My guess is the backdrop provides a more consistent photographic background for video, without variations due to time of day or weather.
It looks to me like the backdrop is hiding some wall or scaffolding that is holding up some of the lights. Of course the way it’s painted there is only one location from which it lines up perfectly with the real whithouse, and will look weird from any other angle. But so long as they position the camera at that one location it will look good to the people watching on tv.
It’s a ruse to hide the destruction of the White house. I’m only half kidding, he’s 1/3 of the way there.
Oh fuck. You are right, of course.
I used to be miffed that I shared a birthday with George H.W. Bush. I feel for you.
Could be worse. I know a couple of people with a January 6 birthday.
I don’t know how that relates, but it’s hilarious. “Ptooey”? “Kharkeez”. LOL.
It’s better than Jr’s birthday, believe me. (oh, and Nancy Reagan’s)
My brother, for one. He’s rightfully pissed that his day of birth will always be tarnished.
Happy Birthday, SuntanLotion!
Thank you! These comments on famous birthdays are a lot nicer than the subject of this thread.
Oh why not…
At least none of you had the same b-day as David Duke does.
It was in reply to this:
That New Yorker cover has a generic country called “Stan” in the lower left corner.
This is really the cover I was looking for:
I’ve heard that US military personnel sometimes refer to Central Asia as “the 'Stans.”
Could it be blocking the lights that pilots from Reagan Airport complained about during the practice run?
Hourly dose of inane blather.
Trump told the New York Times on Sunday if Iran failed to reach a nuclear accord with the US, he would restart military attacks on Tehran or make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in return for 20% of the region’s revenues.
Isn’t that extortion? 
And a new shiney title for President Shit f. Brains.
What should the extortion medal look like? He did that to Zellenski too. And Trump being best buds with Putin, certainly knows what extortion is.
Trump is STILL dragging his feet over the un-branding of the Kennedy Center. It goes far beyond draping tarps to prevent people from seeing that his name is missing. He’s still trying to get his name back up there:
Continuing to debase itself, the Department of Justice filed an emergency appeal Friday in the Kennedy Center case, demanding that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stay the lower court’s order to remove President Donald Trump’s name from everything he illegally slapped it on.
Debasing itself even further, the “appeal” is based on something that somehow the DOJ never got around to telling the lower court.
And debasing itself into the subbasement, it’s pretty clear that one Donald J. Trump authored substantial portions of this mess.
Or, as the plaintiffs in the case put it in their response: This is “a transparent effort to jam the Court and game the judicial system.”
Furthermore:
People and companies, who have given, or will be giving, millions of dollars to the Center were only willing to do so with the name ‘Trump’ on the Building. Many did it because they loved the concept of two Great Presidents, one Republican, one Democrat, working together as one — In many ways, a bipartisan relationship! All of this money, hundreds of millions of dollars, will have to be immediately returned, or not received by the Center.
But that’s not all, folks!
Okay, well the DOJ has another one for you. It’s this hilarious bit chiding the court about how they shouldn’t require big alterations to the building until the case has been fully litigated:
Major physical changes to the Center should await this Court’s resolution of those issues; as an equitable matter, it does not make sense to alter the Center’s name and signage now, only to potentially revert the name again after what should be a successful appeal.
You’re reading that right. The administration that tore down the White House’s East Wing without permission, the administration that insists it gets to build a giant arch and it has to start ASAP and nosiree, no approval from Congress needed, is now saying that the extremely minor act of taking Trump’s name off the building he illegally slapped it on is a “major physical change” that shouldn’t happen until the court fully resolves the issue.
Did the filing say how much they think will be raised in new donations once Trump’s name is taken off?
I ask that somewhat facetiously, but it does raise an interesting question. If this really was a good faith argument, that removing Trump’s name would cause financial harm to the Center, what obligation do their attorneys have to be complete in their filing? Supposing that there are donations that would have to be returned, it could also inspire new donations to be made. The financial harm, if any, would be the net difference between them. Are the attorneys who write the filing required to present the full financial consequences, or (our legal system being adversarial at heart) are they only required to present the half of the argument that favors them?
It’s an interesting practical question but even to my non-lawyer eyes, it seems to be irrelevant to the legal basis for a stay or appeal. Of course, these days, legality seems to be increasingly of the “we’ll allow it” variety when it comes to our Felonious Leader