Originally posted by Rickady88GT: What court case? Where is all this undisputed evidence?
Ray brought up a lawsuit by the DOJ against Donald Trump, and Donald Trump's daddy-o Fred Trump, and Trump Management, that commenced to be heard in 1973 and was settled in 1975.
Donald J. Trump was certified by the federal court system as 100 Percent Fair-Traded Organic Racist, according to criteria established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Ray brought up a lawsuit by the DOJ against Donald Trump, and Donald Trump's daddy-o Fred Trump, and Trump Management, that commenced to be heard in 1973 and was settled in 1975.
Donald J. Trump was certified by the federal court system as 100 Percent Fair-Traded Organic Racist, according to criteria established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Should I take this as a real answer or the typical Rinselberg response?
The reason I ask is because this is clearly not what happened.
The ever present motif of levity has been reiterated. But this is what actually happened:
quote
In October 1973, the [U.S. Department of Justice] Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Trump Management Company, Donald Trump and his father Fred Trump, alleging that African-Americans and Puerto Ricans were systematically excluded from apartments. The Trumps responded with a $100 million countersuit accusing the government of defamation.
Donald Trump denied any racial discrimination, but said his managers tried to weed out certain kinds of tenants. “What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black," Trump wrote in a 1987 book.
The Trumps and their company entered into a consent decree settling the litigation in 1975. The agreement contained no admission of wrongdoing, but required the Trump firm to institute a series of safeguards to make sure apartments were rented without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Forum member randye posted this same article on the previous page of this thread.
This is what Ray was talking about. I'm not sure you realized this. I just came in here to "tie up a loose end" and "tidy up" the discussion. Which is what I hope I have done.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-05-2022).]
Forum member randye posted this same article on the previous page of this thread.
This is what Ray was talking about. I'm not sure you realized this. I just came in here to "tie up a loose end" and "tidy up" the discussion. Which is what I hope I have done.
Rinselberg, where does the settlement say this:
quote
Donald J. Trump was certified by the federal court system as 100 Percent Fair-Traded Organic Racist, according to criteria established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
You said this is what happened and I want to see the proof.
What really happened is that accusations were made and a settlement was eventually hashed out. That settlement DID NOT say the Trumps were found guilty of being racist. The Trumps did what EVERY LAND LORD in existence has done, looked for clients that can pay the rent. Regardless of color, they were weeding out people that couldn't pay the rent. That is something that is a basic common sense business move.
The fact of the matter is that not all accusations are true, not even if they win in court. Look how many people get out of prison on DNA evidence, they were falsely accused, but still convicted. Accusations and charges DOES NOT prove guilt.
You said this is what happened and I want to see the proof.
What really happened is that accusations were made and a settlement was eventually hashed out. That settlement DID NOT say the Trumps were found guilty of being racist. The Trumps did what EVERY LAND LORD in existence has done, looked for clients that can pay the rent. Regardless of color, they were weeding out people that couldn't pay the rent. That is something that is a basic common sense business move.
The fact of the matter is that not all accusations are true, not even if they win in court. Look how many people get out of prison on DNA evidence, they were falsely accused, but still convicted. Accusations and charges DOES NOT prove guilt.
Wasting you time and effort asking for that "proof". It does not exist, at least not in reality but apparently in rinse's mind. One of those things that if you tell yourself something enough times, you start to believe it from the angle you like best.
No, I am not willing to say any of these things, they simply aren't true. There is no such thing as a "con" so distraction from the facts doesn't work here. The Republicans freed the slaves and the democrats tried to keep them AND attempted to brake up America to keep slavery legal. 150 years ago there was no "progressive or conservative" movement. These are evolutionary groups of an evolving society. BUT, if you believe in evolution you will note that evolution does not insure success or longevity. Evolution has weeded out many life forms.
No, I am not willing to say any of these things, they simply aren't true. There is no such thing as a "con" so distraction from the facts doesn't work here. The Republicans freed the slaves and the democrats tried to keep them AND attempted to brake up America to keep slavery legal. 150 years ago there was no "progressive or conservative" movement. These are evolutionary groups of an evolving society. BUT, if you believe in evolution you will note that evolution does not insure success or longevity. Evolution has weeded out many life forms.
