Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., did the impossible last week: he reached a new low in American politics. Previously, Swalwell mocked a female senator after she complained about being threatened by leftists. However, even on the Swalwell scale, it is hard to measure the depths of a member who calls for potential presidents to pledge to demolish the Trump ballroom as a litmus test for office. Consider that for a second. According to Swalwell, Democrats will only consider politicians who promise to destroy a $300 million building to appease the lowest common denominator of their party.
Swalwell went on X to declare: “Don’t even think of seeking the Democratic nomination for president unless you pledge to take a wrecking ball to the Trump Ballroom on DAY ONE.”
That is Eric Swalwell’s measure of a president: the willingness to destroy hundreds of millions of dollars in construction in an anti-Trump fit.
One can object to the unilateral decision to tear down the East Wing, but Trump likely has the authority to do so. Past presidents have ordered substantial alterations to the building. What is also clear is that the White House has long needed a ballroom. Trump is right that it is embarrassing to have guests at state dinners sit outside in a tent, since we are among the few major countries without such a space.
Even the Washington Post has come out in favor of the ballroom and said that future presidents will value the addition. However, Swalwell wants the next president to commit to destroying it as a political statement.
The rhetoric continued to ratchet up over the ballroom last week. It is clear that Swalwell was not getting through, as people piled onto social media to denounce the move. He then came up with something that no sane person would demand.
What is interesting is that he is right about one thing. Such a pledge would be useful for voters. Anyone taking the Swalwell pledge would instantly disqualify themselves from the office in the minds of most Americans.
While it certainly worked to get Swalwell back in the news, it was for all the wrong reasons. While Miley Cyrus may have ridden a wrecking ball to fame, Swalwell is unlikely to ride the wave of rage to relevancy in American politics.
Turnabout is fair play. If a Democrat President is voted into office and he/she choose to demolish the ballroom it’s entirely their prerogative. Trump promised the construction of the ballroom would not touch the existing structure. Turns out he lied. Not a surprise. If he can do what he did without consultation or input another president can do the same. Choose to demolish the monstrosity or keep it. Swallwell’s statements are not outlandish or unprecedented. Not as much as Trump’s own outlandish and unprecedented actions to date.
What IS interesting is Professor Turley’s silence on the demolition of the east wing. He’s a big fan of history and very fond of historical buildings. I can’t imagine Turley NOT being upset or surprised about the destruction of the east wing. He’s not going to criticize Trump’s reckless and boorish ballroom for fear of being ostracized or targeted by Trump supporters, MAGAs, and conservatives for “unfairly” criticizing Trump. Turley’s criticism of Swalwell’s comments is easy because Swalwell is the one who directly criticized Turley a few years back and he still seems to be smarting from that.
If people will include the idea of demolishing the ballroom as a promise from a candidate as a reason to vote for him/her so what? Trump made a LOT of promises he didn’t keep. The economy has not improved. Inflation continues to rise and the only thing propping up the economy is the AI bubble. The Supreme Court will soon decide if Trump’s tariffs are even legal in the first place. If it rules they are indeed illegal the government will be forced to refund billions of dollars to U.S. companies and further worsening the budget deficit.
geroge….
No one care what you think. Yet if the next lib prez whats to tear down 300 million ballroom. Have at it
Yet the former prez have (all) complained about having big events in a tent. With port-a-potties for bathrooms.
Again, doesn’t matter what you and I think. If the next president doesn’t want the ballroom he can choose to tear it down. If Trump can do it as unilaterally as he did so can the next president. Plus there is no historical value to the ballroom being so new.
The majority of events have been held in the white house for years with no problems. Security-wise having a smaller number of guests attending and smaller venue is much easier to protect than a bigger venue. Trump just wanted something to appease his ego. Not what was needed.
“Trump just wanted something to appease his ego.”
The only ego we see here is your daily appearances to attack Professor Turley, using this blog as though it were your own. Every day, posting your scribbling while telling yourself it’s brilliant creative writing and people wait with bated breath to see your next post. Nobody here is influenced in the slightest by your narcissistic childish ravings – but you rarely miss a day of inflicting your clown car political vaudeville theater on us.
“Plus there is no historical value to the ballroom being so new.” Now there’s some original George level retardation.
There was no historical value to that wing when it was first built in the early 1900s. And any historical value it had developed was wiped out when the first fascist Marxist Democrat president, FDR, gutted the interior just 40 years later in order to build more office space.
And then there’s Truman, who gutted almost the entire interior of the White House itself and then remodeled it – wiping out all that historical value George cosplays he cares about. But wait!
They were DEMOCRAT presidents – there’s George’s Big D Democrat Double Standards difference!
“The majority of events have been held in the white house for years with no problems. Security-wise having a smaller number of guests attending and smaller venue is much easier to protect than a bigger venue.”
If George isn’t lyin’, then he’s denyin’. The space currently available for use hosting diplomatic events barely holds 60 people – George living at home as a hermit with his collection of stray cats can’t imagine a country’s capitol ever needing more space than 60 people. How many couples, along with aids standing towards the back does that total.
And in this age of cyber warfare, electronic eavesdropping, drone attacks… oh yeah! Nothing could be more secure than having everybody outside in the Rose Garden, under tents.
George, your meandering babble should have you asking your black American hottie, Stacey Patton, to edit your scribblings for you. As you proclaimed her to be a brilliant Black Liars & Marxists journalist, surely she’s capable of being your editor as you use this blog as though it were your own!
Attacking Professor Turley? Hardly. He’s fair game for criticism. Just as he “attacks” the left all the time.
I”m sure you have some valid point or substance somewhere.
“I”m sure you have some valid point or substance somewhere.”
Well, that’s a change from your usual: the moronic “you just think I’m lyin’ and denyin’ because your lack of reading comprehension makes you unable to understand my obviously brilliant creative writing”.
Pointing out you are a fraud because you celebrated and defended your fellow communists destroying historical statues, and now claim to be enraged because Trump is remodeling and expanding the East Wing as FDR did, isn’t a valid point?
Keep lyin’ and denyin’ George: it’s the clown costume you hope hides what you actually are as you come here every day.
geroge
Hardly. He’s fair game for criticism.
__________________________
Just like you george, but the rebuttal comments wipe the floor of you
” If the next president doesn’t want the ballroom he can choose to tear it down.”
Correct,
And as Turley notes – democrats who promise to do so are likely alienating large swaths of voters.
PLEASE, PLEASE have democrat candidates promise to tear it. Make it clear to the american people where you stand.
“Plus there is no historical value to the ballroom being so new.”
Correct, the construction of the Ballroom and promises to destroy the ballroom will be judged based on the value of the ballroom, not history. As Turely noted –
and even WaPo reluctantly noted – Trump is AGAIN right, this space is needed.
“The majority of events have been held in the white house for years with no problems.”
False, we have just coped with the problems, and absolutely we could continue to cope with the problems.
Or as Trump has done we can do something about them.
“Security-wise having a smaller number of guests attending and smaller venue is much easier to protect than a bigger venue.”
Smaller events obviously have less security issues. But we already have much larger events occuring regularly.
We just do them using tents and portpoties as well is limiting guest lists which sometimes offends foreign leaders who get left out.
“Trump just wanted something to appease his ego.” Possibly
So what – you did not have to pay for it.
“Not what was needed.” and yet the consensus is that it was needed.
Absolutely it is a vanity project for Trump.
It is also a poke in the eye to democrats.
Regardless of Swallwell, the next democratic president is NOT going to tear it down because it DOES server an important and useful purpose. And though it may get named differently it will be remembered forever as the Trump Ballroom.
And that is what pisses you off.
“ False, we have just coped with the problems, and absolutely we could continue to cope with the problems.
Or as Trump has done we can do something about them.”
And your examples are…?
Who has complained before Trump? I have not seen any president complain or raise the issue of problems of big events being held at the white house.
“ Regardless of Swallwell, the next democratic president is NOT going to tear it down because it DOES serve an important and useful purpose. And though it may get named differently it will be remembered forever as the Trump Ballroom.
