CigarBanter
Cigar Banter => Daily Cigar Deals Discussion => Topic started by: CigarBanter on October 27, 2025, 12:34:53 AM
-
Happy Monday! Any cigar deals on the various internet sites? Join in this discussion and perhaps learn something about cigars along the way. Warning: don't proceed if you have thin skin but don't be afraid to post either... And welcome aboard!
-
Morning, boyos. Happy Dean Day.
-
Joe:
Door #1 - CAO 10-Cigar Sampler - 10/37.50
2 – CAO Brazilia Gol! (5”x56)
2 – CAO Italia Ciao (5”x56)
2 – CAO Colombia Tinto (5”x50)
2 – CAO Extreme Robusto (5”x54)
2 – CAO Black Bengal (6”x50)
Door #2 - Macanudo Cafe Hyde Park - 10/39.99
-
Sis:
Door #1 - Oliva Serie 'V' Double Robusto - 12/74.99
Door #2 - The Top Gordo Collection - 20/89.99
5 X Man O' War Ruination 10th Anniversary Box-Pressed Gordo (6.0" x 60)
5 X 5 Vegas Nicaragua Gordo (6.0" x 60)
5 X Ave Maria Argentum Gordo (6.0" x 60)
5 X Diesel Unlimited Gordo (6.0" x 60)
Door #3 - HC Series White Shade Grown Toro - 20/44.99
-
Long day ahead for us. First volleyball game of the week is way out east, like 35 minutes away. So we'll have to get out there after getting grocery shopping done. Then of course, all the way back to the school and then home.
-
Morning, boyos. Happy Dean Day.
Good morning, BackToTheGrindDave.
-
Long day ahead for us. First volleyball game of the week is way out east, like 35 minutes away. So we'll have to get out there after getting grocery shopping done. Then of course, all the way back to the school and then home.
Godspeed, my friend.
-
I've got a lot of ubering today too that starts with getting my daughter and her boyfriend to Penn Station.
-
Long day ahead for us. First volleyball game of the week is way out east, like 35 minutes away. So we'll have to get out there after getting grocery shopping done. Then of course, all the way back to the school and then home.
Godspeed, my friend.
And then tomorrow, she's got even farther out west. And I've got a dentist appt at 330 to fix a piece of my tooth that split off a couple weeks ago. Might end up being the first game of hers I end up missing, cause the time is probably gonna run out to get there.
And ironically enough, I could've had the appt last week, but I didn't want to do it when she had a game, so I picked tomorrow instead. Well, then they decided to switch the Thursday game and make it Tuesday. Argh.
-
No Scorigami yesterday, but today is a Sports Equinox, with games being played in all four major leagues.
-
Starting at 9, I have a virtual session to set up my new work laptop. Haven't heard much good news about this process from the rest of the team, but here's hoping it goes smoothly.
-
Long day ahead for us. First volleyball game of the week is way out east, like 35 minutes away. So we'll have to get out there after getting grocery shopping done. Then of course, all the way back to the school and then home.
Godspeed, my friend.
And then tomorrow, she's got even farther out west. And I've got a dentist appt at 330 to fix a piece of my tooth that split off a couple weeks ago. Might end up being the first game of hers I end up missing, cause the time is probably gonna run out to get there.
And ironically enough, I could've had the appt last week, but I didn't want to do it when she had a game, so I picked tomorrow instead. Well, then they decided to switch the Thursday game and make it Tuesday. Argh.
I hope you wind up making the game. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.
-
I wasn't sure what traffic was going to be like this morning, but I got home in time to prep for my first meeting in 30 minutes.
-
I wasn't sure what traffic was going to be like this morning, but I got home in time to prep for my first meeting in 30 minutes.
Even without ABs, it's still starting off pretty good for you.
-
Long day ahead for us. First volleyball game of the week is way out east, like 35 minutes away. So we'll have to get out there after getting grocery shopping done. Then of course, all the way back to the school and then home.
Godspeed, my friend.
And then tomorrow, she's got even farther out west. And I've got a dentist appt at 330 to fix a piece of my tooth that split off a couple weeks ago. Might end up being the first game of hers I end up missing, cause the time is probably gonna run out to get there.
And ironically enough, I could've had the appt last week, but I didn't want to do it when she had a game, so I picked tomorrow instead. Well, then they decided to switch the Thursday game and make it Tuesday. Argh.
