Gotta love the Associated Press’s unbiased reporting. ‘The two-page proposal contained no specific details on how many people could be left without coverage.’ As if the House House is not currently doing the same thing with Obamacare.
 October 9, 2015 at 1:46pm
Of course Imminent Domain has a place in society. But that place has nothing to do with kicking people out of their homes so the guy who donated the most money to the local politicians can build a casino. Like many things in the Constitution, Imminent Domain has been expanded, stretched, abused and turned into something that it’s not supposed to be. Donald Trump supports the distorted version of Imminent Domain.
No one who sincerely believes in property rights and capitalism can support that. Again, this speaks to Trump’s lack of principles. Which should be seen as a huge flaw to self-proclaimed conservatives.
 October 9, 2015 at 1:34pm
A person who wants to kill them self will do it whether they have a gun or not. There are many, many ways for a person to commit suicide, both painful and painless. There is no logic in saying the gun is responsible for that.
 October 9, 2015 at 10:12am
I will say this one last time for you idiots: DONALD TRUMP IS NOT THE ONLY CONSERVATIVE IN THE RACE. Anyone who says that he is, is a liar. How’s that for ‘telling it like it is’?
And again, Trump just praised eminent domain. His views have not changed since the 90s. He is not a strong conservative. He does not believe in conservative principles. He ideologically and philosophically weak. If he does become President, he will be put up against a wall and there is no guarantee that he won’t compromise everything that he’s saying now.
After all, it wouldn’t be the first time he’s changed his mind. He’s changed his mind on almost everything, even the issue that his supporters praise him for like Immigration.
 October 8, 2015 at 8:34pm
Donald Trump praised eminent domain two days ago. He has not conservative principals. Wake up.
Republican? That party killed itself like the Whigs they replaced.
I would eminent domain Chicago, Washington DC, etc. Raze them to the ground, and start over without he animals.
Trump supporters love theft especially when it's done through the government.
Yes he did but 'only' in certain circumstances and only 'when' the person is paid 4 to 10 times what the property is worth.
How many eminent domains has Trump done and what were the circumstances? I've only heard of one and I'm open to hearing more on this.
The fact that Trump has flipped and flopped more than Romney and trumpets many of the same causes as the RINOs is enough reason to avoid him.
As far as Glenn Beck is concerned, his ratings may be down but that is due to a couple of factors (in my opinion):
1) hard hitting facts, news and taking people to task has diminished.
2) tuning in and never knowing who will be on the radio or TV. I like Pat and Stu, but the TV fill ins have turned me off.
3) GBTV can't afford to run TV land type shows and movies? Independence USA was an enjoyable show. David Barton could have his own 1 hr historical show every weekend.
Trump on the other hand, after the way he tried to strong arm an apartment building development along Camelback, he can go fornicate with himself.
He is going to get rid of the illegals and the Muslim invaders... good enough for me.
Oh, you mean "conservative" like Boehner and McCarthy???
It's not how many times he has done, its that he thinks it is wonderful. At least that is my dislike of it. He may have never illegally robbed someone, but if he thinks its great as long as you have authority to do it, and only certain people... i would still dislike him.
Yes he did but ‘only’ in certain circumstances and only ‘when’ the person is paid 4 to 10 times what the property is worth. And even if it is 100 times what it is worth, if they don't want to move they shouldn't have to.
Not true> He said “usually” get that, and in fact, they seldom actually get that. those before the eminent domain takeover tend to get that as prices push up, but the last holdouts tend to get original property value.
What did he do recently? How about kicking grandma out of her house so he could build a parking garage for limos next to one of his hotels in Atlantic City. A large chunk of his properties have been purchased at lower than true value prices due to eminent domain and why he is such a large fan of it. He is a crony capitalist that believes in greasing the palm of the politicians so they will in turn cut him deals like many of his eminent domain purchases.
But then, you haven’t listened to me on anything else, so I am sure this will be ignored as well.
There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See
These are the folks who defended Mitt Romney. They have not learned.
so monk if they get 4-7 times what it is worth it is ok? While that seldom actually happens with eminent domain, it happens to those who hold out a bit between the initial attempt and before eminent domain is declared, it is ok to forcibly relocate someone because they were well paid for it? That is completely against the principles this country was founded on, but Donald Trump sees no issue with it at all. Even if they got 100 times what it was worth, forcing them out to build a parking garage for limos or to build a new hotel or office building is completely against everything we supposedly stand for. He relishes in it and thinks the person should be happy to get so much money. Money doesn't mean to everyone what it means to him. He has no concept of personal attachments to life that don't involve "being rich"
Jabarr, did you say something?
Apparently Trump never got that property way back in the 1990's. Any properties that he actually got?
I'm no fan of eminent domain. What are your thoughts on the Keystone XL pipeline.
Here's a video you might like. I did; not what's happening but that people are becoming aware of it.
ok masterjosh ... you have convinced me not to vote for TRUMP ... i'm VOTING FOR HILLARY then ...
"so monk if they get 4-7 times what it is worth it is ok?"
