2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Razgovory]

They just can shrug it off as Obama-controlled CIA trying to steal the election. I don't think the probe is going to produce any kind of smoking gun anyway.

Let's have six or seven investigations just to be sure.

[jimmy olsen]

Will this CIA-Russia-did-it thing play out like all the rest that should have brought down Trump? Or will it actually dent him.

He's already elected?

I guess it might embolden the likes of McCain et all to oppose some of his worse smelling shit, but I'm not sure relying on the moral fiber of the Republican Congress is a safe bet.

As I posted in the thread on this topic. McCain and some other GOP senators will be investigating this.

[jimmy olsen]

Shouldn't the title be changed to 2020 elections? Or at least 2018?

Anyways, I saw this article and laughed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/new-york-should-seize-trump-tower/2016/12/12/6dfdfc50-c0b2-11e6-897f-918837dae0ae_story.html?postshare=2951481593858146&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.1f9157f8e768

New York should seize Trump Tower


By Catherine Rampell Opinion writer

December 12 at 7:46 PM  


NEW YORK

Froufrou Fifth Avenue resembles a police state.

Officers wielding gigantic guns guard Trump Tower, where President-elect Donald Trump conducts all transition business, and soon lots of presidential business, too. Shoppers patronizing the stores, cafes or public gardens inside must endure layers of security screening. Streets and sidewalks are barricaded; traffic is snarled; and costumed buskers milk money from the looky-loos obstructing the entrances to Gucci and Tiffany.

The challenges of securing this 58-story building in a high-density neighborhood will, by Inauguration Day alone, drain $35 million of local taxpayer money. Who knows the additional costs to commerce and property values?

The feds have thus far been stingy about footing the bill. Fortunately, I've come up with a solution that should warm the cockles of the president-elect's heart: New York should use eminent domain to seize Trump Tower.

Now hear me out.

Eminent domain — the constitutionally enshrined government power to take private property in exchange for just compensation — was traditionally reserved for road-and-school-style public projects. But thanks to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, perpetuating a line of earlier decisions, governments may now use this power to condemn property if they can devise virtually any use that better promotes "economic development" — kicking out poor people and building luxury condos, for example.

On both left and right, almost everyone hated that ruling.

But not Donald Trump.

Trump loves eminent domain, especially this ruling. He thinks it's  wonderful. And there's no question why: Throughout his career, Trump has lobbied governments to seize properties from those who refuse to sell when he wants to build  amusement parks, golf courses, office buildings and parking lots on their land. He believes expansive use of eminent domain is necessary to promote economic growth and "beautification," and that it's even a good deal for property owners who don't want to sell.

"When eminent domain is used on somebody's property, that person gets a fortune," he has declared.

Well, that fortune can soon be his.


New York officials probably won't take my advice, since seizing Trump's property might appear partisan. (Manhattanites voted against Trump by about  10 to 1.) But, according to almost every eminent-domain scholar and land-use lawyer I consulted, if the city tried my strategy, courts would probably uphold it.

As Trump well knows, New York has one of the most expansive eminent domain laws in the country, and has condemned property as "blighted" for fairly flimsy reasons.

"The statutory language is so elastic, you can fit almost anything into it," says Jeffrey Rowes, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. (The institute often represents property owners in eminent domain actions, including an Atlantic City woman who fought efforts to turn her home into a limousine parking lot for Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.)

The city doesn't need to prove that Trump Tower is derelict to declare it "blighted"; the mere fact that it's hindering traffic, impeding commerce and draining the public fisc could be sufficient. Then officials just need to find some alternate use for the property — perhaps a Hamilton memorial? — that they could reasonably believe better serves the city's interests.

Of course, the city would have to pay Trump the fair-market value of the property, about $471 million.

If New York wants to cut its costs, however, it could instead place a negative easement on Trump Tower, one that allowed Trump to retain ownership but prevented any presidents or presidents-elect from living there. The city would have to compensate Trump for lost value to the property as a result, but that would likely be small.

