03-14-2016, 09:42 PM
03-14-2016, 09:46 PM
Quote:Simply not true.
Yet another example of you reading something on one of your favorite "news" sites and accepting it as truth, without any fact checking.
Quote:I assume you didn't read the entire article, it was not from her or her campaign. You like to declare suspicion as fact.
As I thought, you have no proof. By your logic, Trump is responsible for anything done by his followers.
Either way, Trump took the Birther movement to a new level.
You're splitting hairs here. The article you quoted states:
Quote:
Both of those stories comport with what we here at FactCheck.org wrote two-and-a-half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in public opinion polls.”
Maybe Hillary knew about the release of the rumor, maybe she didn't. She's pretty good at not leaving evidence (deleted E-mails, cough cough). There's no smoking gun connecting her decisions
favorable to foreign tycoons and politicians in exchange for fat fees for short speeches and donations to the Clinton Foundation, but one would have to be pretty naive to think that didn't happen.
But the rumor WAS started by people on the left, specifically Hillary supporters, not Republicans.
03-14-2016, 10:25 PM
Quote:No.
Bad old days?
03-14-2016, 11:10 PM
Quote:Is Trump a return to the good old days in Italy in 1930s?
For a while back then, Mussolini was the political darling of the progressive elites in both parties in the US.
03-14-2016, 11:14 PM
Quote:For a while back then, Mussolini was the political darling of the progressive elites in both parties in the US.And they were wrong, too.
03-14-2016, 11:25 PM
03-14-2016, 11:29 PM
Quote:What a [BAD WORD REMOVED] show this election is.
People shouldn't have the right to stop free speech or freedom to assemble.
The communist movement started by the Democrat party is truly scary to witness. I never would thought of that happening in America.
03-15-2016, 02:02 AM
Quote:People shouldn't have the right to stop free speech or freedom to assemble.
The communist movement started by the Democrat party is truly scary to witness. I never would thought of that happening in America.
It's all come full circle now. We have an unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, taking responsibility for shutting down the free speech of someone he disagrees with politically while we are being lectured about civility by the President who started his political career in his house and had him ghost write his biography...
03-15-2016, 08:22 AM
Quote:Bernie Sanders is not abolishing eminent domain either so I don't see your point.
My point is, private property is the bedrock of free market economics. Donald Trump thinks it is okay to use the government to force people to hand over their private property to developers. He has done it many times. He thinks it's a great thing.
So for any Donald Trump supporter to talk about private property rights makes me think they don't know who they're supporting.
03-15-2016, 08:26 AM
Quote:My point is, private property is the bedrock of free market economics. Donald Trump thinks it is okay to use the government to force people to hand over their private property to developers. He has done it many times. He thinks it's a great thing.
So for any Donald Trump supporter to talk about private property rights makes me think they don't know who they're supporting.
We don't live in an agrarian society, so eminent domain is necessary to build infrastructure, schools, air ports, and expand businesses which provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. He has said he doesn't like eminent domain, but being a realist and not an ideologue, he sees it as necessary to expand as a nation.
03-15-2016, 08:39 AM
Quote:We don't live in an agrarian society, so eminent domain is necessary to build infrastructure, schools, air ports, and expand businesses which provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. He has said he doesn't like eminent domain, but being a realist and not an ideologue, he sees it as necessary to expand as a nation.
You are woefully misinformed. Trump has stated he loves eminent domain. In fact, he loves it so much, he loves the fact that the Supreme Court has expanded the use far beyond what the framers intended.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimblasingam...ee68da5efd
“Eminent domain is wonderful.” This is a recent quote from presidential candidate and billionaire developer, Donald Trump. It’s a position he’ll have to defend within and without his party.
----
More recently, local governments have appropriated this power for themselves in favor – directly or indirectly – of one private party over another by exchanging “public use” for “public needs.” If your property is in the way of a city-approved private development, they might declare that it serves the public needs to condemn your property if you refuse to sell. Until 2005, a property owner could stand behind the “public use” defense from an overreaching municipality. But in the shocking Kelo v New London Supreme Court decision the majority contrived a position that diluted the Framers’ intention for eminent domain into the position that simple “public needs” justified the taking of private property.
=================================================================================
Eminent domain is debatable when the government needs to build a road. But what about when a developer needs to acquire property in order to build something non-governmental? Like a parking garage for a casino. Trump did that.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...idow-house
"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 offered her $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.
03-15-2016, 08:47 AM
Quote:You are woefully misinformed. Trump has stated he loves eminent domain. In fact, he loves it so much, he loves the fact that the Supreme Court has expanded the use far beyond what the framers intended.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimblasingam...ee68da5efd
“Eminent domain is wonderful.” This is a recent quote from presidential candidate and billionaire developer, Donald Trump. It’s a position he’ll have to defend within and without his party.
