trump is a complete and utter disgrace to humanity. His destruction of the East wing, in a home that he doesn’t even own, demonstrates his seething contempt for the people he is supposed to represent, especially women. The East Wing was considered the citadel of power for the FLOTUS. Now it’s been reduced to rubble, without so much as a peep from the trophy wife.
Seriously… any woman who still supports this monster needs to have her head examined.
And until our national criminal is gone from office, continue to:
At a recent NRZ community meeting on Zoom, our police chief was present and I posed this question to him and nos pose it to both of you. When will locals and state law enforcement realize that they must become more forceful in protecting our community from federal jack-booted hooded thugs dragging people away for no tangible reason? And I suggested that if I were to be driving down the street and suddenly saw especially a woman being dragged away, that I would jump from my car and attempt to rescue her. He did t have a clear answer. I want to know when will state and local begging protecting us.
This is the crux. Our local and state law enforcement do have the power and laws to arrest ICE and their illegal actions. Already there have been documented cases of men pretending to be ICE in order to accost women. Without ID, uniforms, training, and rules by ICE, anyone can threaten women (especially). Is an employee of ICE who wears casual clothing, baseball cap backwards, and literally throws someone on the pavement beating their face into the ground, really not just a J6 insurrectionist who likes to beat up people? Local and state LE must do their jobs: protect and serve their communities.
For Whom the Outrages Toll. Let us not forget the Epstein Files, first. I mean we know a pedophile when we see one dodge, duck, shuck, and jive. For some reason we need the files. I rather think we do not, and we already know what is there. The outrages toll for you as a distraction. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/too-much-two-buckets-to-sanity?r=3m1bs
Apparently, they believed trump when he boasted that he would be their protector, whether they wanted it or not (red flag for abuser language, by the way).
They had time enough to observe and intellectually examine his words, actions and lawful convictions, but failed to do so.
Will they finally wake up? Who knows. I can only thank the ones who do and pity the ones who don’t.
We’re waiting. All I see is the typical MAGA regurgitation of debunked statements, conjured up by propaganda channels and aimed at the intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant. None of what you say is true. Either do better, or step out of the way.
I don’t mind contrarians one bit, Jon. You raise some good points.
Presidents may have free rein to decorate and make some changes to the White House and grounds during occupancy, but the home is not their complete responsibility. It is a federal building managed by the National Park Service, which is part of President’s Park. The White House may be exempt from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, but as a courtesy, past presidents submitted their plans to the National Capital Planning Commission before demolition. It’s unfortunate that common courtesy isn’t even an afterthought with the current occupant.
Because the White House is considered federal property, I do not think that the destruction of the East Wing is a triviality. I see that angry Americans are successfully drawing a huge contrast between the extravagance of this one man and the hardship of many, by using this issue as a case in point.
If the ballroom fiasco can move Americans to fight against trumpism, then I’m all for it.
I know I will be in the minority here, but with some limited concerns, I was actually in favor of Trump's decision to build a ballroom adjacent to the White House East Wing. It is a fact, acknowledged by members of both GOP and Democratic administrations who have inhabited the White House in recent years that the building is grosss ineffective to be used for large formal state occasions, including dinners, parties and other events where several hundred or more people are in attendance. There simply is no space in the White House to do that, and in modern times, such events are pretty standard for any administration. Thus the decision to build a ballroom seemed like a no-brainer to me, especially as Trump claimed to have arranged private financing to do so with the building committed to the public trust (as all buildings on the White House grounds have been in the past).
The recent changes in that plan aren't exactly great from my perspective, but I think people spending time complaining about this are taking their eyes off the important matters we need to focus on over the next few years of Trump rule. There are plenty of legitimate concerns and this, at least IMHO, isn't one of them.
Yes, Trump appears to be monstrous at times, and he has done some egregiously wrong things that need to be addressed with legal action from outside the government (as the federal DoJ won't do anything that takes him to task as they are in his pocket and will remain so until he leaves office). But this issue about the ballroom is a red herring. It is misdirection in the form of a great "parlor trick". Like Oz said, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken!"
If we want to be stooges in Trumps game we can play along, but we are better served by ignoring this red herring and focusing on the REAL issues like his abuses of power, most particularly in the potential of leading us into an unwanted war with Venezuela, using excuses that are so lame they sound right out of the 80s. Remember when Reagan did this same thing and we all fell for it? And the then Bush I? and Bush II? That's what we need to be on guard against, not the silly but probably not totally wasteful expenditure of a few hundred million dollars on a ballroom. That is a drop in the bucket for the billionaires.
Thanks for responding, Jon. Whether majority or minority, I love a well reasoned discussion.
There are several reasons why the American public is furious about this ballroom. The most obvious is that the building belongs to the people of this country. Neither the citizens nor federal agencies were consulted beforehand, nor was permission granted to destroy a whole wing for an expensive vanity project. This project is a far cry from installing a bowling alley or tennis court. It is a gargantuan hall, the size of almost two football fields! To hold a few hundred people? At a cost of at least $300 million? At a time when our economy is crashing and people are about to lose essential services such as healthcare and SNAP? The only thing missing from Trump is a huge photographed “bird flip” to the taxpaying public. “Let them eat cake!”
The focus on the ballroom is to juxtapose billionaire wealth next to American poverty, as well as to illustrate the arrogance and tone deafness of Trump. And it’s working. According to CNN, they have been told to soften the criticism on this issue. Apparently, the old boy is getting peeved. A better solution would have been to continue hosting his soirées at Mar a Lago, as is his long time custom. The ballroom there is 20,000 square feet and can hold 650 people.
Regarding the financing, let’s be clear. Trump never finances anything himself. He has already filed suit against our government to be reimbursed $230 million for what he claims are illegal, politically motivated investigations into his public and private dealings. When he is awarded this money, he claims it will be “donated” towards building his grand ballroom. How generous! Refunding the taxpayers with their own money - in the form of a ballroom they will never set foot in.
As for the private donations? These billionaire donors will be well rewarded in return with huge federal contracts and favors. “A little quid pro quo with your champagne and caviar, sir?”
