YOU PEOPLE ARE OBSESSED WITH SMASHING THINGS THAT TOOK OTHERS TIME AND EFFORT TO BUILD

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375593)

do they have anyone else? i assume not since they're manufacturing outrage about this stupid ballroom, which yeah is ugly but who cares.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375569)

Many such cases.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375575)

======

https://archive.is/ToWg5

No One Is Tearing Down the Trump Ballroom

By Noah Rothman

October 23, 2025 12:37 PM

What was once a lunatic notion is rapidly congealing into a political litmus test.

Because the next Democratic president must “eliminate the traces of the Trump presidency as much as possible,” the activist set is busy lobbying the Democratic Party to prioritize razing the ballroom that will replace the East Wing of the White House. The next Democratic occupant can and should “demolish the Trump Presidential Palace Ballroom and Casino and restore the East Wing and the rest of the White House grounds to their pre-Trump state.” If a Democratic successor to Trump fails to, if not “vow not to use the new ballroom out of protest,” he or she is “guaranteed” to level the place — and on Inauguration Day, too. After all, “this act of vandalism must not stand.”

Spoiler alert: It will stand. Indeed, the next Democratic president will make extensive use of the ballroom without apology, if only because it is of immense and objective practical utility.

Our editorial identified how such a structure will replace the inordinately expensive and unwieldy tents currently used to host large White House gatherings. But beyond that, even if it had no instrumental value and was purely a vanity project, why on Earth would these Democratic partisans convince themselves that their party’s White House prospects would forgo the trappings of power and prestige? Are they familiar with the Democratic Party?

Is Gavin “French Laundry” Newsom expected to renounce his material wealth and commit to asceticism? Will angry posters compel former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (D., McKinsey) to observe monastic minimalism? Do we believe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would swear off the debutante’s reception she presently receives wherever she goes, but only in her own house?

The very premise is absurd. But the Democratic Party’s aspirants are slaves to fashion. For that reason, it’s sensible to expect that at least some Democrats will bow to the ephemeral pressure their social media feeds are putting on them and pledge to restore the status quo ante — a cramped and underutilized space devoted to welcoming guests and housing the First Lady’s staff. But those who make that promise, if only to outflank their competitors for the nomination, are almost certain to go back on their word the moment they catch the bus after which they’re chasing.

Sure, changes will be made, some of which could be entirely uncontroversial — even welcome. Given the president’s taste, we should assume that the garish, unrepublican gold embellishments will be excessive. Few tears will be shed for their removal. Likewise, the White House’s asymmetry will be an eyesore — one that might be remedied by similarly expanding the West Wing. But if anyone thinks that a future Democrat will eschew the chance to host state dinners, receptions for foreign dignitaries, and other major events on White House grounds without getting their shoes dirty, they’re nuts.

And if that mania derives from the belief that a future president can somehow erase Donald Trump’s decade-long impact on American politics and history, we can see why they’ve subordinated all they know about the Democratic Party to that madness. It is magical thinking fueled by animus. As former presidential staffers have acknowledged, the White House’s constraints “prevented” them from “doing the events that they wanted by the size of the rooms as they currently exist.” The need for such a space preceded Trump because the demand for one preceded Trump, and that demand will persist long after he’s gone.

We should expect that at least a handful of enterprising Democratic presidential hopefuls will pander to the social media hordes working themselves into a lather over the images of construction on the White House grounds. Maybe their outrage will persist long after those images are consigned to memory and the ballroom is in use — even, perhaps, by those very Democratic hopefuls. They can rage at the sight of that ballroom all they like, but tearing it down is not a promise that anyone will keep.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375630)

detrumpifying the White House and country is a top priority

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375635)

you're the antifa pumo and you're stupider than wlmas and spaceporn

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375646)

=====

https://archive.ph/kNffl

Opinion

Editorial Board

In defense of the White House ballroom

Donald Trump vs. the NIMBYs

October 25, 2025 at 5:42 p.m. EDTYesterday at 5:42 p.m. EDT

4 min

A model of the new White House ballroom in the Oval Office. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

The teardown of the White House’s East Wing this week is a Rorschach test. Many see the rubble as a metaphor for President Donald Trump’s reckless disregard of norms and the rule of law, a reflection of his willingness to bulldoze history and a temple to a second Gilded Age, paid for by corporate donors. Others see what they love about Trump: A lifelong builder boldly pursuing a grand vision, a change agent unafraid to decisively take on the status quo and a developer slashing through red tape that would stymie any normal politician.

In classic Trump fashion, the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most jarring manner possible. Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating. It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties.

The State Dining Room seats 140. The East Room seats about 200. Trump says the ballroom at the center of his 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate 999 guests. The next Democratic president will be happy to have this.

Preservationists express horror that Trump did not submit his plans to their scrutiny, but the truth is that this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process. The blueprints would have faced death by a thousand papercuts.

Fortunately for Trump, the White House is exempt from some of the required regulations that other federal buildings must comply with. Because it has become far too difficult to build anything in America. Prominent Democrats have become vocal this year in calling out their party’s lawyerly obsession with process, which combined with a not in my backyard (NIMBY) mentality, has prevented a place such as California from building a high-speed rail project that its voters approved by referendum in 2008.

Many homeowners have become red-pilled by their struggles to navigate the slow-as-molasses maze of government bureaucracy when they’re trying to make even modest renovations, such as adding a deck. D.C. alone has 70 historic districts and other random entities that can throw sand in the gears.

Though the fundraising for the ballroom creates problematic conflicts of interest, two examples validate Trump’s aggressive approach. After a fence jumper got inside the White House in 2014, it was obvious that better perimeter fencing needed to be installed. But doing so involved five public meetings of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) over two years, as members took pains to ensure the fencing complied with environmental rules. Construction didn’t begin until July 2019.

Or consider the modest Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial near the National Air and Space Museum. Congress authorized its creation in 1999. Architect Frank Gehry was selected in 2009. The NCPC rejected Gehry’s initial design proposal in 2014 before approving a revised plan the next year. The Commission of Fine Arts gave its approval in 2017. The memorial wasn’t opened until late 2020. By contrast, Eisenhower planned and executed D-Day in about six months.

The president has said the project will cost $300 million but that he’s raised $350 million from private donors. The White House released a list of 37 donors on Thursday, including Apple, Amazon, Comcast and Lockheed Martin. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Post.)

Trump joins a long list of presidents who have left their imprint on the White House. Theodore Roosevelt replaced greenhouses to construct the West Wing. William Howard Taft constructed the first Oval Office in 1909. Richard M. Nixon converted a swimming pool into the press briefing room in 1970. The modern East Wing wasn’t even built until World War II to cover up an underground bunker. Harry S. Truman gutted the White House interior and added the balcony that bears his name. Purists decried it. Now it’s a hallmark.

The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5789988&forum_id=2...id#49375896)