I hope you wind up making the game. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.
Indeed. But it irks me because I'm the only one who's been to every one of her games so far, going back to the junior high year. Oh well.
-
Just opened the laptop box. Guess who didn't get sent a charger?
-
I've got a lot of ubering today too that starts with getting my daughter and her boyfriend to Penn Station.
Isn't there a NJ Transit station closer? Not that you're not used to driving into the city.
-
Just opened the laptop box. Guess who didn't get sent a charger?
And you were worried about software issues.
-
Today is Monday, Oct. 27, the 300th day of 2025
with 65 to follow.
The moon is waxing. Morning stars are Jupiter, Mars, Neptune, Saturn and Uranus. Evening stars are Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Neptune, Saturn, Uranus and Venus.
On this date in history:
In 1682, the city of Philadelphia was founded by William Penn to serve as the capital of the Pennsylvania Colony.
In 1787, a New York newspaper published the first of 77 essays explaining the new Constitution and urging its ratification. The essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (and later combined as "The Federalist Papers)."
In 1795, Pinckney's Treaty with Spain settled Florida's northern boundary and gave navigation rights on the Mississippi River to the United States. The agreement is also known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo and the Treaty of Madrid. Florida became a U.S. territory in 1822 and a state in 1845.
In 1904, the first rapid transit subway system in America opened in New York City.
In 1936, Mrs. Wallis Simpson, American friend of King Edward VIII, obtained a swift divorce in the small, dingy Ipswich Court.
In 1946, the travel show Geographically Speaking, sponsored by Bristol-Myers, became the first television program with a commercial sponsor.
In 1954, Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., commander of the 332nd Fighter Group, the Tuskegee Airmen, became the first Black American promoted to the rank of general in the United States Air Force.
In 1954, Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio divorced. Among the issues that ended their much-publicized marriage was a blowup over her famous scene in The Seven-Year Itch in which a blast of air lifts her skirt. The marriage lasted nine months.
In 1962, Major Rudolf Anderson, a U-2 pilot in the United States Air Force, is shot down during a reconnaissance mission over Cuba. His death makes him the only direct casualty of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In 1986, U.S. Congress established the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, the 49th national park in the country. It officially opened in August 1987.
In 1998, Hurricane Mitch, one of the strongest recorded Atlantic storms, began a four-day siege of Central America, causing at least 10,000 deaths.
In 2004, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series for the first time in 86 years.
In 2017, the Catalan Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence from Spain. In reaction, the Spanish government dissolved Catalonia's legislative body.
In 2019, Cherokee actor, activist and Vietnam veteran Wes Studi became the first Native American actor to be presented with an Oscar -- an honorary lifetime achievement award.
In 2022, Elon Musk officially took ownership of Twitter after purchasing it for $44 billion. He renamed the social media platform X in July 2023.
In 2023, authorities confirmed they found the body of Robert Card one day after he shot and killed 18 people in Lewiston, Maine.
-
Today's Birthdays
Those born on this date are under the sign of Scorpio. They include:
explorer Capt. James Cook in 1728;
entrepreneur Isaac Singer in 1811;
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States/Nobel Peace Prize laureate, in 1858;
etiquette arbiter Emily Post in 1872;
artist Lee Krasner in 1908;
ctor Leif Erickson in 1911;
poet Dylan Thomas in 1914;
actor Nanette Fabray in 1920;
Baseball Hall of Fame member Ralph Kiner in 1922;
artist Roy Lichtenstein in 1923;
poet Sylvia Plath in 1932;
comedian/actor John Cleese in 1939 (age 86);
musician Lee Greenwood in 1942 (age 83);
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 1945 (age 80);
filmmaker Ivan Reitman in 1946;
musician Garry Tallent (Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band) in 1949 (age 76);
writer Fran Lebowitz in 1950 (age 75);
musician K.K. Downing (Judas Priest) in 1951 (age 74);
actor Roberto Benigni in 1952 (age 73);
actor Robert Picardo in 1953 (age 72);
musician Simon Le Bon (Duran Duran) in 1958 (age 67);
actor Marla Maples in 1963 (age 62);
musician J.D. McFadden (Sixpence None the Richer/Mavericks) in 1964 (age 61);
musician Scott Weiland (Stone Temple Pilots/Velvet Revolver) in 1967;
musician Jason Finn (Presidents of the United States of America) in 1967 (age 58);
writer Zadie Smith in 1975 (age 50);
mountaineer/inspirational speaker Aron Ralston in 1975 (age 50);
TV personality Kelly Osbourne in 1984 (age 41);
actor Troy Gentile in 1993 (age 32);
NBA player Lonzo Ball in 1997 (age 28).
