Well that’s an old tire to gnaw on...this was discussed and debated right at the first of Trumps campaign...he paid the lady for her home and she bought another one and had money left over...
Lies, Lies, Lies, that’s all the media and journalists and talk show hosts know what to do is LIE!!!
“he paid the lady for her home...”
Only after he lost his bid to get the government to forcibly take the home from her!
“Well that’s an old tire to gnaw on...this was discussed and debated right at the first of Trumps campaign...he paid the lady for her home and she bought another one and had money left over...”
As I understand it that’s what happened at the end of a long running attempt to acquire her property. He first attempted eminent domain and was unsuccessful. He then encouraged the city to condemn her property. She went to court and won. So the final result was Trump meeting her price to acquire the property.
He also defended Kelso, the eminent domain taking of a bunch of homes in CT afterwhich the developer didn’t follow through leaving a bunch of bulldozed, grass covered lots.
IIRC from someone who posted a more complete version of the widows story and it went something like this:
Trump tried to get the property through emminant domain and lost.
He then offered he multiple mullions ($4m?) for the property, she refused.
Trump moved on.
Decades later she, or her son, sold the property for somewhere between $1m and $2m.
OK, my IIRC is obviously incorrect.
See post #51 for the story, biased as it is, it’s more accurate than mine.
I’ve been a Trump supporter since 2011, and I have no ‘second pick’ in the race.
This issue is one that I disagree with Trump on, and I’m glad the widow was able to stick it out. Good for her.
That is not accurate in the least. She defeated Trump in court and continued to live there until she had to move into a retirement community. Here is the story on the outrageous behavior of Trump in this situation. In addition, Trump is an outspoken supporter of the outrageous Kelo v. New London Connecticut Supreme Court decision and eminent domain abuse - a long time, consistent supporter. It's not "lies, lies, lies" - it is absolutely accurate. Stop defending the indefensible and coming up with "facts" as a defense that have no basis in reality "he paid the lady for her home and she bought another one and had money left over" - completely, totally wrong.