Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump Claims Eminent Domain is ‘Wonderful’, Rubio Says ‘He’s Wrong’

Trump Claims Eminent Domain is ‘Wonderful’, Rubio Says ‘He’s Wrong’

It’s not like Granny needed her land anyway…

During an interview with Special Report‘s Brett Baier Tuesday night, Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said eminent domain is a “wonderful thing.”

“I think eminent domain is wonderful if you’re building a highway and you need to build, as an example, a highway, and you’re going to be blocked by a hold-out or, in some cases, it’s a hold-out. Just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, because I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and you’ll have 12 sites and you’ll get 11 and you’ll have the one hold-out and you end up building around them and everything else, OK. So I know it better than anybody.”

Eminent domain being the government’s “right” to swipe property they deem essential for public works or other developmental projects. Opposition to government seizure of private property for the purpose of building condos and parking lots should be a no-brainer for private property rights advocates (and just about anyone with Conservative political leanings).

Fellow Republican presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio disagrees with Trump. Speaking to The Weekly Standard Wednesday, Rubio said, “he’s wrong.”

“In Florida when I was a state legislator, we passed what has become model legislation for other states around the country–that I actually passed–both a law and a constitutional amendment that keeps developers like Donald Trump from using eminent domain to take private property away from an owner and give it to another private owner, which is what the Kelo decision said should be legal unless states barred it. So he’s wrong about that. One of the most important rights Americans have is private property.”

Realistically, eminent domain isn’t used for the public good as often as it’s used to cushion city and developer pockets. In fact, eminent domain is so wonderful, the city of Houston is currently using the private property seizure discretion to threaten two long-standing churches into selling their land to make way for real-estate development.

The Weekly Standard also noted, Trump once utilized the power of eminent domain to build a limousine parking lot:

Executive vice president of the Cato Institute, David Boaz, wrote in The Guardian:

For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

Trump turned to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) – to take Coking’s property. CRDA offered her $250,000 for the property – one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.

It’s not like Granny needed her land anyway…

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So where do you put the Keystone pipeline? New highway? New electric poles? Try not paying your property taxes Kimberlee… can you “keep” your house then? Um, nope…

The Trump bashing by Fox continues: you fell for it dear.

    Eminent Domain for projects like a pipeline or highway and handing private property over to developers because they’ll “increase the tax base” are two VERY different things.

    If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck…. The Donald is a progressive.

      ZurichMike in reply to Paul. | October 7, 2015 at 3:57 pm

      Eminent domain is in the 5th amendment, and ensures just compensation to private owners for public taking of property.

      Did Trump specifically say he endorsed the holding in the very odd Kelo case? Or was he asked for his opinion on this?

      Conflating the two points in a knee-jerk anti-Trump bashing is a sight to behold.

        Conflated the two? In the video dialog he goes into the example of a “…factory that will employ thousands of people…” To me, this sounds like a classic “kelo” example. In my view this is progressivism run amok. Claiming that increasing the tax base is “public use” and therefore justifies stealing someone’s private property is just another bastardization of our Constitution by the judiciary.

        Estragon in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 4:58 pm

        Yes, Trump specifically endorsed Kelo, and he lobbied the city to use eminent domain in Atlantic City when property owners wouldn’t sell him their home of 60 years for a limo parking lot.

        He also lied about people being paid “ten or twenty times the value” of seized property. This is almost never even close to true, and certainly wasn’t for the folks in Atlantic City, who were paid less than a private offer they had turned down only months before.

        What difference does truth make to a cult, though?

        genes in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 6:07 pm

        Trump approved of Kelo the day it was announced. He loves taking land from people that won’t sell to him.

        NC Mountain Girl in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 7:47 pm

        I wish a Trump apologists would answer this. Trump constantly insists he is among the world’s greatest negotiators. So why has he in the past turned to paying off urban politicians so they would take land he could not purchase out right via eminent domain? Could it be Trump is much better at garden variety urban graft than he is at negotiating win-win business deals?

        I’ve audited urban real estate development projects. I have also reviewed all the legal documents to advice a client on whether it was a worthy investments. I haven’t seen one of Trump’s deals, but in all of the ones I have seen, which were typical, the general partner’s actions make used car salesman and TV evangelists and professional wrestlers look honest and trustworthy. The are supposed to be entrepreneurs but the way the deals are actually drawn they bear no real economic risk. Indeed through related party contracts they get their fees off the top.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 8:30 pm

        Talk about knee-jerk conflation, lol.

