Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[1DOWN4UP]

Who wants to live in a old house in the ghetto? I would take a Florida Super Condo any time.......And if I'm I am not mistaken,he is working for free.

 

[BugI02]

So without going thru the whole thread what's the current score?

Running total kept in Post #5

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who wants to live in a old house in the ghetto? I would take a Florida Super Condo any time.......And if I'm I am not mistaken,he is working for free.

I was unaware there were so many persons of Jewish descent huddled in the area.

 

[BugI02]

You obviously miss the whole point. What previous Presidents did is irrelevant. Trump claimed he would be responsible with our money, and this is not an example of that.

I thought the point (in this case) was to find things about Trump to criticize. Obama claimed that we would look back on his inauguration as the day the level of the seas began to decline. Perhaps you could link to your posts critical of Obama for not delivering on that (and many other) claims

I'd personally have less issue with him flying to other countries than flying to Florida for weekends. Meeting with leaders of other countries is something a President does as part of his job. Going to his resort in Florida really isn't.

I thought we were talking fiscal responsibility here. Cuba, Laos, Vietnam? It was important to go there? Its not like these were Yalta or anything. Would it not be cheaper to entertain the leaders of those countries here? I'm not sure you want to go down the road of comparative expenditures

Although I might grudgingly agree that it is in the President's portfolio to meet with foreign leaders, I see nothing requiring him to travel to each leader he wishes to meet with. It seems nothing more than a quite expensive method to insert themselves into the news cycle. And it seems you feel that a cost-benefit analysis of the President's movements should be done - at least going forward from 20 Jan 17

 

[KLB]

Although I might grudgingly agree that it is in the President's portfolio to meet with foreign leaders, I see nothing requiring him to travel to each leader he wishes to meet with. It seems nothing more than a quite expensive method to insert themselves into the news cycle. And it seems you feel that a cost-benefit analysis of the President's movements should be done - at least going forward from 20 Jan 17

No. I think if you claim you are going to be fiscally responsible, you should be.

I think that if your guy doesn't do what he said, you shouldn't explain it away as the previous guy did something worse. Both sides have gotten so bad about that. That angers me more about our political situation today than anything. Let's start making OUR guy be responsible and stop excusing crap. Maybe then things will start getting a little better.

 

[Que]

You don't feel that labeling people who agree with you as 'objective' is begging the question just a bit

Did I say there must be agreement?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I was unaware there were so many persons of Jewish descent huddled in the area.

Florida is full of Jewish people.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Only At his 43rd day as the POTUS, and he keeps jack,jack,jacking around.

 

[BugI02]

No. I think if you claim you are going to be fiscally responsible, you should be.

I think that if your guy doesn't do what he said, you shouldn't explain it away as the previous guy did something worse. Both sides have gotten so bad about that. That angers me more about our political situation today than anything. Let's start making OUR guy be responsible and stop excusing crap. Maybe then things will start getting a little better.

No, no. The subject here is hypocrisy - behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. If you wish to critcize Trump because of what you define as fiscal responsibility, it is valid to ask if you were consistent in demanding similar fiscal responsibility from previous administrations. If you were not; it makes you seem to be merely finding whatever basis for criticism of Trump, and only Trump, that comes to hand. This hypocrisy makes it likely that your criticism will be minimized or ignored because it is viewed as opportunistic and not heartfelt

 

[BugI02]

When you're right, you're right. Trump preached fiscal responsibility, but his constant jaunts down South are the exact opposite.

In the long run, our little discussion here mean nothing. Still, it's refreshing to see there are some who can be objective. He should spend some time in Washington on the weekends and practice what he preached.

Did I say there must be agreement?

