politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: The Trump Goes On
Source:
Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs ... campaign-will-end_1007525.html
Published: Aug 8, 2015
Author: Steven F. Hayes
Post Date: 2015-08-10 07:34:18 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 5832
Comments: 146
It’s not over. And it’s likely to end badly. In an interview on CNN last night, Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.” He refused to apologize, of course, but after widespread condemnation, Trump, who is running on candor and straight talk, sought to explain his comments in a Tweet. “Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE). Just got on w/thought.’” It’s a comment that might end any other presidential campaign. Trump is different, in part because this isn’t a campaign. It’s an extended media-driven ego ride. From the beginning, he’s played by different rules because the media have let him. Trump works just blocks from the headquarters of the major broadcast and cable outlets. But as he’s rolled out his Trump for President brand, he has gotten journalists to come to him. He sits for interviews in the gilded atrium of Trump Towers, a nice home field advantage and one that sets him apart from the other politicians sitting in boring studios. Trump has conducted frequent telephone interviews on cable networks, sometimes several times a day, and last weekend did “phoners” on two Sunday morning political shows. (Has any other candidate this cycle, in either party, been given an opportunity to do a television interview by phone?) If he were asked policy questions, the arrangement would give him an unfair advantage, with the opportunity to answer questions with a cheat sheet in front of him and Google at his fingertips. But substantive questions about the country and its problems are the exceptions in Trump’s conversations with journalists, who prefer to ask him about his latest controversial comment or seek to provoke the next one by asking him about his opponents. (Trump’s comments about Kelly didn’t provoke any follow-up questions from CNN host Don Lemon, whose interview with Trump continued for several more minutes). So the cycle continues: Trump says something outrageous that may or may not have any relevance to serving as president, he’s asked about it in a largely substance-free interview, and ratings climb—along with Trump’s name ID and poll ratings. Trump is right, sadly, when he boasts that he is partly responsible for the 24 million viewers who tuned into the debate Thursday night. He has convinced himself that people watch because they love him and in a limited sense, he’s probably right about that, too. While I suspect that the Trump hype is driven by curiosity more than admiration, there is no doubt some segment of the population that is properly understood now as “Trump supporters.” That segment is small and will be shrinking in the coming weeks, but it won’t disappear. The true Trump apologists are way too far in now. They've invested too much to bail on him. So his defenders will become increasingly desperate to convince people that this is all part of the establishment's failure to understand their anger and the media's failure to appreciate Trump’s appeal. That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs; if not his kindergarten Twitter insults, then perhaps his sad and compulsive boasting; if not his incomprehensible answers to substantive questions at the debate, then maybe, finally, his juvenile and misogynistic put-down of the female moderator Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame. It doesn’t matter that they’re angry about the incompetence in Washington. Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator. It’s embarrassing, but rather than embarrassment, the Trump followers will feel more anger and their pose will shift from self-righteousness to victimhood. And many of them will dig in further. More worrisome, for conservatives and for the country, so will Trump. As he’s abandoned by more rational beings, Trump, a man of deep and evident insecurity, will need these remaining supporters as validation that it’s the world that’s gone crazy, not him. They will encourage him to march on, guided by the misapprehension that there are many more behind them, perhaps hard to see, but following in the distance nonetheless. Trump will tout this support and insist, unconstrained by reality, that he can win. (This is the man who continues to say Hispanics love him and will support him, despite polls showing his favorability among Hispanics in the mid-teens). As Republicans scramble to distance themselves—with many candidates denouncing his remarks about Kelly, as they had his mockery of John McCain—Trump will feel the swelling pride of a man whose bluff is being called. Treat me nicely or I’ll leave, he warned repeatedly. This is why Bret Baier’s first question Thursday was the single most important question of the debate. Although Trump had left open the possibility of running third party, in the days leading up to the debate he had backed away from those threats. “I’m pretty confident in the answers I’ve gotten from him,” Sean Hannity said Wednesday night. “I’ve asked him a few times. I’m pretty confident he’ll never run third party.” Less than twenty-four hours later, Trump reversed himself again, raising his hand to show he wouldn't pledge support for the eventual Republican nominee. When Baier asked if Trump meant to be conveying what he seemed to be saying, Trump responded, twice: “I fully understand.” Trump threatened to leave if Republicans treated him badly. Now, because he’s a churl and a buffoon, Republicans have no choice but to treat him badly. It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
But then, neither will the Emperor Zero regime. Wouldn't it be nice if the media focused on THAT (since that disaster affects the entire country rather than just one ego-centric billionaire). But I suppose if the media did that, it wouldn't attract 24 million viewers
No it will not. I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard. Si vis pacem, para bellum
This is the harshest piece I recall them running on Trump. Kristol, the honcho there, has defended Trump some, saying he doesn't plan to vote for Trump but he dislikes the establishment media and pols for the way they're treating him. He says he isn't anti-Trump, he's more anti-anti-Trump. Weekly Standard over the last few years has become far less GOP-establishment even if they still easily qualify as a GOP opinion source. They won't go populist but they are not aligned with the GOP elite in the Beltway on a number of issues, like the idiotic Corker Iran legislation and GOP strategy against the Obama agenda.
Fuck you, Steven Hayes. Trump was right about Mexico. He did not "slander" Mexican immigrants. And he was right about McCain. He did not "mock" POWs. That's the thing, Steve-o: you are a liar. You are so wedded to a political idea, to your club, that when you feel threatened - and you ARE threatened by Trump - you lie about what he says, you and your crowd, who seek to try to stampede people through lies. And so, therefore, your next President will be Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden). Why? Because the closest people like us will ever get to you is Trump. You will either grit your teeth and accept a Trump, or a Sarah Palin, or you can go fuck yourself and live with Democrat rule, because that works for us a whole lot better than letting the sort of Republicans YOU like ever have power. You're not going to have it your way, Stevie. No chance. You're not going to have your Jebby or your Marco, the folks you're comfortable with. You're going to accept somebody who rubs you the wrong way, or you're going to submit to Democrat rule. Rage away in your impotence, Steve. You DO have the ability to have a Republican President. To have one, you're going to have to swallow your pride and accept Trump. Otherwise, you may as well prepare for "Mrs. President."
Ah! So Trump really meant to say, "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her vagina". Really? Is THAT what Trump was going to say before he caught himself? You expect us to believe that? There are better ways of saying she was on the rag than that convoluted, mixed-up statement. Bunch of little, immature kids in the MSM looking for their "Gotcha" moment.
Good point. They may be able to shape and influence the primary, but they'll never get us to vote for their flunky. 8 million registered Republicans stayed home last election. We might set a new record in 2016.
Seems to me the ape couldn't do a worse job than the "professionals" we have now. Just the fact that there ARE problems that haven't been fixed should tell you something right there.
Read that? Steven Hayes thinks Trump supporters are shameless. You're shameless! You're idiots! You're crude and politically incorrect! You're gun- toting, God-fearing, hard-working, tax-paying boobs! Now get with the program and support JEB.
Agree!!! He and his cohorts are getting their panties in a wad because they are beginning to realize that the people are starting to refuse to buy the shit sandwiches they are selling! Si vis pacem, para bellum
Now get with the program and support JEB. " Yep, that is what the shit sandwich vendors think. Have you heard what George Will has said? You will like it / sarc! http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/09/george-will-trump-supporters-need-to-come-into-the-republican-party-on-our-terms-not-theirs Si vis pacem, para bellum
State those terms, George. What is Trump saying that goes against Republican "terms"? So far, everything I've heard from Trump fits a conservative agenda. I think what bothers George is that Trump might actually carry out the conservative agenda instead of just paying lip service to it.
This actually drew my interest the most. You recall that National Review went to print with their coverage on Trump's campaign announcement as "Witless Ape Rides Escalator". It is kinda unusual for the Right outlets to go after anyone this brazenly. Did they even call Ron Paul an "ape" like this? Of course they disdained him for many reasons and called him other names but they didn't go quite this far. Of course, Trump is threatening a lot of applecarts in GOP media and politics.
I'm pretty sure Hayes is a Walker supporter. The WI GOP has Hayes, Greta, and Reince Priebus handy to produce Walker puff pieces. Trump's rise makes serious problems for Walker to challenge Bush because Trump's presence is likely to unify all the tycoons and party establishment behind Bush to stop Trump early. A field of 17 means that Trump can carry his celeb-based candidacy a long time after Florida, maybe all the way to the convention. Trump can gets lots of attention for free and doesn't need to build his brand-name with voters like other candidates because everyone knows who he is. Only Bush (and Clinton) has comparable name-brand recognition.