----
More recently, local governments have appropriated this power for themselves in favor – directly or indirectly – of one private party over another by exchanging “public use” for “public needs.” If your property is in the way of a city-approved private development, they might declare that it serves the public needs to condemn your property if you refuse to sell. Until 2005, a property owner could stand behind the “public use” defense from an overreaching municipality. But in the shocking Kelo v New London Supreme Court decision the majority contrived a position that diluted the Framers’ intention for eminent domain into the position that simple “public needs” justified the taking of private property.
=================================================================================
Eminent domain is debatable when the government needs to build a road. But what about when a developer needs to acquire property in order to build something non-governmental? Like a parking garage for a casino. Trump did that.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...idow-house
"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 offered her $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.
Yep, Kelo [BLEEP] us all.
03-15-2016, 08:51 AM
Quote:You are woefully misinformed. Trump has stated he loves eminent domain. In fact, he loves it so much, he loves the fact that the Supreme Court has expanded the use far beyond what the framers intended.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimblasingam...ee68da5efd
“Eminent domain is wonderful.” This is a recent quote from presidential candidate and billionaire developer, Donald Trump. It’s a position he’ll have to defend within and without his party.
----
More recently, local governments have appropriated this power for themselves in favor – directly or indirectly – of one private party over another by exchanging “public use” for “public needs.” If your property is in the way of a city-approved private development, they might declare that it serves the public needs to condemn your property if you refuse to sell. Until 2005, a property owner could stand behind the “public use” defense from an overreaching municipality. But in the shocking Kelo v New London Supreme Court decision the majority contrived a position that diluted the Framers’ intention for eminent domain into the position that simple “public needs” justified the taking of private property.
=================================================================================
Eminent domain is debatable when the government needs to build a road. But what about when a developer needs to acquire property in order to build something non-governmental? Like a parking garage for a casino. Trump did that.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...idow-house
"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 offered her $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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact...dows-home/
Trump: “If somebody has a property in the middle of a 7,000 job factory, as an example, that’s going to move into the town — but they need this one corner of this property, and it’s going to provide 7,000 jobs in a community that’s dying, of which we have many in this country, okay? I am for that.”
“When you think about eminent domain, so if you go to the login, if you go to Keystone Pipeline [website] and the sales pitch, you’ll see a whole section on eminent domain: ‘Yes, we have to use the power of eminent domain.’ Because you’ve got to go through hundreds of private properties to get the pipeline. The only way you can do it is through eminent domain. I don’t love eminent domain, but you need it.”
It’s a juicy story: Trump convinced the government to bulldoze a woman’s home and force her out of it. Trump certainly tried, but he didn’t succeed. Moreover, the Cruz campaign continues to mislead the public by not making it clear that the state Superior Court ruled in the woman’s favor, and it takes Trump’s comments out of context.
This ad is a classic example of cherry-picking video footage and quotes from news articles to craft an attack message. Other candidates, most recently evidenced by Jeb Bush, have figured out how to use the facts to attack Trump over this case and his support for eminent domain — but Cruz still appears to insist on twisting the facts to achieve the same.
We award the Cruz campaign Two Pinocchios for employing a combination of attack ad tactics that creates a misleading impression.
03-15-2016, 08:56 AM
Quote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact...dows-home/
Trump: “If somebody has a property in the middle of a 7,000 job factory, as an example, that’s going to move into the town — but they need this one corner of this property, and it’s going to provide 7,000 jobs in a community that’s dying, of which we have many in this country, okay? I am for that.”
“When you think about eminent domain, so if you go to the login, if you go to Keystone Pipeline [website] and the sales pitch, you’ll see a whole section on eminent domain: ‘Yes, we have to use the power of eminent domain.’ Because you’ve got to go through hundreds of private properties to get the pipeline. The only way you can do it is through eminent domain. I don’t love eminent domain, but you need it.”
It’s a juicy story: Trump convinced the government to bulldoze a woman’s home and force her out of it. Trump certainly tried, but he didn’t succeed. Moreover, the Cruz campaign continues to mislead the public by not making it clear that the state Superior Court ruled in the woman’s favor, and it takes Trump’s comments out of context.
This ad is a classic example of cherry-picking video footage and quotes from news articles to craft an attack message. Other candidates, most recently evidenced by Jeb Bush, have figured out how to use the facts to attack Trump over this case and his support for eminent domain — but Cruz still appears to insist on twisting the facts to achieve the same.
We award the Cruz campaign Two Pinocchios for employing a combination of attack ad tactics that creates a misleading impression.
