• Announcements

    • LaToyaADMIN

      Tell us about your experience with signing up for Medicare   01/23/18

      We want to know what the process was like for you, any difficulties you experienced, the length of your process, etc. This is strictly research and any information you share with us will not be shared elsewhere. Please email jack@grandparents.com with the subject line: Medicare Process and we'll be in touch with specific questions.
    • LaToyaADMIN

      PLEASE READ: We are moving the community   02/15/18

      Dear Community friends and family,   After great consideration, we are moving the Grandparents.com community to Facebook Groups effective March 15, 2018.   This wasn’t an easy decision, but we want to bring our communities together and believe the best place to do so is through Facebook’s groups feature. We’re so appreciative of you and the diverse conversations and opinions you have provided over the past 9 years. Your stories and amazing advice have helped so many readers, and have reached thousands of GP.com users. We encourage you to retrieve any information you want to retain as the forum will only be accessible by the admin after March 15, 2018. We’ve created a closed Facebook group called Mothers-in-Law Unplugged where we welcome you to continue the conversations around grandparenting, family, and in-law relationships, and any general topics we discuss here. As the group is closed and each user must be approved, your friends and family on Facebook won’t see any of your activity. Request to join the group here: http://bit.ly/milunplugged Thank you to all of our past and current users. You helped build our community, and we look forward to continuing to interact with you in the Facebook groups. If you have any questions about the groups and privacy, let’s chat about here:   Sincerely,   The Grandparents.com Team
RoseRed135

Trump, Comey, etc...

186 posts in this topic

41 minutes ago, skipped said:

 

Endless golf trips HAAA.  I remember thinking that about Obama.  I wondered when he had time to do any work.  Actually, we were glad he spent all his time golfing and fund raising,.

Instead of New York.  There was Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii.  They had something I think on HGTV that showed where the Obamas stayed in Hawaii, where the secret service stayed and how much it cost the taxpayers.  It was quite interesting.

But I do agree with you.   All these travels do cost a lot of money.  If they aren't travelling for government business (and FUNDRAISING doesn't count, politicians should be limited in  how much personal travel the taxpayer will pay for.  But calling Trump out as if he is the only one who ever did this type of stuff is complete BS.

Interesting.

By April 27th, Trump has spent TWENTY FIVE days in private retreat (ETA: golf course and Trump Tower). So, in LESS than 100 days, he's spent 1/4 of his time at his leisure. It's estimated at least 19 days of golf.

In contrast, Obama had FOUR days in private retreat in his first 100 days. He didn't golf until his 4th month.

Perception is one thing, stark numbers are another.

Edited by ImpishMom
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers OK- Obama spent 96,958,982.51 in 8 years in fundraising, golf and travel.  I don't know the days.  

The Point is that's a lot of money,  Nobody.  I expecially have problems with the fundraising.  Fundraising for netiher party Democrat or Republican should be costing  taxpayers money.  Let the DNC or RNC pay for fundraising expenses not the taxpayer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, skipped said:

Numbers OK- Obama spent 96,958,982.51 in 8 years in fundraising, golf and travel.  I don't know the days.  

The Point is that's a lot of money,  Nobody.  I expecially have problems with the fundraising.  Fundraising for netiher party Democrat or Republican should be costing  taxpayers money.  Let the DNC or RNC pay for fundraising expenses not the taxpayer.

And Trump is on track to far exceed that total, by all accounts, in his first year. 

On average, Obama cost $33,000 a day. (8 x 365/97 mill)

On average, thus far, Trump has cost 145k  for NYC *alone* for his wife and child. That's not incl Federal costs. (Some estimate total cost to be around one million a day) That's not factoring in his Mar a Lago trips. Just for his wife and child, staying in NYC, he's cost more than 4x what Obama did, to a SINGLE CITY.

To put that in perspective, that means that, just by having his son and wife in NYC, he's already outspent Obama's entire 8 yr term (if the million a day is accurate). Then add in his golfing, which, sources estimate is about three million a go, x 19, and you've got 57 million. In 100 days. 

The numbers don't add up, if folks are trying to claim that Obama spent more.

 

Edited by ImpishMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious, to me, why some people support change/s and some don't- In the US it's not uncommon for an individual or group to get shafted as a result of change- Big time- And I don't mean merely because the shafted "don't like" a particular change, but more along the lines that their lives are seriously impacted by it- It's a nasty way to conduct business- People or groups with more (of anything) tend to receive more and those with less, even less- And it seems, to me, this happens because those with more get more because they are viewed by society as having done something right and those with less having done something wrong- As a result, it seems, those with more of one thing or another are considered to be better people than those with less- It a behavior, practice or way of thinking that has carried over into every day lives and guides the way in which Americans conduct themselves, influencing their every day decision making -- hellbent on being right, above all things (even if wrong) no matter the cost- Ignoring any and all damage caused by it all while calling the kettle black along the way-

Anyway, the VA is a mess, it's been a mess for ages- It's a gaping hole that money has been poured into with little to show for it- I'm not saying none benefited by it, I'm talking proportion, as in not enough have benefited in proportion to the cost- The cash is handed to the top, the top hands it to the middle man, the middle man, when asked where it went, never seems to have a clear answer- There are many stories available to anyone interested in the history of VA, long past and up to date- Fair to say vets themselves are divided, too-  

Currently change is in the works to connect the VA to the DOD- Some of the risks are of the same type that impact civilians, which is the loss of medical history-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ImpishMom said:

Actually, he *does* draw a salary. He donated his first quarter to the National Parks, for which he will receive a tax write off for doing.

Oh- Ok- Well, is that bad? Or wrong? Not a "good thing"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ImpishMom said:

And Trump is on track to far exceed that total, by all accounts, in his first year. 

