Image 01 Image 03

Trump’s use of government power against the less powerful

Trump’s use of government power against the less powerful

A cautionary tale about someone who may one day be in charge of the IRS.

As a large-scale real estate developer, Trump has sometimes sued in his efforts to use government to condemn houses belonging to people of modest means whose homes—which Trump considers insufficiently attractive—have stood near his big developments and have chosen to exercise their liberty by refusing to sell to him.

That’s one of the reasons Trump agrees 100% with the SCOTUS decision in Kelo (decided in 2005): he sees it making it easier for him to use government to compel the sale of a person’s house even against that person’s will.

It’s Trump’s prerogative to approve of Kelo, and it’s certainly understandable that someone in his line of work might have that point of view. He has every right to build his projects, and to try to buy the land of those with adjacent property.

But if more people knew about the tactics he has used in trying to get government to force people out of their homes against their will, and his own condescending and often insulting comments about those same people and their modest homes, he might not be seen in such a positive light. With Trump, the legal often seems to segue into the personal.

There are several examples. One occurred in the 1990s, when Trump was trying to buy the home of a 70-ish Atlantic City widow named Vera Coking. He wanted her property not for building his casino, but in order to use the land as a waiting area for limos. She had lived in the same place for three decades, and said no to Trump’s offer to buy. After that, Trump tried to get the city to condemn her property and buy it for a reduced sum, and the court battle took five years:

The decision ended a five-year condemnation dispute that had raised the fundamental question of whether the government could condemn land on behalf of someone else.

In this case, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a state agency, had sought to seize three properties — an elderly widow’s home, a family-run Italian restaurant and a pawnshop — by invoking the Federal and state constitutions, which allow property to be condemned for “public use.” The authority then planned to turn the properties over to the Trump Organization for additional landscaping and parking, including a waiting area for guest limousines…

Judge Williams also said in his decision that he would have granted the authority’s condemnation applications had there been a firm contract between the authority and Trump Plaza as a guarantee that the seized properties would be used solely for additional parking and new trees.

Lawyers for the property owners suggested that the Trump Organization’s true interest in the properties was to expand its casino and hotel space and that the company would not be interested in acquiring the land with restrictions.

Vera Coking (and several other plaintiffs) won:

Mrs. Coking’s daughter, Branwen Torpey, said…”It feels like a big weight’s been lifted off us. We have had a lot of help from the American people, little people just like us who work and earn what they have.”

Ms. Coking had said earlier that “This is my home. This is my castle.” Trump had disagreed; he had built a different kind of castle with a different kind of aesthetic, and he made it clear that her home didn’t fit into his picture:

Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees that [Coking] property,” Trump continued…”They’re staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.”

In case you were wondering, here’s a photo of Coking’s “terrible” house, with Trump’s casino (and accompanying advertisements) in the background. I’m not sure everyone would agree as to which of the two buildings is more aesthetically pleasing, although of course it’s Trump’s prerogative to design the building as he saw fit:


Vera Coking wasn’t just playing a game, either; she did want to stay in her house, and lived there until 2010. Trump’s casino, of course, is now defunct, having gone bankrupt—and not because of Vera Coking’s “terrible” home.

Someone running against Trump might be able to make a campaign advertisement out of parts of the following video. In it, Trump demonstrates an obtuseness about the difference between eminent domain for public use and for private business (Dana Berliner, seen in the video, was Coking’s lawyer):

The video tells us a quite a bit about the extent of Trump’s respect for the property rights of others. I can assure you that, if Trump ends up being the Republican nominee, the Democrats will not hesitate to use it. They will probably have a field day with this and other similar actions of Trump’s.

As an example of one of those “similar actions,” much more recently Trump tried to do virtually the same thing to people living near—not on but near—a luxury golf course and resort he was planning in Scotland. So this story had an international flavor. Again, Trump wanted to buy their property, despite their adamant refusal to sell, because they lived near his planned golf course and he felt that they homes would spoil the view for his wealthy clients.

In Scotland as in Atlantic City, Trump again tried to get an agency of local government to condemn their homes and evict them. This time, Trump also let loose with a fusillade of very personal insults toward some of the holdouts themselves, as well as their property, insults that were considerably worse than what he’d said about the home of Vera Coking. Among the insults he leveled against one man in particular in Scotland named Michael Forbes was to say he was “the village idiot” and that he “lives like a pig.”

There are many videos about the incident available on YouTube, nearly all of them taken from a documentary entitled “You’ve Been Trumped” that was made in 2011 (the entire film is available at YouTube, as well). Here is a trailer from the movie; Trump can be seen spouting a few of the insults from 0:18 to 0:23, right after Forbes has spoken. Afterwards I’ve posted a somewhat longer video with more background material (you might want to use the caption function when you watch; the Scottish accents can be hard to understand):

You can be certain that this is the sort of ammunition that Democrats are saving up to use against Trump in the general election if he becomes the nominee. There is a ton more where that came from, all of it with the potential to make him look very bad in the eyes of Independents and Democrats in particular—and, I would add, in the eyes of many conservatives and libertarians as well.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The Donald has never shied away from using the brute force of government to strip people of their property.

The dirt flinging game is a two-way street, especially with the Clinton’s in the dock, and of course, one reason the Republic is in the present pickle is the unwillingness of duck and cover Republican candidates of the past to hit the Ds hard. Anyone see Trump’s behavior against his opponents of the past and think he will adopt the duck and cover approach with Hillary? Would you prefer he adopt the duck and cover approach of a Romney or any of the other NR approved candidates?

It is only the very tiniest fraction of law nerds for whom eminent domain is a big deal. I’d bet were Trump attacked on this (and he won’t be — too remote of a concern) he’d find quite a few folks in that struggling Scottish town to say good things about his golf course and the jobs it brings. They always do.

Folks aren’t concerned about eminent domain. They are concerned about losing jobs to people from foreign countries. The duck and cover Rs have done nothing about this problem because it keeps labor cheap for Wall Street guys. And, as bears repeating because it is so true, were tax cuts for the rich on the table the duck and cover Rs would fall all over themselves in a hurry to fix the problem.

The people have caught on to the callowness of the R establishment and the NR types and they are tired of being used. There is virtually NO currently elected Republican, with the possible exception of Jeff Sessions, whom they trust and for good reason. And they trust ALL of the Ds even less, again for good reason.

Some thought populism and the paleocon movement dead after Buchanan. Luckily for the Republic, it is alive and well and in resurgence. That is a very, very good thing. Trump will be good for the Rs party on the whole. If eminent domain falls even further into the background for a few years as a result, oh well, not a big disaster. There are much, much bigger matters at stake in this election.

    NbyNW in reply to Curle. | January 31, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    Actually, a lot of us care about eminent domain. It speaks to our fundamental rights as Americans. And I disagree with everything else you write.

    Rick in reply to Curle. | January 31, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Are you saying it is OK to trample on an individual’s rights if not many people notice?

    Sanddog in reply to Curle. | January 31, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    “It is only the very tiniest fraction of law nerds for whom eminent domain is a big deal.”

    Yeah, us rubes don’t give a shit about the 5th Amendment, or the 1st, or the 2nd, or the 4th. Just pretend you’re going to build a wall and keep giving us free stuff.

    You’re just as bad as Obama, Bernie and Hillary.

