playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 56,016
- 48,771
- 3,645
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.
I am an Indie. I've voted enough times for (R) & just like my siggy says... they are no longer the party of true republicans but a bunch of religious fanatical RWNJs. Nowadays, Reagan would be considered a lefty by the GOP's standards. Oh how forgetful they have all become concerning Saint Ronny.
Another strong issue with me & the reason why I won't be voting (R) is the possibility of the SC overturning Roe v Wade.
You wanna talk about 'government involvement'? When it comes to denying a woman's autonomy... that would be THE ULTIMATE in 'government involvement'.
Last edited: