Video: Ted Cruz Was Talking About a Wall YEARS Before Trump
Yesterday I told you how Ted Cruz talked about building a wall months before Donald Trump announced his 2016 presidential candidacy.
That post was misleading, and I deeply apologize.
Because Ted Cruz was actually talking about a wall years before Trump announced.
Here’s Ted Cruz, July 17, 2012, during his run for the Texas Senate, supporting building a wall:
MODERATOR: Mr. Cruz. You were asked during April’s Belo Debate if you support building a fence the length of the U.S./Mexico border and here’s what you said.
MODERATOR: He supports building a wall along the entire Texas/Mexico border. Is that something that you would support? Yes, no, why? We’ll start with you, Mr. Cruz.
CRUZ: Yes. We have an illegal immigration crisis and we need to do everything humanly possible to secure the border. That means fences, that means walls…
MODERATOR: [unintelligible] wall, you said you’d support a wall —
CRUZ: I said yes to that.
MODERATOR: — even if it infringes on property rights of Texans along the way.
CRUZ: Property owners should be compensated for that 
MODERATOR: Is that still your position tonight, to build a fence the length of the Texas/Mexico border?
CRUZ: I think we need to use every tool humanly possible.
MODERATOR: And that is one of them?
MODERATOR: Yes? OK. Do you have any idea how much it would cost?
CRUZ: I don’t know the specific cost but I can guarantee you it is far less than the cost of illegal immigration.
The moderator goes on to berate Cruz for supporting this despite the cost. Cruz sticks to his guns. That was July 17, 2012, and the debate clip used in the second debate was from April 13, 2012. Donald Trump’s latest presidential run was announced in June 2015.
This means Ted Cruz supported a wall years before Trump announced his 2016 presidential bid.
And here is Cruz again, from July 30, 2011, supporting a wall as part of a comprehensive strategy to secure the border:
QUESTIONER: Do you favor a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the U.S., stricter border enforcement, and/or the building of a border wall or some other policy or combination of policies?
CRUZ: There were a lot of questions in that piece. Let me lay out my position on immigration, because I can state it simply and in one sentence. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration. I am categorically opposed to amnesty. And I strongly support legal immigrants who follow the rules and come here seeking to work towards the American dream.
Now with respect to securing the borders, I approach this from the perspective of someone who’s spent much of his adult life in law enforcement. It makes utterly no sense that we don’t know who’s coming into this country. We don’t know the criminal backgrounds. Our borders are largely unsecured. And particularly in a post-9/11 world, that is lunacy. I support any and all possible efforts to secure the border. That includes fences, that includes walls, that includes technology, that includes helicopters, that includes drones, that includes manpower, that includes employment verification, that includes approaching it as a law enforcement priority. And right now, neither party is serious about doing that.
With respect to a path to citizenship or amnesty, I categorically oppose it. And the reason is, I’ve spent a lifetime working to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. It is fundamentally unfair and contrary to the rule of law to reward those who break the law. And you know, one of the people it’s most unfair to are those that are following the laws. There are immigrants who wait years and even decades to come here legally. And yet what amnesty programs say is that we’re going to take those that have chosen to break the law, and we’re going to reward them rather than insist that people follow the law. I don’t think that’s fair, I don’t think that’s right, and I don’t support it.
Thanks to @mbhouse on Twitter (here and here) for the pointers.
Ding.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:06 pm
Mr. Ted Cruz, he had to get elected in Texas, which Google Maps suggests is almost contiguous to mexico, and, of course, Mr. Cruz arrived at his decision while he yet retained Canadian citizenship, and so taking a hard line made a certain amount of sense just on a level of self-interest I think – and – this is key – he also made his remarks when “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” was still very much the end game
whereas Mr. The Donald, he arrived at his thinkings in Manhattan, with his beloved immigrant soul-mate at his side, and he did so *after* Obama upended all the rules with his illegal and unconstitutional immigration orders
it’s not same same, you seehappyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:12 pm
CRUZ: Property owners should be compensated for that 
picklehead likes him some eminent domains!
he’d make a perfect veep for Mr. The Donald!
a brash billionaire property developer
a cuban canadian texan lawdog
together they fight crime and rid the whirl of evil!happyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:15 pm
I disagree with ha ha happy. Cruz would make an excellent partner in the Senate for a Trump Presidency.
