hi CBJ! good points

The Kelo decision did succeed in shining a spotlight on this policy of legalized theft. Before Kelo most people were unaware of the extent of eminent domain abuse. The backlash caused many states and municipalities to amend their laws to make it more difficult to seize private land for the "public good".

Thanks.

First, I'm not entirely for anyone at this time, its too early. I am also not posting to excuse or apologize for anything Trump as done in his past. Its his life, he did everything in the open, and its his consequence or benefit when the time comes.

I think that most people are measuring Trump by the same standard as other politicians, this is a mistake. Trump is a businessman. He buys and sells properties with a frequency and regularity that is dizzying (he owned a hotel near my home for several months before he sold it to Radison). Is it any real surprise that land acquisition would factor into his routine? Is it any surprise that ANY town or city would favor an upscale hotel or casino- offering jobs and tax dollars) over a lower wage community?

Why would anyone in his position not use the laws to ensure that his projects and deals are as fruitful as they can be? As long as it was entirely legal, in his context as a business tycoon, I can't say much about it. The only thing this shows is that Trump knows how to work the laws to his advantage. All this means is that he's shrewed and not a nice guy - aka not a false faced politician. Remember - Edison, the Wright Brothers, Sam Colt..all individuals who used the laws to strengthen their grip on their industry.

As Joe Arapio says regularly, "If you don't like the law change it. When the law of the land is changed I'll stop my raids."
(that was until they tangled him up in so many court cases he can't sneeze without examination).

(guess I'm not done - Ha!)

Every politician is a thief and a liar. That's a given.
But they have different agendas. Some more destructive than others.

And they are MUCH worse than Used Car Salesmen. USC's are content to con us one at a time!

And I gotta give you a +1 just for the Twain quote. Ha!

Yes. The Donald has done this. I've known him for this for years. I wondered when we'd start hearing it mentioned...

excellent comment Kevin

It's never been about the talking head, TV salesman they put out front. It's who's behind the cameral and the scenes that tells any of them what to say and what to sign. You could elect Oscar the grump or the Cookie Monster and you'd wind up with the same bunch of nonsense we've seen in this country since at least 1914 or even back at the founding with Hamilton. It's a con game. Until I see one of them move this country towards individual liberty, I'll call them no better than used car salesman, maybe worse.

As Mark Twain said, (paraphrased) 'If voting would make a difference, they wouldn't let us do it'.

Thank You for digging this out and posting it, K -- this man is a
schemer and gang leader who apparently loves using government
force to get rich. . this reminds me of the Egyptians using slaves
to build pyramids. . the only difference is a nod to laws -- which are
being evaded, in many cases, for illicit gain. -- j
.

You equate Bush and Obama? Two sides of the same coin? Really?

I'm good.
I'm done.

Dark thought: at this point can anything but a benevolent dictator (a la Trump) extricate America from the depths to which it has sunk? With our crushing debt, I can't help but wonder if our broken system is inadequate to accomplish what must be done, before we become Greece on steroids.

Not a FB guy.

After Bush, I can say that. After nearly every President, I can say that. What government program or Dept has ever been eliminated under any President?

What is the difference between the liberty under Bush vs under Obama vs under Cruz? Bush's administration is the one that threw the 4th Amend out with the trash. Obama just kept it up. Cruz would do the same.

One of the Supreme Court justices that voted for it (I forget which one) had a developer claim his property. He said that he would put expensive townhouses and condos on the property and the tax revenue would increase substantially. He did not get the property for some reason.

I'd vote for Walker or Cruz with enthusiasm.

Why aren't they qualified?
A Govenor and a Senator - what more common way is there to the White House?!

Yes it makes a difference.
Absolutely it makes a difference.
After Obama you can still say that?
Do you really think Mitt would have done as much damage as BO?

I thought for sure there'd be blood spilled over Kelo.
I suspect there has been - perhaps many times - but never covered in the national news.

Well, shame on him. To tell the truth, this is infor-
mation that I didn't know about him. But I am not
extremely surprised. I had already realized that he
was not very much a man of principle. We need a
Constitutional Amenment abolishing eminent do-
main nationwide. The Constitution had once said the anyone "held to service or labor" in one
state, "escaping into another" would not thereby
become free; also that,in Censuses, a black
slave counted as 3/5 of a man. The Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendments were necessary
to get rid of these problems.(And the Fifteenth
helped to get rid of some abuses, too, although
it was a long time before it became fully effec-
tive). Well, we need an Amendment that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
the consent of the owner. Period. And that if the
owner does not accept it, no amount of "com-
pensation" will be "just" in the eyes of the law.
---As to Trump, I have never been especially
keen on him.

I so badly wanted to believe that the new Trump was for real. I wanted to be able to enjoy all the crap he is stirring without worrying about the final outcome. Of course I couldn't bring myself to do that without proof. Well, I watched his interview with Hannity and I got my proof, but it sure wasn't what I wanted. What I got was proof that the CRONY Trump is here to stay and he would rule with an iron fist that would make Obeyme (yes, I borrowed that) envious.

This man stood there during the debate and defined cronyism and then proceeded to inform us how he used it (took advantage of the laws) to his advantage. He gave me the impression that he, somehow, intended to change that but there was never a word about how he would put a stop to it. Or even slow it down.

Even with Hannity handing the interview to him he could not give a straight answer to any question, but reading between the lines you can tell he is the same old Trump. He has no intention of ending the cronyism, he will merely use it to make himself look good. His "tough" foreign policy is not a foreign policy at all. He will apply it on both sides of our borders and if you can't hang with him you are weak and not to be worried about. Some of his policies may work out well for some but he cares nothing for individual rights and will think nothing about trampling them at any point in order to make this country "great again".

"Hope and change" has a new face, but still no substance.

I've been thinking the same thing. The problem is - most of his political competitors are just as shady.

Thank you for posting this information...It had slipped my mind. I know the Donald to be unethical from his early 'junk bond' days, many should remember the Credit Union collapse; thank you Donald!

If Trump were to repudiate the practice and promise to reform the system to take away the ability, he might be worth supporting. Heck, I'd vote for Bernie Sanders if I thought he would do that.

there is a very active FB group: Objectivists for Cruz

you capitalize that word, sir! :)