Apparently Trump just tore down part of what we tax payers just paid $376 MILLION to improve and upgrade under Bush and Obama. All new world class systems are now in a dumpster.
I assume the craftspeople who took great pains to upgrade the historical building without making it obvious are screaming about now. 
7 comments:
I have been talking a lot about this. Does Trump think that just because he is the current occupant of the White House, he can do anything he likes with the building. How much of the building does he think he is allowed to tear down? Of all the changes possible to the building, how did he happen to land on a a ballroom? Does anyone build ballrooms anymore? If you had control of 90,000 feet next to your house, would you put a ballroom there? If this president thinks a ballroom is the optimal use for the space, what's stopping the next president from tearing it down and replacing it with what would be his optimal use? Like office space for the first lady. No doubt the funders of this tear down would be just as willing to fund the next tear down since they are buying the same thing in each case, access to the president.--Hiram
There is a substack writer I read who has written two essays that the very first thing a dem should do when they win back the white house is tear down the Trump ballroom and restore the east wing. I agree. The white house belongs to the people not Trump. Laurie
It's a dominance move by Trump. The idea is that the Trump ballroom for the rest of time will loom over the White House. I haven't heard an argument as to why that should be allowed to happpen. The upside of what Trump is doing is that the building is being paid for by private donors. It will cost the American people nothing, and the American people have no investment in it. Once Trump is out of office, normalcy can be returned simply by tearing it down. No doubt, the tear down can be paid for by the same donors who paid to build it.==Hiram
It's a dominance move by Trump. The idea is that the Trump ballroom will loom over the White House for the rest of time. I haven't heard a convincing argument about why that should be allowed to happen. The good news is that the building is being financed by private donors. It's basically free, so the American people have no investment in it. Tearing it down would not be cheap, but I am sure the same donors who paid to p--Hiramut the building up would be just as happy to pay for tearing it down. None of this is about an actual building.==Hiram
sorry about the duplication. the first text didn't show up on my screen.
I'd like to boycott the donors to this monstrosity. I wonder what benefits they will get form Trump for their donations. Laurie
"The White House is only 55,000 sq ft. A ballroom that is 90,000 sq ft and is significantly larger than a football field. The ballroom at Versailles was only 8,000 sq ft. There is no way it’s "just a ballroom" - He is building himself a new palace." It is hard to imagine a 90,000 sq ft ballroom. Laurie
Post a Comment