Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
23 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

We need to make sure we erase anything he does to our national monuments. Including the ballroom of course. We should leave something of his behind, as a reminder of his hideous record, but any changes he makes to previous monuments should be summarily removed. I’m not kidding. That should be on a democrat’s campaign list once dipshit finally rids us of his useless life. 

Where do I sign up to help in the restorations?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I wonder where this photo series was headed

G6z17PYXoAAtfIL?format=jpg&name=large

 

G6zahJfWAAAABa5?format=jpg&name=large

Always amazed at how the the ruby red suburbs of Houston are full of swingers and wife swappers

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

How was that an illegal order and how does it differ from the dozen or so vaccines currently required under the Trump administration?

It differs, in that the Covid vaccine was an Experimental vaccine, that had only been given Emergency Authorization to be given.
Such a vaccine should be totally voluntary, and forced on anyone.

  • Fuck You 24
Posted
4 hours ago, Orange-4-Life said:

It differs, in that the Covid vaccine was an Experimental vaccine, that had only been given Emergency Authorization to be given.
Such a vaccine should be totally voluntary, and forced on anyone.

Which of our repeatedly banned trolls is this come back to life to spout nonsense?

Posted

From ChatGPT

here is a list of the vaccines that are typically required for someone entering the United States Army (or in basic training/initial entry). 

Common vaccinations required on entry / in basic training
• Adenovirus vaccine (types 4 and 7 — for new enlistees) 
• Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine (or proof of immunity) 
• Poliovirus vaccine (or proof of prior vaccination / immunity) 
• Meningococcal vaccine (quadrivalent, covering types A, C, Y, W-135) 
• Tetanus‑Diphtheria (Td) vaccine — or Tdap/ Td booster depending on your record 

Additional / situational vaccines (depending on prior status, deployment, occupation, etc.)
• Hepatitis B vaccine (if not already immunized) 
• Hepatitis A vaccine (in many cases) 
• Influenza vaccine — often required, especially in flu season. 
• Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine — or evidence of immunity.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

President Donald Trump has argued with the architect he handpicked to design a White House ballroom over the size of the project, reflecting a conflict between architectural norms and Trump’s grandiose aesthetic, according to four people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.

Trump’s desire to go big with the project has put him at odds with architect James McCrery II, the people said, who has counseled restraint over concerns the planned 90,000-square-foot addition could dwarf the 55,000-square-foot mansion in violation of a general architectural rule: don’t build an addition that overshadows the main building.

 

Quote

A White House official acknowledged the two have disagreed but would not say why or elaborate on the tensions, characterizing Trump and McCrery’s conversations about the ballroom as “constructive dialogue.”

“As with any building, there is a conversation between the principal and the architect,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “All parties are excited to execute on the president’s vision on what will be the greatest addition to the White House since the Oval Office.”

 

Spoiler

McCrery declined an interview request through a representative who declined to answer questions about the architect’s interactions with Trump in recent weeks.

Trump’s intense focus on the project and insistence on realizing his vision over the objections of his own hire, historic preservationists and others concerned by a lack of public input in the project reflect his singular belief in himself as a tastemaker and obsessive attention to details. In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump has waged a campaign to remake the White House in his gilded aesthetic and done so unilaterally — using a who’s-going-to-stop-me ethos he honed for decades as a developer.

Multiple administration officials have acknowledged that Trump has at times veered into micromanagement of the ballroom project, holding frequent meetings about its design and materials. A model of the ballroom has also become a regular fixture in the Oval Office.

The renovation represents one of the largest changes to the White House in its 233-year history, and has yet to undergo any formal public review. The administration has not publicly provided key details about the building, such as its planned height. The 90,000-square-foot structure also is expected to host a suite of offices previously located in the East Wing. The White House has also declined to specify its plans for an emergency bunker that was located below the East Wing, citing matters of national security.

On recent weekdays, a bustling project site that is almost entirely fenced off from public view contained dozens of workers and materials ready to be installed, including reinforced concrete pipes and an array of cranes, drills, pile drivers and other heavy machinery, photos obtained by The Washington Post show.

Plans for the addition as of Tuesday had not been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member board charged by Congress with overseeing federal construction projects and now led by Trump allies. A preliminary agenda for the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for Dec. 4, does not include the ballroom project under projects expected to be covered at the meeting or reviewed by the body in the next six months. White House officials say that the administration still plans to submit its ballroom plans to the commission at “the appropriate time.”