Given how often you've stated your preferences for a Dem victory with Hitlery or Biden, I'm not too surprised. You like Trump in the hopes of their election, not Trump's.
Meaning we can hardly expect his article about Trump to be objective and fair. "Only Bush (and Clinton) has comparable name-brand recognition." And not in a good way. Which explain why Jeb Bush's campaign has signs saying JEB! (leaving out the Bush part). Vote for Jeb You-Know-Who and be proud you did!
There's another interview at National Review that Trump won't be doing. Geez Louise. Here I thought National Review and Fox were conservative outlets, yet both are resurrecting petty bullshit from years ago rather than Trump's position on the current issues.
National Review always sucked. Fox was never that good really. Only marginally better.
Fox is forgetting who made them #1. Now that they're at the top, they think they have to show the liberals they can be tough with conservatives, too. You will NEVER see the MSM try to show the public how "fair" they are by jumping on liberal candidates. They'll SAY they're fair, but that's it.
I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals.
If they are, that would explain it.
Not really a hidden agenda that much with Hayes. He did a big podcast on Walker, his fellow-Cheesehead, when he announced on 7/13. It was a total puff piece, real man-crush material. Hayes followed a few days later with Walker's Agenda: 'Reform, Growth, Safety'. So not much of a hidden agenda, the bias is obvious. I had the feeling he volunteered for or got picked as WS's main reporter on all things Walker, who is still expected to be a player for the GOP nomination. It does underline why some media figures were banking on covering certain GOP candidates through next year and how they end up calling Trump an "ape" because he's threatening their little tea party.
The Weekly Standard was one of the biggest shills for invading Iraq, see how that turned out? They have a track record of being very wrong. This neocon "invade the world, invite the world" crap is killing America.
Rupert is only kinda retired. He could unretire any time he wants. Ailes got a big new contract and continued unfettered control of FNC. The Murdoch kids have indicated they'd go in a more liberal direction if it was up to them but Rupert won't let them do it while he's alive. But Rupert himself isn't so conservative, going by that donation of a million to Hillary 2008.
While I mistrust Trump, Trump may be the voice that initiates a reconstructive violent revolution in this country. It's a housecleaning this country has desperately needed for more than 50 years.
Yep, 2016 as "Jeb! vs. Hitlery!". With maybe The Donald lurking around. Wish for a Trump and you'll get a Bush is the most likely outcome. I keep trying to find a quip for this, along the lines of "A Trump in the hand is worth two more for Bush". I can't make it work and sound funny.
It's the Weekly Standard. They have all the patriotism of Jonathan Pollard.
If the GOP throws out Trump, Hillary is the most likely outcome. If the GOP doesn't support Trump but wants a Republican to win the White House in November, the only choice is to back off. If the people grow tired of him, the poll numbers will drop. If they drop, Trump will simply fade away. But if they increase, then Trump is tapping into something the GOP isn't offering. Perhaps the GOP should come into Trump's "camp".
There's another one that used to be conservative.
They're cuckservative.
I'm in northern Illinois, so I hear and read about what Walker is doing in Wisconsin on almost a weekly basis. (Mark Belling -- a Rush substitute host -- broadcasts from Milwaukee.) I think Walker would make a great President, and he's my choice. That said, right now he's a voice in the wilderness, along with all the other candidates. Trump is sucking all the oxygen and blood out of the room. (A little "common phrase" humor there.) Quite frankly, I like what Trump is saying and doing. Perhaps he's the man we need today. Now when I look at all the other candidates -- even Walker -- all I see are establishment types, willing to go along to get along, same-o, same-o. I gotta admit. It's depressing.
The Weekly Standard was founded by Bill Kristol, the biggest neo-conservative in the nation. Look up neo-conservative in the dictionary and there's a picture of him.
You mean, like Roger Stone, Trump's long-time political adviser. For all the cuckservative talk lately, the only actual cuckservative anyone can actually name is Trump's close buddy for the last 25 years, Roger Stone. Anyway, since you are so bi-curious about cuckservatives, I thought you might want to discuss the only known cuckservative Republican, Trump's good buddy and (former) adviser, Roger Stone.
I didn't like that word when I first saw it, and repetition isn't helping. It's rude, crude, and ignorant. My opinion.
Maybe that's his actual purpose. A ringer for Xlinton? A ringer for Bush? A ringer for both Xlinton and Bush (who would both prefer to fight it out with each other in the general election rather than risk losing the nomination for themselves). Trump virtually guarantees a Bush v. Clinton 2016 matchup. With or without Trump as a third-party candidate. It's maddening how many different ways Trump can play this to his advantage. This could be purely a play by Donald for some sweet business deal he's after. He really is fully leveraged against the entire GOP primary field with options to be a player in the 2016 election. And he can cut all kinds of side deals along the way, like with Adelson. Or Soros. Whoever. Maybe Donald just wants to be worth $20 billion and he's going to screw with the 2016 election until someone gives it to him (or lets him buy into one or more of their upcoming sweetheart deals with them paying all the financing costs).
They're all part of the Klueless Kucks Klan.
Mainly, it makes the person saying it sound cruder and more repugnant than the GOP elite.
RINO's are self emasculating; it fits them perfectly.
Key word. Former. Could we please move on?
And the movement came from the followers of Leon Trotsky.
You spew a lot of bullshit. I want Trump to be President. I do not want Clinton, who is a murderess, or Biden, who is a conflicted Catholic babykiller, to be President. I will not accept any crony capitalist Republican. Republican economics are unholy, and unacceptable. I listen to Donald Trump, a rich man who has profited from the crony capitalist laws, and HE is talking about things like protecting American jobs by controlling the border, and HE is talking about a national common market in health insurance. And HE is talking about the way that the system is rigged to allow rich guys like him to buy the politicians. That's why HE is acceptable - because he is the only one who is actually challenging Republican ECONOMIC and POLITICAL orthodoxy. The Republicans are every bit as unacceptable as the Democrats. Murder is evil. And making an idol of money is evil. And for all the claims of people like you that the Republicans are "pro-life", I look back at history and see a Republican-appointed Supreme Court deciding Roe 7-2, the Republicans controlling the Supreme Court every day since, and Republican Presidents from Reagan to Bush, inclusive, appointing more pro- choice justices than pro-lifers. Republicans are liars. They have duped the pro-life Christians into thinking they are the pro-life party, but judged by their fruit, by what they do, and don't do, with the power they already have, they're just lying skunks. Unacceptable. Trump is acceptable BECAUSE he is not a party man. By winning, he will be effecting a takeover of the GOP from without, by a whole bunch of disaffected people who otherwise would not vote Republican. So, you can bray on about how I want to see Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat elected. It's false. I think both parties suck. With the Republicans, I get evil economics and purposeful inactivity and deception on abortion. With Democrats, I get race- baiting and babykilling. They both suck, but since neither one is going to do the right thing on abortion, the Democrats are BETTER on economics, consistently over time, than Republicans. I will not VOTE for them, but I certainly prefer to see Democrat economics over Republican nonsense. Of course, with Trump, I won't get nonsense at all. So I FAVOR him. I want him to run, get the nomination, win the election and be President, because he will be good for the country. If it's a choice between some Republican greebo and a Democrat, I say a pox on both houses and will vote for neither. But I will be less unhappy with a Democrat victory than you will be, because I think Democrat economics make more sense. So with them I get half a loaf. Trump will really shake things up in all senses. So I SUPPORT him. Every time you take the line that I support the Democrats and want to see them elected, think of how YOU get called a Republican shill and operative, because you won't take some other idiot's line regarding you. They are idiots when they do that, regarding you. And you are the same sort of idiot when it comes to me. I say directly what I think, and why. You should take it as direct face value. I know you're a Republican, and honesty simply does not come easily to Republicans. But I am always honest and very direct.
You've been openly pining for Biden as prez repeatedly on these threads just in the last week. And everyone knows it. Now you suddenly never heard of such a thing, being more holy than the pope on hating abortion.
The latest poll puts Trump at 23%. So if Trump goes away, you think that 23% will go to Bush? Sorry, but I see Trump and Bush supporters at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I think you know that isn't going to happen. : ) I am ready to post the adult swinger pix and more details, given any excuse to do so. And more documentation on how close Trump and Roger Stone have been for a very long time. And how similar they are, which is why they are friends. Up until Stone quit Trump, I would have said that Stone is quite obviously Trump's best friend over the decades.