    Tyrconnell in reply to LisaGinNZ. | October 7, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    You do realize that there is a difference between taking property for a highway, which is public, and taking property to give to another private individual, right? And I notice that the trump supporters are all using the Keystone pipeline line, directions from campaign HQ?

      ZurichMike in reply to Tyrconnell. | October 7, 2015 at 3:58 pm

      The point is: Was Trump speaking to the Kelo case? Or just making a statement in general about eminent domain? Surely you know the difference — are you taking directions from Fox, the RNC, or the Bush campaign?

        Tyrconnell in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 4:05 pm

        Trump has said he supports Kelo 100%, something that wasn’t in my post by the way. Trump has sought to use Eminent Domain twice for his own business purposes. And for your information, there are more than just Trump and Bush in this race, refresh your talking points, I don’t support either believer in Big Government.

          Radegunda in reply to Tyrconnell. | October 7, 2015 at 11:14 pm

          It’s obviously quite hard for Trump fans to restrain their reflex to say “No Jeb!” whenever anyone criticizes their idol.

    Well, this seems like twisted logic. So if you don’t pay your property taxes and the state takes your property, that’s just the same as Donald Trump deciding he needs a parking lot for his customers’ limos? Help me here because I don’t see the connection between ideas at all.

    Would you mind explaining your logic more fully? Perhaps explain how a private citizen using the government to kick an old woman (or anyone, young, male, whatever) out of her family home so that a private citizen can build a parking lot helps the public good? I’m only being partly facetious here, so I would love to hear how this is okay with you.

    Bunches of limos means more sales tax? What? How do you justify that? And, perhaps more importantly, how does your home become exempt from the “gee, this would make a great parking lot” argument that Trump uses for eminent domain?

Henry Hawkins | October 7, 2015 at 3:53 pm

This Trump feller doesn’t sound like any conservative I ever knowed.

    ZurichMike in reply to Henry Hawkins. | October 7, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    Based on what analysis? Or are you, too, just skimming the headlines and listening to every breathless reporting of non-issues by the media?

      Tyrconnell in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      In the first debate Trump praised the Single-Payer Healthcare of Canada (successful mostly because of the nearness of U.S. doctors) and Scotland (not really successful, but with a good number of doctors paid for by tax transfer from Britain.) He has called those Republicans who attended the Koch brothers policy summit as “puppets” of the Koch brothers, even though no endorsement or campaign contributions took place, just like Harry Reid. He talks of “Citizen’s United” as allowing businessmen to spend anonymous millions in campaign contributions, which it doesn’t, just like Barack Obama. He recently stated that Republicans don’t want the lower 25% covered for healthcare, just like Alan Grayson. He attributes the failure of Obama’s foreign policy to George Bush, like every one of the Democrats.

      Ragspierre in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 4:41 pm

      I could quote from T-rump and Bernie Sanders on market economics and you couldn’t put a knife blade between them.

      He supports campaign finance reform, and the first thing he did when his feelings got hurt by a guy on FOX was to call down the FCC to kick him off the air.

      Duh Donald is just a BIG GOVERNMENT crony capitalist. It’s who he’s been his life entire, and it’s how he thinks.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to ZurichMike. | October 7, 2015 at 8:35 pm

      No consaervative I know has changed party affiliations five times since 1999.

      No conservative I know endorses Kelo nor eminent domain where the government takes private property and gives it to crony developers.

      No conservative I know speaks of his attractive daughter in purely sexual terms, as in, ‘if I wasn’t her dad and I wasn’t married, I’d do her.’

      No conservative I know endorses the touchback plan for illegal immigrants.

      I could go on for pages if you like….

      Trump’s tax plan calls for 51% to pay nothing.

      Trump swoons about single-payer healthcare in Canada.

      Trump supports Kelo-style eminent domain seizures… sprouts wood over them in fact.

      Trump lies through his teeth about his religious convictions… doesn’t really matter to me but supposedly does for a large percentage of R voters.

      Trump companies have filed bankruptcy four times.

      Trump is a massive crony capitalist.

      Trump’s ego is bigger than Blobama’s… did anyone even think that was possible?

      Enough, or is my viewpoint still “knee jerk” and am I just parroting Fox News?

    You are correct. Trump isn’t a pure conservative, but as l9ng as he is only candidate that is right on immigration he is the only candidate worth anything.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to garybritt. | October 7, 2015 at 8:41 pm

      So you’re fine with Trump’s immigration plan, the touchback plan, where illegals merely have to go home, get a visa from a home country undoubtedly eager to provide one, and then return to America, now legal?

