|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
If the secret service needs a lot more money to secure the white house, maybe that should have been a concern before a third of it was destroyed over the weekend.
...It being smaller is not why they need more money. That's neither in their own rationale for the funding boost, nor does it physically make sense.
They need facilities to screen people because the White House has more traffic now than it used to. And it will have more traffic, and higher peak traffic and more VIPs, once hosting summits securely on the grounds becomes an option.
On May 15 2026 00:57 Sermokala wrote:
The obvious problem is that this money is being used to build the ballroom more than anything, and trump is useing the excuse that he destroyed the existing security infrastructure to get public funding for it after pocketing the private donations.
That would certainly be a problem if you had a shred of evidence for it.
On May 15 2026 00:59 LightSpectra wrote:
"Oh, so you're cool with spending hundreds of billions to prevent innocent people from dying/living miserably of preventable causes but not ones of billions for a child molester's palace?" lol yeah, that's a great point. I'll buy a $4000 katana and when my wife asks what the fuck is wrong with me, I'll point out she spends $200 at the grocery store every week.
You know you can't take the White House with you after your term?
If it's done in 2028 it's available for events for like a year of his term at most (people live in palaces, they don't live in ballrooms).
|
If the ballroom does get finished, I hope the next president turns it into the American Museum of Republican Corruption, Lies, and Abuse. Free admission.
|
On May 15 2026 01:07 Geiko wrote:
It's really not that hard to understand that if you're making the white house 2x bigger, you're going to need to spend twice as much on protection. It's not the protection I'm arguing against, it's the need to make the white house bigger.
Imagine if Trump bought himself a Lamborghini with donor money and then billed the US taxpayers 10M$ for bullet proof windows and gold plated armoring. You'd have oblade probably saying "well obviously we don't want people shooting at the presidential Lamborghini, are you guys stupid ?" I mean...
That is literally what is happening with the Qatar plane.
Qatar gave it to Trump, the deal says he gets to keep it after his presidency ends. And the tax payer is going to pay for it to get all the air force one kit.
|
On May 15 2026 01:15 LightSpectra wrote:
If the ballroom does get finished, I hope the next president turns it into the American Museum of Republican Corruption, Lies, and Abuse. Free admission. The real answer is to knock it back down and rebuild the East wing to its original pre-Trump state.
|
On May 14 2026 22:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2026 21:59 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 21:18 oBlade wrote:On May 13 2026 05:03 Jankisa wrote:On May 13 2026 02:15 oBlade wrote:On May 12 2026 23:08 Jankisa wrote:We can just all remind ourselves of what the newly minted member of resistance and previous Trump campaign surrogate, as well as our very own oBlade's favorite interviewer had to say about Trump during the 2024 campaign: Tom Snyder wasn't alive in 2024. Are you seriously going to pretend like you aren't a huge Tucker Carlson fan now? And your dodge is going to be to pretend like your favorite interviewer is someone who receded their last interview in 1999? The comment where you professed your admiration for Tucker also has no references to Tom Snyder. In fact, when you search your profile for Tucker there's like 10 posts, not a beep about Tom here, curious. Also, I wasn't familiar with that moron at the time, but this is what you had to say about Nick "Ukrainians are using our money on cars" Shirley: Another is Nick Shirley, he's rising. Leans right but doesn't preach. Kind of gonzo? He's young, not as experienced so a bit choppy at times, very respectful and personable and somehow gets people to be honest and open and candid. That whole comment is gold, haven't seen it since then and it's nice to have a reminder how utterly broken your brain is and what your media, or rather, propaganda diet is. Of the 6 posts containing the word Tucker, 2 are me responding to you going "Durr oBlade loves Tucker Carlson bootlicking fascist" and 1 of them is me using his name as a placeholder for a rich guy hypothetical. If you want to have your finger on the pulse of the conservative Zeitgeist, Tucker Carlson's interviews at the time I wrote that were key both in terms of the breadth and caliber of guests, and the candidness and detail of information he's able to exchange with his guests. Which is what the post was about. That was the point of that post. I would not mention Tom Snyder there because it wasn't what the post was about. Shirley was also a great call by me who noticed his promise before you knew him - which you do now. You have politics brain so you don't understand that interviewers are just interviewers and there is a world outside of politics. The forensic post analysis is a waste of time. If I search your profile for Trump there will be a billion posts about Trump, it doesn't mean he's your favorite person in the world. Does it? Now any other stuff you want to dig up from a year ago and continue to misunderstand as part of your "please notice me oBlade senpai" scheme? Haha, you are really something bud. You go from "I found Nick Shirley before you did" to "You have politics brain" all in one post, amazing! Above all, I really dislike when people lie for no reason about things that are very easy to check, so any time you try to pretend like you weren't gloriously wrong on things ("Iran doesn't exist") you can bet your sweet bootlicking ass I'll dig up the receipts. Same thing with you being a superfan of a white replacement theory Christo fascism peddler, you can deny it as much as you'd like while hurling alt-right internet slang from 2010-s, as you tend to do, won't change the fact that your media diet is racist slop. You think I am wrong about who my own favorite interviewer is?
Yup, I personally think you are a bit (as you should be) ashamed of the shit you consume so you try to pretend like you don't like it.
I get it, if I was a Ballroom Republican furiously defending Trump and his obviously narcissistic and megalomaniacal projects that have nothing to do with security, I'd be trying to try to pretend like I wasn't completely subsumed to him, it's pretty shameful.
When I was rummaging through your previous screeds I found a rare instance where you uttered some criticism for Trump, you were providing the standard "I don't support everything they do just because I spend all my time defending them" and noted how BBB was bad and could bring financial ruin to the USA.
Yet, here you are, like a year later, no more mentions of your fiscal worries despite US Debt to GDP ratio going over 100 % for the first time since immediately post WW2, with the interest payments being larger then the Military budget (well, until that goes up to $ 1.5 T since president of peace needs it), not only that, instead of providing any criticism of the incredibly irresponsible and stupid spending, you are defending the Ballroom.
How sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