The first post I have quoted, you also quoted in the second quoted post, which is what I responded to. My reading of the two tells me that you were agreeing with Dr Midnight's post and then said it was refreshing that some could be objective. This leads me to conclude you conflate Dr Midnight's opinion with objectivity but i could certainly be wrong. It is difficult to know the mind of another (this applies both ways)

You are correct in the third post, you did not explicitly state I or anyone else needs to agree with your position. So when I mention, as I already have, that any calculation or relative expenses between administrations would necessarily include excessive 'official' travel as well as travel for personal needs and that it is so very early in the Trump administration that you could rationally compare only to the first 6 weeks of any other administration I'm sure I can look forward to your impending approval of my objectivity

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, no. The subject here is hypocrisy - behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. If you wish to critcize Trump because of what you define as fiscal responsibility, it is valid to ask if you were consistent in demanding similar fiscal responsibility from previous administrations. If you were not; it makes you seem to be merely finding whatever basis for criticism of Trump, and only Trump, that comes to hand. This hypocrisy makes it likely that your criticism will be minimized or ignored because it is viewed as opportunistic and not heartfelt

A hypocrisy you have yet to point out. The president is spending millions on travel to Mar A Lago. I have issue with that. Given his prior statements concerning such acts, if there's any hypocrisy going on, it's coming from him. Who doesn't remember his statements concerning Obama's use of AF1, and traveling to other places. If you choose to ignore it based on claims of hypocrisy from those who pointed it out, post up those hypocritical thoughts from those you believe are being such. Until then you have no basis to call anyone a hypocrite.

 

[jamil]

No, no. The subject here is hypocrisy - behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel. If you wish to critcize Trump because of what you define as fiscal responsibility, it is valid to ask if you were consistent in demanding similar fiscal responsibility from previous administrations. If you were not; it makes you seem to be merely finding whatever basis for criticism of Trump, and only Trump, that comes to hand. This hypocrisy makes it likely that your criticism will be minimized or ignored because it is viewed as opportunistic and not heartfelt

No, no. the subject here is whether Trump spending so much money on his weekends is sufficiently fiscally responsible given his campaign rhetoric. Now, in the grand scheme of things, what Trump and Obama spend and spent on recreation doesn't impact the federal budget deficit, and I think it probably doesn't matter a whole lot by itself.

In a sense it indeed involves hypocrisy, but Trump's. You're attempting to use other people's presumed hypocrisy to defend Trump's behavior. If you believe his critics are just looking for any excuse to diss yer guy, that's fine. Accuse them all you want. But you must realize that that is only a side issue and does not actually make it a defense of Trump's behavior. The hypocrisy of his critics is utterly uninvolved in the objective truth about Trump's behavior.

So, the question is, is it fiscally responsible to take expensive recreational trips each weekend and does that comport with Trump's campaign rhetoric, or not? That question has an objective answer. It's either yes or no, or maybe even some degree between, like "yes, but..." or "no, but...". Still the objective answer to that stands by itself without regard to how consistent Kut is, or KLB, or Que, or me, or anyone else in this thread. We are unimportant and irrelevant in the assessment of that question. Trump either is or isn't, or mostly is or isn't, or somewhere in between, behaving commensurately fiscally responsible. If you want to impugn the motives of people here, that's up to you. But it doesn't make Trump's behavior any more or less justifiable.

 

[jamil]

I was unaware there were so many persons of Jewish descent huddled in the area.

Ghetto means what it means today.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ghetto means what it means today.

IS the White House in a ghetto, by whatever standard ghetto is used today? What's the going rate on a residence near the WH?

Kut (doesn't know)

 

[Que]

The first post I have quoted, you also quoted in the second quoted post, which is what I responded to. My reading of the two tells me that you were agreeing with Dr Midnight's post and then said it was refreshing that some could be objective. This leads me to conclude you conflate Dr Midnight's opinion with objectivity but i could certainly be wrong. It is difficult to know the mind of another (this applies both ways)

You are correct in the third post, you did not explicitly state I or anyone else needs to agree with your position. So when I mention, as I already have, that any calculation or relative expenses between administrations would necessarily include excessive 'official' travel as well as travel for personal needs and that it is so very early in the Trump administration that you could rationally compare only to the first 6 weeks of any other administration I'm sure I can look forward to your impending approval of my objectivity

So, if I quoted a specific member, why must you reply in his stead? I was complimenting the member and see
nithing wrong with that. Why are you in need of my approval anyway?