NO JUST BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE
there are always factions and extremes some progressive , some others [most] fine as is do not muck with it and some REGRESSIVE'S AKA CON'S OR CONSERVATIVES HOW MANY IN WHAT CAMP/FACTION/GROUP SHIFT BY SUBJECT
THE ANTI-SLAVER'S were called radical liberals by the people then just as the southern conservatives wanted the slaves they owned
there were lib and con factions in bronze age greeks
labels change but there are always factions plus there are bribes and elections to win and donors to please shifting and mixing them up
there are always factions and extremes some progressive , some others [most] fine as is do not muck with it and some REGRESSIVE'S AKA CON'S OR CONSERVATIVES HOW MANY IN WHAT CAMP/FACTION/GROUP SHIFT BY SUBJECT
THE ANTI-SLAVER'S were called radical liberals by the people then just as the southern conservatives wanted the slaves they owned
there were lib and con factions in bronze age greeks
labels change but there are always factions plus there are bribes and elections to win and donors to please shifting and mixing them up
Yes there are,,.. and always have been "factions" throughout history. But it is totally disingenuous to apply the conservative and progressive movements of today's World to 150 years ago. Infact those two have evolved in just the last 30 years. Slavery was not a conservative vrs progressive/liberal issue. Slavery was a human issue an issue of free vrs enslaved, good vrs evil. Slavery was evil before America was discovered and it is still just as evil in the Countries were it still exists. Ironically slavery is a greed issue as well. Greed in mankind has found cheap labor in slavery. But it isn't the only excuse to be so evil to our fellow mankind. War, religion, customs and traditions also enslaved people. To boil slavery down to conservative vts liberal is ignorant and unrealistic. It is also ignorant and unrealistic to think that America is the only Country that had slavery. Ignorant to think only American has the stain of it in our history. BUT sense we are taking only about American participation, we are talking about democrats holding on to slavery and Republicans freeing them.
Originally posted by blackrams: Wasting you time and effort asking for that "proof". It does not exist, at least not in reality but apparently in rinse's mind. One of those things that if you tell yourself something enough times, you start to believe it from the angle you like best.
"Rams" has a misapprehension, and I am here to correct it.
I didn't say that Trump is a racist. I have not said that Trump is a racist—at least, not anywhere within this thread, and not in any other recent message that I've posted.
I said that "Donald J. Trump was certified by the federal court system as 100 Percent Fair-Traded Organic Racist, according to criteria established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture," but I didn't think that anyone would take such an outlandish remark seriously. That was a joke. It was followed by an Internet page link, about the federal court case.
I was just trying to bring that federal court case (from the early 1970s) to Rick's attention, because that was what Ray was talking about, and as I read through the conversation, it seemed to me that Rick was not aware of this.
Ray started with that case, from the early 1970s, but Ray didn't stop there. He added Internet page links to more recent news reports and articles about Donald Trump, as part of his (Ray's) argument that Trump is a racist.
This is from the National Public Radio (NPR) report that was posted:
quote
Washington Post reporter Michael Kranish, co-author of the book Trump Revealed, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that the Justice Department considered the case [against Donald Trump, Fred Trump and Trump Management] "one of the most significant race bias cases" at the time.
As to whether Trump is (or is not) a racist, I don't want to get directly into it. Certainly not at this moment. I think it's a nuanced discussion, and not something that can be reduced to a simple, binary, "is" or "is not" kind of question.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-05-2022).]
As to whether Trump is (or is not) a racist, I don't want to get directly into it. Certainly not at this moment. I think it's a nuanced discussion, and not something that can be reduced to a simple, binary, "is" or "is not" kind of question.
And yet, you continue to share/spread the allegation................. Even though, you may or not not believe such an accusation........... Ok, gotcha.
Originally posted by blackrams: And yet, you continue to share/spread the allegation [that Trump is a racist]................. Even though, you may or not not believe such an accusation........... Ok, gotcha.
This is just wrong.