And that is what pisses you off.”
It doesn’t piss me off. It would have pissed you off if it were a Democrat who chose to demolish the East Wing without input or ‘permission’ from historical commissions. Especially if there was a promise NOT to touch the East wing at all as Trump did. Everyone knows he lied about that.
“ And as Turley notes – democrats who promise to do so are likely alienating large swaths of voters.”
Trump is already alienating swaths of voters. More likely against Republicans. If the next president. Chose to demolish the ballroom out of spite it is likely not going to upset a whole lot of people. Or as you said the next president could rename the ballroom in honor of a democrat and leave out Trump altogether. Maybe change the interior decor altogether. OR….demolishing the ballroom would be a symbolic representation of cleaning up the mess Trump made while in office. Just as it is now being portrayed. Trump’s demolition of the East Wing is symbolic of what he is doing to the country. A monument ot himself.
“I have not seen any president complain or raise the issue of problems of big events being held at the white house.”
Really? Which administration said this? —
“The French have the Élysée Palace, and here we are having a lawn party.”
And which prior administrations and attendees had precisely the same problem?
Here’s a hint: All of them. Here’s just one:
“The Kennedys’ difficulties with hosting large-scale events included the following:
“Small official reception rooms: The state reception rooms inside the Executive Residence, such as the East Room, were considered too small to accommodate the large number of guests the Kennedys wished to entertain. The East Room, for example, could seat only about 200 people.
“Need for temporary structures: To host larger gatherings, a temporary tent had to be erected on the White House lawn. This process was expensive, time-consuming, and was not considered a sustainable solution.”
Will there ever be a day when you stop making stuff up?
Oh, 200 people is not enough? Wow. The secret service would be glad only 200 people could attend.
The Kennedy’s?
“ Need for temporary structures: To host larger gatherings, a temporary tent had to be erected on the White House lawn. This process was expensive, time-consuming, and was not considered a sustainable solution.”
So what? Temporary tents are not expensive. The reason they are temporary is because these events are not regularly occurring. Some require extra room, but not often enough to justify a ballroom big enough to hold over a thousand people. It’s idiotic.
Your only example is the Kennedy’s. Who else has complained? A complaint from the 60’s are you kidding?
“Oh, 200 people is not enough?”
Just hosting every congressmen – means 500+ people.
It is not very hard at all to exceed 200 people with an official State event.
“The secret service would be glad only 200 people could attend.”
They would be even happier if it was only 5. They do not dictate how the business of state is conducted.
“So what? Temporary tents are not expensive. ”
They are not – but they are an embarrassment to a great nation and an impediment to the bussiness of state.
“The reason they are temporary is because these events are not regularly occurring. ”
The president is the leader of the free world as noted there were problems 70 years ago.
You do not think it has gotten worse.
Also do you think that the events of state only take place 6 months a year ?
“Some require extra room, but not often enough to justify a ballroom big enough to hold over a thousand people.”
Because you say so ?
The new space is 90,000 sq ft.
That is just slightly larger than Blair house across the street.
It is about 3 times the size of the French Laundry where Newsome held his lavish dinners during Covid.
” It’s idiotic.”
because you say so ?
“Your only example is the Kennedy’s. Who else has complained? A complaint from the 60’s are you kidding?”
In what world do you think the problem has cone away over the past 70 years ?
“Your only example . . .”
Apparently, you have problems with reading comprehension.
The first example/quote is from the Biden administration.
“ The French have the Élysée Palace, and here we are having a lawn party.”
The French had a monarchy who loved to build palaces and grand oppulent spaces to show off and have these grand parties. The citizens ended up beheading them for these excesses. Trump wants to have the same kind oppulance because he wants to be treated like a King. Our history is based on modesty not the grand oppulance of monarchy. We fought a war of independence to get away from such things.
“The French had a monarchy who loved to build palaces and grand oppulent spaces to show off and have these grand parties. ”
They did, but such spaces have also been the norm for affairs of state since atleast the egyptians
“The citizens ended up beheading them for these excesses.”
Yes, like typical left wing nuts they french revolutions solution to those they did not like was bloodshed.
But they did not tear down the Élysée Palace,
“Trump wants to have the same kind oppulance”
Correct – as did Kennedy.
“Our history is based on modesty”
If only that were true.
“We fought a war of independence to get away from such things.”
We did not fight for independence to get away from Ballrooms
We fought for individual liberty.
You are confusing the american revolution with numerous bloody left wing revolutions. Like the french revolution.
Our founders did not behead the 1/3 of the country that had remained loyal to King George durring the revoluition
Left wing nut revolutions like the french revolution – not only executed the aristocracy – they also executed their own leaders as power shifted.
“The French had . . .”
That quote is from the Biden administration.
You’re becoming a caricature of yourself.
“And your examples are…?”
Are you saying that the NYT and WaPo reporting of using tents outside for large events and using portapoties is FALSE ?
“Who has complained before Trump? I”
Many people – atleast according to reporting from many LEFT WING SOURCES.
“have not seen any president complain or raise the issue of problems of big events being held at the white house.”
You did not see Trump complain either – he just did something about it when he got complaints.
Are you seriously trying to argue this ?
“It would have pissed you off if it were a Democrat who chose to demolish the East Wing without input or ‘permission’ from historical commissions.”
Not likely. This is fully within a presidents power and as noted many many many times – I am LIBERTARIAN – I am opposed to historical commissions or ANY other groups that one needs permission to act with their own property.
The WH is slightly different as it is Govenrment proroperty – in which case Congress could have passed laws requiring historiacal review for projects at the WH.
I would note there is already as story addressing the efforts to replace the WH fence when someone managed to get into the WH in 2014 by climbing the fence.
That was someone who get into the OBAMA WH. In replacing the fence the WH went through the full cammut of voluntary reviews and it took 5 years to correct an obvious defect. In the meantime the president and everyone working in the WH was less safe.
” Especially if there was a promise NOT to touch the East wing at all as Trump did.”
Did you vote for Trump ? If not, no one made a promise to you.
Regardless, you are a know liar especially about Trump.
You are so much of a liar that much of the time we just assume you are lying – you are no longer worther the effort to fact check.
“Trump is already alienating swaths of voters.”
Yet his approval has been pretty flat since he was elected – which is highly unusual.
Trump’s approval floats in a ver narrow range, it does not go up much. it does not go down much.
The Trend line is FLAT.
So your claim that Trump is pissing off voters is FALSE – atleast with respect to those who did vote for him.
“If the next president. Chose to demolish the ballroom out of spite it is likely not going to upset a whole lot of people.”
You are free to beleive that.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bet on that.
As Sun Tzu says – never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Or as Maya Angelou said – “beleive people when they show you who they are the first time”
” Or as you said the next president could rename the ballroom in honor of a democrat and leave out Trump altogether.”
They could, but history is near certain to remmber this as the Trump Ballroom – and YOU are working hard to assure that.
The more you rant about it the more strongly you weld it to Trump. You are immortalizing Trump with the Ballroom.
“Maybe change the interior decor altogether.”
The next president is free to do that regardless. Presidents get criticized for their choices of decor.
You have criticized Trump for removing portaits of former presidents. Trump has criticised Obama and Biden for removing the bust of Churchill.
A president is free to do as they wish with the decore in the WH. This is so firmly established there are movies about it.
And the rest of us are free to judge their choices.
“demolishing the ballroom would be a symbolic”
Absolutely – and that is your problem – it would be symbolic of the TDS of the left and the waste and cut off your nose to spite your face nature of democrats.
PLEASE PLEASE tear down the Trump ballroom when you next gain power.
PLEASE PLEASE do stupid things that show us all who you are
“Yet his approval has been pretty flat since he was elected – which is highly unusual.
Trump’s approval floats in a ver narrow range, it does not go up much. it does not go down much.
The Trend line is FLAT.”
Flat? It’s been on a downward trajectory for a while. Every day his approval ratings are not getting any better.