    Valerie in reply to Curle. | February 1, 2016 at 1:04 am

    “It is only the very tiniest fraction of law nerds for whom eminent domain is a big deal.”

    That’s all I had to read.

    NbyNW in reply to Curle. | February 1, 2016 at 2:22 am

    Last survey before Iowa caucuses:

    “In addition to asking about presidential preferences, the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll asked voters if they were bothered by certain information about the candidates. By far, the most bothersome bit of information tested about either candidate: “Donald Trump supports the use of eminent domain to take private property for public or private projects, with compensation to the landowners.” Presented with this information, 60 percent of Republican voters said it bothered them, compared with 35 percent who said it did not.”


Can anyone who writes at Legal Insurrection come up examples where Donald Trump would be WORSE than the currently elected President with the abuse of government power.

How about we limit it to where Mr. Jacobson teaches: Ithaca NY. Looking at the city of Ithaca, Tompkins County, and the state of New York can you give examples of where Trump would be WORSE than ANY level of government I list?

I eagerly await for those specific examples. It should be an interesting list, given what I’ve seen out of all levels of New York government as a life long Upstater.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to tphillip. | January 31, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    Not being worse than Obama or Ithaca area government is a pretty low bar. I hope we can do better.

    That is an extremely low standard. What is your point?

    Shane in reply to tphillip. | January 31, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    Donald Trump is way worse than Barack Obama, Obama never said he was conservative.

    Exiliado in reply to tphillip. | February 1, 2016 at 6:39 am

    First, the point of the article is NOT that Trump will be worse than Obama. The point is just that Trump does not really represent Conservative values because of his love of big government.

    Still, you want examples and we can do that for you. Though I am not one “who writes at Legal Insurrection,” I can provide an example for you.
    (By the way, I am sure I speak for most here when I said that it would be an honor, to be one “who writes at Legal Insurrection.”)

    Here’s your example:
    – Suppose that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination. Then suppose that he loses to Hillary Clinton.
    There you have it: worse than Barack Obama.

Trump may need land by eminent domain for the construction of the wall. And, if he does it needs to be settled square and fair and no coddling holdouts looking to rip off the tax payers.

    Honey, fair and square is the property OWNER deciding what his or her property is worth.

    Trump isn’t your daddy and he’s not going to take care of you. The sooner you learn that vital fact, the better.

    Hope your house the one that needs to be settle fair and square. It is great when someone else is getting shafted, everyone is all for it, ahhh but alas when it is you then there is no justice. Remember the golden rule.

    Fortunately the chances of the Trump wall are about nothing, but continue believing in fairy tales.

      A fairy tale is believing neither Trump nor Cruz will be elected, Shane. Both vow to build the wall.

      That wall is going to be built one way or the other.

      I live in southern Arizona and sick and tired of the drug and human sex trafficking plus foreign nationals crossing the border uninvited and unwelcome which is an affliction our state.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to VotingFemale. | February 1, 2016 at 8:52 am

    The purpose of the wall is to protect American sovereignty. The American public is the beneficiary.

    Trump wanted to use government force to deprive Coking of her property against her will so a limousine parking lot could be built. The goal was to enhance the value of the casino to benefit Trump and his shareholders.

      You have to break some eggs to make an omelet.

      If that is the worst sin Trump has committed, he is a shoe in.

      People don’t care about it in the grand scheme of things.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | February 1, 2016 at 10:32 am

        Nice deployment of the Stalinist trope about eggs, honey!

        As is so often the case, you’re wrong about “people not caring”.

        Conservatives care DEEPLY about property rights and the depredations of the CENTRAL government (particularly) against them.

        Because “property” is a measure of US…our time, talent, experience, effort, genius, etc….and we won’t be made “servents” of our Federal betters.

        It’s deeply disturbing to have Donald Ducks believe…

        1. it is the POTUS’s business where private interests chose to do business, AND

        2. that the Federal government can dictate that.

        As noted many times, there is no difference between that position and Bernie Sander’s position.

        It IS Progressivism. It IS a COMMAND economy notion.

          We are a nation of laws, not of men, and Cruz vows to build the wall which will, no doubt, necessitate the use of eminent domain.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 12:51 pm

          But disingenuous old gas bag, ED is PROPERLY used for roads, pipelines, power lines, water impoundments, etc.

          You and we all know we’re NOT talking about that.

          You are just attempting a sly lie. Don’t.

          Rags, you are suspended on the EM petard like an old fool.

          President Cruz will commission Trump to build that wall and will ensure the land needed will be provided via eminent domain.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 1:08 pm

          But sly liar,

          1. WE’RE NOT talking KELO takings, liar

          2. property rights are WAY bigger than ED

          Please, just don’t even try this bullshit with me.

        As Fascism rose in Europe, and Japanese jingoism emerged in the East, Duranty wrote glowing accounts of Stalin’s Five-Year Plan. Almost single-handedly did Duranty aid and abet one of the world’s most prolific mass murderers, knowing all the while what was going on, but refraining from saying precisely what he knew to be true. He had swallowed the ends-justifies-the-means-argument hook, line and sinker. Duranty loved to repeat, when Stalin’s atrocities were brought to light, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”

        You are quoting, approvingly, the original “Useful Idiot.”


        The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You’re a Trump Supporter… — nailed it.

I don’t remember lots of anti-Romney posts four years ago. Commentary, yes, But not a concerted effort by LI to destroy the Republican front-runner.

Let’s just shoot the hell out of our chances for this election, shall we?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to janitor. | January 31, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    You may not remember our very harsh criticisms of frontrunner Mitt Romney, but we had dozens. Start here and work your way back in time.

    Milhouse in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2016 at 2:15 am

    Romney, for all his faults, is a genuine Republican, and better than any Democrat. He’s also a genuinely good person, who cares for others and helps them. Trump is not a Republican, and there is no reason to prefer him to any Democrat. He’s also a boor and a horrible person, as evidenced by the video in this post. Can you imagine Romney trying to steal people’s homes, or unleashing such course language, let alone blatantly lying, as the film shows Trump to have done? Trump is a bad person and so is every one of his supporters.

You can be certain that this is the sort of ammunition that Democrats are saving up to use against Trump in the general election if he becomes the nominee.

I doubt it. It would be pointless. Liberals are just fine with Kelo; no ad about it is going to whip up any Democratic enthusiasm. And no conservative who’s incensed about Trump’s perfectly legal (even if, arguendo, odious) business practices is going to think “HOLY S**T, good thing I found out about this, now I’m going to vote for somebody—anybody—from the rabid left!”

I feel like I’m in bizarro world where up is down and down is up. We’ve all been waiting on a fighter like Trump who can take on the establishment, cut through the PC wall, bevdetermined to seal the borders and fight for US sovereignty and all you jackasses can think about is he’s not pure enough for your delicate sensibilities.

It’s like someone giving you a Jag or Beamer for you birthday but you don’t like the color.

Grow up.

    Some of us think that voters consider what a candidate has done, not just what he says on the stump.

      janitor in reply to Rick. | January 31, 2016 at 11:10 pm

      How about what this non-politician has managed to achieve so far. Indicative of nothing?

        Did someone say it was indicative of nothing?

