Trump defends East Wing demolition, raises ballroom price to $300 million
By: Dan Diamond and Cat Zakrzewski (The Washington Post)
BETRAYAL!
I don't care if the construction is being done on the parking garage of the Watergate at the other end of town. Who the hell does Trump think he is?
Donald Trump has proven, beyond any shadow of doubt, that anything a Republican says cannot be trusted. Ever. Ronald Reagan broke the Republican Party by turning Republicans into conservative Democrats. The Republican Party has been run by absolute liars since Ronald and Nancy Reagan danced at the White House. Princess Diane danced in the White House at one of Reagan's hosted dinners in 1985. Trump is lying his ass off like any good Republican.
So, now we have lying Democrats like shitface Schumer and two-face Jefferies competing with a Republican imbecile in the White House. See that depiction Trump is holding up? That's a lie. Trump is lying. It's going to be as tacky as the bordello decorations in the Oval Office.
Where's the battalion of inflatable frogs now? Apparently they're all liars, too.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Donald Trump on Wednesday raised the estimate of his planned White House ballroom, saying that the project would cost $300 million — up from his initial claim of $200 million — and defended the decision to tear down the East Wing amid widespread complaints .
“In order to do it properly, we had to take down the existing structure,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, showing off renderings of the project and saying that the new ballroom would be connected by a “glass bridge” to the main White House structure. “We don’t touch the White House.”
Trump also said that “the military” is closely involved in the project, which he said would be paid “100 percent by me and some friends of mine.”
The president said he had been transparent about the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom, which would be nearly twice the footprint of the 55,000-square-foot main section of the White House next door. Watchdog groups, politicians and even some conservative commentators have questioned why Trump has moved so quickly to tear down the iconic wing that served as a starting point for White House tours and home to first ladies’ offices.
Trump criticized past renovations to the East Wing, including a second story he called “not very nice.” He suggested he didn’t want it to “hurt” his new ballroom, a feature he has wanted to add to the White House since before he was president.
“It was never thought of as being much,” Trump said. “It was a very small building.”
White House officials previously said that the project will be funded by private donations , including from wealthy individuals and large companies that have contracts with the federal government, including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir Technologies. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) The donations are being managed by the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit that helped manage such federal projects as the restoration of the Washington Monument after it was damaged in a 2011 earthquake.
White House officials said Tuesday to expect a full-scale teardown of the East Wing, defending it as a “modernization” of the building. They also touted past renovations, circulating a fact sheet that argued Trump was continuing a “proud presidential legacy” of changing the White House grounds — although the swimming pool, tennis pavilion and other past projects they highlighted pale next to the scope of the president’s planned ballroom. Trump said this week that the ballroom will seat nearly 1,000 people, up from an earlier estimate of about 650.
The White House said Tuesday it would soon send ballroom plans to the National Capital Planning Commission, which is required to review any external construction projects at the White House and will decide whether to approve the new building. The 12-member board is now led by a majority of Trump allies, including its chairman, Trump staff secretary Will Scharf.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
167 visitors
Lying Democrats competing with lying Republicans. Thoughts & prayers. Foreigners sniping from the peanut gallery, having the time of their lives.
Why not do something worthwhile for a change. Contact the White House and elected officials. It's all done electronically. It's as easy as an email. Of course, a real identity is needed so the anonymous heroes won't want to bother. It's even possible to ask ChatGPT to draft a comment.
Thanks for the links.
I sincerely encourage you to use them. For whatever reason.
King.
I don't think Trump can get his scepter up.
Trump has led a sheltered life where people compete to kiss rich ass. Add to that fact that Trump is a New York elitist. Trump lives among moral prostitutes trying to kiss his ass. Maybe that's why the Oval Office looks like a tacky bordello.
Yet others have made alterations to the White House.
Why the outrage now?
Both the West Wing and the East Wing could have been built larger than they are, but they weren't because they werent intended to overshadow the White House. This new TrumpRoom is being created with the intention that it will physically overshadow the White House and stand for centuries as a monument to one man.
One of the commissions that is consulted on changes to the White House compound has said they are worried that the TrumpRoom will be visually overpowering . It will be more than 1 1/2 times larger than the White House itself.
And if you dont think its going to be named the TrumpRoom with portraits and statues of him very prominent you are dreaming. This is a man who puts fake magazine covers of himself into frames and hangs them on his golf clubs walls.