 

[jamil]

Who wants to live in a old house in the ghetto? I would take a Florida Super Condo any time.......And if I'm I am not mistaken,he is working for free.

the POTUS's salary is $400K. How many hours of security will that buy?

 

[BugI02]

[snip]

So, the question is, is it fiscally responsible to take expensive recreational trips each weekend and does that comport with Trump's campaign rhetoric, or not? That question has an objective answer. It's either yes or no, or maybe even some degree between, like "yes, but..." or "no, but...". Still the objective answer to that stands by itself without regard to how consistent Kut is, or KLB, or Que, or me, or anyone else in this thread. We are unimportant and irrelevant in the assessment of that question. Trump either is or isn't, or mostly is or isn't, or somewhere in between, behaving commensurately fiscally responsible. If you want to impugn the motives of people here, that's up to you. But it doesn't make Trump's behavior any more or less justifiable.

Perhaps you missed the part where I state my belief that it is too early to tell. What is the standard for comparison? I would assume that it would be comparison to the expenses generated by previous administrations as a comparison - and recent ones at that to minimize the effects of inflation/post 9/11 concerns on same

One would think you could see that if, at the end of the first year of his first term, Trump's expenditures from the treasury included more trips to Mar-a-Lago but fewer trips abroad that he could end up spending less than a comparable predecessor on an annualized basis. If you don't wait, then how will you know. I have asserted elsewhere that the only valid comparison you can make at this time would be to the first six weeks of a previous administration. I await enlightenment on this crucial period

People are criticizing the appearance of profligate spending without attaching it to any rational basis for comparison. Would it be enough to satisfy the mob to simply just take a day or two less time off than ... who ... are we only comparing to obama? Or does he have to restrict his free time to satisfy you, personally? Should he just take no time off at all? I suspect if you expect Trump to adhere to your personal perceptions of what you want 'your' president to do, you are doomed to disappointment. This just seems another variation on shaming

 

[Kutnupe14]

the POTUS's salary is $400K. How many hours of security will that buy?

its about 7x less than a weekend at Mar A Lago.

 

[jamil]

IS the White House in a ghetto, by whatever standard ghetto is used today? What's the going rate on a residence near the WH?

Kut (doesn't know)

I dunno. I've never been to DC. I hope the WH is in a good neighborhood. We own it. I'd hate to see our property devalued.

 

[BugI02]

This is now information that's three years old, with three-ish more years of Obama travel tacked on but it gives good numbers

http://ijr.com/2014/03/123748-money-well-spent-obama-now/

With 31 trips for a total of 119 days abroad, President Obama has now traveled more than any other president, although Bush 43 and Clinton also set records before him.
Air Force One Costs over $228,000 per hour to fly.
The President sometimes travels with a 900-person, 45-car, 2 Air-Force Ones, 3-cargo plane entourage
The 13-hour visit in South Africa for Mandela's funeral cost an estimated $11 million (including 127 hotel rooms and not including the flight). [That is $846154 per hour]
Annual costs for supporting the White House exceed $1.4 billion.
By way of comparison, travel expenses for the royal family of Great Britain was less than $9 million in 2012 and the cost to maintain them for the year was $55 million. Bonus: The properties owned by the royals generate north of $200 million in rent, so when you include that figure, England actually makes money on the Queen.


Even on the first lady's current “non-political” trip to China, there's news about excessive spending: Michelle is staying at the Westin, in an $8,400 per night suite, a hotel deemed unsuitable for Vice President Biden's trip to Beijing last year — because of its nightly price tag.


So while the President proposes that we cut our mobile phone service in order to afford his Affordable Care Act, he is setting records on our collective dimes. That's not Conservative or Liberal, that's just a fact.

So you honestly cannot see how it could work out that Trump winds up spending less than previous administrations if he stays closer to home