Well, sorry to be a bit of a contrarian here, but at least a few of your "facts" are incorrect. While it is correct to state that the White House is a public building, it in fact has ALWAYS been the complete responsibility of the President occupying it to use it, decorate it and do pretty much whatever they wanted as they saw fit. There is no requirement to approve ANYTHING related to changes that a President wants to make. Most Presidents have in fact honored the tradition of making limited if any changes but that is not the law in this regard.
As I noted, this is a change that has long been needed. The idea of holding large state functions on the lawn under tents is insane and stupid in a modern society. We can all hate Trump for who he is and what he does, but in this regards, at least, he is acting amazingly enough like a "normal" President and what he is doing, like it or not, seems completely reasonable to me.
As I have repeatedly said, personally I despise Trump but that avoids the fact that this nation and its people VOTED him into office. He is not a dictator (at least not yet) who took over power on his own say so. A majority of people voted for him (amazingly!) and so he is entitled to the same rights and privileges of any other President including using the White House in whatever way he chooses. To naysay that is in opposition to the spirit of this country.
Does Trump do the right things? Of course not, but we should be focused on those things he does that are important and in opposition to what is good for the nation. Whatever he chooses to do with this ballroom (which in fact I think is probably a good idea, and that is a feeling shared with me by prominent Democrats) should be up to him without much objection.
Focus on what's important, and leave the trivialities alone.
I wonder if the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson can think of any public testimony in our history that was of significance as monumental as Jack Smith's would be?
I felt a small thrill reading the very measured and yet stern letter from Jack Smith's counsel. It seems like perhaps we should be demanding "Release Volume II" as vociferously as "Release the Epstein files."
Follow the architects and engineers. Highly improbable that the grotesque ballroom can even be built. Right now we are looking at Photoshop AI. I'm betting on a restoration of the East Wing and the United States rejuvenating and reinventing itself for the people. And I'm a dual citizen of Canada and the United States with a lot of options. The destruction of the White House is probably one of the most effective ways to awaken the sleeping giant, us.
Yes, there is a fascinating article on FB from a guy who says he's an architect with 20+ years of experience. He did a breakdown of the measurements claimed (90,000 sq.ft) etc., and seating for 999 people, how much space is actually needed per person in a banquet hall, etc. All to show that the "plans" are non-existent BS. I can paste in the article if people are interested.
Please do! Joyce has huge reach! I studied architecture at MIT and Harvard, so even though I didn't become an architect, I am fascinated by facts around building.
Here's why the new White House ballroom project is not real. (The demo is obviously real.) Some background - I am a licensed Architect with 20+ years of experience. I have worked on multiple Federal projects with sensitive building programs that required background checks.
*** EDIT 10/24 ***
Some people pointed out the exterior rendering I used was discredited by Snopes. My apologies - I found the image on a reputable news site. I have updated the images to be from White House sources. My analysis remains the same.
******
1. With a projected size of 90,000sf and a newly revised budget of $300M, the cost per square foot would be $3,333. No building costs anywhere near that. $1,000/sf is astronomical.
2. Let's assume, since we are drawing in the classical, style, that the proportions of the building adhere to the Golden Ratio. A 90,000sf would be a building with a footprint roughly 380' x 235'. Longer than a football field and 1.5x as wide.
2. The building is projected to accommodate 999 people. 15sf/person is required for a banquet area; 20sf/person is pretty comfortable. What you see in the rendering below is closer to 20sf/person. That's only 20,000sf, or a space that is 200'x100'. It's supposed to be a ballroom, so let's be extraordinarily generous and provide 10,000sf for the ballroom support functions, and another 10,000sf for pre-function. Extraordinarily generous. That's STILL only 40,000sf, not even half of the supposed building.
3. There are no drawings for the building. The renderings are poorly coordinated - exterior views do not match the interior views. See below - the White House is 70 feet tall, to the roof. The interior renderings show a room that is roughly 100' x 200', with a ~20 foot ceiling. The exterior renderings show a building footprint of 4.5x that amount.
Those are renderings that could be produced by young staff in a week or two, at most. Nothing else exists.
He's right. I recently fought an oversized-house proposal right above the Golden Gate Bridge bordering our Golden Gate National Recreation Area. GGNRA. It's been eight years and nothing has been started. It was all Photoshop nonsense and our local City Council let it breeze through and then turned down our appeal. The owner of the land is a Mongolian Member of Parliament laundering money through American real estate. It was our grass roots effort that kept blocking him combined with a ton of lawsuits. The White House demolition is just the beginning. I remain optimistic.
Congrats on your activism! As a San Franciscan at heart, I especially applaud you! Also thanks for your response. As we all know, just because it's on FB (or the internet) doesn't mean it's true.
I love the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith basically told Jockstrap Jordan in a formal letter to go fuck himself. That's the only proper response to that strutting little bantam pissant trying to re-invent the past to suit Trump's desperate compulsion to declare himself innocent of everything we know he's guilty of.
These are some thoughts about trump’s debris removal from the Whitehouse and immunity. Trump v US (2024) granted trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “core constitutional powers,” and presumptive immunity for other “official acts” done while in office. The unilateral removal of the Whitehouse fill to be used for a private purpose is theft of a federal asset. Assuming the fill is contaminated with asbestos, lead, etc., the dumping likely violates various environmental laws (state and federal). These actions seem unlikely to be protected under Trump v. US. Maryland should be able to prosecute the environmental case. A subsequent AG could prosecute the theft case. Trump can probably pardon himself for the federal theft but not for the potential state prosecution by Maryland. However, in the end, the Whitehouse is just sticks and stones. We have much more important problems.
If the Whitehouse “sticks and stones” end up being a trump trap, perhaps it is worth it. The real issue is how did we become such a vile country that does not care if children, or anyone else, starves or cannot get healthcare (I don’t care who it is- legal, “illegal” or whatever.) while wealth is constantly moved upstream. After all, Stonehenge and Coventry Cathedral are just sticks and stones.
