Desperate Fox Punditry, and Establishment GOPe Advocates, Jump Shark on Trump “Eminent Domain” Comments…

The latest round of attacks aimed toward Donald Trump can only reasonably be considered divinely inspired fails.

OMG Donald Trump Supports Eminent Domain!!

[ *NOTE* Watch closely who picks up on this attack approach and you’ll identify an even larger number of the GOPe deceivers than were visible before. ]

Brett Baier interviewed Donald Trump for his Fox News Special Report segment and carried with him a specifically pre-framed angle of attack, an agenda.  Baier used the Club for Growth argument (see video: @3:34) for conversation about Eminent Domain.

Of course Eminent Domain is wonderful, it goes without saying.

It is not even a reasonable argument to state otherwise. Eminent Domain is expressly written into the 5th Amendment of the U.S. constitution because without the ability of government to control property use, institute easements and take ownership of land parcels there would be complete chaos.

trump eminent domain

Think about the power grid as an example. How do you get electricity to your home if the municipal government cannot put a power pole in the neighborhood yards? It really is that simple.

Or if you live in the country and build a home and you need to have utilities installed, think about how ridiculous it would be if the neighboring land owner two miles away refused to allow the transferring infrastructure?

Eminent Domain is an essential element of society and life. There is no other option without it. Donald Trump says “eminent domain is wonderful” because it is.

Yet look at how quick the punditry moved to make an issue out of it:

You just have to laugh at the scope of the FAIL.

Now, there is an argument to be made that the Kelo Supreme Court decision, which expanded Eminent Domain to encompass the transfer of property ownership from one private owner to another private owner, is going to far.

In Kelo you enter into the “greater good” argument where the property rights of an individual are compromised by government intervention. Should a property owner lose their property for a developer or business who is putting a manufacturing facility upon it?

That’s a more nuanced argument and should be decided between the interested parties and resolved in local courts if needed.

However, the larger argument of “eminent domain”, where the government can use private property for the benefit of a larger society is not an issue; it is essential.  There’s another aspect to “actual property ownership” that revolves around taxation, economic activity, private property “ownership”, and who actually owns real property that is subject to cyclical taxation, but that’s for another day.

Short version “anything that is taxed, while existing in a static economic form, you do not technically own”.

But in their rush to find something, anything, to attack Donald Trump with – Fox News once again shows how absolutely biased they are in their efforts to get rid of Donald Trump and make way for their chosen candidate, Jeb!

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox's Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox’s Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

Fail Eminent and Evidenced !

Everyone should openly laugh at those making an issue of this.  It really is too funny !!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2016, media bias, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to Desperate Fox Punditry, and Establishment GOPe Advocates, Jump Shark on Trump “Eminent Domain” Comments…

  1. libby says:

    Love Sundance.
    Fox who?

    Liked by 5 people

  2. FOX News is going to loose their entire empire.
    Un Fair and Un Balanced.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Lose. The word is lose.

      Stop it, stop it, stop it, stop it, you loosers.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Emblematic says:

      Don’t believe it. Murdoch will happily take short term losses in money and goodwill to advance his and his cronies’ interests. If they can kill the Trump campaign, there will be anger from some for a while, but the majority will eventually be distracted by the next big story and then life will go on and the Trump challenge will be left behind. The elites don’t even mind being hated by an informed minority, as long as they keep control.

      Murdoch has been playing the media/power game for longer and more successfully than just about anyone. He understands how the cycle works. Several years ago there was genuine outrage in Britain over phone hacking. Murdoch rode out the storm and now it’s a dead issue.

      Like

    • Ed Hill says:

      You are right on. I was a once was a big fan of fox news, until I noticed the bias against Trump by Megyn Kelly on the first GOP debate. To me it was very apparent. And then she has Debbie Wasserman on after the debate to analyze the candidates, are you kidding me! And then I found this site and read the story about operation Hummingbird and my suspicions were validated! I’m no longer a fan. I can clearly see the GOPe trying to take Donald Trump down. That too is very apparent. But it is not working. I even see him interviewed by the MSM, and he answers them honestly, and he comes out of the interview none the worse. They just don’t understand the movement by the once silent majority. Their smear tactics are not working on Trump and it has them in a quandary.

      Like

  3. The Boss says:

    The Club for Growth eminent domain line of attack, like the Club for Growth Iowa polls, is a sorry joke. It too will backfire.

    Liked by 10 people

  4. TheTorch says:

    Glad you have addressed this Sundance, because obviously there is some concern about what was said. I posted something in the previous thread regarding this.

    I think the real issue here is that they got what they wanted and will use it relentlessly, but as you rightly point out, they are beyond desperate at the moment and are just grabbing anything and running with it.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Rick says:

    Again, FOX assault panel runs with a false narrative….hacking Trump’s statement to “I think eminent domain is wonderful”. Dim wit Stephen Hayes and the rest need to listen and FOX needs to report the entire statement.

    Trump asserted the reasons of jobs, economic expansion, and for the common good. He didn’t say that he supported corrupt developers and large entities to harm landowners. The need is for the common good and our 5th amendment supports the proper reason and execution behind the subject.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Sharon says:

    Eminent domain is a familiar mechanism for all of those hundreds of thousands of farmers who fill the center of this nation.

    They do not see eminent domain as an intransigent enemy: they have known for at least fifty years and more than when a new state highway is built, it has to go somewhere.

    They understood (in eastern Montana where I grew up – it was in the early 1950s) that electric power lines had to go somewhere. They were smart that way.

    And telephone lines had to go somewhere.

    There was not a hysterical reaction to the prospect of eminent domain which was employed as the mechanism to prepare the ground for the good things that were comingt.

    The hysteria of recent years does not have to do primarily with eminent domain but with a few wretched examples of governmental over-reach when they unnecessarily made land grabs after being paid off by some high-powered locals who had their own purposes in mind.

    There’s no need for eminent domain to be considered, inherently, a curse and terrible thing. It’s not. Without it, there would always be one farmer in this county or one businessman in that city who could hold up a needed sewer system that would serve hundreds of thousands.

    I sure hope a few people are wise enough not to let the media use item after item from Donald Trump as hysteria triggers.

    Gotta be smarter than that.

    Liked by 19 people

    • Col.(R) Ken says:

      Great post. Have you been to the Custer battlefield? Did you follow his trail up and over the Continental Divide?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharon says:

        Custer Battlefield – yes – as a child, of course, and later as well. My Dad was a self-taught historian and made sure we had some perspective about such things. Did not follow the trail over the CD.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Ziiggii says:

      SD turned what I was going to say in reply to you in the other thread into an article.

