Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Michael, you're right.No more emotion-thinking.No more long, complete sentences.No more attempted space-saving.This is your domain, after all. REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Roger,It's not a domain thing.Some people think I'm a horse's ass for supporting Trump.I don't mind.(They're wrong and I'm right. )But that's no reason to include the others.Dayaamm!Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Just be glad I'm not running.I'd have to give up posting on OL.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Do most of y'all understand that most folks who are really regular blue collar smart folks completely understand The Donald...They talk like he does and about what he talks about.Out in the "other Florida" between Tallahassee and Pensacola are regular smart folks who work hard and play life honest.They know that we are in deep trouble as a nation and they hear The Donald clear and clean...kinda like that solo note that cuts through the noise and the smoke at a good jazz club...A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Here is a particularly nasty comment Glenn Beck recently made about Donald Trump. Beck claims Trump has and will develop an enemies list and use the IRS, etc., to punish his enemies. Not like Obama did. Worse. Once again, why don't we look at what Trump says and what he does. One of the biggest feuds Trump has had has been with Rosie O'Donnell. Here's a CNN timeline of that feud. If anyone goes through it, they will be surprised at the support Donald gave Rosie when her chips were down for real. The Donald Trump-Rosie O'Donnell feud: A timeline The most surprising tweet, the one that floored Rosie herself, was when she had a heart attack in 2012. He tweeted: "Rosie, get better fast. I'm starting to miss you!" So what about that enemies list? Well, Trump may have one, but he's very vocal and public about who he doesn't like. I personally think everyone knows who might be on that list. And I don't think he needs any help from government agencies to work out his differences with enemies. I just don't see him sneaking around in the dark and striking people from behind to destroy them. Moral considerations aside, that's not his style. His thing is bare knuckles in your face. So I disagree (strongly) with Beck on that score. But how about Beck's statement from that comment above? The one where he said Donald Trump, if elected, will be a “monster much, much worse than anything that Barack Obama could have dreamt.” Really? Let's see. Can anyone imagine Trump governing in this way? I only watched half the video because I started getting too pissed off at Obama. What a Judas kiss mind trip. Either that or pure delusion and incompetence. Probably both. I hope I will never have to say that about Glenn Beck, but it's not looking good so far... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 I am interested how this is turning into what its turning into . Thats why I keep calling this a war . DT is disrupting US politics and its good .Just like folks here are upset , not answering certain posts ( especially mine ) , getting irked about our fearless leader , passive aggressive comments , aggressive aggressive comments and all the word games . My feeling is is as this board goes , so goes the nation . People love him and hate him .And my exact point is the anger here , the anger in the country , and the anger in the establishment .The establishment is getting ready for war .Zero chanceZero desire for DT to sit in the chair Zero desire for DT to even get the nomination and then see what politics are really about .He does put on a great show , he is brilliant , and he will bow out of the race and be much more wealthy with his 5 million plus followers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 And yes, I think that DT is Un-American. He's far from being the only one that label fits. But for Objectivists to support this anti-capitalist thug? Come on...this doesn't even rise to the level of Sense of Life Objectivism. It's more like Sense of Life Pragmatist-Progessivist-Mercantilism.Ah Roger,Ya' know how to hurt a guy.You mean I can't be part of the O-Land insider group-think anymore? Try this one on for size.I know where you are coming from, but you are wrong. Wrong.Not a little wrong.Completely wrong. You are thinking with your emotions. MichaelRoger--an Objectivist, purported or otherwise--is not running. So, whom do you support; whom do you fear the most? All I know now is Hillary is the worst and will stay the worst. Her likely replacement is Biden. He's smarter than her, believe it or not. I fear Biden the least. Cruz is too much of a neo-Con hard head. Trump has no depth. Rubio is too feckless. Etc. As for Michael and Trump--would it be valuable if he wasn't consistent? What if he shape-shifted all over the map? He gives us a strong point of reference for thinking and discussion. That's why this thread will exceed 4000 posts this spring. If you're searching for purity, that's Cruz or ARI idiocy. The big issue--not to be discussed/isn't discussed--is nuclear warfare. That the US-USSR binary world no longer exists, doesn't mean the threat doesn't. It's under the rug, so to say.