The White House is a pretty significant symbol of this country, so yeah, I think they might care that a big chunk of it was just torn down.
The White House is a pretty significant symbol of this country, so yeah, I think they might care that a big chunk of it was just torn down.
You think they're too dumb to understand the difference between "tearing down" and "renovating"?
I assure you, they are not.
> > a big chunk of it was just torn down
> You think they're too dumb to understand the difference between "tearing down" and "renovating"?
Are you? You think the East Wing is being "renovated"?
Renovation is renewal, repair, restoring function and safety.
What's happening instead? Knocking the safe and functional East Wing flat (walls, roof, both floors, 30+ internal rooms) and replacing it with a completely new structure with new foundations and a different purpose... and with a new footprint larger than the entire White House of 2024!
Nowhere even remotely close to the same thing. Might as well brag that you "repaired" your sedan by selling it and buying a new truck.
Yes, it is being renovated. Adding a new room is renovation.
They aren't demolishing the entire White House...
The East Wing isn't being renovated. It's gone, and being replaced with something else.
So the White House is being renovated then, right?
Bingo.
You keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you want it to.
Renovation is as your interlocutor says, a restoration. Remodeling is what is happening there, tearing apart something and putting something new in its place. It's a more drastic and expensive work.
Fine, remodeling. The specific word is not finally the point. Incessant semantic pedantry doesn't change the fact that Trump is not destroying the White House.
Most people understand that any sort of "remodeling" or "renovation" often requires some demolition first.
And I get your point, but that is a crucial distinction when you're talking about historical buildings. If said ballroom was simply an extension, no one would complain about the placement.
> Incessant semantic pedantry doesn't change the fact that Trump is not destroying the White House.
Incessant semantic pedantry? You mean like stridently defending that Trump is not destroying the White House, in response to a comment that didn’t claim that Trump was destroying the White House?
A chunk that hasn’t been around that long - but most people aren’t being told that part.
Go to a Walmart in Ohio or Wisconsin and ask. Ask what % will change their next vote because of it
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/09/30/ohio-family-farmer...
https://upnorthnewswi.com/2025/10/20/wisconsin-soybean-farme...
What do they care about? Price of groceries? Health care maybe?
Red team win. Blue team crying amd punished, maybe bleeding.
I think that's the wrong way to view the problem. Think about it this way: before Nixon resigned his approval rating was still 23%.
You can get a quarter of the country to say yes or not care for any given question no matter how obviously dangerous or stupid. But having a 25% approval rating would be very, very bad.
I recall there being some… upset, when a previous resident planted a garden.
Please don't place the burden of proof on others with absurd tasks.