Chester Arthur made it grandiose to host kings. Teddy Roosevelt made it plainer (but added a dining room full of his trophy kills). Coolidge added the West Wing (which was later torn down and replaced). Truman gutted the entire thing in a manner which would drive Democrats insane if Trump were to do it (the pictures are amazing), but a Democrat did it, so it was probably ok. Kennedy made it more posh from T.Roosevelt/Truman's choices, but still often understated. Trump bringing it back towards Chester Arthur's vision to host world leaders.
(The video starts with all the predecessors to the current White House...basically any house in which the president lived. Then it moves on to the final White House, rambling through various renovations, additions, tear downs, etc. It was posted a year ago, so it doesn't address the current changes, but it certainly helps to put them into context.)
(no message)
Intellectually honest people will embrace context for their arguments.
And that goes for pretty much every issue. The remaking of the White House in his hideous image is the least important, but a perfect metaphor for the wrecking ball he is taking to the republic.
He's not even touching the White House proper, right? Just the East Wing? The wings were added later. The West Wing has been torn down and replaced by another president. Trump is doing that to the East Wing.
Whatever. As long as he isn't spending US tax dollars.
But, I'm guessing the Democrats will either use the ballroom to host state events without having to use tents like we do now (which will be good), or they will use US tax dollars to tear it down and replace it not with a structure identical to the original, but with a structure they like (which will be what you are complaining about, but worse, because US tax dollars will be used).
By nobody.