      What really made me pause was how Fox edited that piece. I had to re-watch it several times to understand exactly The Don was saying and had to go digging for the ad that Club for Growth put out that started this entire thing. I thought the question was from out in left field, but now see why Trump was trying to continually bring them (CfG) back into the discussion.

      The ad:

      The hit-piece:
      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424041/club-growth-action-ad-hits-trump-eminent-domain-jim-geraghty

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Boss says:

        I wonder if NRO is noticing higher numbers of visitors to their web site these days?

        Like

      • Eminent domain is inscribed in the Constitution, and is required for a civil society.

        Like

      • wanthetruth says:

        Ziiggii, One couldn’t help but notice Brett’s quick interruptions to not let Club for Growth be a part of the conversation. He didn’t want their (almost open) blackmail request of a cool million $’s revisited. Enjoyed Brett’s frustration as Donald got it out there despite those efforts.

        Poor interviewers, trying to control the Donald is beyond their abilities. With the agenda holding front and center in their minds it’s too difficult to complete their maneuvers around one so much smarter than them.

        Liked by 3 people

      • NJF says:

        Wow that was fast.

        I’ll give Brett Baeir some credit as he at least had some skill in stopping Trump from just steam rolling right over him.

        Like

        • NJF says:

          Oops, that last part was supposed to be with a different comment. Grrrr that we can’t edit.

          Like

        • Garrison Hall says:

          Actually, I think Trump is a very tough, savvy interview. Baeir is good. like most other top talking heads (or at least he’s good at reading the prepared questions his producers prepare for him) but he didn’t really score with Trump on what was obviously the big question. Instead, Trump adroitly owned the criticism and simply defended eminent domain. You could tell Baeir acknowledged he was bested when he gave a rather rueful grin to Trump. These guys are accustomed to dealing with wussy politicians who are so scared by their consultants that they’ll weasel on any question. Trump, instead, simply said, ” I like eminent domain, deal with it.” GO TRUMP!!

          Liked by 4 people

    • P7rancher says:

      Sharon, I read or skip through all the threads, but when I see your name I pause and read and think. Thank you smart Lady!!

      Liked by 5 people

    • Lee says:

      well, governments at all levels are always hunting money, and if they can use ED to kick some little old lady off her low-tax property, because they want a high-rise built, with LOTS of future property tax revenue in its place, they will do it. That is a gross injustice, and has only to do with THE MONEY.

      So yes, it has been abused quite a bit in recent years, and as usual, the corrupt politicians have a bottomless gullet for tax revenue, at any cost, to anyone ELSE.

      Like

      • keebler AC says:

        Your rendition of it is the typical false talking point given by the liberal media. First they claim government has rights over you and then they claim ED is wrong. ED by a city can occur if the owner fails to keep their property up to date, is of harm to the city as a whole in neglect, and refuses to consider mutual benefit to city as a whole. As with any privilege such as children, life and property, one has a responsibility. As a property holder I do my best not to disturb my neighbors and keep the place looking decent. If an elderly lady can no longer take care of a property she has a responsibility to find someone who can, if not, then she has to be realistic and consider retiring to a smaller place. Decent people try not to burden or bring others down due to their situation. A dignified solution can be found, and most would welcome a generous buyer like Trump rather than be determined to outlive your fame in a city spot and drag the whole economy down with you in old age.

        Liked by 2 people

        • ED has been abused and it’s rare instances where the property owner gets true market value or better. Yes, ED is generally a necessary and good concept where it meets governmental (public) needs short of just more taxes.
          Anytime we resort to talking around an issue to demonstrate our support for the broader goal it is noticed and cheapens the Tree’s well earned reputation of truth.

          Liked by 1 person

          • RP says:

            “ED has been abused and it’s rare instances where the property owner gets true market value or better.” is a remarkable statement that bares scrutiny. Do you have any source to this claim? We mustn’t cheapen the Tree’s well earned reputation of truth…agree?

            Like

            • My only factual evidence is personal experience where my family received approximately 75 cents on the dollar for land taken. Couple that with numerous stories over the years of similar instances. We should also remember the government sets “fair value”.

              Like

  7. Sharon says:

    Anyone who generally opposes eminent domain – just because – really does need to be laughed off the stage, as Sundance recommends.

    Liked by 6 people

    • manickernel says:

      Agreed 100%. There are cases where it has been abused, usually by local governments making shady deals, but overall it is not only necessary, but as Trump says people almost always get well above market prices for property.

      Trump is sounding more polished and relaxed these days too, that is very encouraging.

      Liked by 6 people

      • greenmirror says:

        This!

        I have heard of people negotiating 6 to 1 for their property and succeeding….it all comes back to the Art Of The Deal!

        Like

  8. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    A well thought out argument and right on, as indicated the only gray are is take property from a private owner and giving it to another private owner because it would generate more tax revenue. That is over the line without doubt but that is also not technically “eminent domain” either. If we use the “common Good” argument then there is also “no limit” to what the government can do as long as they claim its for the common good. Since the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed to “lmit” power the “common good” argument is on weak ground at best.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. FireAm 85 says:

    Trump will bludgeon all who attack him with this new narrative. Just like he has planned.

    Like

  10. Sentient says:

    So the Club for Growth wants people to support the guy – Jeb – whose father appointed swing vote David Souter to the Supreme Court? Got it.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sentient says:

      Swing vote in Kelo, I mean.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Col.(R) Ken says:

        That was the Supreme Court Case, 2006-7, where an elderly lady along a waterfront fought to keep her home, and the municipality used eminent domain to take her property, to give too a developer, if I recall correctly.

        Like

        • Raj-V says:

          Nine years later it remains barren and undeveloped.

          Well done CT libtards!

          Like

        • SharonKinDC says:

          Yep. It was Pfizer. IMO, Pfizer did the land grab before they EVER were actually ready to build. Which is wrong from the start. Mentioned elsewhere, I believe Kelo was upheld, because it is a worthy thing to consider as a tool in urban blight situations where crime is rampant, many properties are abandoned, and is one step up from a post-bombing war zone, especially when existing architecture either isn’t noteworthy or is so decrepit, there is no salvaging it. I also envisioned some of the urban renewal needing to involve both the government for approval and developers for the $$ and know-how.

          What could be useful, not that I’m a big regulation supporter, is for Congress to put teeth into specific guidelines for it’s use, to curb any tendencies of rapacious developer/government collusion. The reality is there are far too many areas which could use a shot in the arm with redevelopment. However, it’s got to be done right, fairly, and have an appropriate mixed use balanced. Otherwise, it’s just another urban area devoid of economic activity (other than illegal types)

          Like

          • Beenthere says:

            It was not Pfizer, but local real estate developers who wanted the property to develop a business park with a hotel (I think it would have been a Marriott.). There was talk of a possibility of Pfizer renting office space but never definite. Since then Pfizer moved a bulk of their Groton business to Cambridge, MA & China. New London, where Kelo property is located, is a corrupt democrat-run municipality & has been that way for many years. Think bribes, kickbacks & everything related to such business, like the rest of the CT cities & state government. Pfizer is reasonably honest; they’re just a cheap, b@st@rd company to work for.