Not so much as a ribbon cutter in the VP slot.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:20 pm
hmmm… intriguing idea
i’ll have to sleep on that onehappyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:20 pm
the idea is more to unify the fractured R coalition, position Mr. Cruz for the future, and make it to where roobs descends into a dark despair in which his self-loathing consumes his soulhappyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:24 pm
tunisia can build a border fence
but poor cowardly dysfunctional failmerica, it is unable
this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysishappyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:34 pm
Because eminent domain to secure the border is just like eminent domain to grab an old lady’s house and make it a casino parking lot for limos.
If you ever wonder why JVW says the best way to deal with you is to appreciate your humor and not take you seriously, well, this sort of thing is why.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:39 pm
If you’ve taken sufficient dislike to me, fine. But’s what your point to not crediting neocon?
https://patterico.com/2016/02/06/ted-cruz-was-talking-about-building-a-wall-before-trump-even-announced-his-candidacy/#comment-1826716Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:50 pm
it’s still some nice common ground Mr. Cruz and Mr. The Donald can share as they explore ways to work together for to help make America great againhappyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:55 pm
I’m noticing a pattern here. I’ll comment, and you’ll then open thread and link to my source. And I would say I don’t care, but clearly I do as I’m commenting. But, barely.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/7/2016 @ 2:57 pm
BTW, how’s that Kelo development coming along?Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:08 pm
Luciano Pavarotti, Adeste Fideles
It’s been sung before. I, my pitiful self, have sung it. The thing is, Pavarotti sings it. Not me.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:10 pm
I’m stunned. I’m watching this morning’s “Meet the Press,” one of whose panelists is Andrea Mitchell. While Chuck Todd was interviewing Trump, she was apparently off-camera, because Trump went way out of his way to mention her — fawningly, flirtingly, claiming a yuuuuuuge respect for her. Unlike Trump, I do not respect Andrea Mitchell.
But I’m shocked to find that I agreed with her 100% when she said that on the Democratic side, this election is turning into a reprise of 1972. Bernie Sanders is the functional equivalent of George McGovern, without McGovern’s white-bread midwestern folksiness. And the Democratic Party is just about as dysfunctional now as it was in 1972: Then, as now, every Democrat with a lick of sense knew that McGovern had no chance in the world to stop Dick Nixon’s reelection, but they’d lost their grip on their own party (as proven so dramatically at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago), and it ran away with them — right off the electoral college cliff.
May we be so lucky.Beldar (fa637a) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:20 pm
Didn’t see your comment, Steve57. Sorry.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:24 pm
I’m stunned, too. Too find out this crazy idea that here I am. Awake, and censored.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:27 pm
14… Amen, Beldar. Couldn’t happen to a nicer gaggle a’ geese.Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:28 pm
It’s a small thing.
I think you should link to neocon’s blog, though.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:34 pm
He didn’t grab the old lady’s house. The old lady’s vacation house was still there while she lived and died with her family in California. Her heir’s eventually sold the house at auction, at a steep discount from the $5 million Trump offered.
They became thousandaires instead of millionaires because of the old lady’s irrational urge to flip the bird at big developer over a property she didn’t even use.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:41 pm
Her neighbors became millionaires because of that same “bad guy”.
Perhaps she mistook Trump for Bob Guccione who really did try to swindle her prior to Trump building the casino?
Who knows.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:44 pm
even the new york times makes that point, they chose 13 years after the case had been dismissed,narciso (732bc0) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:49 pm
to sell the property, after the real estate bubble popped, but narrative, is what’s for dinner,
Mr. Guccione offered her a million dollars i thought which is way more than she ultimately got for it, especially if she’d rolled some of it over into a new house, paid cap gains on the rest, and invested the balancehappyfeet (831175) — 2/7/2016 @ 3:50 pm
@ papertiger: There’s no one Trump won’t demonize, won’t slime, in order to try to excuse or divert attention from his own greed, deceit, and rapaciousness. And here you are, his minion, sliming someone whose only sin was an attachment to her property.