There is a primeval urge in humans to hug - whether it is literally or metaphorically. The people who gather at Stonehenge on the solstices to celebrate are drawn there to "hug" their history - the roots of religion and tribal culture in the UK. Likewise, when people gather at Coventry cathedral, they are not just there to worship - they gather there to remember the dead and the cause of those deaths - the Cathedral is a constant reminder of what danger an autocracy presents.
America is a young country - at least for those who came after the 1600's. It has no "ancient" monuments and no ruins of buildings bombed in war. The White House and it's environs are one of the biggest symbols of American one-ness. The only other one I can think of is the 9/11 site, Ground Zero. I wonder if the American populace, Red AND Blue would rise up in horror if trump decided to build a casino THERE?
Compared to the hurt and devastation being done to human beings - foreign and domestic - at this point? Quite honestly, what he's done to the WH is up and in front of all American citizens - the media actually shows it, but the arrests & deportations here and the murders of people from Venezuela, Columbia, etc - whether they really are drug dealers or fisherman doesnt matter. Rule of Law???
My question is if all services from Medicare to snap to healthcare to the department of education to fema etc., are being cut, but my tax rate is still the same Or higher… Where are my taxes going besides ice, military,
And to the wealthy - if that is true it seems to me that we need to get together and have another big ass tea party ? Your thoughts?
I’m tempted to change my withholding on my W2 so as little as possible is withheld and filing for an extension noting that I will pay my taxes when we have a president who abides by the constitution and complies with the emoluments clause, shares his tax returns, isn’t profiting from his position, and isn’t canceling payment of my tax dollars to programs and causes Congress has appropriated them for. Like USAID, SNAP, vaccines, etc.
But if *i* did that, I’d be thrown in jail or fined heavily. Trump brags about NOT paying taxes saying that “makes him smart”. Pretty sure if I did that, it would make me a criminal. Weird how that works.
Debtors prisons were a thing of the past but I could see the Republicans reincarnating that terrible time. The good old days as they would say. We're going backwards.
There were workhouses during the time of debtors prisons and you ended up spending a good portion of your life paying off your debt. It all sounds familiar in our day and age.
Being an Australian, in Australia, I am perplexed at the gerrymander system making some districts red, some blue, surely people have the right to vote for whoever they choose?
However the way the gerrymander is presented I feel it lures voters to think they must vote according to how their state is gerrymandered.
Would be good if people knew they had the freedom of choice despite the gerrymander.
Seems to me the American voting system has got so complex as to be too complex for most voters to fully understand - and too easy for the unscrupulous to undermine.
Everyone can vote however they want to, and everyone knows that. The only effect of a gerrymander is that you wind up with a district that has numerically more registered voters of one party than of the other party. Democrats do this just as often as Republicans do when Democrats have the majority in a state legislature. The thing to remember is that all the legislators know is the number of voters registered Dem vs GOP. They also look at demographics like how many Black voters are there (they tend to vote Democrat), how many Latinos, etc.
But no matter how a district is gerrymandered, no one controls how you vote. I’m a registered Republican, but I have voted for Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden and Harris. In local elections, as well as state and national, I personally have always voted the person not the party. People like me can throw the logic of a gerrymander off and skew the results. Unfortunately for me, I live in a deep red state where I’m almost always out voted by more conservative Republicans. So in that sense “my vote doesn’t count”. But I have never felt compelled to vote for the Republican candidate if I don’t like them. Some people might choose not to vote in such a case (why bother?), but no one feels compelled to vote a certain way because they’re outnumbered in their district or their state.
Democrats do NOT do this the way that Repubckians do. The country is more Democrats, but the House has a majority. The Senate has a majority because acreage has more rights than people
It’s all very ironic because the House of Representatives is supposed to be “the Common People’s House”. It became the Partisan House long ago and that is a big part of the problem.
You’re right Patricia, and those Senators aren’t affected by gerrymandering. They are simply a reflection of who lives in the state. If more Republicans live there than Democrats, the Senators are more like to be Republicans, and vice versa. And even that doesn’t always matter. Georgia right now has 2 Democrats for their Senators, and it’s basically a red state. If you appeal to the voters, they will vote for you. This means that a conservative Democrat can win a conservative state. It’s a fair system no matter what the progressives say.
True, but Kerry from Australia was asking if gerrymandering made people feel compelled to vote according to the preferred political party of the gerrymander. My answer was NO, people do not feel like they have to, say, vote Republican just because their district got tilted that way. You may feel like your vote for a Democrat doesn’t count, but you don’t feel like you must vote for a Republican. That’s what Kerry asked.
I like it that each state, regardless of size, has 2 senators. So Delaware and texass have equal representation. In the house the number of reps has to do with population.
Your comment doesn’t answer the question that Kerry from Australia posed, to wit:
“However the way the gerrymander is presented I feel it lures voters to think they must vote according to how their state is gerrymandered.
Would be good if people knew they had the freedom of choice despite the gerrymander.”
My response does answer this question by saying that no matter how the state is gerrymandered, no one thinks they have to vote for the party in the majority of the gerrymandered district. Can you not read?
are you asking ME if I cannot read ? # in the house varies by population when they draw the districts all around so that it goes around black voters, white people(republicans ) get more reps ....OK
NO!!! That comment was replying to Jen Andrews. The way these comment threads show up, you have to follow the lines up in a way that’s visually confusing. If my comment wasn’t sent to you as a reply in your email, it wasn’t for you. I wish Subsatck had a better way to manage these conversations so they’re not so visually confusing. 🙄
Gerrymandering right now is different. Redistricting occurs after a census and in some states (actually 7 are non partisan including CA which is why they are voting on redistricting) it is done non-partisan. Right now redistricting is being done to suppress democrat votes. That is plain and simple. It is also being done ro get rid of black and women legislators. Don't pass this off as both parties do it.
Furthermore, the Louisiana redistricting case before the USSC involves a redistricting done in part to keep Julia Letlow in the House, so don’t tell me that it’s designed to “get rid of” women legislators. Julia Letlow is thinking about running for the Senate against Bill Cassidy, and she is certain to get the Governor’s endorsement should she choose to run. There’s even a good chance she’ll beat Cassidy in the closed primary. Nobody is gerrymandering against women.
