Trump Ballroom Unlikely To Be Built

[citygator]

/——/ Get elected president first.

The president can walk into anything the people own and deface it? Spray paint it, burn it down, as long as he doenst use tax money for the match or paint? Nope. That was our building. Not his.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hey stupid, that’s for spending tax dollars.

This isn’t spending tax dollars.

Funny how the party of free shit hates free shit when Trump provides it.

Oh, and BTW...

40 U.S. Code § 8106 - Buildings on reservations, parks, or public grounds

WW

 

[Cellblock2429]

The president can walk into anything the people own and deface it? Spray paint it, burn it down, as long as he doenst use tax money for the match or paint? Nope. That was our building. Not his.

/----/ Folks, this is an example of what happens when a libtard loses a debate. They are reduced to ridiculous straw man arguments, trying to drag you down into a rabbit hole.

Definition and Mechanism
A straw man argument occurs when a person refutes a distorted, exaggerated, or oversimplified version of an argument rather than addressing the original claim directly. The term comes from the metaphor of a straw man or scarecrow, which is a fake figure that can be easily knocked down, symbolizing the weak version of the argument being attacked. The typical process involves three stages: first, person A presents a position; second, person B constructs a distorted version of that position; third, person B attacks this misrepresented version, claiming to have refuted the original argument.

 

[citygator]

/----/ Folks, this is an example of what happens when a libtard loses a debate. They are reduced to ridiculous straw man arguments, trying to drag you down into a rabbit hole.

Definition and Mechanism
A straw man argument occurs when a person refutes a distorted, exaggerated, or oversimplified version of an argument rather than addressing the original claim directly. The term comes from the metaphor of a straw man or scarecrow, which is a fake figure that can be easily knocked down, symbolizing the weak version of the argument being attacked. The typical process involves three stages: first, person A presents a position; second, person B constructs a distorted version of that position; third, person B attacks this misrepresented version, claiming to have refuted the original argument.

You have no response. Trump doesnt own that, the people do. He cant tear down a building, burn down a building, spray paint museum art that is in his stewardship. Only the people cant do that. There is nothing in the constitution that gives him that power which is why the judge said stop. You cant defend that shit so you just whine your little pathetic ass off. Post something useful for one time in your life. Just once. not an insult but something that is fact based and interesting. I doubt you can muster it. (Watch cellblock go silent or simply insult me).

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hey stupid, who is going to be paying for maintenace of the eyesore when it's done.

But that's fine, the next President can convert it to a more usable space later.



Trump taking bribes for influence has a cost.

BTW - I'm an anti-Trump Republican, not a DEM.

WW

/----/ "But that's fine, the next President can convert it to a more usable space later."

You mean like an abortion clinic or a room to hold communist rallies? Maybe a dormitory for illegals...

 

[JoeB131]

What do the morons think America should do now, leave an unfinished ballroom idle until democrats can resteal the power to come in and trash the whole thing?

yes.

I think that ANYTHING to do with Trump needs to be eradicated in a Damnatio Memoriae when he's gone.

Kind of like when the Ancient Romans tried to erase really shitty Emperors after they were deposed.

 

[kyzr]

The president can walk into anything the people own and deface it? Spray paint it, burn it down, as long as he doenst use tax money for the match or paint? Nope. That was our building. Not his.

Nope. Read the LAW

The decades-old exemption that lets Trump reconstruct the White House

The White House and several other buildings are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

www.bbc.com

According to Section 107 of the act, three buildings and their grounds are exempt from the Section 106 review process: the White House, the US Capitol and the US Supreme Court building.

 

[kyzr]

Oh, and BTW...

40 U.S. Code § 8106 - Buildings on reservations, parks, or public grounds

View attachment 1237960

WW

I like this law better:

The decades-old exemption that lets Trump reconstruct the White House

The White House and several other buildings are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

www.bbc.com

According to Section 107 of the act, three buildings and their grounds are exempt from the Section 106 review process: the White House, the US Capitol and the US Supreme Court building.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope. Read the LAW

The decades-old exemption that lets Trump reconstruct the White House

The White House and several other buildings are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

www.bbc.com

According to Section 107 of the act, three buildings and their grounds are exempt from the Section 106 review process: the White House, the US Capitol and the US Supreme Court building.

That is Title 54 of the United States Code. And it does not exempt them from Congressional action.

I posted Title 40 of the United States Code which still requires Congressional action.

WW