Thank you all for your responses here. I am currently out of town, with a full plate, but will answer many of your comments here when I return next week.
I just want to make a few brief observations regarding the character of Donald Trump, simply because it amazes me that so many friends and acquaintances who I know to be deeply moral and religious people are overlooking, to me, what I believe are frightening red flags, and telling insights into the man’s heart.
I believe there are many other red flags in this man’s policy/beliefs history (and I will gladly debate them with anyone who has an interest in doing that, once I return home), but for now let’s just look at three examples of character-related ones:
(1) We all know that, in 1993, Trump attempted to abuse the Founders’ Constitutional intent regarding the use of eminent domain, when he tried to use that legal concept to force an elderly woman out of her home in order to construct a limousine waiting area outside one of his casinos. The end of their protracted legal battle resulted in Vera Coking being allowed to remain in her home — which she continued to do for seventeen more years, until health problems forced her to move to a retirement home nearer to her children and grandchildren.
During the legal battle between Trump and Coking, Trump accused her of being a money hungry, anti-progress person (and worse) and stated that, because her home was preserved, people would be forced to ‘stare at a terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.’
Even today, more than twenty years later, Trump insists that he had every right to attempt to force her out of her home, simply because he offered her more than it was worth (which is still a matter of contention among people who are familiar with the legal battle).
Let’s look at just that aspect of the man’s character:
What does it tell us when a man believes that the only value of a home rests in its monetary value? Vera Coking had lived in her home for thirty years. She had raised her children there before the passing of her husband and she intended to live there for the rest of her life, God willing. Yet a perfect stranger feels (even today) that he has the power to simply declare that the intrinsic memory-rich, nostalgic value that house held for her has no real meaning. The almighty dollar invariably trumps the individual’s right to define what is deeply important, and precious, to him or her.
Trump’s statement ‘They’re staring at a terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good,’ is the utterance of a dictator. What leader of a free society believes he has the power, and the right, to call another person’s house ‘terrible’ simply because it isn’t being used to turn a large profit, and to declare that ‘beautiful fountains’ are ‘good’? The man believes that he, not an average American citizen, has the ability ... even the right ... to define what is terrible and what is good, even when the object of the discussion is something about which he has no knowledge or acquaintance, and something about which that average citizen knows every corner and included, and personally indelible, memory.
This, by the way, was Vera’s ‘terrible’ house:
(2) Mr. Trump has recently discovered that Marlene Ricketts, part owner of the Chicago Cubs, has donated three million dollars to a super PAC that is running ads against his candidacy. Ms. Ricketts’ donations have been completely above board and were properly reported in public documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Donald Trump’s response upon hearing about the donations? He went on Twitter and accused Marlene Ricketts of ‘secretly’ spending money against him, and tweeted, ‘I hear the Rickets family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $’s against me. They better be careful, they have a lot to hide!’
Keep in mind, this is a man who is seeking the presidency of the United States, and the leadership of the free world, attacking an American citizen for doing nothing more than exercising her right to spend her money as she sees fit. And then he publicly threatened to expose supposed skeletons in her family’s closet as a result of her exercise of that right.
That, in plain English, is called extortion.
(3) The story of Trump University paints a grotesque picture of a heartless man, who has absolutely no compassion for the innocent everyday Americans whom he bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars of their hard-earned money.
Trump claimed, over and over, to be completely involved with the university, having hand-picked the ‘professors’, and having kept a close watch over the formulation/content of the curriculum, and yet most of his ‘professors’ turned out to be people he had never met, and, worse than that, they were simply sales associates, with absolutely no educational background at all. Two of these ‘professorial experts’ even filed for personal bankruptcy during the time they were teaching at this so-called ‘university’, and few of them were even in the midst of their own business bankruptcy proceedings when they were hired to teach classes on how to get rich in real estate.
As if the empty promises weren’t bad enough, and as if bilking hundreds of ordinary Americans (many of whom are plaintiffs in the suits filed against the university) out of tens of thousands of dollars each weren’t enough, Trump, to this day, claims that this entire endeavor was nothing more than an altruistic, charitable venture, and that all of his profits would go to charity ... yet Trump himself pocketed $5 million of the $40 million poured into the organization by unsuspecting ‘average Americans’, enriching his own personal many-billion-dollar coffers at the expense of the ‘little people’ whose votes he is courting by means of his faux compassion for the American middle class.
The ‘university’ also used constant bait-and-switch tactics, conning their ‘students’ to invest in more and more expensive ‘classes’, and instructing them to arrange with their banks to dramatically increase the credit limits on their credit cards so as to be able to afford the (useless) ‘classes’.