Rick seemed unaware or confused about what Ray was talking about. This federal court case, from the early 1970s, that Donald Trump, Fred Trump and Trump Management ultimately settled with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, by agreeing to a Consent Order in terms of how they would proceed from that point, in terms of screening applicants that wanted to become tenants of the residential apartments that were owned and managed by the Trumps.
I only did this to offer Rick (and anyone else who might be reading along) the chance to review what has been reported about this now long ago federal court case. It would then be up to Rick (and anyone else that was reading along) to look at what has been reported about this 1970s federal court case, and look at the other, more recent instances that Ray has brought up (via Internet page links) and make their own judgement about whether "Trump is a racist" and make their own judgement about Ray's arguments (if they wanted to.)
I will not say that Trump is not ever a racist, or has not ever been a racist.
I think that in the attempt or desire to distill that discussion (so to speak) all the way down to the simple, binary proposition that Trump "is" or "is not" a racist, all of the important aspects of it are lost. They are (so to speak) boiled away and discarded as the waste products from the distillation process.
It grieves me to see that "blackrams" has been continuing (with that remark) to share/spread the allegation that I was sharing/spreading the allegation that "Trump is a racist"................
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-05-2022).]
Rick seemed unaware or confused about what Ray was talking about. This federal court case, from the early 1970s, that Donald Trump, Fred Trump and Trump Management ultimately settled with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, by agreeing to a Consent Order in terms of how they would proceed from that point, in terms of screening applicants that wanted to become tenants of the residential apartments that were owned and managed by the Trumps.
I only did this to offer Rick (and anyone else who might be reading along) the chance to review what has been reported.....................
I am not sure why you insist that I am confused about what was said? I CLEARY asked for the answers that haven't been given. The proof to allegations and accusations has not been provided. I am totally aware of the law suit and have commented on it in length, to which Rayb has no answer other than eating crow. You too Ronald are doing what he has done, and that is making assumptions about Trump being racist, you just hide it. But you have said it nonetheless. The lawsuit DID NOT find Trump "guilty of racism" and neither did the sham impeachment. If Trump could be proven to be racist, it would have come out at the impeachment hearings. IT HASN'T Don't use me a your crutch to repeat some nonsense again about Trump and court cases or how you interpret them. Just say it in your own words and leave me out of it.
quote
It grieves me to see that "blackrams" has been continuing (with that remark) to share/spread the allegation that I was sharing/spreading the allegation that "Trump is a racist"................
Blackrams hasn't been wrong on the issue. I will repeat myself and say to you and rayb, show me the evidence that Trump is a racist. It is that simple. For someone who claims that Trump is so very guilty,.... it should be easy to come up with multitudes of examples. Let me help you with example: "You ain't black if you don't vote for me"
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-06-2022).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: What court case? Where is all this undisputed evidence?
Those three words, comprising a question, and highlighted with text color.
It looked to me, as I read that remark (on the previous page) that Rick was unaware that Ray had already brought up a specific federal court case involving the Trumps, from the 1970s. I thought this was something that Rick had overlooked.
I only came into the conversation to present what I thought (and still think) is the one correct answer to this very specific question (from Rick) of "What court case?" What course case was Ray talking about?
The court case, which was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants.
Here's another good "read" about that court case, for anyone with an interest (fat chance) in reading more about it than they have already read.
"Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it" Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr., for the Washington Post; January 23, 2016.
To reiterate, my purpose, in entering this conversation, was to present what I thought (and still think) is the one correct answer to this very specific question (from Rick) of "What court case?" I don't think that I've strayed from my original purpose, in any consequential way. I don't think that I've allowed my mission to succumb to "mission creep."
I stand on all that I said.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-06-2022).]
Those three words, comprising a question, and highlighted with text color.
Rinselberg, I never asked about this link. I have seen it and already commented on it. What is this, the third time I said this? How many more times are you and Rayb going to ignore my questions? Where is the Court Case that proves that Trump is racist? This case did not conclude with a verdict of "racist". Rayb said Trump lost a case in Court and had to pay fines related to a guilty verdict, a guilty of racism charge. Where is this Court Case?
quote
It looked to me, as I read that remark (on the previous page) that Rick was unaware that Ray had already brought up a specific federal court case involving the Trumps, from the 1970s. I thought this was something that Rick had overlooked.
