The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps the first lady penned it

I'd definitely agree that she stands with other notoriously fashion-aware First Ladies in terms of knowledge, patronage and stylistic bravery... but I'd hesitate to describe anything I've ever seen her do as "classical"

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

He's been busy!

Executive Order on Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture

🤬🤬🤬

Hopefully this is something Biden can easily undo. This is such stupid guidance. I like how it also conveniently leaves out non-classical civic buildings that people love. I do sort of like the idea of creative architects going in and designing buildings to the letter of the guidance...if not necessarily the spirit. *Kengo Kuma enters the room*

Trump has become an Ayn Rand arch villain. No wonder @Danoff hates him.

 

[ryzno]

I don't imagine @ryzno can cite anything comparable to this from 2016 to justify calling those who oppose this sort of behavior hypocrites.

I already told you I'm not looking at news from 4-5 years ago. I have more important things to waste my time on. I also told you I don't care anymore. Move along.
You post a lot of Tweets for someone who isn't on Twitter. I'm not on Twitter and have never shared a Tweet, here or on Facebook.

 

[Biggles]

I'd definitely call the "classical" Federal buildings Palladian, so I'm not quite sure what he's aiming for... and Trump has definitely shown no previous signs of being a fan of Hellenistic/Romanesque design up until now. Far from it in fact. It's a bit weird.

I'm not sure you actually mean "Romanesque" ... although neo-Romanesque was a pretty popular & distinctive style in the US in late 19th century. A good example is the Smithsonian "Castle" in DC. There are lots of examples in Chicago & other mid-West cities. Toronto has Old City Hall ... which was replaced by New City Hall in 1961 - both considered "classic" buildings nowadays. Perhaps Trump's been chatting with Prince Charles?

 

[Biggles]

Well...this is awkward.


In other news...*



"Clarify."



That's a nice way of saying "we got called on our deliberately false reporting by someone capable of hitting us where it hurts...in the wallet."

*This is a common turn of phrase and is in no way intended to suggest that Newsmax is a legitimate news outlet.

Or ... everything we've been telling you for the last several weeks is complete & utter BS.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure you actually mean "Romanesque"

The EO refers to Greek and Roman architecture, they're Hellenistic and Romanesque, although there isn't much difference between the two by the time you get to Norman and Early English. In some places there was never any difference, it was a weird cultural time in that part of the Med

 

[Scaff]

Are we sure this EO didn’t have a sub clause saying ‘I won the election biggly’?

 

[Biggles]

The EO refers to Greek and Roman architecture, they're Hellenistic and Romanesque, although there isn't much difference between the two by the time you get to Norman and Early English. In some places there was never any difference, it was a weird cultural time in that part of the Med

Yes - I understood that you meant architecture influenced by Greek & Roman "classical" architecture. The term Romanesque is generally used to refer to medieval architecture that was influenced by some of the motifs & building techniques observed in the Roman remains scattered around Europe.

Neo-Romanesque is the fascinating amalgam created by Victorian-era architects. It often incorporated decorative brickwork & stone in contrasting colours & blended elements of Gothic, Venetian, Dutch & Early Renaissance architecture in a glorious mishmash of styles. A lot of that style of architecture dates to the Gilded Age. It was the kind of thing the early Modernists abhorred.*

* Where is that building posted by @Eunos_Cosmo ?

 

[TexRex]

I already told you I'm not looking at news from 4-5 years ago. I have more important things to waste my time on. I also told you I don't care anymore. Move along.

You directed remarks to me in which you alleged hypocrisy with unsubstantiated claims of actions following the 2016 presidential election similar to those of Republicans during this election cycle.

They don't. You'd better believe they're going to try regardless. They lost legitimately and now they're cheating, trying to **** over the People who voted for someone other than their guy.

Sounds like I heard something similar to this 4 years ago. I wonder why...

What? Can you cite a single meaningful legal challenge* to the results of the 2016 election, much less such a concerted effort to usurp the will of the People?

*Meaningful in that actual an actual attempt is made via the court, lack of substance to the legal challenge notwithstanding.

Mind you Hillary, despite getting a larger chunk of the popular vote than Trump, still didn't manage a majority. Trump has gotten the second most votes ever in a United States presidential election, and Biden, with an actual majority, has collected more than fifteen million more votes than Hillary did.

Dude they were talking about/trying to impeach him before he even got sworn in...
How quick we forget the hypocrisy...