-
Just opened the laptop box. Guess who didn't get sent a charger?
And you were worried about software issues.
Right? Not off to a good start here.
-
Connections
Puzzle #869
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
-
No extras
Strands #603
“Witch way?”
🟡🔵🔵🔵
🔵🔵🔵
-
Today's Over/Under is 11.
-
After getting the first two answers, the random placement of the remaining guesses were in order. Don't think I've ever had that happen before.
Connections: Sports Edition
Puzzle #399
🟡🟡🟡🟡
🟢🟢🟢🟢
🔵🔵🔵🔵
🟣🟣🟣🟣
-
Today's Over/Under is 11.
8
-
Morning, muchachos.
-
Morning, muchachos.
Morning, Page2Raz.
-
Today's Birthdays
Those born on this date are under the sign of Scorpio. They include:
explorer Capt. James Cook in 1728;
entrepreneur Isaac Singer in 1811;
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States/Nobel Peace Prize laureate, in 1858;
etiquette arbiter Emily Post in 1872;
artist Lee Krasner in 1908;
ctor Leif Erickson in 1911;
poet Dylan Thomas in 1914;
actor Nanette Fabray in 1920;
Baseball Hall of Fame member Ralph Kiner in 1922;
artist Roy Lichtenstein in 1923;
poet Sylvia Plath in 1932;
comedian/actor John Cleese in 1939 (age 86);
musician Lee Greenwood in 1942 (age 83);
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 1945 (age 80);
filmmaker Ivan Reitman in 1946;
musician Garry Tallent (Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band) in 1949 (age 76);
writer Fran Lebowitz in 1950 (age 75);
musician K.K. Downing (Judas Priest) in 1951 (age 74);
actor Roberto Benigni in 1952 (age 73);
actor Robert Picardo in 1953 (age 72);
musician Simon Le Bon (Duran Duran) in 1958 (age 67);
actor Marla Maples in 1963 (age 62);
musician J.D. McFadden (Sixpence None the Richer/Mavericks) in 1964 (age 61);
musician Scott Weiland (Stone Temple Pilots/Velvet Revolver) in 1967;
musician Jason Finn (Presidents of the United States of America) in 1967 (age 58);
writer Zadie Smith in 1975 (age 50);
mountaineer/inspirational speaker Aron Ralston in 1975 (age 50);
TV personality Kelly Osbourne in 1984 (age 41);
actor Troy Gentile in 1993 (age 32);
NBA player Lonzo Ball in 1997 (age 28).
Ten. I probably should have known what Dylan Thomas and Sylvia Plath looked like, since I'm very familiar with their poetry. But I didn't.
-
Morning, muchachos.
Morning, Page2Raz.
Morning, LTG.
We're recovering from a big freakin' windstorm out here Saturday overnight. My place is somewhat sheltered from the windstorms, so it lost power until late last night and that was about it. But when it hit I was at a house on Hood's Canal producing a recording session, and the wind was howling most of the night. That's the closest to a hurricane I've experienced. It ended the recording effort, and I thought for a moment of trying to drive home. Then I thought better of it. The thought of driving in that wind was a little intimidating, but the thought of crossing the Tacoma Narrows bridge in those conditions scared the bejeezus out of me. The missus assured me it wasn't so bad up in the foothills, other than power being out. So I hunkered down where I was.
-
Just opened the laptop box. Guess who didn't get sent a charger?
Who needs a charger? The new computers use the Force.
-
I've got a lot of ubering today too that starts with getting my daughter and her boyfriend to Penn Station.
Isn't there a NJ Transit station closer? Not that you're not used to driving into the city.
They were actually taking a Flix bus outside of Penn this morning. They were rear-ended on the way here on Friday and the brakes on that car were affected. Since they both needed to be back today, that bus was their cheapest option. In the meantime, the car is being repaired nearby.
-
Morning, muchachos.
Morning, Page2Raz.
Morning, LTG.
