NH Debate Takeaways – Jeb Bush Believes The Keystone Pipeline is a Public Works Project

theconservativetreehouse.com ^ | February 7 | Sundance

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The lady bought the property first. They didn’t need no stinkin’ limo parking lot. You exaggerate. I blame Trump. Shame on him. Leave widows alone.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

oh it’s the widow thing.. I guess if it had been owned by a 30 year old Stalin lover who flew the CCCP flag outside it would be different

a lot of people buy property first and the city takes it on imminent domain cases.. Trump didn’t do anything illegal and you would have done the same thing if it had been your project don’t fool yourself

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It was hideous of him. Her political beliefs are irrelevant. She owned the property. Trump wanted to make himself more rich. I am glad he lost in court. If you read the details of how she was treated, it is appalling.

Frankly gambling casinos are not a community necessity worthy of swiping a widow’s home. I find it ridiculous to claim they are.

[Springfield Reformer]

I wouldn’t have. It isn’t the widow thing. It’s the thuggery thing. Jesus said do unto others what you would want them to do to you. I wouldn’t want my local town kicking me out of my life-long home so they could put up a burger joint. I have family who had that happen to them. It isn’t fun, and I wouldn’t do that to someone else, any more than I’d walk up to them with a weapon and demand they give me what I want. Not good form.

Peace,

SR

[Lib-Lickers 2]

yeah a billion dollar casino and hotel that will hire hundreds if not thousands of employees with high paying jobs in a slum area and bring in tens of millions of dollars in revenue for a distressed city is just like kicking somebody out of their house to put up a burger joint.. yeah that’s an honest comparison.. what was that about Jesus again?

[Lib-Lickers 2]

just like the Keystone pipeline owners and all their stockholders will get filthy rich. .that’s just as hideous to some of the people that get their land taken away without their permission.. and I’m betting there are quite a few who think letting a fossil fuel pipeline go through their property is almost worse than death.. and I know you won’t won’t give a damn,, so everybody can play the feel sorry so somebody game but if it’s your cause it’s all good and if it isn’t you couldn’t care less.. but it’s still hypocritical any way you look at it,, Trump never made the woman move when he ran out of legal options and then he went his own way.. the stupid woman ended up moving just a few years later and her nephew sold the thing for peanuts compared to what was offered,, the woman’s rights were not infringed on by Trump in any way ,, I have ZERO problem with what he did

[Springfield Reformer]

The principle is the same. It is an honest comparison. The burger joint was a neighborhood competition between McDonalds and Burger King. The home destroyed is where I met my beloved wife. It was thuggery for private gain.

Peace,

SR

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Eminent Domain is a two way sword no doubt

[AuntB]

” do have a problem however with the Cruz ad showing Trump bulldozing the old lady’s house. The ad is obviously a lie and Cruz is obviously dishonest. He did approve that “message”.”

Indeed. Scotus John Roberts, friend of Ted Cruz and recruited by Cruz does not object to the Kelo decision. He says the congress still has the power to regulate Kelo, if they choose to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091401445.ht

This is no different than many lies by Cruz...like ‘Trump filed Bankruptcy four times!’....knowing full well Donald Trump NEVER filed personal bankruptcy, that out of hundreds of companies only 4 went under ‘reorganization’ Chapt. 11 bko where the creditors get paid.

[AuntB]

“Rather, my complaint is that anyone who understands what Kelo means legally cannot be in favor of it and be a well-informed conservative at the same time.”

Tell that to Cruz’s good friend and scotus recruit John Roberts, who does not object to the Kelo decision. He says the congress still has the power to regulate Kelo, if they choose to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091401445.ht

[AuntB]

ONE MORE TIME!

Donald Trump has NEVER filed personal bankruptcy! FACTS matter, but not to Cruzers! As someone who has worked for decades in this field, I know what a Chapter 11 Bko is...and so does the lying Cruz campaign. It is reorganization..the creditors get paid! Four companies he acquired to reorganize our of hundreds!

Law Dictionary: How is Donald Trump Able to File for Bankruptcy So Many Times?
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-is-donald-trump-able-to-file-for-bankruptcy-so-many-times/

Written by James Hirby Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff

People might ask “How is Donald Trump able to file for bankruptcy so many times?” The answer is “He didn’t.” Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy. His corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times. By filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the corporation is allowed to continue running while restructuring and reducing its debt. By allowing the business to continue, employees still have their jobs and the business is still making money. Corporate debts still need to be repaid but they may be reduced. The corporation must develop a repayment plan and corporate budget. Both must be approved by the creditors and by the bankruptcy court.

[AuntB]

“But even so, on balance, I’d much rather have Cruz picking those justices than Trump. “

CRUZ PICKED JOHN ROBERTS. Enough said!

[jwalsh07]

What's the difference between it being a public or private enterprise ?

The 5th Amendment.

[Springfield Reformer]

So would you have rejected Reagan for his SCOTUS errors? I wouldn’t, though I do wish he had done better. Only God knows the future perfectly.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

I tried your link and it didn’t work. Maybe it’s my iPhone?

Peace,

SR

[AuntB]

I don’t know what went wrong with the link!

Try this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091401445.html

(looks like it didn’t all copy!, soo sorry)

Link in post 49 & 50 is incorrect!

Thanks.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If he owned and ran the business and personally benefited from it, if he was the maker of the “deals” that were broken, and if he is selling those deal making skills as an asset in his Presidential campaign, then it is VERY RELEVANT! That they were not “personal” just refers to which pile of his money was able to be seized for a broken promise portion of the repayment of debt.

Of course if you were one of the many getting a fraction of what you were promised in payment for services then you would have no problem understanding this.

[Springfield Reformer]

Thanks for providing the corrected link.  It was very interesting reading.  Of course, I read it completely differently than you apparently have. Big surprise, eh? :)

But in my defense, I've been through lawyer brainwashing school, er, law school, and I can see what he's doing. The section on Kelo is explanatory of the decision, certain key points that may come up in future decisions that rely on Kelo. He's describing, accurately, how the current thinking on eminent domain is very deferential to Congress. He also cites the O'Connor dissent, the problem of finding where to draw the line, which she thought was easy (I agree with her).

And that is the big thing that went wrong in Kelo. The Court basically decided it couldn't figure out where the line was, so it was the legislature's job to figure that out. Kicking the can down the road, as it were.

But getting back to Roberts, at the conclusion of the Kelo section, they ask him what he thinks of the decision.  This is a trap. If he answers that he thinks it is good OR bad, then boom, he can't make an objective ruling on it later, and would likely have to recuse himself. He isn't falling for the trap, so he says plain out he can't comment on it, because he wants to preserve his ability to act on it later.

At this point anti-Kelo conservatives are high-fiving each other for how clever he is and how great it will be when he gets a shot at overturning Kelo. Yes, we would come to be disappointed later with his Obamacare decisions. But at the time, this all looked pretty good.

Bottom line, no way can what he said be read as agreeing with Kelo.  He specifically avoids doing that because he wants to be able to rule on it later. Anyway, that's my read on it.

Peace,

SR