        Paul in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2016 at 9:56 am

        EVERYTHING he has a achieved in his life has been through crony-capitalist and/or sleazy dealings. The casino business is the epitome of crony-capitalism… you literally cannot get into the business without government license. He hasn’t accomplished shit on his own, in my estimation.

      Yes and some of us consider any person who has done nothing in the past except show the skill to get the Bushes and other politicians to appoint them to some government jobs as having done next to nothing.

      Barry in reply to Rick. | February 1, 2016 at 12:01 am

      What have the other candidates done?

      Cruz I like, but the reality, during his whole time in the senate he has accomplished nothing. He has stood on principle, but we still have all the leftwing BS we had before he arrived, Plus.

      I like Cruz, he was first in my book until a month or so ago. He is second now.

      The best thing about this election – there is no GOPe squish with a real chance. It’s Trump or Cruz and either will be fine with me.

      For the record I opposed Kelo and oppose trumps stand on it. Small potatoes. It is at the state level that this needs to be opposed, the president has nothing to do with it unless it is a federal ED case.

    So were the people of the Wiemar Republic. Thanks but no thanks on this “fighter”.

    Sanddog in reply to nerkbuckeye. | January 31, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    Trump is going to take on the establishment? In what alternate universe? He’s been in bed with and buying the establishment for decades. Trump is going to sell himself to the highest bidder and if that means pandering to the left, you’re going to be left standing in the cold.

      janitor in reply to Sanddog. | February 1, 2016 at 12:29 am

      He’s already “taken on the establishment”. He’s been figuratively swatting them for months now all over the place. He doesn’t need to “get into bed with them.” He’s not a politician catering to special insterests because dependent on their campaign financing money. How hard is that to figure out. Nor did he need to run for office to make connections for his business.

        Shane in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2016 at 12:36 am

        Did you watch the video?

        gmac124 in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2016 at 10:34 am

        “He’s already “taken on the establishment”. He’s been figuratively swatting them for months now all over the place”

        However before the first vote he climbed into bed with the establishment in Iowa on Ethanol. How is that taking it to the establishment? As they say deeds are louder than words.

    Milhouse in reply to nerkbuckeye. | February 1, 2016 at 2:16 am

    You are in bizarro world, where you think Trump is a Republican. Trump is not just “not pure enough”, he’s filthy, and so is anyone who wants him.

Trump is a businessman who takes advantage of the current law. Boo Hoo. According to the SCOTUS, it’s up to the states to determine how eminent domain can be used and to protect their citizens from rapacious local politicians. Don’t like Kelo? then ride your state representatives to prohibit using eminent domain for a private developer. Don’t blame businesses for using it if it is a legal tool.

BTW, I thought and still think that the Kelo decision was wrong but I’m not on the SCOTUS.

    Shane in reply to rabidfox. | January 31, 2016 at 11:51 pm

    There is a name for the type of businessman that Donald Trump is … Orren Boyle. Just because he can should he? If you can gun someone down legally should you? Just checkin’ because this businessman is poised to be the president.

      Offering someone 4 times what their property is worth when that property is unsalable except for commercial development is hardly gunning them down and killing them.

      Look at the picture used by neocon above. NOBODY WOULD EVER BY THAT HOME. Next to a heavyily commercial district, loud noisy traffic in parking lot next door, loud noisy drunken gamblers in parking lot and walking the streets. Yeah it just screams come live here and raise your children.

      That house was nothing but a tear down for commercial development and that was all it was ever going to be.

      The little old lady was greedy and her greed exceeded her grasp.

        How is it that you can say that no one would by that home? Are you clairvoyant? You do not know, and you are no better than Trump by enforcing your standard of aesthetics on everyone else.

        Once again how is not being willing to except any price for her home make her greedy?

          DuraMater in reply to Shane. | February 1, 2016 at 4:02 pm

          Shane, GB is merely repeating what he has heard DJT claim when challenged re this case.
          I think it was a Cruz PAC, Keep the Promise or may have been Cruz campaign, one of them DID put out a VERY good opo video exposing this example of Trump’s EM abuse. Trump went BS crazy afterwards, coming out with all kinds of misdirection (like Voting Female)and claims that a) the old woman was greedy, b)he offered her $4 or $5 million, c) he had never tried to pressure her and she saved him loads of $ by not selling because the casino flopped anyway….etc.

          Look at that picture, the obscenely ugly casino next to her home. Still, it was HER HOME and hence her choice.

          Ragspierre in reply to Shane. | February 1, 2016 at 4:23 pm

          Another little vignette from this vicious incident was when Michelle Malkin and John Stossel (GOLDEN conservatives) jumped on Mr. Establishment for his conduct, Duh Donald turned on them and did his usual bully-boy trash, calling Malkin his usual misogynistic set of names and savaging both of them.

        Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 2:20 am

        Greedy?! It was her home. It was not for sale. She turned down the money. How is that greedy?

        The only difference between forcing a sale at gunpoint and forcing a sale through the abuse of government power, is that the one will get you jail time.

        Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 12:49 pm

        So the little old lady was “greedy” because she didn’t want to give up her home so a private businessman could use her property to make more money.

        Tell me how that’s any different from the Progressive definition of “greed” being anyone who wants to actually keep the money they earn.

        amwick in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 7:37 pm

        This was a great home in 1991.
        Nothing like the sweet picture that neocon posted. This is going on still in Atlantic City. This lady turned down a million dollars for a house that had no value as a home, it was totally surrounded by a huge casino, that was never finished. Vera Coking won the court battle, good for her, but she lost her home when the city grew. Take on look at this photo from 1991, go ahead.

    That is exactly correct. There is no bar to state legislatures passing a law that completely prohibits Kelo type takings.

He’s a real estate guy. All of them are in bed with politicians at all levels. It is how real estate works at the big boy table.

He’s wrong about Kelo. I have always said that we should have as a country forced every politician who voted for Kelo to have their home taken by eminent domain for anti-eminent domain museums. That’s public use. Not public taking for private. How could the politicians complain?

Sorry meant to say agreed with Kelo but you get the gist.

So to this judge a parking lot was fine for taking the woman’s home but building a business on the land that provided 100s of new jobs for Atlantic City that would be too much to bear.

No sane real estate developer would ever accept that kind of use restriction on property to be acquired it could make the property worthless in a future sale or redevelopment of the property.

The little old lady lived there until 2010 because nobody would buy the property. Finally the only way it could be sold was at an auction where her guardians received 25% of what Trump offered her.

She did however do Trump a favor in the long run because without being able to have additional parking to support a 200 room expansion of the hotel Trump was forced to cancel the expansion. But for little old lady Coking he would have invested 10 million more in the hotel and would have lost that investment as Atlantic City casino and resort business began to go belly up.

    What does it matter what happened to the little old lady? It was her home not Donald Trumps. I mean really if I got the government to seize my neighbors home so that they could sell it to me and I could put up renters then that is economic activity that will generate more taxes and jobs than my dead beat neighbor just living there. Why not just do that across the country, we would be out of debt in a jiffy.

      It isnt just economic activity it is the effect on tax revenues and the amount and kind of economic activity. Your example is a rather poor one for many reasons.

      The little old lady was greedy and her greed exceeded her grasp and she lost big as a result.