If you’re not from Louisiana, then you don’t know what you’re talking about. I will say that the Callais redistricting was also to cut Garrett Graves out of the House because he made Jeff Landry mad by endorsing someone else in the Governor’s race. So when Landry won, he punished Graves. The legislature was under a court order to create a second majority minority district, so Landry decided that if someone had to be sacrificed it would be Graves. You’re pretty ignorant if you don’t know that.
I'm done with you. You are the first crude person I have encountered here. Why would I know the onset and outs of LA politics? Is that really ignorant? Adios.
Even though the custom has always been to only redistrict once every 10 years after a census, there is no law that says it must be done that way, nor is there a law that says you can only do it once every 10 years. No one has tried to change the custom before, that’s all.
Ps - my southern state used to be controlled by the Democrats. Now it’s the Republicans. I guarantee you that when the Democrats were in charge (for the first 1/2 of my 73 years), they were just as ruthless as the Republicans are now. We even had a dictator, Huey Long. Then we had a second dictator, Edwin Edwards. So I definitely will say that both parties do it. It’s called politics.
Your comment doesn’t answer the question that Kerry from Australia posed, to wit:
“However the way the gerrymander is presented I feel it lures voters to think they must vote according to how their state is gerrymandered.
Would be good if people knew they had the freedom of choice despite the gerrymander.”
My response does answer this question by saying that no matter how the state is gerrymandered, no one thinks they have to vote for the party in the majority of the gerrymandered district. Can you not read?
Congressional districts can be gerrymandered but not whole states. People have the right to vote however they want, but it can be discouraging to vote, never mind run for office, in a district where the odds are stacked against your preferred candidates. Even when district lines are fairly drawn, one party may have a significant advantage.
If the Committee refuses to allow Smith to give testimony in open court, can he then say his piece publicly via any of the media that are still functioning?
I am desperate for your opinion(s): what are the possible motivations behind the decisions of the conservative majority of SCOTUS that allow DJT to do what he's doing? Are they really just fascists? Do they feel that attaining a Christian theocracy is more important than the Constitution and democracy? Are they (some of them) insane? As individuals or a group, what do you think they want to achieve? I am just so puzzled...
I fervently believe that this coup has been decades in the making. The SCOTUS fascists were put in place one by one as placeholders until it was "safe" to implement the long-term plan of destroying our democratic form of government.
Are u looking into statitics showing possible algorrhythims designed to add about 7 % to the vote count processing machines to ensure a win for republicans.....or whatever is needed to add just enough votes to sway the elections total count. Count...experts in election vote analysis have recently presented the case for protecting all of our elections on the david pakman show....can u look into these claims by world renoun math experts about how statistics can be used to keep our elections free and fair & Secure and untampered with....? i believe the protection of the counting process requires keeping all vote management machines off line so algorhythms cannot be used to add just enough to yhe vote total count to manipulate the outcome...i believe protections need to be put in place so there are not any intertuptions in the voting process to allow access to the process..thank u Beverly Nashold
Those algorithms have already been used. There is no way statistically that Trump could have won Every. Single. Battleground. State. Trump knew the fix was in. That's why he essentially quit campaigning and started his "milking the giraffe" dancing before the election.
I'm shipping 2K books today from Canada 🇨🇦 in my independent publishing company. Bookstores are thriving in the San Francisco Bay Area. Great turnout for Beatriz Williams at Book Passage. She writes historical fiction. History repeats!
I hope we will get to read one day in The Week Ahead or the Sunday Morning Wrap-Up that the dimocratic party (not a typo) has replaced its senior “leadership”, including the current DNC, and has started fighting daily with an aggressive, attacking ad strategy. Why is Canada the only one capable of this? Look at what it did to trump. If the dims are mindless and bereft of ideas, run this Query through ChatGPT. Query: “Give a proposal for a nationwide advertising campaign for democrats. The ad campaign should target all voters, be bold, and have a large budget.”
trump is a complete and utter disgrace to humanity. His destruction of the East wing, in a home that he doesn’t even own, demonstrates his seething contempt for the people he is supposed to represent, especially women. The East Wing was considered the citadel of power for the FLOTUS. Now it’s been reduced to rubble, without so much as a peep from the trophy wife.
Seriously… any woman who still supports this monster needs to have her head examined.
And until our national criminal is gone from office, continue to:
Resist, fight and never obey in advance!
At a recent NRZ community meeting on Zoom, our police chief was present and I posed this question to him and nos pose it to both of you. When will locals and state law enforcement realize that they must become more forceful in protecting our community from federal jack-booted hooded thugs dragging people away for no tangible reason? And I suggested that if I were to be driving down the street and suddenly saw especially a woman being dragged away, that I would jump from my car and attempt to rescue her. He did t have a clear answer. I want to know when will state and local begging protecting us.
This is the crux. Our local and state law enforcement do have the power and laws to arrest ICE and their illegal actions. Already there have been documented cases of men pretending to be ICE in order to accost women. Without ID, uniforms, training, and rules by ICE, anyone can threaten women (especially). Is an employee of ICE who wears casual clothing, baseball cap backwards, and literally throws someone on the pavement beating their face into the ground, really not just a J6 insurrectionist who likes to beat up people? Local and state LE must do their jobs: protect and serve their communities.
For Whom the Outrages Toll. Let us not forget the Epstein Files, first. I mean we know a pedophile when we see one dodge, duck, shuck, and jive. For some reason we need the files. I rather think we do not, and we already know what is there. The outrages toll for you as a distraction. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/too-much-two-buckets-to-sanity?r=3m1bs
you said it all and you said it well and I thank you for it! I for one as a woman I’m enraged that he could get away with all of this destruction.
Stop supporting The Empire! Boycott Amazon and Walmart, to begin. Just do it.
I know and sort of understand some of the reasons many women voted for trump.
I also know that a good many of those women have regretted their vote.
It's beyond me why any woman would continue to support him.
Any woman who still supports him needs to examine her news sources, her Facebook algorithms, and her own conscience.
