Post New

This is a great article showing in detail what the new monstrosity will look like. From WaPo, paywall free curtesy of archive.ph:

https://archive.ph/FUMoz

The Epstein Ballroom will be a great site for preteen beauty pageants.

I've heard there's an easy access bathroom in the Epstein Ballroom for storing Top Secret Documents.

Expect Trumpstein's PedoPalace to host televised UFC and WWE matches. Perhaps some Lucha libre wrestling to hold the macho latino vote.

Trumpstein learned how to kayfabe- the act he performs at all his speeches and rallies- doing Vince and Linda McMahon's WWE shows.

Russ Douthat has an piece on the ballroom, arguing why it's a perfect illustration of part of Trump's appeal:

Put more simply, progressives and urban institutions are good at protecting architectural beauty where it already exists, lousy at making sure that new development happens on a reasonable timeline and consistently terrible at encouraging loveliness in the developments that do get built.

The case for Trump’s ballroom is connected to these failures. First, it is simply good to build a White House ballroom, the presidency has needed one for a long time, and it’s absurd that the leader of a superpower has to host state dinners inside temporary tents.

No doubt there was a more careful and sensitive way to pursue the project. But exquisite care and sensitivity are part of the reason that, in so many liberal-leaning jurisdictions, apartment towers, power plants and high-speed rail lines vanish into developmental limbo. It’s just a small example of why Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach appeals; the president’s eagerness to pre-empt objections and just do something that seems necessary is part of why voters find him attractive.

https://archive.is/CD3et#selection-735.0-787.64

I happen to think Douthat's right. Americans across the political spectrum are frustrated that it takes so long for government to do anything. A "normal" effort to create a large space for the Executive to have big functions (so that they don't have to be in tents) would take years just to get through the federal decision-making process, to say nothing of the inevitable litigation that would follow - and wouldn't necessarily work any better. Yes, it would have certainly been smaller - so it wouldn't "dwarf" the other two parts of the WH. But it probably would end up being far less useful for the intended purpose, a 'kludge' trying to accommodate the ideas of countless groups that all have very strong opinions about what the WH should look like.

Used to be that the federal government could go from deciding to do a project to starting it in a matter of months - the TVA, for example, was approved in May and construction on the first project began in October of 1933. Those days are long behind us...and sometimes it seems that Democrats are fetishizing the red tape, veto points, and years- or decades-long review processes that make it very difficult for the government to respond to current needs. Witness the failure of Biden's signature spending packages (the BIL and the IRA) to actually get things built in the scant two full years between being passed in 2022 and the election in 2024.

I very much hope that the Democrats kind of let this go without focusing too much energy on it, because I don't think it's as helpful to the cause as some members of the coalition think it is....

I very much hope that the Democrats kind of let this go without focusing too much energy on it, because I don't think it's as helpful to the cause as some members of the coalition think it is...

Sigh. I see a pro-Trump apologizer has snatched Albaby's body once again.

This summary destruction of the East Wing with no warning, to be replaced with god knows what humongous gold plated monstrosity is the perfect encapsulation of all that's wrong with Trump's presidency. We can't just "kind of let it go".

albaby1: I happen to think Douthat's right.

I happen to think Douthat is a giant flaming asshole.

Next, he'll be writing a "Why Military Executions on American Streets Needed to Happen" op-ed.

You may want to ride along with Douthat on this demolition of democracy carnival ride but no-one else is compelled to join him in his delusion.

Shame on you, buddy.

Shame on you, buddy.

You don't have to agree with albaby1 (I sometimes don't), but he's probably one of the mosts thoughtful posters on this board.

No shame on him.

Yep, I think the destruction of the East Wing was done without the kind of reviews that should have occurred, and his gaudy ballroom and monument to his monumental ego is ridiculous. And I do not think we "need" it.

ges: You don't have to agree with albaby1 (I sometimes don't), but he's probably one of the mosts thoughtful posters on this board.

No shame on him.

Well, thanks, but I'm well aware of albaby1's posting history here and that's one of the reasons his support of Douthat's opinion is shameful.

As a reminder, Douthat has previously written op-eds insisting "There Will Be No Trump Coup," and rationalizing "Four Ways of Looking at Christian Nationalism."

He is a textbook moron.