We're recovering from a big freakin' windstorm out here Saturday overnight. My place is somewhat sheltered from the windstorms, so it lost power until late last night and that was about it. But when it hit I was at a house on Hood's Canal producing a recording session, and the wind was howling most of the night. That's the closest to a hurricane I've experienced. It ended the recording effort, and I thought for a moment of trying to drive home. Then I thought better of it. The thought of driving in that wind was a little intimidating, but the thought of crossing the Tacoma Narrows bridge in those conditions scared the bejeezus out of me. The missus assured me it wasn't so bad up in the foothills, other than power being out. So I hunkered down where I was.
You made the right choice, Bret. Good morning to ya.
-
Today's Birthdays
Those born on this date are under the sign of Scorpio. They include:
explorer Capt. James Cook in 1728;
entrepreneur Isaac Singer in 1811;
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States/Nobel Peace Prize laureate, in 1858;
etiquette arbiter Emily Post in 1872;
artist Lee Krasner in 1908;
ctor Leif Erickson in 1911;
poet Dylan Thomas in 1914;
actor Nanette Fabray in 1920;
Baseball Hall of Fame member Ralph Kiner in 1922;
artist Roy Lichtenstein in 1923;
poet Sylvia Plath in 1932;
comedian/actor John Cleese in 1939 (age 86);
musician Lee Greenwood in 1942 (age 83);
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 1945 (age 80);
filmmaker Ivan Reitman in 1946;
musician Garry Tallent (Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band) in 1949 (age 76);
writer Fran Lebowitz in 1950 (age 75);
musician K.K. Downing (Judas Priest) in 1951 (age 74);
actor Roberto Benigni in 1952 (age 73);
actor Robert Picardo in 1953 (age 72);
musician Simon Le Bon (Duran Duran) in 1958 (age 67);
actor Marla Maples in 1963 (age 62);
musician J.D. McFadden (Sixpence None the Richer/Mavericks) in 1964 (age 61);
musician Scott Weiland (Stone Temple Pilots/Velvet Revolver) in 1967;
musician Jason Finn (Presidents of the United States of America) in 1967 (age 58);
writer Zadie Smith in 1975 (age 50);
mountaineer/inspirational speaker Aron Ralston in 1975 (age 50);
TV personality Kelly Osbourne in 1984 (age 41);
actor Troy Gentile in 1993 (age 32);
NBA player Lonzo Ball in 1997 (age 28). I know who he is, but can't necessarily identify him versus his brothers.
Today's Over/Under is 11.
Nine.
-
Morning, muchachos.
Morning, Page2Raz.
Morning, LTG.
We're recovering from a big freakin' windstorm out here Saturday overnight. My place is somewhat sheltered from the windstorms, so it lost power until late last night and that was about it. But when it hit I was at a house on Hood's Canal producing a recording session, and the wind was howling most of the night. That's the closest to a hurricane I've experienced. It ended the recording effort, and I thought for a moment of trying to drive home. Then I thought better of it. The thought of driving in that wind was a little intimidating, but the thought of crossing the Tacoma Narrows bridge in those conditions scared the bejeezus out of me. The missus assured me it wasn't so bad up in the foothills, other than power being out. So I hunkered down where I was.
Sounds like a hell of a night. Good call waiting it out.
-
I've got a lot of ubering today too that starts with getting my daughter and her boyfriend to Penn Station.
Isn't there a NJ Transit station closer? Not that you're not used to driving into the city.
They were actually taking a Flix bus outside of Penn this morning. They were rear-ended on the way here on Friday and the brakes on that car were affected. Since they both needed to be back today, that bus was their cheapest option. In the meantime, the car is being repaired nearby.
D'oh!
-
Morning, muchachos.
Morning, Page2Raz.
Morning, LTG.
We're recovering from a big freakin' windstorm out here Saturday overnight. My place is somewhat sheltered from the windstorms, so it lost power until late last night and that was about it. But when it hit I was at a house on Hood's Canal producing a recording session, and the wind was howling most of the night. That's the closest to a hurricane I've experienced. It ended the recording effort, and I thought for a moment of trying to drive home. Then I thought better of it. The thought of driving in that wind was a little intimidating, but the thought of crossing the Tacoma Narrows bridge in those conditions scared the bejeezus out of me. The missus assured me it wasn't so bad up in the foothills, other than power being out. So I hunkered down where I was.
