The Most Frightening Aspect of the GOP Debate

#29
#29
Vol8188 said:
Taking rights from the people for the "greater good" sounds like something Bernie would endorse
Click to expand...

Nothing is being taken, they are being well compensated. Bernie wants to take from my family and give us nothing in return.

That's the difference. Back on to the ignore list you go
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Nothing is being taken, they are being well compensated. Bernie want to take from my family and give us nothing in return.

That's the difference. Back to the ignore list
Click to expand...

Lol ignoring me for respectfully questioning your views? Sounds like someone knows their views can't hold up to scrutiny.

And they're being "compensated", but who are you or the fed to say what is fair?

Blue book value for your car would be fair, but the government shouldn't force you to sell your car to a private collector either way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#33
#33
RobsPics said:

"Taking" implies non-payment. Eminent domain includes fair market value payment to the landowner.
Click to expand...

No. Taking implies force. Which is 100% what is going on here.

If the government was collecting guns and paying book value for them, would your view be the same?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#34
#34
UTCVol said:
Last time I heard so many people parroting this tripe was back in the "You didn't build that" days. Funny how things change.
Click to expand...

Can you name an ED case that personally affected you negatively like the democrats policies the past 8 years have negatively affected million of Americans? On the scale of trillion $ deficits or sky rocketing costs of 0bamacare plans?
 
#35
#35
Vol8188 said:
No. Taking implies force. Which is 100% what is going on here.

If the government was collecting guns and paying book value for them, would your view be the same?
Click to expand...

Gun collection is not analogous because the physical position of the gun is not fixed. Real property on the other hand is a fixed-location asset. It can never be moved. Thus, if the public would be better served to have the land used for a publicly beneficial purpose, the government has a right to purchase that real property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
RobsPics said:
Gun collection is not analogous because the physical position of the gun is not fixed. Real property on the other hand is a fixed-location asset. It can never be moved. Thus, if the public would be better served to have the land used for a publicly beneficial purpose, the government has a right to purchase that real property.
Click to expand...

I feel like you've missed the issue. Although I'm not a fan of government use of eminent domain, trump was publicly supporting the use of eminent domain for private business.
 
#37
#37
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Can you name an ED case that personally affected you negatively like the democrats policies the past 8 years have negatively affected million of Americans? On the scale of trillion $ deficits or sky rocketing costs of 0bamacare plans?
Click to expand...

How does this differ from any of the politics of the last 30 years outside of health care?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#38
#38
Vol8188 said:
I feel like you've missed the issue. Although I'm not a fan of government use of eminent domain, trump was publicly supporting the use of eminent domain for private business.
Click to expand...

Just because eminent domain is used for a private business, does not preclude the government purchase from being beneficial to the public. The land purchased for oil-pipelines is for private business. But it also serves for the public benefit.
 
#39
#39
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Can you name an ED case that personally affected you negatively like the democrats policies the past 8 years have negatively affected million of Americans? On the scale of trillion $ deficits or sky rocketing costs of 0bamacare plans?
Click to expand...

No?

I oppose eminent domain on principle. I can acknowledge the failures of our present government while being appalled at Trump's championing of eminent domain. This just so happens to be a thread about eminent domain.

Trump's stance on this issue certainly doesn't give me any confidence concerning how he'll deal with other cases involving the power of government, that's for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#42
#42
RobsPics said:

Just because eminent domain is used for a private business, does not preclude the government purchase from being beneficial to the public. The land purchased for oil-pipelines is for private business. But it also serves for the public benefit.
Click to expand...

Socialism.....we are redistributing property against the will of the owners to benefit the masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#43
#43
RobsPics said:

Just because eminent domain is used for a private business, does not preclude the government purchase from being beneficial to the public. The land purchased for oil-pipelines is for private business. But it also serves for the public benefit.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... a Nebraska farmer's land can be seized by the federal government at an arbitrarily determined market value for a Canadian corporation to build an oil pipeline just because the proposed route just happens to go through there? And that's fair?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#44
#44
VolsNSkinsFan said:
No? What a shocker. Meanwhile millions of Americans are getting hammered over sky rocketing 0bamacare costs.
Click to expand...

I can't really have a discussion on Trump's healthcare plan because to my knowledge he doesn't have one.

I suspect there's reason for that. But hey, it's all for the public good, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#45
#45
Vol8188 said:
Socialism.....we are redistributing property against the will of the owners to benefit the masses.
Click to expand...

Yes, socialism works if society benefits. Eminent domain is a socialist theory. Without it, there would be no national highway system. Commerce would be severely diminished without a national highway system. So in the end, that socialist theory actually promotes capitalism.
 
#46
#46
UTCVol said:
So let me get this straight... a Nebraska farmer's land can be seized by the federal government at an arbitrarily determined market value for a Canadian corporation to build an oil pipeline just because the proposed route just happens to go through there? And that's fair?
Click to expand...

The land isn't seized. They get well compensated. In addition, the pipeline is buried meaning they can still use it for farming. In addition, it's a business relationship between the landowner & pipeline where the company will make improvements to your land like building/maintaining roads & fences.
 
#47
#47
UTCVol said:
I can't really have a discussion on Trump's healthcare plan because to my knowledge he doesn't have one.

I suspect there's reason for that. But hey, it's all for the public good, right?
Click to expand...

Thats because you aren't paying attention. He talks about it every single night. Repeal 0bamacare, allow the government to negotiate drug prices, and allow choice in HC plans (for example plans that do/don't cover pregnancy). You talk bad about ED but then you are cool with forcing 28 year old single males to buy pregnancy coverage. That alone jacks HC costs up significantly
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
RobsPics said:

Yes, socialism works if society benefits. Eminent domain is a socialist theory. Without it, there would be no national highway system. Commerce would be severely diminished without a national highway system. So in the end, that socialist theory actually promotes capitalism.
Click to expand...

Get out of here you pinko commie! They can't coexist, Karl Marx! (blue font)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#49
#49
UTCVol said:
So let me get this straight... a Nebraska farmer's land can be seized by the federal government at an arbitrarily determined market value for a Canadian corporation to build an oil pipeline just because the proposed route just happens to go through there? And that's fair?
Click to expand...

If the proposed pipeline traverses multiple states, then under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, congress has the right to approve/disapprove its construction. If congress approves it, then the government has a right to purchase or lease the portion of the land to construct the pipeline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
RobsPics said:

If the proposed pipeline traverses multiple states, then under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, congress has the right to approve/disapprove its construction. If congress approves it, then the government has a right to purchase or lease the portion of the land to construct the pipeline.
Click to expand...

That's also important to note. The land is leased, meaning it will be given back
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top