Trump whisked from WHCD after shooting

[barnhart]

... I see the point of building a secure space to hold functions for diplomacy, meetings and whatnots. Hotels don't seem to have the requirements for securing safety.

You might be right, Im not knowledgeable about security and such. But if it's needed, wouldn't the correct way to go about be to present plans for congressional oversight and fund it transparently.

I'm pretty sure that procedure is only when Congress is funding it. That ballroom is being built with private donations.

But should it? That land belongs to the people not to a president and his monied classes. The people are represented by Congress not by billionaire donors. The President should be asking permission from the people if he wants to change their house.

[Ernie]

... I see the point of building a secure space to hold functions for diplomacy, meetings and whatnots. Hotels don't seem to have the requirements for securing safety.

You might be right, Im not knowledgeable about security and such. But if it's needed, wouldn't the correct way to go about be to present plans for congressional oversight and fund it transparently.

of note, since this was a private and not a government function, even if such a ballroom existed, this was likely not to have been there. Private functions generally don't take place in government property.

Also, The new ballroom is supposed handle up to 1000 guests. The WHCD hosted 2600 people. So I'm not sure what Trump was thinking. Probably just said the first thing that came to his mind.

[JohnH]

But should it? That land belongs to the people not to a president and his monied classes. The people are represented by Congress not by billionaire donors. The President should be asking permission from the people if he wants to change their house.

Congress has, so far, lodged no objections at all to Trump's plans to build a ballroom, and generally has afforded every President a lot of deference to improve the White House as he has seen fit.

[Szdfan]

But should it? That land belongs to the people not to a president and his monied classes. The people are represented by Congress not by billionaire donors. The President should be asking permission from the people if he wants to change their house.

Congress has, so far, lodged no objections at all to Trump's plans to build a ballroom, and generally has afforded every President a lot of deference to improve the White House as he has seen fit.

Congress hasn’t voted on any bills authorizing construction of the ballroom. That’s not the same as not objecting. How’s Congress supposed to object? What mechanism are they supposed to use to lodge an objection?

[JohnH]

Congress hasn’t voted on any bills authorizing construction of the ballroom. That’s not the same as not objecting. How’s Congress supposed to object? What mechanism are they supposed to use to lodge an objection?

They haven't voted on bills prohibiting such a ballroom. Other long-standing legislation gives the current President broad discretion on how they manage the White House building.

In any case if Congress objected to what the President is doing, they could pass a law at any time prohibiting building the ballroom.

[ohio jones]

But should it? That land belongs to the people not to a president and his monied classes. The people are represented by Congress not by billionaire donors. The President should be asking permission from the people if he wants to change their house.

Congress has, so far, lodged no objections at all to Trump's plans to build a ballroom, and generally has afforded every President a lot of deference to improve the White House as he has seen fit.

Congress may not have taken any corporate action, but individual congresspersons have lodged (or ballroomed?) objections.

[Judas Maccabeus]

You might be right, Im not knowledgeable about security and such. But if it's needed, wouldn't the correct way to go about be to present plans for congressional oversight and fund it transparently.

of note, since this was a private and not a government function, even if such a ballroom existed, this was likely not to have been there. Private functions generally don't take place in government property.

Also, The new ballroom is supposed handle up to 1000 guests. The WHCD hosted 2600 people. So I'm not sure what Trump was thinking. Probably just said the first thing that came to his mind.

I have been in that ballroom. You could play soccer in there, on a full sized pitch.

[Szdfan]

Congress hasn’t voted on any bills authorizing construction of the ballroom. That’s not the same as not objecting. How’s Congress supposed to object? What mechanism are they supposed to use to lodge an objection?

They haven't voted on bills prohibiting such a ballroom. Other long-standing legislation gives the current President broad discretion on how they manage the White House building.

In any case if Congress objected to what the President is doing, they could pass a law at any time prohibiting building the ballroom.

Eh. While Presidents do have a lot of discretion, tearing down an entire wing of the White House is unprecedented. I don’t think you can argue this from silence.

[JohnH]

Eh. While Presidents do have a lot of discretion, tearing down an entire wing of the White House is unprecedented. I don’t think you can argue this from silence.

It's not accurate to call it "tearing down" when it's just being expanded / built up.

In any case, it's also not "unprecedented" for a President to add on to the White House or tear something down and put something in its place. JFK and FDR would be examples that did this extensively.

[Grace]

First, I want to preface this with the fact I do not believe Trump to be a Godly man and is a man with many faults and failures. At the press briefing held after the attempted assassination attempt on his life Saturday night, reporter Peter Doocy, asked why assassination attempts keep being made on his life. This was the third attempt. Trump brushed it off, stating the reason being that he is a consequential president.

However, I wondered if there is a deeper reason. We need to look at the people who have such a deep hatred for him. The people who hate him are those who support killing the unborn, who advocate that body parts be chopped off of gender confused children, who were okay with the country becoming the largest purveyors of drug sex trafficking in the world through open borders, etc. So, the question is, why are those who support an overwhelming amount of evil, have such a hatred towards Trump? Is it because he is upsetting their satanic agenda?