Yes, Ted Cruz is a liar. I already knew that. But that doesn't change the fact that Trump loves eminent domain, even the expanded version where the government takes your private property and turns it over to someone else because they think that other entity can make better use of it. I don't see how any conservative who supports private property rights and free markets can support a person who supports that interpretation of eminent domain.
03-15-2016, 09:01 AM
Quote:Yes, Ted Cruz is a liar. I already knew that. But that doesn't change the fact that Trump loves eminent domain, even the expanded version where the government takes your private property and turns it over to someone else because they think that other entity can make better use of it. I don't see how any conservative who supports private property rights and free markets can support a person who supports that interpretation of eminent domain.
Did you not read it? "I don’t love eminent domain, but you need it.” He is for eminent domain because he sees the benefits it has on job creation and economic growth, but doesn't love it. Regardless, the conservative label has been drug threw the mud just as much as the racist label. I don't care if Trump is conservative or not. I care that he is going to reveal the corruption in DC, balance trade, secure the borders, enforce immigration laws, audit the fed, end the war economy, lower taxes, cut/end the department of education, and pass free-market healthcare.
Priorities, my friend. Eminent domain is NOT one of them.
03-15-2016, 11:33 AM
Quote:Did you not read it? "I don’t love eminent domain, but you need it.” He is for eminent domain because he sees the benefits it has on job creation and economic growth, but doesn't love it. Regardless, the conservative label has been drug threw the mud just as much as the racist label. I don't care if Trump is conservative or not. I care that he is going to reveal the corruption in DC, balance trade, secure the borders, enforce immigration laws, audit the fed, end the war economy, lower taxes, cut/end the department of education, and pass free-market healthcare.So basically you believe him because of what in his history that would lead you to believe that he isn't just completely full of [BLEEP]?
Priorities, my friend. Eminent domain is NOT one of them.
03-15-2016, 12:20 PM
Quote:So basically you believe him because of what in his history that would lead you to believe that he isn't just completely full of [BAD WORD REMOVED]?
Your point? He's running against known liars... None of these candidates can be trusted, however he's not a politician. That's one leg up on his competition.
03-15-2016, 01:13 PM
Quote:Your point? He's running against known liars... None of these candidates can be trusted, however he's not a politician. That's one leg up on his competition.Yeah he was the guy who was buying the puppets to pass the legislation that everyone [BLEEP] about being the byproduct of lobbyists...like Trump. Makes perfect sense.
03-15-2016, 05:14 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/man-rushe...d=37667170
Hope it was worth it dude. At least they let him out to do an interview with CNN.
Hope it was worth it dude. At least they let him out to do an interview with CNN.
03-16-2016, 11:37 AM
Quote:Robert Byrd actually was a grand kleagle in the kkk and that is absolved because of a political endorsement?
I gave specific instances of direct racist behavior by the Clintons and you didn't address a single one of them. You just start talking about three strike laws.
Why did he go to a segregated golf course. Why did he say to Ted Kennedy "You're really going to support this guy? Back in the day he would have been getting us coffee?" When was he ever repeatedly asked over a week long period to disavow the campaign merchandise with the confederate flag as a logo. Why isn't he being asked about that at every campaign stop?
I'll tell you why. Because Black America has been sold a giant bill of goods. That bill of goods isn't just secular progressivism, it's polylogism.
We have been told that progressivism is so perfect, so pure, and so right for black people that to support it absolves all past sins and racist behavior. To disagree with progressivism means that you are inherently racist and favor policies that will adversely affect minorities specifically black people.
Never-mind that in reality, progressivism has killed tens of millions of minorities. Never-mind that progressivism has lead to nothing but shame and degredation for minorities through the collapse of industry. Progressivism is so right perfect and pure that we cannot even allow DEBATE about its affects and what that means for black people. That's what the riots in Chicago were about. God forbid a republican presidential candidate who believes that the private sector offers the greatest opportunity for ALL people speak at a college with a large minority base and actually talk about freedom, trade, low taxes and free enterprise.
The Canary in the cold mine is Margaret Sanger. This woman started a group expressly for the purpose of limiting the population of minorities and genetic undesirables based on the science of eugenics. That is the same psychopathic ideology that really lead to the holocaust. 40 MILLION deaths later and you don't even know her name. But David Duke you hear on a continuous loop over and over again. The only thing they don't talk about is the fact that Trump Left the reform Party because he thought he was racist and a biggot.
50 years, since Martin Luther king died, 50 years, since Malcom X was died. 50 years of secular progressive politics embracing drugs and the death of the black family. Where the hell has it gotten us. Where is the racial utopia? Where is the achievement? Where is the success? first black president, trillion dollar stimulus, 9 trillion dollars in debt, obamacare etc. etc. etc. and black America has actually lost income, wealth, and achievement. And if someone dares speak up and point out the failures of this experiment called liberalism they're labeled an uncle Tom.
