Did any JPP leftist complain when Obama's 34 million project was finished?

Not my fault the truth shatters your reality



Anchovies, you keep calling it “Grok bullshit” while cherry-picking the parts that fit your “Obama did real fixes, Trump just wanted blue water” line.


I already addressed exactly that: Obama’s project did tackle structural issues (as I noted), but the pool has had ongoing maintenance for decades before 2012, problems returned quickly after reopening, and the “70 years of total neglect” claim was exaggerated. Both projects faced predictable algae/leak rebounds because it’s a finicky site.


You’re doing the exact motive-based sophistry I called out—crediting one side’s intent while impugning the other’s. If the analysis is wrong, quote the specific part and rebut it with sources instead of “bullshit + thanks.”


Still waiting on that.
 
Anchovies, you keep calling it “Grok bullshit” while cherry-picking the parts that fit your “Obama did real fixes, Trump just wanted blue water” line.


I already addressed exactly that: Obama’s project did tackle structural issues (as I noted), but the pool has had ongoing maintenance for decades before 2012, problems returned quickly after reopening, and the “70 years of total neglect” claim was exaggerated. Both projects faced predictable algae/leak rebounds because it’s a finicky site.


You’re doing the exact motive-based sophistry I called out—crediting one side’s intent while impugning the other’s. If the analysis is wrong, quote the specific part and rebut it with sources instead of “bullshit + thanks.”


Still waiting on that.
I’ll play along with Grok, so what was Trump’s intent in spending millions and counting?
 
It's nice to play, but everyone in this discussion needs to find a better playmate than Diogenes (Legion Troll). Remember not to feed the trolls.
 
I’ll play along with Grok, so what was Trump’s intent in spending millions and counting?

RE: this thread on JustPlainPolitics.com, Archives says "I’ll play along with Grok", and asks, "so what was Trump’s intent in spending millions and counting?"




Trump's intent with the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation appears to be a mix of practical maintenance, aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging.


Context on the Pool​


The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has a long history of issues: it's built on unstable, dredged Potomac River land, leading to leaks, sinking, stagnant water, and algae problems for decades. Obama's 2012 project (completed via stimulus funding) was a major $34+ million reconstruction that addressed structural problems like leaks and added paved paths. However, problems returned relatively quickly—algae blooms within weeks/months, ongoing leaks—showing the site's challenges aren't a one-time fix.


Trump's current effort (as of 2026) involves coating/renovating the pool, with contracts totaling at least ~$14.8M+ so far (per spending records), and Trump has referenced lower figures like $1.5-2M for core work while criticizing prior spending. It's not "hundreds of millions" as sometimes exaggerated, but it's ongoing and more than minimal.


Likely Intent Behind Trump's Spending​


  • Functional fixes: Continuing maintenance on a high-profile national landmark. The pool's inherent problems (leaks, algae, water quality) require periodic intervention regardless of administration. Trump's team likely aimed for more durable solutions this time (e.g., better coatings, circulation, or materials) after Obama's didn't fully hold up long-term.
  • Aesthetic upgrade: Reports mention an "American flag blue" color or visual refresh to make it more striking and photogenic—aligning with Trump's emphasis on grandeur, beauty, and "winning" visuals for iconic American sites. This is consistent with his focus on projects that project strength and appeal (e.g., similar to border wall aesthetics or other restorations).
  • Political contrast and messaging: Trump has highlighted the Obama-era project's cost and incomplete success to criticize Democratic spending priorities ("botched" renovation leading to quick algae issues). His redo serves as a rebuttal: "We fix what they wasted money on." It's also about optics—restoring a symbol of American history during his term, potentially tying into broader narratives on infrastructure, patriotism, and efficiency. No major Biden-era work is noted, so this frames it as cleaning up prior shortcomings.
  • Not purely wasteful: National Mall assets need upkeep; presidents from both parties fund them. The debate often reduces to whose "intent" gets the benefit of the doubt—structural necessity vs. vanity/politics. Both projects faced the same finicky site realities.

This isn't unique to Trump; government spends millions periodically on the Mall, White House, etc., often with cost overruns and imperfect results. Critics on the left call Trump's version flashy or unnecessary given prior investment; supporters see it as correcting failures and enhancing a key monument.


Bottom line: Intent was likely practical repair + visual improvement for a troubled landmark, with a side of scoring political points by contrasting with the Obama project's outcomes. If the prior $34M+ didn't deliver lasting results, further spending (millions more) makes sense as ongoing stewardship rather than pure excess—though reasonable people can debate efficiency, contractor choices, and totals. Both sides engage in selective outrage depending on who's in power. The site's engineering challenges explain why it keeps needing attention.



 
It's nice to play, but everyone in this discussion needs to find a better playmate than Diogenes (Legion Troll). Remember not to feed the trolls.


