President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Shaka]

That's true for a lot of stuff Trump does. It's the methods he employs to accomplish them that are objectionable and divisive. The issue was created by Trump. A more thoughtful leader could have done this easily, but we don't have one.

The issue? The inadequacy of White House party hearty facilities has been an issue known to me since young lad Shaka visited the White House. Stupid tent! Sheesh, I'm old because that was decades ago. The parental units were lucky because they actually got to attend an East Room gala hosted by Reagan.

I get that you think it will end up as a more garish version of Trump Plaza, but you should probably blame every previous president going back to Nixon or Kennedy for kicking the can down the road and leaving it to Trump the Builder to fix.

As far as methods, Presidents can use public funding with the approval of Congress or seek private donations. He found donors, and they are funding it. Win/Win

[Moliere]

If they reall wanted to get the right's goat they would rename it Gulf of Mexico Ballroom.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The issue? The inadequacy of White House party hearty facilities has been an issue known to me since young lad Shaka visited the White House. Stupid tent! Sheesh, I'm old because that was decades ago. The parental units were lucky because they actually got to attend an East Room gala hosted by Reagan.

I get that you think it will end up as a more garish version of Trump Plaza, but you should probably blame every previous president going back to Nixon or Kennedy for kicking the can down the road and leaving it to Trump the Builder to fix.

As far as methods, Presidents can use public funding with the approval of Congress or seek private donations. He found donors, and they are funding it. Win/Win

i genuinely appreciate your efforts to defend Trump. And I appreciate the humble brag about your WH visit (which i'll counter by noting the hour or so i spent in the Situation Room) and agree a new ballroom is needed. Were I the President, I would, among other things, (i) begin by stating why a ballroom is needed, and then ask Congress to approve such an addition and allocate funds for the project (it's Congress, not the President, that controls federal property--but Trump believes he has supreme authority over the federal government and Congress is at most, a needless impediment to whatever he wants to do); (ii) not announce we won't damage the existing White House and then surprise everyone by suddenly and completely destroying the East Wing; (iii) seek the input and approval of, and not ignore, the National Trust for Historic Preservation which has said a new ballroom is needed; and (iv) would file the correct building plans and environmental assessments and required by law. I would not seek or accept private donations. Sure, it'd be nice to save some dollars and reduce if only slightly the huge deficit Trump is generating, but this is the people's house we're talking about and I don't want any sponsorships, personal or political favors, quid pro quos, etc.

And all this ignores the pretty awful design Trump came up with, including its absurd and visually incongruous size, the stairway to nowhere, the vision-blocking pillars etc.

Sadly, Trump did not consult me, nor anyone else apparently.

[Shaka]

i genuinely appreciate your efforts to defend Trump.

I just think this issue is a waste of time when compared to the Church's important lawsuit against Mormon Stories.

[YOhio]

Were I the President, I would, among other things, (i) begin by stating why a ballroom is needed, and then ask Congress to approve such an addition and allocate funds for the project (it's Congress, not the President, that controls federal property--but Trump believes he has supreme authority over the federal government and Congress is at most, a needless impediment to whatever he wants to do); (ii) not announce we won't damage the existing White House and then surprise everyone by suddenly and completely destroying the East Wing; (iii) seek the input and approval of, and not ignore, the National Trust for Historic Preservation which has said a new ballroom is needed; and (iv) would file the correct building plans and environmental assessments and required by law. .

This reads like a defense of Trump’s approach.

[PaloAltoCougar]

This reads like a defense of Trump’s approach.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTca6M2P3rJ2Q-tNCz2imy_5riHLuHO3ONHFwlLl8tzkw&s.jpg

[dabrockster]

I mean... we're coming up on the 250th anniversary party of using violence to achieve political goals.... "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.." and when the old Government resists, there will assuredly be violence.

I'm not saying violence is justified at this point. But if the right of the people to alter their government is effectively eliminated through hijinks and shenanigans, and the government still persists in being destructive in the securing of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, violence is all but assured. It is only through the American public's confidence in their ability to change their government that violence is avoided.

Wow..

[LVAllen]

Wow..

Wow what?

Are Iranians entitled to use violence to achieve the political objectives of freedom from their current government or not?

Were Americans entitled to use violence to achieve the political objectives of independence in 1776 or not?

Are people who suffer under a tyrant's bootheel permitted to use violence to achieve their political objectives?

"[M]ankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

If violence is only to be considered a last resort, that means that the statement "is it ever justified for citizens to resort to violence to achieve political objectives" has to be an unqualified "Yes." Because in allowing for that exception, you eliminate the universality of the prohibition. If you don't allow for that exception, tyrants need never fear the people.

Ask an absolute question, get an absolute answer. What exactly is the concern here?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow what?

Are Iranians entitled to use violence to achieve the political objectives of freedom from their current government or not?

Were Americans entitled to use violence to achieve the political objectives of independence in 1776 or not?

Are people who suffer under a tyrant's bootheel permitted to use violence to achieve their political objectives?

"[M]ankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

If violence is only to be considered a last resort, that means that the statement "is it ever justified for citizens to resort to violence to achieve political objectives" has to be an unqualified "Yes." Because in allowing for that exception, you eliminate the universality of the prohibition. If you don't allow for that exception, tyrants need never fear the people.

Ask an absolute question, get an absolute answer. What exactly is the concern here?

Have you read the shooters manifesto? Because it reads just like that.

[YOhio]

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTca6M2P3rJ2Q-tNCz2imy_5riHLuHO3ONHFwlLl8tzkw&s.jpg

It was a dumb joke. You're right that Trump should have done it the right way. But the way you described it sounded like a bureaucratic nightmare.

[Northwestcoug]

So now Graham is pushing for tax funding for the ballroom?

Was it always going to come to this?

[Maximus]

The ballroom is much needed and shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Anyone who has attended a White House event in a tent can tell you that.

So you must've posted about the need for a ballroom before trump brought it up then

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[LVAllen]

Have you read the shooters manifesto? Because it reads just like that.

No. Did he say something about a poll question from 2025? If not, it's irrelevant to the point. You claimed that "young liberals have lost their minds." You supported that claim by posting a polling chart featuring the result of an absolute question - Is it ever justified for citizens to resort to violence.

If it is never justified, that means there are no exceptions. No possibility of rebellion against oppressive governments. Nope. Gotta appeal to their better nature by gently requesting they stop waging war against you. 18th century Americans needed to just shut up and take it.

Does extreme oppression justify the use of violence? I think most people would agree that it does. Not because they are bomb-throwing anarchists, but because it's a form of self-defense (and 71% of conservatives say violence is acceptable for self-defense). But if we can conceive of any circumstance in which it is permissible or even encouraged to use violence to overthrow oppressors, that means there is at least one circumstance in which it is justified. Which brings me back to my original point - it's a stupid question, and any conclusions drawn from it are suspect.

[All-American]

I guess I envision the next democrat president just renaming it to something like the Bill Clinton ballroom and then we all just move on

It would have to be a lot smaller.