We are discussing what Trump said himself, not what the media says about him. Fox News simply asked him the question and he went off on his narcissist soap box about how "wonderful" he thinks eminent domain is.

The "line" between preservationism and property rights is on the other side of property rights, which come first and only. There is no "balance".

Trump has not been talking about eminent domain for preservationism, but has endorsed the general principle of forcing people to give up their private property for the so-called "public good". He may not even know that the National Park Service, as well as other agencies at all levels of government, have for a century been using eminent domain extensively to ruthlessly seize private property for wilderness, recreational and historical areas, but he has tipped us off about what he would do with traditional government power once in office as he parades his abuse in the name of the "public good".

So you think any of the other candidates are better AND have the slightest chance of being elected?

That is a bit disturbing. But I bet he reads it less than the other candidates at least. Carson disappointed me also with religious bullshit too. None of the candidates are libertarian , objectivism . AND electable

But he is "using his head". It's what he believes. Evil is much more dangerous than dumb.

Thankfully there has been a backlash against Trump for his promotion of eminent domain as "wonderful". His earlier demagoguery, nationalism, and narcissistic promotion of "deals" in place of individualistic principles of political philosophy should have tipped people off long ago as to what he is.

Well we are talking about the subject !! Whether he is president of one of the others, eminent domain is unlikely to Change at all. As far as what affects my rights this is a small issue. Immigration. Welfare. Taxation. Destruction of the dollar. Federal reserve Fighting useless wars are the biggies. The real bad guys are Hillary , sanders, Biden. Any of the republican arebetterthan those. Plan a is together someone to keep the democrats out

The "needs or desires" of the collective "as a whole" is not justified. An individual who takes others' property is a thief. The notion of the "collective" doing it is a thousand times worse, elevating theft to a collectivist principle of political philosophy. Trump's endorsement and imposition of eminent domain for the "public good" is more corrupt than his unethical business practices.

He has by his own admission exploited eminent domain to take what he wants many times. He failed against the old woman in Atlantic City and still insists he should have gotten it. He openly promotes the infamous Kelo decision expanding eminent domain authority. He not only takes people's property without conscience, he viciously insults and trashes his victims. He is a fascistic unprincipled Pragmatist on principle. It is terribly anti-intellectual to think that he would do good "despite mistakes". He has told us what he is.

Everything is not for sale. The old lady in Atlantic City NJ whose home he tried to take for a parking lot when she refused a (rare) offer many times the market value sued him and won.

A demagogue loudly promoting his statism is not "that kind of honesty" which anyone should want. Once this kind of power seeker is in office you don't get to "vote it down". The time to "vote it down" is opposing Trump now.

"We" do not allow or sanction eminent domain. The statists do that, and Trump enthusiastically exploits it while loudly endorsing it. He doesn't even say "Stop me before I do it again".

Trump shouted at a campaign rally, "What is my favorite book? The Bible." He has campaigned waving a Bible over his head, telling us it is the Bible he was given as a child. One can question if he has read it since then, but he has thoroughly absorbed the altruist-collectivist premises of religion and appeals to them just as you would expect from a demagog.

Trump did not "bring eminent domain up for debate". This has nothing in common with Snowden. He said nothing about eminent domain until he was questioned about his past unethical behavior and his response is that he is unrepentant. He is campaigning on anti-private property rights. He did not admit that eminent domain takes private property. He is trying to pretend that it does not take property. Listen to the video of his Fox interview: "So eminent domain when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it's a wonderful thing, I'll be honest with you. And remember, you're not taking private property... You're paying a fortune for that property".

We do not need a businessman to run the country. We need someone who would at least in part return to protecting the rights of the individual. That means an emphatic 'no' to an unprincipled Pragmatist and nationalist fascist who wants to run the country as if it were his own business. It is not true that he couldn't do enormous damage without Congress giving him what he wants. The President has enormous power to run the entire Federal government through his political appointees under vague powers granted by Congress long ago. Nor could Congress be expected to not go along with his statism and collectivism.

It's one thing to build something society as a whole needs or desires; it's another to build a building for your own profit.
I don't think the profit of an individual takes precedence over the property of another and even in the case of a 'Highway', the price of taking someone's property should be a heavy one.

Yes it should be abolished. But governments are the only offenders using eminent domain. It's a strictly government power. When cronies like Trump exploit it they don't do it on their own, they go through some government entity. When utility companies, including pipeline companies, use it it is under authority granted directly by government for a specific purpose deemed to be for the "public good". Eminent domain is based on a collectivist premise.

Eminent domain does not have a "place" in a free society, It has very big place in this society.

The more people dislike Trump I feel they are threatened by his anti establishment mentality. He would shake things up, and if that ALL he did, I would be happy. Too much cronyism is hidden now that people get away with. He is admitting openly he uses the system, with the clear implication that the system is broken and needs fixing.

The only "change" Trump is for...is what he can squeeze out the 'celebrity' of being POTUS. He understands the market value of sycophants that could care less about his ethics after he leaves office. He would make Clinton and Obama look like pikers.

I agree Rand Paul would never make it through the mill. Thats why it seems no one is even bothering to disparage him. Trump would demolish Hillary given all her sneakiness and manipulations. But I think we will never get to see Rand vs Hillary in one of their manipulated debates. She will see to it that never happens. The more people disparage Trump, the more I think the country needs what he can do

As with nearly anything, eminent domain can be abused. It has a place, but the Kelo decision was truly an epicly bad decision.

He clarified his statement which was taken out of context. He's not as pro-gun as some other candidates, but at least he wants to deal with the real issue: the lack of fathers in black America and the lack of mental health controls. I'd personally take Carson over Trump in a heartbeat.

For term2: Old saying: "Hypocrisy is the homage
that vice pays to virtue." When someone brazenly
tramples all over individual rights, what have we
got left?
I didn't really think that Trump was a free-
enterprise man, but I didn't know he would turn
out to be as bad as this. Ayn Rand quite proper-
ly condemned the notion that "Man's rights can-
not be violated except for a good purpose."
You either have a right to your property, or you
do not. Eminent domain is a brazen violation of
the rights of man. I am certainly not going to
vote for Trump in the Republican primary.