Good faith privately-funded White House ballroom discussion

Callatoroy said:
1, 2, & 3 are due to trump. You don’t like his idea or what he wants it to look like or he didn’t follow the path you think he should have. Nothing more than i don’t like what he wants.

4 is pay for play which I have addressed in other posts. You can disagree with it (I do). But you can’t be hypocritical about it. I’m all for changing the entire system that allows pay for play.
Click to expand...
Your entire first paragraph is bad faith. Expecting people to follow established protocol before defacing the center of the nation is NOT "I dont like what he wants". We are not a monarchy. Apparently you wish that we were...atleast while your chosen leader is in office.
 
My opposition to the ballroom has nothing to do with it being Trump’s brainchild and everything to do with: 1. Changes or alterations to the literal most significant historic landmark in our country should have formal congressional approval; 2. It’s either a major waste of taxpayer money or a major opportunity for corrupted private money; 3. No case has been made as to why such a major change to our most significant historic landmark, at such a major expense, is necessary or beneficial to the American people for whom the primary occupant of the White House works; 4. It looks tacky as fuck.

I would be vehemently opposed whether it was proposed by Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, the Pope, or the Dalai Lama.
 
While promoting the project at the White House, Trump said the ballroom "won't interfere with the current building. … It will be near it but not touching it. It pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of."

Then, he demolished the entire east wing of the White House.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Your entire first paragraph is bad faith. Expecting people to follow established protocol before defacing the center of the nation is NOT "I dont like what he wants". We are not a monarchy. Apparently you wish that we were...atleast while your chosen leader is in office.
Click to expand...
You have no concept what “in good faith” means or you are just reacting emotionally to any thing I say. Do you know what the “rules” are around the scope of what he can change? Jackie Kennedy undertook a comprehensive renovation that was in part funded by private donations. People were upset by that. What is the precedent? Is there a financial limit? Do you know? I do not.

Can you discuss without insults? I mean you certainly don’t hesitate to call me out if I do it so just wanting to see if you are going act hypocritically in discussing this topic. Claiming I wish we had a monarchy while trump is in office didn’t advance the conversation
 
Callatoroy said:
The ballroom proposal
Trump publicly suggested building a large ballroom onto the White House.
He claimed he would be willing to help fund or donate toward it himself (similar to past offers he made for renovations).
💰 Would he have made money from it?
Evidence suggesting no financial benefit
The White House is government property, not privately owned.
Any construction would be:
Controlled by the federal government
Subject to contracting rules and oversight

There’s no record of Trump arranging contracts for his own companies to build it.

No formal project was approved or executed.
Click to expand...
Definitely all on the up and up.


The Trump administration awarded Clark Construction—a firm already working on Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom—a separate $17.4 million no-bid contract to repair ornamental fountains in Lafayette Park. The National Park Service cited an 'urgency' exception usually reserved for emergencies like war or natural disasters, bypassing the open bidding process required by law. This contract, paid for with taxpayer funds, was not disclosed in federal spending databases as required, raising transparency concerns.
 
CFordUNC said:
My opposition to the ballroom has nothing to do with it being Trump’s brainchild and everything to do with: 1. Changes or alterations to the literal most significant historic landmark in our country should have formal congressional approval; 2. It’s either a major waste of taxpayer money or a major opportunity for corrupted private money; 3. No case has been made as to why such a major change to our most significant historic landmark, at such a major expense, is necessary or beneficial to the American people for whom the primary occupant of the White House works; 4. It looks tacky as fuck.

I would be vehemently opposed whether it was proposed by Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, the Pope, or the Dalai Lama.
Click to expand...

I was initially opposed to it as well. I think it is to big and will be gaudy if he decorates it. Im not opposed to building one if it is needed and I have read several articles discussing needs and benefits to the WH. I can’t argue the old east wing use was more beneficial to the White House. Im not in favor of using tax payer funds to build a $500 million (or whatever it is) ballroom, but if it can be done privately then my objection is limited to concern over it being tacky.
 
lawtig02 said:
Definitely all on the up and up.


The Trump administration awarded Clark Construction—a firm already working on Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom—a separate $17.4 million no-bid contract to repair ornamental fountains in Lafayette Park. The National Park Service cited an 'urgency' exception usually reserved for emergencies like war or natural disasters, bypassing the open bidding process required by law. This contract, paid for with taxpayer funds, was not disclosed in federal spending databases as required, raising transparency concerns.
Click to expand...
Great, so we should create a law against no-bid contracts. Im for it. But not selectively.
 
Callatoroy said:
1, 2, & 3 are due to trump. You don’t like his idea or what he wants it to look like or he didn’t follow the path you think he should have. Nothing more than i don’t like what he wants.

4 is pay for play which I have addressed in other posts. You can disagree with it (I do). But you can’t be hypocritical about it. I’m all for changing the entire system that allows pay for play.
Click to expand...
LOL. They're due to Trump alright, but it's because he's not following the legal procedure to tear down an entire section of the White House and rebuild it, not because I personally disagree with it. And I'm hardly the only person who has pointed that out. And he lied about what he was doing - he specifically said that his proposed renovations wouldn't affect the East Wing, and then he literally tore it down with no prior notice. That's illegal, as he never got permission beforehand and as you pointed out the White House isn't his personal property to do with as he wishes. The bottom line is that he can't just do whatever he wants with the White House and surrounding grounds, and you seem to think that he can, judging from your response. He's a temporary occupant of the White House, not a dictator who can do things on his personal whim, although perhaps someone should tell him that. And none of that is based on what I think he should or should not have done, he's simply not following the proper procedure that any president should follow.
 
