Bush?

[Kathianne]

Stranger things have happened this year. Take down Kasich and stop Rubio from regaining momentum. Only moderate left.

Question is, can he do it? He was effective on Trump with eminent domain. Would he be able to use debates to expose current big government issues Trump espouses. Cruz just will not appeal to moderates, not much has to be done for Jeb to capture them.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/bush-plans-scorched-earth-attack-on-kasich-rubio-219058


<header style="box-sizing: border-box;">Bush plans scorched-earth attack on Kasich, Rubio</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0.5em;">By ALEX ISENSTADT (http://www.politico.com/staff/alex-isenstadt)
02/09/16 11:34 PM EST
</footer>

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Jeb Bush is already laying the groundwork for a brutal South Carolina campaign against establishment rivals John Kasich and Marco Rubio.


In an internal memo circulated late Tuesday evening, the campaign distributed talking points to top campaign aides and surrogates, highlighting lines of attack they plan to take against both candidates.
The memo suggests that Kasich, who campaigned extensively in New Hampshire, does not have a realistic path to winning the Republican nomination.


“Governor Kasich has little to no chance in South Carolina, and does not have a national organization that can compete,” the memo says. “Kasich has consistently supported gutting the military and has no viable path in the Palmetto State.”


The memo also outlines hard-hitting avenues of attack against Rubio, who for months has been in Bush’s crosshairs: “Senator Rubio has lost momentum and has been exposed as completely unprepared to be president,” it says, repeating an argument that Bush has used frequently against Rubio.


...

[jimnyc]

He forgot to call out his brother though, who used the law himself to help the Texas Rangers and 13 acres of property, not just one home.

[Kathianne]

He forgot to call out his brother though, who used the law himself to help the Texas Rangers and 13 acres of property, not just one home.

I have to agree, found the back up on ESPN (http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html). The power of money or just raw power of individuals is not ok for seizing private property, regardless of who we're talking about.

[jimnyc]

I don't have much of a problem with it, never really did. I suppose each case can be seen as to whether or not it's "worthy" though. But it does come from the COTUS, so it does have some foundation. I don't think it can be completely eliminated (or I should say I don't think it should), but of course I also don't believe it should be a free for all either. Individual cases, let the courts decide.

[Abbey Marie]

One could say the Germans were exercising eminent domain rights as they steamrolled through Poland.

;)

[NightTrain]

One could say the Germans were exercising eminent domain rights as they steamrolled through Poland.

;)

Oh no you didn't!

[Abbey Marie]

Oh no you didn't!

I think I just did!

:coffee:

(Let's blame it on all the loud drywall hanging in the next room).

[Black Diamond]

Trump braucht Lebensraum

[Kathianne]

I don't have much of a problem with it, never really did. I suppose each case can be seen as to whether or not it's "worthy" though. But it does come from the COTUS, so it does have some foundation. I don't think it can be completely eliminated (or I should say I don't think it should), but of course I also don't believe it should be a free for all either. Individual cases, let the courts decide.
Eminent domain for public good projects is fine, not for private purposes-such as a ball club or limo parking lot or a WalMart, etc.

Commercial property will nearly always bring in more taxes and less public costs than private domiciles. Those property rights should not be taken capriciously through the power of the government.

[Perianne]

Eminent domain for public good projects is fine, not for private purposes-such as a ball club or limo parking lot or a WalMart, etc.

Commercial property will nearly always bring in more taxes and less public costs than private domiciles. Those property rights should not be taken capriciously through the power of the government.

Who determines which public project is worth taking someone's property?

[aboutime]

Stranger things have happened this year. Take down Kasich and stop Rubio from regaining momentum. Only moderate left.

Question is, can he do it? He was effective on Trump with eminent domain. Would he be able to use debates to expose current big government issues Trump espouses. Cruz just will not appeal to moderates, not much has to be done for Jeb to capture them.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/bush-plans-scorched-earth-attack-on-kasich-rubio-219058


IMO. Bush has a snowball's chance. He started out slowly, and continues to be slow, un-exciting, and has no problem spending millions, just to see it all wasted on what Bush has to know...will never happen.

Too many BUSHES, and not enough TRIMMING of the political family album.

[Kathianne]

Who determines which public project is worth taking someone's property?

Ultimately the courts/government. However, I gave the example of a hospital in my city growing up. There came a point where the city recognized that further expansion of that hospital-which at the time was 'regional' rather than just one city-would create undue hardship on people who had originally built, rehabbed, etc., homes over 3 blocks from the original hospital structure. The county had to build a second hospital to alleviate the demand on the original. The hospital took long term steps to acquire property that was less congested and had open acreage.

Trump bringing up the pipeline would be an example of 'hardship on the few' for the benefit of the many.

Building a WalMart on your and your neighbors property would employ many local people, provide lower cost shopping to the area, pay more taxes than you and your neighbors. Public good would be served, but the real benefit would be to WalMart at the expense of you and your neighbors. If you all decide to sell, everyone wins-that's the reason for 'above market offers.' If someone doesn't want to though, too bad for WalMart. Eminent domain being called in, takes away the 'risk' to investors in development, they don't have to get everyone to go along, they can force it.