That is more bull. The purpose was to finally give the White House a decent reception area which it was sorely lacking.
And if you dont think its going to be named the TrumpRoom with portraits and statues of him very prominent you are dreaming.
I think it will be identified as what it is: A functional reception area.
This is not a genuine issue for debate.
Why does everyone understand your hero better than you do ?
I think we all understand, especially the left.
He isn't like McCain or Romney. He is going to stop the radicals.
But - but - but - Trump.
All ya need to know.
You bet!
Stay safe my friend.
Always the same bullshit that totally ignores scale and protocol. This is, yet again, trying to excuse a grand larcenist because people shoplift. Like excusing a murderer because people kill insects. It is a pathetic excuse.
It is one thing to pave over the grass in the Rose Garden. That, Vic, is normal. Changing pictures, painting walls, etc. are also part of normal redecorating that is done. In the past, presidents have also overseen major changes to the White House, but these changes were made for very good reasons (not to satisfy personal desires) and followed established protocol . That is, the president did not unilaterally come up with an idea and then execute. The initiative was planned, reviewed, and funded. It was a president overseeing a change, not a fucking self-envisioned king just doing whatever he wants.
Specifically, here are the major changes over the last 100 years (compiled by ChatGPT):
Finally, regarding the violation of protocol by Trump with his ballroom to further emphasize why this is a big deal compared to what other PotUS' have done (from ChatGPT):
Yeah there it is. Trump supporters apparently excuse everything Trump does, no matter how outrageous, because they believe he is 'sticking it to the Left'.
IMO support for Trump is emotion and misguided partisan bias to overlook a terrible, vindictive, destructive PotUS. Sickening.
Not an issue for hair on fire responses either, yet here we are.
You make a great point. It seems as long as Trump, his admin, the Congress / Senate and the SCOTUS "sticks it to" or "owns" the left MAGA is cool with whatever they say and do. But in reality these stickers are sticking MAGA too.
The U.S. has become an us (Trump / Trumpites) versus them (anyone who doesn't bow to and/or kiss Trump's rump). In the mean time, the states have just become a collection of sh!tpots.
Which other President 'altered' the White House with a bucket excavator? Which other President planned to build a Golden Pussy Palace on White House grounds?
It's quite possible that Donald Trump will skip town before the job is finished. Trump has a long history of shoddy work and unfinished contracts.
A 90,000 sq ft ballroom is a "reception area" that the Whitehouse was "sorely lacking"? Seriously? It seems we've been fine for 250+ years without it, why now? Oh, that's right, we've never had this kind of massive narcissist and wannabe mob boss dictator in the Whitehouse before. What the Whitehouse is "sorely lacking" is an adult in the room without their head shoved up Trumps ass.
The monumental hypocrisy of complaining about Democrats being supposedly fiscally irresponsible but then just smiling and nodding like a fan boy when approving of $300,000,000 to be spent on a gaudy gold painted ballroom all to appease a foul known sexual predator, convicted felon, liar and cheat is vomit inducing.
Is that going to be the Republican lie to cover Trump's ass? Donald Trump removed a place for a First Lady at the White House. Trump views women as a fashion accessories for rich men.
The is not any place at the White House for a First Lady. First Ladies have been part of American tradition and heritage since Martha Washington. Donald Trump destroyed the idea of a First Lady. Trump has not once mentioned where the office of the First Lady will be located now.
Does MAGA value the contributions of women or not? Will MAGA allow women to have a place in the future of America or not? Will MAGA just do away First Ladies altogether? Will MAGA give First Ladies a corner in the basement kitchen? Where is the First Lady suppose to greet and entertain the public now?
Trump's Golden Pussy Palace will not be a substitute for the legacy, traditions, and heritage of American First Ladies. Trump's grand entertainment venue will be a celebration of women as pussies but not as people. Three is no place for a First Lady at the White House now.
The Trump version of austerity is not paying the military and air traffic controllers while knocking down a wing of one of the most iconic structures in the world to make room for a $300M ballroom. Let those peons eat cake.
45 democrats are blocking a bill with bipartisan support to pay them and some manage to blame trump. Religions wish they had the same sort unthinking devotion the Democratic Party enjoys from its true believers.
That’s right, ignore the fact that millions will be priced out of health insurance because of Republicans. What could go wrong?