            Like

          • conservalicious says:

            Does anyone remember the effort to get David Souter’s House via the Kelo decision for the building of “The Lost Liberty Hotel”? It was great!

            Liked by 1 person

  11. This is problematic, for most all conservatives condemned Kelo and, as a result, many state-governments voted to withhold $ to any project that had invoked it.

    You are taking private property [quote Locke, here, noting the three key rights are life, liberty, property] and you should note that the relevant New Haven lot remains barren.

    Trump [and you] are wrong, here, when E.D. is applied to private property acquisition.

    Liked by 2 people

    • sundance says:

      You present, actually conflate, three distinct and separate points/arguments:

      Trump was responding to a question about “Eminent Domain” as a basic principle. Which, as anyone would affirm, is written into the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is inherently a necessary aspect to the formation of any growing nation.

      The Kelo decision is based on a principle of “land/property ownership”, and the transfer to a private entity. Divergent from the larger issue of “Eminent Domain” in substantive ways.

      However, to the latter, and to “John Locke”, the principle of Locke’s position was that property ownership must be inherent in the transfer of interest between parties. Unfortunately, the institution of property taxes eliminates Locke’s entire premise. A person cannot actually own something they are taxed on in a static state.

      You only need to stop paying your property taxes to identify who actually owns the property. Hint, it is not actually you. As such the John Locke position on property ownership fails current argument.

      Liked by 15 people

      • Sharon says:

        A person cannot actually own something they are taxed on in a static state.

        That’s such a depressing truth.

        I remember the conversation I had with my dad about his 1200 acres of farmland when I was trying to understand the business of taxes. I was probably about ten years old and could not understand why, if it was his land, he had to send them money every year. And to his credit, he didn’t claim it made sense. Just explained that that was the way it was. In 1954.

        Liked by 7 people

        • Ziiggii says:

          With all the freak environmentalist’s abuses in opposition of development (so they could “save the endangered snails”) one would think someone would have thought to not tax undeveloped acreage (ie in a static state) as a way to encourage conservation.

          Pfft – common sense

          Like

      • You create a criterion to destroy a concept; this is disingenuous and [if memory serves] the SCOTUS decision didn’t invoke this rationalization. The Kelo case was predicated on the theory that government would gain more taxes from the project that, alas, never was ultimately pursued. Its constitutional justification was soft, another example of activist judges who should be condemned by true conservatives.

        Liked by 1 person

        • sundance says:

          Robert, I didn’t create property taxes.

          Eminent domain is based on the principle of the government holding a financial interest in property (property taxes). Therefore the government has a vested interest in the valuation of property (property taxes). As a consequence government holds a vested interest in property improvements (property taxes). The Kelo decision was based on this underpinning.

          I don’t like property taxes because it essentially means no-one owns property. However, the concept of property taxation is included in the 5th amendment. Is what it is. Not my doing.

          Liked by 6 people

        • Ricardo says:

          Eminent domain is in the Constitution and the “Public use” clause only, actually, limited the federal government. Individual States had the right to have whatever law they wanted, even to take the land “without compensation” or for any reason; it was up to that State and its own voters to decide what to do. The 14th amendment was never designed to take away rights, and so it follows that, regardless, the State has a right to transfer private property if it is for a “public purpose”, whether it’s building a highway so a person can get to work easier, or developing a blighted area where one or two holdouts can potentially blackmail big developers for millions of dollars. The Supreme Court may be iffy in its position on Public Use equaling Public Purpose, but otherwise the Founders never intended to forbid eminent domain for whatever use for the states.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Ricardo says:

            I forgot to say: that the 14th amendment only imposes on the State the necessity of due process and due compensation, but doesn’t take away the State’s right to have a broad or less broad definition of public use.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Sentient says:

      I was troubled by Kelo, but with some giant public-private partnerships the water is muddied. Certainly, on one extreme, an owner of a mansion shouldn’t be able to use eminent domain to seize his neighbor’s house on the grounds that he’ll build a giant addition and pay tons of property taxes. Think of sports stadia, mega malls, metropolitan airports, etc., though. Many of these are quasi public endeavors. Is the distinction between using eminent domain to build the exit ramp to the stadium (certainly within the historical use of eminent domain) really a bright-line difference from using eminent domain to build a parking ramp for the stadium, which might be owned by an independent Metropolitan Sports Facilities corporation?

      Liked by 1 person

  12. dizzymissl says:

    All candidates must return money from any donor who has made money on a project that used eminent domain.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Sentient says:

    I’ll tell you one place we’ll definitely need some eminent domain: building the border fence/wall on the US-Mexico border. Much private ranch land runs right up to the border (along with park lands, Indian reservations, nature preserves, etc). When Trump builds the wall he’s going to need Congress to 1) fund construction 2) enact exact specifications and 3) enact comprehensive enabling legislation to trump (no pun intended) all existing tribal and environmental law (without which it would be tied up in the courts for decades). So yeah, we’ll need to use eminent domain and lots of it. We’ve got a country to protect.

    Liked by 4 people

    • WSB says:

      THAT is the definition of ‘the Common Good’?

      Liked by 2 people

    • moogey says:

      However, if memory serves me right, the Border Patrol cannot build or use roads along the border as they have been appropriated through eminent domain for the EPA.

      So we know that if the EPA can shut down the roads along the border, the DHS could definitely use eminent domain to put in a wall along the border.

      Like

    • krzycatlady says:

      given all of the grief, danger etc that those landowners have had to put up with in recent years, I honestly doubt they will have any objections to a wall…

      Like

  14. rashamon says:

    Ouch. Kelo vs, City of New London where the seized prime waterfront property subsequently stood empty for almost a decade? Abuse of power? Yes. Absolutely.

    The judicial system? “Fair” market value? Don’t go there. How many appraisers can you pay off to up the value of property to get a exploded loan from a “friendly” bank and set up a bubble in the real estate market? How many judges rest safely in such pockets? Been there; seen that.