You miss the point. You’re trying to confuse the point. Trump’s a crony capitalist. He brags about it. You can’t disprove that, or even debate it, so you attack his victims, just like he claimed the creditors wiped out in his bankruptcies were all “sharks.” His victims deserved it, and he deserves to be king — is that your version?
You can’t shame the shameless.Beldar (fa637a) — 2/7/2016 @ 4:02 pm
It doesn’t matter if Trump offered her $50 billion for her house. It was her house.
You don’t get that?Beldar (fa637a) — 2/7/2016 @ 4:03 pm
Papertiger has done his fair share of lying on this site. He’s as dishonest as Trump.John Hitchcock (23ab19) — 2/7/2016 @ 4:06 pm
It’s my practice to credit people who bring things to my attention, not every blogger who may have previously blogged something whether I saw it or not.
If you would like me to hat tip you as well I don’t mind doing that.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/7/2016 @ 4:16 pm
1. It was not her vacation house, it was her home until 2011, when she moved to an old age home in California, as people do when they can no longer live on their own.Milhouse (87c499) — 2/7/2016 @ 4:56 pm
2. Her grandson handled the sale for her; for all I know he may one day be her heir but he certainly wasn’t at the time, because she was still alive.
3. As far as I know she is still alive, and thus has no estate.
the kingdom was unavailable for comment,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/334949/narciso (732bc0) — 2/7/2016 @ 5:14 pm
@26, sometimes I can’t give credit where credit’s due.
I am no doubt the worst violator pf rhe r8;e against taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Damned keyboard.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/7/2016 @ 5:26 pm
As far as I know she is still alive, and thus has no estate.
Vera Coking is still alive? Good for her.
I hope she charges Jeb Bush a bunch of money for appearing in attack ads.
John, I’m curious what you think of Ted Cruz, now that we learn he has championed a wall on the border for many years. Is he a liar and a racist too?
Sure wish John would figure out which country he is frompapertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 8:44 pm
And there you go, repeating your lies about me yet again, papertiger. How is it everyone understood what I said except you? Could it be because you’re a disgusting liar and that’s the only way you can push your agenda? Why, yes, that’s what it would be. You’re a disgusting liar.John Hitchcock (23ab19) — 2/7/2016 @ 9:26 pm
You’ve been throwing that bs at me since you found out I’m backing Trump.
Well Trump’s position on immigration has been adopted by Rubio. Ted Cruz. Everyone, I guess except for Jeb.
Is Jeb your guy?papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 9:45 pm
Take a stand John. Be somebody.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 9:48 pm
Everyone can see you’re lying, papertiger. And practically everyone can tell you who I support. And you just lied about Cruz just now, too.John Hitchcock (23ab19) — 2/7/2016 @ 9:54 pm
Hey Beldar. Did you know that Vera Coking eventually sold her house to Carl Icahn in a secret bid via a proxy?
The same guy, Carl Icahn, who you say is not a shark. The same guy who refused to take Trumps name off of the casino after a leveraged buyout. A notorious corporate raider who has taken substantial or controlling positions in RJR Nabisco, TWA, Texaco, Phillips Petroleum, Western Union, Gulf & Western, Viacom, Uniroyal, Dan River, Marshall Field’s, Culligan, Samsonite, American Can, USX, Marvel Comics, Revlon, Imclone, Federal-Mogul, Fairmont Hotels, Blockbuster, Kerr-McGee, Time Warner, Netflix, Motorola, and Herbalife.
How many of those American corporations did he drive into the toilet? I see a handful without even doing any research.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 10:11 pm
Dude. Read the title of the story you are posting on. Dumb as an effin rock.
Can’t fix stupid. I don’t know why I even bother.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 10:16 pm
How do you manage to steer the truck? Please don’t dare to chew gum and drive. For the sake of your fellow motorists.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/7/2016 @ 10:19 pm
Icahn is a shark, and in Trump’s last wave of corporate bankruptcies, Icahn and his companies therefore were the only people who came out pretty well: They got the property, the unsecured creditors got less than a penny on the dollar. It mystifies me why Trump would tout Icahn’s name, as if somehow Icahn’s endorsement is a good thing. But it’s true that Icahn, a notorious bottom-fisher and greenmailer, has done vastly better off in Trump’s casino empire collapse than Trump’s trade creditors — that is to say, ordinary businesses who made the spectacular mistake of taking Trump’s word.