LOL sorry you had to sleuth through the sewers to find that one:) "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
No. But some people really do just go with the biggest name they've heard. Now that is Trump. With Trump gone, it would be Bush. Assume that counts for 5%-10% of the total GOP vote (about a third of all Trump's supporters). Then figure another 5% are Dims who are just diehard Trump fans. Like those two crazy black ladies on YouBoob. Then 5% to Cruz, 4% to Carson, 3% to Walker, 2% to Kasich, 1% to Rand Paul. And you've accounted for where Trump's voters go (if they go anywhere and don't just stay home, many of them being inactive voters, just as they were with Perot). Do you see how, with his $120M initial warchest and Wall Street backing, Bush shuts down all the challengers after a big win in Florida? Look at how Romney mopped up the field slowly with his superior resources, despite Gingrich winning a state and Santorum winning 5 or 6 states (or was it more?). Wish for a Trump and the greatest certainty is that the GOP will nominate Bush.
Yuck...Please don't. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Meaning that cutting him loose was probably a difficult decision. Yet he made it. So I respect him for that. Unlike, say, Hillary with Huma Abedin and her creepy husband, Anthony Weiner. Nobody says anything about them. Yet if Trump is involved it's a big scandal. Why is that, Too Conservative? And, for the record, not all of my personal friends are clean as the driven, bloody snow. (Ah! See what I did? I did it again!)
I doubt that. It's probably headline news on all the liberal rags.
I always knew this stuff about Trump. Recall his threats to run third-party or indy in the Nineties through 2004. The Stone scandal was part of the Dole meltdown in '96, a bit before the Andrew Sullivan craze at TOS with the most gullible freepers ("Oh, gee, Andrew Sullivan may be gay but he is a True Conservative"). It's the exact same kind of gullibility and giddiness we see on the Right toward Trump. With Sullivan, the discussions came to an abrupt halt when he got outed for posting his own swinger ads on some gay website under the handle "Milky_Loads". At the time, Sullivan was gobbling hormones to bulk up and anti-AIDS drugs (at public expense!) and wasn't warning his gay partners that he was HIV-positive. At the time, there was a full archive of lurid nude photos of Sullivan. We kept posting them on Sullivan threads at TOS and calling him Milky_Loads and referring to his "Power Glutes" that he bragged about in his ads. Finally, JimRob banned any more Andrew Sullivan articles. : )
I went with the New Yorker story. Pretty respectable as NYC rags go. Read through it for Stone's Rules. You'll start to see all the similarities to Trump and you'll see why they were such good friends (and probably still are).
I think there are about 20-21 primary states before Florida, so a lot could happen before then -- with or without Trump. Yes, Bush should take Florida. But right now he has only an 8-point lead over Trump. So he is vulnerable.
IMHO this is because they still maintain their Marxist roots,while the modern Dim and Republican Parties have gone full-out Fascist/Globalist. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Florida is still #5. IA/NH/NV/SC/FL. Anyway, I think NV is after NH but maybe it's before NH. Floriduh is the first big contest. In 2008 and 2012, Florida tried to move up its primary and also award all its delegates as winner-take-all (whereas Florida is part of the bloc of states that have agreed to award delegates proportionally). Florida did this to try to make itself the kingmaker of GOP primary states (just like NH and SC both try to be the kingmakers). Supposedly in 2016, Florida will hold its primary on the allotted day and will award delegates proportionally. If this had been done in 2012, you might have seen a big move for Newt! as the GOP nominee as Newt (and the lovely Callista) drained tycoon Adelson and his wife dry on donations running an expensive media campaign in Florida, trying to wrestle the nomination away from Romney. After Florida, Adelson threw in the towel, Newt dropped out, and Santorum became the final anyone-but-Romney candidate which allowed him to win more states but always with Romney pulling further and further ahead in delegates. I think that is likely to happen with Bush too. It is the natural strategy for any party insider like Romney or Bush with the biggest warchest. This is exactly why they covet a big warchest so much.
Where did you get your list?
Memory. It really is not a very long list, you know. Woh, I see your point. RNC made a very major change. Florida got their ass kicked, way back in the pack from their old #5 spot. I guess if a state party flips off the RNC two elections in a row like Floriduh in 2008 & 2012, they get their asses totally kicked.
Another "Yuck" moment.
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
I spared you the really lurid stuff. I try to avoid the truly NSFW quotes.
I see you take SurveyMonkey very seriously. It's a corporate cloud-based PollDaddy. Not real phone polling. Remember, when you see Chuck Todd, it's all lies. SurveyMonkey is just as silly as all those (self-selected) instant texting polls that FNC tried to in 2012 ("text #9921 if Romney won,text #9922 if Gingrich won, text #9923 if Ron Paul won", etc.). The Ron Paul techie types naturally figured out how to bomb them with fake votes for Ron Paul. I recall Vannity going completely insane over Ron Paul winning those, time after time despite Fox trying to get everyone to text their votes in just so Ron Paul wouldn't win again. Very funny stuff.
Here's the 2016 GOP primary line up month by month, state by state: Most of the 'damage' is done in March. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Weekly Standard has another anti-Trump piece today, this time by mousy Fred Barnes. Worth a glance. Republicans have been slow in recognizing the real damage Donald Trump is doing to their party. The harm is not to the party’s image. What Trump has done is exacerbate the increasingly bitter rift between the party’s leaders and its grass roots. He’s made the GOP’s future dicey. The quarter of the Republican electorate Trump has attracted consists largely of this alienated group. Since he voices their resentment of Republican elites – especially their arch-enemies in Congress – he’s become their champion. And champions are hard to dethrone. Trump doesn’t have to run as an independent to be a serious troublemaker. As long as he stays in the GOP race, the split in the party is likely to deepen and primaries may turn into nasty and divisive contests. And imagine if he wins enough delegates to disrupt the Republican convention by making demands. The media would again make him the center of attention. “The Republican party created Donald Trump, because they made lot of promises to their base and never kept them,” Erick Erickson, the conservative editor of RedState, told Molly Ball of the Atlantic. Erickson is right. “At this point, most of the people I encounter on radio and on the internet, they’re not really people who at the end of the day want to vote for Donald Trump,” Erickson said. “But they sure do like that he’s burning down the Republican Party that never listened to them to begin with.” In Washington, the rift isn’t taken seriously. But it should be. Even before Trump arrived on the Republican scene it was getting worse. It began to grow after Republicans won the House in 2010. A significant chunk of the rank and file, spurred by right wing talk radio, blamed Republican leadership in Washington for failing to thwart President Obama and reverse or minimize victories he’d won in his first two years of office when Democrats had large majorities in both houses of Congress. After Republicans captured the Senate in 2014, things got worse. Twenty-eight Republicans voted against John Boehner for another term as House speaker. This was an unusually large bloc of dissenters and reflected the dissatisfaction with GOP leaders of many grass roots Republicans. Now the conservative media is asking why Republicans, with their control of Congress and dominance in statehouses across the country, has achieved so little in Washington. “Why does the Republican party exist?” Ben Domenech wrote in The Federalist. He pointed to three Republican failures: to kill renewal of the Export-Import Bank, defund Planned Parenthood, and block the Iran nuclear deal. Republican leaders have credible explanations for each of these setbacks, but their critics are not persuaded. Domenech wrote: “Perhaps you believe the Republican party exists as a party of limited government and free markets.” But that is “impossible,” he said, after McConnell cleared the way to revive the Ex-Im Bank, whose charter expired June 30. Sen. Ted Crux (R-TX) accused Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of promising a vote to Democrats get their support for a trade bill. But it didn’t take a secret deal for a vote on the bank to occur, given its strong support (most Democrats, nearly half of Republicans). On Planned Parenthood, Domenech questioned whether the GOP is credible as a pro-life party after McConnell declined to allow an up-or-down vote on halting its federal funding, at least on funding for “taxpayer subsidization of harvesting organs from aborted babies.” Democrats had earlier blocked a vote on procedural grounds. The problem with raising the funding issue is simple: it might lead to a government shutdown. And McConnell is bent on avoiding just that. He fears Republicans would be blamed, even if the cause of a shutdown were an Obama veto. Chances are, they would be, and Democrats would be delighted. Still, there are many Republicans who think another bid to defund Planned Parenthood is worth the risk. On the Iran deal, Domenech faulted Senate Republicans for settling for a weak hand in taking up the deal, ceding “their Constitutional duty.” Obama packaged the deal as an executive agreement, which means it doesn’t require congressional approval, much less a two-thirds majority as in the case of a treaty. The downside for Obama is that an executive agreement can be rescinded by the next president. And several Republican presidential candidates, including Scott Walker and Rick Perry, have vowed to do that if elected. But how Republicans could successfully turn the agreement into a treaty that requires Senate ratification is unclear. Trump has barely touched on these three issues, but he’ll probably find his way to them. He has his following. It’s hardly a majority of the Republican party, but it’s sufficient to keep his campaign alive and to drive the wedge deeper between Republicans. There’s a larger picture here in which Trump is playing a part, though he may personally be oblivious to it. The two parties are redefining themselves. For decades, Democrats were a coalition party, Republicans a consensus party. Democrats remain a collection of interest groups – labor, liberals, feminists, minorities, etc. – but they’re no longer ideologically diverse. Conservatives aren’t welcome and moderates are barely hanging on. Left liberalism has triumphed in the Democratic party. Republicans have been a consensus party, generally agreeing on issues, for roughly a half century. Despite this, factions are now growing – that is, factions that don’t get along with each other. Grass roots conservatives, egged on by talk radio, loathe their leaders. Social conservatives feel slighted. Libertarians are scarce in senior GOP circles. Obama united Republicans early on. But the failure to derail his initiatives now divides them, mostly on tactics and strategy. Trump divides Republicans all the more. He’s a one-man wedge issue.