When Biden announced his student loan forgiveness program, which was based upon a statute passed by Congress which explicitly said the president could do exactly that, Douthat called it "semi-Caesarist" because it was done "without consulting Congress."

What a lying asshole.

When Douthat writes "when development happens under progressives’ auspices, it is often soul-crushingly unattractive," that's straight up Nazi nonsense.

And again, I ask: WTF is the difference between applauding Trumpedo murdering boat people in international waters because it is faster and more efficient, and applauding tearing down the East Wing because it avoids all that pesky red tape?

There are folks here who want to buy a ticket on that ride, but you can count me out.

I like albaby and I read all his posts, even when I disagree with him. He seems rational and is often thought provoking.

And yes, I completely disagree with his position about the Ballroom. That’s OK, and it doesn’t change the first two sentences of my post.

When I see pictures of the East Wing being demolished, only to be rebuilt in the gaudiest manner possible, I have different thoughts.

I see a selfish billionaire who only cares about satisfying his own infantile ego.

I see a great many Americans struggling to afford rising costs of food and clothing. They struggle to afford basic healthcare. And housing. And cars. Even jobs. I see farmers struggling to survive. I see a lot of Americans in need of help.

And the presidents response is to spend hundreds of millions, not on helping these Americans (including a large part of his base), but on building a gold-plated ballroom for his own use.

To me, it screams “Let them eat cake”, as well as a big “fuck you” to struggling Americans (mainly due to Trump’s policies).

You may want to ride along with Douthat on this demolition of democracy carnival ride but no-one else is compelled to join him in his delusion.

Shame on you, buddy.

I think you misunderstand my point, or where I agree with Douthat.

I don't particularly like what Trump has decided to do with the White House. But I think that Douthat is right that the general idea of the federal government being able to do things quickly, without being bogged down in years of Commissions and blue-ribbon panels and listening tours and veto points from stakeholders is going to be very popular.

As a lawyer, I understand the importance of process. How we reach decisions is critical to the functioning of a society...not just what decisions are reached.

But a critical aspect of democracy is that it allows decisions to be made. People sometimes mistake democracy for a process for reaching consensus, a mechanism for finding a mutually agreeable outcome. It can do that - but the key aspect of democracy is that it allows a majority to impose a decision even if the minority disagrees with it. The democratic process gives the decision legitimacy, even if it's not what the minority would want - or even if they think it's abhorrent.

I think the American electorate is very dissatisfied with the fact that our federal democratic processes have ossified to the point where few, if any, choices actually get made. That everyone - up to and including the President - is hamstrung by the processes and red tape of government. That even when a party wins power, there's no way for them to actually execute an agenda: whether it's the Democrats in 2020 or the Republicans in 2024. That type of paralysis is extraordinarily frustrating for the American people. I don't think it will be very good politics for the Democrats to rally support around the idea that the person who won an election isn't the right person to make choices like this, but instead to promote the idea that a nebulous arrangement of reviewers and committees and staff analysis and...whatever they think should have happened instead of the President deciding this.

I think the death of the Inflation Reduction Act shows how far we've gone astray, here. We had a Democratic supermajority pass legislation to do all of these infrastructure programs arm-in-arm with the President...and they couldn't get done. Because the process we've built for everything is so suffocating that even when you have the stuff actually get through Congress and the Executive, nothing definitive can happen quickly - there's just so much review and opportunities for challenges and veto points, that years later nothing happens. We are so concerned with stopping any bad decisions, any bad choices, that the government can't do anything anymore - everything gets swallowed up in that morass.

Douthat's right in pointing out that defending the morass is not going to be good politics. People may not like what Trump has chosen to do with the former East Wing (though I suspect most people don't care), but they certainly don't like the idea that nothing can ever be done without years and years of study and delegating decisions to a horde of experts and community stakeholders. That doesn't read as defending democracy as much as Democrats like to think it does.

Well at least the planes fly on time.

First, it is simply good to build a White House ballroom, the presidency has needed one for a long time, and it’s absurd that the leader of a superpower has to host state dinners inside temporary tents.

That's right, presidents have been needing a huge ballroom for many, many years for all the state dinners each year. Biden had six during his four years; Trump had two his first term. All of them needed to be huuuuge.

Pete

This summary destruction of the East Wing with no warning, to be replaced with god knows what humongous gold plated monstrosity is the perfect encapsulation of all that's wrong with Trump's presidency. We can't just "kind of let it go".

