White House begins demolishing East Wing facade to build Trump’s ballroom

[FenderTL5]

So the answer is yes, the president can demolish whatever he wants, he only needs approval to build.

yeah, she went to great lengths to answer a question that wasn't asked and avoid the one that was.

 

[ralliann]

Hey, we were due for an “upgrade”. We have to spend money on the ultra-powerful once in a while.

We are not paying for it. But yes he is giving it a very nice upgrade.

 

[Apple Sky]

Just wait until the oval office is torn down and replaced with a throne room.

He'll be needing one of these then

 

[Bradskii]

No, I didn't miss the point...

I'm afraid that you did. You've now swivelled from someone supporting a loss by the opposition to avoiding the point completely by saying hey, teams only support their wins in their home towns.

 

[Bradskii]

It's not being permanently knocked down.

What a perfectly odd thing to say.

If you demolish something then it's...umm...not there anymore. It's gone. The East Wing has been permanently removed from the grounds and will no longer exist. Permanently.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm afraid that you did. You've now swivelled from someone supporting a loss by the opposition to avoiding the point completely by saying hey, teams only support their wins in their home towns.

You did post this, correct?
Therein lies the problem. If a team has a parade to celebrate wining the Superbowl do you think it's in poor taste because what they are doing is actually celebrating the other team's loss?


and what's with all the posts where you're calling every opposing viewpoint odd/weird/strange/etc...

Are you doing some sort of ironic Tim Walz impression or something?

Him trying to dismiss every dissenting viewpoint as "weird" (hoping it would be cool with "the kids") wasn't a successful strategy either.

 

[Bradskii]

You did post this, correct?
Therein lies the problem. If a team has a parade to celebrate wining the Superbowl do you think it's in poor taste because what they are doing is actually celebrating the other team's loss?

Good grief...

They obviously aren't celebrating their opponents loss. Which was the point. Which you competely ignored by bringing up the fatuous andtotally irrelevant point that they celebrate it at home.

If you'd have put some thought into it then you could have extrolated the rather obvious point by realising that a national win in any competition is celebrated nationally. Note that? 'A national WIN is celebrated'.

And...no further time will be wasted on this. Well, by me that is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good grief...

They obviously aren't celebrating their opponents loss. Which was the point. Which you competely ignored by bringing up the fatuous andtotally irrelevant point that they celebrate it at home.

But that's how it's going to be received if done in a venue or forum that's not exclusively their "home turf".... and is one that's a "shared space/symbol".

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.


While gay marriage is pretty much accepted now among 70+ percent of the population, that wasn't the case in 2012.

"Hey, this thing that you're deeply opposed to?... you know the government...that entity you involuntarily fork over a third of your earnings to... they're going to put a lighting display on the one of the key symbols of the Republic to celebrate the courts validating that thing you don't like, despite the fact that it was never put up for a vote nationally, and when it was put for a vote at state levels, it lost a lot of the time...but they decided their opinion was more important than the will of the people, so hooray for gay marriage!"

The various branches of government are supposed to be a check on each other first and foremost, not cheerleaders.


To use a very simplistic example...

If there was a town that was deeply divided over whether or not their town should allow a Walmart to come in... If I (as the mayor) was on the pro-Walmart side... if the local court agreed with me, and I celebrated their decision by projecting the Walmart logo (via lighting) on the side of city hall, the half of the town that didn't want a Walmart coming in would be understandably [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off by that, and it would be viewed as me throwing salt in the wounds.

 

[Bradskii]

But...

And...no further time will be wasted on this. Well, by me that is.

 

[Chesterton]

"Hey, this thing that you're deeply opposed to?... you know the government...that entity you involuntarily fork over a third of your earnings to... they're going to put a lighting display on the one of the key symbols of the Republic to celebrate the courts validating that thing you don't like, despite the fact that it was never put up for a vote nationally, and when it was put for a vote at state levels, it lost a lot of the time...but they decided their opinion was more important than the will of the people, so hooray for gay marriage!"

What makes it worse is the HYPOCRISY, because he was opposed to gay marriage a couple of years before the proud light up.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I graciously accept your forfeit, and look forward to our next change on a different topic

 

[jacks]

and what's with all the posts where you're calling every opposing viewpoint odd/weird/strange/etc...

Bit off topic, but I think this may be at the heart of current political impasses. We truly don't understand the other sides point of view. Even if we try to; the "other sides" arguments just seem illogical. This chasm of misunderstanding keeps us from seeing common ground. What are we all missing?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What makes it worse is the HYPOCRISY, because he was opposed to gay marriage a couple of years before the proud light up.