RNC finally revamped the system to deal with the date-jumping by FL and their violating the winner-take-all vs. proportional rules. Man, did Floriduh get punished. They only slapped their wrists for what they actually did in 2008 and 2012. But this is real and rather permanent punishment of the FL GOP for rulebreaking in two elections.
Here's what Realclear has so far. These polls will matter as we get closer: Seems Trump is leading in most state polls right now. Even in a virtual dead heat with Bush in FL. Interesting tidbit is only Bush and Walker seem to do better against Hitlery head to head. Trump is down 10 pts against Hitlery in NH. Again it is early. Who knows what happens when Trump gets bored with this political game and where his current base will go. Right now I think many people see Trump as a protest vote against Bush. Hitlery by the polling linked is cleaning up state by state. She is in the 50s in most states and no one even close. Guess the Dim voters don't care she is a liar. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
morningconsult.com/2015/0...after-debate-controversy/ I expect TC to say it is a conspiracy and not real.
Yup, that, plus the fact that Trump is not part of " the Club ". Cannot allow some lowly peon non member to get in. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Uh-huh. Let's review Gallup's state of the race from October 2007. Hitlery was also the presumptive nominee for the Dims, just like in 2015. Romney’s campaign team is banking on an initially strong performance in key early caucus and primary states to overcome their candidate’s relatively poor showing among Republicans nationwide. Romney in fact does lead all recent polls in the key early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire (more comfortably in Iowa than New Hampshire). Huckabee also outperforms his national numbers in Iowa, and is currently vying with Giuliani and Thompson for second place in that state. Fifty-one percent of Republicans nationwide say they would vote enthusiastically for Giuliani next November should he be the party’s nominee. McCain, Thompson, and Romney are not generating the same level of enthusiasm among the party base. (The level of enthusiasm toward Giuliani is significantly lower than that generated by Democratic front-runner Clinton.) Republicans continue to rate Giuliani more positively than his leading competitors on Gallup’s favorability measure, but he by no means dominates on this measure. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans and Republican leaners have a favorable opinion of Giuliani, compared with 61% for McCain, 53% for Thompson, and 41% for Romney. Romney’s and Thompson’s lower ratings are due in large part to the fact that they are not as well-known as Giuliani (and McCain) -- roughly one in three Republicans do not have an opinion of Thompson or Romney. For example, Giuliani’s +40 net favorable rating (67% favorable – 27% unfavorable) is roughly the same as the lesser-known Thompson’s +36 (53% favorable – 17% unfavorable). Giuliani’s favorable rating among Republicans has also declined -- it was 74% as recently as August and has been in the 80% range. Giuliani was even more of a heavy favorite in 2007 than Trump is today. And without the extremely high negatives that Trump has. And Giuliani had Fox News in the tank for him, across the board.
It's all name identification at this point. Trump is at 98% name recognition, ahead of Hillary! and ¡Jeb!
Say hello the Evita Clintoon's reign . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
and yet Bernie Sanders is filling arenas around the nation regurgitating his populist pablum. Waiting for the emperor to pull the rug out from under Evita's legs . Btw . imagine the reaction if Trump had said "Evita is never off the rag " . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
They must have called Vic this time. I see why the Dims prefer Biden. The Xlintons compromised too much on the lib agenda and they don't trust them not to do it again. The big Wall Street banks behind Hitlery do not make her any more attractive to the Dim voter herd.
I was responding to your #SurveyMonkey comments as not scientific. I provided what RealClear recorded state by state from local newspapers. I was not making the point that who leads now will lead later. In fact my comments conclude differently. So regardless of #SurveyMonkey, most state polls show Trump ahead NOW. "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
A lot of it will just go away. Trump has pulled in a lot of people who'd given up hope. Come November they'll stay home, unless he's running as an independent. They were never JEB's.
We will know for sure that will happen if Biden jumps in the race. imagine the reaction if Trump had said "Evita is never off the rag " . On that I think even Chrissy Matthews would support Trump:) "When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan
Those 8 million stay-at-home registered Republicans said 'hello' to Obama's second term. Did the GOP learn anything? Doesn't look like it. Perhaps 16 million Republicans staying home will catch their eye. Does that need to happen?
Very likely.
Almost guaranteed if Trump is the GOP nominee.
So you're saying 8 million stayed home for Romney because he wasn't liberal enough and 16 million will stay home for Trump because he's more conservative than Romney? In other words, the GOP is going in the wrong direction with their candidates.
Yes, but Giuliani never had ME. (And your tent feels so empty without me.)
Did you get this from SNL??? :) I think Romney actually is a lot more conservative than Trump in his personal life and in his business life. Some of you guys are really closing your eyes to Trump's long history. He is no conservative. Well, unless your reasoning is along the lines of:
The tent is overrated.
If Bush is the nominee that is a sure thing. So we better get someone like Cruz or Trump in there. No way I vote for Bush. I know maybe two people that would vote for Bush. He isn't their first choice either. I know a whole lot of people who wouldn't. I know a lot of people who never voted before who would only vote for Trump.
No it isn't. Trumps support started at 3 percent and grew because of what he said. Bush has name recognition. But he is behind Scott Walker and Carson. I guess they have higher name recognition then Bush.
I believe your reasoning is: 1. I am a conservative. "Some of you guys are really closing your eyes to Trump's long history. You mean as a businessman? Sure, in one sense. Now he's running for President. Priorities change.
Touché. But I don't have a long and documented history of liberal political statements. Trump does.
I think part of the Trump surge is just people wanting to know what he's going to say next. He is totally unscripted.
Bush was liberal to moderate. Didn't you vote for him?
Liberal political statements as a businessman. Interests and priorities are different when running for office.
So he was all for the Kelo decision as a businessman and used it to evict some old lady because he coveted his neighbor's property. But, as president, he'll suddenly swing into line with conservative policy on eminent domain seizures? What kind of magical thinking is this? Why would you even believe that? He's not going to change at all. I doubt he's capable of it.
I had 4 chances to vote for a Bush. I only failed once to reject the Bushes. How about you? You're old enough that you had the same four chances to vote for a Bush. What's your score? I still tend to think that Gore would have been as bad or worse than Bush, just in different ways. But I can't say that Gore would have invaded Iraq, Dumbya's biggest mistake.
When you have to lie to make your point you've lost the debate. "But, as president, he'll suddenly swing into line with conservative policy on eminent domain seizures?" And do what? Single-handedly overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision? Who do you think he is, Obama?
I'm not lying. If anything, I'm understating what Trump said and did on eminent domain. LarryElder.com, 2011: This is no recent GOPe attack on Trump. His history is well-documented. As with many other things, a lot of Trumpsters are projecting their own ideas onto Trump and don't seem to care (or want to ask) what his real record and positions are. A march of low-info Republicanish voters. So I'll thank you not to lie about me lying about Trump, hypocrite. Worship your false gods if you must but don't expect me to join you.
