Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad it's this image that will resonate with the public, maga

Progress. Get used to it.

Anonymous wrote:Too bad it's this image that will resonate with the public, maga

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.

Anonymous wrote:FFS, trump DONATED the money and is literally contributing to the WH!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are acting like this is the first time the White House has been renovated or expanded. Study some history. Or is the outrage just because it is Trump that is doing it?

It's the first time billionaires literally bought themselves a party space right next to the Oval Office. Last time the WH looked like this was during the War of 1812 (British damaged the property, not the POTUS).

As a reminder, he's a tenant, not a permanent resident.

Anonymous wrote:You people are acting like this is the first time the White House has been renovated or expanded. Study some history. Or is the outrage just because it is Trump that is doing it?

Anonymous wrote:Trump said that the sound of the White House being demolished "reminds me of money." (He said earlier the entire structure would remain.)

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.

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.

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.

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." ???