Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Are you actually stupid enough to believe these donors aren’t getting paid back and then some with special favors?

So, you'd say the same about any donor to any presidential project? Do you hear yourself?

DP. Is there a precedent for this? What’s another example of a renovation to the White House funded by private donors?

There isn't because is the effing white house.

Serious question: how old are you people?? Regardless, don't you know even a little bit of history? Jackie Kennedy's renovation of the entire WH, paid for with private funds? JFC.

They know no history; they don't even bother to watch the documentary about her renovations and the fundraising.

Now our tax payer dollars are going to build a huge golden ball room and outfit a golden jet.

Except our tax payer dollars are NOT paying for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Thank you. Facts matter.

Anonymous wrote:better than a throne room i suppose

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Ah, so you're incensed because you think this kind of thing is... a woman's job? Specifically, the First Lady? Get over yourself. This is being paid for entirely with private funds and will benefit all future administrations.

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The official rendering of the profane abomination. How anyone can be good with this . . .

Is this for real??? This is absolutely hideous. Completely ruins the WH. How is he allowed to do this?

That’s not the rendering so don’t waste energy over that. It’s already been published in all the major news sites, so I don’t see why people are still getting duped by the fake renders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Are you actually stupid enough to believe these donors aren’t getting paid back and then some with special favors?

So, you'd say the same about any donor to any presidential project? Do you hear yourself?

How many other presidents got multi hundred millions gifts from donors? Do you hear yourself?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

How exactly will it benefit all the presidents to come? You think they will all aspire to be the Sun King and live in a gilded Versailles? Or, more likely, a tacky version of it based on one man’s notion of what rich people’s homes look like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so funny - and typical - that none of you acknowledge this is being built using private funds. It will also benefit all the presidents to come. Not taxpayer funded at all. Idiots.

"Leavitt characterized the new construction — which she said will be funded by Trump and other private donors"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/construction-on-trump-s-200-million-white-house-ballroom-to-begin-in-september/ar-AA1JFKsY?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Are you actually stupid enough to believe these donors aren’t getting paid back and then some with special favors?

So, you'd say the same about any donor to any presidential project? Do you hear yourself?

DP. Is there a precedent for this? What’s another example of a renovation to the White House funded by private donors?

There isn't because is the effing white house.

Serious question: how old are you people?? Regardless, don't you know even a little bit of history? Jackie Kennedy's renovation of the entire WH, paid for with private funds? JFC.

They know no history; they don't even bother to watch the documentary about her renovations and the fundraising.

Now our tax payer dollars are going to build a huge golden ball room and outfit a golden jet.

Anonymous wrote:If you have to go back more than 60 years for precedent, you are losing the argument.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between a first lady beautification initiative and Trump's ego, I don't know what to tell you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

He has the blessing of his supporters and wields the power to do as he pleases.

This is public property, not his personal playground. This imposes costs on the taxpayers to re-locate and pay for office space for the former occupants of this space, and also imposes maintenance costs on taxpayers. Even if it is privately funded, it isn't "free."

While I am personally not a fan of making the White House like Versailles, the ballroom addition has precedent in previous administrations’ additions.

The ballroom will replace the east wing and is not plopped onto the side of the White House in a hideous manner, like the numerous fake renders (ai generated) spreading on the internet show. The real renderings show a complementary addition that simply replaces the east wing. It looks okay, just a lot of gold leaf and corinthian columns in the interior. President Trump likes the Ancient Rome aesthetic.