CDZ Donald Trump's Top Ten Failures

[Syriusly]

That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.

Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton

Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

LOL of course you think that Citizen's United was a good call.

Because you support the right of Citizens and Unions to buy politicians.

Meanwhile- does it bother you that the majority of the Justices who made the decision in New London were appointed by Republican Presidents?

All but one of those REpublican appointed Justices voted against that ruling.

THe majority was Republican appointed, but the Democratically appointed minority won that day.

Thanks to Kennedy.

It bothers me that a Republican Appointed Judge would vote for such a ruling.

It does not bother me that most of them were against it.

DOes it bother you that ALL the democratically appointed Justices voted for it?

I said from my first response that it doesn't bother me who appointed any of them.

You were the one who felt it so important that you brought the party affiliation of the President who appointed them up-- claiming incorrectly that the majority were appointed by Democrats.

I disagree with the ruling- not the Republican Party because the majority of the justices who voted for the decision were appointed by Republicans or because the minority of justices who voted for it were appointed by Democrats- but because the decision was a bad decision.

Just as I disagree with Citizen's United not because of which Justices voted for it- but because it was a bad decision.

You misunderstand my priority in bringing up who did what.

LIke you, the What is the issue, ie a bad decision.

BUT ignoring the fact that the decision broke down along partisan lines, and that the Left was completely on the wrong side of this issue, in OUR opinion, ignores the fact that Party affiliation matters.

'Our opinion'- how many of you are typing your posts?

Almost every modern decision of importance breaks down along partisan lines- and quite often those have little to do with whether a Republican or Democrat appointed the justice.

You want to make this about party affiliation- I get that- it was evident from your first mistaken claim where you tried to blame Democrats even though the majority of the votes yes were Republicans.

 

[mudwhistle]

Top 10 Donald Trump Failures - TIME

This doesn't seem like someone who should be leading the most powerful, influential and wealthiest country on earth.

Taking into account the loser in the Oval Office today, I don't think any lies or half-truths they publish about Donald Trump really matter a damn.

I can't believe they stooped so low to make his hair one of the ten failures listed as #4.

I cut off reading them after that.

 

[jasonnfree]

Top 10 Donald Trump Failures - TIME

This doesn't seem like someone who should be leading the most powerful, influential and wealthiest country on earth.

Taking into account the loser in the Oval Office today, I don't think any lies or half-truths they publish about Donald Trump really matter a damn.

I can't believe they stooped so low to make his hair one of the ten failures listed as #4.

I cut off reading them after that.

The loser in the Oval Office, you mean Obama? The guy who's won every election he's ran in?

 

[Flopper]

NO. 11 FAILURE

Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.

The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.

For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.

Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.

“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”

Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”

Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."

Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House

This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.

So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?

Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

Supreme Court justices generally do what they should do, make judgement based on the merits of the case and interpretations of the law, much to the chagrin of those that put them on the bench.

 

[Flopper]

That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.

Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton

Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.

I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

 

[Flopper]

Top 10 Donald Trump Failures - TIME

This doesn't seem like someone who should be leading the most powerful, influential and wealthiest country on earth.

I don't see that Trump's business failures or successes are relevant qualifications for the presidency.

 

[mudwhistle]

Top 10 Donald Trump Failures - TIME

This doesn't seem like someone who should be leading the most powerful, influential and wealthiest country on earth.

Taking into account the loser in the Oval Office today, I don't think any lies or half-truths they publish about Donald Trump really matter a damn.

I can't believe they stooped so low to make his hair one of the ten failures listed as #4.

I cut off reading them after that.

The loser in the Oval Office, you mean Obama? The guy who's won every election he's ran in?

You mean the guy that's cheated in every election he's run in?

I've looked at his election history.......he's never won an election straight up.

And if you think that winning the election was the only thing he had to do right his entire time in office........you sure have lousy standards when it comes to leaders, numb-nuts. Everything that prick does to you will be greatly deserved.

 

[mudwhistle]

September 25, 2015
Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
ByRick Moran
A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

How incompetent?

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

To make matters worse for the administration, new revelations regarding flawed intelligence assessments of the Islamic State, which I told you about last week, paint a troubling portrait of organized lying at the Pentagon. Some of the more than 50 analysts at Central Command in Tampa who blew the whistle on politicized intelligence reported feeling “bullied” to make their assessments of the U.S.-led war on the Islamic State appear more successful than the facts warranted. This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

One named whistleblower has come forward about CENTCOM’s intelligence problems, explaining that he witnessed persistent, command-mandated low-balling of terrorist threats in Iraq since the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Rising terrorism in Iraq was “off message” for the White House, eager to pronounce jihadism there as dead as its leader.

It's not just cooked intel. It's the way the White House has been interferring in the prosecution of the war against ISIS, highlighted by the resignation of John Allen, Obama's "war czar," who quit in disgust because of micromanaging from national security aides:

The main culprit is micromanagement by White House staffers, especially on the National Security Council, which is bloated and regularly treats senior military officers and diplomats like hired help. Obscenity-laced tirades by senior NSC staff are not uncommon. To make matters worse, significant differences between the NSC and the Pentagon on how to defeat the Islamic State went unresolved for months, leading to lethargy inside the Beltway while U.S. theater commanders were close to panicking about the enemy’s rise. Mr. Allen eventually had enough.

