• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump the Populist -- Seizing Land for The Wall

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thump553 said:
If you are familiar with New London, it's the area just west of the courthouse. Almost all hundred year old, cheaply built and not maintained houses except the Kelso house is all painted and maintained as a shrine. The only other thing in reasonable shape is Planned Parenthood across the street.

The Hygienic is downtown and is now an art gallery. About a quarter mile south of this area.
Click to expand...
I was wondering. I lived in Groton and it's surroundings from 1980 to 1986. I'd love to go back just to see what impact all the casinos have had in the area. Groton was like Virginia Beach in that the town depended on all that Navy money but they really had a dislike for the sailors. Out here in the Bremerton, WA area, it's quite friendly to the Naval personnel. Ah enough. Should take this offline.
 
woolfe9998 said:
You do realize that the use of eminent domain is contrary to the philosophy of American conservativism, right? They're suppose to respect private property rights against government intrusion. It's rank hypocrisy for the GOP to use eminent domain, particularly on this scale.
Click to expand...
I don't believe conservatives oppose ALL eminent domain. It's not an absolute.

E.D. is fine if used appropriately. ED to build/expand a highway/interstate? Fine. Shopping centers? No.

Fern
 
Fern said:
I don't believe conservatives oppose ALL eminent domain. It's not an absolute.

E.D. is fine if used appropriately. ED to build/expand a highway/interstate? Fine. Shopping centers? No.

Fern
Click to expand...
Why do you hate capitalism? Are you some sort of pinko commie?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The Wall is just flat out stupid but seizing land is something that happens. In CT homes were taken to build a shopping centers and the like. Why? Because the mall would generate more taxes than home property. Look at the ideologies for and against on the SCOTUS

Might not want to toss stones on this one.

Oh, link.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8331097/ns/us_news/t/homes-may-be-taken-private-projects/
Click to expand...

The smart people can figure out the point about hypocrisy.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Maybe he can designate it a National Monument? That way all the lefties will be giddy with delight about the feds grabbing more land.
Click to expand...
If you could direct us to any place where land was seized to create a national monument, that might be helpful to determining if you even have a point to make. Thanks in advance.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Maybe he can designate it a National Monument? That way all the lefties will be giddy with delight about the feds grabbing more land.
Click to expand...

American conservatism: taking money from hungry kids and old people or whatever it takes to stick it to browns any way they can.

Gotta protect the rust belt from them mexicans who they've only seen on TV.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I wasn't defending anyone including Trump. I meant that if those who have an objection based on ideology that they should consider what "their side" has done. "They" are everyone in this context. If you want to point out conservatives as being hypocritical? Sure, they were against CT but for The Wall now.

There is no argument about that with me.
Click to expand...
"Their side" means who? Eminent Domain is spelled in the Constitution. Explicitly. You know, the document some people seem to care so much about. And "Fair market value" is the best that can be done for "Just Compensation", generally speaking. I do not think people will be happy when the government start compensating emotional attachment or distress when condemning "other people's lands". That would open a wholly different kind of rabbit hole.

Trump made clear that he is the biggest fan of Eminent Domain. There cannot be no misunderstanding about it.
 
lopri said:
"Their side" means who? Eminent Domain is spelled in the Constitution. Explicitly. You know, the document some people seem to care so much about. And "Fair market value" is the best that can be done for "Just Compensation", generally speaking. I do not think people will be happy when the government start compensating emotional attachment or distress when condemning "other people's lands". That would open a wholly different kind of rabbit hole.

Trump made clear that he is the biggest fan of Eminent Domain. There cannot be no misunderstanding about it.
Click to expand...


250k for a thousand acres of prime land in MD. That's not fair market in any real universe. How that was calculated from what I understand was that the price was based on the lowest possible valued land type when the location was actually worth many millions.

I don't know where you live but if you were given 5 or 10 dollars for every hundred worth of true market value you wouldn't be talking about emotional attachment would you?

Regarding Trump- the particular scenario was described and you considered it "fair" and so there's no problem with Trump doing it, at least by your statement.

I think Eminent Domain was an "at need" power and not a trick to acquire valuable property cheaply. Need and true fair market value.

YMMV.
 
Trump? ED? seems fitting.

Jokes aside, he fucks with land owners around the world. I hope he follows through with this, so more Red state citizens see what he's really about. But of course, I'm operating under the assumption those citizens pay attention.
 
IronWing said:
If you could direct us to any place where land was seized to create a national monument, that might be helpful to determining if you even have a point to make. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to seize its allready federal land. As far as I know all National Monuments creation land comes from federal land, BLM land or National Forest. As I said earlier in the early days of National Park creation eminent domain was used extensively.

Kinda of interesting is that my family knows the Craigheads who owned the last privately owned land inside Grand Teton National Park. They fought tooth and nail to keep it and finally were allowed to stay until their demise and then it would be transferred to the Park. Frank and John Craighead were world renowned Biologist who were in Several National Geographic TV specials about Yellowstone Grizzlies in the 60s. The one where the grizzles bashed into the side of their car was cool.


Sorry for the off topic just reminiscing.
 
IronWing said:
If you could direct us to any place where land was seized to create a national monument, that might be helpful to determining if you even have a point to make. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Seriously guy, how about you use a search engine.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...two-new-national-monuments-in-nevada-and-utah
You can even look it up on this forum. All the lefties were giddy with delight about it. Maybe President Trump can call it an "ART WALL" and fund artists to make it pretty.
 
IronWing said:
Now could you answer the question that was asked? Could you direct us to any place where land was seized to create a national monument?
Click to expand...
Your angels are dancing on the head of a very tiny semantic definition pin. The feds seized public land and forced more controls on public usage and forbid other uses .
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Your angels are dancing on the head of a very tiny semantic definition pin. The feds seized public land and forced more controls on public usage and forbid other uses .
Click to expand...
The President used his legal authority to designate public land as a monument. There was no land seizure at all. You were pulling shit out of your butt and flinging it across the internet because you had no point to make concerning the topic of this thread but just couldn't keep your yap shut.
 
IronWing said:
The President used his legal authority to designate public land as a monument. There was no land seizure at all. You were pulling shit out of your butt and flinging it across the internet because you had no point to make concerning the topic of this thread but just couldn't keep your yap shut.
Click to expand...
By changing to ways the land could legally be used it became a taking. Just as this President is using the legal means to take property to use for the wall. Sorry if my interjections on the subject hurt your widdle feelings.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
By changing to ways the land could legally be used it became a taking. Just as this President is using the legal means to take property to use for the wall. Sorry if my interjections on the subject hurt your widdle feelings.
Click to expand...

By what definition and what legal standard does the federal government repurposing land it already owns equate to a 'taking'? Also, who were they taking it from?

You might want to stop digging as you're coming across as a complete moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top