      I doubt you even knew Trump’s actual plan.

      He’s a businessman. That’s why he not likes, but “loves” eminent domain. As a businessman he wants as much cheap labor as any other Chamber of Commerce member. Do you suppose he turns his businessman impulses and instincts on and off at will? Trump wants illegals here and working. He just understands he has to hide his plan with tough sounding talk about those damned illegals.

      Trump = Lucy.
      Immigration = football.
      You = Charlie Brown.

        Y3s I am very happy with Trumps 0lan. So is senator Jeff Sessions who is the only person currently in government that gets immigration and illegal immigration.

        Your false characiture of Trumps immigration plan notwithstanding.

        Regarding the so called “Touchback Plan”, the following is part of Trumps position:

        “End welfare abuse. Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S.”

        This nullifies all the concern about a touchback plan. Then there is this:

        “Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans.”

        According to the plan, a potential immigrant will need to be able to provide support for their selves and will not be allowed to work unless they qualify for a work permit.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 8, 2015 at 10:20 am

          You’re happy with an amnesty plan, then.

          Illegals work NOW.

          Cutting them off from welfare benefits would be a big plus…if it happens.

          But what about the impact of freshly amnestied workers flooding back into the US to compete with our unemployed/under-employed workforce?

          What about the demographic and cultural effects some of us PRETEND to be worried about?

          My idea would simply work, and it involves NO amnesty; make it impossible to work here if your here illegally, and make it impossible to get any Federally funded benefits.

          This removes the gradient that brings people here in floods. You don’t need a big, fancy dam in a lake.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 8, 2015 at 10:21 pm

          “But what about the impact of freshly amnestied workers flooding back into the US to compete with our unemployed/under-employed workforce?”

          That was the answer I provided. There will not be. Due to the provisions in the “trump” plan.

          You can argue the provisions will not happen, but I don’t see a “flood” of touchback immigrants when they have to meet the test mentioned above and must be granted a work permit to find a job.

“OK. So I know it better than anybody.”

Yes, yes. Oligarchs know best. Especially narcissists. And they’ll beat you to death with their crony connections, too!

Yep. He’s got the interests of the ‘regular guy’ at heart, and he can lead us to the Promised Land! It won’t cost you anything but your liberty, your principles, and what’s left of America!

Eminent Domain is a legitimate function of government.

Roads, Power lines, pipelines, and even things like parks benefit the public. And as long as the landowner is justly compensated, it is right there in the Constitution.

There is nothing un conservative about eminent domain.

The Kelo case involved taking private property from citizens and giving it to other citizens, who were going to use the land for essentially the same reasons. 10 years later, the land sits unused because the developer’s plans depended on snatching up the land at below market value to be viable.

Even at the time Kelo looked like a corrupt forced wealth transfer, and looks like something that should be examined with strict scrutiny, if not “strict scrutiny.”

But, the Kelo case, had it gone the other way, could have stopped things like Dan Gilbert’s ambitious public/private “Downtown Detroit” redevelopment that has a halfway decent chance of saving the city from ruin. Gentrification and redevelopment is important for the continuing viability of cities.

    Valerie in reply to rotten. | October 7, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    What about the example discussed in the article? Donald Trump used eminent domain to take a widow’s home, and convert it to a parking lot for his business.

    That sounds very close to Kelo, to me.

    Estragon in reply to rotten. | October 7, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Kelo isn’t a precedent, it was in effect a plurality decision, with Kennedy’s deciding opinion so narrowly written as to apply only to the given case.

    The project didn’t go forward, not because of the price of the property, but because overall economic conditions in the market made building the facility unfeasible.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to rotten. | October 7, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Every few years since the 1970s some crony capialist real estate development project is billed as saving Detroit from ruin. The only people who have benefited have been the politicians a whose palms were greased for the approvals/permits and the developers themselves.

    “Eminent Domain is a legitimate function of government.”

    That kind of prerogative is reserved for a mob democracy, monarchy, oligarchy or theocracy.

    It is not legitimate in a representative republic.

      The founders that established our republic certainly believed in eminent domain. That is why they made it part of the constitution that establishes our republic. Whether they would agree with the Kelo decision is another story.