There you go spouting GOPe talking points. Do you work for Karl Rove? Or do you just think like him?
Whoever wrote that is a liar. Why do you post lies?
I voted for each Bush one time. So did you vote for W or HW?
You said Trump used the Kelo decision to evict some old lady in 1997. First of all, Kelo was decided in 2005. Second, Vera Coking was never evicted. She voluntarily moved to a retirement home in 2010 and sold her house last year for $530,000 -- 1/4 of what Trump offered 8 years earlier.
Are you kidding or just poorly informed? Club For Growth and the Tea Party are the enemies of the GOPe and have been for years. CFG and Tea candidates are slated for defeat in primaries by the CoC and GOP elite in the 2016 primaries. Now the GOPe is ready to primary the Tea candidates and the CoC is raising money specifically to do that. Sorry if that doesn't fit your imaginary template.
You're twice as big a Bush supporter as I am. You'd better ban yourself from LF, just to be safe. Dumbya in 2000, knowing I'd regret it. Gore just seemed so awful and I wanted the end of the Xlinton machine.
www.newsmax.com/Newsfront...for-Growth-elections-tea- party/2014/03/26/id/561799/ So Mitch Mconnel is not establishment and is a tea partier right? What are you snorting?
He certainly tried. ...Vera Coking was never evicted. She voluntarily moved to a retirement home in 2010 and sold her house last year for $530,000 -- 1/4 of what Trump offered 8 years earlier. Her later history is irrelevant. Trump was exactly the kind of developer who was trying, in various locales, to cause the Kelo decision or to bring about the same results with his lawyers under state laws. Why do you keep trying to deny or obfuscate the facts, which are quite well-known? You're not fooling anyone or distracting them.
Did you vote for Ron Pual in 88? Or Dukakis?
I said nothing of the sort. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Club-for-Growth-elections-tea-party/2014/03/26/id/561799/ [corrected link] The article does nothing to change the facts. CFG and TP are still being targeted by GOPe.
My first vote of my life was for Bush. I was young and he followed Reagan. We didn't have the internet back then. And he surely seemed better then the dork Dukakis. Then I voted for W in 2000. I really wanted Buchanan. But I did vote for Bush, relucantly. I surely didn't want Gore to continue the Clinton policies.
You said the Club for Growth endoreses tea partiers and is anti establishment. Well that isn't true. They endorsed Mconnel and a host of other GOPe candidates that you love so much.
I'm not going to recite my entire voting history, even if I do have less to be embarrassed about than some people. Of course, resisting the reptilian Bushes (75%), the befuddled Dole, and the crazed warmonger McStain isn't really that much to brag over.
Club for Growth is knee jerk in favor of free trade. There is no daylight between them and the Chamber of Commerce RNC cuckolds when it comes to leaving American industry undefended against foreign mercantilism.
I'm just asking about 88. You must be ahamed of your vote.
At least I haven't voted for a Bush twice like a total GOPe tool. And I'm not answering mostly because you're so interested.
Kelo was not passed until 8 years later. What do you mean he tried to use Kelo? "Her later history is irrelevant." No it isn't. You said Trump used Kelo to evict some old lady. So her later history -- that she was NOT evicted but voluntarily moved -- IS relevant. "Trump was exactly the kind of developer who was trying, in various locales, to cause the Kelo decision or to bring about the same results with his lawyers under state laws." Had Kelo been in effect she would have received $251,000 from the city of Atlantic City. As it was, she turned down a $1.9 million offer for her house from Trump as well as a room for life at any of his properties. I'd call that generous, wouldn't you?
Of course. Always were. CoC and CFG square off in a lot of races in opposition to each other. To describe them as identical is just deluded. Haven't you about worn out using "cuckold" yet? Did you have a wife or GF or BF who cheated on you? Is that it?
LOL! Glad to know it's getting under your skin, that sort of feedback helps. It makes my day when I can annoy a RINO bootlicker. Thanks for the encouragement.
You're lying. You voted for Bush.
He tried to use eminent domain exactly as Kelo did. The Kelo case originated in 2000 or 2001. The Connecticut supreme court heard the appeals in 2002. It took until 2005 for Kelo to be decided by the Court. Trump and other developers had pushed to use eminent domain as Kelo later allowed in the late Nineties. If you want to continue bandying words, go ahead. Trump's record speaks for itself. He thinks he and some economic development council can evict anyone if they think they can make more money off any property than its current owners. That is not and cannot ever be a conservative position. Which is why Kelo still matters politically. And why you are trying to obfuscate Trump's clear history of abusing eminent domain laws to seize the properties of small property owners, snowing them under in legal bills in the meantime.
So did Trump ever actually use the Kelo decison himself? No he didn't. Yawn. Find some better GOPe talking points.
I've had four chances to vote for a Bush. I did so once. You had the same, voted twice for a Bush. On the Bush Purity Scale, I am twice as conservative as you. And you are twice the GOPe hack that I am. Just goin' by the record...
You voted for Bush in 88, 92 and 2000. You can't add.
They failed. She was not evicted. Kelo was not used. Your statement was a lie. Now, had you said "Trump and other developers had pushed to use eminent domain as Kelo later allowed in the late Nineties" you would have been correct. Of course that just doesn't have the impact that "evicted an old lady" does, now does it? Kelo is now the law of the land. What would you expect a President Trump to do about that? Or any Republican President, for that matter?
The RINO's cannot face reality. What is happening is the rejection of them. RINO's don't need to think about Trump, they need to focus on how much they are hated on Main Street. When they make a habit of importing rapists and murderers from Mexico, shipping American industry to Red China, bailing out Goldman-Sachs and doig liberal bleeding heart humanitarian interventions overseas they earn contempt. I love how miserable Trump has made these GOPe dirt bags.
I voted only for Dumbya in 2000. You didn't even read my prior posts. Or you have a reading problem. I stated it clearly. You are the GOPe/Bush hack (voted Bush 2 out of 4). I am twice as good as you are on this, having voted Bush only 1 out of 4 times.
Okay. So you're proud that Donald was on the leading edge of abusing eminent domain in trying to evict an old lady, years before Kelo was issued. You do realize this makes Trump look even worse on eminent domain abuse and cruelty to poor old women trying to keep their property for themselves against some greedy tycoon who has publicly coveted his neighbor's property to take it for himself. Donald is a coveter and a commandment breaker.
Failing to acquire her property is worse than acquiring her property? You're a piece of work. If the truth was a worse revelation, then why lie about what Trump did? Are you going soft on The Donald?
Technically those titles would have gone to the City of Atlantic City.
He tried to abuse eminent domain long before Kelo. Trump was a Kelo backer 8 years before it was decided. He tried to break the laws to abuse eminent domain and take a widow's property away for himself. A coveter by any definition.
The Coking house was bought at auction (reserve $199,000) by Carl Icahn who had it demolished.
I love how miserable Trump has made these GOPe dirt bags. Bears repeating. Trump is the US Navy at Midway. Destroying the best of the GOPe fleet. EDIT: I'm expecting the GOPe, Dems, and Media Axis of Evil to get desperately "creative" in sinking Trump soon, or else they are finished.
So is everyone else. EXCEPT, those "coveters and a commandment breakers" who've been elected to help enforce and preserve the US Constitution are also...TRAITORS. Why isn't it better that Trump shovel dirt on the GOPe so that REAL Republican-Conservative legislators can advance the conservative agenda, and *its* policies finally implemented? OR, should we just wait until the GOP and Dems *officially* merge as one Evil Empire?
Can you picture a bunch of RINO consultants at a strategy meeting. "Hmmm, I don't get it. We keep stabbing Republican voters in the back, and we've really ramped up the importation of democrat voters. But for some strange reason we keep losing market share." And they decide "Let's import more democrats!" This is the kind of idiocy that has been surprised by the Trump insurgency. Stupid is is RINO does, same for their bootlickers.
So you admit he was a visionary businessman. I agree.
I'm sure her children blew through that money in a year. Meanwhile, she's in some retirement home when she could be living in Palm Beach on one of Trump's properties (for free) with $1.9 million in the bank. That shows you just how cruel and heartless Trump was.
LOL..."But...It worked fabulously with Palin!" SNL is afraid to Lampoon Trump because his approval rating might rise even higher. And they decide "Let's import more democrats!" This is the kind of idiocy that has been surprised by the Trump insurgency. Stupid is is RINO does, same for their bootlickers. Ha, YEP! "Screw the base...they'll never....um...WAIT?? It that Trump carrying off OUR sheep??" The useless, unprincipled, feckless GOPe LOVES losing main elections but HATES losing primaries. It's ALL about POWER.