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Just like folks here are upset , not answering certain posts ( especially mine )... Marc, Which posts are you talking about? I doubt it is from lack of interest. Sometimes there are so many posts, one after another, that a comment gets "buried." I suggest repeating anything you want to discuss. I'm sure someone will pipe up. The establishment is getting ready for war . Zero chance Zero desire for DT to sit in the chair Zero desire for DT to even get the nomination and then see what politics are really about . He does put on a great show , he is brilliant , and he will bow out of the race and be much more wealthy with his 5 million plus followers If this kind of comment is something you want a response to, I have one. Caw, caw, caw... As for Michael and Trump--would it be valuable if he wasn't consistent? What if he shape-shifted all over the map? He gives us a strong point of reference for thinking and discussion. That's why this thread will exceed 4000 posts this spring. If you're searching for purity, that's Cruz or ARI idiocy. The big issue--not to be discussed/isn't discussed--is nuclear warfare. That the US-USSR binary world no longer exists, doesn't mean the threat doesn't. It's under the rug, so to say. Brant, I might have been a bit snarky, but I get riled when people bad-mouth OL. I know in his heart, Roger doesn't mean that OL is worse than SLOP. He's just frustrated because he hates Trump and can't understand why that hatred is not shared. I don't mean that in a bad way, either. Lot's of people have this same problem. Notice the pattern--it's all over the Internet, everywhere, including mainstream news, etc. After they attack the target (Trump) with clever arguments and wordplays, they see it doesn't make a dent, so they get frustrated and start attacking Trump's supporters. Even Bidibob did this. Regularly. To his credit, he finally asked me to explain how I thought and felt and he asked it without prejudgment, in a tone of genuine curiosity while admitting he didn't understand. After he thanked me for the explanation, I think he went back to his prejudice (just like Glenn Beck did after asking Hannity, etc., the same), but at least it's a more informed prejudice. Whether this results in more attacks on Trump supporters or more reasoned comments, I don't know. With Glenn, it certainly went south. Glenn came out and said if any of his fans voted for Trump, they were racists. I have more faith in Bidibob's rationality. Ditto for Roger. On the nuclear thing, I want to repeat a comment I made earlier. Trump works with construction. He knows what explosions mean in a manner I don't think the other candidates do. And he loathes the effect viscerally when not used for constructive demolition. Look at his reaction to Ted Cruz's humor about New York values. I missed the real emotion the first time around. I thought he was just making better rhetoric in one-upmanship. But no. He was pissed for real. Great technique, by the way, and I'll write about that later, but the emotion behind it was not sculpted. He really hates destruction qua destruction. He helped clean up after 9/11. Here is what he tweeted yesterday: Is this the New York that Ted Cruz is talking about & demeaning? pic.twitter.com/rYGX9vazku— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 16, 2016 That is what Trump thinks when he thinks nuclear bomb. And he hates it. He really really hates it. I want a man like that with access to the button. Knowing that a community organizer like Obama has that access scares the crap out of me. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Michael said: Trump works with construction. He knows what explosions mean in a manner I don't think the other candidates do. And he loathes the effect viscerally when not used for constructive demolition. Look at his reaction to Ted Cruz's humor about New York values. I missed the real emotion the first time around. I thought he was just making better rhetoric in one-upmanship. But no. He was pissed for real. Great technique, by the way, and I'll write about that later, but the emotion behind it was not sculpted. He really hates destruction qua destruction.Cruz, for all his supposed debating expertise, made his comment about "New York values" so ambiguously that it left a hole wide enough for a Mack truck to drive through, and Trump happily did so. Cruz was not disrespecting the courage and compassion New Yorkers showed about 9/11 - and he did not say that *no* conservatives come from NYC. By NYC values, he was referring more to their attitude, their presumed superiority-of-values - to the condescending, scornful, elitist attitude many NYC and Easterners in general have toward Middle America aka Fly-Over Country, and that the GOP should not expect a lot of support for its candidates and policies