X
You make it clear how you see the world.
If you had the ability to see outside your bubble you would notice that those outside that bubble do NOT see the world as you do.
If you had the ability to think rationally and to observe the real world – you would grasp that your perception is deeply flawed.
John Say,
“If you had the ability to see outside your bubble you would notice that those outside that bubble do NOT see the world as you do.”
That’s cute. You think you’re outside a bubble. It’s the other way around. That’s the truly sad part.
Especially if there was a promise NOT to touch the East wing at all as Trump did.
No, he didn’t. He never said one word about the east wing. He said the project wouldn’t touch the White House, and he didn’t.
Oh, and he doesn’t need permission from any commission. There is no such requirement, and no Democrat would ever bother asking them.
“Again, doesn’t matter what you and I think. ”
Again, what DOES matter is you’re a cheap fake Democrat communist fraud who is seen here as being nothing but that: a lyin’ and denyin’ fraud. One who gloated and defended the destruction of statues with more historical value than the East Wing. A fraud who pretends to be enraged that Trump is doing exactly what FDR did to the East Wing 80 years ago – expanding and remodeling it along with the addition of a ballroom for White House diplomatic events.
What also matters is the only reason you post here is to obtain narcissistic self-gratification for your own ego.
Nobody believes you, nor gives any credence to the insults you throw at Professor Turley, George, not even you. You can’t even fool your inner child, no more than you can fool your outer child.
Just keep on lyin’ and denyin’ with the insults George: we will give you the attention your ego craves. You’ll just have to be satisfied that it’s in the form of mocking, jeering, and pointing out your lies.
Oh, Anonymous is upset. Bummer.
Oh George… I’m not the only one who gets a bit of amusement with my morning coffee by slapping you around and mocking your lyin’ and denyin’ with all the difficulty of clubbing a baby seal.
George: the only supporter you’ve managed to win in all your years of showing up daily to yap and snarl at Professor Turley’s heels is yourself.
Now having somebody like you as your only fan or supporter – now that’s what a bummer looks like.
Like O-dumbers basketball court.
DustOff,
Just scroll past. Nothing he writes is worth reading.
Yes, no woman would want to attend a tent events. Dems are happy to use sidewalks or belly up to the bushes. Ugh, embarrassing
“Turnabout is fair play. Turley’s criticism of Swalwell’s comments is easy because Swalwell is the one who directly criticized Turley a few years back and he still seems to be smarting from that.”
What’s your excuse today, GeorgeX? Your socks are too tight? Bitter because of the failure of your intersectional, bi-racial love affair with the brilliant black American Black Liars & Marxists journalist Stacey Patton?
Drugs again? Started day drinking too early? Maybe dragged down by the handicap of your primary school level reading comprehension?
Or maybe it’s BBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!! BBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!
Anonymous! Hey buddy! I see you’re still hanging like a lost puppy. You still don’t have anything of substance to offer? Still? Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, you should start offering more than put-downs and insults.
“Hey buddy! I see you’re still hanging like a lost puppy.”
Hey clown boy George! Here you are again, like every day, yapping furiously at Professor Turley’s heels like a fat lady’s lap dog that got loose. You claim you don’t notice that you do that every single day?
I pointed out that you’re a fraud who celebrated and defended your fellow communist Democrat thugs spending years destroying historical statues and monuments. You want to pronounce that “nothing of substance”?
Keep lying to both your inner and outer child that calling your lyin’ and denyin’ by pointing out FDR did exactly the same thing to the East Wing is not of substance.
You might actually believe that pronouncement yourself – but nobody else will.
I said last week that X will say anything to be contrarian because he/she is a contrarian weirdo. Today X helped make my point. Boy, this is just getting stupid.
“Turnabout is fair play.”
Absolutely – you are completely correct – the next president will have the power to Demolish the Ballroom should they choose.
And Just as Trump should be judged for his promises and acts so should they.
As Turley and even the Washington Post have pointed out – the Ballroom is actually a necescity – putting the leaders of foeign neations in tents on the whitehouse law and making them use porta potties at state events is a major embarrassment.
But if democrats wish to prove their stupidity by pledging to destroy something the WH actually needs, because “Argh TRump”
Please show us all exactly who you are.
“If people will include the idea of demolishing the ballroom as a promise from a candidate as a reason to vote for him/her so what? ”
Yes, Candidates should be judged on what they say as well as the likelyhood they will do what they say and the merits of what they say and are likely to do.
And as Turely notes – most voters are likly to vote against a candidate who promise to destroy something the country actually needs meerly because Trump did it.
“Trump made a LOT of promises he didn’t keep.”
So say you – but you did not vote for Trump and will not ever vote for Trump your Opinion regarding Trump’s “Promises” is entirely irrelevant.
“The economy has not improved.”
Growth is at 3.8% APR and projected to reach 3.9% in the 4th quarter – that is actually very good.
“Inflation continues to rise”
False – Inflation has not dropped, inflation needs to drop another 2% atleast – mild deflation would be perfect.
But inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
We have inflation because the Fed is pumping too much money into the economy – mostly to prop up US debt.
Trump and Musk tried to cut govenrment spending – YOU threw a hissy fit.
God forbid we shoudl not pay for healthcare for illegal aliens or trans operas in columbia.
Inflation declines as we get govenrment spending under control.
Reagardless growth is higher than inflation – something NOT true while Biden was president,
and that means the economy is improving.
“the only thing propping up the economy is the AI bubble.”
Doubly false. There are many promises being made for AI that will not happen – atleast not in the next century,
There are real problems in the physics of materials that we are unlikely to overcome anytime soon that will sslow the advance of AI.
At the same time we could spend the not 50 years improving our standard of living using AI.
We must be careful not to over or under promise regarding AI.
AI is as big or bigger than the industrial revolution.
We are not however 1 step from sentient computers. Nor do we have amiracle technology that comes with no problems, no disruptions.
There is no bubble in AI. But there are limits that will be difficult to get arround, at the same time we have barely scratched the surface regarding Utilizing the IA capabilities we already have.
” The Supreme Court will soon decide if Trump’s tariffs are even legal in the first place. If it rules they are indeed illegal the government will be forced to refund billions of dollars to U.S. companies and further worsening the budget deficit.”
SCOTUS is not going to rule against the Tarriffs. Congress has given the president the power to do this.
And that is precisely what SCOTUS will decide.
Congress has the ability to revoke that grant of power. The courts do not.
I would further note that while SCOTUS should not make decisions on that basis – they have pretty much always done so.
SCOTUS will NEVER require the US govenrment to she 100’s of billions of dollars because of a claim those funds were obtained unconstitutionally.
Those of use who seek to restore Government to its constitutional limits face an uphill battle – because SCOTUS is bever going to vote to UNDO a century of unconstitutional powers granted the federal government.
They should – but they won’t.
If you think that SCOTUS is going to require returning revenues from Tarrifs – your smoking whacky weed.
“ putting the leaders of foeign neations in tents on the whitehouse law and making them use porta potties at state events is a major embarrassment.”
Which foreign leaders have been using porta potties and tents? Please cite an example.
“ Trump made a LOT of promises he didn’t keep.”
So say you – but you did not vote for Trump and will not ever vote for Trump your Opinion regarding Trump’s “Promises” is entirely irrelevant.”
You did NOT vote for Biden and you will never vote for Biden. Your opinion regarding Biden’s “promises” is entirely irrelevant. But you certainly deem it relevant. You have a very odd way of stating your positions.
“ Inflation continues to rise”
False – Inflation has not dropped, inflation needs to drop another 2% atleast – mild deflation would be perfect.
But inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
We have inflation because the Fed is pumping too much money into the economy – mostly to prop up US debt.”
Inflation has not dropped because it’s rising. Trump promised to lower inflation and we know his tariffs are adding to inflation increases. It’s at 3% and continuing to slowly rise.
The Fed is not doing anything. It’s not pumping too much money into the economy. Trump’s tariffs are supposed to lower inflation according to him. The feds lowered interest rates as Trump demanded and we still have rising inflation. Not a good thing for Trump’s promised economic plans.
