Jump to content

Political Forum

Talk local, state and national politics


9,025 topics in this forum

  1. Please

    • 4 replies
    • 3.1k views
  2. Follow

    • 2 replies
    • 2k views
  3. Rules

    • 2 replies
    • 1.9k views
  4. Forum

    • 2 replies
    • 2.3k views
  5. Thank

    • 1 reply
    • 1.9k views
    • 0 replies
    • 8.2k views
  6. You

    • 0 replies
    • 2k views
    • 1.4k replies
    • 46.7k views
  7. Trump Running in 2024 1 2 3 4 36

    • 883 replies
    • 30.2k views
    • 826 replies
    • 30.9k views
  8. Political Memes 1 2 3 4 32

    • 783 replies
    • 58.6k views
    • 639 replies
    • 18.4k views
  9. Global Warming Update! 1 2 3 4 23

    • 572 replies
    • 34.6k views
    • 570 replies
    • 14.6k views
    • 546 replies
    • 39.4k views
    • 456 replies
    • 15.2k views
    • 440 replies
    • 9.5k views
  10. President Trump! 1 2 3 4 17

    • 413 replies
    • 17.8k views
    • 403 replies
    • 10.1k views
    • 398 replies
    • 15.1k views
    • 396 replies
    • 19.4k views
  11. Minneapolis 1 2 3 4 16

    • 386 replies
    • 14.2k views
    • 381 replies
    • 14k views
  12. Can You Hear Me Now? 1 2 3 4 15

    • 353 replies
    • 12k views
    • 340 replies
    • 10k views
  13. Ferguson 1 2 3 4 14

    • 335 replies
    • 18.1k views
    • 332 replies
    • 9.8k views
  14. Biden's Pick? 1 2 3 4 13

    • 308 replies
    • 9.5k views
    • 307 replies
    • 13.9k views
    • 294 replies
    • 8.1k views
    • 282 replies
    • 11.1k views
    • 281 replies
    • 13.8k views
  15. Cruz Control! 1 2 3 4 12

    • 276 replies
    • 16.9k views
    • 270 replies
    • 8.6k views
    • 262 replies
    • 15.4k views
    • 261 replies
    • 6.5k views
    • 260 replies
    • 11.1k views
    • 257 replies
    • 7.4k views
    • 252 replies
    • 11.6k views
    • 252 replies
    • 11k views
    • 251 replies
    • 11.4k views
    • 245 replies
    • 10.1k views
  16. gun free zones! 1 2 3 4 10

    • 239 replies
    • 8.9k views
    • 233 replies
    • 10.2k views
  17. Obamacare 1 2 3 4 10

    • 232 replies
    • 12.9k views
  18. Bad Or Good Ones? 1 2 3 4 9

    • 219 replies
    • 13.9k views
    • 217 replies
    • 5.9k views
    • 215 replies
    • 6.7k views
    • 214 replies
    • 8k views
    • 212 replies
    • 9.5k views
  19. The NFL 1 2 3 4 9

    • 206 replies
    • 9.2k views
  20. Garland Texas 1 2 3 4 9

    • 204 replies
    • 9.9k views
  21. Can Trump beat Clinton? 1 2 3 4 9

    • 203 replies
    • 13.5k views
    • 201 replies
    • 9.9k views
  22. 2016 Election 1 2 3 4 9

    • 200 replies
    • 9.7k views
  23. Roy Moore 1 2 3 4 8

    • 199 replies
    • 9.2k views
    • 197 replies
    • 7.9k views
    • 195 replies
    • 9.2k views
  24. I Hope All 3 Runs... 1 2 3 4 8

    • 193 replies
    • 10.5k views
    • 193 replies
    • 5.1k views


  • Live & Upcoming Broadcasts

  • Posts

    • 3 yrs ago LCM and Vidor played in Vidor for a play in game.  Game was on a Saturday and started around 1 or 2p.
    • It would shock me beyond belief if he tried to. Now, I hope and pray he appoints people that will investigate, charge, and imprison anyone found guilty of the crimes against him...including treason. I would be all for a special task force charged solely with the task of investigating crimes against Trump. Of course the Democrats will be screaming bloody murder that Trump is weaponizing the government against them. We all know the story. From a cursory standpoint, there seems to be a plethora of evidence to lock up many Democrats for a long time. Unless this is done, I see no end to destruction of our political system...and this country.
    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
×
×
  • Create New...