WH announces construction of 90,000 sq foot ballroom to WH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For reference, an NFL football field is the same size. wtf.

I thought we needed to save money?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/31/trump-ballroom-east-wing-overhaul/

Have you ever watched trump moving his gargantuan body in gyrations he calls dancing? Ballrooms are for waltzing to Strauss not jerky movements by someone who is beat deaf to music and looks silly pretending to dance by only lifting one foot and then the other.

Please do show us a time when either Biden or Obama "waltzed to Strauss." Or any president, for that matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

You mean state dinners for other heads of state? mmmkay...

How did we handle such events before? Why the need for this all of a sudden? Have other heads of state been complaining about our worn out facilities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

So basically anyone with the funds and a few rich friends can turn the White House into a bordello if they wish. Got it. We have no standards anymore. It's all up for the highest bidder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

You mean state dinners for other heads of state? mmmkay...

We have those now and have never needed 90,000 square feet for them. This is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

You mean state dinners for other heads of state? mmmkay...

We have those now and have never needed 90,000 square feet for them. This is absurd.

300 by 300 feet, doesn't seem particularly large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For reference, an NFL football field is the same size. wtf.

I thought we needed to save money?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/31/trump-ballroom-east-wing-overhaul/

Have you ever watched trump moving his gargantuan body in gyrations he calls dancing? Ballrooms are for waltzing to Strauss not jerky movements by someone who is beat deaf to music and looks silly pretending to dance by only lifting one foot and then the other.

Please do show us a time when either Biden or Obama "waltzed to Strauss." Or any president, for that matter.

There was no opportunity to waltz as there was no ballroom. Idiot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For reference, an NFL football field is the same size. wtf.

I thought we needed to save money?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/31/trump-ballroom-east-wing-overhaul/

Have you ever watched trump moving his gargantuan body in gyrations he calls dancing? Ballrooms are for waltzing to Strauss not jerky movements by someone who is beat deaf to music and looks silly pretending to dance by only lifting one foot and then the other.

Please do show us a time when either Biden or Obama "waltzed to Strauss." Or any president, for that matter.

Well they aren’t the ones who built a ballroom so what’s your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Are you actually stupid enough to believe these donors aren’t getting paid back and then some with special favors?

So, you'd say the same about any donor to any presidential project? Do you hear yourself?

DP. Is there a precedent for this? What’s another example of a renovation to the White House funded by private donors?

There isn't because is the effing white house.

Serious question: how old are you people?? Regardless, don't you know even a little bit of history? Jackie Kennedy's renovation of the entire WH, paid for with private funds? JFC.

They know no history; they don't even bother to watch the documentary about her renovations and the fundraising.

Now our tax payer dollars are going to build a huge golden ball room and outfit a golden jet.

Except our tax payer dollars are NOT paying for this.

That means you're good with the Fed renovations too. Since taxpayer monies are not being used.

Public money is indeed being used for the Fed renovations.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/14/nx-s1-5467236/federal-reserve-trump-white-house-attacks-renovations-interest-rates
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/why-trump-is-targeting-the-feds-25-billion-renovation/ar-AA1JfeRP?ocid=Bin

From the Fortune article you cited (you really should read these first):

"Unlike the Pentagon and a new weapons system that has blown through its budget, the Fed and its operations are funded differently.

While the Defense Department and other executive branches receive money from Congress, the Fed is self-funded, largely via interest income from government securities it holds.

That means no taxpayer dollars have been appropriated for Fed operations — including building projects like the headquarters renovation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

You mean state dinners for other heads of state? mmmkay...

We have those now and have never needed 90,000 square feet for them. This is absurd.

300 by 300 feet, doesn't seem particularly large.

The White House is only 55,000 sqft.

A football field is 57,000 sqft.

This abomination is substantially larger.

[Anonymous]

It’s going to be an eyesore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s going to be an eyesore

What a waste. All of it to feed the bottomless pit that is Donald Trump‘s ego.

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing there will be lots of gold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing there will be lots of gold.

There will be gold, the likes of which no one has seen before. And we'll be building it in the next short period of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

As a taxpayer, I’m not getting the “benefit” here.

As a taxpayer, you're not paying a dime for this, so don't you fret. The benefit is for future presidents and their administrations.

To throw ballroom blitzes for the wealthy… mmmkay….

You mean state dinners for other heads of state? mmmkay...

We have those now and have never needed 90,000 square feet for them. This is absurd.

You haven’t seen Trump’s state dinners, apparently.

Trump does things BIG, Texas-style if you will. Trump may not be from Texas but he’s got a Texas mind for how to do things.

When Trump does something, he giddy-ups and goes and does it BIG.

[Anonymous]

Yay. He may have donors for the construction, but guess who will paying the costs of the over-sized events? Think of the security costs alone for having in enough people to properly use a ballroom of that size.