“ SCOTUS is not going to rule against the Tarriffs. Congress has given the president the power to do this.”
Wrong. Congress has not given the president the power to do this. Which law has given Trump the power to raise tariffs unilaterally? Declaring an emergency when there isn’t is not a lawful use of the current law. This is what SCOTUS is going to consider. Trump will likely lose the ability to unilaterally impose tariffs since Congress never gave him that authority. SCOTUS has the authority to declare Trump’s tariffs as unlawful and therefore invalid. Ultimately it will force Trump or Congress to refund all that money. Trump’s tariffs are the larges tax increase on US businesses ever. It’s US companies that are paying the tax.
“Which foreign leaders have been using porta potties and tents? Please cite an example.”
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
And George…
“Which foreign leaders have been using porta potties and tents? ”
You have already accepted that tents on the lawn have been used since the Kennedies.
“You did NOT vote for Biden and you will never vote for Biden. Your opinion regarding Biden’s “promises” is entirely irrelevant. But you certainly deem it relevant. You have a very odd way of stating your positions.”
No I do not care about Biden’s “promises” I care about his failures.
He spent like a drunken sailor, triggered massive inflation as any sane economist could have predicted.
He was corrupt and demented.
Further most of my criticism of Biden is really are you and democrats for voting for this disaster.
“Inflation has not dropped because it’s rising. ”
Nope it has been fairly steady for about 2 years. very minor changes.
You are correct that it is too high.
“Trump promised to lower inflation”
He did – but the only thing he can do to reduce inflation is reduce federal spending.
Which YOU have violently opposed.
Inflation is ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE a monetary phenomena.
“we know his tariffs are adding to inflation increases. ”
No Tarriffs only relationship to inflation is that if they bring in enough revenue they will lower it by requiring the Fed to print less money.
“It’s at 3% and continuing to slowly rise.”
It was at 2.9% in Jan 2025.
“The Fed is not doing anything.”
They are buying a significant portion of US debt. If they did not the price of that debt would rise dramatically.
When the Fed Buys debt they must print money.
The Fed’s current Balance sheet is 6.6T. That is 6.6T of money in the economy that was made out of thin air.
That is why we have inflation.
“It’s not pumping too much money into the economy.”
Not as they were durring Biden.
But there balance sheet is still 6.6T
“Trump’s tariffs are supposed to lower inflation according to him. ”
Someone say I beleive everything Trump says ?
Tarriffs are neither inflationary nor deflationary.
AGAIN Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.
I will take one of the 4 greatest economists who won a Nobel over monetary economics over you or Trump.
“The feds lowered interest rates as Trump demanded and we still have rising inflation. ”
Yes – again just because you are an economic illiterate does not mean Trump’s public claims on these issues are correct.
If you want inflation to come down further that requires reducing money supply – NOT increasing it.
Trump wants lower interest rates to stimulate the economy.
But higher interest rates are part of what will bring inflation down.
“Not a good thing for Trump’s promised economic plans.”
Is tyhere anyone listening to your assessments of economics ?
You have repeatedly failed ECON 101 here.
“Wrong. Congress has not given the president the power to do this. Which law has given Trump the power to raise tariffs unilaterally? Declaring an emergency when there isn’t is not a lawful use of the current law. ”
So many errors. Numerous laws passed by congress give the president economic powers – including to impose tarrifs.
I would note these tarrifs are NOT unilateral. Trump has Repeatedly made clear they are RECIPROCAL.
HIS definition of reciprocal is high enough to rebalance the trade imbalance, rather than if you tax US milk we will tax EU milk.
There is no way SCOTUS is going to challenge the presidents definition of reciprocal.
All rpesidents declare emergencies that the rest of us find implausible. I beleive there are something like 80- declarations of emergency by past presentidents dating back to the 80’s. SCOTUS has never found ONE invalid.
I would further note that a presidential declration of an emergency is NOT carte blanche power.
When ANY president declares an emergency they must report to congress on the state of that emergency every 60 months.
And every 6 months Congress can if it chooses vote to end the emergency. I do not beleive they ever have.
John Say,
“Inflation has not dropped because it’s rising. ”
Nope it has been fairly steady for about 2 years. very minor changes.”
ROLF!
It’s been rising John. It’s been going up ever since Trump got in office. Rising is not “steady.”
“So many errors. Numerous laws passed by congress give the president economic powers – including to impose tarrifs.
I would note these tarrifs are NOT unilateral. Trump has Repeatedly made clear they are RECIPROCAL.”
What laws? Trump has used emergency declarations where there are no emergencies. He unilaterally raised tariffs without congressional approval. His tariffs are unlawful. Trump just raised tariffs against Canada because of an ad that was deriding Trumps tariffs. There’s nothing reciprocal about that.
“I would further note that a presidential declration of an emergency is NOT carte blanche power.”
No Sh!t Sherlock. But Trump is using emergency declarations as carte Blanche reasons to impose tariffs without explaining what the emergency is. He’s relying on Republicans to look the other way.
“This is what SCOTUS is going to consider.”
No it is not.
It is unconstitutonal for the courts to second guess the decisions of the president or congress.
The one area they will absolutely NOT look at is whether the emergency is legitimate.
That is between congress and the president and a process already exists for Congress to reject or end a presidents emergency declaration.
Frankly this case is a dead bang loser and could easily be a 9-0 decision.
This is a case that would require a constitutional amendment to alter.
I would be happy to see SCOTUS reign in presidential power and congressional power and congressess power to delegate its power.
But even in the most originalist read of the constitution – Tarriffs are a legitmate power of the federal govenrment,
Congress can set them. And they can delegate the power to set them in an emergency to the president.
And congress still has the power to end the emergency.
There is nothing close to a winning argument here.
This case is a dead bang loser – likely 9-0.
” Trump will likely lose the ability to unilaterally impose tariffs since Congress never gave him that authority.”
You would be correct if and only if all your facts were correct, but NONE of them are.
The tarriffs are not unilateral. Your dislike for Trump’s method of establishing a reciprocal tarriff does not change the fact that they are not unilateral, and challenging Trump’s method of setting a reciprocal tarrif can only be done by CONGRESS – not the courts.
It is called the separation of powers.
The courts decide the law and the constitution. They do not decide what is wise and what is not.
“SCOTUS has the authority to declare Trump’s tariffs as unlawful and therefore invalid. ”
But only if they actually are unlawful – which they are not.
“Ultimately it will force Trump or Congress to refund all that money.”
If you were absolutely correct – and the only constitutionally correct resolution was for the governemnt to fork over half a trillion dollars,
There is absolutely no way that SCOTUS would ever do that.
While you are completely incorrect,
If by some miracle Biden had managed to actually give half a trillion dollars to students for their debt – SCOTUS would have somehow found his actions constititional. They would NOT come to a decision that would cost the US treasury half a trillion dollars.
If you want to tell me that is WRONG and SCOTUS should not allow unconstitutional acts to avoid forking over half a trillion dollars – I would agree with you – though this is not the correct case. But if you are asking whether they ever WILL – not a chance in h311.
“Trump’s tariffs are the larges tax increase on US businesses ever. It’s US companies that are paying the tax.”
All taxes are ultimate paid by consumers. PERIOD.
Regardless, people are NOT going to view this as you do.
When the Federal govenrment taxes my income – I have no choice – I must pay.
Tarriffs are trivially avoidable – which is why they massive tax revol you are hoping for is not happening.
If you do not want to pay tarrifs – buy american goods.
What MOST americans see in the tarrifs is some short term pain – though even that is not mostly materializing.
In return for more and better paying jobs for americans – especially blue collar workers.
I would further note – that for the most part Trump’s tarriffs are mostly just accellerating the inevitable.
Europe has no competitive advantage over the US. all their costs are the same or higher, They have no advantage in reseources or pretty much anything else.