So what’s your point, papertiger?Beldar (fa637a) — 2/7/2016 @ 11:00 pm
Henry Ford did not adopt Chrysler’s assembly line, just like Ted Cruz did not adopt Donald Trump’s border security idea. But you lied and said Cruz did. And you have been lying about me for a long time. The same lies, which have already been proven to be lies.John Hitchcock (23ab19) — 2/7/2016 @ 11:01 pm
I’ll put it this way: Icahn is the kind of capitalist that Team Obama was trying to make Mitt Romney look like. But he’s more successful at it than Trump has been in his business affairs. Icahn has used bankruptcy ruthlessly and strategically. Trump hasn’t had any choice with his bankruptcies — they weren’t part of a long term strategy, they were forced upon Trump because his business plans never permitted his companies to actually meet their contractual obligations.
But neither Trump nor Icahn have ever been what Trump’s now pretending to be — a businessman who actually grows companies, provides long-term steady jobs, produces useful goods and services in a competitive market, etc. I can point you to dozens and dozens of brilliant, talented, ethical businessmen who actually are that kind of multimillionaire. But none of them resemble Trump in their business practices, and very few of them can compete with his vulgarity and ego.Beldar (fa637a) — 2/7/2016 @ 11:08 pm
papertiger, maybe you’re confused: Chris Wallace’s question was about the unsecured creditors in Trump’s bankruptcy — everyone who didn’t have a mortgage on Trump’s real estate and a security interest in all the rest of his property. The unsecured creditors were topped by the local public utility. In the top 10 were an Atlantic City laundry company, a family grocery store, the Atlantic City Coca-Cola bottler, and so forth — businesses, some large and some small, who’d trusted Donald Trump and the Trump Brand when they extended business credit. That’s who Trump referred to as “sharks,” not Icahn — who, bizarrely, Trump treats as a friend.Beldar (fa637a) — 2/7/2016 @ 11:15 pm
Pie-in-the-sky Trump. Selling promises, and leaving people who believed him holding the bag. I hope his supporters don’t get the chance to actually see for themselves what his promises are worth.nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:04 am
Deadbeat Trump works too.nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:22 am
Please give a link to a reputable source saying Trump actually offered $5 million.
I see Trumpkins citing that number all over Twitter. When I see them make that claim, I link to this story which shows Trump’s offer was $1 million. Not $5 million.
Nobody has ever contradicted me with evidence. Want to be the very first?
P.S. A link to Breitbart quoting Trump saying he “would have” offered $5 million doesn’t count. Me, I “would have” offered $10 million. But I didn’t. And Trump never offered $5 million, or a penny over a million — that I can find evidence of.
Feel free to show me I’m wrong.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:29 am
This post provides evidence that Trump adopted Cruz’s position on immigration. Not the other way around.
Would you care to respond to that evidence? Or provide some of your own, to support your claim?
Or would you prefer to simply maintain an unevidenced position at odds with the links and evidence provided in the very post you are commenting on?
It’s your choice. Whatever you choose, we will all notice and we will remember.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:34 am
Well Trump’s position on immigration has been adopted by Rubio. Ted Cruz.
Wait. What? I thought Rubio was for open borders! You mean this changed?Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:07 am
Yes I am confused. You say Trump’s bankruptcy. In the case of Trump Plaza, Trump was a shareholder in a corporation. The bankruptcy of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. doesn’t mean the same thing you are trying to portray. His liability was limited to his investment. That’s the one of the reasons for incorporating.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:17 am
Casinos are a gamble nobody would take without limited liability.
Trump the man never went bankrupt. Some corporations he was a shareholder in did.
It’s been well established there is a difference between what candidate Rubio says and what elected official Rubio does.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:19 am
Any other frauds and phonies want to self identify?
Show of hands?