to come from that area. I don't see anything controversial or insulting about that. Cruz was playing to the folks in Iowa and South Carolina, not the Northeast - and I doubt that what he said did anything except reaffirm that he's "one of them" and has their back against the progressive-liberals.But of course, Cruz didn't say it *clearly,* and so DT took the opportunity to red herring Cruz with the 9/11 bit. As I say, Cruz deserved it for being so indirect and snarky, when he could have said it so much more directly and forthrightly in a way that there would have been no mistaking what he meant - and no opportunity for DT to set Cruz up for a big middle finger from the Statue of Liberty. I hope he has figured that out by now. If not, he deserves to lose.Destruction qua initiation of force is very, very bad, on *whatever* level. Everyone should oppose that - and anyone who speaks up in support of those who defy such destroyers gets extra credit, even if it's just to score debate points by distracting away from what one's opponent was *really* talking about. However, based on the record of history, I am far more concerned with who has his/her fingers on the Executive Order pen than a finger on the nuclear button. Explosions, demolitions, physical obliterations - these are just one concrete form of destroying the values and lives of others, and we cannot count on someone's aversion to this kind of destruction to "get it" in regard to other, less blatant forms that destroy or ruin the lives of countless more people than nuclear bombs have ever done.I remember well (being a very politically fascinated teenager in 1964) how Americans were frightened out of voting for perhaps the best President we could have had in the 20th century by the despicable attack ads insinuating that Barry Goldwater would destroy us all by initiating a nuclear war over Vietnam. So, instead the voters elected Lydon Baines Johnson and got to have over 50,000 young Americans come home in body bags - that being just the tip of the destructive iceberg of electing that pragmatist-progressive SOB. (Another being the trillions utterly wasted on his pet project, The War on Poverty.)But the polarization of values Cruz was referring to is very real and very important. It has been since at least when Rand started talking about it by name in her Letter in the early 70s (see "Polarization and Credibility"). The pragmatist-elitist-progressives on the left keep calling for us to stop polarizing, to distract us from the very real and deep differences in political values, to set aside our "ideology" and focus on "problem-solving," which not surprisingly ends up with progressively more power to the state, more tax dollars to the government, more redistribution of wealth, more war and death, and less personal and economic freedom. It would be really nice to have someone to vote for who would draw the lines clearly and hang the albatross around socialism's and fascism's necks once and for all. Maybe enough Americans would "get it" and give us a few years of relief in our march to the cliff. But I didn't see that person on the state Thursday night.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Folks, these are the unforced errors that destroy Presidential campaigns. His intellectual arrogance and that "look" that he gets when he makes a point is similar to the Bill Murray look in Stripes. Additionally, his callousness and frankly unnecessarily inarticulate and inartful wording is illustrative of what is going to help brand him as the "guy with the crazy look." At about 2:14 of the video... The minute that phrase escaped his mouth with that "sneering and condescending" "look" that he gets, my stomach tightened and all the glory of the real New Yorkers rose up and said, "Really? Well fuck you Mr. Arrogant." How many funerals did you attend in NY? It was a major blunder and I am reasonably sure that he has been severely damaged at a subconscious level in a lot of folks minds. A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 By NYC values, he was referring more to their attitude, their presumed superiority-of-values - to the condescending, scornful, elitist attitude many NYC and Easterners in general have toward Middle America aka Fly-Over Country...Roger,And that attitude correctly characterizes Trump?Cruz certainly implied it did.Heh.If you bring it, you gotta take it. I have no sympathy for Cruz in this round (and I like him a lot). He can't cry foul when he set the rules by doing it. And, quite frankly, if you are going to imply that Trump is a snooty intellectual just because he's from New York, Cruz did it just about as well as it could be done. He was funny and charming and disarming.But it wasn't rooted in the reality of Trump's character, so he set himself up. I believe he would have done far, far better by touting Reagan's 11th commandment and outright praising Trump's virtues. I honestly believe he would have gained some Trump supporters that way.