Where is the Court Case that found Trump guilty of racism, to which he had to pay compensation?
quote
I only came into the conversation to present what I thought (and still think) is the one correct answer to this very specific question (from Rick) of "What court case?" What course case was Ray talking about?
Where is the Court Case that found Trump guilty of racism? How much compensation did Trump have to pay?
quote
The court case, which was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants.
Where is the Court Case that found Trump guilty of racism? Who did Trump have to pay fines to and how much did Trump have to pay for being convicted of racism?
quote
Here's another good "read" about that court case, for anyone with an interest (fat chance) in reading more about it than they have already read.
"Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it" Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr., for the Washington Post; January 23, 2016.
I would find it interesting if you and Rayb actually answered questions, like "where is the Court Case that found Trump guilty of racism and how much did he have to pay,.. to who and who went to jail over the crime of racism?
quote
To reiterate, my purpose, in entering this conversation, was to present what I thought (and still think) is the one correct answer to this very specific question (from Rick) of "What court case?" I don't think that I've strayed from my original purpose, in any consequential way. I don't think that I've allowed my mission to succumb to "mission creep."
Is it to much of a tangent to answer the original simple question? Rather than opinion articles that are bias and a court case that was settled with not guilty verdict. In the end, what the settlement said is Trump has to do what everyone else has to do, take risks when you rent out.
quote
I stand on all that I said.
Of course
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-06-2022).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: [What Rick just said.]
I am not saying that "Trump is a racist" because I think that brief, four-word sentence does not do justice to the reality. The reality is more complex. More nuanced.
I am not saying that "Trump is not a racist" because —"wait for it"—I think that brief, five-word sentence does not do justice to the reality. The reality is more complex. More nuanced.
COPY AND PASTE
quote
The two sides [in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TRUMP MANAGEMENT] eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975, they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps were ordered to “thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis” with the Fair Housing Act.
The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties.
The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation.
The Justice Department claimed victory, calling the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.”
Newspaper headlines echoed that view. “Minorities win housing suit,” said the New York Amsterdam News, which told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
Goldweber, the Justice lawyer who originally argued the case, said it was a clear government victory.
The government “had the [racial] coding, they had the testers , and had the testimony of people who worked there,” said Goldweber, now a private practice lawyer in New York. “It was an important, significant step for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. It was a big deal.”
That’s not how Donald Trump considered it. He declared victory, in part because the agreement specifically stated that Trump made the deal without acknowledging wrongdoing.
"Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it" Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr., for the Washington Post; January 23, 2016.
That case was litigated in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. Some 47 years ago, when Donald J. Trump was a much younger man than the "Trump" of recent and current times.
If Rick wants to assert that "Trump is not a racist," or assert that "There is no proof that Trump is a racist,"I have no particular desire to argue that at more length.
I don't need for Trump to be a racist, for me not to like him, and for me not to want to see him get another term as POTUS. It would be interesting if Trump became the Speaker of the House, if the Republicans have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives again, after the midterm elections that are just ahead, They could do that, in theory. Even though Trump would not be representing any U.S. Congressional District in the House of Representatives.
Rick has discussed this proposition, of whether Trump is or is not a racist, at considerable length, in this thread.
If Rick has perused the other media articles that Ray has provided, beyond the one article that Ray posted about this 1973-1975 federal court case, that's all to the good.
If Rick has not perused the other media articles that Ray has provided, beyond the one article that Ray posted about this 1973-1975 federal court case, that's certainly within Rick's prerogatives.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: LOL, sure Rayb. You will never prove it. I have given many many opportunities to provide the evidence of your claims. You haven't proven anything.
Ask forum member randye to prove that "Leftists are Liars". Or "Leftists are Socialists." Or "Leftists Gonna Leftist." Whatever thought that is intended to convey. Ask forum member randye to prove any of the reckless, overreaching, hyperventilating, inaccurate, unqualified (where qualification is called for) or otherwise misleading assertions that he has already posted countless times on this forum and is certain to post again.