That left-wing hack, Peggy Noonan, has an interesting take on the ballroom, but also on the entire milieu around trump.

https://archive.is/20251025095433/https://www.wsj....
A Republic, but Can We Keep It?

Her take on the ballroom:
"...White House defenders dismiss qualms as pearl clutching—a big vital building’s gotta grow, it’s been torn down and built up before, we need more room.

"But all this was done without public demand or support, and was done in a way that was abrupt, complete, unstoppable. Congress has the power of the purse for such projects but the president says no, our wonderful donors are paying for it, but the names of the donors aren’t declared. Your imaginations goes to—why? Might certain bad actors be buying influence? Crypto kings, billionaires needing agency approvals, felons buying pardons, AI chieftains on the prowl. Might the whole thing involve corruption? Would it even have been attempted in a fully functioning, sharp and hungry republic? Or only a tired one that’s being disappeared?

"The photos of the tearing down of the East Wing were upsetting because they felt like a metaphor for the idea that history itself can be made to disappear."

Pete

only to be rebuilt in the gaudiest manner possible,

I hope not. That's my only real problem with it. Or I could pull a Wilton and hope he puts gold all over it so we can tear that out in the next cycle and rename the Epstein Ballroom to the Obama MLK Ballroon and have the entrance way filled with portraits of prominent black Americans. I'd like to see a painting of Tubman. Coming up I'd have a food stamp machine right next to Trump's portrait. I hope by the end of this he's not so bad mobs burn his portraits. I don't wish him ill, I think it hurts me to hold on to resentments, so I don't nurture them - although I have a few I can't seem to banish entirely, they don't fester.

I'm counting on T having some dumb luck and a few good things happen during his Presidency and I'll acknowledge them. Here's hoping the current shutdown gambit turns in our favor.

But all this was done without public demand or support, and was done in a way that was abrupt, complete, unstoppable.

This. This is exactly what objections to the ballroom get wrong.

There is a difference between someone making a decision they're not allowed to make, and someone making a bad choice.

Advocates sometimes act as though there always has to be a way to stop an elected official if they're making a bad choice. That there has to be some process to overrule that choice and get to the "right" choice. That a decision can't be "unstoppable," that the action can't legitimately be taken unless it's the right choice that the public wants or supports.

There are ways to describe a government like that....but "democratic" isn't one of them.

In a democracy, choices get to be made by the majority. In a representative democracy, the leaders get chosen by the majority, and they get to make the choices. And they get to make the choices, even if the choices are odious to the minority. Even if the choices are odious to the majority. Even if the choices are objectively bad. You don't have a 'referee' that you have overrule the elected officials if they make a bad choice (as opposed to an illegal one). Democracy means we make choices based on majority rule, and when elected officials make choices within their authority to make those choices have legitimacy even if the choices are "without public demand or support" or even objectively bad.

This is, I think, why progressivism is having a hard time right now. Progressive reforms have created a gantlet of reviews, checks and balances, public participation and veto points to try to prevent government from making bad decisions - but because that morass applies to everything government does, it makes it almost impossible for government to make any big decisions in a timely or efficient way. But progressives, unlike most classic conservatives, want government to play an important, active, and timely role in society.

Which is why I think it's a losing proposition for Democrats to keep labelling as "authoritarian" instances where an elected person makes a decision that isn't subject to an unending series of checks, reviews, and restrictions. Because it makes it seem like they want choices to be made primarily by anyone other than the folks that actually win elections - by experts, by professionals, by "community leaders" or "stakeholders," by courts....or that the choice isn't one that government ever gets to make at all. And again, that isn't very democratic (small-d).

This is, I think, why progressivism is having a hard time right now. Progressive reforms have created a gantlet of reviews, checks and balances, public participation and veto points to try to prevent government from making bad decisions - but because that morass applies to everything government does, it makes it almost impossible for government to make any big decisions in a timely or efficient way. But progressives, unlike most classic conservatives, want government to play an important, active, and timely role in society.

Progressivism? This is why the Clintonite wing of the democratic party will lose us elections and cement the authoritarian state under Republican leadership. Ya'll have nothing to offer except "not Trump" and "the squad is causing us to lose". The Clintonite wing, which brought us a decade of republican policy accomplishments in the 1990s and not much else, continue to try to steer the democratic party except without a rudder or a sail plan. What's your plan other than "not Trump" and "no to 'progressivism' (whatever that is)"?