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Hey Brant - given no other choices than Demoncrat and Repellant candidates, and forced to choose one, the only Dem I could conceivably vote for would be Biden. On the GOP side, maybe Cruz. (Paul is my favorite, but he's out of contention.)For me, tax policy is one (but only one) very important thing. I like Trump's *income* tax proposals. But there are a lot of other *hidden* taxes in his protectionist policies (tariff increases are passed along to U.S. consumers, for instance) - and such policies also run a higher risk of war, which ultimately gets *very* taxing, indeed. Trump's proposed "pause" in immigration &c in order to straighten out the vetting process makes total, rational sense to me. It's wrong that he has been attacked and distorted on this. But I do not believe that properly run *legal* immigration hurts us in any way. Bring 'em on! Beyond this, if I were a Muslim American citizen, I would be a bit nervous about what Trump might have in mind if/as the "War on Terror" goes to the next level. (Recalling the progressive-fascist FDR and his World War 2 internment camps for Japanese Americans.) ("It can't happen here" - but it did.)My only other hot-button issue is property rights. If a President Trump - or any other Eminent-Domainer-in-Chief - asked me to sell my home so they could turn the property into, oh, say, a drone installation or government office building, I would quickly and without debate sell and take the money and run. Far away. I choose my battles, and that wouldn't be one I'd choose to fight.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 By NYC values, he was referring more to their attitude, their presumed superiority-of-values - to the condescending, scornful, elitist attitude many NYC and Easterners in general have toward Middle America aka Fly-Over Country...Roger,And that attitude correctly characterizes Trump?Cruz certainly implied it did.Heh.If you bring it, you gotta take it. I have no sympathy for Cruz in this round (and I like him a lot). He can't cry foul when he set the rules by doing it. And, quite frankly, if you are going to imply that Trump is a snooty intellectual just because he's from New York, Cruz did it just about as well as it could be done. He was funny and charming and disarming.But it wasn't rooted in the reality of Trump's character, so he set himself up. I believe he would have done far, far better by touting Reagan's 11th commandment and outright praising Trump's virtues. I honestly believe he would have gained some Trump supporters that way.MichaelWell, after rewatching the video of the debate, it seems that Cruz *did* more clearly state what New York values he was talking about. He said they were socially liberal (e.g., pro gay marriage) etc.). He also referred to DT's interview with Tim Russert, in which Trump laid out his values (which differed quite a bit from what he's saying now) and said "I'm from New York, they're not Iowa values, they're New York values." In a perfect (?) debate, Cruz would have said that Trump embodies the very best and the very worst of NYC values. Do the bread first - the 9/11, rebuilding, compassion thing. Then the meat (the red meat for the conservative viewers): attacking the socially liberal stuff. Then wrap it up by saying we need someone who stands for America and the victims of aggression *and* for "traditional values" (or whatever he'd call them). That would have worked well. But Cruz was caught up in a snarkable moment and lost the opportunity to score big. So, he deserves whatever hit in poll numbers and esteem he got from that blunder. I don't feel a bit sorry for him.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Hey Brant - given no other choices than Demoncrat and Repellant candidates, and forced to choose one, the only Dem I could conceivably vote for would be Biden. On the GOP side, maybe Cruz. (Paul is my favorite, but he's out of contention.)For me, tax policy is one (but only one) very important thing. I like Trump's *income* tax proposals. But there are a lot of other *hidden* taxes in his protectionist policies (tariff increases are passed along to U.S. consumers, for instance) - and such policies also run a higher risk of war, which ultimately gets *very* taxing, indeed. Trump's proposed "pause" in immigration &c in order to straighten out the vetting process makes total, rational sense to me. It's wrong that he has been attacked and distorted on this. But I do not believe that properly run *legal* immigration hurts us in any way. Bring 'em on! Beyond this, if I were a Muslim American citizen, I would be a bit nervous about what Trump might have in mind if/as the "War on Terror" goes to the next level. (Recalling the progressive-fascist FDR and his World War 2 internment camps for Japanese Americans.) ("It can't happen here" - but it did.)My only other hot-button issue is property rights. If a President Trump - or any other Eminent-Domainer-in-Chief - asked me to sell my home so they could turn the property into, oh, say, a drone installation or government office building, I would quickly and without