Well, don't just whine about it. Explain why it's necessary to pump more taxpayer money into insurance coffers. The sole purpose of the insurance companies is to pay medical bills. And insurance companies only have as much money as the pool of enrollees provide. Insurance don't own magic money trees.
So, the problem really isn't insurance. There's no way people can afford medical care without insurance. Now there's no way people can afford insurance without taxpayer assistance. What is wrong with this picture?
Why did Chuck Schumer, from New York where Wall Street is located, shut down government to throw more money at insurance coffers? Schumer and Jefferies are being generous to insurance companies, not constituents. It is the insurance companies that get all the extra subsidies and taxpayer money. What's wrong with this picture?
Who sets the price for medical care? Insurance companies only set payment limits; they don't set the price of medical care. Insurance companies can only manage how to spread the available money across the pool of enrollees to pay their medical bills. The patients, the insurance providers, and the government have no say in the prices charged for medical care. Medical providers pick and choose which insurance to accept or reject. Insurance companies cannot force medical providers to accept their enrollees.
So, explain what Democrats are defending? Generosity to financial institutions? Why isn't that an open door for corruption? Or is corruption the intent of Democrats?
Explain why it's necessary to pump more taxpayer money into insurance coffers.
Because capitalism plus healthcare equals greed, and until that changes either subsidize it or watch as people either die of curable illness or go bankrupt and shift another burden onto the social safety net. Talking about the injustice of US healthcare doesn’t fix it. The US economy is dependent on having the most expensive (& least effective) healthcare on the planet. Take a look at your 401k options and try to find something that isn’t steeped in the medical industry. Unaffordable healthcare is baked into our economy.
Then why don't Democrats tackle the real problem? Democrats are trying to be generous to insurance companies in spite of Republican objections. The dog didn't eat Democrats' homework. And Republicans didn't make Democrats accept Obamacare. See why there were objections to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan back in the 1990s? See why a simple tweak of Clinton's plan was only generous to financial middlemen? A lot of countries have abandoned the archaic healthcare system the United State uses. So there must be a better way.
My 401k invests in Federal securities. I think municipal bonds have been added as an option now.
Then why don't Democrats tackle the real problem?
Are Republicans? You have a reflexive need to attack Democrats. We are where we are because we have given the medical industry permission to literally extort people over their life. You can point fingers all you like but changing this injustice will take every political persuasion working together, so no, it will never change.
That's only because Democrats pursue stupid policies that defy common sense. You pointed out the problem very clearly. What sane person believes throwing money into a capitalist system is going to solve problems?
Have you ever traveled on government business? GSA increases the rate of reimbursement for travel and overnight the prices of ticket and lodging magically increase to consume the reimbursement adjustment. Throwing more money into the system never lowered the price of anything.
That's only because Democrats pursue stupid policies that defy common sense.
There you go again. When the healthcare subsidies expire it won’t only affect Democrats. It will affect Republicans so hard that it will cost the party the midterms.
When the healthcare subsidies expire then maybe Democrats will be more willing to compromise and work with Republicans. Giving Democrats what they want doesn't establish any incentive for compromise and working toward a bipartisan improvement.
Democrats are relying on taking the American people hostage. Democrats want the expanded ACA subsidies to continue so that Democrats don't have to compromise. Coercive protest doesn't make great policy simply because it is not inclusive. Coercive protest is pursued by special interests to obtain limited, targeted benefit for the special interests. That cannot be inclusive.
Giving Democrats what they want doesn't establish any incentive for compromise and working toward a bipartisan improvement.
You are assuming to know what the minimum Democrats will expect is. Republicans aren’t even willing to discuss it. The bottom line is that when the subsidies expire everybody loses. I fully support the Democrats not budging since we all know what Republicans have up their sleeve when it comes to reopening the government .
Oh yeah? And what do we know???
We know that if Republicans say the government must be reopened before there will be any negotiations on subsidies, they will tell Democrats to pound sand once the government reopens. They couldn’t care less about all their constituents that will suffer, all they care about is owning the libs. They know they will pay for it during the midterms so they will do everything they can to cheat by all means possible.
Well, that's wrong. If the subsidies expire, 24.4 million ACA insurance enrollees are affected; not all of us. The government shutdown is harming more people than will the expiration of the expanded PTC subsidies.