What's your plan other than "not Trump" and "no to 'progressivism' (whatever that is)"?

Oh, I think the Democrats' path back to power is probably to more fully embrace populism. That's where the electorate is now.

I'm not sure it will work. Left-wing parties have been losing all over the world, and it will be difficult for the Democrats to credibly shed the perception that they are hostile towards working class folks that don't happen to also share college-educated class values and priorities.

The long term policy path will have to involve predistributive efforts: increasing unionization, fighting technological displacement and preserving employment, and probably a fair amount of protectionism. The long-term strategy path will have to involve building organizations and investing resources in rural purple and light-red areas. Not just running ads during elections, but getting people in rural areas to support and join Democratic groups. They need to build up ground-level support to replace all the organizations that got eroded out over the last several decades.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, our system of government means that the policy measures they need to get in place can only be implemented at the federal level. Meaning they'll have to start winning control of the federal government before they've been able to build back up the unions and engage in predistributive policy-making, so they can lever control of the federal government into rebuilding their base.

What the Democrats lack is a big, super-popular thing to make their centerpiece. And I honestly don't know what that would be. Trump already co-opted protectionism and fighting illegal immigration, and the Democrats are never going to be the law and order party. He has utterly demolished the Democrats' old go-to points on abortion and Social Security/Medicare by dint of not giving a rat's patoot about either of them. So what are the Democrats going to run on as the Big Thing, the high-salience issue, that voters should choose them on? I don't really have a great answer.

The Democrats' problem is that the two Big Things that their college-educated base wanted to do ended up not being very popular: single-payer health care and fighting climate change. The former is unpopular because too many voters don't want to get involuntarily moved into a government system or pay for other people's health care; the latter is unpopular because while voters want to fight climate change, they absolutely do not want to pay anything more than a pittance to do it.

So I would turn the question back to you, PP - what do you think is the biggest thing that Democrats could get behind that you think would be very popular among voters, that they should run on as their policy against the GOP?

Oh, I think the Democrats' path back to power is probably to more fully embrace populism. That's where the electorate is now.

"feel the Bern"

Steve

That left-wing hack, Peggy Noonan, has an interesting take on the ballroom, but also on the entire milieu around trump.

It would have been better if she had just said “Why do we need a ballroom? It’s clear the Republicans in Congress have no balls anyway.”

Yes!
Whether it's Trump taking corporate bribes to build a ballroom fit for an Oligarch,
or Trump making Americans healthcare unaffordable
or Trump disappearing the Epstein files,
Many people agree:
Trump is doing things!

So I would turn the question back to you, PP - what do you think is the biggest thing that Democrats could get behind that you think would be very popular among voters, that they should run on as their policy against the GOP?

The median household income is $80,000. After taxes your take home pay is just north of $60,000. Average rent in the US is $24,000/yr. Utilities including cable and phones are another $4-5,000. The USDA thrifty food budget for a family of four is $12,000/yr. Health insurance is another $18,000/yr. The average cost of a new car is $12,000/yr. So far we have spent $70,000 of our $60,000 in disposable income and not a penny has gone to clothing, kids costs, savings, vacation or entertainment.

Average Americans are hurting.

There are 13 billionaires, or 1.5% of all American billionaires, sitting on Trump’s cabinet. They are presiding over the dismantling of the social safety net. SNAP? Waste, fraud and abuse. ACA? No subsidies for the average American family. Medicaid? Waste, fraud and abuse. College costs? No tax payer support for state universities. Make the user pay. The billionaires are making damn sure that there will be no social investment in American families on their dime.

Meanwhile, the techno billionaires are building the greatest job destroying machine in history with no plan for the labor market displacement they will cause. Amazon hopes to cut 75% of its work force. It’s estimated that AI will destroy 100 million jobs over the next decade. You can’t deport enough immigrants to plug that drain. Finally, capital will be able to achieve the dream of eliminating the labor tax, and keeping all the wealth in its proper hands.

What will work look like in the AI hellscape the billionaires are building? Who’s going to buy their Teslas and order their labor free commodities, manufactured and shipped by Cobots across the world (if trade still exists)?

