Posted on 10/06/2015 3:22:51 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
He was incredibly good. Gave specifics, was strong, was presidential.
And what energy!
I will post a video when it hits youtube.
Looking forward to seeing it. Off topic, another good candidate Carson was on the “spew” I mean the view and Carson’s wife spoke for a couple minutes, she was great!
Mark Levin radio show 9-28-2015 (26:00 - 29:00 in audio-NOT SINGLE PAYER NO MATTER WHAT THE HEADLINES ARE SAYING. Mark wants to get Trump on his show to clarify whether this is an expanded role of govt. to help the poor when making deals with hospitals.
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=4880723
Here is a link to the MSNBC interview with Trump asking about single payer.
8-4-15
At 7:00 in the audio the panel asks Trump about single payer:
“It works for Canada. Not the U.S. I like private enterprise, create competition, private system, open the state lines. I want a lot of bidders. As for those who cannot afford healthcare, you have got to take care of those people. About 25% in this category. Work out deals with hospitals who are not doing that well right now.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YWbINB4kJY
Donald Trump speaks with Mark Levin on his show10-5-2015. Nope...STILL NOT FOR SINGLE PAYER!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgmHnMxOWPo
watch out, ncalburt and other wizards of the single digit IQ club will be along to call you a pro amnesty tool of Yeb and the chamber....all the while not knowing in their monstrous ignorance that the Yeb Chamber types LOVES THEM SOME imminent domain.
Same here.;-)
This criticizing talk about big business rings hollow when you're a TPP and amnesty supporter. It's big business that is pushing that stuff to begin with.
As for eminent domain, it can certainly be abused, but sometimes you do have a single holdout stopping development of a slum because they're blackmailing everybody for millions of dollars for their small hovel.
you clearly have no ability to see who got nasty first.....no ability at all, none, in your willful ignorance.
I never start it dude, EFFEN NEVER. But I do come back hard, especially if the attack is steeped in ignorance, as this one was.
Carson is a great American...he will have a great impact on America!
I watched only because Trump was being interviewed and he did great.
Chickenhawks like Stephen Hayes fail to understand we have $19 Trillion debt, and it is a folly to fight in middle-east with borrowed money on China credit card.
We can not be held hostage with oil embargo anymore. Besides who cares who will own the oil. They must sell it to eat.
Amen to your thoughtful post, RR!!
Trump speaks to my values....work, save, invest, liberties, etc, more than any other candidate has. Not just speaks...but takes action about the things that are effecting not just me...but this entire country. He has the leadership and business experience America needs, to turn this mess around.
He speaks from the heart, he loves America and he loves Americans. He wants everyone to have the SAME opportunity to be successful. He fully knows what “real life” is, for the rest of us....he sees it every day, with all of his employees, rally stops, letters, tweets, etc. He has an excellent finger on the pulse of We the People.
The remainder of this post is from a related thread. As a consequence of citizens not being taught about the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, they don’t understand that the eminent domain protections of the 5th Amendment doesn’t work the same for the states as it does for the federal government. Insights, corrections to the argument below are welcome.
———————————
Note that the Founding States had originally decided that the personal privileges and immunities that the states had amended the Constitution to expressly protect, most of these protections listed in the Bill of Rights, did not apply to the states. In fact, the justices who had clarified the state eminent domain case of Barron v. Baltimore had clarified that, unless the states were specified, general prohibitions on government power in the Constitution applied only to the federal government, not to the states. “
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States.”
…
We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. ” —Barron v. Baltimore, 1833.
So before the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, the states arguably didn’t need an excuse to seize land.
It wasn’t until the states ratified the 14A (that amendment ratified under very questionable conditions imo) that the states required themselves to respect the Constitutiion’s personal privileges and immunities as well.
BUT THERE’S A CATCH !!!
The congressional record shows that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment took away no state’s rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
“No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
In other words, rights expressed in the Constitution as a prohibition of power on the feds, such as 1st Amendment prohibitions on certain powers of Congress to make laws, did not get applied to the states.
So let’s get back to prohibitions on government power versus constitutionally express rights in the context of the 5th Amendment’s imminent domain protections since that is a two-pronged right expressed in terms of a prohibition on government power as well as an express personal right.
"Under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, the government can exercise its eminent domain power to take property from private residents if it satisfies two conditions: it’s for public use, and just compensation [emphases added] is provided."
While the 14th Amendment applied the “just compensation” aspect of the eminent domain clause to the states, as evidenced by Bingham’s clarification concerning states’s rights, that amendment did not apply the “public use" aspect of the eminent domain clause to the states imo.
This is why the Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo v. New London was the constitutionally correct interpretation of the 5th Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment where state power issues are concerned imo.
It remains that since low-information citizens probably understand the Constitution based on the gossip and hearsay that they are fed that, until citizens work with their local and state government representatives to make state eminent domain laws that are more friendly to homeowners, the eminent domain aspect of the 5th Amendment is probably going to continue to be a “loose canon” for many citizens.
......the lame stream media never asks Madame Hillary pointed questions.
??
Krauthammer said that Trummp was disciplined and had a good interview. Questioned his answers on eminent domain, which was certainly appropriate.
Hayes noted that Trump thinks that developers and business, through the hand of government, can seize private property. He pointed out that Trump said eminent domain is “wonderful” and reminded that a “holdout” is just one of the little people that big government wants to control.
You both know what interpretation Trump favors... It’s not just highways.
If it offends you so, stay off the Trump threads.
In the mean time I’ll quote Jim Robinson
“GO TRUMP GO”
When you point out that Trump only experience with it .
He walked away and let the lady stay in a dump that is now worthless.when he going to pay her a million dollars .
All the Trump hating trolls scatter .
Roaches do the same thing when one is squished .
I know.
Been there. Steamrolled.
Big biz loves them some imminent domain, but a puny human with a puny brain wouldn’t know that.
BTW, you are lying your ass off about amnesty, a damnable lie, the refuge of the intellectually challenged.
Big biz loves them some imminent domain, but a puny human with a puny brain wouldn’t know that.
BTW, you are lying your ass off about amnesty, a damnable lie, the refuge of the intellectually challenged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.