Trump!!!

BevoBeef said:
The lines in the sand that Trump will draw in the MEast will zigzag all over the place.
Click to expand...

That is actually what the British did to the ME. Then they ran away.
Prospectively blaming Trump for the problems in the ME seems a stretch.
 
To add to the list, in general:

women
unattractive people
overweight people
people with disabilities
interviewers with bad breath
people who sweat
people who aren't white
people who ask him "hard" questions, or dare to challenge him in any way
anyone who doesn't think he is a "WINNER"
anyone who thinks is a "loser" (which is anyone that doesn't believe the statement above)
He truly is one of the great narcissists of our time.
Is "great narcissist" an oxymoron? I think so.
 
Joe Fan said:
I dont know about Virg, but that would be impossible in Texas
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? In Texas I thought it would depend upon the type of deed restrictions and right-of-way that is setup by the owner when the land is subdivided. It depends upon the history that is built into previous land sales. I am assuming that the land is rural in nature and we are not talking about making plots for urban subdivisions. I know some years ago I purchased some land where the owner was free to require certain right of ways without structures being built. The right of way depends to what access there is to utilities. My neighbor bought land a few years ago and found out afterwards that costs would be excessive in getting water to the house he was free to build. Another one of my neighbors has to haul water to his property where he lives. Choking off utility access seems to happen all the time by certain kinds of previous deed restrictions? Road access to structures can disappear if the person buying the land decides to cut the access off. The land owner can stop the private road easement if it is not originally built into the deed by guaranteed land access to a public road. Has this concept changed?

For instance, rural houses tend to be isolated on a 1-acre tract with the land around it being on a separate deed. If I lost ownership through that surrounding property for some reason, then I would lose access to my home. There is no guaranteed access to my house unless it was done when I sell that surrounding land. There is no law about which I know that protects me from being an idiot or loss of that surrounding land through repossession caused by a loan I made? Could you PM me if I am wrong in some way?
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
Many of the things Romney said about Trump today he could have said about Obama, yet never did.

It is all so weird. The RNC/Establishment types are investing more effort to defeat Trump than they ever did to defeat Obama. How do we account for this? The only explanation I can come up with at this moment is that they are concerned with their own self-interest. That, if Trump wins it all, they fear they will be swept out of the party and lose their influence. And so they are fighting to save their own turf. Not just to remain relevant, it's more than that. It's the type of fight you see from a cornered wild animal. They are fighting for their own survival -- which translates in real life to retaining their power and control. They are putting self in front of country.
Click to expand...

It is certainly interesting. I haven't decided whether the establishment is acting out of self interest (e.g. power) or interest in core values for the party.

What's of equal interest is how many conservatives are lining up to support a liberal (Donald Trump) whose only evidence of a "conversion" have been his statements on the campaign trail. Is it possible that the establishment knows the base is following a pied piper?
 
BevoBeef said:
(2) Tort reform will disappear and there will be all kinds of civil lawsuits that will start going through the legal system --- causing certain kinds of costs to increase exponentially.
Click to expand...

As Joe said, there's little he could do to undo tort reform, which has been enacted primarily at the state level. Also, he bad-mouths lawsuits all the time. He only likes his own lawsuits. Like most tort reformers he's a hypocrite.
 
Hollandtx said:
To add to the list, in general:

women
unattractive people
overweight people
people with disabilities
interviewers with bad breath
people who sweat
people who aren't white
people who ask him "hard" questions, or dare to challenge him in any way
anyone who doesn't think he is a "WINNER"
....
Click to expand...

It's like you just read my eHarmony profile out loud
 
BevoBeef said:
Are you sure about that? In Texas I thought it would depend upon the type of deed restrictions and right-of-way that is setup by the owner when the land is subdivided.....
Click to expand...

"No land-locked property" in Texas
I am certain this used to be the rule (IIRC, twas in the Const) but there was a movement to revise it. I cant remember what happened to that. Perhaps someone else will step in here with updated info.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Tell that to the Republicans who favor imposing federal tort reform as part of health care reform.
Click to expand...

I could see certain areas of the law ripe for federal intervention -- airplane crashes maybe?
Anything involving federal employees. But, generally, it will remain a state matter. And Big Picture, it should. This is the way the system was designed.
 
Seattle Husker said:
It is certainly interesting. I haven't decided whether the establishment is acting out of self interest (e.g. power) or interest in core values for the party.......
Click to expand...

I already gave my suggestion - self-interest (the key motivator for most people on most things).