    Geez, guys. This is the oldest scalp between power players and bankers that ever existed.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. The Boss says:

    It will be interesting to see if / when NRO jumps the shark. They’d better damn well not do this time what they did in a 2011 article about Trump and eminent domain. At that time, they omitted a very important statement that Trump made to Neil Cavuto (whose interview w/ DT was the basis of the article). Their omission painted a very different picture of Trump, much in line with what the oinking media pigs are doing foday. How do I know of the omission? Because other sources covering the same interview reported the missing statement. Took all of a couple of minutes to find this stuff.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Venus says:

    I really like how Trump pointed out — over Bret’s trying to talk over him — that eminent domain isn’t just taking the property; the owners are PAID.
    The Club for Growth/GOP are acting like eminent domain means taking without compensation.

    I also like how Trump pointed out the hold outs are usually (99.9% of the time) just greedy SOBs.

    Trump really does explain things in a no-nonsense way that the average person can understand (i.e., not political double-speak).

    Liked by 5 people

    • Trump is losing it, sorry, regarding a series of truly-conservative issues. For example, he favors single-payor healthcare and condemned Pamela Geller’s “Freedom of Speech” event [where she was almost murdered]. I like Cruz.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ziiggii says:

        We get it you like Cruz and Trump isn’t “conservative” enough!

        I like a winning horse, not just the one that’s the prettiest or has the coolest name or one from my home area. None of the pundit horse racing experts bet on Seabiscuit, but he became an unlikely champion and a symbol of hope to many Americans during the Great Depression.

        I’ll cheer for my generations political Seabiscuit and you can keep cheering for War Admiral.

        [ADD: Pam Geller was not “almost murdered”! The damn idiots never even made it into the building… stop obfuscating]

        Liked by 7 people

      • WSB says:

        You’re wrong about both, and conservatism doesn’t work if no one votes for it. Trump has common sense which has made him successful in the past and will so in the future.

        Liked by 3 people

      • flova says:

        Trump did say we “need to take care of everybody” but he never said that meant ‘single-payer.’ There are myriad ways to fix the healthcare system privately and still keep Medicaid and Medicare. He says all the time he wants to stop the waste. I work in the healthcare field and you would not believe the waste in these 2 programs–it’s horrible.
        These 2 programs were meant for chronically ill really poor, unableto work, and for seniors. They are so abused it isn’t funny. Trump should keep pounding that home-he is not for single-payer but his plan will help ‘everybody.’ Think of the cuts in spending when he weeds out he moochers and loafers.!

        Liked by 6 people

      • sundance says:

        Hey Robert, FYI Medicaid is already single payer, and NO Trump does not advocate for single payer.

        Cruz can’t win. And if he ever got too close Karl Rove would unleash the Glenn Beck, David Barton, Raphael Cruz ‘wing-nut’ angle which would wipe him out in a week… Oh, and Cruz (including his campaign team) knows that too.

        Liked by 12 people

        • Just_Me says:

          Cruz supporters really need to understand what Sundance has said, Cruz can’t win! Furthermore, Cruz supporters better hope Trump wins because if he doesn’t, Cruz’s political career IS OVER. The GOPe HATES Cruz, FACT.

          Like

      • catmom says:

        LOL! I like Cruz also, but he cannot win, and he knows it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • SharonKinDC says:

        BS on Single Payer, unless you mean he’s not scrapping MediAid/MediCare/VA Hospitals.

        As for the Geller situation, (which has been addressed by many here, multiple times) while she had the right to do it, it provided fodder for CAIR et al, to shriek ‘islamphobia’ and those who aren’t well-informed, believed it. A similar event in the UK SILENCED the citizenry, due to the shrieking of the aggrieved, who have had to deal w/ ‘grooming’ rape gangs of ‘Asians’ (read ROP adherents) picking vulnerable non-ROP girls for rape gangs/forced prostitution, etc. Cripes. They were just finding their voice on this issue. Idiotic self-goal.

        In one way, I love the idea… as a private citizen. However, Geller, who is very flamboyant, wanted a tactical media victory. Others, including myself, think it a strategic blunder. Perhaps Geller will sponsor such a contest in the West Bank to show support for free speech?

        Liked by 1 person

      • justfactsplz says:

        Liking Cruz doesn’t have anything to do with this election cycle. I used to like him too. The GOPe has preordained Bush to be the winner and will never let Cruz win. Their roadmap was created to defeat Cruz. If you haven’t read Sundance’s series on the GOPe roadmap and the splitter candidates, I highly recommend it. Trump isn’t perfect but he is our only chance to save our republic. Otherwise it will be Bush and Clinton who are both the same and support the same things like Common Core, the trade deal, Obamacare, and amnesty.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Trump is losing it, sorry, regarding a series of truly-conservative issues. For example, he favors single-payor healthcare and condemned Pamela Geller’s “Freedom of Speech” event [where she was almost murdered]. I like Cruz.

        Guess what? Cruz supports single payer, unless he’s planning to get rid of medicare, medicaid and the VA. Guess what? He isn’t.

        Cruz also supports legalizing 30 million new democrats, as well as letting in millions and millions more. And then there’s his pimping of Obamatrade. Some conservative.

        Liked by 3 people

        • yankeeintx says:

          “Cruz also supports legalizing 30 million new democrats, as well as letting in millions and millions more” – Link Please.
          Cruz is the only candidate that is against a pathway to citizenship.

          Like

      • jeans2nd says:

        Mr. Sklarloff – I do not know if you are still here, but if you are, please allow a few observations, albeit belatedly –
        Having read many of your comments, I see you have a nice name and an impressive picture. You use many words to say something that sounds erudite and learned. Again impressive. Perhaps, sir, you do not realize that there are a few others, not many, that have the same nice names and pictures, can match fancy degrees and pedigrees, but have said ‘no thanks’ to Mesa and others, and chosen not to play.
        You attempt to be impressive enough so as to shut down debate with your “reason and
        logic.”. A true scientist, intellectual, and educator knows to never shut down debate,
        rather, to present a counter-view in the form of questions so as to encourage debate and
        rational, reasoned thinking.
        You sir, will now in turn attack me with more of your “reason and logic.” I choose not
        to play.

        Like

      • PB conservative says:

        He is not for a single payer system . People are putting words in his mouth. He clearly said on Mark Levin show , he is not for single payer, and Mark agreed that he never said it and he didn’t get that from his statements at the time.

        Like

      • yankeeintx says:

        Using the government to take private property, to give to a private developer is very progressive. Shades of Agenda 21. True conservatives understand the risk of supporting eminent domain use in the private sector.