Most of Asia has a competitive advantage in lower labor costs. But they have many disadvantages, that is MANY cases balance that.
China in particular is in trouble because as its labor costs have risen its competitive advantage has diminished.
“But even in the most originalist read of the constitution – Tarriffs are a legitmate power of the federal govenrment,
Congress can set them. And they can delegate the power to put them in an emergency to the president.”
Tariff power is the legitimate power of Congress, not the President. Trump has no authority to impose these tariffs, even under current law. SCOTUS can indeed look into whether it’s an emergency when lower court rulings point out that an emergency is non-existent. It’s part of the requirement of the law. If no facts point to an emergency there is no legality to declaring them.
Trump’s tariffs are unlawful, SCOTUS cannot ignore the simple fact that evidence does not show any emergency. Especially when Trump imposes tariffs because he got offended by an ad from Canada.
“If you were absolutely correct – and the only constitutionally correct resolution was for the government to fork over half a trillion dollars,
There is absolutely no way that SCOTUS would ever do that.”
SCOTUS only rules on the legality of Trump’s actions not the consequences of what their ruling would bring. That is why we have Congress. Once the court rules the tariffs are unconstitutional Congress must step up to fix the problem or remedy it by refunding the money. It’s Trump’s fault for putting Congress in that position and it’s Congress’s fault for allowing it to happen. Republicans are at fault for letting things get this far and “hoping” SCOTUS will save them from the problem of dealing with the issue themselves.
SCOTUS must rule on the law, not on what it thinks is best to avoid a financial catastrophe for Republicans. It either finds the Tariffs constitutional or not. That’s the only question before the court.
“ What MOST americans see in the tarrifs is some short term pain – though even that is not mostly materializing.
In return for more and better paying jobs for americans – especially blue collar workers.“
That pain has not materialized because most companies have eaten the tariffs and not passed them on to customers. The problem is that they cannot do that indefinitely and are now on the verge of passing on those increases to customers. The stockpiled inventories of pre-tariff goods are dwindling and the pain will keep increasing.
Return of blue-collar jobs? ROLF! Companies don’t want to pay more, not when they have automation and AI to replace those lost jobs. Jobs are not growing John. Automation and AI are driving the job losses even further. We don’t have a robust manufacturing base, we have mostly a service economy rather than a manufacturing one. China has the world’s best manufacturing economy and it can easily accommodate their manufacturing to other markets. We don’t have that capability. Those jobs Trump expects to get back will be taken up by automation and AI. Not people.
John:
Tarriffs are a legitmate power of the federal govenrment, Congress can set them. And they can delegate the power to set them in an emergency to the president.
No one disputes that, but the point is that Congress hasn’t delegated this power. At least not according to both the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit.
This case is a dead bang loser – likely 9-0.
Then how is it that both the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit found otherwise?
The tarriffs are not unilateral.
Your definition of “unilateral” is off. X is (correctly, for a wonder) accusing Trump of imposing these tariffs unilaterally, meaning without Congress’s authority. It’s got nothing to do with what other countries are doing.
If by some miracle Biden had managed to actually give half a trillion dollars to students for their debt – SCOTUS would have somehow found his actions constititional.
The decisions on the Biden student giveaways had nothing to do with the constitution. They were entirely about statutory interpretation — exactly like this one. The question then was whether Congress had authorized the giveaways, and in one case SCOTUS said no, the statute doesn’t mean that, so Biden obeyed and stopped that program. Then he found another statute and started a more limited giveaway, and that was under challenge; eventually SCOTUS would have had to decide whether he’d got it right this time, or had got it wrong again.
That is exactly what’s going on with these tariffs. Trump claims a statute allows them, two courts have said he’s wrong, and now SCOTUS will look at it and say what it means.
The entire US govenrment ran on Tarrifs for nearly a century and a half.
If you want a real look at the future – Tarriffs will eventually stabalize globally – probably at about 10%.
It would be nice if All nations dropped theirs to zero but that is not happening.
BUT future US presidents will use Tarriffs much more heavily in international negotiations.
Though in truth we did exactly that in reverse for many decades.
The US allowed other nations to levi disproportionate tarriffs in as part of gaining support for US policy globally.
Today – Russia is a paper Tiger – China is far more a threat and it is clear than China is failing.
There is no challenge to US hegemony aside from whatever we are willing to pay to dominate the world.
The US simply no longer needs the coopoeration fo the rest of the world, so we have no reason to allow them an unfair trade relationship.
Further our Trading partners are shifting. The US is shifting from europe focused to pacific rim and western hemisphere focussed.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/25/19/
Martin v. Mott
25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19
Syllabus
The authority to decide whether the exigencies contemplated in the Constitution of the United States and the Act of Congress of 1795, ch. 101, in which the President has authority to call forth the militia, “to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions” have arisen is exclusively vested in the President, and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.
A decision from 1827, about a draft dodger in the War of 1812, and interpreting a statute from 1795, is of limited value today.
When a statute explicitly gives the president the power to declare an emergency, then obviously he has that power. But where it simply authorizes him to do things if there is an emergency, then he does not have plenary power to determine that. In the case now in the 9th circuit, about whether he can call up the California National Guard and send it to Portland, the 9th circuit panel affirmed that the president’s determination that he’s unable to enforce the law without IS ABSOLUTELY reviewable, but with extreme deference. The panel faulted the district court, not for considering the question in the first place, but for paying only lip service to this duty of extreme deference. The district court said it was giving extreme deference, but it clearly didn’t, so the panel reversed and found for the president. But it rejected the president’s contention that it was not justiciable
In any case, this has nothing to do with the tariff dispute, which is NOT about whether the emergency exists but about what powers Congress gave the president in such an emergency. Congress did NOT say he could use it to impose tariffs, and no previous president has read it as implying such an authority. Now SCOTUS has to say what the statute means.
John:
SCOTUS is not going to rule against the Tarriffs. Congress has given the president the power to do this.
That is precisely the question that SCOTUS will have to decide. Has Congress given the president this power? Not on the face of it. The text of the statute doesn’t say he has it, and no previous president has ever interpreted it to give it to him. Trump is the first president to claim the statute means what it doesn’t explicitly say, and now the courts have to decide whether he is right. The court whose specific task is to interpret these statutes says it doesn’t. Now SCOTUS will have to say whether it agrees. I hope it decides for the statute’s plain text, but I expect it won’t.
“Turnabout is fair play.”
So stop ranting about Trump prosecuting Comey and James and going after Schiff.
Quit Ranting. because Trump is punishing those who weaponized justice.
Comey didn’t weaponize justice. They had legitimate reasons to go after Trump. What Trump IS doing is weaponizing the DOJ and their cases against Comey and Letitia James are in serious trouble because they are based purely on vindictivness. Even Abrego Garcia has a good case for vindictive prosecution. The bumbling approach to the prosecutions are so embarrassing that no experienced professioanal prosecutor will touch these cases.
Trump is upset because he was being held accountable for his lawless actions as president. Just as he is now with the blessing of his hand his handpicked DOJ. Vengeance is not going well for Trump. He’s just making it easier for Democrats to do the same when the time comes. He’s validating the weaponization of the DOJ for future presidents.
“Comey didn’t weaponize justice. They had legitimate reasons to go after Trump.”
Here’s some substantive content for you George:
You’re lyin’ and denyin’ again: trying to claim that Clinton/Obama’s felonious “Russia Dossier” was actually verified by Comey as required by the FISA courts’ mandatory Woods Procedures. Except, it wasn’t.
That Comey wasn’t aware of, and didn’t tell Obama and Biden, that it was an illegally purchased and written document, written by foreign spies illegally paid to create that fraud. First by Clinton, and then Obama throwing DNC and DoJ money in later for further payments to those foreign spies engaged in this felonious behavior. Except he did tell them that, and then Comey as well as Obama did help pay for it and pay money to those spies. Instead of arresting and charging the felons involved in that.