But, look, it is one thing to disagree with or oppose Trump. But these guys are way more motivated than that. They are much more invested and active in beating DT today than they were beating BHO yesterday. Especially the 2nd term when he was just sitting there waiting to be knocked off. Likewise, they seem to care more about defeating Trump than Clinton. It is astounding. And kinda batshit crazy -- Trump has literally drove them insane (ha). They don't get what is happening. Their "read" on it has been and remains wrong. I do not have any sympathy for them.

And if they run someone as a 3rd party candidate (a rumor) or play games at the convention and force Trump out and into a 3P run, it will be 1992 all over again. Ironically giving a Clinton the White House (again!) with less than 50% of the vote. If they force or simply let this happen, I may go full jihadi.
 
So you don't think it's possible that the establishment believes that Trump is merely masquerading as a "conservative" thus needs to be stopped?

Maybe we are both right and that is leading the ferocity of their attacks. The establishment is out of touch with the base and now a con-man is able to walk in and say what the base wants to hear and simply lead them away. To me, that would explain the panic in the Establishment leadership.

I'd agree with BevoBeef or whomever above statements that Trump is not an ideologue. He's a bully. Look no further than his statement about Paul Ryan that if he doesn't like Trump that he'll pay a BIG price.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The establishment is out of touch with the base and now a con-man is able to walk in and say what the base wants to hear and simply lead them away.
Click to expand...
Right on. And the 'establishment' will FURTHER alienate the 'base' with its rantings. I liked Romney - really - but was very unimpressed with his rant.
 
nashhorn said:
Right on. And the 'establishment' will FURTHER alienate the 'base' with its rantings. I liked Romney - really - but was very unimpressed with his rant.
Click to expand...

I think everything Romney said about Trump was true but he has never seemed to be an accepted flagbearer of the Republican party so why choose him as the messenger? Is it because he has nothing to lose?

Incidentally, I think Paul Ryan would be the most credible to mount an attack on Trump but his position likely doesn't allow it. Can you imagine if he went to war on Trump then the Donald still takes the White House?
 
I think Paul Ryan is the most credible Repub right now period. Although I still think Rand Paul is the only one who truly gives a **** about the **** debt.
 
Joe Fan said:
I could see certain areas of the law ripe for federal intervention -- airplane crashes maybe?
Anything involving federal employees. But, generally, it will remain a state matter. And Big Picture, it should. This is the way the system was designed.
Click to expand...

Why should you have to give up your common law rights and get stuck litigating in a slow, expensive federal court system just because you're unlucky enough to have been in a plane crash?

As for federal employees, it depends on the subject matter of their claims. If they are making claims against the government, they're going to federal court and operating under federal laws anyway. However, if a federal employee is making a claim against someone else, I don't see much reason for the federal government to get involved, unless they have an interest in the case (such as subrogation).
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Why should you have to give up your common law rights and get stuck litigating in a slow, expensive federal court system just because you're unlucky enough to have been in a plane crash?....
Click to expand...

You seem to want to argue while actually agreeing. So, i got no response.
 
Joe Fan said:
You seem to want to argue while actually agreeing. So, i got no response.
Click to expand...

I interpreted your comments to suggest that air crashes would be an appropriate area for federal preemption of state tort law. If you don't think so, then we agree.
 
Imagine a private jet from Toronto to Acapulco carrying citizens of Russia develops a mechanical issue at 41,000 feet over Michigan, the cabin depressurizes killing all aboard over Oklahoma but then the jet crashes to the ground in Louisiana.
Should the Louisiana version of the Napoleonic Code be the law of the case?
 
Joe Fan said:
Imagine a private jet from Toronto to Acapulco carrying citizens of Russia develops a mechanical issue at 41,000 feet over Michigan, the cabin depressurizes killing all aboard over Oklahoma but then the jet crashes to the ground in Louisiana.
Should the Louisiana version of the Napoleonic Code be the law of the case?
Click to expand...

I thought you were agreeing with me. I guess not.

If Louisiana has jurisdiction over the defendants and the claims, then yes, Louisiana law should govern. However, in all likelihood, the case would get removed to federal court, which would apply Louisiana law.
 
What do these people ( the Mexicans and Chinese excluded) think Trump will do that is worse that the complete crap BO has and is doing?
I am not sure Trump is the guy but even He would be better than BO.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I thought you were agreeing with me. I guess not.
If Louisiana has jurisdiction over the defendants and the claims, then yes, Louisiana law should govern. However, in all likelihood, the case would get removed to federal court, which would apply Louisiana law.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot to add the plane had an Icelandic registration
Sorry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top