So now we need a Ballroom?

 
The apologists want to focus on what this monstrosity costs, not on it what it is. As a tribute to Trump it's great. Big, showy, unserious and expensive, whether he ever dances in it or not. Question is should the WH or a big part of it be a tribute to the person of the President who lived there for a time? At least as to this tribute the country is saying NO.
 
martin said:
The apologists want to focus on what this monstrosity costs, not on it what it is. As a tribute to Trump it's great. Big, showy, unserious and expensive. Question is should the WH or a big part of it be a tribute to the person of the President who lived there for a time? At least as to this tribute the country is saying NO.
Click to expand...
Trump has made it clear, he is planning on never leaving. Except he will not live long. Then the royal family will fight among themselves to appoint a new king. The Donald Trump Gold Ballroom and souvenir shop will go into history. It may become a place of worship for future Trumpys.
 
jimmymccready said:
No biggy, folks.

Presidents do this.

The Wing was in poor condition.
Click to expand...
In a few more weeks, winter is here and DC is brutal in the winter, trust me...you think them brain dead fools figured that shit out before hand? I rest my case and the worst case senerio's in construction are hurried jobs to meet deadlines. AND ESPEICALLY BY THOSE THAT TRUMP PICKED FOR THIS JOB
 
martin said:
The apologists want to focus on what this monstrosity costs, not on it what it is. As a tribute to Trump it's great. Big, showy, unserious and expensive, whether he ever dances in it or not. Question is should the WH or a big part of it be a tribute to the person of the President who lived there for a time? At least as to this tribute the country is saying NO.
Click to expand...
Just hope it has a giant Neon sign with TRUMP on it!
 
Grokmaster said:
Kennedy didn't ask for "permission" from Congress for the Rose Garden, despite it being funded with taxpayer money.
Click to expand...
It was part of the 1961 Congressionally approved renovations. It went through all the reviews, and had a team of archeologists on hand to deal with any artifacts turned up...

AND IT DID NOT INVOLVE DESTROYING ANY HISTORIC BUILDINGS!!!

trump just destroyed a third of the White House. It is irreplaceable, but any value you put on it would have to be in the billions. There was no attempt to preserve anything. There was no review.
 
archives said:
“The White House has moved ahead with the massive construction project despite not yet having sign-off from the National Capital Planning Commission,
Click to expand...
Don't you think you should explain why anyone should care?

All right, I'll ask: So what?

Why should anyone care that Harry Truman gutted and rebuilt the Executive Residence?

archives said:
Air traffic controllers aren’t getting paid but Trump is building his Ballroom, there is something out of whack here
Click to expand...
Explain.

archives said:
What a narcissist,
Click to expand...
Explain. It would appear that you don't know what a narcissist is. Imagine that, you are using another word without knowing what it means.

archives said:
We’ve had 45 prior Presidents and none felt the need to add a Ballroom to the White House,
Click to expand...
We've had 44 prior Presidents and none were willing to donate their own funds/resources to augment the White House with a ballroom. Fortunately, there is a first for everything.

archives said:
but now we need one? Why?
Click to expand...
Trump has laid out why we need one. What reason are you citing for why we need to not have one?
 
Walt said:
Tearing down a historic building of incalculable value, and replacing it with a poorly constructed replacement is not adding value.
Click to expand...
Real estate and construction are not your strong suits; ask me how I know.

What's hilarious is that you are pretending to give Trump pushback on a construction and real estate issue. Too funny!
 
Hawkeye10 said:
There is at this point no reason to think that it will be poorly contracted.
Click to expand...
There were no archeologists on the site, and no attempt to preserve samples of the past construction. The contractor did not even realize such things were important. They have absolutely no experience with historic buildings, but were allowed to destroy a third of one of America's most important historic buildings.
 
Walt said:
There were no archeologists on the site, and no attempt to preserve samples of the past construction. The contractor did not even realize such things were important. They have absolutely no experience with historic buildings, but were allowed to destroy a third of one of America's most important historic buildings.
Click to expand...
You are talking about the quality of deconstruction....a different thing.
 
Walt said:
There were no archeologists on the site, and no attempt to preserve samples of the past construction. The contractor did not even realize such things were important. They have absolutely no experience with historic buildings, but were allowed to destroy a third of one of America's most important historic buildings.
Click to expand...
your concerns are stupid.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
You are talking about the quality of deconstruction....a different thing.
Click to expand...
Not taking care of the demolition correctly make me concerned for the rest of the process. They have gotten no permits, so they are "self-regulating" at the moment. There is a lot about construction that can be hidden after the fact.

A decade from now we may well have a collapsing East Wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top