Fox has been rather generous to Trump so far and he’s already chafing that they won’t show him the absolute, unbridled adoration he seeks. It hasn’t even begun to get rough yet. Sooner or later the lame stream media will begin an endless stream of horror stories detailing the human detritus of Trump’s successful business career. The “Trump done me wrong” reality show is only just beginning. Truth won’t matter and there won’t be time to fact check much, if any, of it. Homeless grannies and bankrupted business partners/rivals will all get their 15 minutes of fame.

Baier didn’t even call Trump out on his ridiculous claims about Mexico paying for the fence. He again claimed they get “billions and billions in aid,” when it is actually $480 million, mostly for anti-drug operations. He insists he would put a tariff on Mexican goods, violating a ratified treaty.

I understand they don’t want to be in a position of conflict with a candidate, but Trump is the one who insists being questioned about his BS is “unfair.” The only way he’s happy is when his butt is being kissed, as it is by his cultish followers.

    Milhouse in reply to Estragon. | October 7, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    “Violating a ratified treaty” is a weak argument. Treaties aren’t special, they’re just laws, and Congress can always make different laws if it likes. When a later law overrides an earlier law, the later law wins. In addition, treaties can be abrogated whenever they prove inconvenient to the USA.

    No, tarrifs would not be wrong because they’re against a treaty, they’d be wrong because they’re always wrong; free trade is the defining issue for what we now call “conservative” politics, and there is simply no room in the Republican tent for protectionism.

      Treaties are not laws. Obama can sign whatever he wants, and it’s still not the law of this land. You know this.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 8, 2015 at 12:34 am

        They are not laws until and unless they are ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senators present when a vote is taken.

        Actually I think they are still not laws – I don’t think they can change a law – they are something subordinate to a law. They certainly can’t change state laws.

        Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 8, 2015 at 7:50 am

        Oh, the ignorance. Treaties are laws. They rank exactly equal to statutes. 0bama signing something does not make it a treaty. It’s not a treaty until he has asked for the senate’s consent, and 2/3 of the senate has consented to it. That’s why the Iran deal is not a treaty.

        Sammy, read the **** constitution. Treaties are federal laws, exactly like statutes. They are not subordinate to other laws, they are exactly equal, and, like statutes, they override all previous laws that they contradict. And yes, just like any federal law, they absolutely do override state laws, even subsequent ones.

        Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 8, 2015 at 8:00 am

        And, for that matter, they override state constitutions. All courts, state and federal, are bound to enforce them exactly like any federal law.

        This isn’t usually relevant, though, because most treaties aren’t self-executing, i.e. they don’t actually say what people must do or not do, they merely say that each signatory shall make laws to that effect. Such treaties are law, but they only purport to bind Congress, which by definition can’t be bound by any law but the constitution. So if the president signs, and the senate ratifies, a treaty that says nobody shall kill a goose, then that is automatically federal law. But if the treaty says all signatory nations shall make laws banning the killing of geese, then that’s all it means; Congress is required to make such a law (unless it decides not to) but until it does killing geese remains legal.

If nothing else, Trump is persuasive. The more he talks the more he makes the case not to vote for Trump.

Andy Levy gets it anyway:

i mean pick one or the other pic.twitter.com/0Jd2yIwyB3— andy levy (@andylevy) October 6, 2015

A week or so ago, a lot of commenters here were aghast at the idea of governments taking away peoples’ homes for the greater good.

But it’s different if The Donald suggests it, I guess. Because something.

    It’s very strange to me that otherwise principled conservative toss those principles out the window when it comes to Trump. I don’t get it.

      Many of those who used to castigate some Republicans as RINOs for not pushing hard enough to repeal Obamacare suddenly decide they’re cool with universal healthcare as long as The Donald’s for it too.

      These are not especially consistent people we’re dealing with here.

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | October 7, 2015 at 9:40 pm

        They’re not principled people, either.

          “They’re not principled people, either.”

          Did either of you vote for Romney, the father of obamacare?

          I did not.

          I despise gov health care. However, health care in general is a difficult proposition as long as we force hospitals to treat anyone that shows up on their doorstep. And that is not going to change. We are not going to turn away the sick and injured, insurance or not. I do not know a good answer.

          Did either of you vote for Romney, the father of obamacare?

          You’re just straight-up parroting Democrat talking points now. Look at yourself! Sheesh.

          “You’re just straight-up parroting Democrat talking points now. Look at yourself! Sheesh.”

          The truth hurts apparently.

          I notice you did not answer the question.