You made these allegations because I'm calling out the actions of Republicans during this election, thereby calling me a hypocrite. Either substantiate your claims of actions four years ago that are comparable to those by Republicans this year and demonstrate that I was party to those actions (a tough ask given that there are none and I know that I would not be in support of them had there been any) in order to justify the allegation, or walk back your attack. One of those doesn't necessitate digging for news that we both know you're not going to find.

You post a lot of Tweets for someone who isn't on Twitter. I'm not on Twitter and have never shared a Tweet, here or on Facebook.

It's a source of information.

Except in cases of a Twitter user limiting who can view their tweets, one needn't be "on" Twitter (which is to say be a registered user, something I'm not and that I don't foresee being) in order to view or share content from the platform. One must be a registered user to tweet, retweet other users, respond to others' tweets, "like" others' tweets and to browse without the constant solicitation to log in or sign up, and I've not taken advantage of any of these privileges because I'm not a registered user.

The only online media outlet for which I've registered or to which I've subscribed is one with a satirical bent, so if I've ever linked to a site that does support registration and/or subscription, the odds are markedly in favor of my having done so despite not being a registered user or subscriber. I'd wager the latter can also be said of you.

Of course none of this is particularly relevant. Indeed I did share a Twitter user's tweet (one that I'd previously observed in an article on a site for which I'm not registered and to which I'm not a subscriber) that you quoted, but I did so as a means to substantiate the implied assertion that Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA10) is among Republicans seeking to ignore and overturn the will of the voting public who participated in the 2020 presidential election wherein Donald Trump was denied a second consecutive term in office. I felt it necessary to substantiate the implied assertion if only to avoid being called on to do so at a later time, particularly given the added assertion that similar hadn't occurred four years ago.

I'd wager you've brought up my Twitter user status (rather the lack thereof) as a means to deflect from the topic at hand, which is your having opted to play the man instead of the ball with a personal attack, and in doing so you've again opted to play the man instead of the ball.

And apart from acknowledging the remark, I don't give a flying **** whether you use Twitter or whether you've opted to share tweets on this platform or any other. Accurate or not, this assertion doesn't actually refute any assertion that I'm not on Twitter. You may or may not recall a previous discussion in which I stated that one individual's experiences don't have significant bearing on the experiences of another.

* Where is that building posted by @Eunos_Cosmo ?

It's the M2 building in Tokyo.

 

[Touring Mars]

Well...this is awkward.

Do the Bartman, dude!

Fixin' test scores to get the best scores.

In other news...*



"Clarify."



That's a nice way of saying "we got called on our deliberately false reporting by someone capable of hitting us where it hurts...in the wallet."

*This is a common turn of phrase and is in no way intended to suggest that Newsmax is a legitimate news outlet.

Lol, reminded me a lot of this...

Alan Partridge doing his impersonation of UK chef Heston Blumenthal (known for his wacky cookery ideas):

 

[Famine]

These are some of the most revolting buildings I've ever seen - the middle one particularly.

 

[Biggles]

It's the M2 building in Tokyo.

Thanks!

"To be honest, sometimes I feel a bit embarrassed by some of my buildings," architect Kengo Kuma now says.
No kidding!

Continuing off-topic, but I've been enjoying the art direction of The Umbrella Club, which was mostly shot in Toronto & Hamilton, Ontario. Really impressive use of architecture to "create mood" - some buildings that are very familiar to me. Also, apparently re-used the "Rosebud Motel" featured in Schitt's Creek ... & Richard Meier's Getty Museum stands in for heaven in The Good Place.

 

[TexRex]

These are some of the most revolting buildings I've ever seen - the middle one particularly.

"Drop your bombs between the minarets"

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes - I understood that you meant architecture influenced by Greek & Roman "classical" architecture. The term Romanesque is generally used to refer to medieval architecture that was influenced by some of the motifs & building techniques observed in the Roman remains scattered around Europe.

It isn't limited to medieval architecture by any means, it refers to anything that echoes the proportions, methods and vernacular devices of Hellenistic and Roman building of the early centuries CE. It's not a case of "studying scattered remains" though, Rome continued building and still builds today. There was a hiatus of a few hundred years in Britain but Roman buildings continued to be constructed until their forcible repossession in the Reformation.

 

[Biggles]

It isn't limited to medieval architecture by any means, it refers to anything that echoes the proportions, methods and vernacular devices of Hellenistic and Roman building of the early centuries CE. It's not a case of "studying scattered remains" though, Rome continued building and still builds today. There was a hiatus of a few hundred years in Britain but Roman buildings continued to be constructed until their forcible repossession in the Reformation.

