Posted on 02/08/2016 8:55:45 PM PST by kiryandil
The GOP front-runners who did not melt down into an oleaginous puddle of self-pity - the winners of the compos mentis caucus - are more different than their similar policy views would indicate. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are social and economic conservatives, and products of the tea party revolt. But they represent two entirely different approaches to the gathering and use of power.
Each had a defining moment in their rapid rise. For Rubio, it was the Gang of Eight's attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Rubio now presents this as the ancient past, but I'm old enough to remember those days of yore in 2013 and 2014. Rubio was determined to make a mark by improving a broken immigration system and by helping the GOP move past a debate it was losing in a spectacularly damaging fashion. (Under the flag of "self- deportation," Mitt Romney had been recently crushed by 44 points among Latinos.)...
(Excerpt) Read more at thetimes-tribune.com ...
Did Donald Trump take someone to court, and take their land and house?
“You’re in The Show, KT. We throw 90 mph fastballs up here.”
I don’t care how anyone feels about Trump trying to use government power to condemn a widow’s home so he can build parking spaces for his limos - that right there is funny.
Do you own property, or do you just rent it from the government like the rest of us proles, jeff?
For the record, it was a widow's boarding house.
We just rent from the government.
So, if the government invents a pretense for grabbing "your" or "her" home, it's just taking physical ownership of its property.
Quite simple, really.
The ones who get confused and angry are the ones who haven't figured out the game. Children in mind, in reality.
“So, if the government invents a pretense for grabbing “your” or “her” home, it’s just taking physical ownership of its property.”
That explains the thinking of Donald Trump better than I could.
Thankfully the real constitution, and some judges, still prohibit what Trump wants to do.
He is talking about them re-entering the country legally. I do not think that many will come back because of the fairly rigorous legal immigration process and requirements. Trump has been married to foreign citizen wives and he knows the process. I suspect that he knows that unless Congress changes the process greatly, most of the illegals will not be coming back. I have experienced the legal immigration process as I had to go through it with my German wife when I married her. It is not fast, cheap or easy. Among other requirements there was a local country police record check with fingerprints, a thorough medical screening by an embassy designated doctor and many other forms to fill out and file. I had to pay for it all and the filing fees, etc. do add up. There was also a requirement that I had to prove I could support my wife and she would not be a burden on the state. I had to sign an affidavit that she would not draw any public support for 10 years or I would be liable for it. After all of that is submitted to the embassy, the US does its own checks and schedules interviews. If everything goes as well as it can, the process takes 1-2 years and costs a couple grand, not including your time or travel to the nearest embassy/consulate and associated expenses. I do not look for the majority the illegals to go through all of that and I suspect that between the medical screening, proof of support and various police checks that many will not qualify anyways. Here is a link to the state.gov that describes the process more completely. http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/immigrate/immigrant-process.html
Believe it or not, we actually have fairly strict immigration laws. They have simply not been applied to illegals for the past few decades.
More "intellectual honesty" from the amoral cruzers. :)
By proxy; look up his casinos and land battles.
Let me answer your question like this: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now before you criticize, let me explain where I read that - the constitution (amendment 5). Now go ahead and repudiate.
The only state in the union that hasn't stolen the real estate of the peasantry is Alaska.
There, you can own land. And not pay rent to the government.
“As I wrote, and to which you have not responded, except with misdirection, blather and changing the subject - all of us rent “our” property from the government.”
That is an interesting comment.
Can you provide a legislative citation - federal or state - that supports your theory that all private property belongs to the government.
I am not sure that Trump understands your expectations. I say that because Trump says the gate in the wall will be big, maybe yuge; Trump supports touchback immigration where all the “good ones” can come back - expedited he says - through the big gate; and Trump supports the Dream Act (unless he has flipped again; can't keep track).
Trump will walk away from his vow to build a wall faster than he walked away from his several marriage vows.
You started the conversation with another poster with an insinuation that Donald Trump was somehow involved in "using imminent domain to condemn the homes of neighbors".
jeffersondem wrote: "Do you know how Trump views the practice of wealthy individuals using imminent domain to condemn the homes of neighbors so they can build parking spaces for their limos?"
Aside from the insinuation about Trump being untrue, I then pointed out that the people of 49 of the 50 states rent "our" property from the government, so your "concern" about private property is a false concern.
You then dragged in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution to bolster your "argument", such as it is.
Here's part of the Fifth Amendment:
...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now I can post horror stories about "private property" being taken for public use [settling property tax bills], without just compensation, all day long.
We'll start in with that when you make your next "That is an interesting comment" comment.
I'm thnking one or two a day will suffice. I'll drag you back to the main argument, which is your false "concern" about eminent domain, and once again show you that "concern" over what the government does with what is in reality THEIR property, is just "concern troll" stuff.
He's trolling.
Maybe, but I do not think so. Trump did not vote for amnesty and he did not push for a 500% increase in H1B visas as other candidates have. Trump does not have to understand my expectations. The laws which govern legal immigration are set solely by Congress, not Trump or any other President. I can tell when somebody mentions “touchback amnesty” that they very likely have zero experience with the US immigration system. One thing you have to admit is that Trump is undeniably 100% NBC American which is more than can be said for others in the race.
Yes - it's just a buzzword talking point for throwing into the "conversation", to goad the target.
Exactly ...and we won’t hear it either
“Aside from the insinuation about Trump being untrue”
That is an interesting comment. Can you provide any information about the infamous eminent domain attack on Vera Coking?
You mentioned the Fifth Amendment earlier. Here is one story of many about "private property" being taken for public use [settling property tax bills], without just compensation:
A woman in Michigan, who owned her home outright, having paid $164,000 for it, missed paying a tax bill for $2,000. The local county seized her home and sold it for roughly $80,000, pocketing $78,000 after the tax bill was settled.
The woman got nothing except for her legal bills:
Judge gives Kalamazoo County green light to sell woman's home after property tax mistake
http://fox17online.com/2014/10/02/judge-gives-kalamazoo-county-green-light-to-sell-womans-home-after-property-tax-mistake/
Touchback amnesty has not been passed yet. It was proposed by Senator Bailey in 2007 but was narrowly defeated in a 53-47 vote. Donald Trump now (last I heard; may have changed again) supports the concept.
In Trump's words:
“I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal�€¦. A lot of these people are helping us … and sometimes it�€™s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn�€™t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we�€™re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal.”
Trump will discard his vow to build the wall faster than he discarded his several marriage vows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.