- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: White House plans for an 'Arc de Trump' new national monument
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:02 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:02 pm to northshorebamaman
What are you inferring from that?
1
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:05 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
...it seems to me that if there was really enough leftover from financing a ballroom renovation to build a giant fricking arch, it must have been the most wildly successful fundraiser of all time and the administration would be leading with very clear language that it was 100% donor funded.
Yeah, nobody ever challenges any the bulls#t any more.
Nice deconstruction of the "private donor" / leftover claim and possible fudging of the financing situation. We are owed some more detailed explanations. If this were Biden or 0bama, many here would be claiming (and rightfully so) of a blurring line of ethics here as well.
This post was edited on 10/20/25 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:07 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Is this where the "private funding" claims are coming from or are there other statements? Because it doesn’t say that.
That’s the only place I could find a statement from Trump himself on where the funding was coming from (that BBC article). So your guess is as good as mine.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:09 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I think it's important to note that the ballroom was funded privately as well. That is not disputed by anyone.
I thinks it's even more important to divulge the nature of these "donations" as not to give any erroneous impression that quid pro quo deals might have been made.
Don't we have a right to know?
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:10 pm to GRTiger
quote:Just what I said. IF that statement is what people are basing the 100% private funding claims on then I'm just pointing out the statement doesn't say that.
What are you inferring from that?
Again: Say I renovated my dining room and now want to install a pool, using $2k leftover from the dining room reno along with the entirety of my kids’ college fund. When my wife asks “how are we paying for it?” and I say it’s “fully financed” and that some of the leftover money from the dining room reno will cover it, my statement would be 100% true yet extremely misleading.
I haven't lied, I've just left out the part where most of the funding is coming from (kids college funds) and allowed her to infer that it's being paid for entirely by the leftover dining room money.
This post was edited on 10/20/25 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:13 pm to northshorebamaman
People are basing the 100% private funding on Trump saying it would be privately funded. Considering he has done this in the past, such that excess donations from a previous privately funded project are being moved to this one, I think it's fair to assume that if these excess funds aren't sufficient, they will be supplemented with additional private funding.
Or maybe they are lying this time. I guess we'll see.
Or maybe they are lying this time. I guess we'll see.
This post was edited on 10/20/25 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:18 pm to TT9
quote:
Such a pathetic excuse for a human and all of his window lickers here will take up for him
Why are you crying about a monument to mark America’s 250th?
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:19 pm to bbap
LINK (Video - "Who's it for?" Trump responds to O'Keefe: "ME")
This post was edited on 10/20/25 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:21 pm to GRTiger
I'm okay with building a great monument for the 250th anniversary.
That's the perfect spot to do it. Make it so.
That's the perfect spot to do it. Make it so.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:22 pm to LSUgusto
quote:
I'm okay with building a great monument for the 250th anniversary.
Nobody would be against the idea if not for...reasons
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:23 pm to GRTiger
quote:Which is why I said if there are other statements that actually make the claim that it's 100% privately funded then my post doesn't apply.
People are basing the 100% private funding on Trump saying it would be privately funded.
The statement in question simply says "some of the leftover money from the ballroom will be used" and it's "fully funded." If just 1% of the monument is paid by the ballroom money and the other 99% by taxpayers, that statement is still just as true.
But if you have quotes from Trump or his admin actually stating it's 100% privately funded I stand corrected.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:26 pm to bad93ex
He 100% does this stuff just to piss off liberals.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:28 pm to northshorebamaman
During a White House East Room fundraiser on October 15, 2025, Trump unveiled models of the proposed arch—designed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of American independence in 2026—and explicitly tied its financing to private sources. He described the related White House ballroom project (from which excess funds would support the arch) as "fully financed" and "fully funded" by private contributions, emphasizing no taxpayer involvement. Trump has personally stated, "I'm paying for it," referring to his self-funding role alongside donors like Google (pledging $22 million), Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and others. The White House has consistently confirmed the entire initiative, including the arch, will be financed by private donors rather than federal appropriations, aligning with laws prohibiting government funds for such memorials (though rare exceptions like the 2005 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial exist).
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:29 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
judging from Trump's way of doing things, it probably won't be by increasing the debt...
You left out “by more than a few million”
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:35 pm to DustyDinkleman
No, he didn’t leave anything out because the monument is being paid for with private donations and not out of the public fisc.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:35 pm to GRTiger
quote:
He described the related White House ballroom project (from which excess funds would support the arch) as "fully financed" and "fully funded" by private contributions, emphasizing no taxpayer involvement. Trump has personally stated, "I'm paying for it," referring to his self-funding role alongside donors like Google (pledging $22 million), Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and others. The White House has consistently confirmed the entire initiative, including the arch, will be financed by private donors rather than federal appropriations, aligning with laws prohibiting government funds for such memorials (though rare exceptions like the 2005 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial exist).
This is much more explicit in wording. As I said in my previous post, and the reason I asked if there was more info, was my entire post was based on people using the earlier quote which didn't actually make the claim. Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:35 pm to Riverside
I think this thread has concluded.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:37 pm to Shexter
Nothing does drain the swamp more than pumping more money into the swamp.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:38 pm to Shexter
Washington DC should not be celebrated.
Posted on 10/20/25 at 7:40 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Washington DC should not be celebrated.
Do you even America, bro?
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News