I'm not wanting to make this about forum member randye.
I am suggesting that Rick may be looking for a "proof" that doesn't exist, because there is no law (that I know of) that forbids anyone from being a racist. There are only laws that forbid (or try to forbid) people from doing certain, specific things that are forbidden by laws that were enacted for the purpose of preventing unfair or unjust kinds of discrimination based on race.
You ask him, that is between the two of you. I asked specifically about claims made in this thread, from both you and Rayb, of which neither of you have provided answers and I haven't said anything about your lack of response being attributed to a persuasion outside of making accusations that you can't back up with evidence.
quote
I am suggesting that Rick may be looking for a "proof" that doesn't exist, because there is no law (that I know of) that forbids anyone from being a racist. There are only laws that forbid (or try to forbid) people from doing certain, specific things that are forbidden by laws that were enacted for the purpose of preventing unfair or unjust kinds of discrimination based on race.
EXACTLY So, now that we established a baseline, where is the evidence of Trump having to pay compensation for a violation based on racism.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-06-2022).]
It grieves me to see that "blackrams" has been continuing (with that remark) to share/spread the allegation that I was sharing/spreading the allegation that "Trump is a racist"................
As it should. Although, not by my actions or words but, by your own. Calling you out for spreading manure is NOT the same as spreading the manure. Done from a distance, only the spreader gets the "Stink" on them.
In that regard, I'm backing up, way back. The stench is burning my eyes.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-06-2022).]
I just took a very brief look at these six online articles posted by Man Ray—I mean "ray b"—and this one stood out from the pack as the one I would most highly recommend.
I'm not going to Read-o-Meter it, but it looks to be somewhere from 10 to 20 minutes to read it closely from start to finish. It has pictures.
He who would "clink" on this Internet link need not have an online subscription to The Atlantic to see this article. (Unless I'm mistaken. Of course, I don't think I'm mistaken.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-07-2022).]
A long article, with some data plots at the very end.
I said it before in this thread, and I'll say again:
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I am not saying that "Trump is a racist" because I think that brief, four-word sentence does not do justice to the reality. The reality is more complex. More nuanced.
I am not saying that "Trump is not a racist" because —"wait for it"—I think that brief, five-word sentence does not do justice to the reality. The reality is more complex. More nuanced
I don't need for Trump to be a racist, for me not to like him, and for me not to want to see him get another term as POTUS. It would be interesting if Trump became the Speaker of the House, if the Republicans have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives again, after the midterm elections that are just ahead, They could do that, in theory. Even though Trump would not be representing any U.S. Congressional District in the House of Representatives.
As none of the people in this discussion actually know DJT personally, and are relying on various biased media sources to bolster their claims of 'is racist' or 'isn't racist', this argument seems pretty much a big waste of time, and immensely silly to me.
Originally posted by blackrams: Rinse, Hit the showers, the stench is killing (not only) the thread but, the forum in general.
Barbara Res, a former Trump Organization executive, discusses her reactions to Michael Cohen's testimony [before Congress] and shares what it was like [for her] working for Donald Trump.
Aired on CNN; March 1, 2019.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-08-2022).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: Quoted for emphasis.
"Conspired in a criminal way... Section 371 of the Criminal Code"
quote
Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward joins Andrea Mitchell to discuss what’s at stake in the January 6 investigation ahead of the select committee’s public hearings. “I'm convinced having spent part of my life on Donald Trump that he and others conspired in a criminal way to overturn the election and prevent Biden from taking power legitimately,” says Woodward. “Section 371 of the Criminal Code makes it very clear: if you work to subvert a legitimate function of government, you are committing a crime, and we have overt acts by Donald Trump going on to this day.”
MSNBC; June 7, 2022.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-08-2022).]
someone pulled Bob Woodward out of the dustbin of history to say "Watergate" or "worse than Watergate" or something similar. The man is a one-trick pony.
(Obviously I struck a nerve.) 