The administration’s rapid demolition of the East Wing annex and solicitations from companies and individuals to fund the new construction have caused controversy over the project, which Trump believes the White House needs to host special events. Democrats, historical preservation groups and some architects have criticized the project’s pace, secrecy and shifting specifications. The White House initially said this summer that the ballroom would cost $200 million and fit 650 people, while Trump in recent weeks asserted that it could cost $300 million or more and would fit about 1,000 people.

McCrery has kept his criticism out of the public eye, quietly working to deliver as Trump demanded rushed revisions to his plans, according to two of the people with knowledge of the conversations. The president — a longtime real estate executive who prides himself on his expertise — has repeatedly drilled into the details of the project in their Oval Office meetings, the people said.

McCrery has wanted to remain with the project, worried that another architect would design an inferior building, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.

McCrery, a classical architect and the founder and principal of McCrery Architects, had designed works like the U.S. Supreme Court bookstore and the pedestal for President Ronald Reagan’s statue in the U.S. Capitol. The ballroom was the largest-ever project for his firm, which has specialized in designing churches, libraries and homes.

Trump hired McCrery for the project on July 13. Eighteen days later, the White House announced the ballroom project, with officials promising to start construction within two months and finish before the end of Trump’s second term.

Trump also appointed McCrery in 2019 to serve a four-year term on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which provides advice to the president, Congress and local government officials on design matters related to construction projects in the capital region.

Democrats have pressed the White House and its donors for more details on the planned construction and what was promised to financial contributors. The ballroom is being funded by wealthy individuals and large companies that have contracts with the federal government, including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir Technologies. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Several donors have cast the decision in statements as an investment in the future of a building that belongs to the American people, pushing back on the suggestion that their largesse was intended to curry favor with Trump.

A donor list released by the White House of 37 businesses and individuals who underwrote the ballroom is not comprehensive, administration officials acknowledged, leaving open the possibility that millions of dollars have been funneled toward the president’s pet project with no oversight.

“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom — and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement last week. Warren and her colleagues also introduced legislation that would impose restrictions on White House construction and require more transparency from donors.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
20 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

McCrery declined an interview request through a representative who declined to answer questions about the architect’s interactions with Trump in recent weeks.

Trump’s intense focus on the project and insistence on realizing his vision over the objections of his own hire, historic preservationists and others concerned by a lack of public input in the project reflect his singular belief in himself as a tastemaker and obsessive attention to details. In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump has waged a campaign to remake the White House in his gilded aesthetic and done so unilaterally — using a who’s-going-to-stop-me ethos he honed for decades as a developer.

Multiple administration officials have acknowledged that Trump has at times veered into micromanagement of the ballroom project, holding frequent meetings about its design and materials. A model of the ballroom has also become a regular fixture in the Oval Office.

The renovation represents one of the largest changes to the White House in its 233-year history, and has yet to undergo any formal public review. The administration has not publicly provided key details about the building, such as its planned height. The 90,000-square-foot structure also is expected to host a suite of offices previously located in the East Wing. The White House has also declined to specify its plans for an emergency bunker that was located below the East Wing, citing matters of national security.

On recent weekdays, a bustling project site that is almost entirely fenced off from public view contained dozens of workers and materials ready to be installed, including reinforced concrete pipes and an array of cranes, drills, pile drivers and other heavy machinery, photos obtained by The Washington Post show.

Plans for the addition as of Tuesday had not been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member board charged by Congress with overseeing federal construction projects and now led by Trump allies. A preliminary agenda for the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for Dec. 4, does not include the ballroom project under projects expected to be covered at the meeting or reviewed by the body in the next six months. White House officials say that the administration still plans to submit its ballroom plans to the commission at “the appropriate time.”

The administration’s rapid demolition of the East Wing annex and solicitations from companies and individuals to fund the new construction have caused controversy over the project, which Trump believes the White House needs to host special events. Democrats, historical preservation groups and some architects have criticized the project’s pace, secrecy and shifting specifications. The White House initially said this summer that the ballroom would cost $200 million and fit 650 people, while Trump in recent weeks asserted that it could cost $300 million or more and would fit about 1,000 people.

