Posted on 11/05/2015 10:09:15 AM PST by Freemeorkillme
Donald Trump’s high standing in the polls is attributable entirely to the fact that he’s not a Washington insider, not part of the racket, and despite his wealth really might actually give a damn about the Little Guy. So why is he saying things like this?
Donald Trump on Wednesday defended government property seizures as a “necessary thing,†even when it means involuntarily taking property from a private owner to transfer it to another business. Trump was speaking to reporters outside the capital statehouse moments before formally filing his candidacy for the February primary, and the Washington Examiner pressed him on his record of using eminent domain laws to expand his casino empire.
“Property rights are a big issue in New Hampshire,†the Examiner noted. “In Atlantic City you used eminent domain laws aggressively to expand your casino.â€
Trump interjected by calling this a “stupid question†before launching into a defense of eminent domain. â€I am all for private property rights,†Trump said. “There’s nobody who wants property taken away less than I do, believe me. I would lose a lot of money if my property were taken away. But when you’re building a road, when you’re building a highway, when you’re building whatever it is you’re building from a municipal standpoint, you may need a corner of a piece of property.†As he said this, he pinched his fingers together to demonstrate the smallness of the property.
The abstract reasoning may be sound — although in the Supreme Court’s disgraceful Kelo decision it certainly was not — but the optics are terrible. It smacks of Romneyism, a cluelessness about how ordinary people live their lives.
Can’t believe you fail to see economic impacts of both.
Importing cheap foreign workers lowers wages of all American workers, and causes American citizens to lose their jobs.
Building Keystone pipeline IMPROVES standard of living of Americans.
Please point to where on Cruz’s web-sire he uses the words “deport all illegals”.
Please point to where on Cruz’s web-sire he uses the words “deport all illegals”.
Well now you know how it feels...taking words and turning them around...good lesson for all to learn...
And I still believe that Cruz would make a great V.P. and then go on to the Supreme Court...
GO TRUMP GO!!!
That is because we see Trump winning, and having long coattails, it is not because we do not like Cruz. If Trump wins the nomination, he will be elected president, and then very likely Cruz will be president someday. if Trump is knocked out of the race, Bush will be the nominee and Hillary will be president, and Cruz will be has been. Take your blinders off, and look at the way things really are, please!
The question is not should it ever be used, but when it should and when it should not be used.
When should it be used ?
When should it not be used ?
“There’s the thing you are missing. No one is objecting to the use of eminent domain for public works projects like roads, bridges, etc. That is clearly constitutional (within certain limitations), and uncontroversial. What people are objecting to (and what Trump is supporting) is the use of eminent domain to transfer private property from one private owner to another, for the purpose of private development of the land. That’s not a “public use,” and so it is not permitted by the Constitution (black-robed idiots in Kelo notwithstanding). “
I still don’t understand the offense. It’s ok to build roads, bridges, and other things that will COST money every year to maintain, thereby creating a new drain on tax resources,,that’s ok....right?
But getting a court to induce a settlement to build a parking lot, business, etc, that will INCREASE tax revenue is not ok?
What? I thought we didn’t want Daddy Govt to own everything?
When did Trump do that? Where?
100 posts and about 80 have no clue what Kelo was and the difference between legit eminent domain and what Kelo did and what Trump repeatedly tried to do.
What a mess.
To quote Always Right years ago “the Supreme Court redefined ‘public use’ to mean private development, that is where the Constitution was raped of meaning.”
Is really a non-issue??
Madame Coking made a poor financial decision. I am also posting a wikipedia link so you can see what Penthouse did to her property. She was way too stubborn. When the big boys want something either negotiate well or get out of Dodge. FYI, two other holdouts did well. They were not as stubborn as Coking and made a lot of money..
Why are there gun restriction laws in hundreds of cities and counties? What happened to 2-A? Are you marching in protest in those places? Why hung up on 1 isolated incidence of Kelo? Is it because you do not like Trump?
Yup......but I don’t think they gave it due process in their thinking...
That clause, IMO has been grossly misinterpreted and at best is a feudal law remnant that conflicts with private property.
They sure could have written it better, because today you can see derivatives of this line of thinking in many other agencies, including BLM, DOD, HUD and even Medicaid and Medicare.
In reality today, private property is a mirage.
No, he offered her 1.9 million; you don’t round down on that number. Because she was the PROPERTY OWNER she got to keep her house, didn’t she? I don’t understand who the cronies you refer to are (the local government?) and how the land managed to get transferred to him and yet she remained in her house. That doesn’t make any sense. I don’t approve of eminent domain in the hands of developers. I do not agree with Trump about this. But he did make a generous offer to her which is better than most sleazy developers. Asbury Partners, I mean you!
Yes, I realize Trump appears to have a better chance of winning and I will vote for him if he is the candidate.
I prefer Cruz.
I believe all men were created equal, but some races have been indoctrinated to the point by the left, Marxsim where it seems impossible for them to be redeemable.
It is not a non-issue. That’s why it is constantly debated on FR. I think most freepers despise the abuse of ed. But it is not the only issue when supporting Trump.
Donald Trump, a private citizen, could not seize anyone’s property. The government was the entity who invoked eminent domain, not Donald Trump. The Your outrage should be directed at the people actually responsible; the people who said yes instead of no.
If it was 1.9 million, then rounding down was my mistake - I had seen 1.1 million elsewhere.
Anyways, she kept the house because she was able to fight off the eminent domain seizure in court. The point is not that she lost her house, it's that Trump tried to take it. That is what sheds light on his views on the topic (both the narrow topic of eminent domain, and more broadly on the topic of the extent of government power).
No worries. I always wear my asbestos suit when defending the America First candidate. Waiting for 45 years since becoming US citizen to see a nationalist candidate run for president.
Donald Trump was the largest (or one of the largest) hotel and casino developers in a city that was almost entirely dependent on tax revenue from hotels and casinos. They said yes because Donald Trump asked.
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.