The term Hellenistic refers to the culture of the "post-classical" period of Greece & its influence on Roman & other mediterranean cultures. It's not generally used to refer to modern (ie. Renaissance & post-Renaissance) classical architecture. Similarly, Romanesque is generally used to describe art & architecture from a specific period:


The first use in a published work is in William Gunn's An Inquiry into the Origin and Influence of Gothic Architecture (London 1819).[9][10] The word was used by Gunn to describe the style that was identifiably Medieval and prefigured the Gothic, yet maintained the rounded Roman arch and thus appeared to be a continuation of the Roman tradition of building.

The term is now used for the more restricted period from the late 10th to 12th centuries. The term "Pre-romanesque" is sometimes applied to architecture in Germany of the Carolingian and Ottonian periods and Visigothic, Mozarab and Asturian constructions between the 8th and the 10th centuries in the Iberian Peninsula while "First Romanesque" is applied to buildings in north of Italy and Spain and parts of France that have Romanesque features but pre-date the influence of the Abbey of Cluny. (Wikipedia)

These are some of the most revolting buildings I've ever seen - the middle one particularly.

Fashion. Apparently people must have found the look appealing at the time, or they wouldn't have commissioned (rather expensive) buildings like this. In London the most obvious example would be the Natural History Museum:

I guess they weren't intended to look "pretty", but to have certain impressive historical associations. It was definitely a popular style for a while among the "Robber Baron" class in North America ... like the Cupples Mansion. You also see the style used in a lot of late 19th century & early 20th churches, most notably in the Trinity Church Boston ... & let's not forget Westminster Cathedral in London.

I'm not sure anyone would describe these buildings as "pretty" ... they're quite interesting though!

 

[TexRex]

Fashion. Apparently people must have found the look appealing at the time, or they wouldn't have commissioned (rather expensive) buildings like this. In London the most obvious example would be the Natural History Museum:

View attachment 979926

I guess they weren't intended to look "pretty", but to have certain impressive historical associations. It was definitely a popular style for a while among the "Robber Baron" class in North America ... like the Cupples Mansion. You also see the style used in a lot of late 19th century & early 20th churches, most notably in the Trinity Church Boston ... & let's not forget Westminster Cathedral in London.

View attachment 979930


View attachment 979931

I'm not sure anyone would describe these buildings as "pretty" ... they're quite interesting though!

It's not my thing, but the aesthetic may benefit from symmetry.

I actually think the Natural History Museum is very attractive...and Trinity Church has some appeal. Westminster Cathedral may actually be the most visually pleasing if it wasn't for that pesky bell tower.

Edit: I don't actually particularly care for symmetry in architecture, either. It's just that this style is very busy and if the eye is drawn to symmetry it may be drawn away from some of the more fussy details.

 

[PeterJB]

Westminster Cathedral looks more like a mosque than a cathedral.

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure anyone would describe these buildings as "pretty" ... they're quite interesting though!

Thing is, they're coherent. They've gone with one theme and stuck to it. This... carbuncle is just... what?

It's like someone from... the late-1890s maybe? ... was a massive fan of at least four completely different architectural styles and just wanted all of them at once because they thought more would be classier.

Semicircle and semi-hexagonal bays? Get them in there. Peaked and arched roofs? Sure thing. Flat-topped and arched windows? No bother! A ground level tower and a first-floor projection? Nailed it - and let's copper-line one of them just to ram it home.

It looks like a McMansion. And the brickwork is revolting, but that's just personal preference.

Westminster Cathedral looks more like a mosque than a cathedral.

Unsurprising - it's a neo-Byzantine design.

 

[PeterJB]

In my neck of the woods we have the Empire Hotel with the rooves of a cottage, a country estate and a castle all in one:

 

[Biggles]

Thing is, they're coherent. They've gone with one theme and stuck to it. This... carbuncle is just... what?

It's like someone from... the late-1890s maybe? ... was a massive fan of at least four completely different architectural styles and just wanted all of them at once because they thought more would be classier.

Semicircle and semi-hexagonal bays? Get them in there. Peaked and arched roofs? Sure thing. Flat-topped and arched windows? No bother! A ground level tower and a first-floor projection? Nailed it - and let's copper-line one of them just to ram it home.

It looks like a McMansion. And the brickwork is revolting, but that's just personal preference.

Bingo! I think that's Victorian-era architecture for you! Some designs are more successful than others. The rusticated stone is a feature of some houses from that period. Here's another one you will enjoy - part of Victoria College, University of Toronto.