Apparently, they believed trump when he boasted that he would be their protector, whether they wanted it or not (red flag for abuser language, by the way).
They had time enough to observe and intellectually examine his words, actions and lawful convictions, but failed to do so.
Will they finally wake up? Who knows. I can only thank the ones who do and pity the ones who don’t.
ANY WOMEN? What a disgusting and condescending COMMENT.
46% of women voted for TRUMP
including 38% of Hispanic woman - Do they need their HEADS EXAMINED?
NO, they don't need you to explain ANYTHING.
- 30% increase core costs INFLATION (fuel, housing, gas)
- 11,000,000 illegals invading AMERICA
- 11% spike in inner city crime
- Girls forced to compete and shower with boys
- Weak foreign policy
THEY GET IT. You don't.
Maybe instead of talking YOU START LISTENING? They may not fit into your
narcissistic personality type, but ITS why Democrats are out of power AT EVERY LEVEL.
You are badly misinformed
Jennette he’s a troll. Ignore him
CITE ONE EXAMPLE?
They are all true and I BRING RECEIPTS
Cite your sources, then. Also, what do you even mean by "receipts"?
We’re waiting. All I see is the typical MAGA regurgitation of debunked statements, conjured up by propaganda channels and aimed at the intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant. None of what you say is true. Either do better, or step out of the way.
They don't get it, and it seems you don't either.
Celeste he’s a troll. Ignore him
ANOTHER LEFTIST who doesn't believe in SCIENCE. There was POST POLLING
data they tabulated WHY people voted.
IN your NARCISSITIC world, you don't believe in SCIENCE, you believe in your FEELINGS which ARE NOT support by ANYTHING but your sanctimony.
THIS is why your lOST and will keep LOSING.
You’re accusing the dems of NOT believing in science? You definitely need help😎
Jeannette: Perfect response. Thank you.
What SCIENCE do REPUBLICANS not believe in?
That COVID vaccine works - didn't stop acquisition or transmission
that was bullshit
THat masks works - that another leftist fantasy not supported by science
THAT KIDS need to vaccinated? that was another left wing fantasy
OR THAT MEN can get pregnant? Another leftist lie
Should I go?
Good grief. Stop wasting our time.
I assume you realize you just described the MAGAs.
Men can get pregnant is a LEFTIST believe.
Just like LEFTISTS have trouble describing what a WOMEN is.
I don’t mind contrarians one bit, Jon. You raise some good points.
Presidents may have free rein to decorate and make some changes to the White House and grounds during occupancy, but the home is not their complete responsibility. It is a federal building managed by the National Park Service, which is part of President’s Park. The White House may be exempt from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, but as a courtesy, past presidents submitted their plans to the National Capital Planning Commission before demolition. It’s unfortunate that common courtesy isn’t even an afterthought with the current occupant.
Because the White House is considered federal property, I do not think that the destruction of the East Wing is a triviality. I see that angry Americans are successfully drawing a huge contrast between the extravagance of this one man and the hardship of many, by using this issue as a case in point.
If the ballroom fiasco can move Americans to fight against trumpism, then I’m all for it.
I know I will be in the minority here, but with some limited concerns, I was actually in favor of Trump's decision to build a ballroom adjacent to the White House East Wing. It is a fact, acknowledged by members of both GOP and Democratic administrations who have inhabited the White House in recent years that the building is grosss ineffective to be used for large formal state occasions, including dinners, parties and other events where several hundred or more people are in attendance. There simply is no space in the White House to do that, and in modern times, such events are pretty standard for any administration. Thus the decision to build a ballroom seemed like a no-brainer to me, especially as Trump claimed to have arranged private financing to do so with the building committed to the public trust (as all buildings on the White House grounds have been in the past).
The recent changes in that plan aren't exactly great from my perspective, but I think people spending time complaining about this are taking their eyes off the important matters we need to focus on over the next few years of Trump rule. There are plenty of legitimate concerns and this, at least IMHO, isn't one of them.
Yes, Trump appears to be monstrous at times, and he has done some egregiously wrong things that need to be addressed with legal action from outside the government (as the federal DoJ won't do anything that takes him to task as they are in his pocket and will remain so until he leaves office). But this issue about the ballroom is a red herring. It is misdirection in the form of a great "parlor trick". Like Oz said, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken!"
If we want to be stooges in Trumps game we can play along, but we are better served by ignoring this red herring and focusing on the REAL issues like his abuses of power, most particularly in the potential of leading us into an unwanted war with Venezuela, using excuses that are so lame they sound right out of the 80s. Remember when Reagan did this same thing and we all fell for it? And the then Bush I? and Bush II? That's what we need to be on guard against, not the silly but probably not totally wasteful expenditure of a few hundred million dollars on a ballroom. That is a drop in the bucket for the billionaires.
Thanks for responding, Jon. Whether majority or minority, I love a well reasoned discussion.
There are several reasons why the American public is furious about this ballroom. The most obvious is that the building belongs to the people of this country. Neither the citizens nor federal agencies were consulted beforehand, nor was permission granted to destroy a whole wing for an expensive vanity project. This project is a far cry from installing a bowling alley or tennis court. It is a gargantuan hall, the size of almost two football fields! To hold a few hundred people? At a cost of at least $300 million? At a time when our economy is crashing and people are about to lose essential services such as healthcare and SNAP? The only thing missing from Trump is a huge photographed “bird flip” to the taxpaying public. “Let them eat cake!”
The focus on the ballroom is to juxtapose billionaire wealth next to American poverty, as well as to illustrate the arrogance and tone deafness of Trump. And it’s working. According to CNN, they have been told to soften the criticism on this issue. Apparently, the old boy is getting peeved. A better solution would have been to continue hosting his soirées at Mar a Lago, as is his long time custom. The ballroom there is 20,000 square feet and can hold 650 people.
Regarding the financing, let’s be clear. Trump never finances anything himself. He has already filed suit against our government to be reimbursed $230 million for what he claims are illegal, politically motivated investigations into his public and private dealings. When he is awarded this money, he claims it will be “donated” towards building his grand ballroom. How generous! Refunding the taxpayers with their own money - in the form of a ballroom they will never set foot in.
