- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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

Trump should propose building a second capital building
Posted on 11/15/24 at 8:29 am
Posted on 11/15/24 at 8:29 am
Like the Amazon HQ2 process. It could be in Trump City, Kansas formally known as Kansas City, Kansas
Yeah, the name trump city probably won’t fly maybe American City, Kansas but a second capital building with housing in the middle of the US is good idea
Maybe build a new home for the chiefs and royals too with $ from cut federal programs from DOGE, probably no more than a couple of billion for everything so a drop in the bucket. The melt from DC swampers would be worth any price 
This post was edited on 11/15/24 at 8:36 am
Posted on 11/15/24 at 8:30 am to jb4
He's mentioned scattering the departments from DC all over the country and decentralizing the power that way.
Posted on 11/15/24 at 8:59 am to jb4
Inevitably DOGE is going to move some offices. I've been thinking about this. There's two general/over-simplified ways to go here. I'm not sure which one is the best practically or politically.
A) you could put them in these blue cities. In one sense, politically, Trump is saying "see, the R's didn't forget about you. We will govern you just like we do everybody with both the good and the bad, and we come with jobs without the snobs". There's more practical opportunity there in available real estate, labor pool, etc.
B) Build new buildings, if necessary, in small and/or mid-size towns. A small effort, even if token, to reverse urbanization which is a problem politically. It would likely have a huge impact on that community. It's 'safer' politically. Other than the building, there's plenty of places that can handle it with the other requirements (suitable land, airport, etc.). These agencies aren't building or producing anything. They are only redistributing taxpayer monies. So a road or utility infrastructure is much less a concern.
A) you could put them in these blue cities. In one sense, politically, Trump is saying "see, the R's didn't forget about you. We will govern you just like we do everybody with both the good and the bad, and we come with jobs without the snobs". There's more practical opportunity there in available real estate, labor pool, etc.
B) Build new buildings, if necessary, in small and/or mid-size towns. A small effort, even if token, to reverse urbanization which is a problem politically. It would likely have a huge impact on that community. It's 'safer' politically. Other than the building, there's plenty of places that can handle it with the other requirements (suitable land, airport, etc.). These agencies aren't building or producing anything. They are only redistributing taxpayer monies. So a road or utility infrastructure is much less a concern.
Posted on 11/15/24 at 9:00 am to I20goon
There is a LOT of empty commercial office space EVERYWHERE.
Don't build anything. We are $36T in debt.
Don't build anything. We are $36T in debt.
Posted on 11/15/24 at 9:07 am to jb4
Put them out in the panhandle of Oklahoma
Posted on 11/15/24 at 9:44 am to jb4
I've lived in Kansas. Why would you want to do that to people?
Popular
Back to top
5








