It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GoFundMe To Reimburse Border Wall Campaign Donors

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TinySickTears

unless I really don't understand your story, all the money is being refunded to the people who offered it, so in the end, there ins't a crime here. The dude did something he believed in, and it didn't work. But rather than just talk # about the problem, he stepped up and did something. It's a shame people like him are so rare.



i dont know what you dont understand.

i also never said he committed a crime

what i said was he started a gofundme based on a lie

the money is not going where he claimed it would

just current events man


part of the story is he feels like his crew can get the wall built cheaper and faster than the gov

so dont forget to opt in



And????

To be fair it's historical fact that the private sector gets things done far cheaper than the gov does in almost all instances......


Hmm - show me where you got that so-called fact?

Medicare spends 5% of it's funds on administration; private sector insurance roughly 15%. How is that cheaper?




posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

Has the republican party really moved towards favoring an overbearing federal government seizing privately owned property?


Do you know what happens EVERY time a new road is built? Is that overbearing? I guess now it is though it has never been in the past..



If republicans are now ok with seizing private property, then is it ok to take everyone's guns too?


If they need to build a road where my guns are I'll just move them...deal?



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Do you know what happens EVERY time a new road is built?


A national emergency is declared to build it?

I'm aware of eminent domain, and you appear to have missed the point being made.
edit on 1/13/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

The guy is a conman like Trump. Its one con man jumping on the bandwagon of another conman… Trump's political scam and trying to take advantage of all the dupes that Trump has used and deceived.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: TinySickTears

The guy is a conman like Trump. Its one con man jumping on the bandwagon of another conman… Trump's political scam and trying to take advantage of all the dupes that Trump has used and deceived.


Except that if it doesnt go to fund exactly what he says it will and the money is spent, he will go to prison for fraud..........

Just like the couple and the fake homeless guy who conned people out of 400k on go fund me.........

So try again...........



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

A national emergency is declared to build it?

I'm aware of eminent domain, and you appear to have missed the point being made.


Your point was that people didn't want to lose their view, but for some reason now that would be OK if Congress gave Trump the money, but if Trump uses a different means to get the money then it is not OK. Congress already approved a wall a number of times already, they just don't want Trump to have a wall...



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears


he said his non profit would build it

Then it was a hoax from the start. As I think you pointed out (been a busy day), only the government has the right to use Eminent Domain and I'd bet good money his non-profit doesn't own all the land just north of the US-Mexico border.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd


Everything I've seen (including looking at the laws themselves) say it goes to the general fund and Congress has to allocate it.

That's pretty much what I got, I just am not sure I have the whole story. Thanks.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears


GoFundMe To Reimburse Border Wall Campaign Donors


Nah, those that were stupid or gullible enough to donate should not be reimbursed.

Gofundme should just donate it all to a charity or something.



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: TinySickTears


GoFundMe To Reimburse Border Wall Campaign Donors


Nah, those that were stupid or gullible enough to donate should not be reimbursed.

Gofundme should just donate it all to a charity or something.


Its not gofundme's money, Looks like youre pro theft.........nice......



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Your point was that people didn't want to lose their view, but for some reason now that would be OK if Congress gave Trump the money, but if Trump uses a different means to get the money then it is not OK. Congress already approved a wall a number of times already, they just don't want Trump to have a wall...


Yeeeeeeah, you missed the point entirely, and are off on some strange tangent.

The point of that post was in regards to the risks of setting the precedent of declaring a National Emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private property. Not a smart precedent to set, or to support.

Traditionally, conservatives have taken serious issue with notions of the seizure of personal property, and with eminent domain laws. Times sure are a changin'.


originally posted by: Xtrozero
Congress already approved a wall a number of times already, they just don't want Trump to have a wall...


Congress has never approved "a wall". They've approved sections of wall and fencing in specific areas that it made fiscal and practical sense.
edit on 1/13/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

Yeeeeeeah, you missed the point entirely, and are off on some strange tangent.

The point of that post was in regards to the risks of setting the precedent of declaring a National Emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private property. Not a smart precedent to set, or to support.


There are 31 active right now, 3 of them are Trumps. Obama had 12 Bush had 13 and Clinton had 17..nothing new, or setting precedent. He could easily lump the wall into Opioid Epidemic emergency, or having 15 million??? illegals here right now an emergency.




Traditionally, conservatives have taken serious issue with notions of the seizure of personal property, and with eminent domain laws. Times sure are a changin'.


I think you mean libertarian





Congress has never approved "a wall". They've approved sections of wall and fencing in specific areas that it made fiscal and practical sense.


Secure fence act of 2006, and the term "wall" has been used a number of times by democratic leadership in the last 10+ years. So tell me just what is a secured fence that over time 65 billion has been allowed for, what is the purpose of a secured fence, and what does that mean?



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
There are 31 active right now, 3 of them are Trumps. Obama had 12 Bush had 13 and Clinton had 17..nothing new, or setting precedent.


Again you miss the point. How many of those were used to enact pet policies that seize private property?





edit on 1/13/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

Again you miss the point. How many of those were used to enact pet policies that seize private property?



I didn't miss your point I don't agree with it. How are you going to secure the border without a foundation to start from...open desert now secure it... hasn't worked so far lol. It is not a pet policy, it was a full blown campaign promise that he said he would do, and he got voted into office to do it. Just because other Presidents have ignored the illegal alien issue and kicked the can down the road doesn't mean Trump should do the same.

The only reason not to pay for it is pure 100% political...give me a break...


edit on 13-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I didn't miss your point I don't agree with it.


So you don't agree that private property will be seized if he declares a National Emergency to divert emergency funds from disaster relief towards building his wall?

It seems you are the one who doesn't understand eminent domain.


originally posted by: Xtrozero
It is not a pet policy, it was a full blown campaign promise that he said he would do, and he got voted into office to do it.