The billionaires are destroying the state because they know that only their money can solve the vast social problems they are unleashing on the world, and they’re going to make damn sure the clamoring masses don’t get any.

Mamdoni is right. It’s about the rent. It’s about the basic costs of living and inability of families to stay afloat. Hedge funds buying up houses and renting them back to workers at higher and higher prices. Billionaires taking back their billions, forcing millions to go without health care. Demigods of capital raping children on private islands because they can.

The grotesquerie that is American capitalism today should be an easy target for “progressive” democrats if they didn’t have to swat back Clintonites intent on defending their access to all that billionaire wealth. This is an easy story to tell, but instead of telling it the democrats vilify, attack, and marginalize the folks telling these hard truths.

Make billionaires the enemy. Make clear that wealth is public, not private. Musk can hissy fit his way to a trillion, but only in a mad bourgeois fantasy did he earn it. Target that greed. Target that shit and link it to the hunger and lack that millions of Americans feel every day.

Make billionaires the enemy. Make clear that wealth is public, not private.

It truly is a new Gilded Age.

We needed a Teddy Roosevelt and instead we got a Robber Baron as POTUS.

And MAGA is just too brainwashed to see that they are being f****d.

Make billionaires the enemy. Make clear that wealth is public, not private. Musk can hissy fit his way to a trillion, but only in a mad bourgeois fantasy did he earn it. Target that greed. Target that shit and link it to the hunger and lack that millions of Americans feel every day.

But what, exactly, is the plan? How will you target it?

The problem for Democrats isn't that they lack for rhetoric. They can, and do, talk of the need to address inequality and affordability and the struggles of ordinary Americans.

What they lack is an agenda.

They used to have a bunch of things they wanted to get done. Universal health care. Reducing carbon emissions to fight climate change. "Medicare for All" or "the Green New Deal." Big, signature programs that if elected, they would implement.

What's the program for "targeting that shit"?

If I had to sum up the Democrats' current problems with the American electorate, it's in the below chart:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/ful...

...which comes from the report in the below link. It's basically a chart of earnings growth over the last several decades, broken up by quintile, after taxes and transfers.

The real problem for Democrats isn't the fact that the top line (for the "highest quintile") is higher. That's consistent with their message. The problem is that the line for "lowest quintile" is so much higher than the line for "middle three quintiles." Unlike European economies, we have a very very progressive taxation and social program structure - our taxes are much more progressive, and we have a lot of need-based transfers and social programs. But the result of that is that the net outcomes for middle class families have been growing far, far more slowly than the outcomes for low-income folks.

Or to put it a different way, the standard Democratic toolkit of using government programs to redistribute wealth isn't reaching the middle folks as much as the lowest quintile.

Which is why, I think, "targeting the rich" and "fighting oligarchs" hasn't gotten Democrats much traction. For the last several decades, benefits from Democrats' programs have flowed more to the bottom quintile than the middle quintiles. Which makes it much harder for Democrats to successfully argue that "targeting the rich" translates into "benefits for the working class." For that strategy to work, the Democrats need to be able to articulate not just who their program will target, but how it will actually help working class folks.

So what's the Next Big Idea? What do you think the Democrats should focus on?

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60706#_idTextAncho...

Hell yes, PP.

Make billionaires the enemy.

Oh, I don't think we need to make them the enemy. Many of them are rich because they have given us wonderful things.

We just need to stop asking them whether and how much they'd like to kick in to the common pot, and legalizing ways for them to shirk their obligations.

Calling to mind Charlie Munger's thoughts about alignment of incentives, perhaps a consumption tax?

Many Romans really appreciate Nero's fiddling! ~Roman Headline, 64 AD

Many Romans really appreciate Nero's fiddling! ~Roman Headline, 64 AD

He won several national competitions.

The average cost of a new car is $12,000/yr. So far we have spent $70,000 of our $60,000 in disposable income and not a penny has gone to clothing, kids costs, savings, vacation or entertainment.

OR RETIREMENT !!

As an independent contractor I asked competitors who charged far less if they had given any thought to retirement, if they had health insurance, etc.

Now that I'm comfortably retired (knock on wood) I wonder how they are faring knowing they are still slogging away despite pushing 70.