      Our Founding Fathers were just as perplexed by the number of colonists who defended the (Intolerable) Quartering Act.

      Same premise there.

      The British overlords had the imperative therefore the prerogative to utilize private property especially“…uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings” for the greater good.

      No objections were entertained.

Fox News said that the government lost the case against Granny and didn’t get granny’s property.

I think eminent domain to take property and transfer it to another private party is wrong. I think to the extent Trump supports this he is wrong. I think Kelo was wrongly decided.

However none of the above affects my support for Trump as president. That is beca u se the President and by and large the federal government does not do Kelo type takings. All the corrupt takings and em8nent domain abuse takes place alm I st entirely at the city and county level. That means state governors and state legislatures are the ones that control the rules on eminent domain abuse. It just isn’t something the President has anything to do with it. So Trump can be wrong on Kelo type takings (something the president has nothing to do with) and still easily get my vote because he is right on taxes, immigration, jobs, trade, syria and making america great again.

    Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | October 7, 2015 at 7:10 pm

    All the other things you’re wrong about aside…

    Supreme Court. I don’t want your little yellow god anywhere near deciding who gets nominated.

      Trump has already said he will only appoint conservative judges, and there is no way he will be as bad as the Bushes at appointing judges. Souter was supposed to be tge 5th solid conservative vote on the court.

        Granted the Bush boys left a couple of turds floating in the SCOTUS punch bowl, but why would you trust Trump to appoint conservatives? He calls himself conservative and he’s not.

          As long as Trunp is the only candidate that has the Jeff Sessions immigration plan then nothing else matters. That issue overshadows everything. Trump admits he isn’t conservative on every position. So I don’t think there is any misrepresentation on his promise to only appoint constitutional consevatives to the court. Plus there is also the advice and consent function of a republucan senate.

          Paul in reply to Paul. | October 8, 2015 at 9:55 am

          I agree that the one area where Trump is bringing value to the process is around the Immigration issue. Before he started talking the progressives had dragged the issue WAY to the left and most of the R field were much too timid about bringing the discussion back to the right. The progressives in the government, media and culture have succeeded in cowing people down for fear of being branded a RAYCISS. I like the fact that Trump says “screw you” to them and talks about the issue from the perspective it rightly deserves. Much of the problem would go away on it’s own if we simply cut off the geyser of welfare payments and other government succor.

    Trump’s tax plan calls for 51% to pay nothing… he’s pandering to the crowd that wants government to give them something at somebody else’s expense. That’s not conservative.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Paul. | October 7, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      During 2012 when Romney was PC-tagged for his 47% comment, a number of current LI Trump supporters agreed that if that number ever exceeds 50% – a voting majority – this country is done, that they’ll always vote for whomever promises to keep the goodies coming, with national economic ruin to follow. Trump’s tax plan raises it to 51% paying no taxes and/or receiving government benefits.

      But, it’s hands over ears…. “mah, mah, mah, mah, can’t hear you, mah, mah, mah, mah, can’t hear you…”

    Someone who is willing to use the government to kick someone out of their home so he can build a PARKING LOT doesn’t give you pause? That person, someone who clearly sees government as the answer–and the more the better–doesn’t give you pause?

    Didn’t we all warn that Obama had socialistic, anti-American ties before he began his . . . gee, wow!, whoddathunk socialist, anti-American tenure as president?

    So what if Trump thinks that private industry should be able to use–willy nilly–government powers of eminent domain. That doesn’t mean anything. It shows us nothing about his character, his views on individual freedom and liberty, or even his views on the role of government.

    Wow. Really? His willingness, as a private citizen, to use eminent domain to force a woman to leave her family home so that he could build a parking lot–a parking lot!–doesn’t tell you anything at all about who Trump is? It tells you nothing? Nothing at all?

    I can’t believe that. (Or maybe I just don’t want to.)

      forksdad in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 8, 2015 at 4:18 pm

      Crony capitalism at it’s best. No big real estate developer is not deeply into the local political world. It’s how real estate operates.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | October 8, 2015 at 7:52 pm

      Recall Trump also called on the FCC to fine Rich Lowry for saying something Trump didn’t like, which raises three disturbing implications:

      1. Trump so likes using government to do his fighting for him, as with eminent domain, it was his first instinct upon hearing Lowry’s words – sic the federal government on him.

      2. Trump was completely unaware that the FCC holds no jurisdiction over cable TV and couldn’t fine Lowry if it wanted to.

