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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The liberal fatigue is real. They are so anti trump , bad on everything that America doesn't take them seriously. Cried wolf soon many times that even semi valid points are ignored. They played themselves.

Yeah, that image of the one partially demolished wall of one wing of the White House will play real well with people who don't usually pay attention to politics.

Fixed it for you. Get your facts straight.

You're a total stooge. The entire west wing is demolished. FFS at least look at the model of the tumor that shows you it replaces the entire wing, fool.

[Anonymous]

EAST wing -- haven't had my coffee yet, but I wish that were so!

[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.

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

Did you even read the PP? Of course you didn’t clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You seriously think a man that made his career in building and construction, who is paying for a large amount of the project himself, would hire someone that’s going to make poor decisions regarding structural integrity?

You smoking crack.

You mean the guy who declared bankruptcy 6 times and turtled away from actual construction and development to having a company built on thousands of LLCs to play shell games of grift and bribery? The guy who lost money owning a CASINO? They guy who was barred from operating a non-profit in NY State because of the Trump Foundation? Or the guy who paid $25 Million in fines for his illegal scam, the Trump University?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You seriously think a man that made his career in building and construction, who is paying for a large amount of the project himself, would hire someone that’s going to make poor decisions regarding structural integrity?

You smoking crack.

LOL, you believe that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You seriously think a man that made his career in building and construction, who is paying for a large amount of the project himself, would hire someone that’s going to make poor decisions regarding structural integrity?

You smoking crack.

You have to be trolling. Trump has a lifetime of evidence that he builds crap to steal and launder money and stiffs his contractors.

[Anonymous]

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

He was installed to destroy us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The liberal fatigue is real. They are so anti trump , bad on everything that America doesn't take them seriously. Cried wolf soon many times that even semi valid points are ignored. They played themselves.

Yeah, that image of the one partially demolished wall of one wing of the White House will play real well with people who don't usually pay attention to politics.

Fixed it for you. Get your facts straight.

You're a total stooge. The entire west wing is demolished. FFS at least look at the model of the tumor that shows you it replaces the entire wing, fool.

Fake news Democrats.

[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.

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

Did you even read the PP? Of course you didn’t clown.

Yes, I read that MAGA fool said because the East Wing was expanded in 1942 that it's not original and fine to tear down. I suggested that was the new MAGA talking point? How else am I supposed to interpret: "That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen." ???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You seriously think a man that made his career in building and construction, who is paying for a large amount of the project himself, would hire someone that’s going to make poor decisions regarding structural integrity?

You smoking crack.

I just spit out my coffee. You haven’t been around many landlords.

[Anonymous]

Do we think the south lawn could fit in a small golf course? Surely he could fit a few holes in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Did you even read the PP? Of course you didn’t clown.

Yes, I read that MAGA fool said because the East Wing was expanded in 1942 that it's not original and fine to tear down. I suggested that was the new MAGA talking point? How else am I supposed to interpret: "That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen." ???

So you didn’t read it. The claim was the post being torn down was original. It’s not. It’s from 1940s. Never said it wasn’t historic, that wasn’t what I was referring to, i merely stated it’s not original. And I’m not MAGA, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You seriously think a man that made his career in building and construction, who is paying for a large amount of the project himself, would hire someone that’s going to make poor decisions regarding structural integrity?

You smoking crack.

Another MAGA been duped by Trump.

Trump's caeer has not been highlighted by building and construction. It has been marketing and somehow attaching his name to luxury and success. His actual building projects:

Grand Hyatt New York (Commodore Hotel renovation),

Trump Tower (NYC),

Trump World Tower (NYC),

40 Wall Street,

Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago, and

Trump International Las Vegas.

Since you seem a bit intellectually impaired, that is 6. Some career for the world's greatest businessman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You seriously think a man that made his career in building and construction, who is paying for a large amount of the project himself, would hire someone that’s going to make poor decisions regarding structural integrity?

You smoking crack.

Another MAGA been duped by Trump.

Trump's caeer has not been highlighted by building and construction. It has been marketing and somehow attaching his name to luxury and success. His actual building projects:

Grand Hyatt New York (Commodore Hotel renovation),

Trump Tower (NYC),

Trump World Tower (NYC),

40 Wall Street,

Trump International Hotel & Tower Chicago, and

Trump International Las Vegas.

Since you seem a bit intellectually impaired, that is 6. Some career for the world's greatest businessman.

And for more enlightenment, read up on all the lawsuits and how many contractors and small businesses he’s stiffed building them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Did you even read the PP? Of course you didn’t clown.

Yes, I read that MAGA fool said because the East Wing was expanded in 1942 that it's not original and fine to tear down. I suggested that was the new MAGA talking point? How else am I supposed to interpret: "That part of the White House is not original, it’s from the 1940’s Karen." ???

So you didn’t read it. The claim was the post being torn down was original. It’s not. It’s from 1940s. Never said it wasn’t historic, that wasn’t what I was referring to, i merely stated it’s not original. And I’m not MAGA, thanks.

Nobody said that or used that word. You sound like a MAGA belaboring a stupid point.