      As someone noted above any business owner is going to use the tools the law provides. If you don’t like Kelo type takings then get tge state government to outlaw them. I actually think they should be outlawed but I don’t expect real estate developers to stop trying to use them until they are outlawed.

        So the effect on tax revenues and the kind of economic activity is the only requirement for me to take someone else’s property. Kewl then I am going to be filthy rich because the effect on tax revenues and economic activity is a guess. Cause I am not sure I know anyone that can predict the future. Tell me again the effect on tax revenues that the Trump Tower brought to Atlantic city.

        Also it seems funny that she would accept no amount of money from Trump and she is in your estimation greedy? How does that even remotely make sense? You said her guardians received 25% of the value. Gee maybe she got older and was no longer able to live in her beloved house. So because she aged she somehow lost out on … ummmhhh … uhhh a big payday ??????? And that made her a greedy awful person ?????? How dare she.

        I live in TX and can gun down anyone on my property that is breaking the law, no matter how small as long as it is after dark, so according to you it would have been Ok for me to end the life of a homeless man that decided he wanted to take a late shower in my back yard. Do you really believe that is Ok … really????

        Can you not possibly see how wrong what Trump did was?

          Kewl start talking to your local politicians then.

          You might want to start with telling them all about Texas law and easy it is for killing people after dark. That will surely impress them with your depth of knowledge.

So your example is that Trump would use perfectly legal Constitutional means to accomplish his goals ? thats your example ? ok … good …

This whole argument is just a variation of the old Trump isn’t conservative enough. Too bad for the purists this election isn’t about who is the most conservative. It is about who is going the best leader, build the wall, deport illegals, enforce our laws.

    Nope the argument is that Trump isn’t conservative at all in any form.

      janitor in reply to Shane. | February 1, 2016 at 12:39 am

      The argument is without merit.

      That statement is as well informed as your statements about Texas law. Trump’s tax plan, trade plans, and immigration plans plus his position on second amendment are all very conservative.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 9:12 am

        “Campaign conservative”, you mean.

        And, when you look at them and think critically, they are not conservative at all.

        BIG GOVERNMENT is Duh Donald. Mr. Establishment is a Progressive (Collectivist) puke, and that’s how he’d “rule”.

        That AIN’T conservative. Just like Bierhall Britt.

          Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 12:17 pm

          Gary tried to shoot down some uncomfortable facts from Trump’s past by saying “He wasn’t running for president then.”

          So Gary basically admitted that he was looking no deeper than campaign promises — except when he thinks something in Trump’s past might serve his case.

    janitor in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 12:38 am


    If someone comes along to give you a lift into town when your car is stuck on the road, are you going to complain because he needs to make a quick stop on the way at the dry cleaners?

    Trump is going to deport the illegals, and then let most of them come back in. It doesn’t even make sense. Not only is he not conservative,he has a history of being quite liberal. If he does get elected, he will anger and disappoint you.

      janitor in reply to NbyNW. | February 1, 2016 at 1:58 am

      No, he won’t. He will let them get in the back of the line and apply under the same terms as everyone else in the world who wants to come in legally, and that’s pretty tough to do.

        NbyNW in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2016 at 2:16 am

        Just last summer:

        Bill O’Reilly: Now, the 15 million illegal aliens already in the United States, what do you do with them?

        Donald Trump: I think right now you’re going to have to do something. It’s hard to generalize, but you’re going to have to look at the individual people, see how they’ve done, see how productive they’ve been, see what their references are, and then make a decision.

        Bill O’Reilly: All right, on a case-by-case—going to take a long time and a lot of people.

        Donald Trump: A long time, but you know, you have some great, productive people that came.

        You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.

          janitor in reply to NbyNW. | February 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm

          There is nothing inconsistent here. They get deported, and then their “path” is to get in the back of the line and apply for legal immigration status.

          Ragspierre in reply to NbyNW. | February 1, 2016 at 12:53 pm

          I’ve never heard T-rump say all that. You’re putting YOUR faithful, cult-follower words in his mouth.

      You complain you don’t think Trump’s deportation plan is perfect. But have no complaint that Cruz and all the other candididates will not actively deport anybody.

      You are either being stupid or selectively outraged purely for political reasons.

      Actively deporting some is WAY better than actively deporting nobody.

      Duh !

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 10:57 am

        The typical Gaghdad Bob lie + straw man.

        Cruz will deport illegals, using the laws and LEOs in place.

        He won’t set up a massive new BIG GOVERNMENT bureaucracy of jack-booted thugs to illegally do what T-rump proposes.

        Duh Donald WILL NOT deport massive numbers of people because…LAW. He’s a lying Progressive that makes boobs out of the gullible.

        He MAY actually want to, but Progressives often want to do things that the laws and our Constitution don’t permit. That sometimes in history hasn’t stopped them in their tracks, but eventually the law and the Constitution have their day.

        And…at the end of the day…it’s a vacant exercise, as he intends to re-admit who HE deems “the good ones” with brand new legal status.

        It’s all a lie, built on lies, and only believed by delusional cultists.

        Trump’s plan is not just imperfect. It’s all over the place. It’s the basis for his rise so he pushes it. Recently he said when his rally attenders start acting bored, he starts yelling about “The Wall” to get them excited again so they don’t leave. But when it comes to what he’s going to do with the immigrants, he’s contradicted himself so much that it’s farcical. Who knows what he’s going to do? He has a long history of dishonesty and doesn’t deserve the trust and reverence his supporters give him.

        And BTW no one that knows me has ever called me stupid. Quite the contrary.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | February 1, 2016 at 12:41 am

So, you want to blame Trump for using a tool given him by the Government? That is just plain stupid. But then?

How about instead of railing about Kelo, you rail about some more important “takings” by the government. Taxes. Use restrictions. EPA regulations. Civil forfeiture without criminal conviction and from innocent co-owners. And the lives of our boys who are sent into stupidly thought-through conflicts with idiot ROE.

The Kelo outcome, even though a sub-optimal result, nevertheless stated in the most melodramatic way possible, is relatively minor compared to the many, many other offenses governments commit on a daily basis to far more people. People were still paid for the value of their property something that doesn’t happen to the many greater numbers of people who find their ability to use property impaired by environmental regulations that the government won’t pay for.

And what about the innumerable people put out of work so employers can hire one of the 11 million in this country illegally but with the connivance of the government and the effective connivance of the Republican establishment?

In the many areas of constitutional law where there are very real and very pressing concerns, the circumstance in Kelo doesn’t even crack the top 50. The predictions of the dissenters that such processes would become the norm were completely overblown and the vast majority of jurisdictions across this nation have shown no interest whatsoever in using such devices.

One cannot compare matters of suboptimal results for a handful of people with matters that effectively re-order our entire society (like illegal immigration). It is much more distressing that for years now the Republican political establishment has said to Americans looking for work, ‘bend over and take it and if you don’t like it we’ll agree with the Lefties that you are bigots.’ This kind of attitude, manifestly telegraphed by the establishment was odious on a level far exceeding anything going on with Kelo.

Obsessing over something as entirely remote to the lives of general Americans while ignoring matters of permanent and massive social upheaval (unchecked and irrational levels of immigration) displays the kind of cluelessness that has become the Republican establishment brand. The public, shockingly enough, wants candidates who are concerned about the issues of concern to them, not those that even if abused at their worst levels would effect a miniscule number of people.

