Anonymous wrote:

Heather Cox Richardson reminded us this week that Trump tore down the East Wing the Monday after the last No Kings Rally because he was obvs mad about the turnout. I guess he’s already protesting today’s march. I wouldn’t be surprised if he sets the whole thing on fire on Monday.

Anonymous wrote:

LOL. If he thinks there should be consistency, the ballroom shouldn't be built. Morons.

Anonymous wrote:It’s like he needs a main level en suite for when he can’t climb stairs anymore. Can Congress please tell him that it’s not his fxxxing house?

This is so dumb - the White House has elevators.

It’s like he needs a main level en suite for when he can’t climb stairs anymore. Can Congress please tell him that it’s not his fxxxing house?

Anonymous wrote:

Rome is burning, and Nero wants new columns for his palace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: if the Democrats control Congress in 2027, can they prohibit spending any funds on this building? Or does the fact that it's "privately" funded mean that Congress has no say in the issue?

It is hard to fathom how it is legal to make this privately funded.

And people should understand, most cases before the NCPC have like 50-100 comments at most. the fact that there were tens of thousands here is quite telling.

The whole "privately funded" thing is a lie. The various individual and corporate donors are getting tax deductions for their contributions. The only thing worse than a bribe is a taxpayer-subsidized bribe.

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: if the Democrats control Congress in 2027, can they prohibit spending any funds on this building? Or does the fact that it's "privately" funded mean that Congress has no say in the issue?

The question you should be asking is "who will physically block the construction equipment from entering the White House grounds?" I don't think either of us will like the answer.

Anonymous wrote:Serious question: if the Democrats control Congress in 2027, can they prohibit spending any funds on this building? Or does the fact that it's "privately" funded mean that Congress has no say in the issue?

It is hard to fathom how it is legal to make this privately funded.

And people should understand, most cases before the NCPC have like 50-100 comments at most. the fact that there were tens of thousands here is quite telling.

Serious question: if the Democrats control Congress in 2027, can they prohibit spending any funds on this building? Or does the fact that it's "privately" funded mean that Congress has no say in the issue?

Anonymous wrote:Restore East Wing at Trump's personal expense!

Or better yet, make his estate pay for it.

Restore East Wing at Trump's personal expense!