I think you made the right choice.
-
About thirty minutes ago, I had the strangest thing occur. Both my ears began ringing, and nothing seems to make it stop. I haven't a clue what could have precipitated this, since I haven't been exposed to any loud sounds prior to this occurring. As a hypochondriac, I probably shouldn't have Googled it, but now I'm wondering if this could be caused by hypertension. I've never had blood pressure issues before, but recently, when giving blood, I've been told that it was a little high.
-
Page 3!
-
and...
-
About thirty minutes ago, I had the strangest thing occur. Both my ears began ringing, and nothing seems to make it stop. I haven't a clue what could have precipitated this, since I haven't been exposed to any loud sounds prior to this occurring. As a hypochondriac, I probably shouldn't have Googled it, but now I'm wondering if this could be caused by hypertension. I've never had blood pressure issues before, but recently, when giving blood, I've been told that it was a little high.
Well, that's a helluva thing.
-
About thirty minutes ago, I had the strangest thing occur. Both my ears began ringing, and nothing seems to make it stop. I haven't a clue what could have precipitated this, since I haven't been exposed to any loud sounds prior to this occurring. As a hypochondriac, I probably shouldn't have Googled it, but now I'm wondering if this could be caused by hypertension. I've never had blood pressure issues before, but recently, when giving blood, I've been told that it was a little high.
Just tinnitus. Welcome to old age!
Tons or rabbit holes to go down on the interwebz....also cures (most of which also make your dick bigger) .
You get used to it.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/tinnitus/symptoms-causes/syc-20350156
-
Couple of 15-count samplers at the Page today:
https://www.cigarpage.com/a-toast-to-centanni.html
-
Hazzuh!
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
-
Remember when CLE was a tasty cigar economically priced?
https://halfwheel.com/cle-25th-anniversary-taa-2025-shipping-next-year/455648/
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
Let me correct that statement, new building will add more than 300 seats.
Now to correct the correction. Current capacity is about 200. The 600 size was the original new constructon, now changed to 999 (the same number of ghosts in the Haunted Mansion).
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
The capacity of the East Room (not to be confused with the demolished East Wing) is 200. The capacity of the planned ballroom is said to be 900, so no, it doesn't add only 60 seats. I don't know what the capacity is of the tent that has been used, but that would be an invalid comparison, as the point of the ballroom is to be rid of the tent.
**Edit - apparently we were both correcting that at the same time. Sorry. ;)
Followup question: What gives you to believe that procedure and protocol weren't followed?
-
Wordle 1,591 2/6
🟩⬛⬛🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
-
About thirty minutes ago, I had the strangest thing occur. Both my ears began ringing, and nothing seems to make it stop. I haven't a clue what could have precipitated this, since I haven't been exposed to any loud sounds prior to this occurring. As a hypochondriac, I probably shouldn't have Googled it, but now I'm wondering if this could be caused by hypertension. I've never had blood pressure issues before, but recently, when giving blood, I've been told that it was a little high.
Just tinnitus. Welcome to old age!
Tons or rabbit holes to go down on the interwebz....also cures (most of which also make your dick bigger) .
You get used to it.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/tinnitus/symptoms-causes/syc-20350156
LMAO! I can almost accept the getting old part, but it came on so suddenly. Very strange.
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
I wouldn't say it's a hot button. But I do think it's strange and a waste of money. Who does that new ballroom benefit? Not to mention, if I tried to demolish a wing of my house that happened to be a national landmark, I'd get into deep shit. Plus, IT ISN'T HIS HOUSE. All that said, I'm not sure anything he does anymore would surprise me. It's apparent that it's his country and the rest of us are just living in it.
-
Connections: Sports Edition
Puzzle #399
🟡🟡🟡🟡
🟢🟢🟢🟢
🟣🟣🟣🟣
🔵🔵🔵🔵
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
The capacity of the East Room (not to be confused with the demolished East Wing) is 200. The capacity of the planned ballroom is said to be 900, so no, it doesn't add only 60 seats. I don't know what the capacity is of the tent that has been used, but that would be an invalid comparison, as the point of the ballroom is to be rid of the tent.
**Edit - apparently we were both correcting that at the same time. Sorry. ;)
Followup question: What gives you to believe that procedure and protocol weren't followed?