debate sell and take the money and run. Far away. I choose my battles, and that wouldn't be one I'd choose to fight.REBReb:My sense is that you are reacting to The Donald's "China is going to pay" for the trade imbalance statement as a "tariff."However, my feeling is that this is his "deal opening" pattern which discloses nothing about where he wants the negotiations to be at the point of agreement.Secondly, I have never been comfortable with eminent domain because even a cursory reading of Robert Moses' career would illustrate the utter corruptions that breed in those "situations." Additionally, Moses', almost criminal use of eminent domain to build his monumental Gowanis elevated Expressway. This project destroyed several neighborhoods in Brooklyn.Moses perceived himself, according to Robert Caro, as the equivalent of a Roman Emperor, or, Egyptian Pharaoh as he reshaped America with his vision of circumferential parkways and moving commerce.Eminent Domain as a concept, is primarily unacceptable for a Libertarian, or, an Objectivist.Certainly unacceptable to an Anarcho-capitalist.How would you solve the problem Roger?A...NY Values Voter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Hey Brant - given no other choices than Demoncrat and Repellant candidates, and forced to choose one, the only Dem I could conceivably vote for would be Biden. On the GOP side, maybe Cruz. (Paul is my favorite, but he's out of contention.)For me, tax policy is one (but only one) very important thing. I like Trump's *income* tax proposals. But there are a lot of other *hidden* taxes in his protectionist policies (tariff increases are passed along to U.S. consumers, for instance) - and such policies also run a higher risk of war, which ultimately gets *very* taxing, indeed. Trump's proposed "pause" in immigration &c in order to straighten out the vetting process makes total, rational sense to me. It's wrong that he has been attacked and distorted on this. But I do not believe that properly run *legal* immigration hurts us in any way. Bring 'em on! Beyond this, if I were a Muslim American citizen, I would be a bit nervous about what Trump might have in mind if/as the "War on Terror" goes to the next level. (Recalling the progressive-fascist FDR and his World War 2 internment camps for Japanese Americans.) ("It can't happen here" - but it did.)My only other hot-button issue is property rights. If a President Trump - or any other Eminent-Domainer-in-Chief - asked me to sell my home so they could turn the property into, oh, say, a drone installation or government office building, I would quickly and without debate sell and take the money and run. Far away. I choose my battles, and that wouldn't be one I'd choose to fight.REBReb:My sense is that you are reacting to The Donald's "China is going to pay" for the trade imbalance statement as a "tariff."However, my feeling is that this is his "deal opening" pattern which discloses nothing about where he wants the negotiations to be at the point of agreement.Secondly, I have never been comfortable with eminent domain because even a cursory reading of Robert Moses' career would illustrate the utter corruptions that breed in those "situations." Additionally, Moses', almost criminal use of eminent domain to build his monumental Gowanis elevated Expressway. This project destroyed several neighborhoods in Brooklyn.Moses perceived himself, according to Robert Caro, as the equivalent of a Roman Emperor, or, Egyptian Pharaoh as he reshaped America with his vision of circumferential parkways and moving commerce.Eminent Domain as a concept, is primarily unacceptable for a Libertarian, or, an Objectivist.Certainly unacceptable to an Anarcho-capitalist.How would you solve the problem Roger?A...NY Values VoterHi, Adam - the only problem I see is that some people assume that they, with the government's help, have the right to take the property of others without their consent. This is a serious problem, and until it is solved by outlawing the practice in every form, we will continue to see not only eminent domain, but lots of other "takings," including theft of our incomes and wealth through taxation and inflation. Not to mention taking people's time and effort by compulsory jury duty or military service.To me, Rand said it best, way back in January 1963 in "Collectivized Ethics" (The Virtue of Selfishness): "The next time you encounter one of those “public-spirited” dreamers who tells you rancorously that “some very desirable goals cannot be achieved without everybody’s participation,” tell him that if he cannot obtain everybody’s voluntary participation, his goals had jolly well better remain unachieved—and that men’s lives are not his to dispose of." To which I would add: "and men's incomes and property are not his to dispose of either." But if you're curious about *practical* ways of acquiring land for building new businesses, widening roads, etc., I'll just say that, in principle, the free market and free exercise of property rights allows alternative ways for all legitimate needs