It's my thread, coward.

go-fuck-yourself-elon-musk.gif
 
RE: this thread on JustPlainPolitics.com, Archives says "I’ll play along with Grok", and asks, "so what was Trump’s intent in spending millions and counting?"




Trump's intent with the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation appears to be a mix of practical maintenance, aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging.


Context on the Pool​


The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has a long history of issues: it's built on unstable, dredged Potomac River land, leading to leaks, sinking, stagnant water, and algae problems for decades. Obama's 2012 project (completed via stimulus funding) was a major $34+ million reconstruction that addressed structural problems like leaks and added paved paths. However, problems returned relatively quickly—algae blooms within weeks/months, ongoing leaks—showing the site's challenges aren't a one-time fix.


Trump's current effort (as of 2026) involves coating/renovating the pool, with contracts totaling at least ~$14.8M+ so far (per spending records), and Trump has referenced lower figures like $1.5-2M for core work while criticizing prior spending. It's not "hundreds of millions" as sometimes exaggerated, but it's ongoing and more than minimal.


Likely Intent Behind Trump's Spending​


  • Functional fixes: Continuing maintenance on a high-profile national landmark. The pool's inherent problems (leaks, algae, water quality) require periodic intervention regardless of administration. Trump's team likely aimed for more durable solutions this time (e.g., better coatings, circulation, or materials) after Obama's didn't fully hold up long-term.
  • Aesthetic upgrade: Reports mention an "American flag blue" color or visual refresh to make it more striking and photogenic—aligning with Trump's emphasis on grandeur, beauty, and "winning" visuals for iconic American sites. This is consistent with his focus on projects that project strength and appeal (e.g., similar to border wall aesthetics or other restorations).
  • Political contrast and messaging: Trump has highlighted the Obama-era project's cost and incomplete success to criticize Democratic spending priorities ("botched" renovation leading to quick algae issues). His redo serves as a rebuttal: "We fix what they wasted money on." It's also about optics—restoring a symbol of American history during his term, potentially tying into broader narratives on infrastructure, patriotism, and efficiency. No major Biden-era work is noted, so this frames it as cleaning up prior shortcomings.
  • Not purely wasteful: National Mall assets need upkeep; presidents from both parties fund them. The debate often reduces to whose "intent" gets the benefit of the doubt—structural necessity vs. vanity/politics. Both projects faced the same finicky site realities.

This isn't unique to Trump; government spends millions periodically on the Mall, White House, etc., often with cost overruns and imperfect results. Critics on the left call Trump's version flashy or unnecessary given prior investment; supporters see it as correcting failures and enhancing a key monument.


Bottom line: Intent was likely practical repair + visual improvement for a troubled landmark, with a side of scoring political points by contrasting with the Obama project's outcomes. If the prior $34M+ didn't deliver lasting results, further spending (millions more) makes sense as ongoing stewardship rather than pure excess—though reasonable people can debate efficiency, contractor choices, and totals. Both sides engage in selective outrage depending on who's in power. The site's engineering challenges explain why it keeps needing attention.



RE: this thread on JustPlainPolitics.com, Archives says "I’ll play along with Grok", and asks, "so what was Trump’s intent in spending millions and counting?"




Trump's intent with the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovation appears to be a mix of practical maintenance, aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging.


Context on the Pool​


The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has a long history of issues: it's built on unstable, dredged Potomac River land, leading to leaks, sinking, stagnant water, and algae problems for decades. Obama's 2012 project (completed via stimulus funding) was a major $34+ million reconstruction that addressed structural problems like leaks and added paved paths. However, problems returned relatively quickly—algae blooms within weeks/months, ongoing leaks—showing the site's challenges aren't a one-time fix.


Trump's current effort (as of 2026) involves coating/renovating the pool, with contracts totaling at least ~$14.8M+ so far (per spending records), and Trump has referenced lower figures like $1.5-2M for core work while criticizing prior spending. It's not "hundreds of millions" as sometimes exaggerated, but it's ongoing and more than minimal.


Likely Intent Behind Trump's Spending​


  • Functional fixes: Continuing maintenance on a high-profile national landmark. The pool's inherent problems (leaks, algae, water quality) require periodic intervention regardless of administration. Trump's team likely aimed for more durable solutions this time (e.g., better coatings, circulation, or materials) after Obama's didn't fully hold up long-term.
  • Aesthetic upgrade: Reports mention an "American flag blue" color or visual refresh to make it more striking and photogenic—aligning with Trump's emphasis on grandeur, beauty, and "winning" visuals for iconic American sites. This is consistent with his focus on projects that project strength and appeal (e.g., similar to border wall aesthetics or other restorations).
  • Political contrast and messaging: Trump has highlighted the Obama-era project's cost and incomplete success to criticize Democratic spending priorities ("botched" renovation leading to quick algae issues). His redo serves as a rebuttal: "We fix what they wasted money on." It's also about optics—restoring a symbol of American history during his term, potentially tying into broader narratives on infrastructure, patriotism, and efficiency. No major Biden-era work is noted, so this frames it as cleaning up prior shortcomings.
  • Not purely wasteful: National Mall assets need upkeep; presidents from both parties fund them. The debate often reduces to whose "intent" gets the benefit of the doubt—structural necessity vs. vanity/politics. Both projects faced the same finicky site realities.