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/23/trump-white-house-east-wing-demolition-explained/86837471007/
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of projects that affect most historic buildings, but the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol are exempt.
Priya Jain, who chairs a heritage conservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians, said past White House renovations ‒ even as minor as renovations to a shed ‒ have gone through public review procedures established in the Historic Preservation Act, even though it wasn't required.
"Even if it's not happening formally, we would assume it's happening behind the doors," Jain said, whose organization has called for the demolition to be halted.
But that hasn't been the case with Trump's ballroom plans, which Jain said has exposed a "loophole" in the federal law that should be revisited.
What about the National Capital Planning Commission?
Still, construction projects on the White House campus typically go to review to the National Capital Planning Commission, the central planning agency of the federal government since 1952.
The White House had said it plans to submit the ballroom construction plan to the planning commission ‒ yet it went ahead with the East Wing demolition before doing so.
The White House argues the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition of a federal building, only the construction. Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed chair of the commission, relayed that position during a public meeting Sept. 4.
"It is, in fact, the case that this commission does not have jurisdiction and it has long denied that it has jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work on federal buildings and federal property," Scharf said. "What we deal with is essentially construction ‒ vertical build."
Could the planning commission reject the ballroom?
Even though Trump's ballroom eventually will go before the National Capital Planning Commission, the panel lacks clear authority to outright reject projects from the White House.
Under the 1952 law that created the commission, if the federal agency requesting the project does not agree with the commission's views, "the agency may proceed to take action in accordance with its legal responsibilities and authority."
That could effectively make the commission's report on Trump's ballroom a set of recommendations, not a binding decision.
Regardless, the commission is stacked with Trump loyalists. Three of the five appointed members on the 12-member commission are appointed by the president, including Scharf, who is also Trump's White House staff secretary.
In past administrations, plans for some White House projects have also been submitted to a second panel: the seven-member U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which acts an advisory board on aesthetics and designs. The Trump White House appears to be bypassing this commission, however, when it comes to the ballroom.
-
Connections
Puzzle #869
🟪🟪🟦🟦
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟪🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟪🟪🟪🟪
-
Back from another volleyball drubbing. These parochial schools really get after it, for the lord or something, I'm guessing. Sheesh.
-
Back from another volleyball drubbing. These parochial schools really get after it, for the lord or something, I'm guessing. Sheesh.
LALTS.
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
The capacity of the East Room (not to be confused with the demolished East Wing) is 200. The capacity of the planned ballroom is said to be 900, so no, it doesn't add only 60 seats. I don't know what the capacity is of the tent that has been used, but that would be an invalid comparison, as the point of the ballroom is to be rid of the tent.
**Edit - apparently we were both correcting that at the same time. Sorry. ;)
Followup question: What gives you to believe that procedure and protocol weren't followed?
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/23/trump-white-house-east-wing-demolition-explained/86837471007/
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of projects that affect most historic buildings, but the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol are exempt.
Priya Jain, who chairs a heritage conservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians, said past White House renovations ‒ even as minor as renovations to a shed ‒ have gone through public review procedures established in the Historic Preservation Act, even though it wasn't required.
"Even if it's not happening formally, we would assume it's happening behind the doors," Jain said, whose organization has called for the demolition to be halted.
But that hasn't been the case with Trump's ballroom plans, which Jain said has exposed a "loophole" in the federal law that should be revisited.
What about the National Capital Planning Commission?
Still, construction projects on the White House campus typically go to review to the National Capital Planning Commission, the central planning agency of the federal government since 1952.
The White House had said it plans to submit the ballroom construction plan to the planning commission ‒ yet it went ahead with the East Wing demolition before doing so.
The White House argues the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition of a federal building, only the construction. Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed chair of the commission, relayed that position during a public meeting Sept. 4.
"It is, in fact, the case that this commission does not have jurisdiction and it has long denied that it has jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work on federal buildings and federal property," Scharf said. "What we deal with is essentially construction ‒ vertical build."
Could the planning commission reject the ballroom?
Even though Trump's ballroom eventually will go before the National Capital Planning Commission, the panel lacks clear authority to outright reject projects from the White House.
Under the 1952 law that created the commission, if the federal agency requesting the project does not agree with the commission's views, "the agency may proceed to take action in accordance with its legal responsibilities and authority."
That could effectively make the commission's report on Trump's ballroom a set of recommendations, not a binding decision.
