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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have literally removed the East Wing of the White House.

I’m amazed this didn’t leak. No one in media knew they were bulldozing entire East Wing until it was already happening? wth?

Good point. I’m certain they knew.

Also, had the felon even had a state dinner this year? If he’s not entertaining he doesn’t need a ballroom. He can continue to fleece folks at Mar-A-Lago.

This was nothing more than a test for Congress. They failed us for a bloated, narcissistic buffoon.

[Anonymous]

Clearly bribes. Here’s a list of donors, already getting special treatment:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/15/politics/trump-white-house-ballroom-donor-dinner?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc&recs_exp=up-next-article-end&tenant_id=related.en

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PSA- They’re melting down over Trump’s ballroom not because of what it costs (they know it’s privately funded)…

…and not because the White House is being changed (they know many other POTUS’s made changes)…

… It’s because there will be a reminder of Trump even after he leaves the White House.

And that - ladies and gentlemen - makes them crazy.

No, it will be demolished as soon as he leaves office. The Rose Garden will be restored to its former beauty, and the East Wing will be rebuilt as it was. The entire WH will need to be cleaned out after all the crooks and criminals depart.

Also, fumigated to get to get rid if Trump's stench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

The spokesperson has arrived! Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have literally removed the East Wing of the White House.

Nothing conservative about this at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

The spokesperson has arrived! Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen.

And? The White House is the people's house. Not a tacky ass Trump property and is being desecrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

The spokesperson has arrived! Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen.

That was a long time ago, Biff. Qualifies as historic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

The spokesperson has arrived! Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen.

That was a long time ago, Biff. Qualifies as historic.

PP said it was original.

It’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

The spokesperson has arrived! Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen.

And? The White House is the people's house. Not a tacky ass Trump property and is being desecrated.

Desecrated? Faux outrage much?

[Anonymous]

We really need to be asking why he is so desperate to build this thing. It’s not because he is just dying to have a space to dance the tango or anything. It’s not about hosting large dinners and events. It has worked out quite well for him financially to host those events at Mar-a-lago. Why stop that money train? Is this really an upgrade to the bunkers underneath it? Is it a money laundering scheme?

Somebody please explain why a 79 year old potus with 3 years left in office is frantically building a ballroom that nobody asked for. If he truly thought this was something America needed or wanted, he would have gone through the proper channels. And don’t give me the whole “It’s a gift! He is paying for it with his own money!” Please. Trump does not pay for anything with his own money out of the kindness of his own heart. There is most definitely something in it for him.

[Anonymous]

Sounds good. There have been major renovations of the white house , most extensive in the 40s and 50s which is not historic teardowns are often in that time range. We should revamp the entire thing to be more modern and eco friendly

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/white-house-renovations-timeline

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

Release the Epstein files.

Agree. This uproar about an East Wing renovation is ridiculous. The Epstein file uproar is warranted. Pick and choose the battles wisely or else everything bleeds together as a big partisan whine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We really need to be asking why he is so desperate to build this thing. It’s not because he is just dying to have a space to dance the tango or anything. It’s not about hosting large dinners and events. It has worked out quite well for him financially to host those events at Mar-a-lago. Why stop that money train? Is this really an upgrade to the bunkers underneath it? Is it a money laundering scheme?

Somebody please explain why a 79 year old potus with 3 years left in office is frantically building a ballroom that nobody asked for. If he truly thought this was something America needed or wanted, he would have gone through the proper channels. And don’t give me the whole “It’s a gift! He is paying for it with his own money!” Please. Trump does not pay for anything with his own money out of the kindness of his own heart. There is most definitely something in it for him.

I hear it’s where old Hilary buried the bodies, allegedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not destroying the White House. They are adding a ballroom. They are not tearing down the East Wing, they are adding a ballroom. They took down the facade.

Why do they need a ballroom? Do you really think that having State dinners in a tent is a good thing? That is what they have been doing. As well as being second class, it is a security issue.

Taxpayers are not paying for it.

The spokesperson has arrived! Now explain the 90,000 square foot part, the lack of permits, and the complete lack of consultation with the usual reviewers of such plans.

The State Dining Room in the White House seats 140 and suited the other Presidents just fine for 200 years

Really?
https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/24/obama.state.dinner/index.html
The dinner, in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn with a view of the Washington Monument, featured round tables for 10 set in resplendent colors -- apple green, ruby, gold -- with floral arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas in plum, purple and fuchsia.

So because Obama did one event outside is a reason to gut the East Wing of th white house and install a gaudy and completely ahistoric structure that overwhelms the original white house?

That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen.

That was a long time ago, Biff. Qualifies as historic.

PP said it was original.

It’s not.

PP said it would overwhelm the original white house. Read more carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds good. There have been major renovations of the white house , most extensive in the 40s and 50s which is not historic teardowns are often in that time range. We should revamp the entire thing to be more modern and eco friendly

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/white-house-renovations-timeline

Precisely. This renovation is about making the White House more eco friendly.

It is too bad that the libs just don’t see the importance of that.

Yes, yes. More room for the poop and ketchup to be flanged about. Also, if the room is bigger, no one can smell the diaper. Genius.