      3. Trump does not like freedom of speech exercised by others when it causes him discomfort. He wants it curtailed and, as in #1 above, he wants the government to do the curtailing.

Wow, OK I’m soooo convinced – Rubio will take ALL the voters away, give them to his mentor Jeb! … and the BIG BUSINESS of 1 party USA suck-the-treasury-dry will continue.

Open your eyes. WHY are the 0% or 1-5% Rs still even IN the R race at this point? Cause’ their donors SAY SO. The GOPe has a BIG plan – and their plan is Jeb! or Hillary. Either or, they don’t care.

Trump playing the long game. Trump/Cruz if you want to save the USA…

BIG picture… and FOX is PRO JEB! = 100%

    ALL CAPS LOUD NOISES MUCH SERIOUS VERY GRAVITAS

    Hi Lisa, I’m willing to be convinced, just tell me how it’s okay for Trump, as a private citizen, to use eminent domain to try to take a woman’s family home so he can build a casino parking lot for limos. You may well have a point, but I haven’t seen you explain it. Would you happily vacate and hand over your family home so Trump can build a parking lot? Would you be happy if the state made moves to force you to do so against your will? This stuff matters. It goes to the core of Trump, of who he is and of what matters to him, of the role he sees government playing in our lives (and it’s YUGE if you haven’t been paying close attention).

    Bashing Fox gets you nowhere. Most of us have been conservative since long before Fox was a twinkle in Murdoch’s eye. You do know it’s only been around since the mid-90’s right? I have pantyhose older than that. And I have Constitutional conservative principles way way older than even my oldest pair of pantyhose. 🙂

      Trump didn’t try to take her home the government did. But all of this is completely irrelevant to Trump as president. Takings of little old ladies house are done by city and county governments. Not the feds or the lresident.

      Trump wanted to expand the capacity and number of rooms to his hotel. That would have meant hundreds of construction worker and hotel jobs for the city. But you can’t add rooms without adding parking. Trump offered granny 5 million for her house 10 times what it was worth. Years later granny sold it for 500k. She saved Trump many tens of millions of dollars by trying to get more money for her house. He didn’t expand and when the hotel and casino business crashed in Atlantic city his losses were less. She should have taken tbe 5 million.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to garybritt. | October 8, 2015 at 7:56 pm

        Neither Trump nor land developers decide what someone’s home is worth to them. They can approach a price, but that is an entirely different thing than worth.

        Please do us the favor of getting video when they come for your house.

          If somebody comes for my house with 5 million dollars to give me I hope they bring a pen so I can sign the papers without delay. Obviously granny wasn’t against selling. She sold it and moved to california. She just sold it for 4.5 MM less than trump offered. The constitution requires just compensation not subjective worth. However remember I am against Kelo type takings being legal but those types of takings don’t have anything to do with the president. Nobody should be surprised if a real estate developer tries to take advantage of the laws and rulings that created Kelo type takings. It would be a surprise if they didn’t. The only eminent domain president trump will do is to build the wall which is perfectly proper use of this constitutional power.

Erudite Mavin | October 7, 2015 at 10:27 pm

Rubio again is correct.

This subject is not new re Trump

Donald Trump’s eminent-domain empire

By Michelle Malkin  •  April 22, 2011

Don’t be fooled by The Donald. Take it from one who knows: I’m a South Jersey gal who was raised on the outskirts of Atlantic City in the looming shadow of Trump’s towers. All through my childhood, casino developers and government bureaucrats joined hands, raised taxes and made dazzling promises of urban renewal. Then we wised up to the eminent-domain thievery championed by our hometown faux free-marketeers…..
(the link below has the entire article on trump)

When Malkin exposed Trump, he couldn’t refute it but did
his usual trash talk, among them was the following

Trump said to Malkin: “You were born stupid!”

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/04/22/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-empire/

    Can you please point me to b the part of the Malkin article that states tge President and federal government was involved in these eminent domain takings? Because the part you quoted says it was local city government that was doing it and not the president. This supports my point that Trump as president can be wrong on Kelo takings and it doesn’t matter because the president doesn have anything to do with local government eminent domain decisions. Those decisions are controlled by state legislatures.

    So Trump is wrong on Kelo style takings. I agree, but since the president doesn’t have anything to do with local government eminent domain takings it doesn’t affect my vote for Trump.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to garybritt. | October 8, 2015 at 12:40 am

      The Federal givernment also uses eminent domain. But it is a small part of what the federal government does. There are stories here, though, too, about houses destroyed and things that were never built.