As for the private donations? These billionaire donors will be well rewarded in return with huge federal contracts and favors. “A little quid pro quo with your champagne and caviar, sir?”
So there you have it. Grift and all.
Well, sorry to be a bit of a contrarian here, but at least a few of your "facts" are incorrect. While it is correct to state that the White House is a public building, it in fact has ALWAYS been the complete responsibility of the President occupying it to use it, decorate it and do pretty much whatever they wanted as they saw fit. There is no requirement to approve ANYTHING related to changes that a President wants to make. Most Presidents have in fact honored the tradition of making limited if any changes but that is not the law in this regard.
As I noted, this is a change that has long been needed. The idea of holding large state functions on the lawn under tents is insane and stupid in a modern society. We can all hate Trump for who he is and what he does, but in this regards, at least, he is acting amazingly enough like a "normal" President and what he is doing, like it or not, seems completely reasonable to me.
As I have repeatedly said, personally I despise Trump but that avoids the fact that this nation and its people VOTED him into office. He is not a dictator (at least not yet) who took over power on his own say so. A majority of people voted for him (amazingly!) and so he is entitled to the same rights and privileges of any other President including using the White House in whatever way he chooses. To naysay that is in opposition to the spirit of this country.
Does Trump do the right things? Of course not, but we should be focused on those things he does that are important and in opposition to what is good for the nation. Whatever he chooses to do with this ballroom (which in fact I think is probably a good idea, and that is a feeling shared with me by prominent Democrats) should be up to him without much objection.
Focus on what's important, and leave the trivialities alone.
I wonder if the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson can think of any public testimony in our history that was of significance as monumental as Jack Smith's would be?
I felt a small thrill reading the very measured and yet stern letter from Jack Smith's counsel. It seems like perhaps we should be demanding "Release Volume II" as vociferously as "Release the Epstein files."
Agreed. Jack Smith holds the sword and their blind hubris may provide him with the opportunity to unsheathe it.
Not truthfully.
In a different category exists Big Tobacco and Big Oil.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26102025/trump-republicans-big-oil-climate-liability/
Follow the architects and engineers. Highly improbable that the grotesque ballroom can even be built. Right now we are looking at Photoshop AI. I'm betting on a restoration of the East Wing and the United States rejuvenating and reinventing itself for the people. And I'm a dual citizen of Canada and the United States with a lot of options. The destruction of the White House is probably one of the most effective ways to awaken the sleeping giant, us.
From your keyboard to God's eyes. . .
Yes, there is a fascinating article on FB from a guy who says he's an architect with 20+ years of experience. He did a breakdown of the measurements claimed (90,000 sq.ft) etc., and seating for 999 people, how much space is actually needed per person in a banquet hall, etc. All to show that the "plans" are non-existent BS. I can paste in the article if people are interested.
Please do! Joyce has huge reach! I studied architecture at MIT and Harvard, so even though I didn't become an architect, I am fascinated by facts around building.
This is from Andrew Kerr on FB, October 23:
Here's why the new White House ballroom project is not real. (The demo is obviously real.) Some background - I am a licensed Architect with 20+ years of experience. I have worked on multiple Federal projects with sensitive building programs that required background checks.
*** EDIT 10/24 ***
Some people pointed out the exterior rendering I used was discredited by Snopes. My apologies - I found the image on a reputable news site. I have updated the images to be from White House sources. My analysis remains the same.
******
1. With a projected size of 90,000sf and a newly revised budget of $300M, the cost per square foot would be $3,333. No building costs anywhere near that. $1,000/sf is astronomical.
2. Let's assume, since we are drawing in the classical, style, that the proportions of the building adhere to the Golden Ratio. A 90,000sf would be a building with a footprint roughly 380' x 235'. Longer than a football field and 1.5x as wide.
2. The building is projected to accommodate 999 people. 15sf/person is required for a banquet area; 20sf/person is pretty comfortable. What you see in the rendering below is closer to 20sf/person. That's only 20,000sf, or a space that is 200'x100'. It's supposed to be a ballroom, so let's be extraordinarily generous and provide 10,000sf for the ballroom support functions, and another 10,000sf for pre-function. Extraordinarily generous. That's STILL only 40,000sf, not even half of the supposed building.
3. There are no drawings for the building. The renderings are poorly coordinated - exterior views do not match the interior views. See below - the White House is 70 feet tall, to the roof. The interior renderings show a room that is roughly 100' x 200', with a ~20 foot ceiling. The exterior renderings show a building footprint of 4.5x that amount.
Those are renderings that could be produced by young staff in a week or two, at most. Nothing else exists.
Linda, please let me know what you think.
He's right. I recently fought an oversized-house proposal right above the Golden Gate Bridge bordering our Golden Gate National Recreation Area. GGNRA. It's been eight years and nothing has been started. It was all Photoshop nonsense and our local City Council let it breeze through and then turned down our appeal. The owner of the land is a Mongolian Member of Parliament laundering money through American real estate. It was our grass roots effort that kept blocking him combined with a ton of lawsuits. The White House demolition is just the beginning. I remain optimistic.
Congrats on your activism! As a San Franciscan at heart, I especially applaud you! Also thanks for your response. As we all know, just because it's on FB (or the internet) doesn't mean it's true.
Except the demolition is done - I guess the question is if or when the proverbial "ballroom" will actually appear.
Oh, yes!
I love the fact that Special Counsel Jack Smith basically told Jockstrap Jordan in a formal letter to go fuck himself. That's the only proper response to that strutting little bantam pissant trying to re-invent the past to suit Trump's desperate compulsion to declare himself innocent of everything we know he's guilty of.
"Only in public". Good call by Jack Smith!
These are some thoughts about trump’s debris removal from the Whitehouse and immunity. Trump v US (2024) granted trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “core constitutional powers,” and presumptive immunity for other “official acts” done while in office. The unilateral removal of the Whitehouse fill to be used for a private purpose is theft of a federal asset. Assuming the fill is contaminated with asbestos, lead, etc., the dumping likely violates various environmental laws (state and federal). These actions seem unlikely to be protected under Trump v. US. Maryland should be able to prosecute the environmental case. A subsequent AG could prosecute the theft case. Trump can probably pardon himself for the federal theft but not for the potential state prosecution by Maryland. However, in the end, the Whitehouse is just sticks and stones. We have much more important problems.