McCrery has kept his criticism out of the public eye, quietly working to deliver as Trump demanded rushed revisions to his plans, according to two of the people with knowledge of the conversations. The president — a longtime real estate executive who prides himself on his expertise — has repeatedly drilled into the details of the project in their Oval Office meetings, the people said.

McCrery has wanted to remain with the project, worried that another architect would design an inferior building, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.

McCrery, a classical architect and the founder and principal of McCrery Architects, had designed works like the U.S. Supreme Court bookstore and the pedestal for President Ronald Reagan’s statue in the U.S. Capitol. The ballroom was the largest-ever project for his firm, which has specialized in designing churches, libraries and homes.

Trump hired McCrery for the project on July 13. Eighteen days later, the White House announced the ballroom project, with officials promising to start construction within two months and finish before the end of Trump’s second term.

Trump also appointed McCrery in 2019 to serve a four-year term on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which provides advice to the president, Congress and local government officials on design matters related to construction projects in the capital region.

Democrats have pressed the White House and its donors for more details on the planned construction and what was promised to financial contributors. The ballroom is being funded by wealthy individuals and large companies that have contracts with the federal government, including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir Technologies. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Several donors have cast the decision in statements as an investment in the future of a building that belongs to the American people, pushing back on the suggestion that their largesse was intended to curry favor with Trump.

A donor list released by the White House of 37 businesses and individuals who underwrote the ballroom is not comprehensive, administration officials acknowledged, leaving open the possibility that millions of dollars have been funneled toward the president’s pet project with no oversight.

“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom — and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement last week. Warren and her colleagues also introduced legislation that would impose restrictions on White House construction and require more transparency from donors.

 

So they demolished a huge portion of the White House without even having a concrete plan of what is going to be constructed?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So they demolished a huge portion of the White House without even having a concrete plan of what is going to be constructed?

As always, there's concepts of a plan. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So they demolished a huge portion of the White House without even having a concrete plan of what is going to be constructed?

Tear it down before anyone can stop you, then you can take your time building the replacement.  It’s also why they lied about the extent of the “remodel” and demo work before razing the place.  Didn’t need any court injunctions. 
 

of course they also stupidly gave actual dimensions they were thinking about and when people rendered that based on those dimensions and posted it online and it looked ridiculous, defenders said it wasn’t right. But now we read that it is right, and the architect knows it now too. 
 

the plan is for it to have trump’s name on it, and therefore it has to be much larger than the White House itself and become the focal point of the property. Because Trump. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Tear it down before anyone can stop you, then you can take your time building the replacement.  It’s also why they lied about the extent of the “remodel” and demo work before razing the place.  Didn’t need any court injunctions. 
 

of course they also stupidly gave actual dimensions they were thinking about and when people rendered that based on those dimensions and posted it online and it looked ridiculous, defenders said it wasn’t right. But now we read that it is right, and the architect knows it now too. 
 

the plan is for it to have trump’s name on it, and therefore it has to be much larger than the White House itself and become the focal point of the property. Because Trump. 

It’s fun to read this in the voice of Werner Herzog

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

McCrery declined an interview request through a representative who declined to answer questions about the architect’s interactions with Trump in recent weeks.

Trump’s intense focus on the project and insistence on realizing his vision over the objections of his own hire, historic preservationists and others concerned by a lack of public input in the project reflect his singular belief in himself as a tastemaker and obsessive attention to details. In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump has waged a campaign to remake the White House in his gilded aesthetic and done so unilaterally — using a who’s-going-to-stop-me ethos he honed for decades as a developer.

Multiple administration officials have acknowledged that Trump has at times veered into micromanagement of the ballroom project, holding frequent meetings about its design and materials. A model of the ballroom has also become a regular fixture in the Oval Office.

The renovation represents one of the largest changes to the White House in its 233-year history, and has yet to undergo any formal public review. The administration has not publicly provided key details about the building, such as its planned height. The 90,000-square-foot structure also is expected to host a suite of offices previously located in the East Wing. The White House has also declined to specify its plans for an emergency bunker that was located below the East Wing, citing matters of national security.

On recent weekdays, a bustling project site that is almost entirely fenced off from public view contained dozens of workers and materials ready to be installed, including reinforced concrete pipes and an array of cranes, drills, pile drivers and other heavy machinery, photos obtained by The Washington Post show.

