3 ms·

My initial reaction to the White House ballroom was “the next president should tear it down and put it back the way it was, just on principle.” I was surprised

My initial reaction to the White House ballroom was “the next president should tear it down and put it back the way it was, just on principle.” I was surprised by that editorial and thought it made a good (or at least arguable) point that it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents. I’m more neutral on it now. I don’t really know what facilities the White House needs, but think the case should be made on practical grounds. Perhaps some other writer could go into that in more depth? But as editorials go, it didn’t seem like a bad one, and I don’t think adding a disclaimer about a conflict changes that much. Separately, raising money through corporate “donations” seems like a huge loophole for corruption.

mey 1y ago
Is the Whitehouse fit for purpose in the modern age? Probably not. Is it a symbol of the country? Yes. Messing with that symbol on what seems to be a whim funded by corporate interests rather than doing something public and methodical is disgusting. Especially with a government shutdown. We aren't even getting bread and circuses, just Nero at this point.
- buellerbueller 1y ago
  Sorry you're getting downvoted, but you're commenting on an article about conflicts of interest, among the crowd with the conflicts of interest. Silicon Valley, Venture Capital: they're the sociopaths whose current project is "disrupting" democratic governance.
  - mey 1y ago
    Thank you for your concern, but there is thankfully more to life than fake internet points.
- eszed 1y ago
  It's a much more fitting symbol now than it was before.
  - LightBug1 1y ago
    Correct ... they should leave the East Wing in rubble, just as a representative symbol for future generations.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  > Is it a symbol of the country? Yes The actual White House, yes. Some out building of the compound, no. If you showed me a picture of it a month ago I would have no idea what it was. This whole thing is bribery, no doubt, but compared to all of the other Trump corruption this one is the least bad.
embedding-shape 1y ago
The ballroom discussion isn't even part of the topic here, the point is that an article with clear conflict of interest didn't note the conflict of interest, and didn't do a correction until a 3rd party basically forced them to. And it isn't a one-off, it's now a pattern. This shows that the organization is getting rotten from the inside, otherwise stuff like this is flagged up front, if the journalists and editors there have any journalistic integrity left in them.
burkaman 1y ago
The issue is not whether or not the White House needs a new room, it's that the private funding model is an incredibly obvious avenue for bribery. Every single "donor" has immediate business with the federal government, and they've seen how easily Trump will sell pardons or diplomatic favors or merger approvals to anyone who pays him enough. There is no other plausible explanation for the list of funders. If this were an important and practical addition to the building, then the government could pay for it without any corruption necessary. An honest editorial might say something like "this addition is a good idea, but why are these specific people (including my employer) paying for it"?
- skybrian 1y ago
  Such an article would just be repeating what everyone else already said. The editorial actually said something new (new to me, anyway) that added to the discussion, which seems valuable.
  - burkaman 1y ago
    Imagine reading a thoughtful and substantive HN comment about the benefits of a new product, and then later realizing that the commenter failed to mention they are a major investor in the product. You would feel mildly annoyed or misled, right? Now you have to reevaluate the comment and figure out if it was primarily driven by "engineer evaluating a new tool" or "guy who wants to make money", and you'll probably want to find more unbiased reviews before paying for the product. Now scale your annoyance based on how important you think the White House and presidential power are relative to some random Launch HN post. In this case, knowing the financial motivations of the publisher, was the editorial actually valuable? They say: "this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process. The blueprints would have faced death by a thousand papercuts." Is this a misleading premise, was there actually a lot of process and red tape preventing a president from doing this renovation the "traditional" way? I have no idea, and since I can't trust this source I have to go find out some other way. Did they leave out any other important information? They say: "Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating. It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties." Is this true? Again I don't know and I can't trust the authors. Like the HN investor example, we can't tell if this editorial was primarily driven by "observer knowledgeable about the needs of the presidential office" or "guy who wants the president to eliminate the NLRB". It doesn't mean the editorial is wrong, but it does mean it isn't really valuable because you'll have to find other sources to verify its claims.
cogman10 1y ago
> it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents. This may be true, it's simply the way that it's approached that has my hackles up. This is something that should have been provisioned and approved by congress. > Separately, raising money through corporate “donations” seems like a huge loophole for corruption. The US corruption laws are laughably bad. You don't even need this sort of loophole other than to avoid reporting on who's doing the donations. There's basically nothing that really prevents someone from giving a Justice, Senator, congress person, or the president a yacht, airplane, home, or a "loan" that gets forgiven. The only real limits is that's supposed to be reported (and that foreign governments can't do the same). Yes yes, the bribery law states that you can't pay someone to perform an official act. However, if you simply give them a gift that doesn't count. Even when that person is actively working on official acts that directly impact you.
- metabagel 1y ago
  > You don't even need this sort of loophole other than to avoid reporting on who's doing the donations. There is no loophole. What Trump is doing is flatly illegal. https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  “ The US corruption laws are laughably bad” The crazy thing is that if you are a low rank Congress staffer or other government employee, the anti corruption rules are actually quite strict. It only loosens up the higher you go.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    Totally agree. For the average federal employee there are (or at least were) a huge amount of checks in place to weed out corruption. That was sort of the entire point of the inspectors general, to track down and weed out fraud and corruption. Even for the FBI and most of the other police agencies there was a decent amount of checks in place to make sure they weren't acting out of pocket. It's ICE and the CIA that have had much less restrictions.
metabagel 1y ago
Trump doesn't have the right to tear down the White House. It doesn't belong to him. It needs to go through a design approval process. By law, any money spent by the executive needs to come from Congressional appropriation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act > The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from ... accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342. Trump said the project "won't interfere with the current building. … It will be near it but not touching it. It pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite place. I love it." Then, he sent in bulldozers to bring the whole thing to the ground. Trump is also requesting the government, of which he is the head, to cut him a check for nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Trump has engaged in illegal impoundment and rescission of funds and programs appropriated and authorized by Congress. Republicans in Congress and serving on the Supreme Court are failing to check Trump's lawlessness. Trump has stated that he would like to serve an unconstitutional third term as president. If this comes to pass, it would mark the end of the American democratic experiment.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