        Like

  17. jeans2nd says:

    I thought Baeir was making the most of this article in the Wash Post to continue Mr. Trump’s takedown – https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
    That was the first thing I thought of. I am also naive enough to think everyone knew what eminent domain was.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Pingback: Desperate Fox Punditry, and Establishment GOPe Advocates, Jump Shark on Trump “Eminent Domain” Comments… | TRUMPGASM

  19. dizzymissl says:

    Interesting comment on this article about Trump and eminent domain:

    http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/24/443131389/get-off-my-lawn-conservatives-critique-trump-on-eminent-domain

    Floyd Highroller • 12 days ago

    Before Conservatives chide Trump on Eminent Domain Maybe They will explain why They are more than willing to use it for the Benefit of a Foreign Entity in order to move the Keystone Pipeline Forward. Pot Meet Kettle.

    JustJoan
    Because the Heritage Foundation has received more than $500,000 from ExxonMobil’s foundation and more than $5 million from the Koch Brothers’ foundations.

    Americans for Limited Government has received more than $7 million from the Koch-linked American Encore (formerly the Center to Protect Patient Rights).

    The Heartland Institute has received more than $500,000 in ExxonMobil money, more than $100,000 from the Kochs, and at least $25,000 from the American Petroleum Institute (the trade association for the fossil fuel industry).

    The American Conservative Union received more than $50,000 from the American Petroleum Institute and its foundation received $90,000 from ExxonMobil.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sentient says:

      Good point. You can’t build a pipeline from North Dakota to the Gulf of Mexico without use of eminent domain. If you want to claim that eminent domain can only be used for projects that are owned by the government, that would create a perverse incentive for government to take over things it’s no good at and does at higher cost – like schools.

      Liked by 3 people

      • JeremyR says:

        The Government could be the owner of the pipeline, and contract out the operation. The same thing could be done with roads. Instead of contracting a repair, contract the maintenance for a ten year period, but allow only a set number of down days per mile of road barring a natural event like a flood or earth quake.

        Like

        • PatriotKate says:

          The main problem with the pipeline is that it is slated to go through some Native American ancestral grounds. I have a problem with that and believe they need to fine some better ways to accomplish the goal. There has to be a compelling reason for imminent domain and we must caution against its abuse. However, most of us know that when that new highway you’re driving on also meant that thousands of homes were probably demolished.
          I believe that we must be extra cautious when it’s a commercial interest who seeks it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • JeremyR says:

            Agreed. Here in Kansas we had a highway expansion that threatened a private cemetery. The family offered the state an alternate route at no charge. The state came in the middle of the night, exhumed the bodies, then contacted the family to go to Kansas City to claim them. They did not have the land acquired at that point. They did it to “clear a hurdle”.

            Like

  20. Dee says:

    Eminent domain is necessary, absolutely. But Kelo is still a very touchy subject here in CT. That was abuse of power, overreach. The distinction has to be made.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharon says:

      If people are able to make the relevant distinctions it shouldn’t continue to be touchy, I wouldn’t think.

      I’ve seen people do terrible things based on the presence of the gravity provided by steep stair cases but that doesn’t make me hate stairs.

      I hope that more and more of those who vote will be willing to think about what’s going on with regard to the subjects of these long overdue conversations and not just react with emotion because they had a bad experience somewhere, sometime.

      Liked by 4 people

    • SharonKinDC says:

      We’re so much more civilized these days. In the old days, there would have been an unfortunate, tragic fire. Gov’t could then condemn property as a blight, insurance company pays out, extra cash on the side for the land value. Done. (I do not advocate this practice, btw. Just pointing out if ANYONE thinks real estate wasn’t subjected to other sorts of ‘takings’ or abrupt devaluation via other tactics, they’re living in a dream world)

      Like

  21. You’re right that there’s a big difference between eminent domain generally and the Kelo decision. Kelo was about whether eminent domain could be used to force a sale of a property that wasn’t really blighted and ultimately transferred to another private owner simply because the government had bigger (more lucrative) plans for it. Previously, something like that required some finding of blight. No more after Kelo. Both sides are arguable IMHO. If a city wants to build a mega-development on a particular site that’s going to bring jobs, revenue, activity, etc., and the only thing standing in the way is intransigent property owners, well, there probably needs to be a tool backstopping those negotiations. But the potential for abuse there is obvious. A lot of states have enacted laws to deal with potential for abuse, to varying degrees of success.

    Liked by 2 people

    • MfM says:

      Bingo, you have articulated my feelings about the Kelo decision. It isn’t eminent domain exactly most people are against. They are against non-blighted property being taken for something that would enrich a person, company or corporation. Who gets to choose what is the best use for a site?

      This is the first area where I’m concerned about something Trump has said, I fully expect he will realize he needs to be more clear about not wanting ED allowed now by the Kelo decision to be abused.

      Liked by 1 person

    • JeremyR says:

      Eminent Domain should be reserved to the Feral Government and the states. No where in the Constitution are Cities, Towns Villages etc mentioned, and the power should not be entrusted to them at all. Municipalities should be limited to being public utilities for distribution of water and processing of sewage. Law enforcement should be a state function with the governor allowed to offer municipalities a Commission to operate LE in their districts, but the State should maintain close over site. Roads should be either State, private or Feral. Maintenance should be done by contract.

      Like

      • SharonKinDC says:

        She was the last hold out. Now, what if the City decided they were going to do vital maintenance on water/sewer lines, etc while she was still residing there? Not sure, but suspect there are ways gov’t levers could be applied outside of Kelo. Kelo is cleaner and less corrupt, at least on the face of it.

        The HUGE issue is BO’s plan to force communities to put in x free/low income housing in space they specify. Not up to municipal zoning. In fact, BO’s Westchester gambit (which they just lost in court) would have made municipal zoning a thing of the past. THAT is what people should be upset about.

        Liked by 1 person

        • rsmith1776 says:

          Excellent point. Who does Hussein think he is, Kim Il Whatever? Why isn’t this horridly un-American, dictatorial initiative NOT attacked with all firepower by our dear sweet GOP??

          Like

        • rashamon says:

          “The HUGE issue is BO’s plan to force communities to put in x free/low income housing in space they specify.”

          Precisely. Precedents matter. Kelo was a horrible decision and, in case you all haven’t personally experienced similar situations (and isn’t that how we all come to our moral standards), imagine having the house next door to you torn down followed by the erection of twenty shipping crates to house the homeless.

          Or an expressway that completely disrupted a neighborhood that has spent years establishing property values and now is a ghetto because no one wants to live next to 24/7 traffic, sirens and off-ramps. However, those-in-the-know bought up multiple plats and made off big time for very little down and low interest.

          A five or ten-foot right of way for utilities is one thing. Creaming a community takes eminent domain to a whole different level.