You really are delusional. You're just daydreaming now. Nothing about Trump could possibly inspire such confidence. You sound giddy. Or drunk.
Trump was trying to use eminent domain under existing law. Kelo affirmed Berman (1954) and Midkiff (1984). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/469/ SYLLABUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut No. 04–108.Argued February 22, 2005—Decided June 23, 2005 After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings. Held: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6–20. (b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13. (c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13–20.268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/26/case.html Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) Berman v. Parker No. 22 Argued October 19, 1954 Decided November 22, 1954 348 U.S. 26 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions -- even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes. Pp. 348 U. S. 28-36. [...] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/229/case.html Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff No. 83-141 Argued March 26, 1984 Decided May 30, 1984* 467 U.S. 229 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus To reduce the perceived social and economic evils of a land oligopoly traceable to the early high chiefs of the Hawaiian Islands, the Hawaii Legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967 (Act), which created a land condemnation scheme whereby title in real property is taken from lessors and transferred to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of land ownership. Under the Act, lessees living on single-family residential lots within tracts at least five acres in size are entitled to ask appellant Hawaii Housing Authority (HHA) to condemn the property on which they live. When appropriate applications by lessees are filed, the Act authorizes HHA to hold a public hearing to determine whether the State's acquisition of the tract will "effectuate the public purposes" of the Act. If HHA determines that these public purposes will be served, it is authorized to designate some or all of the lots in the tract for acquisition. It then acquires, at prices set by a condemnation trial or by negotiation between lessors and lessees, the former fee owners' "right, title, and interest" in the land, and may then sell the land titles to the applicant lessees. After HHA had held a public hearing on the proposed acquisition of appellees' lands and had found that such acquisition would effectuate the Act's public purposes, it directed appellees to negotiate with certain lessees concerning the sale of the designated properties. When these negotiations failed, HHA ordered appellees to submit to compulsory arbitration as provided by the Act. Rather than comply with this order, appellees filed suit in Federal District Court, asking that the Act be declared unconstitutional and that its enforcement be enjoined. The court temporarily restrained the State from proceeding against appellees' estates, but subsequently, while holding the compulsory arbitration and compensation formulae provisions of the Act unconstitutional, refused to issue a preliminary injunction and ultimately granted partial summary judgment to HHA and private appellants who had intervened, holding Page 467 U. S. 230 the remainder of the Act constitutional under the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. After deciding that the District Court had properly not abstained from exercising its jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Act violates the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Held: 1. The District Court was not required to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. Pp. 467 U. S. 236-239. (a) Abstention under Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, is unnecessary. Pullman abstention is limited to uncertain questions of state law, and here there is no uncertain question of state law, since the Act unambiguously provides that the power to condemn is "for a public use and purpose." Thus, the question, uncomplicated by ambiguous language, is whether the Act, on its face, is unconstitutional. Pp. 467 U. S. 236-237. (b) Nor is abstention required under Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37. Younger abstention is required only when state court proceedings are initiated before any proceedings of substance on the merits have occurred in federal court. Here, state judicial proceedings had not been initiated at the time proceedings of substance took place in the District Court, the District Court having issued a preliminary injunction before HHA filed its first state eminent domain suit in state court. And the fact that HHA's administrative proceedings occurred before the federal suit was filed did not require abstention, since the Act clearly states that those proceedings are not part of, or are not themselves, a judicial proceeding. Pp. 467 U. S. 237-239. 2. The Act does not violate the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 467 U. S. 239-244. (a) That requirement is coterminous with the scope of a sovereign's police powers. This Court will not substitute its judgment for a legislature's judgment as to what constitutes "public use" unless the use is palpably without reasonable foundation. Where the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, a compensated taking is not prohibited by the Public Use Clause. Here, regulating oligopoly and the evils associated with it is a classic exercise of a State's police powers, and redistribution of fees simple to reduce such evils is a rational exercise of the eminent domain power. Pp. 467 U. S. 239-243. (b) The mere fact that property taken outright by eminent domain is transferred in the first instance to private beneficiaries does not condemn that taking as having only a private purpose. Government does not itself have to use property to legitimate the taking; it is only the taking's purpose, and not its mechanics, that must pass scrutiny under Page 467 U. S. 231 the Public Use Clause. And the fact that a state legislature, and not Congress, made the public use determination does not mean that judicial deference is less appropriate. Pp. 467 U. S. 243-244. 702 F.2d 788, reversed and remanded.
Regardless, Trump did not prevail in his attempt to use eminent domain to seize an old widow's property.
And who wants a loser as President? I want someone who was successful at seizing an old widow's property and evicting her. U S A! U S A!
U S A! U S A! I have no objections if you fly your true colors. Goes nicely with your every-cop-shooting-is-a-good-shooting posts.
The issue is lack of confidence in the GOPe. If you guys had not made a habit of stabbing Republican voters in the back you would not be facing this dilemma. Your chickens are coming come to roost RINO boy.
My goodness, you've certainly told off that GOPe cabal now. Me and Mitch and John B. Tell ya what, I'll convey your insults to Mitch and John the next time we have cocktails with the Chamber, okay?
With the fleet of the USS GOPe exposed for what it actually is by Trump, then ravaged, discredited, and set afire, it does kinda open the door for conservatives candidates -- as well someone like Cruz to lead what was a pirated RNC-GOP leadership. Even IF Trump doesn't make it. Frankly, many of us have been waiting for the Vichy GOPe wing to be crushed and humiliated for the worms and slugs they are. If not, the Republican Party would remain for all perpetuity the "JV" for the Dem Party and Globalists. Meanwhile wearing your rose-colored glasses isn't helping by any measure of reality or sanity. Why pretend as though the GOPe will do ANYTHING to help save a nation that's extremely close to its expiration date?
Just to be accurate, Trump was not the actual Plaintiff. That was, "Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey." The CRDA wanted Trump's redevelopment plan to be implemented. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court/1349001.html CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Josef BANIN and Mrs. Josef Banin, his wife; Peter Banin; Golden Island; Anatoly Kovayrenko t/a Golden Island; City of Atlantic City, Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority; State of New Jersey; L. Norman Markowitt and Margaret Markowitt, his wife; and Atlantic City Electric Company, Defendants. Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Raymond Coking and Vera Coking, his wife; Barbara Torpey; Heritage Bank, N.A.; Atlantic City Medical Center; Commercial Banking Corporation; Fidelity Union Trust: Company; Atlantic City Electric Company; City of Atlantic City, Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority; and State of New Jersey, Defendants. Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Vincent Sabatini and Clara Sabatini, his wife; Anna Bloh; Boardwalk Properties, Inc.; City of Atlantic City; Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority; State of New Jersey; and Atlantic City Electric Company, Defendants. Decided: July 20, 1998
I read them. I just don't believe you. Since you were ashamed of who you voted for. Just like when Trump documentd his assets and two minutes later you didn't believe it.
As for actual conservative policy, Trump is nothing but a huge distraction. He sucks the air out of the policy debates entirely. It's all just The Donald Show, all the time. Lindsey Graham could (finally) walk out on stage in spike heels and a little black cocktail dress with pearl necklace and earrings and announce he is now a woman and the press would just ask him some drivel about Donald Trump. All Trump, all the time.
I didn't believe it because Trump has been lying about it for years according to the financial press.
So Trump used a corporate semi-public shell corporation as he coveted and tried to seize the assets of some poor old widow. That really does sound so much better that he hid behind a phony corporate front when trying to legally steal what an old widow inherited from her husband.
Isn't it a felony to lie about your financial data in a Presidential race? I'm sure he knows better then them.
No. They don't have to declare their assets at all. It is usual to do so in the modern era but not required.
It won’t end well.
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
" It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well. "
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard.
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
That’s backwards. It's not that the media have failed to give Trump enough credit; we’ve given his supporters too much. We assumed that at some point they'd embarrassed to be associated with him: If not his slander of Mexican immigrants, then perhaps his mockery of POWs;
#5. To: TooConservative (#0)
"In an interview on CNN last night, Donald Trump suggested that Megyn Kelly’s tough questioning was inspired by her menstrual cycle. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes,” Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. “Blood coming out of her—wherever.”
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
"You're not going to have your Jebby or your Marco, the folks you're comfortable with."
