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

[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.

He knows he is dying, so he wants to leave his mark.

Too bad he hasn't studied history to know what happens to what dictators build.

[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.

DP It's from 120 years ago but was remodeled in the 1940s. But again, the existing White House dining room served our Presidents just fine for 200 years. Presidents far better than Trump. Trump ain't that special.

[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.

You have got to be kidding. This President has railed against EVERYTHING "eco friendly."

[Anonymous]

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.

Liar

[Anonymous]

Brutal truth. Good job Trumpsters for finishing OBL’s work.

[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.

The party line has arrived, folks. Thank you stooge for enlightening us.

[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.

It’s a revenge tour. He’s going down, but he’s taking America with him.

[Anonymous]

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

Well in that case, why didn’t he knock the entire thing down? Also, nothing says “environmentally friendly like a 90K ballroom!”

[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.

I can’t even with this stupidity.

[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.

He isn't leaving office and the cost to build this is like under $10 million and he is pocketing the difference.

[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.

LOL, there is nothing "eco friendly" about a 90,000 foot ballroom that needs to be conditioned year round eventhough it is used like 5 days a year at most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LOL, there is nothing "eco friendly" about a 90,000 foot ballroom that needs to be conditioned year round eventhough it is used like 5 days a year at most.

It's going to be used a lot more than that. Trump will rent it out. Think about all the money he'll make from MAGA wedding receptions. He'll also use it to cut deals that enrich him and his family. He's going to do the same s**t he does at Bedminster and Mar-a-Lago.

[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.

What?! Trump and his cronies don’t give a fig about being “eco friendly.”

Put down the koolaid

[Anonymous]

Few things:
Google ponied up $20 million for the ballroom, to settle a civil suit brought by trump.
The construction must be approved by historical preservation committee, but demolition needs no approval. The demolition was not consistently communicated and has been far more extensive than expected.
The greatest concern now is will this extensive demolition weaken the entire White House? Without communication, there is no way of knowing if this is going to have a lasting effect on structural integrity.

[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

Well in that case, why didn’t he knock the entire thing down? Also, nothing says “environmentally friendly like a 90K ballroom!”

Seriously. What a ludicrous proposition. Eco friendly, who is buying this garbage and who do they think is falling for it. What impact on the environment is there to constantly heat, cool and light 90,000 square feet? Let alone the waste from tearing down the old building, destroying natural resources to acquire new stone and other building materials, not to mention the impact of transporting and constructing. Yeah I can see how it is eco-friendly.