mey 1y ago

Is the Whitehouse fit for purpose in the modern age? Probably not. Is it a symbol of the country? Yes. Messing with that symbol on what seems to be a whim funded by corporate interests rather than doing something public and methodical is disgusting. Especially with a government shutdown. We aren't even getting bread and circuses, just Nero at this point.

buellerbueller 1y ago
Sorry you're getting downvoted, but you're commenting on an article about conflicts of interest, among the crowd with the conflicts of interest. Silicon Valley, Venture Capital: they're the sociopaths whose current project is "disrupting" democratic governance.
- mey 1y ago
  Thank you for your concern, but there is thankfully more to life than fake internet points.
eszed 1y ago
It's a much more fitting symbol now than it was before.
- LightBug1 1y ago
  Correct ... they should leave the East Wing in rubble, just as a representative symbol for future generations.
terminalshort 1y ago
> Is it a symbol of the country? Yes The actual White House, yes. Some out building of the compound, no. If you showed me a picture of it a month ago I would have no idea what it was. This whole thing is bribery, no doubt, but compared to all of the other Trump corruption this one is the least bad.

embedding-shape 1y ago

The ballroom discussion isn't even part of the topic here, the point is that an article with clear conflict of interest didn't note the conflict of interest, and didn't do a correction until a 3rd party basically forced them to. And it isn't a one-off, it's now a pattern. This shows that the organization is getting rotten from the inside, otherwise stuff like this is flagged up front, if the journalists and editors there have any journalistic integrity left in them.