to be met, voluntarily. There is plenty of online discussion about work-arounds when eminent domain is not feasible. And just guessing, but I'd imagine that *none* of the goals that can be carried out only by using eminent domain (or additional taxation &c), are absolutes that *must* be built or society and virtue itself will fall apart. I'm sure that some of the "public interest" projects have been very useful and enjoyable to many people. Similar goods have come from the space program. Who doesn't like a good sports arena, performing arts center, or moon walk, eh? But the ends do not justify the means! I could steal $10,000 and give it to the poor, and those people would derive great benefit from it, and my (pseudo-)self-esteem would receive a big boost as well. But wrong is wrong, regardless of the supposed benefits to others or myself or both. (See Rand's "The Monument Builders," also in VOS.)Further, what we *don't* see with government intervention (including eminent domain enabled projects) is what would have happened instead, if people had been free to spend, save, invest however they wished, rather than being forced to turn over money, property, labor, etc. to the government. (A privately run space exploration industry would have already resulted in lunar and Mars colonies.) So, we often do not realize the practical detriment that goes along with the immorality of government forcing its will on us. (See Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson.")Hope this helps answer your question.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Roger, Goldwater could not have won in 1964 no matter how well he had campaigned. He could have lost by less.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Roger, Goldwater could not have won in 1964 no matter how well he had campaigned. He could have lost by less.--BrantYou may be right, Brant. Even after giving "The Speech" (on BG's behalf in 1964), it took Reagan 16 years to make it to the White House. Perhaps that's because America wasn't sufficiently burned out from liberal policies to actually vote for a real conservative candidate.But your point that BG could have lost by less is important, too. By losing all but 5 states, BG had enormous "negative coattails" that resulted in the Dem's having more than a two to one majority in both houses of Congress. Suppose he had instead won 20 states. He'd have still lost badly, but there wouldn't have been the "mandate for unity" LBJ touted for his policies.Also, imagine the 68 election - suppose instead of replacing a Lying Johnson with a Tricky Dick, we'd have had Reagan running with full youth and vigor for the White House, swinging the Congress conservative. Maybe no assassinations and riots in 68, a much earlier end to the Vietnam War, no Nixon-Ford-Carter screwing with the economy, no War on Poverty.Discussions would be a lot different here on OL, for sure!REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 There will never be any free market colonies on the moon or Mars unless there's money in it, aka profit.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Hope this helps answer your question.REBIt answers the question as to your position.Now, you know that Ted Cruz would support eminent domain correct?And Rand Paul would also since it is in the original document.Therefore, is the fact that The Donald used it as a private businessman with the government the reason you are coming down on him so hard?Cruz and Paul voted for budgets that involved using government to acquire land through eminent domain for highways etc.? Is that the distinction?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Hope this helps answer your question.REBIt answers the question as to your position.Now, you know that Ted Cruz would support eminent domain correct?And Rand Paul would also since it is in the original document.Therefore, is the fact that The Donald used it as a private businessman with the government the reason you are coming down on him so hard?Cruz and Paul voted for budgets that involved using government to acquire land through eminent domain for highways etc.? Is that the distinction?A...Yes. Both types of eminent domain are wrong, IMO, but the private use "in the public interest" is worse. It's "taking" plus unConstitutional by reason of fraud.or misrepresentation.In the scheme of things, eminent domain does not play much into election campaigns. Very few people are affected by it, compared to the terrorism or healthcare issues. To me, it's more of a character issue.But what bothers me particularly about DT is his use of phony altruism as a screen to justify taking something that is not his. I think this makes him *worse* than both those who blatantly break the law and steal from others for their own benefit - and those like Cruz, Paul, and most everybody in every Congress we've ever had, who do it legally (under the Constitution) to actually benefit "the public." In my book, if you try to do a phony public-interest taking twice, but fail twice, that does not let you off the