quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
if there was ever a case for imminent domain, an international border zone would qualify, IMO.

They tried that a few years ago on the Brownsville end of the Rio Grande and got shot down in court.

quote:

frankly, when the country was formed it was a mistake to not create a border zone of sufficient width to effectively defend - before any patents and deeds were ever created/given out.

An excellent thought in retrospect, but what is now the border had been settled by the Spanish about a hundred years before it became a border. On top of that, much of that border is either river or old river bottom, which in turn makes it very valuable farmland in an arid or semiarid environment. There hasn't been a time when that land could've been handed out without patents, deeds and water rights since the Karankawa let Cabeza de Vaca escape alive.

hmm. I'll have to read up on the Brownsville case. was it Texas or the Fed who tried? what was the argument, and details? (there are many reasons it may have lost that are unrelated to the efficacy of the idea itself, court cases going the way they do). interesting, though. thanks...

in any case, I believe one could run the Title History, patent to present, on every single acre/tract of non-government owned land within the contiguous United States, irrespective of its origin or history, which is to say - there is *no* non-government owned land along our border (or elsewhere) that was *not* enveloped into the US then formalized and originally transferred by a patent from the Fed to so and so back then - and then every successive conveyance thereafter, which is also to say - they're generally as eligible for ID as any other tract, right?, as it all exists within this sovereign country, and was all sold or given on a case by case, tract by tract, patent by patent, basis. is this not correct in all cases? are there truly land obligations to non government entities that supersede our regular patent and title process? (I have a bunch of experience with such things, but certainly don't know everything.). (Indian reservations aside)

further, Title and related legal hurdles aside, a border zone makes for as substantive an argument as *anything* that has ever been done in a "National Security" context, and we've already seen the length the government can and will go to in such pursuits. if done right, framed correctly, I could see it spun up and done no less quickly than we could and would tool up and build a shitton of anything else to ensure our security or survival if the need arose (see WWII).

I think the argument needs framing correctly, then handled as NS and ID, and all exceptions be dealt with actually fairly (if it fucks over these 11 families, or 111, pay them actual value, maybe give em some federal land elsewhere, or pipe the irrigation water the extra 200m to them, whatever, those are rather trivial problems in a global sense...). in the big picture, having a secure border has a value which far exceeds any supposed loss to those affected along it (and in the end, what are we talking about, maybe a 1/4 wide strip or something... maybe just 200m or something... small potatoes, IMO. (a narrower Korean-ish DMZ would work out famously, IMO)

(and yes, I know a "wall" or "zone" isn't the end all be all solution, but the degree to which it's also a "no shit" sort of thing is staggering. again, I believe it was a monumental oversight, in need of fixing.) And I believe if can be accomplished fairly, quickly, and effectively.

Or a mine field. Who cares what form it takes if it works.

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
If trump is elected, he very well might redo the EPA actions to testing pool water, and pull their teeth. I would say that probably extend to every alphabet agency that has overstepped themselves.

Seems to me that he should have the power to just kill the EPA by executive order. If not that, then just do not put them into the budget. No money, they all go home.

Wow, just wow..Because it was "random" people polled, not Republican specific.. Edit:... Apparently it was Republican.. My mistake. The article said random, but the referred link was Republican.. Edit #2.. Heck Maybe it was random poll. The 2nd poll lead says " latest national Republican nomination poll", but again says "random survey of 3,567 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election." at end of root poll article here: http://www.peoplespunditdaily....can-nomination-poll/

Poll: Donald Trump Sets Record, Hits 40 Percent in New Poll

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...percent-in-new-poll/

Donald Trump, the GOP frontrunner, hit the 40 percent marker in a recent Gravis Marketing poll. According to a report, this is the first time a candidate has reached above the 30 percent mark.

Since the previous survey done by Gravis Marketing on July 31, Trump increased almost 10 points. Dr. Ben Carson increased 7 points and was named the winner in a Post GOP Debate Poll.

Trump, Carson, and Fiorina three of the top five GOP presidential candidates, have never held office.

The Gravis results were as follows:

Donald Trump – 40.1%

Ben Carson – 13%

Jeb Bush – 10%

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
96%
– 7 %

Carly Fiorina – 5.2%

John Kasich – 4.8%

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
80%
– 4.7%

Mike Huckabee – 3.7%

Scott Walker – 3.5%

Rick Perry – 1.5%

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
93%
– 1.5%

Chris Christie – 1.4%

George Pataki – 1.1%

Rick Santorum – 1%

Bobby Jindal – 0.9%

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
47%
– 0.6%

The poll surveyed 3,567 voters randomly across the United States. It had a margin of error of plus or minus two percent and was conducted August 21-22.

40%?

damn.

The above numbers aside, I can't see Trump going very far. This thread title has it right.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
This thread title has it right.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
hmm. I'll have to read up on the Brownsville case.

I'm sorry, I got that backwards. There have been a couple of court losses such as against UT Pan Am, but generally the feds are winning those lawsuits. For future reference, it turns out Homeland Security already has the statutory power to waive all kinds of the usual restrictions, including environmental regulations.

Even with a 30%, there's 70% out there in a large field. The field WILL narrow. Have to see where those other percents will go.

I think more than any other election the polls for this primary are worthless. How many supporters will actually go out and vote, will they swamp the polling places or will they vaporize? Traditional polling has no way of knowing this - a primary debate that drew 24 million viewers...More than the general election viewers in the last presidential election? Yep - the polls are worthless, time will tell when the first few primaries are actually tallied.

I may not agree with Trump 1/2 the time on the issues. But damn, at least he's trying to help his country. You can't say that about the other politicians.

my spelling sucks today. geez. eminent, not imminent.

quote:

Originally posted by maximus_flavius:
I may not agree with Trump 1/2 the time on the issues. But damn, at least he's trying to help his country. You can't say that about the other politicians.

Other than constitution rights, I am willing to vote for Trump even if it means only agreeing with him in a mostly sense.

As long as it is actually serving the greater good of the country, I think I can deal with the disagreements.

But we don't even get that from the Establishment old guard types at this point.
It is time to do and vote differently this time around. We have had enough of the same old same old, haven't we?

I'd say forget building a wall or a fence at the border, just load the entire border full of land mines. After a few go off, drug trafficers and illegal immigrants probably would think 3 times before attempting it.

Source

What does the Chinese banner say in the upper left hand corner?

It's the name and artist signature of the inspiration for that piece.

The Great Wave off Kanagawa

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Somebody get these commies a tissue! Dems petition Obama to remove Trump's name from DC hotel

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Ah, I see. Thanks.

Somebody get these commies a tissue! Dems petition Obama to remove Trump's name from DC hotel

So he can't have his own name on his own hotel?

He'll have his name on his own hotel, yes. I just love that the commies are so agitated right now. Everyone, thank The Donald.

I really do hope he goes further than anyone thought! He has the balls to say and do what needs to be done. Maybe it'll make some of the left and left/moderates...hell, even the old school Reps come to realize status quo isn't working. Let's get back on track!