Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Rasulis]

All I can hope is they turn out is so strong it blows the Republican gerrymanders out entirely and turns into a Dummymander while it causes the Democrat gerrymanders to become super efffective and give them full if not near super majorities in both houses to the point they can’t even attempt to give power away to avoid doing their jobs.

Two can play the game. For a long time, Democratic states have been holding back in the name of fairness. Time to stop doing that. States like NY, WA, OR, IL and PA can easily be gerrymandered to Democrats advantage.

GOP is actually at a disadvantage in a full all out gerrymandering war. Other than Texas and Florida, other Republican-leaning states have been gerrymandered pretty extensively, that they can make only marginal gains by redrawing their maps.

[Xyonai]

The Regime has started sending Federal Agents to harass and intimidate people who participated in protests.

[tehdang]

I'll keep noting that "every president does it" ends up being these two examples consistently. Almost like not "every president does it".

I'm tailoring the examples to specifically the East Wing, since that's what's being replaced now.

If you want my posts even longer, and if the history is of interest to you, state so.

Once more you dishonestly ignore people pointing all this out and focus on irrelevant facts that are not in question.

I ignore posters that argue in bad faith, troll or otherwise post dishonestly, and repeatedly engage in ad hominem attacks. I recommend that to everyone that thinks those words describe myself. Just don't engage with people you can't respect, or can't otherwise extend the presumption that they actually mean what they say.

What other presidents did major renovations involving demolition? How many?

I hate to say something so basic about construction, but when you change something, you destroy what was there before. Truman thoroughly demolished the executive residence and reconstructed it. Roosevelt destroyed to build a swimming pool, and Nixon filled that pool in to make the press briefing room. This is a tautology. As before, I am typing history that it's more efficient to google and grasp the scale of a nation 250 years old and one where the White House was once burnt down. Since this is the second or third time you cried out for details, let me give you National Review's editorial and summary, appropriately called No Trump, isn't destroying the White House

Judging by the morose and hysterical rhetoric that has emanated from the Democratic Party and its ideological allies during the past couple of days, one might have thought that President Trump had announced his intention to send a squadron of B-2 bombers across the Potomac to completely level Washington, D.C. Having shared a carefully cropped photograph of construction at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, complained yesterday evening that, by making his well-publicized changes to the East Wing, Donald Trump is “literally destroying the White House.” In no less an indignant tone, former First Lady Hillary Clinton agreed, griping that “it’s not his house. It’s your house. And he’s destroying it.” Elsewhere, Kennedy scion Maria Shriver confessed that the project “breaks my heart and it infuriates me,” while The Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last insisted that “razing the Trump ballroom and restoring the White House to pre-Trump status is non-negotiable.” In the usual circles, the usual suspects were thrilled to agree.

Of all the reasons to criticize President Trump, this must count as the silliest. Often, Trump deserves the opprobrium that is cast his way. Here, he most decidedly does not. This, to put it plainly, is a non-story, a freakout, a fiction spun from whole cloth. There is not a grain of truth here, but a vacuum. Trump is replacing a handful of office buildings with a ballroom. That’s it. No more, and no less.

As a general matter, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a president making changes to the White House. Nor, for that matter, is there anything sinister about his approving complicated construction projects that involve the temporary removal of one of its walls. Over the years, presidents of both parties and of all leadership styles have done precisely this, and nobody has cared one whit. Some of those presidents, such as Harry Truman and Theodore Roosevelt, used public money to pay for their modifications. Some, such as John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, and Gerald Ford, raised private funds. In all cases, they left the White House in a different state than they found it; in no cases did that decision imply incipient fascism, betray an inappropriate sense of permanent ownership, or justify tears and outrage from the president’s political critics.

The history of the White House is one of frequent revision. Started in 1792, the project was completed in 1800, at the tail end of John Adams’s sole term. In 1814, during the War of 1812, it was so badly damaged by British soldiers after the Battle of Bladensburg that it required substantial rebuilding — a project that began in 1815 and ended in 1817, during the first Monroe administration. The South Portico was added in 1824, for James Monroe, and a balcony was added to it in 1948, for Harry Truman. The North Portico was added in 1830, for John Quincy Adams. Since then, various ancillary elements have been added or amended, either to make it more useful to the modern presidency or to satisfy the whims of the current occupant.

The famous West Wing of the building was constructed in 1902, during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, so that the executive offices that he and his staff used could be properly separated from the mansion’s residential quarters. The Oval Office was added in 1909, during the administration of William Howard Taft, and then renovated and moved in 1934, during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term. The East Wing was added in 1902, at the same time as the West Wing, and modernized during the Second World War to add a second story of offices and to help conceal the Presidential Emergency Operations Center/PEOC that had been built under it. The Executive Residence was completely gutted and reconstructed by President Truman between 1948 and 1952, after an architectural report found that it was unfit for purpose.

The Family Theater was added in 1942, remodeled in 1982, and refurbished again in 2004. In 1933, President Roosevelt added an indoor swimming pool, which, in 1970, President Nixon filled in and transmuted into the current Press Briefing Room. In 1975, President Ford added an outdoor swimming pool on the South Grounds, which remains there to this day.

President Truman added a bowling alley in 1947, which President Eisenhower moved to the Old Executive Office Building in 1955. In 1969, President Nixon abandoned that innovation and built a new bowling alley under the North Portico. In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt added a tennis court, which President Taft moved to the South Lawn in 1911, and which President George H. W. Bush enlarged in 1989. In 2009, President Obama retrofitted that tennis court so that it could also be used for basketball. In 2020, President Trump added a pavilion to the tennis facilities. In 1954, President Eisenhower had a putting green installed on the South Lawn. This was removed by President Richard Nixon, reinstalled in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush, and then moved by Bill Clinton a couple of years later.

There is nothing different — or even particularly interesting — about President Trump’s decision to replace a bunch of 1940s-era East Wing office buildings with a ballroom. Nor is it unusual for this alteration to have been paid for with private funds. Certainly, one may quibble with President Trump’s often gaudy design preferences. But, objectively, the White House lacks entertainment spaces, and the addition of a new facility will clearly help to alleviate that problem. The capacity of the State Dining Room is 140, and the capacity of the East Room is 200 (perhaps 250 if guests are seated cheek by jowl), which means that, at present, it is common for large White House functions to be held in temporary tents that have been erected at great cost on the South Lawn. When complete, the new ballroom will hold 999 guests. The justification for this is so obvious that the idea was first proposed by President Harrison — back in 1891.

Adding a ballroom is not akin to “destroying” the White House. Using mechanical diggers to prepare for renovations is not moving or scary or poignant or worthy of elevated emotions. Altering a modern part of the executive branch’s headquarters is not in any sense sullying “your house.” Good grief, people. Pull yourselves together.

Did they move ahead immediately with those plans or did they follow the rules regarding making alterations to the building?

Weasel words on "follow the rules." FDR just did it. No public consultation, no submissions for a vote, nothing. I have repeatedly stated that I'm as mad today with FDR as I'm mad with Trump. I ask you for the second time to publicly call for Schumer to reopen the government, or state a date this year when he will do so, so that we may have an honest discussion of submitting the plans to the NCPC, a consulting body. The chair previously said it has "no jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work for federal buildings on federal property." So have the plans on the desk for when construction begins. Is that acceptable to you? But the office is not essential workers, and is thus closed.

I'm starting to gather that your real complaint is that Congress should instituted more formal, legal restraints instead of advisory/consultative controls like the NCPC. So when Obama solicits private donors and wants to build a basketball court, a vote is held by America's representatives on whether the people's house grounds should change.

Once more I'm sure you won't answer any of these questions and I'm sure will instead latch onto some other inane detail to dishonestly spin out of proportion.

I'm sure you'll ignore the answers in order to continue a narrative of not answering questions. These typically reduce to only accepting answers that you agree with; so that any answer you dislike is invalidated.

Really, you make the modern Republican party make a lot of sense.

The outrage over the East Wing is typical of the Democratic party. They want to make the country think that the White House was torn down, because replacing a 1940s era office building doesn't generate the same passion from the base. They ignore the recent construction and the history of major renovations in general, because looking at FDR and the history undermines their outrage. That's what I think it's about, and you're free to disagree with me. While you've refused comment, I also think the tents-on-lawn arrangement for hosting large parties is dumb. Because existing White House indoor facilities are too small.

And this, right here, is why people insult and demean your posts. Because once again, rather than engage with any of the actual fucking points presented to you, and whether you agree or disagree with those points, you start complaining about HOW people are making those points.

It's fucking tiring, and it's part of why your posts are ignored or laughed at. You don't want to discuss. You don't want to debate. You want to prance, and pose and clutch those pearls. Pretending that you'd be happy to discuss things, if only people weren't so....mean.

As long as you carry on with this approach, people will treat you appropriately. And you'll carry on complaining about how they treat you, and pretending like you don't fucking know that it's basically your own fault.

As before, you've failed to call me a bootlicker, or deepthroating a cock, or paid by Russia or Israel, so it does appear that you know the difference. You well know that yelling insults at somebody is literally making the opposite choice of engagement. I'm pointing out the choice while respecting the choice.

Secondly, do you understand the irony when the literal subject is Democrats clutching their pearls in horror at the destruction of their beloved East Wing? This is literally an argument about pearl clutching. Seven or eight people here think the pearl-clutching is deserved, and I'm arguing that it's unfounded.

I could choose to tell you whose cock you've been sucking, as people wrote to me today, or who paid you to say this, as people wrote to me today, or whose boots you've been licking, as people wrote to me today. I don't, primarily because I have standards I'm not willing to go below. The secondary reason is that doing that conveys the message that you're done talking about an issue, and it's time to ridicule people that don't already agree with you. It's not a good thing for a forum. My constant recommendation is to ignore the people that you feel are those that "don't want to discuss/don't want to debate/want to prance, and pose and clutch those pearls." I take my own advice on this.

[Milchshake]

Since TRUMP TAKE CANDY.

In honor of Trump, and Trump Jr, I will also pass out joke-size fake dollars for Halloween.



Kids will all be like, "Thank you Mistah Trump" also with "tears in their eyes."

[Rasulis]

Talking about tears. Courtery of City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco.

[Edge-]

Again - minor alterations each presidency are one thing.

I'm not sure every president knocks down an entire wing of the White House.

But hey, the National Review has an article on how it's Totally Normal™

Remodeling a theater? Totally the same as demolishing an entire wing to replace it with a gaudy ballroom.

Turning a swimming pool into a press briefing room? Absolutely of the same kind of utility to the American people as replacing an entire wing of offices with a ballroom.

Again, no real acknowledgement of whether rules around making alterations to the White House were followed. No questioning whether this was a National Emergency That Had To Be Done While The Government Is Shut Down - it just was.

This is very fun.

[Breccia]

Inflation rose 3% in September primarily due to Trump's direct actions in public on purpose.

Consumer prices rose 3.0% in September from a year ago, slightly below forecasters' expectations, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). On a month-to-month basis, prices rose 0.3%, cooling slightly from the 0.4% inflation reported in August.

I would like to note that, yes, this is Trump's BLS and as such the numbers are immediately called into question. People were called back to BLS specifically to issue this report. So either inflation really rose 3% which is more than previous months, or it rose more and the lie they're selling is that it rose slightly less than it really did. 3% is the highest this year, by the way, Trump is causing prices to rise.

I await future research from private, non-Trump sources that directly refute this.

- - - Updated - - -

This is very fun.

How did you forget paving over the Rose Garden?

[En Sabah Nur]

I'll believe that tacky AF-looking ballroom is vital to Americans when I, an average Joe, get to use it.

[tehdang]

Talking about tears. Courtery of City Lights Bookstore in San Francisco.

Good manner of civil protest on a building. Their message, their place of business, not interfering with the street or sidewalk. Conveys a message that criticizes authority, but because of abundant free speech protections in America, is not one that said authority can force to be taken down.

Also the San Francisco mayor has a statement out on the national guard. It's literally how you handle Trump. This should be in the basics for a skilled politician.

[Endus]

I'll believe that tacky AF-looking ballroom is vital to Americans when I, an average Joe, get to use it.

Even if you want to make the "but state functions!" argument, a ballroom is not the ideal space for such things. A ballroom is for balls. Hence "ball room". It's not a theater space for discussions and information sessions, it's not a grand dining hall for state dinners. You could've had all of that in a big new complex, but no, Trump wants a ballroom because he wants to think he's an 18th Century king.

Not that the specific use is the real problem. It's that he has zero authority to demo any part of the White House. And did so anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Good manner of civil protest on a building. Their message, their place of business, not interfering with the street or sidewalk.

That signage is not in any respect a "protest". It's just a statement.

Also, protests being disruptive is a core characteristic of protests. If you're against protests "interfering with the street or sidewalk", then you oppose the right to protest at a fundamental level, and the civil freedoms said right reflects. Don't blow smoke up people's skirts with this bullshit and pretend you're not opposing people's rights and freedoms, when you absolutely are.

[Belize]

I'll believe that tacky AF-looking ballroom is vital to Americans when I, an average Joe, get to use it.

A poor? In the baaalllllrooommm?

Preposterous!

[Paranoid Android]

Breaking News: The U.S. military accepted a private donation of $130 million to help pay troops during the shutdown. The move is highly unusual and a potential violation of federal law.

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3m3xs34rrmc2o

So wtf? Every media outlet is reporting this as "Nothing to see here"

I read CNN and say they accepted an anonymous donation. This is business as usual now?

[PenguinChan]

What doesn't work is a 'fuck your post and fuck you, bootlicker, hey I got a question' performance. And then a whine about tone policing, like you do this to your family and friends regularly and they never react to your words. When you've exhausted your visible display of hatred, let's circle back. If the display is somehow a necessary, load-bearing part of your posts for you, then I urge you to reconsider in the interest of showing you want the conversation.

Well maybe the biggest 'thing' people don't understand is why you'd be in support of the current administration when they've clearly endorsed awful things. Or done unlawful things, constantly. Or how things like ICE exist and countless videos of them being awful. Soooo many policies that are clearly driven economically to manipulate things into their favor. It's just... Like, what do YOU stand to gain from stuff that only benefits those way up in the echelon of the government and net worth?

Like, to put it plainly: If you don't personally own asset wealth, I feel like supporting republicans and conservatism right now is a huge net negative. If that isn't enough to stop you from supporting it, then you have to have SOMETHING personally driven here to do so. If you don't have anything personal, then is it just stubbornness and unwilling to support 'the other side'?

- - - Updated - - -

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3m3xs34rrmc2o

So wtf? Every media outlet is reporting this as "Nothing to see here"

I read CNN and say they accepted an anonymous donation. This is business as usual now?

Pretty sure bribery and illegal donations have been the norm for like 20+ years now. Kinda late to the party sadly, even if it should be news worthy.

[Milchshake]

Well when bird flu goes away and egg prices stabilize, you won't even have this one talking point...

TRUMP TAKE EGG STILL

[Kaleredar]

Well maybe the biggest 'thing' people don't understand is why you'd be in support of the current administration when they've clearly endorsed awful things. Or done unlawful things, constantly. Or how things like ICE exist and countless videos of them being awful. Soooo many policies that are clearly driven economically to manipulate things into their favor. It's just... Like, what do YOU stand to gain from stuff that only benefits those way up in the echelon of the government and net worth?

Like, to put it plainly: If you don't personally own asset wealth, I feel like supporting republicans and conservatism right now is a huge net negative. If that isn't enough to stop you from supporting it, then you have to have SOMETHING personally driven here to do so. If you don't have anything personal, then is it just stubbornness and unwilling to support 'the other side'?

Because tehdang probably won’t actually tell you and they’ll just go on about how they don’t like the tone of your question and really isn’t it about what you stand for and blah blah blah, I’ll answer for them based off of what I’ve gleaned from context:

They don’t personally like trump, they don’t think his economic policies will be successful, but he still backs conservatives and republicans. My best guess would be from some religious angle; he has disclosed that he’s anti-choice in the past. He doesn’t back dems despite ye ostensibly disliking Trump, but he’s likely convinced himself that all the mean words that democrat nobodies say online is tantamount to actual right-wing violence and hateful rhetoric spouted by right-wing politicians, and that his personal religious convictions tilt him towards conservatives when he thinks that “both sides have problems.” Though he has disclosed that he does believe in far-right conspiracies, like thinking that waltz had those democratic politicians murdered.

I await them saying how they didn’t like my answer and how the tone is off and not yet actually rebuke anything I just said as being wrong.

[Edge-]

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3m3xs34rrmc2o

So wtf? Every media outlet is reporting this as "Nothing to see here"

I read CNN and say they accepted an anonymous donation. This is business as usual now?

this sounds incredibly illegal

[Elder Millennial]

https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3m3xs34rrmc2o

So wtf? Every media outlet is reporting this as "Nothing to see here"

I read CNN and say they accepted an anonymous donation. This is business as usual now?

Excuse me, what the fuck? This has to be illegal, not to mention incredibly unethical.

[PenguinChan]

Because tehdang probably won’t actually tell you and they’ll just go on about how they don’t like the tone of your question and really isn’t it about what you stand for and blah blah blah, I’ll answer for them based off of what I’ve gleaned from context:

They don’t personally like trump, they don’t think his economic policies will be successful, but he still backs conservatives and republicans. My best guess would be from some religious angle; he has disclosed that he’s anti-choice in the past. He doesn’t back dems despite ye ostensibly disliking Trump, but he’s likely convinced himself that all the mean words that democrat nobodies say online is tantamount to actual right-wing violence and hateful rhetoric spouted by right-wing politicians, and that his personal religious convictions tilt him towards conservatives when he thinks that “both sides have problems.” Though he has disclosed that he does believe in far-right conspiracies, like thinking that waltz had those democratic politicians murdered.

I await them saying how they didn’t like my answer and how the tone is off and not yet actually rebuke anything I just said as being wrong.

I will never understand why religious people and pro-life individuals vote for Republicans. They never are on their side, they continually take rights away and at best give them a bone for their allegiance lol. Oh nice, women can't have abortions. They also go into massive debt for any complications that occur now too, and they won't pay for it. But at least you have a baby you won't be able to support or handle.

[DarkTZeratul]

Excuse me, what the fuck? This has to be illegal, not to mention incredibly unethical.

One hundred percent illegal and unethical.

[tehdang]

Well maybe the biggest 'thing' people don't understand is why you'd be in support of the current administration

Firstly, I didn't even vote for the current administration. Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with 'fuck your post and fuck you, bootlicker, hey I got a question?' Do you really think you're entitled to go that route because "people don't understand?"

when they've clearly endorsed awful things. Or done unlawful things, constantly. Or how things like ICE exist and countless videos of them being awful. Soooo many policies that are clearly driven economically to manipulate things into their favor. It's just... Like, what do YOU stand to gain from stuff that only benefits those way up in the echelon of the government and net worth?

Like, to put it plainly: If you don't personally own asset wealth, I feel like supporting republicans and conservatism right now is a huge net negative. If that isn't enough to stop you from supporting it, then you have to have SOMETHING personally driven here to do so. If you don't have anything personal, then is it just stubbornness and unwilling to support 'the other side'?

This is going to be a long, long road. First, you have to separate yourself with the trolls that assert anybody who has defended a Trump action defends all Trump actions. I have repeatedly in this thread and in other threads criticized his economic policy and stated that all alleged ICE civil rights violations should be adjudicated by the responsible oversight bodies and through lawsuits in federal courts. So the first step on the road is losing the "why you'd be in support of the current administration when they've clearly endorsed awful things. Or done unlawful things, constantly." Because it's wrong and ought to be understood to be wrong.

Now, let's get you out of this box. The world isn't angels fighting against demons. If only politics were that easy. You aren't identifying two blackest-of-black-evil motivations that I get to choose between: either I'm acting in my narrow, almost pecuniary interest, or I'm too stubborn and unwilling to support 'the other side.' Both sides can be wrong and dangerous for the country in entirely separate ways! Only at election time are we forced to choose between them, and I've already noted that I couldn't pick either option before me!! But let's humanize this in a way, and hopefully start your thinking in a less Manichean direction. You are also human, so I'm speaking one human to another. Suppose I asked you, do you support destructive policies for the country because YOU stand to personally gain from it, or because you're just too stubborn and unwilling to support 'the other side.' How would you respond? Do you personally see a clear answer among those two presented? I have a feeling that your thoughts and my thoughts would align on that question.