A lot of cities in the US have houses like this ... even some quite small towns have scaled down versions. There are many, more modest, wood Neo-Gothic houses. They all look kind of scary. It's a fascinating contrast to the beautiful & elegant simplicity of colonial-era architecture in towns in New England & places like Charleston, SC. Like I said: fashion - people at the time must have thought the style was appealing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In my neck of the woods we have the Empire Hotel with the rooves of a cottage, a country estate and a castle all in one:

That's mental. I guess they wanted a different look for each of the top suites? A bit of Queen Anne, Jacobean, Burlington-Palladian, but looks early 20th century in build and finish? Anyway, it's charmingly hideous.

Similarly, Romanesque is generally used to describe art & architecture from a specific period:

I'll accept that I guess It's still normal to describe anything Romanly-attributable as "Romanesque" in archaeological terms, and Romanesque in that sense can include finds from the Romano-British period itself. It simply takes its literal sense of "After Rome". Still, I'm incorrect to use it as broadly in proper Architectural terms so I apologise.

And by Westminster Cathedral... do you mean The Palace of Westminster (Barry and Pugin)? That really is hideous.

As an interesting aside I recently did some work in a Yorkshire church where Pugin was the consulting architect for part of the 1800s. His last act while hospitalised was to design their new weathervane, the construction of which was completed by his son. The remains of it are still in the parish collection and so I remodelled it while I was scanning some vaulting there.

 

[PeterJB]

That's mental. I guess they wanted a different look for each of the top suites? A bit of Queen Anne, Jacobean, Burlington-Palladian, but looks early 20th century in build and finish? Anyway, it's charmingly hideous.
.

1901. Designed to represent three different social classes.

 

[Keef]

Guys guys, this is definitely more appropriate for the urban geography thread?

In other news, there's been a prison break.

From Law and Crime:

Before exiting the White House, President Donald Trump gave the gift of clemency to several of his cronies, including former campaign adviser George Papadopolous, lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and his first congressional endorser Chris Collins. The first two men were convicted in Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and the third started the ball rolling on Trump’s political backing on Capitol Hill, before pleading guilty to insider trading.

The New York Times first reported the 15 pardons and five commutations, which also frees Blackwater contractor Nicholas Slatten who was serving life in prison for his role in killing 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square massacre. The White House confirmed that Slatten and three other guards, Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, and Dustin Heard, were all granted full pardons.

 

[Danoff]

Guys guys, this is definitely more appropriate for the urban geography thread?

In other news, there's been a prison break.

From Law and Crime:

Law and order.

 

[NotThePrez]

And just like that, Trump has not only validated every ISIS/Taliban/Al-Qaeda/whathaveyou propoganda claim that the United States does not care give a damn about the lives of regular Iraqi civilians, but has taken a monumental dump on whatever little integrity our word had when it came to promising these folks that we were there to make things better (granted, I'm of the belief that we've long overdue our welcome, but that's another conversation).

Coupled with the fact that Trump has also threatened to veto the Stimulus Bill (though there are a couple points I kinda agree with), makes it looks like he's gearing up to enact as much of a Presidential scorched-earth policy as he can before leaving office.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Coupled with the fact that Trump has also threatened to veto the Stimulus Bill

I don't like the guy but I really hope he does.

I really like this guy. Been watching his videos for updates. Today's update contained info about what was in the bill and is pretty informative.

 

[TexRex]

Employee of Colorado’s Dominion Voting Systems sues Trump campaign, conservative media for defamation

Eric Coomer, an employee of Colorado-based Dominion Voting Systems who has been the target of far-right conspiracy theories, filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against 14 defendants, including President Donald Trump’s campaign.

Filed in Denver, the 52-page lawsuit details baseless allegations made against Coomer and threats to his life. Coomer, the company’s director of product safety and security, left his home and has been living in an undisclosed location.

“Without concern for the truth or the consequences of their reckless conduct, defendants branded Dr. Coomer a traitor to the United States, a terrorist and a criminal of the highest order,” the lawsuit states.

Defendants in the lawsuit include the Trump campaign and its top lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, as well as former campaign lawyer Sidney Powell and her law firm. Also included are a list of conservative media personalities and outlets, including Castle Rock resident Joe Oltmann, an activist who has accused Coomer of treason.

Oltmann is at the center of the alleged defamation. His claim, without evidence, that Coomer promised far-left activists Trump would lose the election has made Coomer a villain in the eyes of the Trump campaign and in far-right media outlets, according to the lawsuit.

“I welcome it,” Oltmann said of Coomer’s lawsuit. “Everything I said was absolutely true, without exception. He thinks I am going to back down? I won’t.”

Outlets being sued are Conservative Daily, which is Oltmann’s podcast; The Gateway Pundit blog and its founder, Jim Hoft; One America News Network and one of its employees, Chanel Rion; and Newsmax.