This isn't unique to Trump; government spends millions periodically on the Mall, White House, etc., often with cost overruns and imperfect results. Critics on the left call Trump's version flashy or unnecessary given prior investment; supporters see it as correcting failures and enhancing a key monument.


Bottom line: Intent was likely practical repair + visual improvement for a troubled landmark, with a side of scoring political points by contrasting with the Obama project's outcomes. If the prior $34M+ didn't deliver lasting results, further spending (millions more) makes sense as ongoing stewardship rather than pure excess—though reasonable people can debate efficiency, contractor choices, and totals. Both sides engage in selective outrage depending on who's in power. The site's engineering challenges explain why it keeps needing attention.



Exactly, “aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging,” over twelve million given to a bro for “ aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging,” and it is a shit job now requiring more “aesthetic/symbolic upgrades,”although the reality has exposed the intended “political messaging.”
 
Exactly, “aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging,” over twelve million given to a bro for “ aesthetic/symbolic upgrades, and political messaging,” and it is a shit job now requiring more “aesthetic/symbolic upgrades,”although the reality has exposed the intended “political messaging.”


Got it—Diogenes just dropped my full previous response into the thread at post #66.


Quick Take for the Forum (or Anyone Reading)​


My analysis stands: Trump’s project combines necessary ongoing maintenance on a notoriously difficult site with aesthetic/political upgrades. The Reflecting Pool isn't a "set it and forget it" feature—it's on unstable fill soil, prone to leaks and algae no matter who’s president. Obama's $34M+ effort (stimulus-funded, with structural work + paths) was substantial but didn't deliver permanent results. Trump's follow-up (coatings, color refresh to something like "American flag blue," contracts in the mid-teens of millions so far) is more incremental but serves the same core need plus optics.


Addressing Common Pushback​


  • "Trump is just wasting money for vanity": Possible element of showmanship (Trump loves grand visuals), but ignoring the documented post-Obama algae/leak returns would be inconsistent. Maintenance isn't optional for a flagship National Mall asset.
  • "Obama's was real fixes, Trump's is cosmetic": Both had/have functional elements. The site’s engineering realities make perfect, lasting fixes expensive and rare. Neither side has a monopoly on good or bad intent here.
  • Cost hypocrisy: Selective outrage is bipartisan. Presidents routinely spend big on visible projects. The real question is results and value, not just the sticker price.

If Archives (or anyone else in the thread) has specific rebuttals—e.g., new spending figures, engineering reports showing Trump's approach is uniquely flawed, or evidence the Obama work was a complete success—post them. Motive speculation ("he just wanted blue water") is weak without addressing the site's history. Both renovations reflect the reality that landmark upkeep costs money and often needs repeats.


The thread's core point (did leftists complain about Obama's project at the time?) seems to highlight inconsistency in scrutiny. Fair observation—partisan media and commenters often apply different standards depending on the administration.



 
Got it—Diogenes just dropped my full previous response into the thread at post #66.


Quick Take for the Forum (or Anyone Reading)​


My analysis stands: Trump’s project combines necessary ongoing maintenance on a notoriously difficult site with aesthetic/political upgrades. The Reflecting Pool isn't a "set it and forget it" feature—it's on unstable fill soil, prone to leaks and algae no matter who’s president. Obama's $34M+ effort (stimulus-funded, with structural work + paths) was substantial but didn't deliver permanent results. Trump's follow-up (coatings, color refresh to something like "American flag blue," contracts in the mid-teens of millions so far) is more incremental but serves the same core need plus optics.


Addressing Common Pushback​


  • "Trump is just wasting money for vanity": Possible element of showmanship (Trump loves grand visuals), but ignoring the documented post-Obama algae/leak returns would be inconsistent. Maintenance isn't optional for a flagship National Mall asset.
  • "Obama's was real fixes, Trump's is cosmetic": Both had/have functional elements. The site’s engineering realities make perfect, lasting fixes expensive and rare. Neither side has a monopoly on good or bad intent here.
  • Cost hypocrisy: Selective outrage is bipartisan. Presidents routinely spend big on visible projects. The real question is results and value, not just the sticker price.

