The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Fair market value? You're kidding, right? The government and their corporate masters (like Trump) hardly bother giving actual market value. And not to mention, when you're being forced off your property, it should require more compensation...and a better reason than "Rich dude wants to build money making thing."

Ever hear about Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. ?

Summary

In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permitted the City of New London to exercise its eminent domain power in taking property from homeowners and transferring it to another private owner as part of an economic development plan. Following precedent from previous cases, the Court broadly interpreted the “public use” requirement to mean “public purpose”—the city was not intending to open the condemned land for “use” by the general public, but a public “purpose” would be served through the benefits that the economic development plan would have on the community.

The takings clause of the US Constitution reads : (bold/italics mine)

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There's no wiggle room there. The words "for public use" are pretty clear. Yet, the SCOTUS ruled for the developer, in direct opposition to the words in the Constitution, which the court is supposed to interpret.

This case has long been one of the main points in my favoring judges who rule based upon the words in the Constitution, rather than pulling law out of thin air.

[Annoyed]

While I disagree with name calling and such I wish to use this to make an observation.

Isn't the impetus behind the conservative outcry of "The PC Police" based on the notion that people should be able to say offensive things and the offended have no right to complain? So why complain when someone says something offensive to you?

To which I respond that I didn't go whining to the "government", meaning the board moderators about this, I simply said my piece directly to GF

[Annoyed]

I get it that it is frustrating talking to someone who displays such stubborn defiance on how things like economics work and then goes in to comment as if they know something no one else is getting. I mean the topics range from basic human behavior to economics and how things impact other things and other topics that a grown person who likes to opine so harshly should probably know about or at least decide to research when widely contradicting facts are presented to them and then respond accordingly by either offering other possibly ignored related facts that are relevant or modify their opinion so that it agrees more with reality (Doesn't mean changing it, but making a better opinion or a better defense/rationale for the original opinion).

I gather you're talking about some of my stances, perhaps specifically my opposition to Free Trade and that I favor the US practicing protectionism.

It's not that I don't understand the arguments made by the intellectual and business elites that argue in favor of free trade, I just don't think they know what they're talking about.
Most of these folks are making these pronouncements from their comfy perch at the top of some corporation, or from some cushy, tenured job in academia. They haven't a clue about what really goes on in the personal lives of the victims of "free trade" as their jobs are moved overseas and such. And while rare, there have been others who seen this train wreck coming. Remember Ross Perot, with his "giant sucking sound" in 1992? He saw this wreck coming, as did others.

But for some reason, people seem to prefer to listen to the ramblings of folks who never have to worry about putting food on their family's table, even though they have no practical experience in what they speak of.

[mad_gater]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...s-legislature/ - WTF?

[garhkal]

Not handing it over, lending it in a situation of crisis.
They made a law about it.

Or if you like this one better:

Swedish private housing sector accused of profiting from refugees

"“We are living hand to mouth,” said Tolle Furegård, head of refugee accommodation at Sweden’s migration board, who said the service relies a heavily on the private sector in this situation. “They are not doing this to be nice to us… It is a big sector, a chance to earn lot of money quickly, and it’s safe, because the government pays its bills.”"

If it is only a 'loan' and the govt is prompt on payment, then i see little issue. BUT from the articles posted by Sgalisa, it seemed the govt was saying "we will decide on any monetary compensation later, give us the property now.. Which did make it sound like there may or may NOT be payments..

Or this one - Swedish website in English with information for asylum-seekers:

Housing for asylum-seekers

"If you have money, you must pay for the accommodation yourself, but if the Migration Agency can see that you have no money, you do not have to pay."

And the official refugee law in Sweden:

Refugee Law and Policy: Sweden

Thanks for linking those.. the First was rather eye opening...

What do people think about Trump's newest plans to promote "Pride and Patriotism" in schools ? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ls-immigration

Well seeing how often in the past 3-4 years we have heard stories of students being told "Don't bring the US flag in, it might offend immigrants", and related, i am all for it..

Isn't the impetus behind the conservative outcry of "The PC Police" based on the notion that people should be able to say offensive things and the offended have no right to complain? So why complain when someone says something offensive to you?

Saying something offensive is a lot different than making a personal attack on a fellow poster. heck last i looked that was in the prohibited list of stuff..

[Falcon Horus]

It's not that I don't understand the arguments made by the intellectual and business elites that argue in favor of free trade, I just don't think they know what they're talking about.
Most of these folks are making these pronouncements from their comfy perch at the top of some corporation, or from some cushy, tenured job in academia.

I don't know about Tood but I fit in not one of those boxes. And I'm of the opinion that free trade trumps (pardon the pun) protectionism.

They haven't a clue about what really goes on in the personal lives of the victims of "free trade" as their jobs are moved overseas and such.

This box I potentially fit since graphic design jobs and/or IT jobs are shipped to India.

Thanks for linking those.. the First was rather eye opening...

You're welcome.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Those poor bees

I'm sure everyone here understands why this is bad..

[jelgate]

*starts inhaling honey*

Quick before its all gone

[Annoyed]

Ok, Fri. night. Left turn into unreality.

[jelgate]

I call that the Annoyed turn

[Ian-S]

Those poor bees

I'm sure everyone here understands why this is bad..

Plus the crop spraying will likely make little difference to the spread of zika.

[SoulReaver]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...s-legislature/ - WTF?

hot air :/

[SoulReaver]

*starts inhaling honey*

Quick before its all gone

I better secure my honey too before it's gone

(proceeds to secure FH)

[aretood2]

Ever hear about Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. ?



The takings clause of the US Constitution reads : (bold/italics mine)


There's no wiggle room there. The words "for public use" are pretty clear. Yet, the SCOTUS ruled for the developer, in direct opposition to the words in the Constitution, which the court is supposed to interpret.

This case has long been one of the main points in my favoring judges who rule based upon the words in the Constitution, rather than pulling law out of thin air.

They are using a very liberal form of "public spaces" which works in other contexts but it shouldn't work in this context since it usually involves pitting every day citizens against the behemoth of corporations and the Government. However, Trump does agree with the court here.

I gather you're talking about some of my stances, perhaps specifically my opposition to Free Trade and that I favor the US practicing protectionism.

It's not that I don't understand the arguments made by the intellectual and business elites that argue in favor of free trade, I just don't think they know what they're talking about.
Most of these folks are making these pronouncements from their comfy perch at the top of some corporation, or from some cushy, tenured job in academia. They haven't a clue about what really goes on in the personal lives of the victims of "free trade" as their jobs are moved overseas and such. And while rare, there have been others who seen this train wreck coming. Remember Ross Perot, with his "giant sucking sound" in 1992? He saw this wreck coming, as did others.

But for some reason, people seem to prefer to listen to the ramblings of folks who never have to worry about putting food on their family's table, even though they have no practical experience in what they speak of.

Giant sucking sounds trump mathematical models and proven observations, got it. The problem is that you seem to willfully ignore that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. Most of those jobs were going away with or without NAFTA.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...s-legislature/ - WTF?

Really need more info to be honest.

[jelgate]

I better secure my honey too before it's gone

(proceeds to secure FH)

Me thinks that will be bitter