Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

New Yorkers are demanding

So every other parent in America gets to decide how to educate their kids, make decisions about their kids' best interests, and how/when to relocate their kids ... EXCEPT Trump because ... TRUMP!
IMG_1803.JPG
 
ruby59 said:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...mp-move-white-house-or-pay-security/22014363/

that the first lady should pay for her own security because she is staying at Trump towers while her son finishes the school year.


Where was the indignity when 8 years of Obama family vacations cost $90 million

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article123335079.html
Click to expand...

the math's not complicated, Ruby. Give it a try.

From a right-leaning publication, by the way.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-as-obamas-cost-in-a-whole-year/#4654098936e4
 
JoCoJenn said:
So every other parent in America gets to decide how to educate their kids, make decisions about their kids' best interests, and how/when to relocate their kids ... EXCEPT Trump because ... TRUMP!
IMG_1803.JPG
Click to expand...

I'm glad you think it's a good use of your taxes. I, personally, would rather mine went to help children whose parents can't afford medical care, or, you know, food.

When the decision costs 26.8M of taxpayer's money, I guess I would come down on the side, of no, some sacrifice in choice will have to be made.

Or, more accurately, I think personal responsibility (which Republicans are so big on) needs to come into play. I pay my taxes, so am already funding education. I sent my kids to private school. I could have sent them to public school for free, but didn't. My decision on my kids' best interests, my responsibility, my dime. The Trumps' choice, their responsibility, my dime. Hmmm...
 
jaaron said:
I'm glad you think it's a good use of your taxes. I, personally, would rather mine went to help children whose parents can't afford medical care, or, you know, food.

When the decision costs 26.8M of taxpayer's money, I guess I would come down on the side, of no, some sacrifice in choice will have to be made.

Or, more accurately, I think personal responsibility (which Republicans are so big on) needs to come into play. I pay my taxes, so am already funding education. I sent my kids to private school. I could have sent them to public school for free, but didn't. My decision on my kids' best interests, my responsibility, my dime. The Trumps' choice, their responsibility, my dime. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Oh, if ONLY we personally got to direct how every tax dollar is spent based on our individual beliefs, views, opinions, and thoughts about the recipients ... :whistle:

One might start with this as a guide: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Federal_Fumbles_2016.pdf

PS - we already have programs to assist the needy with food & medical care.
 
Ummm No Ruby. You did not prove him wrong.

Thank you Jaaron. I have no idea where Ruby has been reading because this has posted in every newspaper and talked about on every news program for the past few days. I wish people would wake up and get their heads out of the sand.
 
Calliecake said:
Ummm No Ruby. You did not prove him wrong.

Thank you Jaaron. I have no idea where Ruby has been reading because this has posted in every newspaper and talked about on every news program for the past few days. I wish people would wake up and get their heads out of the sand.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that people with a non detectable viral load, but were diagnosed as HIV positive, should not wear a condom?
 
Calliecake said:
Ummm No Ruby. You did not prove him wrong.

Thank you Jaaron. I have no idea where Ruby has been reading because this has posted in every newspaper and talked about on every news program for the past few days. I wish people would wake up and get their heads out of the sand.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the need to use a condom, so no clue what you and Jaaron are talking about.

This is what happens when you jump into the middle of a conversation and judge it based on your like of the poster not the information itself.
 
Ruby, the first sentence in Callie's comment is about the other thread. The rest is about the topic in this thread.
 
ruby59 said:
I just dealt with a disrespectful know it all in the other thread and proved him wrong.

If you want to call something to my attention, lose the attitude.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling your attention to anything, Ruby. Your first post made no logical sense from a numbers perspective. You posted asking where was the indignation when the Obama family cost 90M in 8 years. I responded with an article from a right-leaning publication that showed Obama's expenses tallying up at 12.1M per year each year of his presidency (adding up to 96.8M) and Trump's first month costing 10M (and for the record, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that includes the cost of protecting the New York Trump family residents). And I suggested you do the math.

Not sure what the other thread is that's being referenced?
 
JoCoJenn said:
So every other parent in America gets to decide how to educate their kids, make decisions about their kids' best interests, and how/when to relocate their kids ... EXCEPT Trump because ... TRUMP!
IMG_1803.JPG
Click to expand...

JoCoJenn said:
Oh, if ONLY we personally got to direct how every tax dollar is spent based on our individual beliefs, views, opinions, and thoughts about the recipients ... :whistle:

One might start with this as a guide: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Federal_Fumbles_2016.pdf

PS - we already have programs to assist the needy with food & medical care.
Click to expand...