Finally, if the city were especially cheap (and cheeky), it could declare Trump's active residence in Trump Tower a "public nuisance."

Lots of liberal elites believe our president-elect is a nuisance. In this case, though, the term has a specific legal meaning: any activity or physical condition that "obstructs, damages or inconveniences the rights of a community." Crackhouses, brothels, foul smells and blocking of rights of way are common examples. So too might be scuppering one of the world's top shopping destinations and placing a big ol' terrorism target on its back.




Some case law even suggests that if the city allows Trump to continue to damage his neighbors, it will have effectively taken the  neighbors' property without just compensation. Which might suggest government has an obligation to act.

The best part about this "public nuisance" strategy (besides its name)? The city could condemn Trump Tower without having to pay Trump "just compensation." It wouldn't owe him a dime, in fact.

Hey, Trump did say the government needs to start driving harder bargains.

[derspiess]

I think 2020 or 2018 should have its own thread, Tim.  There's still enough crying and rage left to keep a 2016 thread going.

[Berkut]

I guess once you are committed to the village idiot role, there isn't any reason to dial back.

[Eddie Teach]

I think 2020 or 2018 should have its own thread, Tim.  There's still enough crying and rage left to keep a 2016 thread going.

Perhaps all that rage should be enough to keep the thread afloat without a sticky, though.

[derspiess]

I think 2020 or 2018 should have its own thread, Tim.  There's still enough crying and rage left to keep a 2016 thread going.

Perhaps all that rage should be enough to keep the thread afloat without a sticky, though.

Yup.

[alfred russel]

I guess once you are committed to the village idiot role, there isn't any reason to dial back.

Languish is really getting annoying post election. Trump just got elected president, but no one  posts anything other than anti Trump sentiment or gets labeled a troll or village idiot or whatever. There isn't any point to a discussion of the merits or lack of merits of what is taking place; it is taken for granted it is all for the worse, and any suggestion otherwise is evidence of being the village idiot.

What Derspeiss posted is actually factual. There is a fuckton of crying and rage on the forum.

[Grey Fox]

How can it not be full of rage & crying. Russia won. Losing hurts.

[alfred russel]

How can it not be full of rage & crying. Russia won. Losing hurts.

Putin may well learn the same lesson that Gingrich, Christie, and Guiliani are learning.

[Berkut]

I guess once you are committed to the village idiot role, there isn't any reason to dial back.

Languish is really getting annoying post election. Trump just got elected president, but no one  posts anything other than anti Trump sentiment or gets labeled a troll or village idiot or whatever. There isn't any point to a discussion of the merits or lack of merits of what is taking place; it is taken for granted it is all for the worse, and any suggestion otherwise is evidence of being the village idiot.

What Derspeiss posted is actually factual. There is a fuckton of crying and rage on the forum.

Horseshit.

What is happening is that people are discussing it, and the Trump fanbois have no response other than to say that anything critical is "raging and crying".

If there is a lack of debate, it is because they don't have the balls to actually represent their views without turning any potential discussion into this stupid caricature.

It is infantile, childish, and cowardly.


It's not like you guys are posting thoughtful, interesting articles or viewpoints and nobody will engage with them. The level of discourse for the Trump fans is memes and racist bullshit.

[LaCroix]

agree that people are willing to debate and there is a point to discussion. those unreceptive to questions challenging their views on trump or his actions are in the minority

[Jacob]

Horeshit.

What is happening is that people are discussing it, and the Trump fanbois have no response other than to say that anything critical is "raging and crying".

If there is a lack of debate, it is because they don't have the balls to actually represent their views without turning any potential discussion into this stupid caricature.

It is infantile, childish, and cowardly.


It's not like you guys are posting thoughtful, interesting articles or viewpoints and nobody will engage with them. The level of discourse for the Trump fans is memes and racist bullshit.

Concur.

Except it's spelled "horseshit".

[Jacob]

And yeah, how about we let this thread sink or swim on its own merits?

[garbon]

And yeah, how about we let this thread sink or swim on its own merits?

Could we do the same with the weather?