ACA enrollment was 12 million before the Premium Tax credits were expanded. The expend PTC subsidy doubled enrollment to 24.4 million. About 1.7 million with income above 400% Federal poverty level enrolled in ACA insurance after the expansion; most of them enrolled in Gold level plans that are mostly unaffordable to lower income enrollees. Those with income above 400% FPL comprise 7% of the enrollees but 15% of the cost. The average PTC subsidy all 24.4 million enrollees averages $6,400 each. But the subsidies for those above 400% FPL can be as high as $13,000 each.
The top 7% of the enrollment pool is consuming more medical care per individual, on average, than the bottom 93% of the pool. That's because the expanded PTC is generous and allows the more affluent to afford Gold and Platinum plans with much lower out of pocket costs which encourages seeking more medical care. The bottom 93% of the insurance pool is actually subsidizing the top 7%. That's regressive.
The ACA will revert to the original subsidy levels that were in place before the pandemic. The expanded PTC subsidies did double enrollment but some of those enrollees were poached away from employer supported insurance. The purpose of the ACA subsidy cliff was to avoid poaching which raises the price of employer supported premiums. Capping the ACA premium costs to 8.5% of income artificially expanded eligibility for ACA by making more employer supported insurance unaffordable compared to ACA.
Continuing the expanded PTCs as they are would be unwise. The regressive result of the expansions needs to be addressed. The higher income group would lose the 8.5% of income cap but before the expansion that was about 9.8%. Either the subsidy expansion for those above 400% FPL should expire or the enrollees should be limited to the baseline Silver plans. And the subsidies don't need to be as generous to the bottom 93% of the pool, either. The ACA subsidy should return to being a progressive benefit.
When I say we all lose I am referring to the fact that those who lose insurance and get dangerously ill will end up as bad debt in an emergency room, which affects health insurance premiums across the board. A typical DJT solution would be to change the rules so that hospital emergency rooms can tell sick people to get the fuck out and find somewhere to go die.
The shut down has interrupted a lot of safety net assistance. That loss of safety net support increases the risk of illness, too. The shut down has lowered living standards around th county.
There is no way to predict what Trump will do. Trump lies about everything. Congress extending the more generous PTC subsidies is no guarantee because Trump could screw that up, too.
He thinks he's a King and seems like he's right.
The deficit just hit 38 trillion dollars. Where's those tea party patriot fiscal conservatives screaming about the DEFICIT?
I thought the tariffs were possibly going to pay down our deficit spending? Maybe?
So mega deficits, avoiding governance with a shutdown even when Republicans have a triple majority and can literally do what they want without Democrats and gridlock is their plan.
Man, that Epstein stuff must be truly shocking.
You would be a great Republican.
Fighting progressives who are holding the government hostage unless they get to borrow another 1.5 trillion.
Think about that. They are demanding to add another 4% to the national debt just to open the government for a few months.
oiding governance with a shutdown even when Republicans have a triple majority
You should probably look up how the process works. It takes 60 senators to pass the CR. Sadly, democrats on their own are able to block a bipartisan agreement for a clean CR.
And they can remove the filibuster requirement with a normal vote.
Republicans and Democrats suck. Down with both parties.
Until we get rid of both parties stranglehold on the election process, this continual hostage taking by non good-faith actors will continue.
Are you sure about that? Republicans have the same problem as Democrats. Not everyone in their party is an imbecile.
That would require making politics less profitable. Just keep in mind that every election except the Presidency is a local election. And now a lot of judgeships are locally elected positions, too.
I think the amount they have bandied about is actually closer to $1 trillion and includes the extension of Covid era enhanced ACA subsidies which were intended to be a temporary measure set by the previous administration to expire at the end of 2025. But your point is valid. Those sorts of major healthcare spending demands by Democrats should be negotiated through the proper legislative process not through a short-term continuing resolution. Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats need to take responsibility for this continuing shutdown.
And this is a prime reason to distrust any politician or party who says that many billions of dollars in spending will only be a "temporary" measure. They created this unsustainable expectation during Covid and are now claiming that millions will lose their coverage, or it will suddenly become unaffordable, if the enhanced subsidies that THEY set to expire actually expire. And now they have the gall to blame their opponents for the situation THEY created and worse yet shutdown the government over it doing even more damage to the same people they claim their opponents are going to hurt. Now they have wasted precious time with this government shutdown that could have been used to negotiate a solution to this bursting of a bubble that they themselves inflated. How do people not see right through this bullshit?