See, here's the thing. I liked Obama. I thought he was a good president, and I maintain that history will look on him favourably. But I disagreed with some of his positions and some of the things he did. I didn't like that he extended and expanded Bush era NSA powers. I did not particularly like his relationship with the press, which was not nearly as transparent as I thought it should be. I think there were certain areas where he failed or at least made mis-steps on foreign policy. I thought that 'you can keep your doctors' thing was at best disingenuous, at face value misleading, and at worst a lie. I'm capable of thinking all these things and still supporting him.

I hear Trump voters complaining constantly that they are denigrated, looked down on, regarded as stupid.

Look, if you want to say that you support him because you like his stance on X or Y, or that you think you'll personally benefit, or you feel safer, or whatever. That's fine. And that you believe in it enough that you're willing to overlook the constant stream of demonstrable lying, the chaos, the shambolic foreign relations, the constant cloud of corruption, the barrage of challenged ethics, the sexual assault bragging, that's fine too. I'll vehemently disagree with you, and I'll have trouble understanding your logic, but I won't necessarily deride your intelligence. But when you are talking about a man who ran in large part on a platform of cleaning up government, shaving unnecessary expenses, running the country like a business--who had full advance knowledge that if he won, it would mean making a decision about schooling for the second half of the year--and defending his decision to cost the taxpayers an extra 30M as an acceptable decision in his kid's best interest? When you can't say, yeah, I like him but this is a little off, well, then I'm sorry, but it's beyond ridiculous. It does look stupid.

And, yeah, thanks for the civics lesson on taxes. I live outside the US, pay taxes in the country I do live in, and still pay in the US at a rate higher than the orange *******.
 
I don't know what Obama has to do with this for you to bring him up unless you're suggesting he was wasteful.

It's about tax dollars being spent in ways people feel are wasteful, is it not (thus my link, which is hardly a civics lesson)?
 
If someone doesn't like the law governing mandated protection for the first family, perhaps they should write their congressman (versus the media) about it, as the law is silent to any aspect of the first family's chosen living arrangements.
 
Thank you Mary Poppins for clarifying my comments. I thought I had attached Ruby's comments but failed to do so.
 
JoCoJenn said:
I don't know what Obama has to do with this for you to bring him up unless you're suggesting he was wasteful.

It's about tax dollars being spent in ways people feel are wasteful, is it not (thus my link, which is hardly a civics lesson)?
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I agree, it was hardly a civics lesson, although surely it was meant to be, no? Or would you like to go back and re-explain to me how Nunes tipping off Trump is 'discovery'? Although the thread did start with Ruby's post about wasteful spending, and the Obama's vacation costs, as I recall.

The point was that you can like and support a president without drinking every drop of the kool-aid. And if more Trump supporters got that, and defended the things that are important to them, rather than every last instance of the indefensible, they might be taken more seriously and find their views, while still met with disagreement, might be accorded more respect.

The man ran largely on efficiency and cutting waste in government- said like a thousand times he'd run it like a business. Now, granted, he does not appear to have run his business well. But a CEO who spent 30M of his shareholder's money with such flagrant disregard would be looking for a job pretty quickly.
 
It was merely a comprehensive list of programs that clearly can stand to be trimmed/cut ... if people are seriously concerned about tax dollar misappropriation.

Again - the law is what determines Trump's family receives security; he is not saying 'do it'.

Also, recall that it was the prior administration that made the change in the law to provide lifetime POTUS/FLOTUS secret service security.
 
Right. But the whole point is that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And Trump supporters, as a whole, would earn a lot more respect and understanding if they differentiated and called him out on the things he shouldn't instead of constantly defending the indefensible.
 
Are Trump supporters not starting to get disillusioned with him? Watching, as I am, from the outside, he doesn't appear to have achieved anything yet.
 
Hopefully most Trump supporters are re-thinking about who they voted for now.

littlethought.gif
 
jaaron said:
Right. But the whole point is that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And Trump supporters, as a whole, would earn a lot more respect and understanding if they differentiated and called him out on the things he shouldn't instead of constantly defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Don't even get me started on the multitude of things that politicians (or any citizen) shouldn't do just because they can ... SERIOUSLY! :naughty:

When someone produces evidence of Trump actually BREAKING THE LAW, I will be happy to join in the calls for his impeachment, arrest, etc. But many presidents before him - by virtue of their actions and supporters/citizens tolerance and/or condoning - have set the precedents for which Trump is leveraging in HIS administration. This is precisely what I meant in the past when I said his predecessor/s were creating a slippery slope/precedent for like behavior & actions to come back and bite you in the azz. Perhaps now, you understand.

