Reuters Rolling average: 01/21/16
Posted on 01/24/2016 12:44:34 PM PST by dynoman
"The ad is very misleading. In fact, it outright lies about a widow's home being bulldozed," Pierson tells Breitbart News in an exclusive interview. "When you look at the facts, there is a process in place for eminent domain which was followed in this instance. Ms. Coking ended up keeping her property for years, because Mr. Trump didn't purchase it, and it ended up saving him a fortune," Pierson adds. In 2014, 16 years after the court battle ended and several years after Coking moved to California, her grandson sold the house at auction for $530,000, far less than Trump was willing to pay her in the 1990s. In 2014, 16 years after the court battle ended and several years after Coking moved to California, her grandson sold the house at auction for $530,000, far less than Trump was willing to pay her in the 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
good grief
I read this several months back when one or two Cruz fans were pushing the lie. I just told a freeper an Internet search would reveal the truth easily. I recall finding the details was easy. Thank you for posting the truth so anyone who wants to know the truth can read it. Sadly, I think some do not want to know the truth. If a man will lie to become the Pres-what will he do when he is Pres? I do not want another liar in the White House.
So, if someone is trying to set fire to a building and someone comes along and throws water on it before it can catch the building on fire, the arsonist is not guilty of what he was trying to do? That’s essentially the defense you are offering for Trump in this instance. This is what happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ&list=PLJcbhHQDR9da0H3-Qs-7WEEj6tam9vlh3&index=4
Totally correct.
A blast from the past:
A Superior Court judge in Atlantic City ruled today that New Jersey was not allowed to seize three small properties that stand in the way of an expansion of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. The decision ended a five-year condemnation dispute that had raised the fundamental question of whether the government could condemn land on behalf of someone else.
Mr. Trump also appeared on ‘’20/ 20’’ last month to discuss the case. ‘’In life you have a thing called condemnation,’’ he said on the show. ‘’And cities have the right to condemn for the good of a city — whether it’s New York, whether it’s Los Angeles, whether it’s any other place. Atlantic City is one of those cities, and it’s got the right to condemn.’’ He added that he thought Mrs. Coking’s house was ugly.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/21/nyregion/widowed-homeowner-foils-trump-in-atlantic-city.html
Total JERK. Never EVER will I vote for this fraud who passes himself off as a Republican.
So Carl Icahn is another one that OWNS Donald Trump.
What ad is a lie. The tweet is clearly wrong. Provide a link to the ad.
Great post! If Coking’s neighbors received couple of $million each why Coking would not be offered similar price? Cruz supporters are grabbing any little stick floating nearby, since the flood is deep.
Don’t tell that to the folks who think this is a “great ad” - Trump got in the bulldozer himself and ran over the woman while he bulldozed it.
Yes that is true but he damn sure did not flatten the house. When are you Cruz fans going to admit a lie.
You do realize that what was just posted that you are praising is indeed the truth, and proves your defense of Trump to be false? It is completely consistent with the video report I linked to you on.
“His ‘plans changed’ by order of a judge.”
That funny shit there.
I honestly don’t know what Trump and his merry band of brain dead idiots think he’s going to get out of this. I hope they keep trying to explain why Ted is wrong here. I’m sure Ted does too.
Reuters Rolling average: 01/21/16
You may have misdirected that reply to me — Pointing out that the Cruz tweet used the word “bulldozed” is hardly a defense of him.
Trump the NewYawk Values Man. Endorsed by the Liberal Politicians from New York and up and down the East Coast.
Hold on to your values Conservatives because if Trump gets in we will have a CIC (Compromiser in Chief) making deals with the new Uniparty.
Commercial says “colluded with Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow for a limousine parking lot at his casino”
Why would you post this kind of thing?
Where are the stories of friends and family he has shortchanged?
He has great kids campaigning for him. All of his wives current and past speak well of him. His business associate and those that work for him say he’s a hard negotiator but sticks to his word and is scrupulously honest. He took a skating rink project in NYC over because it was not getting done and over budget, turned it to the city and didn’t take a cent for it.
Don Trump has been remarkably consistent for a man who has so much of a trail on the internet. We have his statements from 1990- present to look at and they are internally consistent. No other candidate can say the same.
At this site there is access to the words of all the candidates on a wide range of issues. The link will take you to one for starters.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Government_Reform.htm
Not voting if you don’t get your way has been popular here for some while Obama has all but destroyed America.
Around the time Trump fans admit he's a boorish slimebag for making fun of a handicapped reporter. Or cutting off Trump family insurance coverage for his great-nephew, who had cerebral palsy. Or making a time-of-the-month joke about Fox airhead Megyn Kelly.
Please advise where I defended Cruz.
Actually his ad is accurate, but his tweet about it is indeed false - and the explanation offered by Trump in this article is just as false as to the circumstances as to how he didn’t end up getting the house - that he just decided not to purchase the house - that is not true either. Had he not been halted by a judge he would have indeed flattened the house. This is like saying if an arsonist is trying to burn down a house but someone steps in and throws water on before they have a chance to, the arsonist is not guilty and has no moral culpability.
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.