hook, unless you see the light and repent. The Donald does not seem repentant.But should that be a huge part of why to vote, or not vote, for someone? No. I just take it as a red flag that makes me look at DT's other positions a lot more carefully. What I've seen so far on his campaign web site is very mixed, to the extent it's been spelled out clearly. If he's nominated, I will look even more closely at his policy and platform statements. For now, I'm just waiting, like everyone else, to see how the primaries shake out.REBP.S. - And no, I do not think that just because something was originally in the Constitution, that makes it a *good* thing. Just permissible under the Constitution. For all I know, Rand Paul might be in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw eminent domain completely - but even so, there are lots of other problems with the Constitution that need fixing first. (Again, in terms of the relative severity of effect and widespread impact.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 In the scheme of things, eminent domain does not play much into election campaigns. Very few people are affected by it, compared to the terrorism or healthcare issues. To me, it's more of a character issue.But what bothers me particularly about DT is his use of phony altruism as a screen to justify taking something that is not his. I think this makes him *worse* than both those who blatantly break the law and steal from others for their own benefit - and those like Cruz, Paul, and most everybody in every Congress we've ever had, who do it legally (under the Constitution) to actually benefit "the public." In my book, if you try to do a phony public-interest taking twice, but fail twice, that does not let you off the hook, unless you see the light and repent. The Donald does not seem repentant.That's a fair comment.I am not certain that he said something on the property that would comply with that concept. I have heard him say that everyone will benefit. Is that what you mean?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 But what bothers me particularly about DT is his use of phony altruism as a screen to justify taking something that is not his. I think this makes him *worse* than both those who blatantly break the law and steal from others for their own benefit - and those like Cruz, Paul, and most everybody in every Congress we've ever had, who do it legally (under the Constitution) to actually benefit "the public."Roger,You are making one of those misrepresentations that happen typically in O-Land and L-Land.Trump never advocated stealing anything from anybody. I don't support what he did, but he most definitely did not advocate that.Look at the few times he tried. He needed someone's residence to complete a major project and offered to pay them a crapload more times the market amount for it. (I can't say the amount for sure without looking it up, but it was always a huge amount compared to what the going price was.) In my view, Trump made a mistake trying to get the government to condemn properties so he could force the owners to sell, but forcing a sell is not stealing. The person is compensated and receives no material loss, and stealing is the contrary. There is material loss with stealing. The massive profit to the owner in Trump's case, in my view, does not justify the force, but it is massive profit.If you want to see poetic justice from Trump's angle, look at the lady who beat him in court in Atlantic City (Vera Coking). When she finally moved out, she tried to sell her place for $5 million, including offering it to Trump (who was no longer interested). Carl Icahn finally bought it for about half a million.But people in our neck of the woods like to get on a moral high horse and call this stealing.No wonder no one outside our little bubble gets on board. They look at all that money available to the owner, then look at us saying "stealing."btw - I am against forced selling, even forced selling for a massive profit to the owner in the manner Trump tried the few times he did, but I certainly don't call it stealing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 In the scheme of things, eminent domain does not play much into election campaigns. Very few people are affected by it, compared to the terrorism or healthcare issues. To me, it's more of a character issue.But what bothers me particularly about DT is his use of phony altruism as a screen to justify taking something that is not his. I think this makes him *worse* than both those who blatantly break the law and steal from others for their own benefit - and those like Cruz, Paul, and most everybody in every Congress we've ever had, who do it legally (under the Constitution) to actually benefit "the public." In my book, if you try to do a phony public-interest taking twice, but fail twice, that does not let you off the hook, unless you see the light and repent. The Donald does not seem repentant.That's a fair comment.I am not certain that he said something on the property that would comply with that concept. I