I can do this all night mofo. Can you?papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:22 am
There are two parts to Trump’s bankruptcies:
1. He is not the successful deal-maker, money-maker, dream-maker he makes out to be;
2. He doesn’t pay his suppliers and contractors, the people who give him stuff on the cuff to start up and operate.
He’s like the tenant who skips out on the rent and then says, “Hey, man, I painted the place and put up new curtains that I had to leave behind. I lost out too”.nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:26 am
January 20, 2018:nk (dbc370) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:33 am
papertiger: President Trump, you’ve been President for one year now and I have seen a single brick laid on our southern border. Where’s that wall you promised?
Trump: Maybe you believe in Santa Claus too, loser? You ought to know all ventures don’t succeed. Yes, I promised to build that wall but you know hard it is to get things done with all our good jobs going to China. You’re disappointed but I lost more than you did, you shark.
From the story here.
So there’s a difference in all our versions.
I was closer to Trump’s number. Want to play he said she said?papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 1:48 am
Further on it says;
Two comparable properties sold to Mr. Trump for well over National Review’s number they said was offered to Mrs. Coking. That’s not conjecture.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 2:08 am
On that logic, we should bring back Pat Buchanan as he was probably the first Presidential Candidate to advocate the wall.Bob Schmidt (0dd63c) — 2/8/2016 @ 4:51 am
national soros radio follows new york times
spins spins spins for roobs
while obscuring his message
they favored meghan’s coward p.o.s. daddy at this point in 2008 too
Rs should be waryhappyfeet (831175) — 2/8/2016 @ 4:55 am
I came back to apologize to John. Sorry for the gum chewing and driving comment.
In this world if you hold the wrong political beliefs, you stick your nose out an inch, the forces of evil will destroy you. Not just disagree with you.
Destroy you utterly and completely. I’m thinking of the CEO at Mozilla forced out over a campaign donation.
So I don’t blame you turtling up. You got a job driving a truck. That’s your livelihood. There are people would take it away from you if you say the wrong thing, back the wrong candidate, stick your head up a little out of the fox hole, comment at the wrong blog.
I probably stick my nose out too far. Who knows? Maybe you’re doing me a favor.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 6:40 am
I quoted National Review, which said $1 million. You quoted your hindquarters, from which you pulled the number $5 million. Now you cite the NYT, which has the victim’s side saying $1.9 million at the most. (Trump’s unevidenced claim of $4 million can of course be discounted entirely as based on the word of a proven serial liar.)
Can I ask where you got “$5 million” from? Every Trumpeter on Twitter says that. Is there some Central Repository of False Pro-Trump Factoids that you all consult?Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/8/2016 @ 6:41 am
And you did not respond to the fact that Cruz brought up the wall first.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/8/2016 @ 6:42 am
I am glad that Trump came around to Ted Cruz’s position on immigration though, don’t get me wrong.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/8/2016 @ 6:44 am
Papertiger, fake apology not accepted. And your passive-aggressive accusation embedded within your fake apology noted. Again, you cannot talk about me without lying. You have proven that point over and over again. You also cannot talk about Trump or Cruz without lying. You have also proven that repetitiously.
We get it. You’re a Trump idolator, and no amount of truth or evidence will ever tear down your Trump Sanctuary, or stop you from all your lies.John Hitchcock (23ab19) — 2/8/2016 @ 7:33 am
papertiger I refuse to believe you’re a bad guy.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:34 pm
Try as hard as you want. The roll just doesn’t fit you.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:36 pm
Come back to the light, papertiger.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 12:49 pm
Mark Levin is playing these videos as I type. : )L.N. Smithee (e750c1) — 2/8/2016 @ 4:12 pm
Qin Shi Huang connected fortifications built by various states into the first border wall over 2000 years ago.
Let’s do the chicken and the egg next.
The question is do you believe Ted Cruz can be elected? Then afterwards, will he be able to marshal the political capital to build a wall if elected?
The answer to both of those questions is no.
Trump is a good man. Better than Pat gives him credit for. Trump can be elected. He has the unique ability to drain Democrat cross over votes. Trump will have the political capital to build a wall.
The people will have spoken.