          Like

  22. Juan says:

    To be honest, I don’t understand any outrage at this interview. As i’ve said before, the media are like wolves in sheep’s clothing … nothing more … regardless of what network they appear on. I have the utmost confidence in Trump to handle the questions posed to him by these wolves. Nothing was asked that either hasn’t been asked or won’t be asked in the future. Of course the media will distort the interview down to “eminent domain is wonderful” … completely taken out of context with the rest of the statement ignored “if your building a highway etc”.

    Don’t ever think he will get the softball interviews as the rest get … it just won’t happen. Makes no difference … he can handle the lightweights that think they’re tough.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. rsmith1776 says:

    Here’s where I meant to post this!

    A The Don haiku:

    The Don

    Pundits are choking
    Malodorous lies implode
    Quietly flows The Don.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Betty Conerly says:

    Get past the BULLSHIT….Eminent Domain is
    OK as long as we don’t have the Commie/Muzzies in charge…like we do now.
    In Trump we trust …it will take at Least eight years to put a dent in the total nonsense…that
    They are trying to force down our throats. Cold
    Anger means be strong, don’t freak out. Trump
    Will lead us where we need to go.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. RP says:

    Trump is amazing…watched this interview and Coumo interview back-to-back and both of these gotcha journalists bowed their heads and verbally agreed with Trump or verified things that many in the media will not admit or distort – crowd sizes, right for self protection, past statements on Iraq…

    Makes a grumpy old man smile now and again.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Juan says:

      Trump has been consistent of creating “safe zones” in Syria rather than taking refugees other than some for humanitarian reasons. Russia going after Isis is aggression ? glad somebody is since the weak kneed Obama has let them go unchallenged.

      Don’t know what you’ve been watching/reading to draw your conclusions. Rubio supporter maybe ?

      Like

    • lecombatblog says:

      I saw that too- the way Trump got them to agree with him.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Curry Worsham says:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hoohoohoohoohoohoohoooooooo….

    Like

  27. lisaginnz says:

    Commenters are FREAKING OUT on this topic at The Right Scoop. They often post Mark Levin videos, but are SUPER QUICK with anything anti Trump. Makes me think they do NOT ever LISTEN to their own Mark Levin videos!!!!!!

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Bluto says:

    So, do I have to say it again……for the 58th time is 14 weeks? Geez! Really? Okay, fine.

    “Trump is Finished!!”

    Alright, see y’all next week when Trump is Finished again*

    *assuming this version of “Trump is Finished” actually lasts an entire week.

    Liked by 4 people

  29. JeremyR says:

    I have not read all the comments, so sorry if this was said already. Eminent Domain has a place, but it should be a small one. the seizure of property from one person and then presenting it to another to develop, acquired at a fraction of its true value is stealing pure and simple.
    eminent Domain should be codified thus, the taking is a borrowing only. Once the GOVERNMENT need is over, the land must revert to the original owner or his heirs.
    To be true to the people, any taking would need to remain a government holding. That means that the power lines would be property of the government as well as pipelines etc, not just roads.
    A requirement must also be in place to show that there is either no other option, or the one selected is the best from a public interest point of view.
    It should never be allowed for taking property for development for malls, housing developments etc. and those which have been taken should be deeded back to the owners from which it was seized and back dated to the date of seizure and at no cost to the rightful owner. UNLESS it can be shown that the property was abandoned, and in such a state of dereliction that seizure was the only option for human safety concerns. ie, the building was unsecurable, and any one entering was at risk of serious bodily injury or death, AND the owner when contacted refused or declined to secure the property to make it safe.
    I watched an entire swath of downtown Manhattan Kansas seized and “developed into a strip mall of sorts. It contains a Hy Vee, a Dicks, several restaurants, Best Buy etc. On the other side of downtown, it continues through an area where there once were many small businesses, but now it is several hotels, and a Flint Hills Discovery Center, a colossal waste of time money and materials, all at tax payer expense.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SharonKinDC says:

      Sounds like the Manhattan, KS city codes/zoning regs are not good. There is a huge, long process for that sort of redevelopment in MoCo, Maryland. (One thing this blue state is pretty good with is urban/regional planning/zoning/public commentary period)

      Like

    • rashamon says:

      Thank you. I commented above before reaching your summary. Strip malls. The bane of my existence. Nobody spends money more frivolously than the governments regardless at whatever level.

      How did Florence or Paris or Vienna ever survive?

      Like

  30. JRD says:

    Projection!

    Like

  31. tz says:

    This is a point where I disagree with Trump but find it a far lesser issue. The key is what is a “public” purpose. Taking Peter’s land and giving it to Paul is probably not. A second problem is “compensation” – your land is blighted, broken down when they value it for the ED check, but is a glorious, wonderful place when it comes to property tax assessment. They need to fix this.
    The Invasion (immigration), the theft (trade), the corruption, the debt, and I could write a hundred other things which matter.
    When we put out the mega-fire we can get to the minor stuff.

    That is the decisive question – who will shatter the status quo of indolence, compromise and corruption?

    Forget the trivia, the minutiae. The country is burning down. We need a fireman, not a philosopher.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. archer52 says:

    I watched the interview. The whole interview. Trump is clear. He supports the “right” of government to seize property for other private interests to use to build something that makes a profit for that other private interest.

    And if you are a stupid hold out that doesn’t see the brilliance of giving up YOUR PROPERTY so someone else can make a profit off of it, you should be forced to take the offer- whatever it is by the government- acting as an agent for another person. (almost a Trump quote)

    Right… In Russia, they call that a criminal oligarchy.

    Now if I may point out, the issue is “for the greater good.” That means and has always meant things like schools, public transportation, dams for electricity etc. It has never meant, until Kelo, that greater good is for another private entity to make a private profit on. And that the other private entity can declare your place “blighted” based on what it thinks it can improve on.

    I studied Kelo when it came along and was against it, and horrified SCOTUS agreed. And BTW, the land seized is now blighted even further, the private company never built what they promised to. And the decision caused a HUGE blacklash in almost all fifty states.

    http://ij.org/report/five-years-after-kelo/

    You cannot be a Constitutionalist, or a supporter of the fundamental rights of man, or a conservative and support this theory. This is a bright line.

    Your love of Trump is blinding you to it. The blight exception is a dangerous one. Who decides? By what standard? Politicians? The kind Trump admits he has bought off in the past?

    Try a little John Locke

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497

    “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”

    The right to property and the fundamental principle that government exists to prevent one person taking property from another by force or illegal means (rule of law) is paramount to the functioning of any civilized nation.

    Russia failed when the walls came down in part due to the fact when a Russian did manage to get something of value like a business or land, the criminal oligarchs just took it, and their was no recourse for that person in Russian government.

    For Trump to ardently support it, and he does, is a loser for him. I watched the interview and this is not the first time he’s taken this position. I think he thinks it is a good idea.