IMHO, somebody has to cut the shit (also known as Trump's bad faith dealings and disregard for the Constitution and Laws of the US) somewhere, and this shutdown is viewed by the D's as one of the the only points of leverage available to do anything to show that they are at least trying counter the corrosive influence of The Trump Administration.
This administration does not deal in good faith, so the idea that anything that the Congress approves will not be subject to review and recision by Trump et.al. is foolish, so the actions are purely performative, but they are all the D's have to prevent the appearance of being complacent in the face of threat. In short, they have been freed by the untenable position that they find themselves in.
I believe it takes only a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate, then they could pass the continuing resolution. So the R's are as capable of ending this standoff as the D's. Both are to blame, and both are playing political games for their bases.
Lol. Now You are demanding republican destroy the norms that govern the country so you can blame them for that. Hilarious
I gave my opinion of what was occurring. I didn't make any demands. Maybe you need to adjust your filter that you read comments through.
Excellent points and arguments.
The stage for this shutdown was set by the insistence on the Big Beautiful Bill being pushed through with no consideration for or consultation with the Democrats. The Democratic base largely considers Trump to be tyrannical and expects their political representatives to do more to oppose him. A poll I saw yesterday shows Trump to be considerably underwater with independents so opposition to him and his policies on the budget may not hurt the Democrats.
I would have preferred they oppose Trump straight on and call him what he is, unfit for office, but lets face it, this shutdown is one of the only tangible ways they had to express it. Something has to wake this country the fuck up.
IMO the cost really is closer to $1.4 trillion. The expanded Premium Tax Credits were necessary to ameliorate the economic damage caused by the lockdown measures during the pandemic. But the expanded PTCs would have expired much earlier if they had not been included in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The expanded PTCs are regressive. The generous subsidies for those with incomes more than 400% of poverty level added somewhere between 1.5 and 1.7 higher income enrollees. The higher income enrollees make up about 7% of the ACA insured pool but are responsible for 15% of the cost. Most of the higher income enrollees chose Gold or Platinum level coverage which dramatically reduced copays and deductibles. And the higher income enrollees seek more healthcare because of the lower cost.
The 7% of high income enrollees are actually taking more resources out of the pool. The expanded PTCs are using the poor to be overly generous to higher income enrollees. That's regressive.
Are you talking about invoking the "nuclear option" to end the filibuster rules in the Senate as they pertain to budget and continuing resolution matters? Do you really think that is a good idea? I don't think either side wants to set that precedent.
Only by using a "nuclear option" that both parties used to unstick blocked presidential cabinet and judicial nominations. Once the precedent is set it continues to favor the majority party. It has never been used for the legislative process, especially related to appropriations and continuing resolutions, and for good reason. One of those "careful what you wish for" scenarios.
That's true to some extent with much of the ACA.
Perhaps. But the expanded Premium Tax Credits transformed the ACA into a program where the poor were subsidizing insurance for the more affluent (if not rich).
The original ACA insurance program deliberately included a 'subsidy cliff' at 400% of Federal poverty level to avoid poaching enrollees from employer supported insurance plans. ACA pulling enrollees away from employer plans would raise the price of premiums for employers and workers.
The expanded PTCs were necessary to ameliorate the economic impact of the pandemic lockdowns. The government was providing incentives to employers to continue paychecks and ACA would cap the subsidy cliff to provide insurance. The expanded PTCs would extended in the Inflation Reduction Act because Biden and Democrats wanted to buy loyal voters.
The pandemic is over so now it is time to end the competition between ACA insurance and employer supported insurance. Continuing to be generous to those below 400% poverty level is one thing. But extending the regressive PTCs for those above 400% poverty level is no longer necessary.
Liberals are still upset that Democrats couldn't go nuclear. Republicans have the same problem Democrats had. Not everyone in their party is a imbecile.
Republicans may not have enough votes within their own party to end the filibuster.
Neither side wants to do anything, and that’s the crux of the problem. I don't think it matters anymore if they use the so called nuclear option.
The Republicans are waiting for the Democrats to implode, and the Democrats are waiting to see whether they can believe hard enough to make either (a) Trump and the GOP deal with them in the real world, or (b) Tinker Bell flash into existence, whichever happens first. (My money’s on Tinker Bell.)
One might ask, “Why is this occurring?”
