By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The current political climate necessitates that Democrats understand how to confront those in power, especially when dealing with Donald Trump’s abusive tactics. With Trump punishing Democratic states by freezing federal funding, New Jersey should respond by withholding federal taxes to backfill illegally cut funding and using eminent domain on Trump’s Bedminster golf course for affordable housing. These actions are crucial, as Trump has demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, even endangering citizens and attempting to cancel crucial infrastructure projects. It is imperative that Democrats show resolve, mirroring the strategies of survivors by setting boundaries and fighting back against such abuse of power.
Read the original article here
Trump took Gateway money, we must take his golf club.
The core of the conversation revolves around a direct response to Trump’s actions, specifically his freezing of funds for the Gateway Tunnel project. The idea, put forth by Katie Brennan, a Democratic nominee, is not just to passively react but to actively fight back using the leverage states possess. The primary proposals are clear: withhold federal tax payments and seize Trump’s Bedminster golf course through eminent domain. This approach is framed as a necessary countermeasure against what is described as “textbook abuse” and a form of punishment against states that are seen as Democratic strongholds.
Withholding federal taxes is presented as a powerful financial lever, especially considering the substantial amounts New Jersey, and other blue states, contribute to the IRS. The aim is to match, dollar for dollar, any funding that is illegally cut by Trump. The second part of the plan, using eminent domain to take Trump’s golf course for affordable housing, adds a layer of symbolism. It directly targets a property of significant value to him, while simultaneously addressing a critical societal need – the housing crisis. The proposal aims to disrupt his financial and public image while also challenging his dominance and perceived authority.
The idea of using eminent domain is also seen as a way to get back at Trump and his perceived abuses of power. Some comments suggest the seizure of Trump Tower or other properties he values, highlighting the desire to hit him where it hurts most, to undermine his perceived authority. Concerns, however, are raised about potential legal challenges, fairness to the course employees, and the possibility of opening the door for similar actions by opposing parties. While some believe it could backfire, others believe it can be a successful response to Trump’s behavior and perceived exploitation of power.
Further ideas arise, such as investigating the golf course for ties to the Epstein sex trade, an attempt to uncover potential wrongdoing and hold Trump accountable. Another element proposed is using his properties for facilities that may be seen as unfavorable by Trump, such as ICE detention facilities. The point is to make him experience the same treatment and policies he has historically used against others. The discussion evolves into thoughts about symbolic actions, such as renaming parks after figures who would upset Trump or incorporating features that would undermine his image. The consensus is clear: a direct and proactive response is needed to push back against what many perceive as Trump’s bullying tactics.
The conversation then transitions to discussing alternative actions that could inflict the most damage. While some suggest financial hits like a “Trump homeless spa,” or the symbolic move of building affordable housing adjacent to the golf course, the overall thought is to make Trump feel the same pain he inflicted on others. The importance of making a statement that highlights his perceived lack of consideration for others is important. The goal is to counter his efforts to punish blue states for their political inclinations, and the proposals reflect a willingness to go beyond mere words and engage in concrete actions.
There are also concerns about the practical implications of this type of action. The main concern is whether the plans are legally sound and will be able to withstand legal challenges. Some argue that seizing property for political reasons may be vulnerable to legal disputes and could potentially set a dangerous precedent. This is a crucial point to consider. Another concern is that these moves might lead to a drawn-out legal battle with the federal government. Even so, the core of the proposition stands: blue states should respond to Trump’s actions with their own strong-arm tactics.
Ultimately, the discussion supports the call to take proactive measures, to “middle finger him and undermine his perceived authority at every possible opportunity”. This is a clear statement of intent, reflecting a desire to challenge Trump’s authority and retaliate against what is perceived as a form of political abuse. It stresses the importance of a strong, direct response that aims to hit Trump where it hurts – his finances, his public image, and his sense of power.