      Trump might have to use eminent domain to build his fence.

        Eminent domain abuse are tge KELO type takings where property is not taken for direct public use. The federal government and the president don’t use eminent domain for Kelo type takings tge feds use it for true public use. Things like the intercontinental railroads in the 1800s and the interstate highway system in the 1960s and 1970s. All proper stuff for eminent domains.

        Kelo abuse happens because of local city and county politicians.

        So again Trumps personal opinion on Kelo can be wrong but since the president doesn’t have anything to do with Kelo takings it doesn’t matter.

        This is all just a phony issue whipped up by the liberal pro Hillary media and jumped on here by the anti Trump crowd and resident members of the TDS Society.

          Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | October 8, 2015 at 11:08 am

          No, you lying SOS II. Property crimes by statists happen BECAUSE of the demand for them by people like T-rump.

          They BUY them. They DEMAND them. Because THAT’S who they ARE.

      Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | October 8, 2015 at 7:24 am

      What it PROVES, against all your dissembling and apologia, is that T-rump is the crony capitalist oligarch you’ve been told he is, THE Mr. Establishment personified.

      He would act in conformity with who he’s ALWAYS been. He would abuse power, as he’s ALWAYS done.

      He’s a fraudster, running under a false flag.

        As long as Trump is the only candidate promising to use his power to implement the Jeff Sessions immigration plan he is the only candidate worth voting for. The fact that Trump won’t be cowered by the media and knows how to weild power is a PLUS.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 8, 2015 at 11:12 am

        Yah, yah. You’ve said that before. Principles be damned. Duh Donanld is your guy!

        Cool. Vote for him when you have a chance. Big FLUCKING deal. I’ll cancel your vote here in Texas, ya unprincipled pretender of conservative ANYTHING!

How familiar is this…!!!

“Lest you think conservatives are happy with Donald Trump‘s re-entrance into the presidential race, conservative pundit/blogger Michelle Malkin was extremely critical of Trump’s antics on Twitter earlier today. Malkin was set off after Trump tweeted out to his followers, “How does [Malkin] get a conservative platform? She is a dummy–just look at her past.”’

But note the year! It’s like déjà vu all over again!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-calls-michelle-malkin-a-dummy-malkin-fires-back-by-calling-him-a-fake-conservative/

    Michelle Malkin is an idiot. Worse she is almost always boring and rarely has anything original to say. I can’t stand watching her on video because she looks like she should have a fish hook in her mouth.

      I can’t stand watching her on video because she looks like she should have a fish hook in her mouth.

      You guys really have a problem with strong women, don’t you.

      Do you even have any idea how creepy you all look, acting this way?

        I stated she is borinvg and rarely as anything original to say. Those are reasons not to like her. Nothing to do with her being a strong woman. I like the right kind of strong woman like Margaret Thatcher. I liked Fiorina until I realized she was an amnesty open borders loving Bush establishment republican. You don’t lime Hillary does that make you anti strong woman.

        Its not my fault every time I see Malkin on TV I have an instinctive reaction to either reach for the remote or reach for my tackle box.

We’ve got people here defending a politician’s calls for more and higher taxes, bigger and more powerful government, the right of the rich and well-connected to use the State to seize poorer and less-well-connected citizens’ property, socialized medicine… and yet they still pretend that they were ever small-government Tea Party conservatives?

This is a very weird time in American politics.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | October 8, 2015 at 8:59 am

    There’s this, too…

    T-rump is no respecter of property in any form. He fully believes he has the right to tell others how, where, and when they can use THEIR property, and who they may trade with.

    It’s all of a piece. And it’s wrong.

    Note, too, that the Trumpkins all accuse critics of being Fox News robots parroting the company line, meanwhile each one of them peddles the exact same talking points.

    The answer is simple. Some of us have the foresight to understand that if we don’t get illegal and legal immigration right none of the things on your list will matter or even be possible.

    Trumps tax plan is brilliant because it can’t be attacked just as tax cuts for the rich. Varney and company called it reaganesque. Said unlike Bush Trump could sell it and it was blessed by Grover Norquist, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.

    His 2nd amendment policy papers are extremely strong pro self defense.

    Yesterday in Las Vegas he spoke to a packed house of 1500 while Rubio spoke to 100 to 200. Trump had very excited hispanics for Trump in attendance.

      Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | October 9, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      “Trumps tax plan is brilliant because it can’t be attacked just as tax cuts for the rich.”