have heard him say that everyone will benefit. Is that what you mean?A...Yes. The "public interest" or "public good" is basically an altruist-collectivist notion. Your individual good is or can be trumped (no pun intended) by the good of the masses or society as a whole.I remember, from my years in Southern California, the time a developer got a church condemned (i.e., eminent domained) in order to build a shopping mall, on the rationale that it would produce huge tax revenues for the city, which of course would be in the "public interest." (His profits, of course, being purely secondary. Um-hm.) And as you also might figure, the church was attacked as being tax-exempt, and thus being a burden on all the other taxpayers, because the church was not "paying its fair share."I've always wondered: what would be the tipping point, below which the projected tax revenues of an eminent domain would *not* justify the taking being in the "public interest"? $1 million a year? $1,000 a year? $10 a year? Suppose a philanthropist had guaranteed to pay the city coffers annually the amount of money projected for tax revenues, in order that the church could stay where it was? Probably not a good precedent, because it would be yet another stinky way for governments to shake down people for revenues."Everyone will benefit" is a very vague way, and probably not correct way, of describing the "public interest" criterion. But in any case, it's a very ominous way of trying to justify violating people's rights. Slippery slopes all over the place with that one.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 But what bothers me particularly about DT is his use of phony altruism as a screen to justify taking something that is not his. I think this makes him *worse* than both those who blatantly break the law and steal from others for their own benefit - and those like Cruz, Paul, and most everybody in every Congress we've ever had, who do it legally (under the Constitution) to actually benefit "the public."Roger,You are making one of those misrepresentations that happen typically in O-Land and L-Land.Trump never advocated stealing anything from anybody. I don't support what he did, but he most definitely did not advocate that.Look at the few times he tried. He needed someone's residence to complete a major project and offered to pay them a crapload more times the market amount for it. (I can't say the amount for sure without looking it up, but it was always a huge amount compared to what the going price was.) In my view, Trump made a mistake trying to get the government to condemn properties so he could force the owners to sell, but forcing a sell is not stealing. The person is compensated and receives no material loss, and stealing is the contrary. There is material loss with stealing. The massive profit to the owner in Trump's case, in my view, does not justify the force, but it is massive profit.If you want to see poetic justice from Trump's angle, look at the lady who beat him in court in Atlantic City (Vera Coking). When she finally moved out, she tried to sell her place for $5 million, including offering it to Trump (who was no longer interested). Carl Icahn finally bought it for about half a million.But people in our neck of the woods like to get on a moral high horse and call this stealing.No wonder no one outside our little bubble gets on board. They look at all that money available to the owner, then look at us saying "stealing."btw - I am against forced selling, even forced selling for a massive profit to the owner in the manner Trump tried the few times he did, but I certainly don't call it stealing.MichaelMichael - "Moral high horse"?? "Misrepresentation"??If you point a gun at me and say you're going to take my car and here's $50,000 for it, would you say that isn't stealing, but instead a...forced car sale?If I refuse, what happens to me? Oh...*then* it's theft if you take my car? If you get government to help you do it to me, and I refuse (and I lose my lawsuit), what's different?As for the perceptions of others...I don't care if 50 million Frenchmen look at what I just wrote and scratch their heads, it's still stealing.And I could care less what's "typical in O-Land or L-Land." This is R-Land (aka Reality, Reason, and Rights) speaking. It's still stealing.The money offered in a forced deal is no more "compensation" than tax-supported welfare is "charity."Coercing behavior with the point of a gun is not morality, and coercing deals with the point of a gun is not capitalist behavior.REBP.S. - I agree that there are some real reasons why people from "outside our bubble" hesitate to get "on board." (On board...a bubble??)You're probably just as aware of some of them as I am - but you haven't stated any of them here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Roger:I believe you owned a house in California and one where you moved East.Is it "stealing" that you get to deduct the interest on your mortgage because of an IRS statutory deduction?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now