    And that is very troubling.

    Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      The John Locke argument is a snipe hunt. His underpinned assertion was removed with the concept of taxation on property, ie.”property taxes”

      Almost every person fails to see how property taxes, and the constitutionality therein, pave the way for eminent domain determinations of taxable value.

      As soon as real property became taxable, and cyclical, everyone subject to the levy lost ownership. No-one actually owns property. To understand who owns it, stop paying property taxes and try to retain possession, you’ll soon find out who owns it – it ain’t you.

      Government has -by the rules of eminent domain and allowable taxation- a vested interest in the valuation of property and improvements therein. If a taxing authority can improve the valuation and use the taxes generated therein for the surrounding geography; and can show a clear and compelling reason to an arbiter (court) should the tenant ( land owner ) object, of their ability to increase such revenue, then a court can transfer possession.

      The only way (John Locke argument) to insure this does not occur, is to also insure that ownership remains with title holder absent of any and all necessary activity upon that holder. This means you have to remove taxation on real property.

      It is entirely impossible to outright own something if you must pay a tax to retain possession of it.

      Like

      • archer52 says:

        You are correct. However, your premise is flawed. And has been corrupted over time.

        First, we do in fact own the land. A point I’ll illustrate later.

        Originally, the “right” to tax property in return for certain functions of government for that citizen, a very well identified list, was a “win/win” for everyone. The need for large amounts of taxes was not there. And the resulting pressure of having to pay large amounts of taxes in order to keep the land was not there.

        Remember, HOW MUCH it deems necessary to tax your land is not up to “government”, but up to the lawfully elected representatives of that government- elected by citizens who actually own and have interest in the land. Do you see the rub here?

        ( BTW- Those representatives across the nation, as I pointed out, reacted to the Kelo decision by passing laws to prevent the exact abuse you claim the government has a right to exercise. If that concept were accepted by all in government, no laws would have been made.)

        House of Representatives, elected every two years by the citizens and originally designed that they should serve two years THEN GO BACK AND LIVE UNDER THE LAWS THEY PASSED!! is the source of all taxation. It was a stop gap for abuse. Senators- picked by States- were there for a different reason. It is a brilliant design. States followed the same premise. Originally, the hope was a citizen could literally walked down the road and talk to their local or state or federal representative to offer his opinion.

        However, over the years the slippery slope of convenience and greed for power has allowed a morphing of the concept of taxation. Also, the “government” is no longer a limited entity. In fact, take a look at your property “tax” bill and see the vast number of interests taking their share of your money. NONE of which were initially intended to be able to attach themselves to you or your land. But the growth of large governments at all levels, and the greed of bureaucracies, has changed that. It does not make it right!

        Yet we accept, as we are sheep, that there is some legal right for these entities to continue the abuse. And to realize how weak their grasp is on your property, I point to the rancher out West who also had his property fined and seized, but still owns it, after citizens voiced their objection to that seizure with a show of force. So, “It ain’t yours” may be subject to other forces beyond the greed of a government and the sheepishness of trained citizens. ( And the reason for the attempted seizure was not for the greater good I remind you, but to punish recalcitrance and seize land for other private interests using the government as a tool.)

        Secondly, as I stated above, you are not correct on the ownership of the land. We do own the land. What we have entered into is an agreement with government to pay taxes on that land in return for that government to provide certain services.

        Why do I say we own that land? Because when the government deems us in default we still have the opportunity- through the rule of law and the courts- to prove in a court of law the government is wrong. (Something missing in many nations.) I point to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the EPA and its bureaucratic abuse of the “wetlands” rule. IF the people did not “own” the land, they would have no standing in court. There is a friction here, a friction caused by our ownership of the land and the abuse of government trying to intrude on that ownership.

        http://www.dcbureau.org/201203227103/natural-resources-news-service/epa-loses-major-supreme-court-decision-on-wetland-enforcement.html

        What we have become accustom to and what makes you take the position you do, is the century long increasingly abusive governmental intrusion and corruption of the original intent of the contract between citizens and a limited government.

        Where we have gone off the skids, and maybe the position you are taking, is now the government has the right to take land from you, even though you are NOT in violation of any tax laws, because it deems your land not “worthy enough”. Government suddenly defines your land as “blighted” -which is and has been admitted to be defined as not having enough value to make the government, which is taxing it, happy with the amount of money it is getting.

        Think about that for a minute. That is a HUGE departure from the original intent.

        Government, the same government you scream is filled with corrupted people from top to bottom, is now deciding that when those corrupted people are not getting enough money in taxes from a certain piece of property, it can arbitrarily SEIZE that property and give it to someone else – like a Trump- on a promise from that other person that he will make the property more valuable, so the government can make more money.

        And you defend that? You don’t see the inherent opportunity for payoffs and abuse and nearly criminal action attaching itself to this?

        Listen, I know ” you loves you some Trump!” But no person, no candidate is perfect, and in this situation, Trump is far from perfect. His love of the deal, the chance to build another project he can put his name on, blinds him to the “little guy” who just wants to be left alone. Which is another fundamental right given to us by forces far greater than government.

        Given the choice, Trump loves himself more than he respects this:

        “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

        The people who lived within the targeted area of the Kelo case had the right to be left alone and be happy. But they had a government which did not respected it.

        And Trump loves that. One wonders if government decided one of HIS properties wasn’t making enough in taxes and took it how he’d feel then. I’m thinking not so cheery.

        Yikes…

        Like

  33. coeurdaleneman says:

    The principle of eminent domain is older than America itself. It is a necessary tool.

    Much, if not most, of the controversy would disappear if a different formula for compensation would be adopted. Rather than basing it upon present worth, it should be boosted upward — say, part way between present worth and improved worth. Remember, some landowners aren’t just recalcitrant hillbillies refusing to sell, period. Some are also investors who correctly bought early into the path of progress, and were waiting for their own projects/sales to ripen further. Only to have bigger boys pay them considerably less that its true speculative value.

    Also, I’d like to see a return to the usage of easements in eminent domain situations, like they were for much of our earlier history. So that when roads, pipelines, shopping centers, or any other original-purposed projects are abandoned, the underlying property reverts to the easement grantor/heirs/assigns. That used to be the custom.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Burnt Toast says:

    Detroit’s Poletown case came before Kelo. Wiki Poletown. It is a short read and worth it for more context.

    Basically, SCOTUS in Kelo reinforced that ED by the State’s is subject to that state’s rules.
    Here, folks are injecting their position of what their own state, and all other states, should be allowed to do up to the Federal level – not at all a ‘State’s Rights’ position.

    If the people of Connecticut are fine with their state government forcing sale from one private party to another (at fair market prices under the 5th), good for them. I personally would not buy real estate there under that condition.