#7. To: TooConservative (#0)
"Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator."
#8. To: TooConservative (#0)
"Those who still remain Trump supporters seem to be beyond shame."
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
" Fuck you, Steven Hayes. "
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
" You're shameless! You're idiots! You're crude and politically incorrect! You're gun- toting, God-fearing, hard-working, tax-paying boobs!
#11. To: Stoner (#10)
(Edited)
"george-will-trump-supporters-need-to-come-into-the-republican- party-on-our-terms-not-theirs"
#12. To: misterwhite (#7)
"Turning to Trump to solve the problems in Washington is like turning to an ape to fix a broken refrigerator."
#13. To: misterwhite (#8)
Now get with the program and support JEB.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Why? Because the closest people like us will ever get to you is Trump. You will either grit your teeth and accept a Trump, or a Sarah Palin, or you can go fuck yourself and live with Democrat rule, because that works for us a whole lot better than letting the sort of Republicans YOU like ever have power.
#15. To: TooConservative (#13)
"I'm pretty sure Hayes is a Walker supporter."
#16. To: TooConservative (#12)
"Witless Ape Rides Escalator"
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#17)
"Fox was never that good really."
#19. To: misterwhite (#18)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
"I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals."
#21. To: misterwhite (#15)
Meaning we can hardly expect his article about Trump to be objective and fair.
#22. To: Stoner (#2)
No it will not. I believe in the end, it will be badly for the GOPe and their followers like the Weekly Standard.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)
I read Murdochs kids took over July 1, 2015. I also heard they are liberals.
#24. To: TooConservative (#0)
It’s foolish to pretend to know how it all ends. But one thing is certain: It won’t end well.
#25. To: misterwhite (#15)
And not in a good way. Which explain why Jeb Bush's campaign has signs saying JEB! (leaving out the Bush part).
#26. To: misterwhite (#5)
Bunch of little, immature kids in the MSM looking for their "Gotcha" moment.
#27. To: TooConservative (#25)
"Wish for a Trump and you'll get a Bush is the most likely outcome."
#28. To: nativist nationalist (#26)
"It's the Weekly Standard. They have all the patriotism of Jonathan Pollard."
#29. To: misterwhite (#16)
Here I thought National Review and Fox were conservative outlets...
#30. To: TooConservative (#21)
(Edited)
"Walker, who is still expected to be a player for the GOP nomination."
#31. To: nativist nationalist (#22)
"The Weekly Standard was one of the biggest shills for invading Iraq ..."
#32. To: nativist nationalist (#29)
They're cuckservative.
In the original ads, where this quotes "seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men", the actual phrasing is "seek similar couples or exceptional muscular well-hung single men". Stone is one of those who denied that Roy Cohen was ever gay, he just liked having sex with other men. Nothing unusual about that. So maybe Roger Stone is also not gay but likes to have sex with other men too. Trump and Stone seem to share a Playboy lifestyle outlook out of the Seventies. Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,” the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones. At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a “very sick individual,” but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic. “When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive,” he said. “I’m not guilty of hypocrisy. I’m a libertarian and a libertine.”
#33. To: nativist nationalist (#29)
"They're cuckservative."
#34. To: misterwhite (#30)
That said, right now he's a voice in the wilderness, along with all the other candidates. Trump is sucking all the oxygen and blood out of the room.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#17)
National Review always sucked.
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
It's rude, crude, and ignorant. My opinion.
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
I didn't like that word when I first saw it, and repetition isn't helping.
#38. To: TooConservative (#32)
"Trump's good buddy and (former) adviser, Roger Stone."
#39. To: misterwhite (#31)
Look up neo-conservative in the dictionary and there's a picture of him.
#40. To: TooConservative (#14)
Given how often you've stated your preferences for a Dem victory with Hitlery or Biden, I'm not too surprised. You like Trump in the hopes of their election, not Trump's.
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
I do not want Clinton, who is a murderess, or Biden, who is a conflicted Catholic babykiller, to be President.
#42. To: TooConservative (#34)
"Trump virtually guarantees a Bush v. Clinton 2016 matchup. With or without Trump as a third-party candidate."
#43. To: misterwhite (#38)
Key word. Former. Could we please move on?
#44. To: TooConservative (#32)
Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,” the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones. At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a “very sick individual,” but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic. “When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive,” he said. “I’m not guilty of hypocrisy. I’m a libertarian and a libertine.”
#45. To: misterwhite (#42)
The latest poll puts Trump at 23%. So if Trump goes away, you think that 23% will go to Bush? Sorry, but I see Trump and Bush supporters at opposite ends of the spectrum.
#46. To: TooConservative (#43)
I am ready to post the adult swinger pix and more details, given any excuse to do so.
#47. To: TooConservative (#43)
"I would have said that Stone is quite obviously Trump's best friend over the decades."
#48. To: redleghunter (#44)
"LOL sorry you had to sleuth through the sewers to find that one."
#49. To: redleghunter (#44)
LOL sorry you had to sleuth through the sewers to find that one:)
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
I doubt that. It's probably headline news on all the liberal rags.
#51. To: TooConservative (#45)
"Bush shuts down all the challengers after a big win in Florida?"
#52. To: TooConservative (#3)
Weekly Standard over the last few years has become far less GOP-establishment even if they still easily qualify as a GOP opinion source. They won't go populist but they are not aligned with the GOP elite in the Beltway on a number of issues, like the idiotic Corker Iran legislation and GOP strategy against the Obama agenda.
#53. To: misterwhite (#51)
I think there are about 20-21 primary states before Florida, so a lot could happen before then -- with or without Trump.
#54. To: TooConservative (#53)
IA/NH/NV/SC/FL.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
Where did you get your list?
#56. To: TooConservative (#49)
#57. To: redleghunter (#56)
#58. To: TooConservative (#53)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
(Edited)
#60. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, liberator, CZ82, A K A Stone (#55)
#61. To: All (#0)
Donald Trump, a One-Man Wedge Issue, Threatens GOP Future
Fred Barnes
August 10, 2015 9:50 AM
#62. To: redleghunter (#60)
Most of the 'damage' is done in March.
#63. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, tomder55 (#59)
SurveyMonkey is just as silly as all those (self-selected) instant texting polls that FNC tried to in 2012 ("text #9921 if Romney won,text #9922 if Gingrich won, text #9923 if Ron Paul won", etc.). The Ron Paul techie types naturally figured out how to bomb them with fake votes for Ron Paul. I recall Vannity going completely insane over Ron Paul winning those, time after time despite Fox trying to get everyone to text their votes in just so Ron Paul wouldn't win again. Very funny stuff.
#64. To: redleghunter, tooconservative (#63)
#65. To: misterwhite (#11)
" I think what bothers George is that Trump might actually carry out the conservative agenda instead of just paying lip service to it. "
#66. To: redleghunter (#63)
(Edited)
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has held a statistically significant lead in every Gallup national preference poll since February, averaging a 12-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson the past three months. Arizona Sen. John McCain is third, but usually just a few points behind Thompson. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not gained much traction in the national polls. In the most recent Gallup Poll, just 10% of Republicans chose him for the Republican presidential nomination. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has seen his support pick up a little in the past few months, but he remains in single digits. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback’s departure from the race -- announced this past weekend -- will almost certainly have little direct effect, as he consistently polled at only 1% or 2% of the vote.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
I expect TC to say it is a conspiracy and not real.
#68. To: misterwhite (#6)
8 million registered Republicans stayed home last election. We might set a new record in 2016 .
#69. To: redleghunter (#63)
Hitlery by the polling linked is cleaning up state by state. She is in the 50s in most states and no one even close. Guess the Dim voters don't care she is a liar.
#70. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#53)
#71. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#70)
Thirty-eight percent (38%) think Biden would make a better president than Clinton. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say Clinton would be a better chief executive. One-in-three voters (33%) is undecided.
#72. To: TooConservative (#66)
#73. To: misterwhite (#42)
So if Trump goes away, you think that 23% will go to Bush? Sorry, but I see Trump and Bush supporters at opposite ends of the spectrum.
#74. To: tomder55 (#69)
Waiting for the emperor to pull the rug out from under Evita's legs .
#75. To: tomder55 (#68)
"Say hello the Evita Clintoon's reign ."
#76. To: nativist nationalist (#73)
"A lot of it will just go away. Trump has pulled in a lot of people who'd given up hope. Come November they'll stay home, unless he's running as an independent. They were never JEB's."