Politics is not a navel-gazing contest.

This thread is being trolled by the Democratic Underground.

Remember, it was a president so mediocre that he effectively gave us President Bill Clinton(George H.W. Bush – and whose president son was so medicore that he effectively gave us President Barack Obama) who appointed the Supreme Idiot – er, Supreme Court justice (Souter) who joined the majority in the Kelo v. New London decision dooming America to use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned real property for use in private economic development projects.

Imagine what a lox like Jeb! would cause to follow his presidency.

No more Bushes. Crappy presidents, both of them.

    No more Bushes.

    You’re still using the false dichotomy that the only two options for GOP nominee are either (a) Trump or (b) Bush.

    That trope is as facile and wrong today as it was when y’all first started using it.

back in the 1980s, Trump sued a SMALL local bar in Houston called “Trumps” whose logo was a hand of cards. Put them out of business I recall. It was not in a great part of town. But This is the kind of thing Trump does without remorse.

    If you own a trademarked brand name the law REQUIRES that you sue to protect it. If you fail to protect it then you LOSE your trademark. The case you cite is perfectly normal stuff.

    DuraMater in reply to sdharms. | February 1, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Trump tried to sue a couple of brothers from South Africa who had some kind of small business , using their family name, which happened to be TRUMP. If I recall correctly, the case was thrown out.

Ok-we’ll just keep going down the same road. Cruz WILL allow amnesty, WILL allow migrants to pour in, Cruz Will jack up H1B visas through the roof, there will be NO wall, jobs will continue to go oversees. Your college graduate children will be living in your basement. But take heart, you voted for a “Consistent Conservative”

We don’t need another land grab
We don’t want to sell our homes
All we want is life beyond the Trumpdome

Trump will win. Deal with it.

    cepenta in reply to Kitty. | February 1, 2016 at 8:23 am

    I hope one day you’ll learn how wrong you are.

    Trump will win. Deal with it.

    Trump may win, and then we’ll all have to deal with it. Heaven help us.

    Ragspierre in reply to Kitty. | February 1, 2016 at 9:16 am

    As I’ve noted before…

    The U.S. has elected a lying, narcissistic, Constitution-hating asshole twice now in succession.

    Maybe it’s a tread…

      Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 11:15 am

      Trump’s egomania is even more blatant than Obama’s.

      At least Obama knew better than to say he’d be greater than Lincoln and all the rest. Trump says it, and his fans say “He’s confident!” or “You just don’t understand artful hyperbole!”

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Kitty. | February 1, 2016 at 9:28 am

    He may win the nomination. But according to Gallup, 60% of all Americans hold an unfavorable view of Trump. That is a new record. It is the highest unfavorable rating for any candidate running for president from either party since Gallup started tracking “unfavorable”. Hillary Clinton currently has a 52% unfavorable rating among all Americans, while Jeb Bush is at 45%, Chris Christie 38%, Ted Cruz 37%, Marco Rubio 33%, Bernie Sanders 31% and Ben Carson 30%.

    Another poll says 50% of Republicans say they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee.

    He will get absolutely annihilated in the general election whether the Democrats nominate Bernie or Hillary. “That much I can tell you”, as Trump likes to say.

NC Mountain Girl | February 1, 2016 at 8:10 am

Trump once filed suit against a small business because years before he founded his own business with his daddy’s millions, this family, also named Trump, had dared to use their own name on their modest business.

There are endless examples of Trump the bully. Over the years Trump has also threatened to sue almost every media outlet around anytime they say anything that isn’t an echo of his elevated opinion of himself. He knows that as a public figure he can’t win such suits. But he also knows that the expense of having to defend such suits is cheap insurance against the truth narring his carefully crafted image. Trump may almost be as bad as Oprah Winfrey in that regard. (She once got a reporter in a local free shopper fired for suggesting her fiance of many years was a beard.) Reporters have noted that more than decade after a single negative story, Trump will still go out of his way to snub them.

As with all these celebrities people feel they know because of carefully crafted image making, sucks up only need exist in the world of the thin skinned Trump.

    Good Lord, imagine the foreign-policy nightmares that will ensue if that egotistical prick wins.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | February 1, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Give us some links to this allegation.

      Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 11:02 am

      Do your own research, Unc.

      It happens to be totally true.

      And T-rump DOES have a LONNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG history as a litigation bully who files bogus lawsuits to crush less well-healed opponents. He’s know for it!

      He’s a Progressive bully. A complete New York City prick.

        Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 11:50 am

        Trump said his father told him to be a “killer.”

        Trump aimed to ruin a British producer who didn’t fall for what he imagined to be his seductive charm. He bullied her for two decades.

      The @WSJ Wall Street Journal loves to write badly about me. They better be careful or I will unleash big time on them. Look forward to it!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2015

        Radegunda in reply to Amy in FL. | February 1, 2016 at 11:57 am

        A lot of people have praised Trump for sticking it to the media. They’ve failed to notice that he does so only when it concerns himself personally. He doesn’t seem to have had any objections to a broader ideological bias in the media.

      What NC Mountain Girl points out is absolutely true. There are endless examples of Trump the bully.

      “Donald Trump is threatening to sue the Club For Growth, a conservative organization that has long advocated lower taxes and spending cuts”

      “Here we have the Republican frontrunner bullying an organization that is criticizing him. As I said, even if you don’t support the agenda of the Club for Growth the image of potential President using that kind of tactic against political critics raises serious questions about what kind of President Donald Trump would actually be. If this threat and Trump’s other recent actions are any indication, a President Trump would be no friend to Freedom of the Press, and that’s something that everyone ought to worry about.”

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | February 1, 2016 at 11:05 am

    The Trumpians claim they are attracted to him in part because he is alleged to be a great negotiator. Yet he could not negotiate a deal with a little old lady to get her to sell him her house. Instead, he resorted to lawfare to try to swindle her out of her property.

    Since he’s been running for president, the master negotiator has:

    Seen Macy’s publicly claim it no longer wants to do business with him;

    Seen Univison not air his beauty pageant;

    Tried and failed to make CNN donate $1 million to charity in exchange for his debate appearance.

    Tried and failed to get Megyn Kelly removed as a debate moderator.

    Tried and failed to get Fox News to donate $5 million to a phantom charity to grace them with his debate presence.

    Some negotiator.

If Trump wins the nomination, you will all learn in about 10 months how you’ve quite literally sunk the GOP.

Trump supporters, overrunning a LAW BLOG. How is this even possible.

    Barry in reply to cepenta. | February 1, 2016 at 8:54 am

    “If Trump wins the nomination, you will all learn in about 10 months how you’ve quite literally sunk the GOP.”

    Good Lord, I hope so. It is the single most important feature about a Trump presidency.

      elliesmom in reply to Barry. | February 1, 2016 at 9:16 am

      And let’s get Bernie nominated to sink the Democrats.

      Radegunda in reply to Barry. | February 1, 2016 at 11:46 am

      In other words, you really do want the Democrats to win. (And so has Trump for most of his life.)

      Do Trumpbots never think about what happens after “the GOP” is smashed to smithereens by Donald the Great in their superhero fantasies?

      Radegunda in reply to Barry. | February 1, 2016 at 12:02 pm

      You’ve admitted that your Trump fandom is primarily a matter of wanting to exact a sweeping punishment on people you think have disappointed you — no matter how many good people are swept in along with them.