In addition to defamation, the lawsuit accuses Oltmann of attempting to incite violence against Coomer, quoting an Oltmann social media post from Dec. 14 that mentions Coomer: “They certify this election and we go to war.”

The lawsuit also cites a long list of social media posts about Coomer that followed Oltmann’s allegations: “This man will be dead within two weeks,” “no rest for this (expletive),” “come clean and you will live.” One post claimed there is a large cash reward for Coomer’s location. Another told of a manhunt in his hometown.

Coomer’s lawsuit asks a federal judge to order the defendants to stop making violent remarks about Coomer and to remove any defamatory allegations from their outlets. It also seeks damages that will be determined later.

Right trash. These people don't care who they hurt. They've been chanting "four more years" for however long and now they're confronted with the reality that their bronzer daddy won't be in office for a second consecutive term, so they're making up any and every excuse imaginable and dragging down people who have done nothing wrong in the process.

This is the right in the United States. This isn't the supposed "alt-right" or "far right," as the article alludes; there's no differentiating them from those who hold extreme views and are willing to act on those views. Fringe ****s have been pulled into the mainstream of the party as they've run for and been elected to public office because this is who the right actively wants representing them. These people are absolute garbage.

 

[Pigems]

I’d rather the gov just build regular, plain, square buildings, and use the extra money that would have been spend on design, engineers and materials to do other useful things. My city just spent a crap ton on a fancy library building, that could have been built as a square box for half the cost most likely, leaving enough to build another useful buildings. Who cares what they look like, it’s just a building. Why waste money on making them “pretty”, when we could use it for something else that more important.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I’d rather the gov just build regular, plain, square buildings, and use the extra money that would have been spend on design, engineers and materials to do other useful things. My city just spent a crap ton on a fancy library building, that could have been built as a square box for half the cost most likely, leaving enough to build another useful buildings. Who cares what they look like, it’s just a building. Why waste money on making them “pretty”, when we could use it for something else that more important.

View attachment 980098

This merits another thread I think. I'll say this though, good architecture (and planning) is what makes good cities good. It's also what makes crap cities crap. It's also kind a measure of the question, who do we want to be? Good architecture can also drive economic activity and provide net gains for cities. The city of Dallas, for instance, has completely transformed its downtown area over a deeply focused 30-year arts district building boom. It hasn't been cheap and the roster of star architects is long, but the downtown Dallas arts district is now a place people go and spend money. It wasn't anything like that before. The Seattle public library has become one of it's defacto public squares and tourist meccas, something that wouldn't have been remotely possible if not for it's dramatic architecture. What symbol would people associate with Paris if not for the Eiffel tower's prominence? The Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco didn't need to be as pretty as it is - they could have saved quite a bit on architectural detailing, but it is a major tourism draw because it is. I'd argue that it is utterly reckless to not build good civic architecture, because it is just a race to the bottom otherwise, and that outcome is rarely good. I should mention that the price difference between good buildings and not good building isn't dramatic. Design fees may be higher, but they are only a small portion of construction cost. And while there may be marginal construction cost increases due to complexity (and even that isn't a given), a good, well coordinated team can provide a smoother construction process with less headaches and less surprise costs and deliver a building that works for the user for many years. In other words, if you hire a B-list architect and a B-list builder, you're going to get an ugly crap building that will likely cause you problems down the line.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Sorry for the double post.

So it appears that Gavin Newsom has chosen current CA Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, to fill Kamala Harris' vacant senate seat. He's a really smart guy (MIT engineering graduate!) and I think he is as solid of a choice as you could make. I think Padilla has a strong future. All that being said, current San Francisco mayor London Breed is not happy. San Francisco mayor says Harris replacement pick 'a real blow to the African American community'

"And it's an unfortunate situation as we are trying to move this country forward, and making sure that Black lives truly matter and that African Americans have a seat at the table — especially African American women,

So, it's unfortunate that in a state that is 40% Latino and 6% Black that Newsom chose a Latino (nevermind his outstanding credentials as a person) to represent the state in the Senate? Padilla will be the first Latino senator, ever, in the state, and Kamala is moving on to be the first woman VP, ever. How far into the weeds are we going to get with identity politics? How long can the democratic party keep its diversity coalition together with this kind of attitude? Isn't this insulting to the enormous amount of Latinos in the state? I find it bizarre as Breed is not particularly progressive...I mean she even endorsed Bloomberg for President in 2020. The only thing I can think of is that she is saw an opportunity to do a little political grandstanding. She's very much a student of the Kamala Harris school of politics. Could also be personal disappointment that she herself was not chosen...