Is that what happened, Anchovies?
Did any JPP leftist complain when Obama's 34 million project was finished?
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Is that what happened, Anchovies?
Ah, yeah, and now his blue paint is already peeling (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pa...ovated-washington-reflecting-pool-2026-06-18/)
Can’t figure how pissing away millions off taxpayers money on shit Trump projects makes America great
Fair points, Anchovies; did you gripe when Obama spent $34 stimulus funding in 2012 on an earlier Lincoln Reflecting Pool project?
Been there, done that, Obama dealt with drainage and maintenance issues fhst hasn’t been addressed in over seventy years not because he didn’t like the color of the water
Grok, in a thread discussing the partisan reactions to the recent renovations to the Lincoln Reflecting Pool, a Democrat posits that "Obama dealt with drainage and maintenance issues fhst (sic) hasn’t been addressed in over seventy years not because he didn’t like the color of the water". His intent is to imply that Obama is not to blame for the similar issues that plagued the 2012 renovation efforts, which is true, but at the same time impute condemnation to the current POTUS based on "motive", as far as I can determine. There are 2 issues, as I see it. Firstly, I don't believe that no remediation efforts had been undertaken in "over seventy years" prior to 2012, and the second issue appears to be sophistry, in my view. Can you validate?
Yes, your assessment is largely valid on both points. The Democrat's statement contains factual exaggeration and engages in a form of rhetorical sophistry by selectively invoking "motive" to shield one administration while implying bad faith in the other. Here's a breakdown based on the documented history of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
1. The "over seventy years" claim (no remediation)
This is inaccurate or heavily exaggerated. The pool (built ~1922–1923 on marshy, unstable ground) had ongoing maintenance and repair efforts long before the 2010–2012 Obama-era project:
- 1980s: A concrete slab was poured over the existing bottom to address sinking, cracking, and leaks. This was a significant (if ultimately insufficient) remediation. By the mid-1980s, structural failure was evident, with massive water loss (~500,000 gallons/week by 2010).
- Decades of routine issues: The original design lacked proper circulation/filtration, leading to regular draining/refilling (twice yearly for cleaning), algae problems, evaporation, and leaks. There were periodic cleanings, repairs to paths/edges, and other maintenance by the National Park Service.
- The 2010–2012 project (~$34 million, ~18–22 months) was a major reconstruction: It added ~2,133 wood pilings for foundation support, upgraded circulation (drawing from Tidal Basin instead of city water), installed ozone filtration, and addressed watertightness. It was not the first serious effort after "70 years of neglect."
Problems persisted post-2012 (immediate algae bloom requiring extra draining/cleaning, later pipe breaks, parasite issues in 2017, etc.), showing these are chronic engineering challenges due to the site's conditions—not total inaction for 70+ years.
The claim implies unprecedented heroism under Obama fixing century-old neglect, which overstates the case while downplaying prior (and subsequent) work.
2. Sophistry / motive-based contrast
This part is rhetorically weak and inconsistent (a form of special pleading or poisoning the well):
- Equivocating on responsibility: Obama gets credit for addressing "drainage and maintenance issues" (fair—the 2012 project was substantial and tackled real structural decay). But Trump (as current POTUS) faces implied condemnation for the recent renovations, framed around aesthetics ("color of the water" — referring to the "American flag blue" coating/paint in the 2026 project).
- Motive imputation: Suggesting Trump's focus is superficial ("didn’t like the color") while excusing Obama ignores that both involved practical fixes plus visible improvements. The recent Trump project (faster/cheaper resurfacing, coating, cleaning) responds to ongoing leaks, algae, and maintenance complaints post-2012. Critics highlight cost overruns, no-bid contracts, paint peeling/algae recurrence, and incomplete pipe fixes; defenders note it's pragmatic vs. a proposed multi-hundred-million full rebuild.
- Partisan reactions are predictable in both directions: One side praises Obama-era stimulus-funded work; the other highlights persistent issues and touts quicker results. Attributing motives ("didn’t like the color") without evidence on efficacy is a classic way to dodge substantive comparison of outcomes, costs, timelines, and engineering results.
The pool's issues are inherent (shallow water + warm temps + birds + marsh foundation = algae/leaks forever). No single administration "solved" it permanently; it requires ongoing maintenance. The Democrat's point partially defends the 2012 effort (true—it wasn't pointless) but uses it selectively to criticize the current one via motive rather than results. That's sophistry.
Your skepticism holds up well. Political threads like this often amplify one side's successes and the other's failures while glossing over continuity of problems
Humorous, “copy and paste’s” own Grok bullshit validates my post, Obama’s repairs “added ~2,133 wood pilings for foundation support, upgraded circulation (drawing from Tidal Basin instead of city water), installed ozone filtration, and addressed watertightness,” actually issues, not just because he wanted to change the color of the water to blue
Thanks
Did they paint it too? My understanding was they were stabilizing it because it was sinking into the march it was built on. I don't think the cosmetics were the issue.
Algae in the reflecting pool
The continued presence of green algae in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool remained a topic of conversation among visitors and tourists to the National Mall this weekend in Washington D.C. The algae appeared less than a month after the reopening of the pool following a $34 million renovation. Park officials told WJLA recently that the algae is on its way out following adjustments to the pool's ozone levels.
Scenes photographed Sept. 29, 2012.
Grok:
Bottom line: "Anchovies" (Archives) is correct that the Obama-era work tackled genuine structural, leaking, and circulation problems with real engineering solutions. It wasn't frivolous. However, like many historic infrastructure projects on the National Mall, ongoing maintenance is required due to environmental factors — algae hasn't been permanently defeated.
This fits the broader thread's theme of selective narratives around spending and results. Both administrations have poured money into the site with imperfect outcomes.
- There was no repainting of the pool bottom (e.g., to blue) or major decorative changes. The water was intended to look clearer due to the new filtration/circulation, but that was a functional outcome, not cosmetic flair.
- Algae issues (which affect appearance) were targeted via ozone, but they recurred — as they have historically and recently under other administrations. The project aimed for practicality over "pretty water."
I might as well download Grok and talk to myself
And again it proved my point, “the Obama-era work tackled genuine structural, leaking, and circulation problems with real engineering solutions. It wasn't frivolous.” Spending millions in no bid contracts to change the color of the water is frivolous
Go ahead.
If anyone had claimed that it was "frivolous", Anchovies, you'd have a point.
Since nobody did, you don't.
That's your opinion, Anchovies.
Give us Grok’s reason Trump pissed away millions
How about Google AI, Anchovies?
You said: why is the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool undergoing renovation?
The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool underwent an expedited, multi-million dollar renovation in Spring 2026 primarily to beautify the landmark, repair severe water leaks, and clear out chronic algae and debris in preparation for the United States’ 250th anniversary celebrations.
So neither you nor your Grok can answer the simple question, not a surprise
Who said that?
You say "Grok lies", so I used Google's AI to answer the question you asked.
You're an idiot, Anchovies.
Google’s AI answer to does Grok lie, “AI Overview - Yes, Grok does provide false or fabricated information.”
End of discussion
Grok:
"Archives" is doing their usual thing—dropping sourced points. The Grok quote is being cherry-picked/used against the author of the thread.
“Yes, Grok does provide false or fabricated information.”
Not my fault the truth shatters your reality