And you’re lyin’ and denyin’ that Comey supposedly hadn’t told Obama that he and the FBI knew it was a fraudulent document weeks before Obama ordered him to use it to get FISA warrants to spy on everybody with any contact with the Trump campaign. Except he did precisely that: telling both Obama and Biden that Brennan and he both knew it was a felonious campaign falsehood from the Clinton campaign.
You also wants us to believe that Comey, McCabe, and others DIDN’T repeatedly perjure themselves to the FISA courts to get illegitimate spy warrants to weaponize the FBI and DoJ. Except they did, as well as Obama’s last two Attorney Generals all repeatedly committed that felony. For no legitimate law enforcement reason. But instead, to weaponize the FBI and DoJ.
George, you want us to believe none of that is weaponization – it is just the legitimate functioning of Obama’s DoJ, Attorney Generals, and FBI directors like Comey.
Your a liar George – as usual, as always when you show up daily to hysterically yap at Professor Turley’s heels.
There’s some substantive content about you, George. Even if you claim it’s not substantive in your world, merely insults in response to your lying insults, you cheap fake police state fascist Democrat fraud.
“Comey didn’t weaponize justice. They had legitimate reasons to go after Trump”
No they did not – the collusion delusion was a FRAUD.
Worse – though Obama is properly immune from prosecution – it is well established at this point that an ACTUAL conspiracy existed involving the FBI,. the Clinton campaign and the Obama intelligence community – a conspiracy that went all the way to Biden and Obama,
a conspiracy to execute a soft coup against the president elect and then president of the united states.
That will never be prosecuted. But as with all misconduct – often it is the coverup that lands you in jail.
Comey not merely participated in an illegal soft coup attempt – Obama MAY be protected as president, but Comey as FBI director is NOT,
‘But he also lied under oath repeatedly to cover it up.
Comey might be excoriate but he would not face criminal charges for actual criminal conduct BUT FOR his efforts to cover up that conduct.
“What Trump IS doing is weaponizing the DOJ and their cases against Comey and Letitia James are in serious trouble because they are based purely on vindictivness.”
Obviously false. there are plenty of people Trump hates worse than these. So long as Trump’s enemies have behaved legally they are safe.
Which is how it is supposed to be. That is NOT how it was under Biden and that is Why your idiocy is falling on deaf ears.
“Even Abrego Garcia has a good case for vindictive prosecution.”
Really ? How much of an idiot are you ? Garcia is in the US illegally, and he is a criminal many times over.
The only questions are why wasn’t he deported before and why wasn’t he prosecuted before ?
His current prosecution is specifically the result of the stupidity of the left wing nut Judiciary.
He was brough back and prosecuted – not as vidictiveness against HIM, but as a thumb in the eye of idiot judges in DC and MD.
He was brought back, he is being tried and prosecuted, he will be convicted – unless he voluntarily agrees to be deported first.
“The bumbling approach to the prosecutions are so embarrassing that no experienced professioanal prosecutor will touch these cases.”
The people you call professionals are the ones who have been WRONG about the law for a decade.
The people you call bumbling are the ones who have been right.
“Trump is upset because he was being held accountable for his lawless actions as president. ”
Trump can be upset or not that is not relevant.
He was NOT being held accountable for conduct as president. Little of the lawfare against Trump had any basis in conduct as president and NONE had any basis in lawless conduct.
It is the left that has bent the law.
Comey lied under oath – MULTIPLE TIMES.
He also leaked information illegally MULTIPLE TIMES.
Ask Reality Winner what the consequences of that can be.
Will the prosecution of Comey be successful ? That is only a question of how biased the judge and jury will be – otherwise conviction is a sure thing.
Letitia James is being prosecuted for mortgage fraud – which she clearly committed multiple times.
and unlike her prosecutions of Trump – there is real fraud because there is real harm – she cheated lenders and she cheated on taxes.
Her case may go much worse for her than Comey’s – she will be judged by ordinary people who KNOW they can not get away with what she did.
Regardless the claims against James and Comey are far beyond probable cause – they are beyond reasonable doubt.
James and comey are betting in Jury nullification.
Bolton’s case is one of arrogance and stupidity.
Schiff is likely to follow shortly.
Could not happen to a more deserving guy.
“Just as he is now with the blessing of his hand his handpicked DOJ.”
The DOJ is ALWAYS handpicked – hence your idiocy about carrerr prosecutors is just idiocy.
“Vengeance is not going well for Trump.”
Looks like it is going really well to me.
” He’s just making it easier for Democrats to do the same when the time comes.”
You are free to try. But I doubt that.
You are already makeing demands to prosecute Trump and others and you do not have any crimes.
Just as before you make it clear that it is Democrats and the left that say “show me the man, and I will show you the crime”
“He’s validating the weaponization of the DOJ for future presidents.”
YOU did that starting with Obama.
The only question is whether it ends.
You can accept the fact that Republicans are no longer taking it lying down.
That if Democrats keep this nonsense up – each successive GOP DOJ will hold them to account,
or you can declare a true and STOP, and confien political prosecutions to rock solid cases – like James and Comey and Boulton adn Schiff, not garbge cases like most J6 defendants, and Stone and manafort and page, and papdoulis,
I would note Trump did NOT prosecute Hillary, and there is no effort to further prosecute the Bidens or Harris.
The people being prosecuted are NOT merely political enemies – they are criminals.
And even some of the criminals are being left alone.
John Say,
“Regardless the claims against James and Comey are far beyond probable cause – they are beyond reasonable doubt.
James and comey are betting in Jury nullification.”
ROLF!
John, nothing the Trump DOJ has provided is beyond probable cause. Not a single thing. Their cases won’t make it to trial based on the fact that the prosecutors are unlawful. Comey never lied. Letitia James’s “mortgage fraud” is not even a thing. Trump’s own mouth has punched a lot of holes in their “case” against Comey and James. Both cases will be tossed on lack of evidence and the unlawful appointment of the prosecution.
“What IS interesting is Professor Turley’s silence on the demolition of the east wing. He’s a big fan of history and very fond of historical buildings. I can’t imagine Turley NOT being upset or surprised about the destruction of the east wing.”
George, everybody remembers you gloating AND DEFENDING your fellow fascist Democrats in Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists destroying historical statues that predated the East Wing by many decades – for some, predated it by centuries.
Destroying statues, Good: renovating the East Wing a SECOND time, Bad? You want us to believe that now you actually are enraged by tearing down portions of the East Wing to RENOVATE it, and add a ballroom to it as well?
George: is “Reading comprehension” your excuse for your total ignorance of the history of the East Wing and similar renovations? A trip down memory lane for you, you Cheap Fake Communist Democrat Fraud:
1902, the East Wing is built — destroying the colonnaded terraces constructed during the Jefferson Administration.
1942, the East Wing is gutted and exterior walls torn down so it can be expanded and remodeled by FDR — exactly like Trump is doing now, eighty years later.
1977, the East Wing has interior remodelling and addition of office space so that First Lady Rosalynn Carter can have personal offices for her and her staff, as well as space for social events.
Now… prove to us you’re actually upset at all the previous destruction of history that occurred relating to the East Wing.
And you’re now even more enraged to learn that Harry Truman completely gutted the interior of the White House itself to remodel it. Not to make it more efficient and usable of course – but as a monument to himself.
Or just continue with BBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TURLEY!!!! BBBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!!
Anonymous, you mean Confederate statutes? You are against removing Confederate statues? You know who put them up? Democrats. Why would it be wrong for Democrats to be tearing down their own statutes?
You know Republicans were against slavery, right? Shouldn’t you be supportive of removing these Democrat Statutes that supported Slavery and their culture? I thought you were against slavery.
Anonymous, you mean Confederate statutes? You are against removing Confederate statues?
Got nothing but continually lyin’ and denyin’ George – this time lying about history. After being called out for celebrating and promoting the destruction of history. They were nothing but Confederate statues? Here’s some meaningful content for you:
Black Lives Matter Rioters Topple Statue Of Black American Abolitionist Legend Frederick Douglass
https://nationalfile.com/black-lives-matter-rioters-topple-statue-of-black-abolitionist-legend-frederick-douglass/
Frederick Douglass was a runaway slave who moved to Rochester to lead the abolitionist movement.