When accompanied by nothing more meaningful than grandiose words, a man’s character comes into serious question and his promises, such as his phony, non-existent hands-on connection to his university, appear meaningless. Donald Trumps candidacy consists in large part of nothing more than grandiose promises ... and angry tirades, or worse, aimed at those who dare question the sincerity, viability or depth of those promises.
Just ask the Vera Coking, the Ricketts Family, and the ‘students’ of Trump University. They’ll tell you an earful.
I’m afraid they’re not listening Joanie.
The Pied Piper is playing their tune.
We have a chance now to take back our government
and instill the safeguards our founders left us
by putting in place a conservative, one who is
steeped and guided by our Constitution.
We can only pray that that person is our nominee.
Oh, I can vote for Trump if the choice is him
or Clinton but I am afraid these many people who
believe Trump is the answer to all the problems
that plague us will find out once he’s in office
that they have been mistaken.
I am well, more or less, as a 70 year old can be
don’t know if I still have your current address
so if you would send it to me by Freemail I would
be obliged.
Our Ga. Primary is coming soon and I will vote for
the man of my choice but if he doesn’t end up the
candidate I will support whoever it is because the
alternative is not in the interests of the country.
God bless and hope you and yours are ok.
tet68.
According to him, Trump is the most Christian man you will ever find.
How could he possibly be guilty of any of your allegations?
< /s >
Hi Joanie! You offer three observations about Donald Trump that purport to show him as a truly wicked man, a man of execrable character so evil he cannot be trusted in the Oval Office: His views on (1) the usage of eminent domain; (2) his reservations about anonymous campaign contributions; and (3) the brou-ha-ha over “Trump University.”
I’ll leave aside gratuitous remarks regarding the seemingly privileged view you have of the state of Donald Trump’s heart and soul, other than to say that certainly, I cannot claim to have any such privileged insights myself.
Let’s start with eminent domain, going back to square one, to Article V of the Bill of Rights:
...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Note two things: (1) “public use” is not defined in Article V; (2) “just compensation” historically has been construed by American courts as “fair market value.”
In the article on eminent domain that appears in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States [Oxford University Press, 1992], William B. Stoebuck, Professor of Law, University of Washington, wrote:
Eminent Domain is the power of government to compel owners of real or personal property to transfer it, or some interest in it, to the government. Eminent domain has long been regarded as an inherent power of both the federal and state governments. State governments have delegated this power to their subdivisions, such as cities and counties. The federal and state governments have also to some extent delegated the power to private corporations that perform quasi-public functions, such as railroads and public utility companies....In light of this background, some takeaways from the 1998 eminent domain case involving Donald Trump and the poor widow — Vera Coking of Atlantic City — he was allegedly abusing to enrich himself personally:
Eminent domain compels owners to sell to the government for public purposes. But under the Constitution [unlike British law at the time of the Founding] an owner will receive the fair market value of the property. Thus, a compromise is struck whereby needed public projects may be carried out, but owners are made whole. [Italics added for emphasis]
Trump, as a private citizen, had no standing to bring an eminent domain action. It was brought by a local municipality with an interest in urban renewal, evidently deemed by the local authorities as a “public purpose.” As far as I know, this belief on their part was legit; there is no suggestion that bribery or corruption was involved. The locals sought a developer, who was a private person: The Donald, a man with an excellent reputation as a developer, who was contracted to build a casino on a property that entailed the widow’s long-time residence.
Now I’m not a big fan of casinos; but they are legal, and they create jobs, leading to renewed economic vitality. It was the local authority, not The Donald, which brought the eminent domain action. I understand the latter offered to pay the compensation to the widow, and that his offer was for more than FMV, just to make the deal more appealing to her. But she declined, preferring to stay in her home; and brought suit in court challenging the characterization of “public purpose.” After a long court battle, Mrs. Coking won in court. Atlantic City backed off. She retained her home and lived there until declining health caused her to move to an assisted living community. The Donald developed the casino property AROUND her. This was back in 1998. Eventually, the property was sold in a private market transaction. I don’t know what happened to it after that.
MEANWHILE, Ted Cruz is running TV ads claiming that Donald Trump colluded with Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of a helpless elderly widow, for a casino parking lot. This greedy ogre just wanted to toss granny over the cliff, just to make even more filthy lucre! TALK ABOUT DISHONESTY!!! TALK ABOUT “BAD CHARACTER!”
I’m running on long, so will be brief about your other two points, Joanie. As far as I’m concerned, the Achilles Heel of the Citizens United decision is the ability for persons to make unlimited political donations IN COMPLETE ANONYMITY. Geez, what could go wrong with that???
Lastly, had The Donald not named his real-estate-developer training school a “ university,” NOBODY would have cared; no bureaucrat would have objected. It would have been a total non-story.
Jeepers. There seems to be some kind of anti-Trump PSYCHOSIS going around in certain parts. And it appears to be catching....