Which is why I think it's a losing proposition for Democrats to keep labelling as "authoritarian" instances where an elected person makes a decision that isn't subject to an unending series of checks, reviews, and restrictions. Because it makes it seem like they want choices to be made primarily by anyone other than the folks that actually win elections - by experts, by professionals, by "community leaders" or "stakeholders," by courts....or that the choice isn't one that government ever gets to make at all.

I think you're slipping very close to strawman territory here.

IMHO, it is absolutely authoritarian for the head of a government to make decisions that don't follow the processes for making such a decision as set out in the laws of the country. Especially when there is no attempt at all to follow the defined processes.

In the specific case of the ballroom, I didn't see Trump attempt to follow the law, consulting the appropriate authority in DC regarding changes to public property - such as the White House. I didn't see him run design plans by anyone of authority. I didn't see him ask permission to demolish a publicly owned structure - the East Wing. I didn't see him consider the pros and cons for this ballroom and provide anything other than his typical lying bluster of "people are saying".

He's also failing to follow laws regarding funding of public projects - anti-deficiency laws and Congressional approval for spending public money.

He made zero attempt to follow any laws applicable to this project. So to come in after the fact and say that the laws were too hard or that they weren't considering the needs of the Office of the President, is just trying to whitewash reality. In reality, Trump just raised a huge middle finger to all of the laws and effectively said that he's not going to attempt follow them, nor is he going to attempt to change them. He's just going to do what he wants to do and the law be damned.

That is nothing less than an authoritarian move.

But reverting to your point that there is a gauntlet of laws that are making it difficult for elected officials do do what they were elected to do, I actually can see that point. There is a good argument to be made that the multitude of laws are stifling both the executive and legislative branches of our Federal government. The solution to that is to work to change the laws, not to utterly ignore them.

If our Republic is to continue, we can't have a President simply running roughshod over any and every law as he sees fit. We need a President who acts to change the laws, or at least makes an attempt to follow the laws before carefully and specifically failing to follow certain laws to bring public attention to the issue in a way that could promote changes to the law. But that's not what Trump is doing - at least not from a PR standpoint. He hasn't made a case - at least not one that I have heard about - that the laws are getting in the way of progress. From my perspective, he's just indulging his whims and creating a monument to himself that has destroyed a bit of American history in the process.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that the ballroom is unnecessary or that the East Wing needed to be preserved at all costs. What I am saying is that Trump didn't even pretend to make more than a token argument for that to all of the American public. And the token argument was one that about half of the country believes is a hallmark of him lying. What I am saying is that his approach to the ballroom isn't one that could promote productive change in the system, it's one that promotes further divisiveness. I'm saying that Trump doesn't really care about bringing the American public together to some compromise position. Instead he is actively promoting divisiveness as a way to further cement his power in office. And that if this power goes far enough, we could very easily lose our democratic republic to authoritarianism. I'm saying that this ballroom is just one of many pieces of evidence that a move toward authoritarianism is actually happening, and happening at a fast pace.

--Peter

In the specific case of the ballroom, I didn't see Trump attempt to follow the law, consulting the appropriate authority in DC regarding changes to public property - such as the White House. I didn't see him run design plans by anyone of authority. I didn't see him ask permission to demolish a publicly owned structure - the East Wing. I didn't see him consider the pros and cons for this ballroom and provide anything other than his typical lying bluster of "people are saying".

Are there processes he didn't follow? From what I've been able to gather, the White House is exempt from a lot of the reviews that would normally apply. He doesn't need permission to demolish the East Wing, as far as I can tell. There aren't a lot of decision-makers that are superior to the President - most of his decisions aren't required to be "run by anyone" - and this appears to be one of them. For most actions of the Federal Government, the President is the person who gives permission for actions to be taken - not the person who asks permission. He's the one that has been chosen, democratically elected, to be the one who ultimately makes most of the calls that the federal government makes. Absent a very clear law to the contrary, it's a little upside down to suggest that the President needs to get permission or approval from someone below him in the Executive on how federal authority is to be executed.

Similarly, I haven't seen any compelling argument that he's violating the Anti-Deficiency Act. That act prohibits spending federal funds without appropriation - but if the funds being spent aren't federal funds, but private funds, then the Act would not appear to apply.