Last edited:
CFordUNC said:
My opposition to the ballroom has nothing to do with it being Trump’s brainchild and everything to do with: 1. Changes or alterations to the literal most significant historic landmark in our country should have formal congressional approval; 2. It’s either a major waste of taxpayer money or a major opportunity for corrupted private money; 3. No case has been made as to why such a major change to our most significant historic landmark, at such a major expense, is necessary or beneficial to the American people for whom the primary occupant of the White House works; 4. It looks tacky as fuck.

I would be vehemently opposed whether it was proposed by Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, the Pope, or the Dalai Lama.
Click to expand...
I would say the same about the Rose Garden. it was created by John & Jackie Kennedy and every president since had kept it. And Trump literally paved it over to build a party patio, and again didn't ask anyone or follow the proper procedure to do it. I suspect that's what appeals to his supporters - he just does whatever the hell he wants and gives everyone else the finger. Except that he doesn't own the White House, or JFK Performing Arts Center, or any other part of DC, and so he can't just drastically alter things on his personal whim, although of course he's doing it anyway.
 
Callatoroy said:
The ballroom proposal
Trump publicly suggested building a large ballroom onto the White House.
He claimed he would be willing to help fund or donate toward it himself (similar to past offers he made for renovations).
💰 Would he have made money from it?
Evidence suggesting no financial benefit
The White House is government property, not privately owned.
Any construction would be:
Controlled by the federal government
Subject to contracting rules and oversight

There’s no record of Trump arranging contracts for his own companies to build it.

No formal project was approved or executed.
Click to expand...
“He claimed he would be willing to help fund or donate toward it himself (similar to past offers he made for renovations).

Links to Trump donating to his ballroom or other White House renovations?
 
Callatoroy said:
You have no concept what “in good faith” means or you are just reacting emotionally to any thing I say. Do you know what the “rules” are around the scope of what he can change? Jackie Kennedy undertook a comprehensive renovation that was in part funded by private donations. People were upset by that. What is the precedent? Is there a financial limit? Do you know? I do not.

Can you discuss without insults? I mean you certainly don’t hesitate to call me out if I do it so just wanting to see if you are going act hypocritically in discussing this topic. Claiming I wish we had a monarchy while trump is in office didn’t advance the conversation
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly engaged you without insult while simultaneously ignoring your insults of me...aka TDS.

I claimed you want a monarchy because that is what it appears. You dismiss any limitation on Trump’s power over the most significant building in the US as TDS. It would appear that you believe the building is his personal playtoy.
 
CFordUNC said:
My opposition to the ballroom has nothing to do with it being Trump’s brainchild and everything to do with: 1. Changes or alterations to the literal most significant historic landmark in our country should have formal congressional approval; 2. It’s either a major waste of taxpayer money or a major opportunity for corrupted private money; 3. No case has been made as to why such a major change to our most significant historic landmark, at such a major expense, is necessary or beneficial to the American people for whom the primary occupant of the White House works; 4. It looks tacky as fuck.

I would be vehemently opposed whether it was proposed by Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, the Pope, or the Dalai Lama.
Click to expand...
I’d back any gaudy ballroom Dean Smith and/or Roy Williams want built.

Of course, they’d never want this BS.
 
Callatoroy said:
You have no concept what “in good faith” means or you are just reacting emotionally to any thing I say. Do you know what the “rules” are around the scope of what he can change? Jackie Kennedy undertook a comprehensive renovation that was in part funded by private donations. People were upset by that. What is the precedent? Is there a financial limit? Do you know? I do not.

Can you discuss without insults? I mean you certainly don’t hesitate to call me out if I do it so just wanting to see if you are going act hypocritically in discussing this topic. Claiming I wish we had a monarchy while trump is in office didn’t advance the conversation
Click to expand...
Jackie Kennedy also widely consulted with federal archivists, architects, and consultants from a wide variety of fields before beginning her work, and she did it via proper procedures. Her goal was actually to restore much of the history and grace of the building without damaging any parts of the structure. In fact, she actually established much of the legal and federal rules and framework that are still in place and designed to protect the White House from doing what Trump is now doing. They did both raise private funds, but otherwise there is no comparison between what she did and what Trump is now doing. My guess is that she would be horrified by what he's done to the White House, as she revered its history and saw it as a living museum that should be preserved for all the people and represent the best of American style, architecture, design, and so forth.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Jackie Kennedy also widely consulted with federal archivists, architects, and consultants from a wide variety of fields before beginning her work, and she did it via proper procedures. Her goal was actually to restore much of the history and grace of the building without damaging any parts of the structure. In fact, she actually established much of the legal and federal rules and framework that are still in place and designed to protect the White House from doing what Trump is now doing. They did both raise private funds, but otherwise there is no comparison between what she did and what Trump is now doing. My guess is that she would be horrified by what he's done to the White House, as she revered its history and saw it as a living museum that should be preserved for all the people and represent the best of American style, architecture, design, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Ok. Trump didn’t. Is that it? Is he required to? Are their $ limits to what he can renovate? What is he technically allowed to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top