Campaign promises are the definition of "pet policies" whether they're full blown, or not. Trump's pet policies were more coal, banning Muslims, and Mexico paying for a border wall.

Also, this is not "full blown" because what he promised he would do is to have Mexico pay for it, not American taxpayers. He got voted in mostly because he wasn't Hillary, and partially because his alleged "deal-making prowess" was going to have Mexico paying for one of his pet policies.


originally posted by: Xtrozero
The only reason not to pay for it is pure 100% political...give me a break...


I'd say him keeping his actual promise is a pretty damn good reason for Americans not to pay for it. If he was elected to be a master deal maker, then lets see him back it up and make a deal.


Regardless, it looks like Kolfage is in way over his head if he thinks he's actually going to effectively and privately build a wall across federal and private land. It was a cute gesture of support for Trump, but notions of a GFM wall happening are half baked at best, and fraudulent at worst.
edit on 1/13/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage


How many of those were used to enact pet policies that seize private property?

All of them were used for pet projects. The only thing the adjective pet brings to the discussion is that the project is wanted by someone... and the connotation of being a project only due to an individual's personal desire, which is not applicable in this discussion.

As for using Eminent Domain, several government projects have used Eminent Domain, from highways to pipelines to a private development project in New Jersey not long ago. I fail to see any correlation between a project using Eminent Domain being pursued under Congressional approval or via National Emergency. The development project was, IMO, a gross overreach of Eminent Domain and yet contained no National Emergency Declaration.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: TinySickTears

The guy is a conman like Trump. Its one con man jumping on the bandwagon of another conman… Trump's political scam and trying to take advantage of all the dupes that Trump has used and deceived.


Except that if it doesnt go to fund exactly what he says it will and the money is spent, he will go to prison for fraud..........

Just like the couple and the fake homeless guy who conned people out of 400k on go fund me.........

So try again...........


And just like Trump will one day go to prison that is if he doesn't pardon himself.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: TinySickTears

The guy is a conman like Trump. Its one con man jumping on the bandwagon of another conman… Trump's political scam and trying to take advantage of all the dupes that Trump has used and deceived.


Except that if it doesnt go to fund exactly what he says it will and the money is spent, he will go to prison for fraud..........

Just like the couple and the fake homeless guy who conned people out of 400k on go fund me.........

So try again...........


And just like Trump will one day go to prison that is if he doesn't pardon himself.


Really showing the depth of how you understand the gov in that statement arent ya


2nd. We all know I wasnt a Trump cheerleader, but the truth is 2 years and nothing......
3rd. If Hillary and company arent going down you can be sure no one else is.....they wouldnt allow that house of cards to fall.....

You really need to meditate or something, your Anti-Trump rhetoric is getting the best of you man, we have had some great debates, but I have seen a huge change in how you use to process information, and how youve let your feelings over ride logic on a lot........

Stop letting Trump rent so much space in your head for free



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: redmage

All of them were used for pet projects.


So all of those National Emergencies were declared to enact pet policies which seized private property?

I don't think so.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
The only thing the adjective pet brings to the discussion is that the project is wanted by someone... and the connotation of being a project only due to an individual's personal desire, which is not applicable in this discussion.


I said pet policy, not pet project. This policy happens to involve a project, but not all projects are policies.

I'm not sure why you're going straw-man on all of this.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
As for using Eminent Domain, several government projects have used Eminent Domain, from highways to pipelines to a private development project in New Jersey not long ago.


I'm aware, but were National Emergencies declared for those? Nope.

I still think that declaring a National Emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private property is a dangerous road to go down. Like I said previously, that just might kick open the door for the next Dem to declare a national emergency for climate change and seize "fuel-inefficient" trucks/SUVs, or declare a National Emergency with the 1st school shooting on their watch and seize firearms. The possibilities go on and on.
edit on 1/14/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage


So all of those National Emergencies were declared to enact pet policies which seized private property?

Hmmm... you do have a short attention span, don't you?


I said pet policy, not pet project.

Oh! My bad! You certainly did say "policy."

The description of the adjective "pet" still applies.


I'm aware, but were National Emergencies declared for those? Nope.

Er, that was my point. If property can be questionably seized under Eminent Domain anyway without declaring a National Emergency, what is the difference between that and using a National Emergency? That's sort of like picking up a bag of rotted apples and declaring "I'd better put these in the freezer or they'll ruin!"


I still think declaring a National Emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private property is a dangerous road to go down. Like I said previously, that just might kick open the door for the next Dem to declare a national emergency for climate change and seize "fuel-inefficient" trucks/SUVs, or declare a National Emergency with the 1st school shooting on their watch and seize firearms. The possibilities go on and on.

That is a strawman argument.

Eminent Domain exists because land cannot be moved. If a highway needs to be built, the land for that highway must be continuous and follow a route that makes sense from an environmental, economical, and practical perspective. One person or even a small group of people could block a project that would benefit the rest of the country. That is the only reason we have Eminent Domain. The Constitution even allows for the seizing of property, as long as the owner is compensated.

We're really not even talking about seizing property, either. We're talking about forcing an easement, which is simply an area where the US government has the right to construct and access the border wall. A little semantic, I know, but there is some difference.

The Constitution does not allow for the seizing of firearms or vehicles or anything like that; it forbids it. Trump is not violating the Constitution with any National Emergency Declaration over the wall... one could easily argue he is supporting it by taking necessary steps to fulfill his duties in protecting the sovereignty of the United States. I fail to see how one could make that same argument over a BMW.

Incidentally, firearms have been seized by a government already, and in recent memory. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, that was a common practice in New Orleans. Come to think of it, I believe that was under a National Emergency... I could be wrong.

TheRedneck







 
18
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join