The answer is clear and unambiguous: the administration, and most Republican members of Congress, are dealing in bad faith. Their word is as good as the fetid air they corrupt when breathing it. The rescission of funds was, in large part, wholly unconstitutional and unlawful. Congressional Republicans did nothing to assert their authority, instead yielding it to the President with a “Thank you, sir! May I have another?” because they are either afraid of being primaried or complicit in the slow destruction of democracy as we know it.
Months ago, Republicans tore several pages out of the Project 2025 handbook and shoehorned them into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. They pushed that monstrosity through with minimal input from anyone else. That action only deepened Democratic anger. As a friend of mine once joked, “I like to be at least kissed before I’m violated.” Within that bill were the seeds of this current fight: the extension of Trump-era tax cuts that blew a hole in the budget while pretending to be fiscal discipline.
So, when this totally predictable showdown occurs because the majority of the people with an understanding of what is happening are pissed and want someone in government to stop the Tren del Autoritarismo, the only people with any kind of political mouthpiece are the Democratic Senators. Rock-Hard Place.
You may think my assessment harsh.It’s the clearest way to describe what I see.
Call the vote. Make the Democrats filibuster. Make them explain why. Then, after that, make the Republicans remove the filibuster if they still need to.
So did the way the actuarial tables were overridden. So did the cost sharing reduction program in silver and gold plans.
I guess I'm agreeing with you and also saying "it's worse than you realize".
Well, nothing would surprise me now. The main point is that simply continuing the expanded subsidizes as they are would be unwise. The expansion needs to be evaluated and (hopefully) improved before it becomes a permanent fixture.
Being more generous towards lower income enrollees wouldn't give me heartburn. But just trying to spend as much money as possible to buy political support is absolutely wrong. I guess I'm too much of a cynical curmudgeon to accept that kind of politics.
No argument with you there my friend! Both parties refusal to negotiate and compromise and solve problems without creating worse ones for their constituents is infuriating to me! They have forgotten who they work for. Talk about No Kings, the two party system is neck deep into the king-making business!
Can't agree with you on that though my friend. I see that as flying in the face of your previous concern. The filibuster offers the minority party in the Senate a chance to further their arguments (whether good or bad) before a final legislative decision is made. It leaves the door open to compromise, even though in some cases like this that compromise might not come. That is still better than slamming the door shut on opposing views don't you think? Especially when it involves important matters that can cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.
If you are referring to the $5 billion "pocket rescissions" proposed in Aug/Sept 2025, then I tend to agree. The GAO, and others of course, are arguing that those were not consistent with the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. Those rescissions will be hashed out in the courts and will likely be found illegal or unconstitutional. The $9 billion rescissions in July 2025, however, were passed by the House and Senate after some negotiation and were found by the GAO to be legally consistent with the ICA. What was done was legal. If we dislike it, then we should ask our representatives to introduce legislation to change the law.
No, not really. I agree with much of it, and I get it. Although I am likely going to place more blame on out of control spending than I am on tax cuts with respect to deficits and debt. The spending is clearly the primary cause of debt which fuels the call for increased taxes in the first place in attempt to offset. The tax cuts are an attempt to ease the burden on the tax payers, but can also worsen the debt if they don't stimulate economic growth thereby increasing tax revenue. That is a BIG distinction that must be considered in the application of fiscal policy to the growing debt issue IMHO.
Trump is an unabashed virulent partisan who will push the legal envelope to the limit. We have been chipping away at the structure of our constitutional republic for the last few decades, granted Trump appears to be using a larger axe, and our divide is getting deeper. All the more reason in my mind not to counter in knee-jerk fashion with his same tactics and spiteful manner. As difficult as it might be, we should counter with logic and reason, and keep in mind that at the end of the day, we are all on the same team. If our republic and/or our economy fail, we all lose. To all win, IMHO, we must work together to preserve our republic, and try not to engage in policy or action that stifles or erodes our economy.
You do understand that the House passed a clean continuing resolution (CR) plan (with Biden era spending extensions to Nov 21) on Sept 19, and the Senate requires 60 votes to also pass the CR to get the government back open? Yet the Senate Democrats continue to vote along party lines to block the clean CR, hence the government remains shut down. The Republicans don't hold 60 seats in the Senate so they most certainly cannot "literally do what they want without Democrats". It is the Democrats who are creating the gridlock and shutdown by refusing to pass the clean CR in the Senate.