Plans for the addition as of Tuesday had not been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member board charged by Congress with overseeing federal construction projects and now led by Trump allies. A preliminary agenda for the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for Dec. 4, does not include the ballroom project under projects expected to be covered at the meeting or reviewed by the body in the next six months. White House officials say that the administration still plans to submit its ballroom plans to the commission at “the appropriate time.”

The administration’s rapid demolition of the East Wing annex and solicitations from companies and individuals to fund the new construction have caused controversy over the project, which Trump believes the White House needs to host special events. Democrats, historical preservation groups and some architects have criticized the project’s pace, secrecy and shifting specifications. The White House initially said this summer that the ballroom would cost $200 million and fit 650 people, while Trump in recent weeks asserted that it could cost $300 million or more and would fit about 1,000 people.

McCrery has kept his criticism out of the public eye, quietly working to deliver as Trump demanded rushed revisions to his plans, according to two of the people with knowledge of the conversations. The president — a longtime real estate executive who prides himself on his expertise — has repeatedly drilled into the details of the project in their Oval Office meetings, the people said.

McCrery has wanted to remain with the project, worried that another architect would design an inferior building, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.

McCrery, a classical architect and the founder and principal of McCrery Architects, had designed works like the U.S. Supreme Court bookstore and the pedestal for President Ronald Reagan’s statue in the U.S. Capitol. The ballroom was the largest-ever project for his firm, which has specialized in designing churches, libraries and homes.

Trump hired McCrery for the project on July 13. Eighteen days later, the White House announced the ballroom project, with officials promising to start construction within two months and finish before the end of Trump’s second term.

Trump also appointed McCrery in 2019 to serve a four-year term on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which provides advice to the president, Congress and local government officials on design matters related to construction projects in the capital region.

Democrats have pressed the White House and its donors for more details on the planned construction and what was promised to financial contributors. The ballroom is being funded by wealthy individuals and large companies that have contracts with the federal government, including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir Technologies. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Several donors have cast the decision in statements as an investment in the future of a building that belongs to the American people, pushing back on the suggestion that their largesse was intended to curry favor with Trump.

A donor list released by the White House of 37 businesses and individuals who underwrote the ballroom is not comprehensive, administration officials acknowledged, leaving open the possibility that millions of dollars have been funneled toward the president’s pet project with no oversight.

“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom — and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement last week. Warren and her colleagues also introduced legislation that would impose restrictions on White House construction and require more transparency from donors.

 

Fuck McCrery. He knew what he was getting into. No architect takes over a project - assuming his tiny firm wasn't involved from the start - without a full understanding of what had been done to date. I've done this on multiple large projects; you normally get all previous work (the client typically owns the rights) and often chat with the previous architect before going forward. He deserves all the shit that is about to come his way.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
39 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Tear it down before anyone can stop you, then you can take your time building the replacement.  It’s also why they lied about the extent of the “remodel” and demo work before razing the place.  Didn’t need any court injunctions. 
 

of course they also stupidly gave actual dimensions they were thinking about and when people rendered that based on those dimensions and posted it online and it looked ridiculous, defenders said it wasn’t right. But now we read that it is right, and the architect knows it now too. 
 

the plan is for it to have trump’s name on it, and therefore it has to be much larger than the White House itself and become the focal point of the property. Because Trump. 

I know at this point I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of a reaction, but... that's not his property. No more than if we woke up one morning to find that he had demolished the Washington monument on a whim. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, flatdawgs said:

Fuck McCrery. He knew what he was getting into. No architect takes over a project - assuming his tiny firm wasn't involved from the start - without a full understanding of what had been done to date. I've done this on multiple large projects; you normally get all previous work (the client typically owns the rights) and often chat with the previous architect before going forward. He deserves all the shit that is about to come his way.

They/he was announced as the architect pretty much from the get-go, definitely before the demo.

I remember because I looked him up and he seemed credible.

But he should have known he was working for a grimy little pimp and that the "visions" would diverge.

I suppose the notion of working on an historic project was too tempting.

  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I know at this point I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of a reaction, but... that's not his property. No more than if we woke up one morning to find that he had demolished the Washington monument on a whim. 

This is another one of those things that isn't actually regulated by much law.  As with many things, it relies on the good faith and restraint of the executive.

giphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=0184de201149b44

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1


×
×
  • Create New...