      Who’s going to be governing the country for the next several years is, by your own admission, a secondary concern.

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to cepenta. | February 1, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Trump is more for law and order, balance of power and stopping Obama lawlessness than our GOP establishment obviously is.

    Our sorry excuses for GOP legislators have written a blank check to Obama since his inauguration from day one.

    The GOP is despicable and disgusting, corrupt and lawless.

    They are about to get their comeuppance.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 10:59 am

      I continue to be shocked that a Law blog would support Constitutionally ineligible presidential candidates.

      The Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen requirement for US Head of State has been confirmed by over a century of USSC decisions. Neither Cruz nor Rubio are eligible.

      Radegunda in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 11:42 am

      So you want to elect someone who has favored Democrats all his life; who held fundraisers for Harry Reid; who very recently told us how close he is to Schumer and how well he gets along with Pelosi; and who thought Obama had a deep understanding of economics.

      The great faith in Trump as the superhero who will smash up the GOP and make all things new doesn’t make much sense unless you’re a Democrat.

        DuraMater in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2016 at 4:49 pm

        “….doesn’t make much sense unless you’re a Democrat.”

        ding. ding. ding. ding.

        Radegunda gets it. Trump may have changed his team jersey. But a leopard (or Democrat) cannot change its spots.

Respect for private property is a fundamental conservative principle. Conservatives have been speaking out against Kelo since the decision was announced. A man without principles needs a law to guide him. A man with principles does what’s right because it’s the right thing to do – no law required. The landowner does not have to justify a decision to not sell. Regardless how irrational, it’s their right and needs no justification. Arguing that the attempt to take the property was OK because it was legal and that it’s the job of the state to pass a law to restrict the activity is the same as arguing that it is OK to rob banks until the state gets around to passing a law to restrict the activity. It may be legal, but it’s not OK. When it was profitable for Trump to ignore the principle he claims to respect as a conservative, he ignored it. Isn’t that the type of politician we want to get rid of?

Since presidents don’t have anything to do with Kelo type takings the entire discussion is irrelevant.

We are electing a President not a local development authority politician or local county commissioner.

What Presidents do have to do with are things like
Build Wall
Deport illegals
Enforce our laws
Bring jobs back to USA
Redo our trade deals with China, Japan and Mexico

Scrap Obama’s 5500 page Obamatrade deal that Cruz supports.

    VaGentleman in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Sorry Gary, but it’s totally relevant. It gives us an insight into the character of the man. Are we electing a man of principle or someone who will wheel-and-deal when it suits him? Someone who will lie to us to get into office and then do the opposite? Once he’s in office, we’re stuck with him. Any pol can talk a good line. The only way to even begin to see what he will be like in office is to look at his past record. Trump’s past record is his business dealings. They are fair game and are the best indicators we have. They show a man who is a recent convert to conservativism who has a history of making deals with the devil when he profited from them.
    Every candidate has flaws. A big question is whether they are flaws in judgement or flaws in character. We all make errors of judgement. Within reason, those can be excused. Character issues are harder to ignore or excuse.
    That’s why Kelo matters. But you knew that already, didn’t you?

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | February 1, 2016 at 11:24 am

      “That’s why Kelo matters. But you knew that already, didn’t you?”

      Well, yeah. He has and he DOES.

      But Gari (or Gaghdad Bob as I sometimes call him) will lie any lie for his man-crush. He knows THAT, too. But he’s cool with it.

      A great example of a T-rump cultist.

      I disagree that a real estate developers character for the presidency is revealed by their perfectly legal and perfectly cobstitutional behavior as a real estate developer.

      We want a president that follows the law and the constitution. As a real esrate developer Trump folliwed the law and the constitution. So Trump’s character is revealed to be a person who follows the law and constitution.

      So now that is settled let’s remember presidents don’t have anything to do with Kelo type takings.

      Build wall
      Deport illegals
      Enforce our laws
      Do trade deals that promote jobs in USA

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 11:37 am

        “As a real esrate developer Trump folliwed the law and the constitution.”

        Those are lies, and you’re a liar, butt boi.

        T-rump has a history of lying to regulators, business partners, and investors.

        That is several flavors of FRAUD, you lying SOS. It IS NOT LEGAL.

        He ALSO has a LOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGG history of abusing the civil litigation process to crush opponents and critics. This is ALSO NOT LEGAL.

        We ALSO have seen a very recent episode what he tried to sic the FCC on a critic who made a statement on a cable TV show. Which was DOUBLE revealing, in his totalitarian impulses, PLUS his amazing STUPID regarding the FCC and regulating cable TV.

        You lying sack of T-rumpian sharia.

        VaGentleman in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 12:30 pm

        Your first paragraph argues that Trump’s real estate dealings tell us nothing about his character. Your second paragraph argues that Trump’s real estate dealings tell us that he is an honorable man who follows the law. I believe the term for that logical fallacy is ‘self referentially incoherent’.

        President’s are involved in the following Kelo type (eminent domain) activities.
        1- land acquisition for highways and federal buildings.
        2- land acquisition for military bases.
        3- land acquisition for federal parks and recreation areas.
        4- land acquisition and rights-of-way for border fences.
        5- etc.

    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Character is more important than a list of promises (which have not been consistent either).

    Anyone can promise anything on the campaign trail. It’s especially easy for someone who doesn’t have any record in government office to judge his promises against.

    Responsible people examine the character of someone who says “I’ll give you this if you give me vast power over your life.”

    Trump is a swaggering egonomaniac with a vindictive streak and not a microgram of humility. It’s folly to elect a president who says he never repents and has never done anything bad enough to need forgiveness, and who will immediately shift you from the “terrific” to the “terrible stupid loser” category if you don’t support his ambition.

      Radegunda is a democrat that supports Hillary/Bernie and fears Trump the most.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 11:54 am

        You’re a liar, a brownshirted bigot, a T-rump spunk slurping butt boi, and a ThoughtPolicing piece of T-rump shaira-endorsing totalitarianism.


        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 12:12 pm

        Once again, you’re demonstrating how easily a Trump fan will make bold assertions that are completely unsupported by factual evidence, and are actually refuted by evidence that’s easy to see.

        In Gary’s imagination, I must have been cleverly disguising myself as a conservative online for several years — just so I could now deploy my eeeevil anti-Trump attacks. And in Gary’s imagination, no real conservative could possibly dislike a swaggering egomaniacal bully who’s been pro-Democrat most of his life but now makes sweet promises to Gary.

        Or does Gary imagine that only a Democrat would use such a historically literate screen name?

          If I am wrong then just tell us who you support and correct me you lying democrat troll.

          Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2016 at 12:27 pm

          1. It’s preposterous and irrational to assert that my criticism of Trump has no substance unless I tell everyone who “my candidate” is.

          2. Even if I were a Democrat (an identity I would have to have cleverly disguised for years), it would take nothing away from the facts I have stated about Trump, including statements from his own mouth.

          3. If and when Democrats adduce the same facts, will you say “It doesn’t count because you’re a Democrat Hillary/Bernie supporter.”

          4. You’re simply dragging up the absurd trope that Trump fans have been flinging against Trump critics from the beginning: that we can’t possibly be real conservatives. That “argument” is just an attempt to cover for the lack of a real argument.

          Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2016 at 12:40 pm

          Gary, you’re sounding hysterical. Will you say I’m lying about my favor for Scott Walker too?

        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 12:37 pm

        My first pick was Scott Walker because he has a record of real courage in standing up for principle and taking on the Democrat / public union establishment. He did it with quiet dignity, not the swaggering braggadocio of Trump. Also, Democrats were apparently unable to find anything damaging in his personal history that could be used against him — which is definitely not the case with Trump.

        Unfortunately, a lot of people went for the dazzling TV celebrity instead of the solid record of leadership.

        Walker reportedly also decided he needed to develop a deeper understanding of foreign policy. Trump, by contrast, harbors no doubts about is superior understanding of any kind of policy.

          Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2016 at 12:44 pm

          Gary, will you say this is a lie too?

          You have absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that I’m a “lying democrat troll.” Zero. All you have is the preposterous notion that people who dislike Trump are eeeevil and can’t possibly be conservative.

          Give it up already.

          You still haven’t said who you support now. So tell us.

          I actually liked Walker for many I f tge reasons you stated. However he ruined his campaign by surrounding himself with GOPe consultants and then followed Ryan into the open borders BS. His demise had nothing to do with Trump. It had to do with his capture by GOPe open borders crowd.

          Don’t forget to tell us who you support now.

          Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2016 at 1:51 pm

          Once again, Gary: Do you believe that this a lie too?

A little fact checking might be in order: “…the state Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, which attempted to use eminent domain to have Coking’s house, as well as one other home and an Italian restaurant on the same block, condemned so that the Trump Plaza could make its upgrades.”

It was the State that tried to enact eminent domain for the benefit of the State (taxes, income generation, etc.), not Donald Trump. And a judge ruled against the state.

New Jersey and its citizens and the entire USA lost a lot of businesses anyway around that time due to destructive US tax code. Link

Neo-cons are Rockefeller/Bush republicans, aren’t they?

Neo-cons are for open borders, increased immigration, cheap foreign labor, decreased US sovereignty and identity, redefining the Constitution’s definition of Natural Born Citizen confirmed by over a century of Supreme Court decisions in order to support clearly ineligible Ted Cruz and/or clearly ineligible Rubio.

If these people succeed and we end up with a Neo-America that encompasses all of the Americas, including Cuba, as Heidi Cruz recommended while working for CFR it will be a disaster for this country.

The European Union should be a lesson to you neo-cons. Europe is lying in tatters and under invasion by barbarians. That is what will happen to the US if tied to the rest of the hemisphere full of corrupt 3rd world despot nations.

God forbid.

    VaGentleman in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    That the state sued is irrelevant since only the state can sue for an eminent domain claim. What is significant is that Trump was the only one who stood to profit. The state would not have sued unless it had assurances that he would develop the property.

    Sanddog in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    I was wondering when this line of misdirection would make an appearance.

    The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority didn’t spontaneously decide out of the blue to attempt condemnation on a private home and two small businesses. They did so at the behest of the Trump organization. Trump wanted those properties, the owners didn’t want to sell so he went to government and asked them to use force against those he perceived as standing in his way. That’s like hiring a hitman and them claiming you have no culpability because you didn’t pull the trigger.

      DuraMater in reply to Sanddog. | February 1, 2016 at 5:06 pm

      “I was wondering when this line of misdirection would make an appearance.”
      Me too because it was another one of Trump’s responses (along with, “the old woman was being greedy”)when confronted with the Ted Cruz campaign video exposing the case.

      It was Trumps junk yard dog attorneys who contacted the state agency and incited them to try to condemn the woman’s property.

    And, this was the property:
    It wasn’t in the middle of a sand dune for pete’s sake. It was surrounded by an unfinished, unsightly mess.

Note that you “up thumbed” your own comment as a matter of habit.

POTUS has EVERYTHING to do with property rights, you LYING SOS.

How many times will you chant that lying-point?

“Scrap Obama’s 5500 page Obamatrade deal that Cruz supports.”

How many times will you try THAT lie, you lying POS?

Cruz, with Sessions, KILLED that bill in its present iteration.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 11:08 am

    Cruz weasel-voted to support both the trade deal and the Iran deal. He also conveniently did not vote to audit the Fed.

    America does not need another weasel-wording lawyer politician, junior Senator, inability to work with others, dubious citizenship, dubious eligibility, sealed records, no business experience, divided loyalties (Cuba immigration with benefits activism dating back to the Bush years), globalist, diminished US sovereignty President.

    We just had one of those.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 11:10 am

      Cruz weasel-voted to *facilitate* both the trade deal and the Iran deal.

      TPA facilitated the trade deal and the Corker bill enabled the Iran Deal.


        Radegunda in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 11:20 am

        Lucky Trump has no political record at all, except for giving lots of material support and praise to Democrats (and occasionally to a Republican “establishment” pol).

        So Trump gets to run on (inconsistent) promises and swaggering braggadocio — and on the imagination of his fans who believe they’ve found the antidote to all the scummy “professional politicians.”

        That’s certainly easier than having to answer to one’s imperfections. (Trump staged his charity-theater for a similar reason.)

      Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 1, 2016 at 11:14 am

      Be sure to tell your friends and neighbors all those fables, Unc.

      But make sure you ALSO tell them about how the Twin Towers really came down…

      as an essential point of reference for evaluating your bullshit.

    Fuck off Cruz troll.

    Cruz supports Obamatrade he is just slick willy weasel lawyer enough to want to hide his vote until after election. After the election he will vote for Obamatrade along with Ryan and McConnell.

    He wrote wall street journal op ed praising obamatrade.

    He has never written obamatrade is a bad deal or that trade deals should be done on a 1 to 1 basis. He I s just a government bureaucrat willing to tell any lie.

    Jeff Sessions who understands immigration and trade deals refuses to endorse Cruz just like every other senator has refused to endorse him.

    Cruz will not build a wall and wants to increase h1b visas to allow more immigrants to take jobs from Iowans.

    I just saw Cruz Iowa campaign manager Steve King call Sarah Palin a liar and crony for endirsing Trump. Cruz will tell any lie.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 11:56 am

      “I just saw Cruz Iowa campaign manager Steve King call Sarah Palin a liar and crony for endirsing Trump.”

      Because you have a well-earned reputation as a lying sack of T-rump, put up your links.


        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm

        Easy for you to support than, right, lying sack of T-rump spunk?

          And instantly proving janitor’s point. Comes Rags the sole reason for the problem. Ragsless threads are adult threads. Add rags and his childish moronic vulgar language and you get people who get fed up with his unmoderated vulgarity abuse and bullying and respond in kind as a result. Simple.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 1, 2016 at 2:26 pm

          A simple lie.

          But exactly what you do, every day, Bierhall Britt. Lie.

          The Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda would be so proud.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 1:35 pm

          Dunno how this got here… Apologize for non-sequitur…

          Ragspierre | February 1, 2016 at 12:23 pm

          Easy for you to support than, right, lying sack of T-rump spunk?

          There are a lot of problems with that reply, Rags.