Who are you (or I) to determine how another couple should choose their living arrangements, what's best for their marriage, child, education, etc.? Do you/your state require your state reps to share living arrangements in DC with your other state's reps to help cut down on costs? Rideshare transportation & security? Fly coach? I don't like my tax dollars being spent on a LOT of things others find 'meaningful', 'important', etc. But when they are law, you either accept it, or work with your state's reps to change the law.

Again - FIRST FAMILY SECURITY IS A LAW! Just like Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, speed limits, taxes, etc.
 
JoCoJenn said:
Don't even get me started on the multitude of things that politicians (or any citizen) shouldn't do just because they can ... SERIOUSLY! :naughty:

When someone produces evidence of Trump actually BREAKING THE LAW, I will be happy to join in the calls for his impeachment, arrest, etc. But many presidents before him - by virtue of their actions and supporters/citizens tolerance and/or condoning - have set the precedents for which Trump is leveraging in HIS administration. This is precisely what I meant in the past when I said his predecessor/s were creating a slippery slope/precedent for like behavior & actions to come back and bite you in the azz. Perhaps now, you understand.

Who are you (or I) to determine how another couple should choose their living arrangements, what's best for their marriage, child, education, etc.? Do you/your state require your state reps to share living arrangements in DC with your other state's reps to help cut down on costs? Rideshare transportation & security? Fly coach? I don't like my tax dollars being spent on a LOT of things others find 'meaningful', 'important', etc. But when they are law, you either accept it, or work with your state's reps to change the law.

Again - FIRST FAMILY SECURITY IS A LAW! Just like Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, speed limits, taxes, etc.
Click to expand...

Ah, Jenn, if there's one thing I'm confident of in this life it's that my understanding is almost, nearly, possibly, approaching, being as great as yours.

You seem unable to distinguish any area between legal and illegal. And, as I keep saying, if only Trump supporters could find a way to see that, and with their voices, encourage him to see that, they might find their views taken more seriously. If your best defence is 'it's legal', that's pretty sad.

And a little background on the law- presidents received lifetime security until 1997, when it was changed to ten years. Post 9/11, there were concerns about this. The law that Obama signed, granted the same to all presidents in office after 1997, so retroactively covered his predecessors who fell into the gap. It also grants security to children up to age 16. It was passed in the house, and then, by unanimous, bipartisan vote, in the senate. I don't begrudge this to any former president, their wives, or their children. I do begrudge this clan taking unconscionable advantage of it. We are paying for his sons' security as they travel around the world enriching the family further, we are paying for the golf weekends and jaunts to Mar-a-lago and we are paying 30M for half a year for one child.

I don't give the slightest hoot about their living arrangements, what's best for their marriage, child, education, etc., which I've said repeatedly. They can and should make any decisions they want. And you can all caps at me as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this particular expenditure is indefensible given the platform on which he ran. And none of those things you listed above are even remotely congruous with this situation, which is a ludicrous and profligate use of taxpayer's money.
 
Hey. Jaaron.

image.gif
 
jaaron said:
Ah, Jenn, if there's one thing I'm confident of in this life it's that my understanding is almost, nearly, possibly, approaching, being as great as yours.

You seem unable to distinguish any area between legal and illegal. And, as I keep saying, if only Trump supporters could find a way to see that, and with their voices, encourage him to see that, they might find their views taken more seriously. If your best defence is 'it's legal', that's pretty sad.

And a little background on the law- presidents received lifetime security until 1997, when it was changed to ten years. Post 9/11, there were concerns about this. The law that Obama signed, granted the same to all presidents in office after 1997, so retroactively covered his predecessors who fell into the gap. It also grants security to children up to age 16. It was passed in the house, and then, by unanimous, bipartisan vote, in the senate. I don't begrudge this to any former president, their wives, or their children. I do begrudge this clan taking unconscionable advantage of it. We are paying for his sons' security as they travel around the world enriching the family further, we are paying for the golf weekends and jaunts to Mar-a-lago and we are paying 30M for half a year for one child.

I don't give the slightest hoot about their living arrangements, what's best for their marriage, child, education, etc., which I've said repeatedly. They can and should make any decisions they want. And you can all caps at me as much as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this particular expenditure is indefensible given the platform on which he ran. And none of those things you listed above are even remotely congruous with this situation, which is a ludicrous and profligate use of taxpayer's money.
Click to expand...

What exactly am I unable to distinguish in terms of something being legal vs illegal? I actually take the time to research matters of law to determine what the law says, the elements/thresholds/tests to determine legal vs illegal, etc. How else do you think I knew what the law said with regard to POTUS protective service? And thanks for your history lesson on the POTUS protection law, but I already knew all of that, which is why I pointed it out to you.