Now the White House needs to find a replacement who’s up to the job, which looks to be no easy task. “Good luck with that,” stated a senior Pentagon official, “I doubt they’ll find another four-star eager to be the dog who catches that car.” A senior NATO official explained that Mr. Allen’s departure “is really a serious blow. We had little confidence before in President Obama’s ability to defeat Daesh,” the Arabic term for the Islamic State. “Now we have none.”

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

What happens next in Syria is the top guessing game among security experts the world over right now. Has Mr. Putin finally gone too far? Can anything be salvaged from that awful conflict that could serve Western interests while stopping the rise of the Islamic State—and perhaps even save innocent lives? What is the aim of Operation Inherent Resolve now that General Allen is leaving the stage? All that’s certain at this point is that President Obama’s flailing war against the Islamic State is looking for a strategy as well as a new czar.

It has been evident from the start that the president has not been serious about confronting the Islamic State and was interested only in doing the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of action. When you pretend to fight a war, the results are predictable: failure. Vladimir Putin should be grateful for the gift President Obama has given him in Syria, as 70 years of U.S. policy to deny Russian influence in the Middle East appears to be unravelling.

A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

​

Read more:Blog: Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Flopper]

September 25, 2015
Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
ByRick Moran
A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

How incompetent?

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

To make matters worse for the administration, new revelations regarding flawed intelligence assessments of the Islamic State, which I told you about last week, paint a troubling portrait of organized lying at the Pentagon. Some of the more than 50 analysts at Central Command in Tampa who blew the whistle on politicized intelligence reported feeling “bullied” to make their assessments of the U.S.-led war on the Islamic State appear more successful than the facts warranted. This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

One named whistleblower has come forward about CENTCOM’s intelligence problems, explaining that he witnessed persistent, command-mandated low-balling of terrorist threats in Iraq since the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Rising terrorism in Iraq was “off message” for the White House, eager to pronounce jihadism there as dead as its leader.

It's not just cooked intel. It's the way the White House has been interferring in the prosecution of the war against ISIS, highlighted by the resignation of John Allen, Obama's "war czar," who quit in disgust because of micromanaging from national security aides:

The main culprit is micromanagement by White House staffers, especially on the National Security Council, which is bloated and regularly treats senior military officers and diplomats like hired help. Obscenity-laced tirades by senior NSC staff are not uncommon. To make matters worse, significant differences between the NSC and the Pentagon on how to defeat the Islamic State went unresolved for months, leading to lethargy inside the Beltway while U.S. theater commanders were close to panicking about the enemy’s rise. Mr. Allen eventually had enough.

Now the White House needs to find a replacement who’s up to the job, which looks to be no easy task. “Good luck with that,” stated a senior Pentagon official, “I doubt they’ll find another four-star eager to be the dog who catches that car.” A senior NATO official explained that Mr. Allen’s departure “is really a serious blow. We had little confidence before in President Obama’s ability to defeat Daesh,” the Arabic term for the Islamic State. “Now we have none.”

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

What happens next in Syria is the top guessing game among security experts the world over right now. Has Mr. Putin finally gone too far? Can anything be salvaged from that awful conflict that could serve Western interests while stopping the rise of the Islamic State—and perhaps even save innocent lives? What is the aim of Operation Inherent Resolve now that General Allen is leaving the stage? All that’s certain at this point is that President Obama’s flailing war against the Islamic State is looking for a strategy as well as a new czar.

It has been evident from the start that the president has not been serious about confronting the Islamic State and was interested only in doing the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of action. When you pretend to fight a war, the results are predictable: failure. Vladimir Putin should be grateful for the gift President Obama has given him in Syria, as 70 years of U.S. policy to deny Russian influence in the Middle East appears to be unravelling.

A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

​

Read more:Blog: Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

Ok, I won't vote for Obama in the next election. Now getting back on topic, why do you think Trump is up to job.

 

[playtime]

Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

A slightly different scenario... it was the City of New London taking a position in favor of Big Corp to claim ownership of land under the guise that Pfizer would generate more tax revenue for the city, thus benefitting the city as a whole & the amt. of revenue from Pfizer would be greater than what the city could get from the individual homeowner. Does that make it any better? Absolutely not... but to equate that as the same as an individual's private business taking land that would only be benefitting that private individual, such as with Trump, is not equal.

i am not defending Trump.

I was just curious if this bothered you before it could be used against Trump.

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

 

[playtime]

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.

Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton

Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

If you want to craft policy that effects or even targetts corporations, then they have an interest and IMO, a right to participate in the debate.

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

 

[playtime]

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.

Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton

Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.