          1. I am not a liar

          2. I support the supporters of Cruz & Trump and have not endorsed.

          3. I am not a “sack of T-rump spunk” as you have injected in conversation.

          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | February 1, 2016 at 1:48 pm

          That’s because it wasn’t…

          1. directed to you…ever…

          2. it wasn’t even posted to this part of this thread by me. It belonga to Gari Britt.

If you hook your red wagon to Tlogoump be ready to wear his name across your foreheads. You own it now.

Trump has never had any objections to Big Government. He just thinks it will all run better when he’s in charge.

That’s pretty obvious to anyone who actually pays attention to the character and pronouncements of Trump.

Anyone else notice how the number of F-bombs in comments here has increased exponentially since the Stormtrumpers moved in?

I don’t know that it’s quite as big a deal as Dennis Prager believes it to be, but Trump and his fans do seem to have a definite coarsening effect on polite discourse. And it’s kind of disappointing that this place has turned into the kind of blog I can’t just leave open on my desktop anymore or feel comfortable sharing with friends & family, just because the comments section has turned into such an f-bomb laden sewer.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | February 1, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    Heather Mac Donald has commented on the same coarsening of the American political discourse, and attributes it…NOT to rappers or gangsta culture…but to Duh Donald.

    I make a point of printing off the more pithy T-rump supporter nasty and stupid, which I use to convert voters to Cruz.

    I actually find the bully-boi, bierhall nature of T-rump cultists to be very useful in teaching people what’s really going on here.

      MikeInCA in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2016 at 3:05 pm

      You have zero self awareness. You’re the source of much of the vulgar comments. You treat the professor’s blog like your personal litter box, attack other posters with disgusting accusations, then blame everyone else of ad hominems.

    janitor in reply to Amy in FL. | February 1, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    Perhaps Amy and Rags should go back and review the anti-Trump people’s language — whether childish mockery like “T-rump cultists” or outright foul language, such as calling me an asshold — in response to comments that I’ve posted and think again where the coarseness is coming from.

      Radegunda in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2016 at 1:45 pm

      Before I saw any of that, I saw a pattern of Trump fans shouting “RINO sellout!” and “You’re a shill for Jeb!” in response to any unflattering remarks about Trump. I found it quite astonishing.

      I’m not condoning vulgarity in response, but the hostility that Trump fans started hurling at Trump critics early in the campaign seems to be what started a kind of nasty infighting that I don’t recall seeing before in a GOP primary.

      Moreover, Trump fans apparently have no objections to Trump saying things like “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” if they’re learning to another candidate, and frequently attaching the “stupid, loser, terrible” labels to anyone who doesn’t support his presidential ambitions. Other candidates don’t do that.

      In fact, Trump fans have kept praising Trump’s “refreshing un-PC candor” when he lobs his juvenile putdowns. So it’s reasonable to see the coarsening manners (on the conservative side) as owing more to Trump than to any other factor.

      When Trump fans say they want first and most to see the whole GOP crushed, they add more evidence in support of that view.

        DuraMater in reply to Radegunda. | February 1, 2016 at 3:33 pm

        It’s those New York liberal democrat values that DJT and his ilk have been spreading like a plague, infecting the more refined indigenous cultures (especially throughout the south) for generations.

      Anyone else notice how the number of F-bombs in comments here has increased exponentially since the Stormtrumpers moved in?

      I was commenting specifically on the number and frequency of F-bombs here latelya Trump specialty, as Dennis Prager has pointed out previously.

      One Trump superfan in particular used that word six times in the first page of comments to this post alone. Come on.

    Radegunda in reply to Amy in FL. | February 1, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    “The Trump effect”: Bringing the coarseness we’ve long seen coming from the left into the (more or less) conservative ranks.

    What I noticed from the start is how Trump fans react with emotional hostility when anyone mentions any possible demerit of “their candidate” — as though they don’t think he should be subjected to the normal process of vetting and comparing.

    I don’t really see the same reactions in support of any other candidate. Cruz fans may be just as devoted as Trump fans, but they’re less likely to put you in the “enemies” camp if you mention any doubts about him. They might even discuss it calmly.

    What’s even more disturbing is that I’ve found mousy little me being drawn into taunting mode. But when someone calls me a “liar,” maybe it’s excusable.

As Ted vowed in front of God & Country, President Cruz will commission Trump to build that wall and will ensure the land needed will be provided via eminent domain.

If he doesn’t then he has lied to the American people and Cruz Does. Not. Lie.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | February 1, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    But sly liar,

    1. WE’RE NOT talking KELO takings, liar

    2. property rights are WAY bigger than ED

    3. we ALLLLLLL recognize there are legitimate ED applications

    Please, just don’t even try this bullshit with me.


      Rags, EM is a nothing burger in this election. Just like Cruz’s loans = a nothing burger.

      Get a grip, dear.

      You’ll develop an exploding brain aneurysm on the path you trod.

      Lighten up… take a walk… feed the pigeons or something.

      Either way, Cruz or Trump, that wall is going to be build and the land for it will be provided by eminent domain.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | February 1, 2016 at 1:46 pm


        this whole post and LONG THREAD, dear liar.

        The “wall” is not a question, just your attempted deflection.

        The LOATHING of OTHER PEOPLE’s rights to property by T-rump IS the POINT.

        Sly liar.

          “The Wall” That Cruz and Trump Both Vow To Build Pivots On The Implementation of Eminent Domain.

          Post Title: “Trump’s use of government power against the less powerful”

          May As Well Rewrite It To Say: Government’s Use Of The Government Power Against The Less Powerful

          Either Eminent Domain Is Accepted As A Necessity Or It Isn’t.

          This blog post is a Rubio Supporter dig at Trump to elevate Marco Rubio and Trump is targeted only because Cruz is not in the lead.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | February 1, 2016 at 2:03 pm

        “Either Eminent Domain Is Accepted As A Necessity Or It Isn’t.”

        Another lying proposition.

        ED IS accepted WHERE it is legitimate.

        KELO takings are NOT accepted as a legitimate use of ED.

        Don’t keep trying this lie, honey.

    That was obviously a joke. He got a big laugh out of it, and I didn’t take it seriously. Do you have a sense of humor?

So we’ve established that Trump is not even remotely averse to lobbying government agencies to seize property that he covets and turn it over to him for his own personal economic benefit.

And we’re told by some of the Trump supporters that it’s no big deal! That’s how the big boys roll! Yeah, it is how the big boys “roll” over consumers and other small business owners. That makes Trump a big part of the problem, not the solution.

If you are worried about eminent domain as an election issue, you are not looking at the big picture.

Millions of illegal immigrants are flooding across the Mexican border, soaking up taxpayer dollars in education, healthcare, housing, welfare and imprisonment. They have murdered more US citizens since 9/11 than died that fateful day. Our borders are gone and Obama has abandoned any possible enforcement by ordering border control agents to say away from the border. And you are worried about a greedy little old lady who turned down a million bucks for a house worth peanuts?

Obama has silently, as in the MSM ignored it, massively increased Muslim immigration into the US. He wants to bring in 200,000 unvetted “refugees” from Syria. Nobody is calling Obama out on this. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and has that heritage. Islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity and Judaism and has been ever since Mohammed beheaded hundreds of Jewish captives. Yet, we are importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims but very few Middle Eastern Christians. If this carries on for much longer, we won’t be talking eminent domain; we’ll be talking Sharia law.