Trump's Pay To Play: Use of Eminent Domain Laws to Steal
from an article in National Review, 2011:
...decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.”
...decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.”
His symbiotic reliance on the intervention of government on his behalf highlights why he may be running as a Republican now however, he can't hide from his long held "Crony Capitalist" leanings....I suspect we can expect the same old, same old from a Trump presidency...
I agree that Trump's cronyism is a red flag indicating he cannot be trusted to defend individual rights.
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 suspect there has been - perhaps many times - but never covered in the national news.
12 years later-Pfizer-the company the Kelo decision would favor-pulled out of New London CT. The land sits fallow, the houses all destroyed
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.
Especially when a lot of voters see the GOP as the best hope for liberty(limited government.)
To The Donald, a citizen can easily become a human resource unit who owns something to take away.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in part to stop such bullying crap albeit "in the King's name" at the time.
And worst of all is the numbers of supposed Objectivist interested members on this site that are showing such a high degree of interest in what is going on in this current political theatre of the absurd. Do these members actually believe that who gets elected will moderate in any substantial way towards freedom and liberty.
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'm good.
I'm done.
As Mark Twain said, (paraphrased) 'If voting would make a difference, they wouldn't let us do it'.
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!
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).
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
.
He played the only way he had, NYC is a lot better off for it!
Why aren't they qualified?
A Govenor and a Senator - what more common way is there to the White House?!