    What Trump cold reinforce (assuming it is his position) that he supports the right of property owners to be reimbursed for property taken under ED, BUT, distasteful as Kelo is for so many, it is a States Rights issue. If you don’t like how Connecticut, it is none of your business if you do not own property there.

    Liked by 1 person

    • PB conservative says:

      Darn just when I thought I had formed an opinion on the subject. LOL
      BB has posted Trumps response to all the hoopla. I have to say I was unsure of his position ED/Kelo . Seems that he is for Kelo just as many have been saying. I’m not ok with that. Also seems he tried to use ED many years ago to expand a casino and lost. So I’m not ok with his position and I feel he is wrong…… but then I read this:

      ” If the people of Connecticut are fine with their state government forcing sale from one private party to another (at fair market prices under the 5th), good for them. I personally would not buy real estate there under that condition.

      What Trump cold reinforce (assuming it is his position) that he supports the right of property owners to be reimbursed for property taken under ED, BUT, distasteful as Kelo is for so many, it is a States Rights issue. If you don’t like how Connecticut, it is none of your business if you do not own property there.”

      I think well maybe I need to think about it some more.

      Like

  35. NJF says:

    As SD warned in his analysis…. “[ NOTE Watch closely who picks up on this attack approach and you’ll identify an even larger number of the GOPe deceivers than were visible before. ]

    the entire thing was a setup, and the NR piece & ad were all set to go the minute Baier left Trump tower.

    Steve Hayes’s criticism coupled with the looks from his partners in crime was kinda funny on a certain level. He was the designated hit man. Kraut especially, as well as what’s her name (?) didn’t quite pull off their assigned roles of appearing to give Trump a general thumbs up on the interview. Kraut actually looked as if he had a lemon stuck in his throat as he claimed,, I think he gave a good interview.”

    So disappointed in Hayes, I used to really like him.

    I’ll giv Baeir some credit though, he at least seems have enough skill so as to not be completely steam rolled by Trump, unlike the hapless Chris Cuomo.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. ZurichMike says:

    You darn kids had all the fun while ZurichMike was getting his much-needed beauty sleep (I was dreaming of bacon, of course). I think this kind of arcane issue will not get much traction anywhere — it just shows the desperation of the GOPe and the anti-Trump media. Another “Trump is finished!” moment — in all likelihood, if history is our guide, Trump will tweet this away in the next news cycle. And it will not be pretty.

    Like

  37. jeans2nd says:

    Have been listening to and reading economic and foreign policy wonks, and what is really going on with our economy, Russia, Syria, N Korea – every single person mentioned Mr. Trump, as being the only pres. candidate with the correct economic and foreign policy). Then the political wonks discussed all the pres. candidates, except for Mr. Trump. Did not even mentioned him. Meanwhile, Fox begins the eminent domain campaign, never explaining eminent domain and the Fifth Amendment. Gee wiz.

    Like

  38. I know more about imminent domain than I did. I learn something here besides opinions. I see the difference between the constitutional domain and some shady domain allowed by the States who don’t take time to do diligence on a good careful zoning law. TRUMP knows his way around the imminent domain laws in each state and I don’t hold it against him if he uses ill-written law to his benefit. States need to be smart in their law making. Since he does know how the game is played, he knows how to stop it. Knowing how the game is played and how to clean it up is the main reason I am voting for him. He knows how to get jobs moving as soon as he is president and being plain spoken, we can listen and understand what he is trying to do every step of the way. Gone will be Obama who talks out both sides, uses PC correct speech which means nothing and America can feel united in one nation, under God, again.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. keebler AC says:

    Proper ED doesn’t take away your rights, it finds a solution and compensates one properly. If a railroad has to be built running through the rear of your backyard, a proper fence and distance from your home has to be considered so that it remains safe and peaceful for family. A certain distance of your land near water ways or lakes has to be allowed in some places for city to access. Walkways are sometimes built for people to enjoy water features but the city ensures they do it such that your right to privacy is retained to the utmost afforded within reason.

    Like

  40. Deserttrek says:

    eminent domain for anything other than a road or school is wrong and it is theft …. it doesn’t change my positive views of trump, but it is theft of private property under the color of law. kelo was wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. kallibella says:

    Great interview!!! I loved the way Trump explains his rationale for his position on the various issues brought up. I especially appreciated the fact that he had to explain to Bret that his [Trump’s] opposition on the latest trade deal, though same as Sanders, it is for vastly different reasons. Bret knew that, but followed orders to make the two candidates’ positions equivalent. How sleazy and patently obvious! On eminent domain, though he is right as a conservative I don’t have a settled position owing to lack of full understanding on the issue, I see his point and get the fact that owners of properties are remunerated fairly. On how the media makes an issue out of nothing in reference to his poll numbers vis-a-vis the darlings of the RNC, Trump hit it out of the park! He explained how it is that the media are unfair with him.

    Like

  42. giddyup says:

    steven hayes obviously got his marching orders to be the “one” this week to try to take trump out. pretty obvious with his silly outrage because hayes is not that conservative.

    Like

  43. Doodahdaze says:

    All pundits are desperate. Now that Trump is killing all their candidates in the polls they will only report the favorability rate. This is amazing proof.

    Like

  44. stringy theory says:

    The whole world is going up in flames, except for the US economy and job outlook, which is going down in flames, and Eminent Domain is the most important issue to ask Trump about. Of course we know it was a Faux set-up to be able to claim he wants to confiscate private property. Keep your eyes focused on what’s really important.

    Like

  45. jeans2nd says:

    NJF said upstream “I had to re-watch it several times to understand exactly The Don was saying…”
    I think that is what might just be the thing that is being missed here – Mr. Trump’s point of view. He is about increasing the economy and jobs, locally before, and now nationally. I think perhaps he sees his use of ’emminent domain’ as increasing jobs, and thus the economy, which also yields increased tax revenues, etc. Jobs, and therefore economic advancement. And, I have been known to be incorrect.
    Apologies if someone already said this and I missed it.

    Like

  46. hscorpio says:

    Eminent domain is a necessary evil that must be used sparingly and as a last resort. It should be out of the question in a country that values liberty to use the practice for a casino parking lot, as Trump abused it and supports further abuse in the manner. Trump thinks the atrocity that was Kelo did not go far enough. He is on the far left lunatic fringe on this issue.

    People are, of course, free to not care if Trump holds progressive positions if they wish. Personally, I would be worried if I agreed with any candidate on every issue so I get the willingness to overlook something for something else that is more important. But not’s not mis-represent anything here. There is nothing at all conservative about Donald Trump on the issue of eminent domain.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s