Ryan calling it QUITS!

Evmetro said:
I am more familiar with the case than you are, I have done all the research. Like my sig says, the case was dismissed. The conditions were that he follow the same fair housing rules as everybody else. Only a bigot can think that following the same fair housing rules as everybody else was something special. You asked why my sig has the consent decree, now you know.

There is a special thread on this forum for people to post evidence of Trump racism, feel free to post any evidence you have over there: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?80126-Trump-is-not-a-racist

I'd love to debate you, see you there!
Click to expand...
I see. You opt for your own slanted conjecture and warped articulation as opposed to the truth. Tell us..what are the 'same fair housing rules' that the trump's were forced to follow, and why was there even a case in the first place? When you say 'dismissed', do you mean there was a court order in place?


A consent decree is a settlement that is contained in a court order. The court orders injunctive relief against the defendantand agrees to maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that the settlement is followed. (Injunctive relief is a remedyimposed by a court in which a party is instructed to do or not do something. Failure to obey the order may lead the court tofind the party in Contempt and to impose other penalties.) Plaintiffs in lawsuits generally prefer consent decrees becausethey have the power of the court behind the agreements; defendants who wish to avoid publicity also tend to prefer suchagreements because they limit the exposure of damaging details. Critics of consent decrees argue that federal district courtsassert too much power over the defendant. They also contend that federal courts have imposed conditions on state and localgovernments in Civil Rights Cases that usurp the power of the states.
Most civil lawsuits are settled before going to trial and most settlements are private agreements between the parties.Typically, the plaintiff will file a motion to dismiss the case once the settlement agreement has been signed. The court then issues a dismissal order and the case is closed. However, if the defendant does not live up to the terms of the settlement agreement the plaintiff cannot reactivate the old lawsuit. This means filing a new lawsuit with the court and going to the endof the line in order to process the case.
Click to expand...
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree
 
Evmetro said:
I have researched all of it, and am familiar with all the details and documents. I know why it was dismissed, and I know that lefties will continue to quote propaganda articles about the case like moths fly into the flame. I know that you won't actually read the thread that I linked for you, and I know that you will only be able to quote more propaganda in the future.
Click to expand...
Do you know why the case was brought?
 
Washington Post reporter Michael Kranish, co-author of the book Trump Revealed, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that the Justice Department considered the case "one of the most significant race bias cases" at the time.
It was a suit that was directly against them, and it is one that Donald Trump to this day clearly is upset about.



"They signed what was called a consent order," Kranish says. "Trump fought the case for two years. ... He says it was very easy, but actually he fought the case for two years."
The Trumps took essentially the first settlement offer the federal government provided, Kranish says; the Trumps did not, in fact, have to admit guilt in settling the suit.
"[The settlement] required the Trumps to place ads in newspapers saying that they welcomed black applicants," Kranish says. "It said that the Trumps would familiarize themselves with the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination. So it also specifically said they don't admit wrongdoing, but they did have to take several measures that the Trumps had fought for two years not to take."
Click to expand...
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/4959...ed-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case


I think we're done here.

Back to the Eddie Munster discussion
 
Paul Ryan’s line in history will be that he failed to call Donald Trump out when it mattered.
 
Althea said:
I see. You opt for your own slanted conjecture and warped articulation as opposed to the truth. Tell us..what are the 'same fair housing rules' that the trump's were forced to follow, and why was there even a case in the first place? When you say 'dismissed', do you mean there was a court order in place?


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree
Click to expand...

Sorry pal, the case was dismissed. This fact cannot be disputed. The case had its day in court and was dismissed. You cannot un-dismiss this case

I provided a link for you, that takes you to a thread where it is appropriate to debate this matter. This thread is about Paul Ryan , and you are cluttering it up.
 
"Paul Ryan’s line in history will be that he failed to call Donald Trump out when it mattered." #126
Click to expand...
We may agree that in that case it was Ryan's MORAL failing.

BUT !!

SPEAKER Ryan is a professional politician.
And while many a Republican in or out of office would have loved to claim MORAL victory by criticizing President Trump,
Speaker Ryan had his eyes on the prize. Ryan has POLITICAL objectives, and knew that sniping at the president for fashion points could only hinder the advancement of Ryan's political agenda.

So instead of pleasing the crowd at the expense of the People's business, Speaker Ryan stepped over Trump's steamers, and pressed a politically coherent objective.

It is child's play then, for us to criticize Ryan for not subordinating politics, the business of the People of the United States of America, in ostensible service to an ethic, irony noted.
"Paul Ryan’s line in history will be that he failed to call Donald Trump out when it mattered." #126
Click to expand...
And it will be one of the more flattering things said of Speaker Ryan. I wish him well.
 
Jarod said:
Paul Ryan’s line in history will be that he failed to call Donald Trump out when it mattered.
Click to expand...

Actually his line will be he was extremely well versed on the challenges of entitlements yet didn't do anything about them.

I don't think he'll be judged on virtue signaling to you
 
Evmetro said:
Sorry pal, the case was dismissed. This fact cannot be disputed. The case had its day in court and was dismissed. You cannot un-dismiss this case

I provided a link for you, that takes you to a thread where it is appropriate to debate this matter. This thread is about Paul Ryan , and you are cluttering it up.
Click to expand...
The discussion is over. You were proven wrong. Go hang out in your other thread, where you no doubt took another ass beating.
 
Althea said:
The discussion is over. You were proven wrong. Go hang out in your other thread, where you no doubt took another ass beating.
Click to expand...

Sorry pal, the case was dismissed. This fact cannot be disputed. The case had its day in court and was dismissed. You cannot un-dismiss this case
 
Evmetro said:
Sorry pal, the case was dismissed. This fact cannot be disputed. The case had its day in court and was dismissed. You cannot un-dismiss this case
Click to expand...
This thread is about Eddie Munster. Go back to your thread and sit in the corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top