#77. To: misterwhite (#75)
Perhaps 16 million Republicans staying home will catch their eye. Does that need to happen?
#78. To: TooConservative (#77)
"Almost guaranteed if Trump is the GOP nominee."
#79. To: TooConservative (#66)
Giuliani was even more of a heavy favorite in 2007 than Trump is today. And without the extremely high negatives that Trump has. And Giuliani had Fox News in the tank for him, across the board.
#80. To: redleghunter (#70)
Thirty-eight percent (38%) think Biden would make a better president than Clinton.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#81. To: misterwhite (#78)
...and 16 million will stay home for Trump because he's more conservative than Romney?
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
(And your tent feels so empty without me.)
#83. To: tomder55 (#68)
Say hello the Evita Clintoon's reign .
#84. To: TooConservative (#67)
It's all name identification at this point.
#85. To: TooConservative (#81)
1. I am a conservative.
2. I like Donald Trump.
3. Ergo, Donald Trump is a conservative.
2. I don't like Donald Trump.
3. Ergo, Donald Trump must not be a conservative.
#86. To: misterwhite (#85)
I believe your reasoning is:
#87. To: A K A Stone (#84)
Trumps support started at 3 percent and grew because of what he said.
#88. To: TooConservative (#86)
But I don't have a long and documented history of liberal political statements. Trump does.
#89. To: TooConservative (#86)
"But I don't have a long and documented history of liberal political statements. Trump does."
#90. To: misterwhite (#89)
(Edited)
Liberal political statements as a businessman. Interests and priorities are different when running for office.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#88)
(Edited)
Bush was liberal to moderate. Didn't you vote for him?
#92. To: TooConservative (#90)
"So he was all for the Kelo decision as a businessman and used it to evict some old lady because he coveted his neighbor's property."
#93. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, sneakypete (#92)
When you have to lie to make your point you've lost the debate.
Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today noted that Donald Trump once tried to use eminent domain to evict an elderly widow from her Atlantic City home to build a limousine parking lot, and has repeatedly tried to use eminent domain as a tool of his development business:
#94. To: TooConservative (#93)
Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today
#95. To: TooConservative (#93)
Donald Trump is a liberal on taxes
#96. To: TooConservative (#91)
I only failed once to reject the Bushes. How about you? You're old enough that you had the same four chances to vote for a Bush. What's your score?
#97. To: TooConservative (#93)
"I'm not lying. If anything, I'm understating what Trump said and did on eminent domain."
#98. To: A K A Stone (#94)
There you go spouting GOPe talking points.
#99. To: A K A Stone (#96)
I voted for each Bush one time.
So did you vote for W or HW?
#100. To: TooConservative (#98)
Club For Growth and the Tea Party are the enemies of the GOPe and have been for years.
#101. To: misterwhite (#97)
You said Trump used the Kelo decision to evict some old lady in 1997.
#102. To: TooConservative (#99)
#103. To: A K A Stone (#100)
So Mitch Mconnel is not establishment and is a tea partier right?
#104. To: TooConservative (#99)
You're twice as big a Bush supporter as I am.
#105. To: TooConservative (#103)
So Mitch Mconnel is not establishment and is a tea partier right? I said nothing of the sort.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#102)
Did you vote for Ron Pual in 88? Or Dukakis?
#107. To: A K A Stone (#105)
You said the Club for Growth endoreses tea partiers and is anti establishment.
#108. To: TooConservative (#106)
I'm not going to recite my entire voting history,
#109. To: A K A Stone (#108)
I'm just asking about 88. You must be ahamed of your vote.
#110. To: TooConservative (#101)
"He certainly tried."
#111. To: nativist nationalist (#107)
Club for Growth is knee jerk in favor of free trade.
There is no daylight between them and the Chamber of Commerce RNC cuckolds when it comes to leaving American industry undefended against foreign mercantilism.
#112. To: TooConservative (#111)
Haven't you about worn out using "cuckold" yet? Did you have a wife or GF or BF who cheated on you? Is that it?
#113. To: TooConservative (#109)
#114. To: misterwhite (#110)
Kelo was not passed until 8 years later. What do you mean he tried to use Kelo?
#115. To: TooConservative (#114)
#116. To: A K A Stone (#113)
You're lying. You voted for Bush.
#117. To: TooConservative (#116)
#118. To: TooConservative (#114)
"Trump and other developers had pushed to use eminent domain as Kelo later allowed in the late Nineties."
#119. To: A K A Stone (#115)
Find some better GOPe talking points.
#120. To: A K A Stone (#117)
#121. To: misterwhite (#118)
Now, had you said "Trump and other developers had pushed to use eminent domain as Kelo later allowed in the late Nineties" you would have been correct. Of course that just doesn't have the impact that "evicted an old lady" does, now does it?
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. -- Exodus 20:17
#122. To: TooConservative (#121)
"You do realize this makes Trump look even worse on eminent domain abuse"
#123. To: TooConservative (#121)
"Donald is a coveter and a commandment breaker."
#124. To: misterwhite (#122)
Failing to acquire her property is worse than acquiring her property? You're a piece of work.
#125. To: misterwhite (#97)
She voluntarily moved to a retirement home in 2010 and sold her house last year for $530,000 -- 1/4 of what Trump offered 8 years earlier.
#126. To: nativist nationalist (#119)
(Edited)
The RINO's cannot face reality. What is happening is the rejection of them. RINO's don't need to think about Trump, they need to focus on how much they are hated on Main Street. When they make a habit of importing rapists and murderers from Mexico, shipping American industry to Red China, bailing out Goldman-Sachs and doig liberal bleeding heart humanitarian interventions overseas they earn contempt.
#127. To: TooConservative (#121)
Donald is a coveter and a commandment breaker.
#128. To: Liberator (#126)
Trump is the US Navy at Midway. Destroying the best of the GOPe fleet.
#129. To: TooConservative (#124)
"Trump was a Kelo backer 8 years before it was decided."
#130. To: nolu chan (#125)
"The Coking house was bought at auction (reserve $199,000) by Carl Icahn who had it demolished."
#131. To: nativist nationalist (#128)
Can you picture a bunch of RINO consultants at a strategy meeting. "Hmmm, I don't get it. We keep stabbing Republican voters in the back, and we've really ramped up the importation of democrat voters. But for some strange reason we keep losing market share."
#132. To: Liberator (#127)
Why isn't it better that Trump shovel dirt on the GOPe so that REAL Republican-Conservative legislators can advance the conservative agenda, and *its* policies finally implemented?
#133. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#114)
He tried to use eminent domain exactly as Kelo did.
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
OCTOBER TERM, 2004
KELO V. NEW LONDON (a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land—at least not in its entirety—to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158–164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6–13.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
#134. To: nolu chan (#133)
#135. To: TooConservative (#134)
"Trump did not prevail in his attempt to use eminent domain to seize an old widow's property."
#136. To: misterwhite (#135)
I want someone who was successful at seizing an old widow's property and evicting her.
#137. To: TooConservative (#132)
Nothing about Trump could possibly inspire such confidence.
#138. To: nativist nationalist (#137)
If you guys had not made a habit of stabbing Republican voters in the back you would not be facing this dilemma. Your chickens are coming come to roost RINO boy.
#139. To: TooConservative (#132)
You really are delusional. You're just daydreaming now. Nothing about Trump could possibly inspire such confidence.
#140. To: TooConservative (#134)
Regardless, Trump did not prevail in his attempt to use eminent domain to seize an old widow's property.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.
#141. To: TooConservative (#120)
You didn't even read my prior posts. Or you have a reading problem. I stated it clearly.
#142. To: Liberator (#139)
With the fleet of the USS GOPe exposed for what it actually is by Trump, then ravaged, discredited, and set afire, it does kinda open the door for conservatives candidates -- as well someone like Cruz to lead what was a pirated RNC-GOP leadership. Even IF Trump doesn't make it.
#143. To: A K A Stone (#141)
Just like when Trump documentd his assets and two minutes later you didn't believe it.
#144. To: nolu chan (#140)
Just to be accurate, Trump was not the actual Plaintiff. That was, "Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, a public corporate body of the State of New Jersey." The CRDA wanted Trump's redevelopment plan to be implemented.
#145. To: TooConservative (#143)
I didn't believe it because Trump has been lying about it for years according to the financial press.
#146. To: A K A Stone (#145)
Isn't it a felony to lie about your financial data in a Presidential race?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]