First, what does that have to do with with Senate Democrats refusing to pass a clean CR similar to previous CRs that their leader Chuck Schumer supported in Dec 2024 and March 2025?
Second, if there was indeed "shocking stuff" in the Epstein files that could damage Trump, why would Biden's DOJ not have released that to every news organization on earth prior to the election?
You regularly insist on Trump being treated as normal, when he is anything and everything but. And dont say what has Trump got to do with this.
How is Trump different than Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries? They're all New York elitists that care more about winning than about the country.
Chuck Schumer shut down the government to protect a regressive healthcare give-away to those with income above 400% of Federal poverty level. Why are Democrats using the poor to give taxpayer money to those who are better off?
How so? If I thought he was "normal", or should be treated as such, I would not have revoked my voter registration as a Republican when he was nominated in 2016, and refused to vote for him 3 times. All the more reason in my mind why we should not fight back with his tactics, or otherwise compromise our principles just to "get Trump".
I regularly insist on looking at all the facts (past and present), considering reality rationally and reasonably, and using that process as the basis for my opinions. I leave myself open to new facts or alternate analysis so that my opinions can change if warranted. So rather than simply and continually painting me as a supporter or Trump sympathizer, why don't you ever counter my facts and analysis with your own?
Don't play that shit with me. Everything I posted above in the comment to which you responded were facts and analysis on subjects unrelated to Trump. The last question in that post is a rational one, and only involved Trump in response to freepress' Epstein comment. So, do you care to offer your opinion on what I actually wrote, or offer an answer to my questions, or do you prefer to stick to your standard ad hominem?
I only go by what I see you write, which is almost nothing specifically anti-Trump.
Prepare to be labeled "right wing", "fascist", "MAGA" and "Trump supporter".
Don't worry, when AOC comes to power I'll save you a seat in the gulag.
Yada yada yada. You are "reasonable and rational" too. None of that comports with supporting Donald Trump.
How many times do people have to tell you that Donald Trump is a clown, a buffoon that can't string three words together into a coherent sentence.
Just because people opposed the DEI fucktards doesn't mean they're loyal Trump supporters. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is a stupid way to win elections or run a country. Why do you think Democrats can't offer up a viable alternative to defeat an imbecile grifter?
Republicans and Democrats all use the same tailor that specializes in empty suits.
When you send your messages to Congress do you ask that he be impeached asap ?
Why do you think Democrats can't offer up a viable alternative to defeat an imbecile grifter?
I think that any name a Democrat suggests will be met by you with the same grievances any maga would offer. I wanted Warren in 2020. Can you imagine that level of honesty leading government compared to what we got?! It would be hard to even imagine what the Trump disaster is under those circumstances. But I bet you’ve got some grievance with Warren too.
No. When I dealt with Senators and Representatives in that past, I learned that you do not tell them to do anything and do not directly ask them to do anything. The best approach is to lay out a discussion the leads to a logic conclusion or to ask questions.
If you make demands, Congressmen tend to get pissy and prove they are running the show. You can't be direct in communication until you get to know each other.
John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter are my models for a viable Democratic candidate. Amy Klobuchar would be acceptable but I question her mettle to be President. Shapiro of PA looks like the right kind of candidate. I supported Obama but IMO he ran off the rails in his 2nd term. I'd vote for a gatepost before voting for Hillary Clinton (Trump in a pants suit). Liz Warren seems too unstable and is a gaslighter. Michelle Obama would be competitive but I don't blame her for not wanting anything to do with being President.
Stacy Abrams is a definite no. Gavin Newsom is an empty suit but has more hair than Biden. I wouldn't support any New York Democrat. A candidate that only runs against Trump without a policy agenda doesn't belong in the White House.
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, Buttigieg could be a contender. The Republican attacks would be obvious. And the counter attack would be natural. There's no place at the White House for a First Lady any longer.
That's the natural line of attack. Trump has done away with the First Lady which has been a fixture in American tradition since Martha Washington. Of course, Democrats will piss that natural advantage away, like they always do. After all, Democrats didn't lift a finger to defend the American history of First Ladies. Why start now?
Literally!
Agreed. Would like to see a little more leadership experience (other than mayor of South Bend for 8 years), but he seems to be a reasonable guy.
I think that he has a grasp of the concepts of "How to do things" both politically and logistically.