<p class="">Regardless of Robert Byrd status or level of affiliation, he distanced himself from the organization. Are people not allowed to change and grow an indifference of their original beliefs?
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">You gave “specific” instances of behavior by the Clinton’s that have little to no direct effect on African-Americans which is why I used the “three strikes law”. On the flip side though, the Clintons were race baiting during the Obama presidential run which I failed to mentioned in previous responses, and is disappointed the AA community hasn’t been more vocal on.
<p class="">
<p class="">To answer your questions about why he went to a segregated golf course? I will call it selective journalism, perhaps the media wanted to portray a image and had to suppress certain things that will cast the Clinton’s in a hypocritical light. With that said, I have been seeing more posts on my Facebook and twitter feeds that bring up this kind of information that was done in the past which leads me to believe people are taking it upon themselves to go out and do hard research instead of letting the media do it for them.
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">In regards to what you feel about Black America, you have your right to have your sentiments. I am going to explain how I feel.
<p class="">
<p class=""><span style="font-size:9.5pt;">You mention secular progressivism, before I go any further I was born in the mid 1980’s, other than research and talking to family and friends who actually lived through that era, I do not have any recollection of the plight of Blacks pre and post immediate civil rights legislation. Back to your topic, I personally believe that secular progressivism was a term concocted by the right as a means to feel like they lost total grip on society and created the term to describe people who disagree with their thinking.</span>
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">In fantasy, progressivism was sold as pure and perfect, but anybody who lived through that change in society during the post-slavery to post civil rights legislation knew there was still enormous challenges ahead. The issue is when displays of racism/sexism moves from a public form to a private institutionalized form. You stated <i>“</i>
<i>To disagree with progressivism means that you are inherently racist and favor policies that will adversely affect minorities specifically black people
</i><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif;">”</span> Do you believe you were born to be a slave and subhuman and be considered less capable of making decision on a human level versus an animal? Do you also believe you are not worthy of a quality education/or pay that people of affluent descent receives?
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">You stated “progressivism has killed tens of millions of minorities
”. can you explain why ,or how? My belief is what has led to the breakdown in SOME of the African American families is the infiltration of crack-cocaine leading to chaos, then heavy imprisonment of Black men. That high incarceration rate leads to absent fathers, which in turn leads to lack of proper parental guidance/support which then leads into poor learning, social skills, behavioral issues, etc which then turns into a person living a violent and destructive lifestyle. This behavior is repeated for generations until unlike politicians, local councilmen step up to the plate and address the issues directly through action.
<p class="">
<p class="">It goes without saying SOME in the black community share the blame for the self inflicted issues that we created, from those who profit off of exploiting the everyday violence and culture, it is clear these people are looked upon as icons. Yet two things, one these same icons are not mature enough to realize the power they have to make change and instill discipline, respect and education. Two, African Americans who grew up without structure fail to learn from their icon’s faults and learn how to not repeat those same mistakes.
<p class="">
<p class="">
As for Margaret Sanger, I already know who she was and I disagree she was the sole reason for, and I quote you “<span>
limiting the population of minorities and genetic undesirables based on the science of eugenics.” </span> I did a report back in high school on her and researched many prominent Black pioneers in the 50’s and 60’s worked with her in a capacity to research sterilization and the particular effects on Black Women. When I was growing up abortion was frowned upon because of this point. As I got older, it became more accepted for black women to get abortions because it became more progressively accepted.
<p class="">
<p class="">Finally, you ask where is the “utopia”, achievement, success? I simply challenge you to ask a successful Black person what it means to them to see Barack Obama elected as president. They will tell you that it motivates them more to achieve more than what they initially desired. The reason why? Because there are NO excuses now, no white man, the system, etc.
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">I can’t speak for all of Black America, but my wages have tripled and have invested in a couple of Fort 500 companies. My family is healthy, financially stable, and constantly give back to the community. Does it reflect the majority of how black people are living? I don’t know but I can tell you from first hand knowledge more people are efficient with their money and are realizing they must pick up a skill trade or return to college to get a better wage.
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">
<p class="">I will admit, I used to stereotype African Americans who judge others within their race and be quick to point the finger, point out the ills of their very own community, yet not help solve the problem as Uncle Toms. Now I view those same people as uncomfortable with their own identity and is looking to be accepted by another group of society for financial benefit or personal comfort. These same people refuse to moderate their position because they have been brainwashed to a certain degree to believe a certain narrative about their heritage.
<p class="">