Now George: tell everybody how a black American escaped slave demanding an end to your Confederate Democrats’ slavery was a Confederate Democrat like you.
It’s not just that you’re a cheap fake fascist Democrat Kluxxer lyin’ and denyin’ George: It’s that you’re just so poor at it that you don’t even supply entertainment value.
“Anonymous, you mean Confederate statutes? You are against removing Confederate statues?”
Some of them, yes,
Our heros often have clay feet. What separates Lee, from FDR, JFK, or MLK ?
Each did bad things, each did great things.
Are there lots of confederate memorials that it is time to see gone – sure.
But pretending these people did not exist or that they were not both hero’s and flawed at the same time is just idiocy.
“Democrats.” So ?
BTW everything is not about the lefts one favorite issue of the moment.
Is slavery the litmus test for everything ?
Many of our founders owned slaves – even ones who eventually became abolutioninsts owned slaves at one time.
Americna indians owned slaves. They enslaved their own people, they enslaved blacks.
Every single culture in the world at one time had slaves.
“The Supreme Court will soon decide if Trump’s tariffs are even legal in the first place.”
Another impressive legal prognostication from the same genius who just short weeks ago pronounced that Trump was violating Constitutional limitations on the Executive Branch that prohibited him sending the National Guard to the shyte show violent Democrat cities. And that SCOTUS was going to slap him down for attempting that.
How did that pronouncement of yours work out for you George?
Certainly didn’t slow you down from showing up daily to yap at Professor Turley’s heels each day like a stray cur.
We await the day (with little hope) that you will ever post any meaningful or constructive content.
@George
Who do you think you are convincing of anything whatsoever? Your talking points change so frequently it is not wonder you can’t use a steady username. Multiple personality disorder? Do you have the courage to post your daily med stack? Would you be in an institution if they hadn’t been all but abolished?
Trump promised the construction of the ballroom would not touch the existing structure. Turns out he lied
No, he didn’t.
He’s a big fan of history and very fond of historical buildings. I can’t imagine Turley NOT being upset or surprised about the destruction of the east wing.
Why would he be? What’s historical about the east wing? What’s interesting about it? What significant event has ever taken place there?
The Supreme Court will soon decide if Trump’s tariffs are even legal in the first place. If it rules they are indeed illegal
I hope it does, but I don’t expect it.
the government will be forced to refund billions of dollars to U.S. companies and further worsening the budget deficit.
A drop in the bucket, minute compared to Democrats’ insane spending, and more than made up for by all the cuts he has made.
So maybe Rep Swalwell should go over to the UK and recruit some arsonists from the British Army since they have the best record for burning down Washington D.C. and the WH. I mean, they have to have institutional memory from the actions in the War of 1812 on how to do it.
What the president is doing is actually making a gift to the United States along with many individuals and corporate donors.
Although I am a conservative, I would applaud any Democratic President who made the same donation and in the same way. It certainly is a gift to the nation, far more useful to future presidents than a basketball court, a bowling alley or even a swimming pool.
The French terminated their king and queen violently but they certainly kept the Palace at Versailles and the Hall of Mirrors which is now considered a jewel of France.
Be happy that there are people who will do this for the nation.
Even the Washington Post supports the gift!
The burning of the Capitol and the White House (not of Washington — unlike the US forces, the UK left civilian buildings strictly alone, and burned only government buildings) were not arson, they were a legitimate act of war, and legitimate retaliation for the US burning of Toronto. These were mostly Canadian forces, and they were reasonably upset at how the American invaders had burned an entire town, but they restrained themselves under orders and only burned government buildings.
We were not the good guys in 1812. The Federalists were right to oppose the war. A war fought largely to support the totalitarian Napoleon, and to steal the Indians’ lands.
Swalwell is an old gas bag.
Swalwell has gone full on incel since the ChiCom spy Fang Fang, dropped him like he’d developed AIDS and suddenly fled. Other than looking for Gigi to provide him with some quick relief, not even Russia’s honeypot spies want anything to do with him.
It probably isn’t AIDs that had Fang Fang suddenly disappear; it’s more likely that the FBI was suddenly on her tail, not just Swalwell.
But we can’t be sure it wasn’t AIDs, either.
I can almost guarantee that anything Trump has a hand in building will be in the worst taste imaginable so someone destroying the place may be doing a public service. Has anyone ever seen the video tour of Trump in his Trump Tower apartment? It looks like Scorsese’ movie fantasy of a Mafia palace.
Odd, so many people have stayed there.. You lose
Everyone can agree that if Trump funded a cure for cancer, you would be the first to say it didn’t actually work.
Tell us how tortured you feel each day, knowing that Wuhan Flu vaccine that was developed at an unimaginable speed thanks courses through your body the rest of your life – and all because of Trump’s Operation Warp Speed.
Do you tear at your skin in anguish every time you remember that?
“if Trump funded a cure for cancer, you would be the first to say it didn’t actually work.”
Not true. He would be on here trying to convince us about what a great thing cancer can be…
Yeah, we should elect people like AOC, who has never owned a home, or Mamdani, who lives in a rent controlled apartment while he is a rich kid.
The 3D model is already available.
It is pretty much exactly what you would expect of ANYONE designing a building of that size for the White House.
“ The 3D model is already available.
It is pretty much exactly what you would expect of ANYONE designing a building of that size for the White House.”
Nobody expected him to demolish the entire East Wing. Not after promising not to touch it. The ball room is going to be literally bigger than than the rest of the White House proper. It destroyed the symmetry that made the White House famous. Nobody expected the East Wing to be completely destroyed. If he did mention that before the demolition nobody would have agreed to it. He did it anyway. If Biden did it the same way it’s absolutely guaranteed Republicans in Congress would have been losing their minds and calling for investigations and hearings.
Keep changing the argument.
“Nobody expected”
Not nobody – just you.
nobody expected him to win the 2016 election.
nobody expected him to win in 2024.
YOU are incapable of expecting anything Trump does.
Even when it is obvious what he will do.
Not interested in “nobody expected” arguments.
Nobody expected him to demolish the entire East Wing. Not after promising not to touch it.
He never promised not to touch it. He never made any promises at all about it. He said the project would not touch the White House, and it hasn’t. The east wing is not the White House, and never was. It’s a separate building that does not touch the White House, so demolishing it doesn’t touch it either.
Swalwell is just upset that he won’t be able to have romantic liaisons in the Port-a-Johns set up for events using big tents at the White House anymore.
Swallwell will be attacked on this the next time he seeks office. He will defend that his writers of this material were unpaid during the government shutdown.
Nazis had architecture, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_architecture
YAWN find something new..
“Nazis had architecture, too”
Nazis also had a basketball team they sent to the Olympics. Which president also has a fondness for basketball, to the point he built a basketball court at the White House so he could shoot hoops by himself – there is no White House basketball team, of course, nor even a beer league summit and league.
How edgy
Yes. And the Nazis wore trousers.
There’s definitely a Jacobin echo here: purity tests, symbolic destruction, and the idea that virtue is proven by tearing down what the “enemy” built. That’s not governance — it’s moral theater. The Jacobins made politics about punishment, not progress.
The good news is that America has a Constitution built to outlast zealotry. We don’t need our own “virtue tests” with wrecking balls. A Republic survives by builders, not those who demand demolition to show their rage.
“The good news is that America has a Constitution built to outlast zealotry.”
The bad news is that we seems to be doing a good job of keeping neither the Constitution nor the Republic it was intended to ensure.
Albert Speer was a builder.
And Josef Mengele was a doctor. Burn all the doctors!
OLLY,
I was thinking it had a more Mao’s Cultural Revolution feel to it. Tear down anything that resembles America success. All of Trump’s achievements must be destroyed!! Is that what they are going to run on in 2026 or 2028? Seems hate, rage, destruction is all they have. They certainly do not build. It is getting to a point where sane and normal moderate Democrats may not switch parties but they just might not turn out to vote at all. Keep it up Democrats. You are raging your way into irrelevance.