The idea that the President should have gone to someone else to get permission to make a purely executive decision isn't very democratic (small d). And in some ways, it's kind of ridiculous. The President is in charge of the federal government, including the buildings of the federal government. He's in charge of the Executive, and he's in charge of every other person (with few exceptions) that works for the Executive. While it would certainly be wise for the President to consult with people before making decision, ultimately nearly all the decisions of the Federal Government (including whether to tear down a building) are his to make - or made by people who listen to his instructions.

This is one of the weaker planks of the Democratic argument that they're the one defending democracy - because it's generally anti-democratic to subject the decisions of the democratically-elected head of government to purview of unelected officials. There's a place for anti-democratic measures (the Constitution is anti-democratic, as is judicial review). But arguing that someone other than the President should have had review power over a decision to be made by the Executive is not a pro-democratic argument. The President is in charge of all of the parts of the government that aren't legislative or judicial - so if Congress hasn't itself made a decision about what happens to a federal building, it's up to the President to decide.

They should focus on supporting progressive candidates by not opposing them in primaries. The DNC has been under the Clintonite thumb and that thumb has been tilting the scales for too long.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna202202

Look the BS response of institutional democrats to the primary successes of India in Buffalo and Mamdoni in NYC. It sure seems like the Democratic Party is trying to snuff out the progressives before they get out of the cradle.

The big idea is to let these big ideas compete and win in the primaries, and when they do to support those candidates in the general elections.

They should focus on supporting progressive candidates by not opposing them in primaries.

Perhaps, but that doesn't really address the question. That's a tactic, not an actual vision or goal or policy aim.

What's the thing that should be the top priority of the Democratic priority - the thing that they most want to do?

For the last decade or so, if you had to fill in the blank for "The top priority of the Democratic Party is ______________," you would probably have filled in either "climate change" or "protecting minority rights." I think that's a big reason why the national brand is in trouble and why they're losing support in the working class - while most voters agree with the policy of fighting climate change and protecting minority rights, they do not prioritize those issues. They always prioritize the economy, and recently have prioritized immigration and crime issues. There's a misalignment of priorities, not position.

Up until 2010, you would have filled in the blank with "health care" - which matched voter priorities, since voters did assign high importance to health care reform. But once the Democrats got their health care package passed, it ended up taking the issue of the "to do list" and more into the "must protect" list (like Medicare and Social Security) - which makes it hard to use as a forward-looking vision of the future.

It sure seems like the Democratic Party is trying to snuff out the progressives before they get out of the cradle.

A lot of people in the Democratic Party aren't progressive. Historically, the majority of Democrats self-identified as moderate or conservative - it's only a recent phenomenon that liberals have been even a bare majority of the party. So there is a sizable faction in the Democratic Party that doesn't believe that it would be good for the party to become more progressive. That's one of the reasons why the Party is somewhat split these days, and is perceived as lacking a coherent vision for moving forward - because there is genuine disagreement within the party about the best way forward. Which is why progressive candidates draw primary opponents, like Mills entering the primary against Platner - and will continue to do so.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/467888/democrats-iden...

The East Wing was originally constructed in 1902 and had a major renovation or expansion in 1942. As far as I can tell from a quick google search, no major renovations since 1942. That's 83 years ago.

There aren't too many folks who would find a 123 year old building, last renovated 83 years ago, as acceptable for any useful modern-day purpose.

Up until 2010, you would have filled in the blank with "health care" - which matched voter priorities, since voters did assign high importance to health care reform.

And the GOP messing with it, is putting the issue back in play. That's why I say "Obama in 28", to finish the job of moving the US to a low overhead, Medicare for all, system. Thank you GOP.

Historically, the majority of Democrats self-identified as moderate or conservative - it's only a recent phenomenon that liberals have been even a bare majority of the party.

Because all the southern DINOs were carved off by Reagan. Remember the "boll weevil caucus"?

Steve

Because all the southern DINOs were carved off by Reagan. Remember the "boll weevil caucus"?

Nope. It's much more recent than that. If you click through to the link, as recently as 2007 more Democrats self-identified as "moderates" than "liberals" - and it wasn't until 2016 that a majority of Democrats self-identified as liberal. In 1994, when Bill Clinton was President, about 48% of Democrats self-identified as moderate and 25% self-identified as conservative. Even as recently as 2009, 60% of Democrats self-identified as moderate/conservative. But since the Obama election - the "Great Awokening" - that's changed.

