believing everything you read from other idiots.
So the article discusses Trump's dominance in the national polls and his first-place position in most early states, and you conclude totalitarianism?
Are there a few steps in your thought process that are missing?
Steyn’s essay on Trump’s Vermont rally was comedic gold. He seems to like Trump, if not more than his children do.
It’s not a matter of whether Donald Trump can win. It’s a matter of having a Democrat be the GOP candidate in November.
Go Trump! You can win!
Trump supported the Kelo decision 100%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking
No, he did not take Vera Coking’s property.
Trump never owned her property.
Just keep telling yourself that when Trump wins Iowa Feb 1 and N.H. 8 days later.
Whatever...a Trump win will see the expansion of government, crony capitalism, gun control and amnesty but since you obviously support Trump, such tyranny is just fine with you.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I was wrong about Trump acquiring Coke’s home. In your link it stated the city condemned the house and attempted to take it using eminent domain. Even though the city eventually lost, Trump has stated that he supports such abuse of eminent domain.
Did you know that Vera asked as much as 5 million for her property?? Did you know after she moved she and her son eventually sold it for 530K? She was willing to sell just like Trump said, the problem was she was greedy and “impossible to work with”.
But the main point is it is a lie to say Trump steals property though eminent domain, Trump has never acquired property though eminent domain. If he has an example would be easy to find.
This is what you said;
53 of 56
Ajnin to dynoman
He took Vera Coking’s property in 1994.
That it is NOT true. It is a lie. Trump never took ownership of Vera’s property. If he had ever done it would be easy to find an example. It won’t matter how many red herrings you throw out or goal posts you move - nothing will change the fact Trump never “took Vera Coking’s property in 1994”. Find an example or be quiet.
Now Vera Coking; obviously I’ve read more about her than you have. She was willing to sell just like Trump said, the problem was she was greedy and “impossible to work with”. That point is proven because she actually had the property listed for sale at various prices up to 5 million. Trump reportedly offered her at least one million and a lifetime stay at one of his properties in Florida. After she moved out of the property her son finally sold it at auction for a 530K, which shows the property’s true market value.
I don’t like to see self-professed conservatives play fast and loose with “facts” like you have on this thread. Accuracy matters, so be accurate, learn to do objective root cause analysis so conclusions formed are accurate, objective, and coherent.
In the light of the way you have lied on this thread why should I or anyone else believe any thing you say?
Ajnin.
You really should stop repeating lies, and forming conclusions on them. How can conclusions and opinions based on lies ever be factually accurate? That’s like expecting a rotten apple to somehow become good. An opinion or conclusion is only as accurate as the database used. Use rot and the opinion/conclusion will be rotten.
Sigh
That event does not show a disrespect for eminent domain. His company used THE LAW as it is WRITTEN. If you disagree with that you have problems with the State of New Jersey.
What the incident shows is that Vera was a fool and that Trump’s company use the full extent of the law to achieve its goals.
I little story, a true one. In 1997 we purchased a flat in Causeway Bay on Hong Kong Island. It was two bedrooms with a maid’s room and totaled about 725 actual square feet. We lived there nearly ten years before Li Kai-Shing’s Cheng Tong started buying out the building to redevelop the lot. They ended up paying us about 6 or 7 times the value of the old flat. Our legal advice in the process advised us to say : 1. Our children grew up here (Partially True) 2.It is Close to our work (True) 3. We like this neighborhood. (Sort of true) 4. It isn’t about the money ( a Bare faced lie)
9999 out of 10000 when someone says “I don’t want to move move it isn’t about the money!” they are lying.
This is a strawman of your own invention that I am not obliged to defend. Here is the original claim made by Ajnin:
"that is why he has no problem abusing eminent domain."
Based on Trump's own statements, his 100% support of Kelo, and his actions with the Coking property, a rational person can only conclude that Donald Trump has no problem abusing eminent domain.
Personally, I believe the Kelo decision is one of the worst decisions handed down by SCOTUS. I remember how negatively people here at FreeRepublic reacted to that decision. Yet now we have people here pretending to be conservatives while at the same time supporting a candidate who 100% agrees with Kelo.
Oh, and for the record, slamming Vera Coking as being "greedy" is the same tactic that liberals use. It has no bearing on her property rights.
“Here is the original claim made by Ajnin:
“that is why he has no problem abusing eminent domain.”
Yes that was the original, it clearly implies Trump physically acquired property through eminent domain. So I asked for an example and this was the answer;
“1/9/2016 9:25:27 PM 53 of 79
Ajnin to dynoman
He took Vera Coking’s property in 1994.”
That is NOT true. My conversation was with Ajnin,. You did not tell that lie, Ajnin did. Obviously “But the main point is it is a lie to say Trump steals property though eminent domain” was about Ajnin not you. There is no strawman.
It looks like Ajnin finally got the point.
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.