I find him to be extremely well spoken and also pragmatic.
And the man seems to be a statesman ... a rarity nowadays.
Quite the contrast with Democrats' response to the Jan. 6th riot.
Buttigieg's biggest fault is lack of policy experience. Buttigieg would be a domestic issue President. Trump has screwed up international relations so much that we're going to need an foreign affairs President.
The obvious choice would be Hillary Clinton. But there is no way I would ever support Clinton. Clinton would be Democrats' version of Trump. We've seen that Trump's bumbling around hasn't improved anything internationally. I'm not sure Democrats have anyone other than Clinton who could handle the international mess that has emerged.
The usual suspects will likely chime in about how Trump screwed up foreign relations. That's not true. It was actually Obama and Biden who got the United States entangled in some rather expensive intractable international messes that weakened the United States. The Trans Pacific Partnership was not going to benefit anyone in the US except the financial sector. Obama undermined the relationship between Canada and Mexico. Biden exacerbated the NATO drain on the US. And Biden really did drag the US into a prolonged quagmire in Ukraine. Trump's bumbling hasn't really changed international relations that were already degrading.
$300 million is no longer an operative number. His Majesty announced today that the cost of his new throne room is now $350 million, and continuing. He's just getting started.
Unless Trump gets the 230 million payoff from the DOJ he wont be contributing a dime to this thing, and maybe not even then.
Trump will NEVER contribute a single penny. Not a chance.
The only reason I mention the 230 million is because yesterday Trump said that if he gets the money from the DOJ he might donate it to the ballroom. But I agree he has no intention of putting in a penny.
Trump’s version of “charity” is to enlarge the swamp by 90,000 sf with paid influence dollars.
I need to keep up, at first he was thinking, might, going to donate the $230M to charity. And we all know, charity begins (and ends) at home
Trump had a charity foundation for years and never put any of his own money into it, even though he was allegedly a billionaire during that period.
As he reduces the size of the government? What realm does that make sense?
Reducing the size of government while simultaneously welcoming massive cash infusions from special interests, removing inspectors, surrounding himself and stocking what’s left of the federal government with crackpot conspiracy theorists - that is a level of swamp that nobody even thought could have been achieved at all, much less with the speed it happened. This administration enjoys your enthusiastic and blind support as they work against your interests. Your ignorance is very useful for them.
How much of that is taxpayer money?
not a single dime. And now we see Temu Obama threatening to investigate the donors.
But but but..it's Trump doing the revenge and weaponization of the government...
My guess is if any of the donors are made public, their lives will be threatened or someone will get hurt by a lunatic left winger.
Umm, the donor list is already public.
Of course Jeffres threatens to investigate, there's nothing else he can do in this case.
You know how it goes....
You better scratch my back, or I will make you itchy.
Like I said in 4.2.1. Temu Obama is already threatening to investigate them.
That's what I am saying. If the wrong leftist is paying attention to the list Snuffy posted, it could get ugly for any of those donors.
Didn't she take something like $23,000 in furniture when Billy left the WH?
$28,000, if i remember correctly, she stole from OUR house. Maybe she stole the items because her and poor bill were having trouble paying their mortgageS.
Deflection.
Whatever Clinton took does not hold a candle to the unilateral destruction of the East Wing.
Bullshit, it is a valid response to jeremy’s post.
It is a laughable deflection.
A ~~~nuh-uh~~~ response.
There is no White House building action by the sitting PotUS in history that compares with Trump enacting a unilateral demolition of the East Wing.
see @2.2.7
What democrats and TDS sufferers think Trump is building.
You are going to love phase 2 when he updates the main building.
Under Trump we get a little taste of what it would be like living under Cardassian fascism. Every day we're told not to believe our own eyes and just have blind faith in a convicted felon and admitted sexual predator to run our country and make us "Great Again!" all while dragging our nations reputation through the mud.
Every day we're told not to believe our own eyes and just have blind faith
That the same people who spent four years claiming Biden is just fine and all the videos demonstrating otherwise were cheap fakes without being embarrassed will never stop being funny.
And the people who foolishly cling to the old institutional complex as if it were still in existence are even funnier yet. Of course, they are not to be outdone by the "whatabouters" who, try as they might, never seem to get a comment that strikes at the heart of the matter.
They should join the Democrats in believing, but it still won't bring TinkerBell back.