"However, in the end, the Whitehouse is just sticks and stones."
Sometimes, Parkin, "sticks and stones" are much MORE than just "sticks and stones."
If the Whitehouse “sticks and stones” end up being a trump trap, perhaps it is worth it. The real issue is how did we become such a vile country that does not care if children, or anyone else, starves or cannot get healthcare (I don’t care who it is- legal, “illegal” or whatever.) while wealth is constantly moved upstream. After all, Stonehenge and Coventry Cathedral are just sticks and stones.
There is a primeval urge in humans to hug - whether it is literally or metaphorically. The people who gather at Stonehenge on the solstices to celebrate are drawn there to "hug" their history - the roots of religion and tribal culture in the UK. Likewise, when people gather at Coventry cathedral, they are not just there to worship - they gather there to remember the dead and the cause of those deaths - the Cathedral is a constant reminder of what danger an autocracy presents.
America is a young country - at least for those who came after the 1600's. It has no "ancient" monuments and no ruins of buildings bombed in war. The White House and it's environs are one of the biggest symbols of American one-ness. The only other one I can think of is the 9/11 site, Ground Zero. I wonder if the American populace, Red AND Blue would rise up in horror if trump decided to build a casino THERE?
Don't give him any ideas!
I doubt the ballroom will be spared in the next war like Saint Paul’s.
perhaps the people will tear it down like the Bastille...
There is a wonderful AI generated video on FB, you don’t have to be on it to watch it, put up by Frank Galloway, watch it. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17d4LAAymc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Compared to the hurt and devastation being done to human beings - foreign and domestic - at this point? Quite honestly, what he's done to the WH is up and in front of all American citizens - the media actually shows it, but the arrests & deportations here and the murders of people from Venezuela, Columbia, etc - whether they really are drug dealers or fisherman doesnt matter. Rule of Law???
Maybe that's why SecretService went with the removal-trucks to dump it all. Like an escort in the getaway-car?
(I forget where they took it though)
My question is if all services from Medicare to snap to healthcare to the department of education to fema etc., are being cut, but my tax rate is still the same Or higher… Where are my taxes going besides ice, military,
And to the wealthy - if that is true it seems to me that we need to get together and have another big ass tea party ? Your thoughts?
I’m tempted to change my withholding on my W2 so as little as possible is withheld and filing for an extension noting that I will pay my taxes when we have a president who abides by the constitution and complies with the emoluments clause, shares his tax returns, isn’t profiting from his position, and isn’t canceling payment of my tax dollars to programs and causes Congress has appropriated them for. Like USAID, SNAP, vaccines, etc.
But if *i* did that, I’d be thrown in jail or fined heavily. Trump brags about NOT paying taxes saying that “makes him smart”. Pretty sure if I did that, it would make me a criminal. Weird how that works.
Debtors prisons were a thing of the past but I could see the Republicans reincarnating that terrible time. The good old days as they would say. We're going backwards.
There were workhouses during the time of debtors prisons and you ended up spending a good portion of your life paying off your debt. It all sounds familiar in our day and age.
The government would then freeze all your financial assets.
Too bad they aren’t doing that with Trump.
Dynamic Duo! I’ll be tuning in. ❤️
Being an Australian, in Australia, I am perplexed at the gerrymander system making some districts red, some blue, surely people have the right to vote for whoever they choose?
However the way the gerrymander is presented I feel it lures voters to think they must vote according to how their state is gerrymandered.
Would be good if people knew they had the freedom of choice despite the gerrymander.
Seems to me the American voting system has got so complex as to be too complex for most voters to fully understand - and too easy for the unscrupulous to undermine.
Everyone can vote however they want to, and everyone knows that. The only effect of a gerrymander is that you wind up with a district that has numerically more registered voters of one party than of the other party. Democrats do this just as often as Republicans do when Democrats have the majority in a state legislature. The thing to remember is that all the legislators know is the number of voters registered Dem vs GOP. They also look at demographics like how many Black voters are there (they tend to vote Democrat), how many Latinos, etc.
But no matter how a district is gerrymandered, no one controls how you vote. I’m a registered Republican, but I have voted for Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden and Harris. In local elections, as well as state and national, I personally have always voted the person not the party. People like me can throw the logic of a gerrymander off and skew the results. Unfortunately for me, I live in a deep red state where I’m almost always out voted by more conservative Republicans. So in that sense “my vote doesn’t count”. But I have never felt compelled to vote for the Republican candidate if I don’t like them. Some people might choose not to vote in such a case (why bother?), but no one feels compelled to vote a certain way because they’re outnumbered in their district or their state.
Democrats do NOT do this the way that Repubckians do. The country is more Democrats, but the House has a majority. The Senate has a majority because acreage has more rights than people
Beat me to it, Jen.
no, each state has 2 senators
It’s all very ironic because the House of Representatives is supposed to be “the Common People’s House”. It became the Partisan House long ago and that is a big part of the problem.
You’re right Patricia, and those Senators aren’t affected by gerrymandering. They are simply a reflection of who lives in the state. If more Republicans live there than Democrats, the Senators are more like to be Republicans, and vice versa. And even that doesn’t always matter. Georgia right now has 2 Democrats for their Senators, and it’s basically a red state. If you appeal to the voters, they will vote for you. This means that a conservative Democrat can win a conservative state. It’s a fair system no matter what the progressives say.
correct, the senators are not affected by gerrymandering. but the number of reps in the house is
True, but Kerry from Australia was asking if gerrymandering made people feel compelled to vote according to the preferred political party of the gerrymander. My answer was NO, people do not feel like they have to, say, vote Republican just because their district got tilted that way. You may feel like your vote for a Democrat doesn’t count, but you don’t feel like you must vote for a Republican. That’s what Kerry asked.
I like it that each state, regardless of size, has 2 senators. So Delaware and texass have equal representation. In the house the number of reps has to do with population.
