[UCANSEE2]

So, basically what you are saying, is the government should force people to do what is in their and the public's general interest.

No. What I was saying is that Trump had a right to try to purchase her land. He had a right to use legal means to get her to accept a deal.

She had the right not to accept. She didn't accept. He lost.

Story over.

[nickcarraway]

She lost to. She lost her health and was forced to move out of the house her husband left her to live the rest of her life in and die in some craphole 3,000 miles away from where she wanted to be.

Trump gave up, because his casino went down the tubes.

[GunRunner]

Trump had a "right" to use government pressure to make an old lady sell her home when she didn't want to?

Your definition of "rights" is as perverted as the left's.

[nickcarraway]

Why do you consider that, "legal means." I've never heard a conservative, or even a moderate, argue that was legal means. Even some liberals disagree.

Are you saying that anything the government can get away with is, "legal," no matter what the Constitution or the law says?

When President Obama signed the immigration executive order was that, "legal means?" Were the other times he broke the law, "legal means." Because he got away with them.

Was the Supreme Court ruled on ACA and gay marriage, "legal means," just because they wanted to, and they got away with it?

Basically, the new law is the government can do anything they want, and as long as they get away with it, it's "legal means."