For as long as Gallup's been doing that poll, the GOP has been heavily majority conservative and <10% liberal. The Democrats used to be much more mixed, and was the home of more moderates and a fair number of conservatives, but that's shifted heavily in the last 16 years.

Here's the link again:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/467888/democrats-iden...

There aren't too many folks who would find a 123 year old building, last renovated 83 years ago, as acceptable for any useful modern-day purpose.

First, who said the now obliterated East Wing hasn't received minor upgrades over its history that bring it up to modern standards: wiring, connectivity, plumbing, lighting, heating, etc.?

Second, it was an historic building, with a long and storied past, whose total destruction with no warning or consultation, is a smack in the face to all Americans.

"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

I don't think we even know if all the artifacts inside, including historic paneling and paintings, have been preserved.

The East Wing was a beautiful place:

https://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/a69127189/w...

I'm going to make a speculative wager that you (along with many many other TDS folks) never ever even thought about the East Wing, much less ever posted anything about it on social media,at all, ever, before Trump's renovation project.

I'm going to make a speculative wager that you (along with many many other TDS folks) never ever even thought about the East Wing, much less ever posted anything about it on social media,at all, ever, before Trump's renovation project.

I'd wager you are correct. But we all too often don't know what we've lost until it is gone. But that doesn't mean a loss wasn't tragic.

There aren't too many folks who would find a 123 year old building, last renovated 83 years ago, as acceptable for any useful modern-day purpose.

The historical value, the iconic status, of some buildings transcend meeting 'modern-day purpose.'

The White House was an icon, as is the US Capitol building, as is the Treasury building, as is Monticello, as is Mount Vernon, etc. Modern buildings have been, and will continue to be built to meet the needs of government.

The White House was an icon, as is the US Capitol building, as is the Treasury building, as is Monticello, as is Mount Vernon, etc. Modern buildings have been, and will continue to be built to meet the needs of government.

I agree, but I'll wait until about six month after the ballroom opens to see how it fares. If its gaudy, we would want to deTrump it.

If we make it back to being a democracy, how are we gonna erect guardrails to prevent another Trump? We won't ever be able to get anything done.

I'm going to make a speculative wager that you (along with many many other TDS folks) never ever even thought about the East Wing, much less ever posted anything about it on social media,at all, ever, before Trump's renovation project.

Empty wager.

We TDS folks also don't post about the other historically important buildings in DC.

The East wing in particular? .... Why would us TDS folks post about an icon that's not in danger of demolition by a self-aggrandizing, pedo protecting felon ?

We did post when S&M appearing changes were made by the 1st pornographic FLOTUS in our history; the S&<M christmas decor, ripping up the gardens, decorating the interior like a Sultans whorehouse.

I'm going to make a speculative wager that you (along with many many other TDS folks) never ever even thought about the East Wing, much less ever posted anything about it on social media,at all, ever, before Trump's renovation project. - marco100

-----------------

They sure didn't have any nostalgia or mercy for the many, many, statues and memorials that were vandalized, disrespected, defaced, and destroyed by the peaceful activist protesters.

They sure didn't have any nostalgia or mercy for the many, many, statues and memorials that were vandalized, disrespected, defaced, and destroyed by the peaceful activist protesters.

You mean all those statues erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy? I do have respect for some of the artistry and don't want them destroyed. We should keep a representative sample of the el cheapo busts they put everywhere. But I think honoring Forrest at Fort Pillow - tell the truth. The Confederacy murdered 300 black soldiers and Forrest let them, at least, it WAS his command. He did try and make up for it later, but, never forget.

What difference does it make what they "self-identify" as? Frankly, most people are clueless. Just as one example:

People (even self-identified conservatives) favored not excluding pre-existing conditions for healthcare.
They favored free wellness, including colonoscopies.
They favored most of the elements of the ACA (I could spend time listing them if I must).

But those same self-identified conservatives didn't favor the ACA.

It isn't what they self-identify as, it's what they actually are that matters. And even that is a bit relative. By European standards, there are almost no liberals in the USA. Bernie Sanders would likely be considered a moderate in France. I've always considered myself a moderate. But depending on whom you ask, I could be labeled conservative (my grad school roommate would say that), or a "libtard" (Dope and LM and BHM would likely label me that).

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.