Regardless, the commission is stacked with Trump loyalists. Three of the five appointed members on the 12-member commission are appointed by the president, including Scharf, who is also Trump's White House staff secretary.
In past administrations, plans for some White House projects have also been submitted to a second panel: the seven-member U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which acts an advisory board on aesthetics and designs. The Trump White House appears to be bypassing this commission, however, when it comes to the ballroom.
If I'm reading this right, it is all being done on the up-and-up because the same rules don't apply to the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol.
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
I wouldn't say it's a hot button. But I do think it's strange and a waste of money. Who does that new ballroom benefit? Not to mention, if I tried to demolish a wing of my house that happened to be a national landmark, I'd get into deep shit. Plus, IT ISN'T HIS HOUSE. All that said, I'm not sure anything he does anymore would surprise me. It's apparent that it's his country and the rest of us are just living in it.
So, can I infer from this that you don't care if foreign dignitaries have to dine with the president in a tent? It doesn't bother you that the largest economy in the world, while trying to cut deals with all the others, seats them in a tent?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position.
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
The capacity of the East Room (not to be confused with the demolished East Wing) is 200. The capacity of the planned ballroom is said to be 900, so no, it doesn't add only 60 seats. I don't know what the capacity is of the tent that has been used, but that would be an invalid comparison, as the point of the ballroom is to be rid of the tent.
**Edit - apparently we were both correcting that at the same time. Sorry. ;)
Followup question: What gives you to believe that procedure and protocol weren't followed?
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/23/trump-white-house-east-wing-demolition-explained/86837471007/
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of projects that affect most historic buildings, but the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol are exempt.
Priya Jain, who chairs a heritage conservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians, said past White House renovations ‒ even as minor as renovations to a shed ‒ have gone through public review procedures established in the Historic Preservation Act, even though it wasn't required.
"Even if it's not happening formally, we would assume it's happening behind the doors," Jain said, whose organization has called for the demolition to be halted.
But that hasn't been the case with Trump's ballroom plans, which Jain said has exposed a "loophole" in the federal law that should be revisited.
What about the National Capital Planning Commission?
Still, construction projects on the White House campus typically go to review to the National Capital Planning Commission, the central planning agency of the federal government since 1952.
The White House had said it plans to submit the ballroom construction plan to the planning commission ‒ yet it went ahead with the East Wing demolition before doing so.
The White House argues the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition of a federal building, only the construction. Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed chair of the commission, relayed that position during a public meeting Sept. 4.
"It is, in fact, the case that this commission does not have jurisdiction and it has long denied that it has jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work on federal buildings and federal property," Scharf said. "What we deal with is essentially construction ‒ vertical build."
Could the planning commission reject the ballroom?
Even though Trump's ballroom eventually will go before the National Capital Planning Commission, the panel lacks clear authority to outright reject projects from the White House.
Under the 1952 law that created the commission, if the federal agency requesting the project does not agree with the commission's views, "the agency may proceed to take action in accordance with its legal responsibilities and authority."
That could effectively make the commission's report on Trump's ballroom a set of recommendations, not a binding decision.
Regardless, the commission is stacked with Trump loyalists. Three of the five appointed members on the 12-member commission are appointed by the president, including Scharf, who is also Trump's White House staff secretary.
In past administrations, plans for some White House projects have also been submitted to a second panel: the seven-member U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which acts an advisory board on aesthetics and designs. The Trump White House appears to be bypassing this commission, however, when it comes to the ballroom.
So, you believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. Do I have this right?
Like I told Tony, I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand. As it stands, all the agencies that control what happens to the White House are under the executive branch. The president - whichever president - populates them. The Committee for the Preservation of the White House, the Capitol Planning Commission, whatever...these are all executive branch entities that the President populates, and he doesn't need Senate Confirmation. He can populate them with "loyalists." You feel that is insufficient. Do I have this right?
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
I wouldn't say it's a hot button. But I do think it's strange and a waste of money. Who does that new ballroom benefit? Not to mention, if I tried to demolish a wing of my house that happened to be a national landmark, I'd get into deep shit. Plus, IT ISN'T HIS HOUSE. All that said, I'm not sure anything he does anymore would surprise me. It's apparent that it's his country and the rest of us are just living in it.