Pat has the same personal problem with regards to Trump as John Hitchcock has with regards to me.
The same unthinking reflexive bias.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Steve. I think you’re alright too.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/8/2016 @ 5:34 pm
Trump is getting the publicity for his position on the wall.
Cruz could learn from Trump on how to get people to understand your position on the issues.Ustuplay (4dd398) — 2/8/2016 @ 6:13 pm
I wonder how to get audio. Do I have to wait three days for the podcast?Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/8/2016 @ 6:16 pm
Trump is not a good man.Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:50 pm
No, he is not a good man.Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 9:54 pm
“Build that danged wall!”kauf buch (c61654) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:01 pm
Yeah, yeah…just like John McCain,
Cruz was TALKING about it…and talking, and talking….
And Trump is doing what?Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:09 pm
Trump didn’t commit a heinous crime. I don’t care that Hillary! may never be convicted of her crimes.
Maybe Trump will go on to commit crimes. Dunno.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:26 pm
Trump’s a heinous person. That perhaps there may not be laws against the bad things he’s done isn’t a point in his favor.
Which of them would you trust less with your wallet? What about with your wife?Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:36 pm
There is much to admire in this.
Get that thought out of your head right now. We’re discussing Olympic weightlifting.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:41 pm
But there are laws against the bad things Hillary! has done.
And I don’t have to like Trump to notice.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:45 pm
I don’t see why the existence of laws against Clinton’s offenses makes them worse than Trump’s. But more importantly, I’d sooner trust Clinton than Trump with my wallet, or with my wife, so why shouldn’t I feel the same way about my country. I’m uneasy trusting either one of them with any of these, but if I must trust one of them, I think Clinton’s the one slightly less likely to run off with it.Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:48 pm
(Running off with a country is a somewhat difficult image, of course)Milhouse (87c499) — 2/8/2016 @ 11:49 pm
Few things leave me in such a state of disgust that I’m speechless. But you’ve managed it, Milhouse.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:13 am
I don’t get it. How do you think it so obvious that Trump is less likely than Clinton to run off with the country, so to speak, that you’re disgusted that someone may make the opposite assessment?Milhouse (87c499) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:18 am
The Clintons do have a D after their names.Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:21 am
So Republican, were he not Republican calledPatterico (86c8ed) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:23 am
Which just makes them slightly more honest.Milhouse (87c499) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:40 am
Maybe I have this crazy idea about criminals who’ve already committed the fookin’ crime.
Dunno. Maybe I’m just nutz.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/9/2016 @ 12:45 am
Ok, God’s been loading up and he’s finally giving us what we deserve.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/9/2016 @ 1:24 am
I can’t believe I’m even slightly defending this guy.Steve57 (f61b03) — 2/9/2016 @ 1:26 am
The case of the little old lady and her house is a vivid data point. But it does not matter a single bit whether Trump’s offers were fair or whether she was reasonable.
What matters is this: Donald Trump believes that government may, and indeed should, seize private property via compelled sale through eminent domain even though there is no public purpose.
That is not a hard distinction to understand.
Trump is arguing in favor of crony capitalism and graft. That’s his history. And that’s also his rhetoric: Indeed, he’s been more consistent in his position on eminent domain than on any other campaign issue.Beldar (fa637a) — 2/9/2016 @ 2:03 am
that’s a very uncharitable view of Mr. Trump i think
Atlantic City needed development
Mr. Trump tried so hard to help
but the scummy citizens – they just want to waller in their own jerseyfilth
now it’s all dollar stores and trash on the streets
it didn’t have to be this way
yuckhappyfeet (831175) — 2/9/2016 @ 2:11 am
On the contrary, according to the Wiki, New Jersey gaming helped to pay for beans, bullets, and bandages, during the American Revolution. Could there be a more compelling case of public purpose?
New Jersey Casino Control Commission http://www.njccc.gov/ is a cabinet level agency in New Jersey with commissioners police force and ever other darned thing, appointed by Chris Christie and approved by the New Jersey Senate.
Damn. I’m trying to lay low after blowing the call on the Cruz Carson CNN Iowa kerfuffel.papertiger (c2d6da) — 2/9/2016 @ 2:20 am