Upstate — You nailed it. This isn’t constructive politics; it’s ritual destruction. Running on “erase the last administration” is a terrible message — it energizes the base but alienates the center and depresses turnout among moderates who’ve had enough. Politics is mostly about persuading and mobilizing the middle. If Democrats keep signaling that their only ambition is to destroy, they won’t flip moderates — they’ll lose them. Quiet voters staying home is a far more effective defeat than any campaign ad.
Swalwell reveals himself as a turd in a suit, making noise.
What kind of noises?
Everyone knows about Swellwell and his “noises”
Imagine the Preamble — “in order to form a more perfect Union.” Every president is supposed to build something that endures, add a brick to the American project.
Yet Swalwell’s test of leadership is: “Promise to destroy what the last president built.”
That isn’t governance — it’s vandalism elevated into virtue. It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome at the level of national policy: if Trump cured cancer, they’d demand the tumors back; if he forged peace, they’d find a war to restart. Their hatred of one man has overtaken their love of country.
Here’s the truth: Democrats should denounce this as reckless and unhinged. But if they won’t, Republicans should make the opposite pledge — that anyone unable to reject destruction as a governing philosophy is unfit to lead a Republic.
This is the age of rage, and it must not become the age of rule.
What about the Boston Tea Party?
What about it?
It was an act of sheer vandalism, just as knocking down the Trump Ballroom would be.
^^Olly rages^^
Turley should have his house ransacked by armed communists. That would be hilarious.
The ballroom should be used post trump to hold a hearing to dramatically increase the number of SCOTUS members and to hold the Thomas and Alito bribery trials…
Oh wait, I forgot bribery is no longer considered a crime.
You poor libs… losing is all you’ve got.
Love it
Yes. Like Nuremburg trials years after Nuremburg rallies.
+100
“Oh wait, I forgot bribery is no longer considered a crime.”
More correctly… you get work release probation to return to work at the White House, because the prosecutor says you’re too demented to stand trial as the senior partner in Biden White House Crime LLC after years of selling the White House for Chicom and Putin bribes, but competent enough to share the nuclear football with your most trusted advisor, The First Felon Crackhead Kid.
You communists and your demand for more Stalin era fascist political show trials are amusing. Not because of your scribblings, but because no sentient and emotionally balanced adult would believe that your schtick actually wins other people over to vote for your fellow fascist Democrats and clods like Swalwell.
Don’t change a thing you’re doing! NOTHING! Pass that on to Swalwell to keep him on course as well.
Didn’t you vote for Bribin’ Biden?
Post Trump is going to be Vance. You should pray to your god Satan that nothing happens to Trump to put Vance in the Oval Office before the statute of limitations runs out on all the police state fascists and what they did during Biden’s rule.
Because Vance’s Marine military mindset will not be like Trump’s, believing you can somehow or other come to a deal with these Democrats like Espionage ‘r Us Swalwell and Fang Fang.
You’ll get your hearings and trials – but not the ones you’re having wet dreams fantasies about as you touch yourself in bed each night with your Furry partner.
“The ballroom should be used post trump to hold a hearing to dramatically increase the number of SCOTUS members”
Fine lets increase the size of SCOTUS to 17 NOW – Are you still for that ?
If you do not want to increase the size of SCOTUS while Trump is president – they you do not really think a larger supreme court is necescary.
YOu just want to rig the court.
“to hold the Thomas and Alito bribery trials…”
To have a trial, you must have a crime. You do not.
Biden was bribed. Menedez was bribed – No one on the supreme court has been bribed.
As is typical of left wing nuts – you redefine terms to suit circumstances
Can you tell me what SCOTUS decision was flipped because a justice received payments from someone ?
“Oh wait, I forgot bribery is no longer considered a crime.”
Actual bribery is a crime.
Associating with people you do not like is not.
Who bribed them? Not Harlan Crow — he’s never had any business before the Court, so it is impossible for him to have bribed any of its judges. Should he ever have such business, there’s no question that Thomas would have to recuse himself; so it’s impossible that he bribed him in advance, just in case.
Perhaps Fang Fang infected him with this disorder.
Turls, you love a moment when you get to pile on Swalwell because he’s made you look dumb in public hearings. Your actions are quite transparent and laughable…
Granted, I agree with you on this one, especially when the pathway forward from the trump s#$tshow is so obvious…D’s must vow to dismantle ICE and prosecute rogue actions before SOL’s are up.
Then the ballroom should be righteously named: the BARACK OBAMA BALLROOM whereby it will be used as space to grow hydroponic vegetables for the poor.
HAHAHA say never…
ATS –
That you think well of Swallwell is distrubing and telling.
Swallwell is a MORON.
Swallwell is a moron – completely independent of his politics.
If you control the house the senate and the presidency – you can do whatever you want with ICE.
REGARDLESS, until you actually change the laws you MUST follow and enforce them.
It is illegal for foreigners to enter the US without a visa. It is a crime to do so outside a port of entry.
We expect whatever party controls the Executive will enforce the laws of the land.
If they do not like those laws – they will get congress to change them.
Democrat or republican you do NOT get to pick and choose which laws you like.
If as you say – you wish to disband ICE, you wish to have more of the unlimmited chaotic immigration that took place with Biden as president – then make that clear in your campaign promises – and voters will decide if they wish to elect you.
If you want a mandate when in power – you have to ask for that mandate while seeking power.
If you hide what you intended and then do it lawlessly when elected – you are as anti-democratic as you can get.
THAT is what the face of authoritarian actually looks like.
Trump is striving to keep the promises he made to get elected.
That is how democracy actually works.
It is not a bait and switch which is what democrats do.
Promising one thing to one group and something else to others with a wink and a nod and everyone hoping they are not the ones you choose to screw after you get their vote.
Have you considered the possibility Democrats are not driven by “rage”? Perhaps they are mentally unstable, malicious and just plain evil.
So true
Of all the things Democrats object to, improving the White House at little to no taxpayer cost seems the silliest.
“Of all the things Democrats object to, improving the White House at little to no taxpayer cost seems the silliest.”
There is a certain perverse login to it. After expending so much effort in attempts to demolish the political foundations of this nation’s greatness, they wish to prevent the building any physical monuments to it.
“logic” not “login” 🙂
Kristin, it may be the silliest, but it isn’t the most dangerous. These are the people that were against the wall and had the border opened because Trump was against illegals entering en masse. These are the people that are fighting when ICE is going after VIOLENT MEN who are here illegally. They are fighting against Trump attacking Iran’s nuke program. They are supporting Hamas.
I know the ballroom is a great idea. The Democrats objected! They’ve turned objecting into a new form of quality control.
No Kristin. There is absolutely nothing worse than Democrats fighting fang and claw to keep the 20+ million criminal Illegal Aliens in this country instead of deporting their criminal, parasitic asses.
And nothing more silly than claiming we can’t live without them picking our lettuce – which apparently grows in the cracks in the pavement and sidewalks of Democrat cities, where millions of them live and supposedly farm.
This is the type of nonsense Swalwell and his party offer, you would have to be a moron to continue to support Swalwell and his party. This bastion of truth and justice followed Schiff around so close that you’d have to replace brown-noser to shyte-face.
“ou would have to be a moron to continue to support Swalwell and his party.”
Sadly, we appear to have a vast surplus in the moron inventory.
You have to wonder, just how LOW the libs will go.
Try this one.
______________________________
Minnesota Man ARRESTED After Posting Murder-for-Hire TikTok Video Offering $45,000 Bounty for Pam Bondi’s Assassination
According to Swalwell, Democrats will only consider politicians who promise to never set foot in a room in the White House President Trump has ever entered in his two terms.
The next Democratic president will have to operate out of the White House boiler room!
Anyone who still believes that SWALWELL is sane and competent enough to remain in office should have their fears compounded…