So, can I infer from this that you don't care if foreign dignitaries have to dine with the president in a tent? It doesn't bother you that the largest economy in the world, while trying to cut deals with all the others, seats them in a tent?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position.
Correct, I don't care about where the foreign dignitaries dine. I didn't realize we had any problems with "cutting deals".
-
I'm going to approach politics here, but try to carefully steer clear of the precipice. I want to understand something, and I expect as with a number of other things, y'all have different views than I, and I'd like to hear them.
If no one objects, I'd like to understand your views on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. Is this a hot-button issue for you? May I ask why, and maybe ask a couple of followup questions?
Don't necessarily have a problem with it being done, just how. After all, both East and West Wings were additions. As it is on the historic register, there is a process to go through before changing it. As he usually does, procedure and protocol were ignored and he just did it. Of course he lied about it saying the existing structures would not be changed. Secondly, I'm afraid it is going to reflect his tacky golden taste and look like a Versailles copy.
Finally, with as big as it is, am I correct in understanding that it will only add 60 seats to current White House capacity? Architecturally, its sad that it will dwarf the White House.
The capacity of the East Room (not to be confused with the demolished East Wing) is 200. The capacity of the planned ballroom is said to be 900, so no, it doesn't add only 60 seats. I don't know what the capacity is of the tent that has been used, but that would be an invalid comparison, as the point of the ballroom is to be rid of the tent.
**Edit - apparently we were both correcting that at the same time. Sorry. ;)
Followup question: What gives you to believe that procedure and protocol weren't followed?
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/23/trump-white-house-east-wing-demolition-explained/86837471007/
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires reviews of projects that affect most historic buildings, but the White House, Supreme Court building and U.S. Capitol are exempt.
Priya Jain, who chairs a heritage conservation committee at the Society of Architectural Historians, said past White House renovations ‒ even as minor as renovations to a shed ‒ have gone through public review procedures established in the Historic Preservation Act, even though it wasn't required.
"Even if it's not happening formally, we would assume it's happening behind the doors," Jain said, whose organization has called for the demolition to be halted.
But that hasn't been the case with Trump's ballroom plans, which Jain said has exposed a "loophole" in the federal law that should be revisited.
What about the National Capital Planning Commission?
Still, construction projects on the White House campus typically go to review to the National Capital Planning Commission, the central planning agency of the federal government since 1952.
The White House had said it plans to submit the ballroom construction plan to the planning commission ‒ yet it went ahead with the East Wing demolition before doing so.
The White House argues the commission does not have jurisdiction over demolition of a federal building, only the construction. Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed chair of the commission, relayed that position during a public meeting Sept. 4.
"It is, in fact, the case that this commission does not have jurisdiction and it has long denied that it has jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work on federal buildings and federal property," Scharf said. "What we deal with is essentially construction ‒ vertical build."
Could the planning commission reject the ballroom?
Even though Trump's ballroom eventually will go before the National Capital Planning Commission, the panel lacks clear authority to outright reject projects from the White House.
Under the 1952 law that created the commission, if the federal agency requesting the project does not agree with the commission's views, "the agency may proceed to take action in accordance with its legal responsibilities and authority."
That could effectively make the commission's report on Trump's ballroom a set of recommendations, not a binding decision.
Regardless, the commission is stacked with Trump loyalists. Three of the five appointed members on the 12-member commission are appointed by the president, including Scharf, who is also Trump's White House staff secretary.
In past administrations, plans for some White House projects have also been submitted to a second panel: the seven-member U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which acts an advisory board on aesthetics and designs. The Trump White House appears to be bypassing this commission, however, when it comes to the ballroom.
So, you believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. Do I have this right?
Like I told Tony, I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to understand. As it stands, all the agencies that control what happens to the White House are under the executive branch. The president - whichever president - populates them. The Committee for the Preservation of the White House, the Capitol Planning Commission, whatever...these are all executive branch entities that the President populates, and he doesn't need Senate Confirmation. He can populate them with "loyalists." You feel that is insufficient. Do I have this right?
I understand you meant this for Travelin Dave, but allow me to answer, so that you can fully get my position.
Yes, I believe that there should be structures outside the executive branch that impose limits upon what the executive branch does with the resources that the executive branch controls. I always assumed this was part of the checks and balances our forefathers intended. But I'm sure you know the old adage about assuming.