Not in my book.
I like what happened to a Judge that ruled in favor on an eminent domain case to build a hotel so the city council, that was upset, ruled that his property needed to be taken for a parking lot.
He reversed his decision.
Here's another case and this one really sucks:
What Trump TRIED to do was evil, Monk. Stop excusing evil.
I don't like it either. It's s nasty evil unless the property is 100% abandoned and falling apart.
I'm not going to hold the one eminent domain case Trump tried to do way back in the 1990's against him being POTUS.
I've been asking people for more than than one case 'were he failed' but no one is giving me any links or stories to successes or other failures.
And he seems to be a fan of the Progressive tax system.
This is a non-issue. It will never come up because it is primarily a state issue. It has no bearing on the really important things we are facing as a country.
These people do nothing but obsess over how they can attack Trump next, ED has nothing to do with the office of the President, it's not an issue, and nobody cares about it. All of this hand waving about the Constitution is a smokescreen.
I'm in no way saying I'm a Trump supporter, but I believe we are missing the real question with regards to this topic. The question isn't how Trump feels about eminent domain, it's why was he asked a question on this topic to begin with? In two elections and seven years of hell, I don't recall a single story on 0bummer's stance on eminent domain or even the topic being raised with him.
Then again, I do tend to tune out when that hybrid Howdy Doody opens his piehole....
bremarti, exactly the problem. There was no current issue serious enough to take Trump down so they sniffed and sniffed, like the truffle hunters they are, to find something that would rankle even the hardest-core Trump supporter. It is a doozie of an issue, but there’s too much on the line to let go because of it. He's a good man. He's not perfect. No one is.
If you really care to watch... This is what he did to people in Scotland... Convincing a town council to break its own laws, and push people off their own lands. Acting 'nice' at first, and then trying to utterly destroy them when they wouldn't give up their land.
But since Trump fans have developed a Cult of Personality around Trump... I doubt anyone will even listen to the warnings... or believe what he has done in the past...
This was another case.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote this article:
Trump or Obama who likes what'
Is very thin skinned and attacks back and call people names.
Likes eminent domain
Wants to raise taxes on the rich so they pay their fair share.
Wants universal health care for all Americans.
Wants to be king of tax reform. (No king in the US please)
Thinks they're the smartest person in the room and everyone else is stupid.
Can't have an adult conversation with out calling others names or comments on how they look.
Makes promises they know they can't keep.
Is eminent domain against the law...? So it's not illegal? Trump never took property using eminent domain directly? The answer is no. Could he have influenced things. Sure.
Don't like the eminent domain then write your congressman. Now STFU if you can't add to the discussion.
Eminent domain was around long before Donald Trump came along. YOU wake up and smell your own excrement.
I am going to get thumped by the following:
Do you drive on an interstate freeway? Do you use commercial travel for business or fun?
These are just 2 examples of the use of eminent domain. Do you think the people forced out by eminent domain liked it?
Eminent domain is a necessary thing. It has been used wrongly in the past, but the idea is an important one. The electric grid, highways, hospitals and other "necessities" increase the quality of life of all citizens at the expense of a few. Sure, it may suck losing something you might cherish, but being paid handsomely and looking at the bigger picture, I think you should be able to get over it.
Without eminent domain we wouldn't have roads, railroads and a lot of other things. You always have the one holdout which is usually the same character that wouldn't evacuate when a hurricane is approaching or when Mt. St. Helens was about to blow. There's always an idiot screwing things up for everyone. Or should we just give all the land back to the natives since we eminent domained the entire country? Go ahead and give your land back and move.
I will say this one last time for you idiots: DONALD TRUMP IS NOT THE ONLY CONSERVATIVE IN THE RACE. Anyone who says that he is, is a liar. How's that for 'telling it like it is'?
And again, Trump just praised eminent domain. His views have not changed since the 90s. He is not a strong conservative. He does not believe in conservative principles. He ideologically and philosophically weak. If he does become President, he will be put up against a wall and there is no guarantee that he won't compromise everything that he's saying now.
After all, it wouldn't be the first time he's changed his mind. He's changed his mind on almost everything, even the issue that his supporters praise him for like Immigration.
I am really confused about what it means to be a "conservative" anymore. We are for "small government" no? Recently we sound more like anarchists wanting "no government". Liking eminent domain and/or even seeing its place in society doesn't automatically make you "not a conservative", it might however make you not an "anarchists".
Conservatives used to be against "big FEDERAL government" but were totally okay with State/local governments because people could always just move. Eminent domain is used more locally than it is ever used federally, so what is the real issue with it? Has it really gotten to the point where if you want ANY government you are no longer a conservative? If Cruz came out and said he wanted to strengthen our military, FBI, CIA and veterans programs would everyone scream that CRUZ is no longer a conservative because he isn't for "small government"? Last time I checked the military, FBI, CIA, and a SLEW of other programs are all FEDERALLY owned and operated.
So really, what is it? Because if we are now at the point in time where you have more in common with anarchists than you do with conservatives than Trump is dead right again- Glenn and most of his followers have become "the far far right" and are irrelevant.
