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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.