One of the fundamental aspects of their opposition to Israel is that they think Israel is morally obligated to stand still and do nothing in response to Palestinians shooting unlimited rockets at them. If you press them a little you can even get them to make the argument that it's okay because the rockets aren't very good. Just totally incoherent, insane freaks.
they think Israel is morally obligated to stand still and do nothing in response to Palestinians shooting
Because that's what they think all White "colonizers" (which includes White nations that never had a colony and also pale-skinned nations that aren't White, like Japan and Israel) should do when darker skinned "oppressed" attack them. You'll see this same policy in action in every liberal American city where they let violent blacks go without charges and also in countries like the UK where the government is complicit in the nation being invaded by violent foreign brownoids.
Hold on, beyond the 'why is the guy that we tried to assassinate multiple times making the new ballroom bulletproof?' gaslighting, they really complaining the architect is specialised in catholic buildings?
Despite how much they try to deny and diminish it, America is a Christian country with it's very foundations in it. So it should have the architecture to fit.
Better than the brutalist shit they come up with..
Are there any parts of the White House that are not in some way fortified beyond the normal scope of construction? I had assumed bulletproofing was standard.
What I agree with the Democrats is, is why do we even need a Ballroom for the white house. Can't we build it somewhere nearby?
Trump shouldn't do this because the White House is a historic building, and it will make Fallout 3 inaccurate. Granted, the White House was blown up, but the rubble would be inaccurate now.
Trump shouldn't do this because the White House is a historic building
1800 - White House construction finishes.
1834 - They make a terrace with some baths to the east.
1866 - East Terrace is removed.
1902 - Teddy Roosevelt builds an East Wing as a guest entrance. It's a coat room.
1942 - FDR builds the current East Wing over the bunker.
2025 - Rebuilt as a ballroom.
The 1902 "East Wing" is part of the East Colonade and I don't think is being touched. The only notable things in the East Wing proper are the First Lady's Office and the Calligraphy Office.
The only reason its current state is more "historic" than any previous construction was no one made changes in the 1980s. Otherwise it'd have been a consistent 30-40 years between changes since the start.
The entire damn inside was gutted and rebuilt under Truman anyway. People are acting like it's been untouched for 225 years or something.
But "Muh History". I agree. I don't entirely trust Trump because he's a politician, but I believe that he is a Patriot. In my opinion, it ruins just ruins the symetry of the White House, but what do I know, I'm no architech?
Just like when they paved over the lawn at the Rose Garden. People freaked out trying to make it sound like he'd torn out the whole thing. Really, it just looks kind of shit because it's too much concrete in one spot without something to break it up. Needed some raised beds in the center or something. Though the Kennedy-era one was best IMHO.
There might be room elsewhere on the grounds, but it probably becomes a question of how far you want your distinguished state guests to have to walk across the grounds, in their formal wear, at various times of the year. You certainly don't want it outside the grounds entirely; I'm sure that would create security headaches and would also diminish the connection to the presidency.
Also, a ballroom as I understand it is not typically a detached structure—hence "room."
I'm sure that the windows are really impressively bulletproof.
I remember many years back, some lunatic tried shooting out a window, it failed epically. BUT some the PotUS's family was just a few rooms away and that room's windows were old & not bullet proof! That was fixed in 2 weeks, iirc, they all got upgraded.
Aren't.... MOST buildings at least somewhat bullet-resistant? Because they're, like, buildings? And important ones with lots of concrete even more so?
Beyond which, if you're hosting a variety of people with a variety of enemies, shouldn't it be at a secure location? Forget "bulletproof", the thing really should be anti-tank-round-proof.
Never mind the fact that he wasn’t really shot, but yea, makes for great rationale when excusing any kind of government overreach. Different teams, same playbook.
Well yeah. An enormous amount of democrat policy can be summed up as "how dare our intended victims be allowed to defend themselves."
One of the fundamental aspects of their opposition to Israel is that they think Israel is morally obligated to stand still and do nothing in response to Palestinians shooting unlimited rockets at them. If you press them a little you can even get them to make the argument that it's okay because the rockets aren't very good. Just totally incoherent, insane freaks.
Because that's what they think all White "colonizers" (which includes White nations that never had a colony and also pale-skinned nations that aren't White, like Japan and Israel) should do when darker skinned "oppressed" attack them. You'll see this same policy in action in every liberal American city where they let violent blacks go without charges and also in countries like the UK where the government is complicit in the nation being invaded by violent foreign brownoids.
It's because they've been given the orders - zionism is now """white supremacy""".
Story of the rabbi and the golem sound familiar?