Eminent domain is good for the state, city, job growth, highways and also owners got much higher better price for their property. The Supreme Court did it right this time.
I don't pick a POTUS over an eminent domain dispute that people may or may not agree with.
Immigration is 10 million times more relevant and important to being fixed over any criticism Trump haters have with his stance on eminent domain.
Trump is conservative enough for me to be in the top 3 of choices.
Of course Imminent Domain has a place in society. But that place has nothing to do with kicking people out of their homes so the guy who donated the most money to the local politicians can build a casino. Like many things in the Constitution, Imminent Domain has been expanded, stretched, abused and turned into something that it's not supposed to be. Donald Trump supports the distorted version of Imminent Domain.
No one who sincerely believes in property rights and capitalism can support that. Again, this speaks to Trump's lack of principles. Which should be seen as a huge flaw to self-proclaimed conservatives.
MisterSarcastic- We have Ted Cruz who actually is conservative; Trump has shown himself time and again to be a progressive. Trump has a few good ideas and is not PC; but the bad out weighs the good. It doesn't take much dog crap to ruin a perfectly good milkshake.
Thank you for the links.
Iam tired of illegals driving down wages . Name 5 republican. That will stop it like Trump does . No a one Trump2016
I understand being against eminent domain when someone is only offered fair value, but why are we crying tears of sympathy for the property owners when they are offered 2 or 3 times the fair value of their property? I don't get it. Trump offered that lady in Atlantic City with the boardinghouse, Vera Coking, over $2M, and she refused to sell. When she was ready to sell, no one wanted it, and she ended up only getting $530K in 2014. Look, she was just playing a game to see how much she could milk Donald for, while pretending to be attached to the property's "memories". Wise up, people.
 October 8, 2015 at 2:57pm
It’s true that many Conservatives have developed a knee-jerk reaction to defending the Second Amendment when tragedies like this happen, but that’s only because Liberals, including the President, have deliberately chosen to develop the same kind of knee-jerk reaction for gun control.
This is what happens when we “politicize” tragedies. Yes, it needs to stop. But this piece would have been much more convincing if the writer had addressed both sides of this instead of only one.
[-1] October 4, 2015 at 10:14pm
You know, and I know, and everyone who’s read the Constitution knows, that SCOTUS cannot define Marriage. It’s not their place. They don’t have that power. If they have the power to do that then what affect does the Tenth Amendment have anymore?
Look, you’re a Progressive. So I don’t think you actually care about the Tenth Amendment or the constitution in the first place. I just wish you would admit that from the outset instead of pretending otherwise so you can waste everyone’s time.
 October 2, 2015 at 8:07pm
You just can’t help yourself, can you.
[-1] October 2, 2015 at 3:04pm
It is not Kim Davis’s job to uphold unconstitutional laws made by the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS didn't make a law, go ahead, show me the law they made.
Law 1: These are the laws concerning marriage.
Law 2: Gay people cannot get married.
Law 2 is gone now, so guess what this means? There is no 'gay' marriage, there is no 'straight' marriage, the laws covering marriage now cover everyone, equally.
Now you go ahead, explain why laws should not cover everyone equally and should only be allowed to the people who meet your personal standard.
You know, and I know, and everyone who's read the Constitution knows, that SCOTUS cannot define Marriage. It's not their place. They don't have that power. If they have the power to do that then what affect does the Tenth Amendment have anymore?
Look, you're a Progressive. So I don't think you actually care about the Tenth Amendment or the constitution in the first place. I just wish you would admit that from the outset instead of pretending otherwise so you can waste everyone's time.
October 2, 2015 at 3:00pm
Stop trying to quote the Bible. You’re terrible at it.
 October 2, 2015 at 2:57pm
Kim Davis’s job is to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and the Constitution of Kentucky, both of which are at odds with the SCOTUS on the issue of gay marriage.
 October 1, 2015 at 1:58pm
Wow. She deserved to squirm liked that. She totally deserved every second of having to face that question. All pro-abortionists deserve to be asked that as often as possible.
 September 30, 2015 at 11:03pm
This just in: The Pope is actually against gay marriage after all.
Oh wait, no, that’s not news at all. At least, to those of us who are actually paying attention instead of just swallowing what MSM puts out.
 September 30, 2015 at 6:18pm
Of course, if the opposing party would set down and give up on accomplishing anything, things would go much smoother. We could say the same thing about the Democrats.
This is how divided government usually works, dumbass.
 September 30, 2015 at 6:16pm
Pretty much. The Democrats are loving this way of doing things. It works so well for them.
 September 30, 2015 at 6:11pm
One is completely leftist and the other is ******* crazy.
 September 30, 2015 at 6:10pm
Thanks, GOP. I knew I could count on you guys to change absolutely nothing in Washington.
 September 29, 2015 at 1:28pm
What will all those women who don’t have hands do with Planned Parenthood? /sarcism
 September 28, 2015 at 10:20pm
I meant to say child rape should NOT be tolerated or ignored. What a typo.