burkaman 1y ago

The issue is not whether or not the White House needs a new room, it's that the private funding model is an incredibly obvious avenue for bribery. Every single "donor" has immediate business with the federal government, and they've seen how easily Trump will sell pardons or diplomatic favors or merger approvals to anyone who pays him enough. There is no other plausible explanation for the list of funders. If this were an important and practical addition to the building, then the government could pay for it without any corruption necessary. An honest editorial might say something like "this addition is a good idea, but why are these specific people (including my employer) paying for it"?

skybrian 1y ago
Such an article would just be repeating what everyone else already said. The editorial actually said something new (new to me, anyway) that added to the discussion, which seems valuable.
- burkaman 1y ago
  Imagine reading a thoughtful and substantive HN comment about the benefits of a new product, and then later realizing that the commenter failed to mention they are a major investor in the product. You would feel mildly annoyed or misled, right? Now you have to reevaluate the comment and figure out if it was primarily driven by "engineer evaluating a new tool" or "guy who wants to make money", and you'll probably want to find more unbiased reviews before paying for the product. Now scale your annoyance based on how important you think the White House and presidential power are relative to some random Launch HN post. In this case, knowing the financial motivations of the publisher, was the editorial actually valuable? They say: "this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process. The blueprints would have faced death by a thousand papercuts." Is this a misleading premise, was there actually a lot of process and red tape preventing a president from doing this renovation the "traditional" way? I have no idea, and since I can't trust this source I have to go find out some other way. Did they leave out any other important information? They say: "Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating. It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties." Is this true? Again I don't know and I can't trust the authors. Like the HN investor example, we can't tell if this editorial was primarily driven by "observer knowledgeable about the needs of the presidential office" or "guy who wants the president to eliminate the NLRB". It doesn't mean the editorial is wrong, but it does mean it isn't really valuable because you'll have to find other sources to verify its claims.

cogman10 1y ago

> it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents. This may be true, it's simply the way that it's approached that has my hackles up. This is something that should have been provisioned and approved by congress. > Separately, raising money through corporate “donations” seems like a huge loophole for corruption. The US corruption laws are laughably bad. You don't even need this sort of loophole other than to avoid reporting on who's doing the donations. There's basically nothing that really prevents someone from giving a Justice, Senator, congress person, or the president a yacht, airplane, home, or a "loan" that gets forgiven. The only real limits is that's supposed to be reported (and that foreign governments can't do the same). Yes yes, the bribery law states that you can't pay someone to perform an official act. However, if you simply give them a gift that doesn't count. Even when that person is actively working on official acts that directly impact you.

metabagel 1y ago
> You don't even need this sort of loophole other than to avoid reporting on who's doing the donations. There is no loophole. What Trump is doing is flatly illegal. https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
“ The US corruption laws are laughably bad” The crazy thing is that if you are a low rank Congress staffer or other government employee, the anti corruption rules are actually quite strict. It only loosens up the higher you go.
- cogman10 1y ago
  Totally agree. For the average federal employee there are (or at least were) a huge amount of checks in place to weed out corruption. That was sort of the entire point of the inspectors general, to track down and weed out fraud and corruption. Even for the FBI and most of the other police agencies there was a decent amount of checks in place to make sure they weren't acting out of pocket. It's ICE and the CIA that have had much less restrictions.

metabagel 1y ago

Trump doesn't have the right to tear down the White House. It doesn't belong to him. It needs to go through a design approval process. By law, any money spent by the executive needs to come from Congressional appropriation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act > The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from ... accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342. Trump said the project "won't interfere with the current building. … It will be near it but not touching it. It pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite place. I love it." Then, he sent in bulldozers to bring the whole thing to the ground. Trump is also requesting the government, of which he is the head, to cut him a check for nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Trump has engaged in illegal impoundment and rescission of funds and programs appropriated and authorized by Congress. Republicans in Congress and serving on the Supreme Court are failing to check Trump's lawlessness. Trump has stated that he would like to serve an unconstitutional third term as president. If this comes to pass, it would mark the end of the American democratic experiment.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]