Agreed. The difference balances things out.
Your comment doesn’t answer the question that Kerry from Australia posed, to wit:
“However the way the gerrymander is presented I feel it lures voters to think they must vote according to how their state is gerrymandered.
Would be good if people knew they had the freedom of choice despite the gerrymander.”
My response does answer this question by saying that no matter how the state is gerrymandered, no one thinks they have to vote for the party in the majority of the gerrymandered district. Can you not read?
are you asking ME if I cannot read ? # in the house varies by population when they draw the districts all around so that it goes around black voters, white people(republicans ) get more reps ....OK
NO!!! That comment was replying to Jen Andrews. The way these comment threads show up, you have to follow the lines up in a way that’s visually confusing. If my comment wasn’t sent to you as a reply in your email, it wasn’t for you. I wish Subsatck had a better way to manage these conversations so they’re not so visually confusing. 🙄
OK, I have noticed that as well. A response should be under the comment and subsequent responses should appear in order under the comment.
Gerrymandering right now is different. Redistricting occurs after a census and in some states (actually 7 are non partisan including CA which is why they are voting on redistricting) it is done non-partisan. Right now redistricting is being done to suppress democrat votes. That is plain and simple. It is also being done ro get rid of black and women legislators. Don't pass this off as both parties do it.
Furthermore, the Louisiana redistricting case before the USSC involves a redistricting done in part to keep Julia Letlow in the House, so don’t tell me that it’s designed to “get rid of” women legislators. Julia Letlow is thinking about running for the Senate against Bill Cassidy, and she is certain to get the Governor’s endorsement should she choose to run. There’s even a good chance she’ll beat Cassidy in the closed primary. Nobody is gerrymandering against women.
Din't make me laugh.
If you’re not from Louisiana, then you don’t know what you’re talking about. I will say that the Callais redistricting was also to cut Garrett Graves out of the House because he made Jeff Landry mad by endorsing someone else in the Governor’s race. So when Landry won, he punished Graves. The legislature was under a court order to create a second majority minority district, so Landry decided that if someone had to be sacrificed it would be Graves. You’re pretty ignorant if you don’t know that.
I'm done with you. You are the first crude person I have encountered here. Why would I know the onset and outs of LA politics? Is that really ignorant? Adios.
Even though the custom has always been to only redistrict once every 10 years after a census, there is no law that says it must be done that way, nor is there a law that says you can only do it once every 10 years. No one has tried to change the custom before, that’s all.
Ps - my southern state used to be controlled by the Democrats. Now it’s the Republicans. I guarantee you that when the Democrats were in charge (for the first 1/2 of my 73 years), they were just as ruthless as the Republicans are now. We even had a dictator, Huey Long. Then we had a second dictator, Edwin Edwards. So I definitely will say that both parties do it. It’s called politics.
Your comment doesn’t answer the question that Kerry from Australia posed, to wit:
“However the way the gerrymander is presented I feel it lures voters to think they must vote according to how their state is gerrymandered.
Would be good if people knew they had the freedom of choice despite the gerrymander.”
My response does answer this question by saying that no matter how the state is gerrymandered, no one thinks they have to vote for the party in the majority of the gerrymandered district. Can you not read?
Perhaps our bigger problem here in America is the electoral college.
I know everyone in Australia has to vote, I love that, how do you do it ??
Congressional districts can be gerrymandered but not whole states. People have the right to vote however they want, but it can be discouraging to vote, never mind run for office, in a district where the odds are stacked against your preferred candidates. Even when district lines are fairly drawn, one party may have a significant advantage.
If the Committee refuses to allow Smith to give testimony in open court, can he then say his piece publicly via any of the media that are still functioning?
Thank you for including the diagrams of the WH to show everything we've lost-- for now. I look forward to seeing your podcast with HCR tomorrow.
I am desperate for your opinion(s): what are the possible motivations behind the decisions of the conservative majority of SCOTUS that allow DJT to do what he's doing? Are they really just fascists? Do they feel that attaining a Christian theocracy is more important than the Constitution and democracy? Are they (some of them) insane? As individuals or a group, what do you think they want to achieve? I am just so puzzled...
I fervently believe that this coup has been decades in the making. The SCOTUS fascists were put in place one by one as placeholders until it was "safe" to implement the long-term plan of destroying our democratic form of government.
Are u looking into statitics showing possible algorrhythims designed to add about 7 % to the vote count processing machines to ensure a win for republicans.....or whatever is needed to add just enough votes to sway the elections total count. Count...experts in election vote analysis have recently presented the case for protecting all of our elections on the david pakman show....can u look into these claims by world renoun math experts about how statistics can be used to keep our elections free and fair & Secure and untampered with....? i believe the protection of the counting process requires keeping all vote management machines off line so algorhythms cannot be used to add just enough to yhe vote total count to manipulate the outcome...i believe protections need to be put in place so there are not any intertuptions in the voting process to allow access to the process..thank u Beverly Nashold
Those algorithms have already been used. There is no way statistically that Trump could have won Every. Single. Battleground. State. Trump knew the fix was in. That's why he essentially quit campaigning and started his "milking the giraffe" dancing before the election.
Is there legal recourse against Trump’s demolishment of the East Wing. Can the DC Historical Society bring Trump to court?
Be careful in those West Coast war zones. I am surprised there are any places left for book signings.
I'm shipping 2K books today from Canada 🇨🇦 in my independent publishing company. Bookstores are thriving in the San Francisco Bay Area. Great turnout for Beatriz Williams at Book Passage. She writes historical fiction. History repeats!
I hope we will get to read one day in The Week Ahead or the Sunday Morning Wrap-Up that the dimocratic party (not a typo) has replaced its senior “leadership”, including the current DNC, and has started fighting daily with an aggressive, attacking ad strategy. Why is Canada the only one capable of this? Look at what it did to trump. If the dims are mindless and bereft of ideas, run this Query through ChatGPT. Query: “Give a proposal for a nationwide advertising campaign for democrats. The ad campaign should target all voters, be bold, and have a large budget.”