[SubMareener]

WOW! Just recently Ted said he wasn’t going to do anything like this. Wasn’t Ted Cruz for the Keystone XL Pipeline? Did Ted think that could have been built without eminent domain?

[Dr. Sivana]

WOW! Just recently Ted said he wasn’t going to do anything like this. Wasn’t Ted Cruz for the Keystone XL Pipeline? Did Ted think that could have been built without eminent domain?

Eminent domain for a public purpose (utility, bridge, school, highway, etc.) is much different than eminent domain for Pfizer to have a corporate office or Trump to have a casino.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Did Ted think that could have been built without eminent domain?

Can't say, Ted's never built anything in his life before.

You raise a good point.

[magglepuss]

And what about the wall? Maybe Trump should run his own ad.

[House Atreides]

WOW! Just recently Ted said he wasn’t going to do anything like this. Wasn’t Ted Cruz for the Keystone XL Pipeline? Did Ted think that could have been built without eminent domain?
*******************************************************************************
Information for low-information voters: Eminent domain is in the Constitution as allowed ONLY after JUST COMPENSATION and ONLY TO BE FOR “PUBLIC USE” PROJECTS.

Keystone Pipeline is, in effect a utility for public use (of oil producers desiring to ship their petroleum products) — sort of like your local gas and electric company utility.

Donald Trumps version of eminent domain is NOT FOR PUBLIC USE BUT FOR ENRICHMENT OF DONALD TRUMP AND FAMILY.

[CA Conservative]

Wasn't Ted Cruz for the Keystone XL Pipeline? Did Ted think that could have been built without eminent domain?

That is a classic strawman argument. You take an example that has nothing to do with the case at hand and try to use that to support your argument. There is nothing even remotely similar to using eminent domain for a public works project and using it to benefit one particular person.