That's a valid complaint. Obama did enter office on the premise that "I'm okay with civil unions, but marriage is between one man and one woman"

Obviously presidents are free to alter their positions on issues...nevertheless.


My main point (for the record: as a person who doesn't have a problem with gay marriage) was that if someone can't understand why half of the country in 2012 was upset over executive branch putting a rainbow lighting display on the white house to celebrate a judicial branch decision that obviously ticked half of the country off, then they don't understand the finer nuances of bipartisan politics.


When the SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, if the White house had an illuminated projection of the "March For Life" logo on the side of the building to celebrate it...they'd be flipping their lid...it'd be all MSNBC and "The View" would be talking about for two weeks straight.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bit off topic, but I think this may be at the heart of current political impasses. We truly don't understand the other sides point of view. Even if we try to; the "other sides" arguments just seem illogical. This chasm of misunderstanding keeps us from seeing common ground. What are we all missing?

I understand the points of view...

Doing the "it's weird/peculiar/odd/weird" schtick is a condescension tactic.

When Tim Walz did it, it came across as someone pretending to be perplexed by the objections of other people, the same way one may be perplexed by the behavior of animals they're observing at the zoo... (when, in fact, they knew full well what the source of the objections were)

It's the same deal here.


If someone is claiming not to know why the White House projecting rainbow colors on the building following the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling would be divisive (circa 2012), then they're being disingenuous. And to feign "hmmm...that's just weird that you'd care, you must not be as evolved as I am" (as if they're outside the glass enclosure viewing a lower life form) is the epitome of condescension.


I'm a person who's all on-board with gay marriage, I don't care if two dudes or two gals want to get married, but I can still understand why people with certain religious convictions are uneasy about it, and framing things in a way that implies that they're stupid country bumpkins doesn't do anything meaningful to bridge the gap.

 

[jacks]

it came across as someone pretending to be perplexed by the objections of other people

OK, I get the "pretending" confusion and agree in those cases, it is merely a ploy. (Sorry I really wasn't reading the thread carefully.) However, I think sometimes there is a real disconnect between opposing sides. They just don't understand how anyone could think they way they do. I've personally have been very confused by some of the arguments I see. They just don't seem rational, even though the people making them may be sincere. Not sure what causes the total disconnect.

 

[Chesterton]

I've personally have been very confused by some of the arguments I see. They just don't seem rational, even though the people making them may be sincere.

I've noticed it's gotten worse here in 2025. I could post examples from other recent threads where I'm presented with very weird arguments, but I'd be violating a CF rule.

Heck, I think there's at least three CF threads about re-doing the east wing of the White House, which is a complete nothing burger, just an excuse to say Trump is a villain for doing something other presidents have done, and something I suspect they don't actually care about.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

OK, I get the "pretending" confusion and agree in those cases, it is merely a ploy. (Sorry I really wasn't reading the thread carefully.) However, I think sometimes there is a real disconnect between opposing sides. They just don't understand how anyone could think they way they do. I've personally have been very confused by some of the arguments I see. They just don't seem rational, even though the people making them may be sincere. Not sure what causes the total disconnect.

Simply put, it can be chalked up to tunnel vision.


I'll use a different political example, the conversation about healthcare in the US.

I've said before that when people engage me about the topic of healthcare, and "which system is the best", my answer to that is "it depends which aspect you're prioritizing" and then cite the analogy of someone asking me which type of vehicle is "the best"

If a person says
"I want something that'll go 0-60 really fast"
vs.
"I want something that's very fuel efficient"
vs.
"I want something that can pull our boat up to the campground"


My answer will 3 completely different things.

Same with healthcare... if a person prioritizes making sure everyone can get basic routine care regardless of if they have a dime to their name, single payer is atop the mountain... if you want the latest and greatest innovation for rare conditions (but have to pay out the nose for it), then the for-profit privatized model is the best.


The same is true with most political topics... people seem to be inclined to embrace "all or nothing" methodologies over nuanced approaches.

Which is why "there's no such thing as trans people, they're all just mentally ill" and "everyone who feels like they may be trans needs to be affirmed immediately regardless of age, refusal to do is contributing their suicide" have gained more traction than more nuanced approaches.

 

[jacks]

ThatRobGuy.

Great points and examples. It explains a lot.
Thanks.
I guess the nut to address is "What are your priorities?" Then a dialog can begin.

 

[NxNW]

 

[iluvatar5150]

What makes it worse is the HYPOCRISY, because he was opposed to gay marriage a couple of years before the proud light up.

Obama was opposed to gay marriage the same way Trump was opposed to Project 2025.