Trump 2.0

[Tiassa]

The need for a ballroom at the White House has been recognized for over a century. It may be the one thing Trump got right. I would like it better without the gilt. With all the gilt the Oval Office looks like the boudoir of a whore house madame.
Whatever name is on the Kennedy Center people will always refer to the complex as the Kennedy Center.
I detest the whole arch idea so I hope it is stopped.

It's always strange watching people say they're okay with part of Trump's lawbreaking becaue he's Donald Trump and that kind of lawbreaking aligns with their values.

I don't know if conservatives actually understand how much they have communicated such values over time, but, yeah, there's a reason their neighbors look so poorly upon them. And, sure, I know, "both sides", and all that, but there is a difference, and people only give themselves away pretending otherwise.

 

[TheVat]

The need for a ballroom at the White House has been recognized for over a century. It may be the one thing Trump got right.

Who recognized this? Were they "recognizing" a need for a monster party palace that overshadows the White House and duplicates beneath its gilded splendor an underground bunker which already exists? Help us out here. Your posts usually are much easier easier to make sense of.

 

[billvon]

The need for a ballroom at the White House has been recognized for over a century.

We had one - the East Room.

 

[candy]

References to the inadequacies of the East Room for large events from 1870 onward can be found. The East Room was good for the needs of a 13 state new nation. For the large events needed by a superpower they have to put tents on the White House grounds. That is not really a great look.
Trump's plans are over the top like most things he does. I can't be sure but I suspect the old bomb shelter is also not adequate to modern warfare.
I agree the "gilded splendor" should be reduced also possibly the size. Compromise is in short supply right now. Both sides can be faulted in this. A new ballroom would also reduce the wear and tear on the historic East Room.

It should also be noted that the maintenance issues at the Kennedy Center are making headlines and need to be addressed now.

I will not support the Arc de Trump. It is more of his I see it I want it childishness.

 

[TheVat]

References to the inadequacies of the East Room for large events from 1870 onward can be found. The East Room was good for the needs of a 13 state new nation. For the large events needed by a superpower they have to put tents on the White House grounds. That is not really a great look.

As I understand it, the Washington Hilton ballroom has functioned as the state ballroom, which is why no one was worrying that much about the East Room. If we the people had been allowed some sort of public debate, or at least debate of our Congress representatives, on the merits of an expensive vanity project, perhaps there could be a more lawful approach to all the issues of where state events should be hosted. The president's job is to serve the people, not his ego.

Both sides can be faulted in this.

How so? Democratic congress people were completely shut out of this process, and a basic constitutional rule of Congress allocation violated. Not sure where it's accurate to pin blame on "both sides" here.

 

[Tiassa]

Compromise is in short supply right now. Both sides can be faulted in this.

Delusional.

 

[billvon]

References to the inadequacies of the East Room for large events from 1870 onward can be found. The East Room was good for the needs of a 13 state new nation. For the large events needed by a superpower they have to put tents on the White House grounds. That is not really a great look.

A state funded palatial ballroom is an even worse look. We're a democracy, not a plutocracy that needs the trappings of wealth to prove our superiority.

The ballroom we had is fine for small events. Nearby ballrooms have worked well for larger events, and fulfilled the goal of the Founding Fathers that the US is a country led by the people, not the rich and elite.

That being said, the ballroom is about the least problematic thing we have going on right now. It is merely indicative of a much larger problem.

 

[exchemist]

References to the inadequacies of the East Room for large events from 1870 onward can be found. The East Room was good for the needs of a 13 state new nation. For the large events needed by a superpower they have to put tents on the White House grounds. That is not really a great look.
Trump's plans are over the top like most things he does. I can't be sure but I suspect the old bomb shelter is also not adequate to modern warfare.
I agree the "gilded splendor" should be reduced also possibly the size. Compromise is in short supply right now. Both sides can be faulted in this. A new ballroom would also reduce the wear and tear on the historic East Room.

It should also be noted that the maintenance issues at the Kennedy Center are making headlines and need to be addressed now.

I will not support the Arc de Trump. It is more of his I see it I want it childishness.

I don’t really see why large events need to be hosted on-site at the White House. Most other democracies hold large events at one of the numerous purpose-designed venues available in modern cities. Big ballrooms in the seat of government are typically displays of ostentation associated with the palaces of a monarch. Or a dictator.

But perhaps I am harsh. In the Old World, if one wants to impress foreign dignitaries (say) one can hold a reception in a monarch’s palace or former palace, or in one of the stately homes inherited from previous eras. But the US probably doesn’t have many grand historic buildings.

 

[TheVat]

What?

 

[Sarkus]

I guess when your country is only 250 years old, your pickings will be relatively slim, eh?
Fwiw - one of my locals is nearly twice the age of that building. There have been some "historic" nights in there, I can tell you!!!

 

[Pinball1970]

What?

Looks like a church in Mexico from a dollar western. All the villagers hide up in there ready to spring an attack on the king pin and his henchmen.
19thC? Or as we say in England, "just the other day."

 

[Sarkus]

Looks like a church in Mexico from a dollar western. All the villagers hide up in there ready to spring an attack on the king pin and his henchmen.
19thC? Or as we say in England, "just the other day."

It's the church at the Alamo. Around 280 years old.

 

[TheVat]

I guess when your country is only 250 years old, your pickings will be relatively slim, eh?
Fwiw - one of my locals is nearly twice the age of that building. There have been some "historic" nights in there, I can tell you!!!

Ha! Yes, twas a wee joke on the matter of hosting state events in "grand historic buildings," as exchemist called them.

Given the principal historic event which happened at The Alamo, I thought it perfect for Trump and a large GOP gathering.

 

[TheVat]

Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh on Tuesday let stand a lower court order blocking a Missouri congressional map that had been designed to give Republicans an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in November’s midterm elections.

Once in a while, Beer Boy surprises me. And Roberts joining the liberal minority the other day on the ballroom dissent opinion. Glimmers of light.

 

[Pinball1970]

It's the church at the Alamo. Around 280 years old.

Ballpark then.

 

[exchemist]

Ha! Yes, twas a wee joke on the matter of hosting state events in "grand historic buildings," as exchemist called them.

Given the principal historic event which happened at The Alamo, I thought it perfect for Trump and a large GOP gathering.

Haha, yes, the colonisation, by systematic immigration and then military conquest, of part of another country, in the Putin or Hitler style, is the kind of thing Trump admires all right. And that part of the rationale for instigating an uprising was that the US immigrants wanted to maintain slavery, which Mexico had abolished. Hence the noble calls for an uprising in the name of “freedom” - from laws prohibiting slavery….er…..

 

[Sarkus]

In his latest rambling speech packed with lies and nonsense, this time at the supposed Republican party convention being held prior to the mid-terms, Trump has set out a c.$1.2 trillion spending plan... giving $5,000 to every adult American... but only if the Republicans keep the House and the Senate. So, with the national debt being forecast at c.$2tn this year, here's Donald blithely slapping another $1tn on top.
Whether such bribery is legal is yet to be tested. Federal law prohibits payments that are intended to influence voting, but that might be argued that it only affects payments before the vote is cast, not a promise to pay afterward and only in the event of an overall win. I'm sure lawyers will have fun with it, anyway. And while tax-cuts could be used, this wouldn't put $5,000 in every adult American's hands as promised, as it would require them to be tax payers (not all are) with the tax-cut affecting them to the tune of $5,000. (It would be hilarious if - should they retain control of Congress and he makes good on the promise - that the tax-cuts implemented for this purpose instead overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy.)

Anyhoo - just more buffoonery from the US President.

The Republican Convention - the first to be held to drum up support for a mid-term election - was also mostly empty seats. A sign that the MAGA movement is wilting in the heat of the awful administration?

 

[exchemist]

In his latest rambling speech packed with lies and nonsense, this time at the supposed Republican party convention being held prior to the mid-terms, Trump has set out a c.$1.2 trillion spending plan... giving $5,000 to every adult American... but only if the Republicans keep the House and the Senate. So, with the national debt being forecast at c.$2tn this year, here's Donald blithely slapping another $1tn on top.
Whether such bribery is legal is yet to be tested. Federal law prohibits payments that are intended to influence voting, but that might be argued that it only affects payments before the vote is cast, not a promise to pay afterward and only in the event of an overall win. I'm sure lawyers will have fun with it, anyway. And while tax-cuts could be used, this wouldn't put $5,000 in every adult American's hands as promised, as it would require them to be tax payers (not all are) with the tax-cut affecting them to the tune of $5,000. (It would be hilarious if - should they retain control of Congress and he makes good on the promise - that the tax-cuts implemented for this purpose instead overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy.)

Anyhoo - just more buffoonery from the US President.

The Republican Convention - the first to be held to drum up support for a mid-term election - was also mostly empty seats. A sign that the MAGA movement is wilting in the heat of the awful administration?

Yes, either he would be "giving" them their own money, or he would be raising it through more government debt...which Americans would pay for in the form of higher interest rates on mortgages etc.

 

[Luchito]

In his latest rambling speech packed with lies and nonsense, this time at the supposed Republican party convention being held prior to the mid-terms, Trump has set out a c.$1.2 trillion spending plan... giving $5,000 to every adult American... but only if the Republicans keep the House and the Senate. So, with the national debt being forecast at c.$2tn this year, here's Donald blithely slapping another $1tn on top.

Funds for those $5000 will come from the tariffs.

Months ago, he promised $2000 to each American from the same tariffs. Later those $2000 were adjusted to $1700 and checks were ready to be sent very soon. Next was the announcement that the $1700 in question must pass -I think- thru Congress. Continuing with the promise, that promise has not been mentioned anymore.

President Bush said, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

 

[exchemist]

Funds for those $5000 will come from the tariffs.

Months ago, he promised $2000 to each American from the same tariffs. Later those $2000 were adjusted to $1700 and checks were ready to be sent very soon. Next was the announcement that the $1700 in question must pass -I think- thru Congress. Continuing with the promise, that promise has not been mentioned anymore.

President Bush said, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

Since tariffs are paid by the importer, i.e. by US businesses who must recover the cost via price increases, that really is just giving back the extra money the government has taken from people’s pockets by imposing tariffs.