      Yep. You’re a liar or an idiot…or a lying idiot!

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/upshot/trump-plan-is-tax-cut-for-the-rich-even-hedge-fund-managers.html

      The analysis is pretty good, too. Take it on, Mr. CPA. On the FACTS.

        I didn’t say the liberals wouldn’t try to attack it. They just won’t be successful. Not with Trump defending. On the other hand they would be very successful attacking the similar tax plans from Bush or the flat tax plans of some of the others. You need to have some perspective Mr. NOT CPA.

          Interesting that the resident leader of the TDS society here and the resident guardian of all things conservative quotes the New York Times. Ragzini, you need to make up your mind whether you are for or against conservative tax plans. You seem to be on the side of the New York Times and against conservative tax plans. What conservative tax plan won’t be attacked by the New York Times?? Or is it that you are crazily inconsistent with your posts railing first against Trump’s tax plan claiming it was tax the rich and give to the poor (it isn’t which you have now conceded) and now railing against it because you agree with the New York Times that it is too conservative and cuts taxes for the rich too much. Geesh. Pick a side and try to stay on it longer than Hillary at least.

        Ragzini: The New York Times “analysis is pretty good, too.”

        So you are now a liberal that opposes conservative tax plans like Mr. Trump’s. Let’s see. Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Varney and company all love Trump’s tax plan and Ragzini siding with the New York Times doesn’t like it.

        Good to know Ragzini is a New York Times left wing media following liberal.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 9, 2015 at 1:09 pm

          But lying idiot…

          Attacking me or the New York times is not dealing with the analysis of the author, who points out that the T-rump tax plan IS NOT a “tax the rich” tax plan, as YOUR little yellow god said it was.

          Now, take on the FACTUAL analysis, you stupid, lying POS.

      Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | October 9, 2015 at 1:18 pm

      “Or is it that you are crazily inconsistent with your posts railing first against Trump’s tax plan claiming it was tax the rich and give to the poor (it isn’t which you have now conceded) and now railing against it because you agree with the New York Times that it is too conservative and cuts taxes for the rich too much. Geesh.”

      No, you lying SOS, I NEVER said any such thing.

      What I DID point out is that the T-rump tax plan is just tinkering with the dials, leaving the corrupt tax code in place. It EXPRESSLY limits the tax-paying population in a way the is TERRIBLE for any notion of a sound tax policy on the basis of good civics in a republic.

      It ALSO is ASTOUNDINGLY NOT “revenue neutral”, as scored by conservative tax policy wonks. It WILL add enormously to our deficit, EVEN if you allow the pie-in-sky bullshit lies about wealth formation it makes.

      I ALSO, CORRECTLY, pointed out that it is NOT a “tax the rich” plan as Duh Donald describe it. It is NOT that, and he lied. Again.

        Rags, please name the republican presidential candidate tax plan that won’t be attacked by the New York Times, that won’t be judged as increasing the deficit by the New York Times, and is the one you support?? Then tell us how the one you support is different from Mr. Trump’s plan.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | October 9, 2015 at 9:11 pm

          Lying SOS, you didn’t provide ANY factual counter to the NYT author.

          Because you can’t. You’re a lying, pretending “CPA” who can’t counter the arguments made by a real tax authority!

          Now, I’ll answer your bullshit….

          There isn’t a real conservative plan that would not be criticized by SOME Collectivist writer. But they would be REAL CONSERVATIVE plans, like the fair tax plan or the flat tax plan…which your little yellow god PRETENDED to support recently.

          You didn’t read the NYT piece, you lying SOS. It didn’t make any judgment as to the increase in the deficit.

          THAT comes from conservative tax wonks, you lying SOS.

      Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | October 9, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      “I didn’t say the liberals wouldn’t try to attack it. They just won’t be successful. Not with Trump defending.”

      EXCELLENT!

      Now we have Underwear Gnome TAX Policy to go with

      Underwear Gnome Civics

      Underwear Gnome Foreign Policy

      Underwear Gnome Economics and

      all the other expressions of blind faith you slavishly adhere to.

Let’s all start practicing to say, “President Rubio” and try to come up with ways to get him to toe the line on Immigration…

Re: Supreme Court appointments… I had a dream last night that Ruth Bader Ginsberg retired from the Supreme Court, President Obama nominated himself to fill her vacancy, and President Biden declared he’d be running for reelection. I woke up while Vice President Elizabeth Warren was being sworn in.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend