Good faith privately-funded White House ballroom discussion

heelinhell said:
Are you concerned that we are spending over a billion dollars a day and significantly depleting our munitions ?
My opinion is that spending 100 billion would be better spent helping American families who are struggling to pay for high gas, high rent, and high grocery prices. I also don't think Iran was on the brink of building nuclear weapons. I think it was a grave mistake to impulsively start a war with Iran without careful planning or building the support of our allies before starting the war on Iran.

Regarding the ballroom, would you be ok with Trump naming it the "Trump Ballroom" ?
My opinion is that naming it after himself would further validate the opinion many people have that Trump is building this ballroom as an act of self aggrandizement.

Do you support the plan to build a 250 foot Trump arch ?
My opinion is that this would be one more act of self-aggrandizement.
Click to expand...

R and D are always in disagreement over where and how money is spent. The only constant is that it is going to be spent. The cost of the “war” doesn’t bother me unless we fail to follow through. We have the capacity to replenish munitions if had to. Not sure how you could say they weren’t close to a bomb given the highly enriched uranium they had and the previously unknown icbm capability. It has been widely discussed why he couldn’t spend weeks getting nato’s buy in. Whether you agree with it or not, it was a logical reason.

I don’t care what it is called. Given how butthurt the left is over it, naming it after trump is going to be his middle finger to you guys. I don’t even know who officially gets to name g’ment buildings. Im sure the next D potus would change the name anyway. Not on my top 50 things to care about but agree it would be self aggrandizing, as would be an arch. Don’t even know why he wants an arch and not sure that will happen. I don’t think tax payer money should be spent on an arch.
 
Constructing a ballroom for the White House is a perfectly reasonable addition.

As an Architect, it is a complete abomination in scale and detail. It should defer to the primary building. Also as an Architect, go through the proper process, permitting, design review, etc. Trump was never really a "developer" and we know full well his complete lack of taste, refinement or any sense of design at all. Replacing all of the architectural review board with his uneducated lackies is just another MAGA response to their contempt for actual knowledge and expertise.

Privately funding it is all kinds of terrible.
 
bassydude77 said:
Constructing a ballroom for the White House is a perfectly reasonable addition.

As an Architect, it is a complete abomination in scale and detail. It should defer to the primary building. Also as an Architect, go through the proper process, permitting, design review, etc. Trump was never really a "developer" and we know full well his complete lack of taste, refinement or any sense of design at all. Replacing all of the architectural review board with his uneducated lackies is just another MAGA response to their contempt for actual knowledge and expertise.

Privately funding it is all kinds of terrible.
Click to expand...
So yes to a ballroom? Just not what trump wants?
 
Callatoroy said:
So yes to a ballroom? Just not what trump wants?
Click to expand...
That has always been my view, although I would call it a "great hall" or something rather than a ballroom -- the White House is not Versailles. The problem with what Trump is doing is threefold: (1) the design is terrible, (2) the process for improvements to the White House has not been followed, and (3) the funding scheme is corrupt as hell. The problem is not Trump per se -- these things would still be problems if any other person was pushing this plan. But, from a practical perspective, Trump is unique in his ability and willingness to create these problems. We've never had anyone in charge with even a fraction of Trump's tackiness, grandiosity, contempt for process, and love of corruption.
 
lawtig02 said:
That has always been my view, although I would call it a "great hall" or something rather than a ballroom -- the White House is not Versailles. The problem with what Trump is doing is threefold: (1) the design is terrible, (2) the process for improvements to the White House has not been followed, and (3) the funding scheme is corrupt as hell. The problem is not Trump per se -- these things would still be problems if any other person was pushing this plan. But, from a practical perspective, Trump is unique in his ability and willingness to create these problems. We've never had anyone in charge with even a fraction of Trump's tackiness, grandiosity, contempt for process, and love of corruption.
Click to expand...
Ok, so we are in agreement on 75% of this topic. I don’t see issue with private funding. It is no different than making large campaign contributions. They are going to “donate” that money in one form or another. Shall we move on to bridge the divide of another topic? I mean the possibility of building bridges across the political spectrum has been initiated. Huge bridges. Bigger than anyone could have imagined. Best bridges in the world.
 
Callatoroy said:
Ok, so we are in agreement on 75% of this topic. I don’t see issue with private funding. It is no different than making large campaign contributions. They are going to “donate” that money in one form or another. Shall we move on to bridge the divide of another topic? I mean the possibility of building bridges across the political spectrum has been initiated. Huge bridges. Bigger than anyone could have imagined. Best bridges in the world.
Click to expand...
So you agree the design is terrible and the proper process has not been followed? If so, why are you defending the project? I'll never agree private funding of an improvement to the White House is appropriate, and these donations aren't at all like campaign contributions. But leaving that aside, it sounds like you agree with us that Trump should be stopped from doing what he's doing.
 
I don’t recall Trump running on building a ballroom.

I remember him campaigning on no new wars: fail
I remember him campaigning on the economy and stock market booming: fail
I remember him campaigning on ending the Russia/Ukraine war: fail
I remember him campaigning on getting deficit under control: fail
I remember him campaigning on inflation coming down: fail
I remember him campaigning on lower interest rates: fail
I remember him campaigning on cheap energy: fail
I remember him campaigning on getting rid of the truly violent criminals who were undocumented: fail
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
Kind of weak for snacks. No pastries, cookies, coffee, soft drinks? Is that how your conference room is stocked?
Click to expand...
My conference rooms are stocked by Texas republicans, so we no longer have anything. They removed the snacks, the coffee, the drinks, everything. Nothing matters to these people other than reducing labor and cost. Money is their God. Even in a $10Billion company.
 
UNCatTech said:
I'm look for it, can recall if it was a mess link or social media.
Click to expand...
A quick Google search and it comes up often.
Most of the links are social media, so I understand it could be bullshit. But I didn'tclaim it was fact I mentioned of read the statement. If it is not true then that ends the discussion.

The issue is the Don the Con is so well known for his grifting that something like this is plausible.

 
Callatoroy said:
1, 2, & 3 are due to trump. You don’t like his idea or what he wants it to look like or he didn’t follow the path you think he should have. Nothing more than i don’t like what he wants.

4 is pay for play which I have addressed in other posts. You can disagree with it (I do). But you can’t be hypocritical about it. I’m all for changing the entire system that allows pay for play.
Click to expand...
Tearing down the east wing and not following protocol isn't simple nor liking trump. This is unacceptable for any president, but all other presidents would have followed protocol, not trump.
 
Last edited:
It seems that there has been a conspicuous lack of good faith discussion on one side of the aisle here. Unless lying about reading lists counts as good faith discussion.
 
Callatoroy said:
Pay for play happens every day in both parties. Don’t be hypocritical. Pubs were kicking and screaming about contributions to the Clinton foundation. Bloomberg gave approx. 60 million to the dem party. Those donations are made to acquire favors and influence. You either call it all out or accept it is part of the American political process.

The rest of your concerns seem trump related.
Click to expand...
It has been explained to you how you are wrong about what you call pay for play. That is a different issue altogether.

It isn't that we accept it as part of the American political process. We had a law -- McCain Feingold's Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- that took much of the money out of politics. The Roberts court invalidated most of it and left what remains as an empty husk. The Roberts court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to regulate electioneering activity or independent expenditures.

If you cared about pay for play, you would vote Dem so we can get some judges on the court who aren't taking bribes from these rich political donors, and who can arrive at a common sense solution and not some blanket prohibition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top