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.

If it’s a security issue, the taxpayers should pay for it. But it’s not. It’s to help
make the world’s smallest man feel special and to allow him to bribe and extort corporations.

Trump’s all about his ego so the 90,000 must set some kind or record. Like maybe it’s 500 feet bigger than Putin’s ballroom. I guarantee you it wasn’t based on “need” or “use”.

This is a &ick measuring contest.

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.

I hear you. Some events deserve more than 140 guests.

At the event you cited, there were 300 guests. The interwebs tell me
>
For 300 banquet-style seated guests, you should secure between 4,500 and 6,000 square feet of event space, which covers dining, dance floors, staging, service areas, and safe traffic flow.
<

Let's be generous and round up to 10,000 sqft.

Now what do we do with the other 80,000 sqft?

Is Trump planning state dinners for 3,000 guests?

They need 90,000 sq ft to host pedo parties, duh.

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.

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.

BRIBES are paying for it and that bothers me even more than tax dollars being used.

This ballroom is a monument to historic levels of corruption.

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 guy who covered the White House in tacky Home Depot moldings spraypainted gold wouldn't know second class if it bit him in the ass.

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

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.

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.

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.

The cognitive dissonance is just depressing as hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saddest is that once built it's so much work to take down such a monstrosity! The fact that he puts it up is one thing but if we ever fix it it will be such a huge undertaking. This is the prob with Trump stuff - while it's one thing to say that once we change him out things are able to return, the reality is his damage so epic it's not easy

It probably won’t be taken down after he is gone it would be a massive waste of money.

We could raise private donations.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The contractors and architects are taking a beating right now online and on the phone. I doubt that anyone will ever use any of them ever again.

Lol. They will be fine and have more than enough future business.

Not everyone thinks like you do.

Certainly takes them down a notch in my eyes!

Can anyone name one person who did business with Trump that came out better for it?

ETTD and only cultists and narcissists think they are an exception.

I’m feeling really sad and defeated over this and the felon stealing $200M+ from taxpayers today.