Tbird19482
Verified User
And he is already doing a great job at doing that.
Paid for by Donors? That was a lie.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Yep, he's already doing a bang-up job on that. At least the markets have settled down for the most part. We were up $63K for the year when his idiocy in Iran began. Within a couple of weeks it had fallen to negative for the year. We struggled to regain that and now stand at $90+K YTD. Not great times for those approaching retirement, for sure.
Just the thought of seeing that orange-painted pig dancing makes me nauseated. lol
How long ago was that? lol It looks to me as though they just reflexively feel compelled to take the opposite POV whenever *anything* about the #FatFascistFelon is criticized no matter how minor or major.
He thought he could build the ballroom for $250 million, then it was $350 million, now it’s a billion! He tried to get Jerome Powell criminally prosecuted for overruns for the remodeling of two very old buildings. He thinks he’s a master builder, the only reason he never has cost overruns for his buildings is because he doesn’t pay his contractors.
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
Teflon sounds like he's up there in age and deteriorating. His Marxist slander reads like a get off my lawn kind of older than dirt.
FastLane
Verified User
For enhanced security not for the ballroom itself per se. This will pay for a bomb shelter and medical facility under the ballroom as well as other security enhancements to resist drone attacks on the White House complex.
Pesky details... I don't mind chipping in for upgrades that will benefit all future presidents and admistrati9n...
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
I keep asking why it bothers you to be called one, but nobody responds. What do you believe that is difference from what Marx espoused about capitalism?
If you can't explain it, then the name sticks.
I have given you marxists ample opportunity to explain, but you can't.
What is funny is that no matter the thread, you marxists get fixated on that one word to the exclusion of all else. Seems odd. The term really triggers you guys. There has to be a reason. I am honestly curious.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
They aren't really upset about it. They are just adhering to the 47th Amendment where they are required to bitch about everything Trump does no matter what it is.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Why is being called a marxist considered a slander to you. What about it offends you so? Where do you differentiate yourself in beliefs from marxists when it comes to capitalism?
We objected to him destroying the WH for another vanity project. Magas never even uttered the word "ballroom" before trump told them we needed one. With his ballroom, that cheesy outdoor-restaurant patio, and an overload of gilding, he wants to remake a historical site into Mar-a-Lago. And all the maga sycophants bow and scrape and say "yes sir, whatever you want, sir."
So very, very true.
You're the one who seems triggered here and elsewhere on this forum. Some question: "What do you believe that is difference from what Marx espoused about capitalism"? Not even a lucid question. Nor a relevant one if made lucid since like almost all liberals I'm a capitalist myself.
The FLOTUS offices used to be there. Don't need THAT when the First Strumpet lives elsewhere, do we? If it was so unsecure, why haven't the various occupiers been threatened, attacked, accosted? "Security" is just a Reichwing euphenism for "it doesn't matter what it costs, it's for security."
QP!
Verified User
No. We will pretend facts matter:
Here’s a direct, fact-based comparison between what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did versus the current White House ballroom / East Wing project under Donald Trump—because this is where the process questions actually become meaningful.
The Key Difference (in one sentence)
Clinton and Obama mostly did maintenance within existing authority, while the current ballroom project is a major structural expansion with disputed legal and congressional oversight requirements.
1. What Clinton & Obama did (baseline)
Type of work:- Repairs, restoration, system upgrades (HVAC, security, interiors)
- No demolition of major historic structures
- No major new standalone buildings
- Covered under existing appropriations and maintenance authority
- Coordinated with agencies like the National Park Service
- Sometimes supplemented by private donations
- Minimal to none
- No serious lawsuits claiming they bypassed Congress
Bottom line:They stayed well inside the “routine executive management” lane.
2. The current ballroom / East Wing project
This is fundamentally different in scope and legal exposure.What’s being done
- Demolition of the entire East Wing
- Construction of a ~90,000 sq ft ballroom
- Additional underground security/military complex
Cost evolution
- ~$200M → $300M → ~$400M+
- Separate proposals for $1 billion in federal security funding tied to the project
3. Where the “process” dispute comes from
A. Structural vs maintenance
This is not routine:- It removes a historic wing
- It builds a new permanent facility
That alone puts it in a different legal category than Clinton/Obama work.B. Congressional role (the core issue)
There are three overlapping funding/process claims:1. “Privately funded” argument
- The administration says the ballroom itself is funded by donors
This is used to argue:- Congress doesn’t need to approve the structure itself
2. Public money for “security”
- Congress is considering $1B for security upgrades tied to the same project
Critics argue:- This may indirectly fund or justify the ballroom
- It blurs the line between private project vs taxpayer-funded expansion
3. Legal challenges
- Preservation groups sued claiming violations of:
- Environmental review laws
- Administrative procedure rules
- Lack of proper oversight and congressional input
A judge has:- Temporarily allowed construction
- But acknowledged the legal issues are unresolved
C. Process shortcuts alleged
Critics specifically claim:- Fast-tracking without full review
- Limited public comment
- Attempting to classify parts as “security” to avoid scrutiny
4. Side-by-side comparison
| Factor | Clinton / Obama | Current Ballroom Project |
|---|---|---|
| Type of work | Maintenance & upgrades | New major structure + demolition |
| Scale | Incremental | Massive (90,000 sq ft addition) |
| Funding | Appropriated + some private | Mix of private + proposed $1B public |
| Congressional involvement | Standard appropriations | Disputed / potentially bypassed |
| Legal challenges | None significant | Active lawsuits |
| Historic impact | Preservation | Demolition of East Wing |
| Process controversy | Low | High |
5. The real takeaway
If you’re trying to evaluate “did they follow the proper process,” here’s the honest framing:- Clinton/Obama:
Stayed within clearly accepted executive authority → no serious disputes - Current project:
Operating in a gray zone where:- The administration claims authority (especially via private funding + security justification)
- Critics argue it should require explicit congressional approval and full review
In other words:This isn’t just “another renovation”—it’s exactly the kind of project that tests the boundaries of presidential authority vs Congress.
QP!
Verified User
Yes but that is Trump and WH lies, as Trump tries to tie getting his Ballroom paid for by PRETENDING it is part of the over security requirements, when it is not. And the Judge NEVER disallowed any progress on the 'security aspects of the underground structure'. How do we know that? Trump and his WH admitted it prior.
So there is no reason that Trump cannot submit to Congress the APPROPRIATE costs for the under ground secure bunker while also submitting to the law and allowing the process for the above ground structure (ballroom) to go thru Congress, as the law demands.
Judge halts Trump’s ballroom construction, permits bunker work to proceed
...“The exception for underground national security facilities does not include the proposed ballroom because Defendants themselves distinguished between below-ground and above-ground construction, stating that ‘the below-surface work is driven by national security concerns independent of the above-grade construction,'” ...
Leon said that the administration does not “explain why the proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom — the source of the National Trust’s claimed injury and likely unauthorized by statue — is required for security purposes now.”...
The judge clarified that the defendants may “cover and secure the below-ground construction while litigation proceeds.”...
Should they construct it there, now? Everyone knows where it is…