OFFICIAL LRC President Donald Trump SECOND TERM Thread

gnarlysheen wrote:

Nancy S. wrote:

There are any number of reasons why people may be upset about the ballroom construction and changes Trump has made.

Trump originally promised that the new structure would be next to the existing structures and nothing would be torn down. Obviously, that was a lie.

A lot of people have questioned whether the existing structure could be modified without any study or architectural review -- let alone demolishing an entire wing. They're wondering what happened to art, was asbestos remediated, etc. They consider it the "people's house" and there doesn't appear to have been any studies or reviews from outside parties.

Some people are upset at the lack of transparency into the funds, wondering if this is another Trump corruption scheme where he's selling influence.

There probably other thing as well.

All that to say, this is nothing like whatever Bush approved and Obama implemented. So your "but Obama" argument falls really flat.

More TDS. Classic keyboard architect response. Did you forget I am an architect/ developer and Ivy League trained? All of what you say is nonsense because it is required to obtain permits. Your sense of things is adolescent at best.

The White House is maintained by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) — a professional federal agency that handles engineering, historical preservation, asbestos abatement, and structural reviews. Unlike a public renovation project, these studies are mostly internal for security reasons, so the public doesn’t see the reports.

Asbestos remediation: mandatory for federal construction; the AOC wouldn’t skip that.

Art and historical objects: the White House has museum-grade protocols, curated and moved for any construction.

Calling it “the people’s house” is rhetorical — the White House isn’t a community center; decisions are made by professionals and Congress.

All major federal spending must be approved and accounted for by Congress. It isn’t a private corporation where he could secretly “sell influence.”
Claims of corruption are speculation, not evidence. Suggesting this without proof is just the internet’s default outrage mode. Do you have any proof, Nancy?

“nothing like Bush/Obama” argument is cherry-picked.
Most White House renovations (Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama) involve internal changes, modernization, and some temporary relocations, which are invisible to the public. The outrage isn’t about the scale, it’s about visibility — which is not a fair comparison.

You guys whine about nothing.

If there is an argument about anything, and this should be your side's argument because it is hard to debate against, is the aesthetics/ intrusive design to a historical application. All of the other nonsense you people are crying about aside, the design could be argued that it lacks hierarchy and possibly overshadows the White House to some degree as it may be over-scaled.

Independent voters will decide the next election wrote:

gnarlysheen wrote:

More TDS. Classic keyboard architect response. Did you forget I am an architect/ developer and Ivy League trained? All of what you say is nonsense because it is required to obtain permits. Your sense of things is adolescent at best.

The White House is maintained by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) — a professional federal agency that handles engineering, historical preservation, asbestos abatement, and structural reviews. Unlike a public renovation project, these studies are mostly internal for security reasons, so the public doesn’t see the reports.

Asbestos remediation: mandatory for federal construction; the AOC wouldn’t skip that.

Art and historical objects: the White House has museum-grade protocols, curated and moved for any construction.

Calling it “the people’s house” is rhetorical — the White House isn’t a community center; decisions are made by professionals and Congress.

All major federal spending must be approved and accounted for by Congress. It isn’t a private corporation where he could secretly “sell influence.”
Claims of corruption are speculation, not evidence. Suggesting this without proof is just the internet’s default outrage mode. Do you have any proof, Nancy?

“nothing like Bush/Obama” argument is cherry-picked.
Most White House renovations (Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama) involve internal changes, modernization, and some temporary relocations, which are invisible to the public. The outrage isn’t about the scale, it’s about visibility — which is not a fair comparison.

You guys whine about nothing.

If there is an argument about anything, and this should be your side's argument because it is hard to debate against, is the aesthetics/ intrusive design to a historical application. All of the other nonsense you people are crying about aside, the design could be argued that it lacks hierarchy and possibly overshadows the White House to some degree as it may be over-scaled.

TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS shows you are more of an idiot than I have ever thought anyone could be. You're forgetting that your DILF did what he did to the East Wing without even telling the AOC. And you call others clueless.

gnarlysheen wrote:

Nancy S. wrote:

There are any number of reasons why people may be upset about the ballroom construction and changes Trump has made.

Trump originally promised that the new structure would be next to the existing structures and nothing would be torn down. Obviously, that was a lie.

A lot of people have questioned whether the existing structure could be modified without any study or architectural review -- let alone demolishing an entire wing. They're wondering what happened to art, was asbestos remediated, etc. They consider it the "people's house" and there doesn't appear to have been any studies or reviews from outside parties.

Some people are upset at the lack of transparency into the funds, wondering if this is another Trump corruption scheme where he's selling influence.

There probably other thing as well.

All that to say, this is nothing like whatever Bush approved and Obama implemented. So your "but Obama" argument falls really flat.

More TDS. Classic keyboard architect response. Did you forget I am an architect/ developer and Ivy League trained? All of what you say is nonsense because it is required to obtain permits. Your sense of things is adolescent at best.

The White House is maintained by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) — a professional federal agency that handles engineering, historical preservation, asbestos abatement, and structural reviews. Unlike a public renovation project, these studies are mostly internal for security reasons, so the public doesn’t see the reports.

Asbestos remediation: mandatory for federal construction; the AOC wouldn’t skip that.

Art and historical objects: the White House has museum-grade protocols, curated and moved for any construction.

Calling it “the people’s house” is rhetorical — the White House isn’t a community center; decisions are made by professionals and Congress.

All major federal spending must be approved and accounted for by Congress. It isn’t a private corporation where he could secretly “sell influence.”
Claims of corruption are speculation, not evidence. Suggesting this without proof is just the internet’s default outrage mode. Do you have any proof, Nancy?

“nothing like Bush/Obama” argument is cherry-picked.
Most White House renovations (Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama) involve internal changes, modernization, and some temporary relocations, which are invisible to the public. The outrage isn’t about the scale, it’s about visibility — which is not a fair comparison.

You guys whine about nothing.

If there is an argument about anything, and this should be your side's argument because it is hard to debate against, is the aesthetics/ intrusive design to a historical application. All of the other nonsense you people are crying about aside, the design could be argued that it lacks hierarchy and possibly overshadows the White House to some degree as it may be over-scaled.