So Trump is the first president to have as many kids as he does, and you want to penalize him or his family for that? Would you have felt the same if the Obamas or Clintons had 5+ kids? Be glad it's not the "18 kids & counting" crew!

And I know you are not seriously going to pick apart Trump traveling to Maralago or playing golf, considering he is conducting meetings at both with foreign & domestic leaders as has been widely reported - again, no different than any other president, including his predecessor. Ronald Reagan also spent much of his time as President at his CA ranch as well as Camp David; Dubya at his Texas ranch, Obama spent several weeks/year at Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii. All of these required additional, costly security and other services paid for by taxpayers to a degree.

Security for Melania & Barron would be necessary whether they were in NY or D.C., and I would hazard a guess that at least some of any additional security 'expense' of Melania & Barron remaining in NY is a wash considering they aren't requiring additional taxpayer provided services if they were in DC, since they are remaining in their own home. Lastly, it was reported that Melania was working with a decorator to 'revamp' the First Family's quarters at the WH, as is usual for new first families moving into the WH. If I didn't have to 'live' through that kind of renovation hassle, I wouldn't want to either.

So again I ask: what exactly is Trump or his family doing or taking advantage of that is either illegal or in some way not consistent with his predecessors' security and/or use of non-WH dwellings (be them privately-owned, rented, or Camp David)? The only issue I see is ya'll are whizzed Melania is keeping her kid in his current school until the end of the year to minimize impact on him, thus not moving to the WH until then.

How dare she not consult with every citizen before making a decision about her child's best interest. :nono:
 
PS jaaron - remember that he also is not taking a paycheck (is donating it annually to charity and even asked the media to suggest recipients). There is one thing he is doing that I don't recall ANY of his predecessors doing. :clap:

But by all means, keep on keeping on with your attempts to somehow differentiate his actions from prior POTUSes.
IMG_1938.GIF
 
JoCoJenn said:
PS jaaron - remember that he also is not taking a paycheck (is donating it annually to charity and even asked the media to suggest recipients). There is one thing he is doing that I don't recall ANY of his predecessors doing. :clap:

But by all means, keep on keeping on with your attempts to somehow differentiate his actions from prior POTUSes.
IMG_1938.GIF
Click to expand...

He is taking a paycheck! And he's playing golf every weekend like he said he would never do because he'd be too busy "working his ass off." And Mexico is not paying for the wall. I can go on...:lol:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...e-salary-trump-declines-release-proof-n732466
 
Herbert Hoover, John Kennedy and George Washington also took no salary. So no, he isn't he first to do so. Or to SAY he is doing so, since he refuses to show proof. Just like he refuses to show his taxes. He IS the first to refuse to show his taxes, though. I'm sure it's not because he has anything to hide. LOL!
 
I'm sure all those workers he didn't pay think he's a really great guy with lots of integrity. How's his approval rating lately? Didn't we all learn in kindergarten that the "but everyone else does it too" rationale doesn't really fly? Shouldn't we, at some point, want better?
 
soxfan said:
He is taking a paycheck! And he's playing golf every weekend like he said he would never do because he'd be too busy "working his ass off." And Mexico is not paying for the wall. I can go on...:lol:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...e-salary-trump-declines-release-proof-n732466
Click to expand...

IMG_1945.GIF
In your own posted article:
The Constitution, however, requires that the president receive a salary, and that it not be reduced during his term. Federal law mandates the president receive a $400,000 annual salary, paid out once a month.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't 'take it', he is breaking the law. So, he - by law - must 'take it', but then he is donating it. This really isn't a hard situation to grasp.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/trump-donate-paycheck-media/

WASHINGTON (CNN)President Donald Trump intends to fulfill a campaign promise and donate his annual salary, and he wants the press corps' help in identifying a worthy cause, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday.

During a press briefing Monday, a reporter asked if the President had donated his paycheck from the month of February. "The President's intention right now is to donate his salary at the end of the year, and he has kindly asked that you all help determine where that goes," Spicer answered.

"The way that we can avoid scrutiny is let the press corp determine where it goes," Spicer added, to laughter from the seated reporters. "In all seriousness, his view is he made a pledge to the American people," Spicer said. "He wants to donate it to charity and he would love your help to determine where it should go."
The question came after MSNBC reported that the White House had not offered proof that the President had donated any of his earnings in advance of his second payday. Though federal law mandates the President receive a $400,000 annual salary parceled out monthly, Trump said in November that he was "not going to take the salary."

Trump's request through Spicer that reporters help choose where the money goes comes despite the President's well-publicized antipathy towards many of the nation's leading media organizations.
Click to expand...

IMG_1934.GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top