I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Part of Citizen's United ruling is the suppression of transparency as to where that money is coming from (dark money) & the fact that limits have been eliminated makes their 'free' speech much more valuable & capable of suppressing the free speech of human American citizens. We are on our way to a fascist state.

 

[Correll]

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

LOL of course you think that Citizen's United was a good call.

Because you support the right of Citizens and Unions to buy politicians.

Meanwhile- does it bother you that the majority of the Justices who made the decision in New London were appointed by Republican Presidents?

All but one of those REpublican appointed Justices voted against that ruling.

THe majority was Republican appointed, but the Democratically appointed minority won that day.

Thanks to Kennedy.

It bothers me that a Republican Appointed Judge would vote for such a ruling.

It does not bother me that most of them were against it.

DOes it bother you that ALL the democratically appointed Justices voted for it?

I said from my first response that it doesn't bother me who appointed any of them.

You were the one who felt it so important that you brought the party affiliation of the President who appointed them up-- claiming incorrectly that the majority were appointed by Democrats.

I disagree with the ruling- not the Republican Party because the majority of the justices who voted for the decision were appointed by Republicans or because the minority of justices who voted for it were appointed by Democrats- but because the decision was a bad decision.

Just as I disagree with Citizen's United not because of which Justices voted for it- but because it was a bad decision.

You misunderstand my priority in bringing up who did what.

LIke you, the What is the issue, ie a bad decision.

BUT ignoring the fact that the decision broke down along partisan lines, and that the Left was completely on the wrong side of this issue, in OUR opinion, ignores the fact that Party affiliation matters.

'Our opinion'- how many of you are typing your posts?

Almost every modern decision of importance breaks down along partisan lines- and quite often those have little to do with whether a Republican or Democrat appointed the justice.

You want to make this about party affiliation- I get that- it was evident from your first mistaken claim where you tried to blame Democrats even though the majority of the votes yes were Republicans.

OUR opinion, in as you and me, we have agreed that the decision was a bad one, because of the facts of the case.

The additional fact that the dem appointees (plus one gop appointee) were the ones that won that day, against the 4 other republican appointed Justices is relevant as it points to the difference that ideology makes, ie it does matter who appointes them.

"Majority and concurring[edit]
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test."

 

[Correll]

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.

I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

 

[Correll]

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

A slightly different scenario... it was the City of New London taking a position in favor of Big Corp to claim ownership of land under the guise that Pfizer would generate more tax revenue for the city, thus benefitting the city as a whole & the amt. of revenue from Pfizer would be greater than what the city could get from the individual homeowner. Does that make it any better? Absolutely not... but to equate that as the same as an individual's private business taking land that would only be benefitting that private individual, such as with Trump, is not equal.

i am not defending Trump.

I was just curious if this bothered you before it could be used against Trump.

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

 

[playtime]

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

A slightly different scenario... it was the City of New London taking a position in favor of Big Corp to claim ownership of land under the guise that Pfizer would generate more tax revenue for the city, thus benefitting the city as a whole & the amt. of revenue from Pfizer would be greater than what the city could get from the individual homeowner. Does that make it any better? Absolutely not... but to equate that as the same as an individual's private business taking land that would only be benefitting that private individual, such as with Trump, is not equal.

i am not defending Trump.

I was just curious if this bothered you before it could be used against Trump.

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

 

[Correll]

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.

Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton

Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

If you want to craft policy that effects or even targetts corporations, then they have an interest and IMO, a right to participate in the debate.

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

 

[playtime]

That was a horrible, horrible ruling. It doesn't bother me about who appointed them- it bothers me that they made such a bad ruling- as bad as Citizen's United in my opinion.

Justices who voted for the decision:
David Souter- appointed by GHW Bush R
Anthony Kennedy- appointed by Reagan R
John Paul Stevens- appointed by Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg- appointed by Clinton
Stephan Breyer- appointed by Clinton

Does it both you that the majority of Justices were appointed by Republicans- since you brought the subject up?

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

If you want to craft policy that effects or even targetts corporations, then they have an interest and IMO, a right to participate in the debate.

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

 

[Correll]

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

A slightly different scenario... it was the City of New London taking a position in favor of Big Corp to claim ownership of land under the guise that Pfizer would generate more tax revenue for the city, thus benefitting the city as a whole & the amt. of revenue from Pfizer would be greater than what the city could get from the individual homeowner. Does that make it any better? Absolutely not... but to equate that as the same as an individual's private business taking land that would only be benefitting that private individual, such as with Trump, is not equal.

i am not defending Trump.

I was just curious if this bothered you before it could be used against Trump.

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

a) Socialist or commie? Either way you're voting Democrat, are you not?

b) Good for him.

c) Good for him again, but if he appoints Judges from the Left side of the Ideological Divide he is likely to be appointing a Justice that will then vote like the other dem appointed Justices, ie for government power.

d) I'm sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't either, and yet Kennedy the Rat did.

 

[Correll]

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

If you want to craft policy that effects or even targetts corporations, then they have an interest and IMO, a right to participate in the debate.

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to cut out any true outsiders forever.