Oh, no wonder you keep spamming white genocide lies.
Hold on, beyond the 'why is the guy that we tried to assassinate multiple times making the new ballroom bulletproof?' gaslighting, they really complaining the architect is specialised in catholic buildings?
Despite how much they try to deny and diminish it, America is a Christian country with it's very foundations in it. So it should have the architecture to fit.
Better than the brutalist shit they come up with..
I'd say the architecture is more Roman, but I suppose there's some overlap, given how Christianity began in Rome.
Are there any parts of the White House that are not in some way fortified beyond the normal scope of construction? I had assumed bulletproofing was standard.
What I agree with the Democrats is, is why do we even need a Ballroom for the white house. Can't we build it somewhere nearby?
Trump shouldn't do this because the White House is a historic building, and it will make Fallout 3 inaccurate. Granted, the White House was blown up, but the rubble would be inaccurate now.
Have you seen the huge wedding tent that we use for various state dinners?
We should have a ballroom and he managed to fund it privately. It's a win for everyone.
I actually would’ve been ok with my tax dollars being used for this. I can’t imagine how much it would piss off the libtards
More buildings means more entry points, more angles you have to cover, more security checks and more bug sweeps.
It's efficient to have a formal events section of the building. Personally I'm surprised no one thought of it before.
Also better for planting your own bugs. Which America would never do at the foreign guests' tables.
There’s a movie theater and bowling alley in there right? I’m honestly shocked that there isn’t a formal ballroom
1800 - White House construction finishes.
1834 - They make a terrace with some baths to the east.
1866 - East Terrace is removed.
1902 - Teddy Roosevelt builds an East Wing as a guest entrance. It's a coat room.
1942 - FDR builds the current East Wing over the bunker.
2025 - Rebuilt as a ballroom.
The 1902 "East Wing" is part of the East Colonade and I don't think is being touched. The only notable things in the East Wing proper are the First Lady's Office and the Calligraphy Office.
The only reason its current state is more "historic" than any previous construction was no one made changes in the 1980s. Otherwise it'd have been a consistent 30-40 years between changes since the start.
The entire damn inside was gutted and rebuilt under Truman anyway. People are acting like it's been untouched for 225 years or something.
Don't forget the Leafs burning it down in 1814.
Sorry aboot dat eh?
But "Muh History". I agree. I don't entirely trust Trump because he's a politician, but I believe that he is a Patriot. In my opinion, it ruins just ruins the symetry of the White House, but what do I know, I'm no architech?
in that dual-citizen sense, right?
The only country he loves more than America, is Noserael. But as we say in my faction, "One Israel, One Enclave, now and forever."
I agree with you on the symmetry.
Just like when they paved over the lawn at the Rose Garden. People freaked out trying to make it sound like he'd torn out the whole thing. Really, it just looks kind of shit because it's too much concrete in one spot without something to break it up. Needed some raised beds in the center or something. Though the Kennedy-era one was best IMHO.
There might be room elsewhere on the grounds, but it probably becomes a question of how far you want your distinguished state guests to have to walk across the grounds, in their formal wear, at various times of the year. You certainly don't want it outside the grounds entirely; I'm sure that would create security headaches and would also diminish the connection to the presidency.
Also, a ballroom as I understand it is not typically a detached structure—hence "room."
It's the meme!
"Conservatives, why won't you let us take your guns away, so we can stop shooting you with them?!"
It seems to be the running NPC update
It's really to build up the safety bunker and he's evil for even considering it.
https://archive.ph/jRAfx
I would imagine that most of the white house is bullet proof.
Isn't the entire White House bulletproof? Even the windows
I'm sure that the windows are really impressively bulletproof.
I remember many years back, some lunatic tried shooting out a window, it failed epically. BUT some the PotUS's family was just a few rooms away and that room's windows were old & not bullet proof! That was fixed in 2 weeks, iirc, they all got upgraded.
If you see a libshit whine about bulletproofing, show'em a pic of John F. Kennedy with his head blasted open "for the crime of being America first".
Aren't.... MOST buildings at least somewhat bullet-resistant? Because they're, like, buildings? And important ones with lots of concrete even more so?
Beyond which, if you're hosting a variety of people with a variety of enemies, shouldn't it be at a secure location? Forget "bulletproof", the thing really should be anti-tank-round-proof.
also because it's y'know the fucking white house
Never mind the fact that he wasn’t really shot, but yea, makes for great rationale when excusing any kind of government overreach. Different teams, same playbook.
A bullet hit his body, he was shot. Even if he was "only" shot AT? It still counts.
Over reach? It isn't costing the taxpayers anything. It's under-reach 🤭