If Archives (or anyone else in the thread) has specific rebuttals—e.g., new spending figures, engineering reports showing Trump's approach is uniquely flawed, or evidence the Obama work was a complete success—post them. Motive speculation ("he just wanted blue water") is weak without addressing the site's history. Both renovations reflect the reality that landmark upkeep costs money and often needs repeats.


The thread's core point (did leftists complain about Obama's project at the time?) seems to highlight inconsistency in scrutiny. Fair observation—partisan media and commenters often apply different standards depending on the administration.



Same parroting over and over again, like reading a script, clanker bullshit, boring
 
FIFY

"No JPP rightie seems to have called out Obama for his "failure" to prevent an algae bloom in 2012, did they?"
You are right. Because those on the right actually understand science and climate. They do not tend to have knee jerk reactions over things that are hard to control. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Screenshot 2026-06-22 142910.jpg

Result?

This looks incredibly promising but no doubt Rune will find something wrong with it.


PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 20, 2012 — A new process for converting municipal waste, algae, corn stalks and similar material to gasoline, diesel and jet fuel is showing the same promise in larger plants as it did in laboratory-scale devices, the developers reported here today. It was part of the 244[SUP]th[/SUP] National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), the world's largest scientific society, which continues through Thursday.
"These results are essential in establishing the credibility of a process that may seem too good to be within the realm of possibility," said Martin Linck, Ph.D. "However, we are moving steadily toward having multiple demonstration-scale facilities in operation by 2014, with each facility producing a range of 3,500-17,500 gallons of fuel a day from non-food plant material. We will be designing commercial-scale facilities that could produce as much as 300,000 gallons per day from the same kinds of feedstocks."
The technology, termed Integrated Hydropyrolysis and Hydroconversion (IH[SUP]2[/SUP]), already has the credibility of its developer, the Gas Technology Institute (GTI), where Linck is a scientist. Located in Des Plaines, Ill, GTI is a nonprofit energy technology research organization whose accomplishments during the last 70 years include nearly 500 products, 750 licenses and more than 1,200 associated patents.
IH[SUP]2[/SUP] technology involves use of internally generated hydrogen and a series of proprietary catalysts, which jump-start chemical reactions that otherwise would happen slowly or not at all. The process uses as its raw material, or "feedstock," virtually any kind of nonfood biomass material — including wood, cornstalks and cobs, algae, aquatic plants and municipal solid waste ― and produces gasoline, jet fuel or diesel fuel.
Linck said it differs from other biofuel technologies in producing a finished, ready-to-use liquid hydrocarbon fuel, rather than crude intermediate substances or substances that contain unwanted oxygen, which must be further processed and upgraded to meet specifications for transportation fuels. He cited other advantages of the IH[SUP]2[/SUP] technology, including flexibility to use a broad range of feedstocks and mixtures of feedstocks from different sources; the use of existing technology and equipment, which keeps its cost low; and production of 90 percent less greenhouse gas per gallon than fossil fuels. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is the major greenhouse gas in this case. The process does not require external hydrogen gas since it produces its own directly from the biomass feed ― a key advantage because most hydrogen gas today is made from natural gas or coal.
Based on assessments by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., IH[SUP]2[/SUP] technology has the capability to produce gasoline at a cost of less than $2.00 per gallon, Linck said.
GTI is currently operating two pilot plants to test and refine the process. Both use wood, corn stalks and leaves or algae. The smaller plant has a capacity of just one pound of biomass per hour, and can produce 72-157 gallons of fuel per ton of dry, ash-free feedstock, depending on feedstock type. The second plant can handle more than 100 pounds of biomass per hour and is designed to operate continuously, like a commercial facility. Linck's ACS presentation focused on experimental descriptions and yield data, demonstrating that the performance of the larger, continuously operated plant is in line with results obtained on the smaller plant.
Linck said GTI has licensed the IH[SUP]2[/SUP] technology to CRI Catalyst Company (CRI), in Houston, Texas. CRI has exclusive sub-licensing rights to the process and is working with multiple customers wishing to build several demonstration units that can convert between 40 and 200 tons of biomass a day.
GTI anticipates full-scale commercial plants converting 2,000 tons a day will be operating by 2014. Such a plant could produce more than 300,000 gallons of fuel a day, if the larger scale plants operate at the same efficiency as the pilot plants.
"Full commercial scale will be dependent on client location and feedstock specifics," Linck said. "Our preliminary engineering estimates are using 2,000 ton per day of feedstock, but this will depend on feedstock type. For example, municipal solid waste plants may be smaller, and plants converting wood may be larger.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/acs-ftf072012.php

 
You are right. Because those on the right actually understand science and climate. They do not tend to have knee jerk reactions over things that are hard to control. Thanks for pointing that out.


Her knee-jerk reactions appear to be hard to control, don't they?
 
Back
Top