Replies

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.

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....

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]

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:

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....

At the end of the day I vote against democrats, communists and socialists. IMHO electing Trump as POTUS is like giving the keys to a new bugattii veyron to a drunk 16 year old teenager....... Promises, no political voting record or printable past support on conservative issues, personal attacks that drive by presstitutes and polidiots drive in the glassy eyed virtual reality voters minds 24/7 be they true or not.

I hear all his talking points and trigger words that say what any new car buyer wants to hear, what any disease ridden human wants to hear from a snake oil peddler because their need to be cured of the woes and wants they have exceed clear thought at times.

I’m searching and reading every pro Trump piece I can find an will gladly vote on his past conservative record if I could find it.... I’m really trying to believe the old school freepers here as the recent / new ones seem to be in the “vote Trump or you suck” sort of solution ...versus a simple education I seek on WHAT makes Trump the answer to that which has contaminated our beloved republic.

Stay Safe !

Betty, I will keep this brief, because, from experience, I know that arguing such firmly held beliefs can often lead to nothing but hurt feelings and raised blood pressure, with no minds changed in the process.

The one point you make that I cannot let slide without comment is your argument that the 'local municipality', rather than Donald Trump, brought the eminent domain suit against Vera Coking. Do you seriously believe that, especially since his casino complex was next door to that home, and eventually built itself up around it, and knowing full well the power Trump yielded in Atlantic City at the time, Trump applied no pressure in order for the municipality to do so? I believe he simply used his personal/financial power in order to persuade the powers that be to do his legal bidding.

You are certainly not the only citizen who believes that the Founders' original intent in penning the eminent domain concept into the Constitution would include taking a person's private property, against his will, with compensation, for 'public use' would include defining 'public use' as creating more jobs and increasing the tax base of a municipality.

I do not believe the Founders would have condoned such government over-reach, for many reasons, only one of which is the fact that they debated long and hard when penning the Declaration of Independence as to whether to word the famous phrase 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' as, instead, 'life, liberty and property.' That alone reflects just how incredibly sacred they believed a person's property should be. I cannot imagine them placing jobs and tax revenues above the right of a person to retain his long-held family home. Then again, that is one person's opinion, and your hold an apparently very different one.

I have enjoyed many interactions over the years with you, betty, here on Facebook, and have come away from all of them with a sense of kinship, and have quite often learned valuable information, and lessons, from you. Yet, because of my stance on Trump vs. Cruz, you have chosen to call some of my remarks 'gratuitous' and have chosen to label my vantagepoint a 'privileged view' (while also, yourself, calling Ted Cruz 'dishonest' and of 'bad character'). You also ended your remarks by using the word 'psychosis' in order to describe those who speak badly of Donald Trump.

I will offer no personal commentary about that, other than the above. Nor will I ever write anything to disparage your vantage point, or your method of conveying it.

Trumps shady business dealings are one thing that concern me but his lack of moral character is the big red flag for me.

Over the past few months I've been called all kinds of names by his supporters here because of my support for the proven conservative candidate Ted Cruz. The bad treatment by Trumps supporters has only hardened my opinion of a man that I consider to be immoral.

Did you know that Donald met Marla Maples in his church and they sat together during Sunday services. This is the same church he married his first wife Ivana in thirteen years earlier and was still married to at the time.

Did you know that his Casino in Atlantic City was the first to have a strip club in it.

Christians Cringe at Donald Trumps Sexy Past

In his book 'The Art of The Deal' to quote from the link above: Trump boasted about bedding other mens wives "If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married women this book would be a guaranteed best-seller". he wrote.

This is not the kind of person that I would consider worthy enough to have any interaction with much less lead my country.