On average, Obama cost $33,000 a day. (8 x 365/97 mill)

On average, thus far, Trump has cost 145k  for NYC *alone* for his wife and child. That's not incl Federal costs. (Some estimate total cost to be around one million a day) That's not factoring in his Mar a Lago trips. Just for his wife and child, staying in NYC, he's cost more than 4x what Obama did, to a SINGLE CITY.

To put that in perspective, that means that, just by having his son and wife in NYC, he's already outspent Obama's entire 8 yr term (if the million a day is accurate). Then add in his golfing, which, sources estimate is about three million a go, x 19, and you've got 57 million. In 100 days. 

The numbers don't add up, if folks are trying to claim that Obama spent more.

 

What's bad or good about what presidents cost? That seems to me to be the thrust of this discussion: proof of who is bad and who is good-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Komorebi said:

What's bad or good about what presidents cost? That seems to me to be the thrust of this discussion: proof of who is bad and who is good-

I think it is wrong to stick the taxpayer with golfing, vacations, and especially fundraising security expenses.  And the use of AF 1.  That's what Camp David is for.  You don't like Camp David- pay for your own security,  I especially dislike paying for fundraising,   

I'm objecting to the one sidedness of the whole thing.  I hope Imp, you complained about Obama also.  I'm Ok with arguing who is who is bad and who is worse.  Except we have 4 more years to go yet.  And extrapolating is not always accurate.  And  I'm not sure if Oscars and Imp would admit that Obama cost the taxpayer money too.

Instead of donating his salary to the National Parks maybe Trump should pitch in for the extra security expenses he is costing us by keeping two households.  It's totally his right (and I understand the reasons)  but he should foot the bill.

We need to change this.  This isn't a partisan problem,

Edited by skipped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, skipped said:

I think it is wrong to stick the taxpayer with golfing, vacations, and especially fundraising security expenses.  And the use of AF 1.  That's what Camp David is for.  You don't like Camp David- pay for your own security,  I especially dislike paying for fundraising,   

I'm objecting to the one sidedness of the whole thing.  I hope Imp, you complained about Obama also.  I'm Ok with arguing who is who is bad and who is worse.  Except we have 4 more years to go yet.  And extrapolating is not always accurate.  And  I'm not sure if Oscars and Imp would admit that Obama cost the taxpayer money too.

Instead of donating his salary to the National Parks maybe Trump should pitch in for the extra security expenses he is costing us by keeping two households.  It's totally his right (and I understand the reasons)  but he should foot the bill.

We need to change this.  This isn't a partisan problem,

1. Of *course* all heads of state cost their citizens money. That's just par for the course, if you'll pardon the golf term. 

2. I geuninely didn't pay anywhere NEAR the attention to US politics before Trump as I do now, b/c, frankly, I wasn't afraid for American friends the way I am now, nor for my country, or the entire world the way I am now. The Russian issue alone guarantees my continued interest and concern, b/c frankly, I think the world at large needs to pay close attention, so as to prevent a repeat, in any country.

3. Plus, Twitter. Dear fuzzy rat butts, Twitter. Trump is CONSTANTLY behaving in such a way that screams, LOOKIT ME! LOOKIT ME! Even if I never read ANYTHING but the man's tweets, I'd be alarmed. Dear heavens, his tweets after what's just happened in London, attacking the Mayor...I mean, c'mon...He's been caught lying and contradicting himself on his own Twitter. 

4. I totally agree that they ought to pay for their own security, esp for his wife and child to be living in NYC. It's not fair for citizens to have to cough up for their personal choices.

5. Trump is absolutely impacting international relations. There will be (and has already begun) fall out and reprecussions. Because we're so closely tied to the US, it also impacts Canada, and our country will have to make decisions from a different perspective w/Trump in office. There's a loss of trust, and Trump's waffling on NAFTA didn't exactly improve anything. Canada is also influenced by England, so we'll see how things go in the UK. I *suspect* that things will come to pass that will see Canada strengthening it's bond with other NATO partners and reducing partnership w/the US in the future.

6. His war with the media. Again, this has reprecussions even w/the media in Canada, and world wide. We're watching south of our border, holding our breath, waiting to see what happens. 

Basically, what I'm seeing, and many others agree, is that the US has gone from being an example to a cautionary tale.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skipped said:

I think it is wrong to stick the taxpayer with golfing, vacations, and especially fundraising security expenses.  And the use of AF 1.  That's what Camp David is for.  You don't like Camp David- pay for your own security,  I especially dislike paying for fundraising,   

I'm objecting to the one sidedness of the whole thing.  I hope Imp, you complained about Obama also.  I'm Ok with arguing who is who is bad and who is worse.  Except we have 4 more years to go yet.  And extrapolating is not always accurate.  And  I'm not sure if Oscars and Imp would admit that Obama cost the taxpayer money too.

Instead of donating his salary to the National Parks maybe Trump should pitch in for the extra security expenses he is costing us by keeping two households.  It's totally his right (and I understand the reasons)  but he should foot the bill.

We need to change this.  This isn't a partisan problem,

I don't see where Imp or Oscars have denied that Obama vacations cost the taxpayers money.  In fact, I believe Imp said Obama cost the taxpayers $33,000 per day.  

I also don't particularly care about the cost of presidential vacations as long as it's not some out of the ordinary amount.  President's deserve vacations too.  However, I have to say that they probably aren't really that great a vacation since while he's on vacation the President still has to receive briefings and be in charge of the free world and all that.  It's not like he can ever truly get away for a real vacation like most working folk do.  

I don't get why people harped so much about Obama's vacations considering how much past presidents have vacationed.  I seem to recall George W. Bush liked to visit his ranch an awful lot and Reagan enjoyed visiting his Santa Barbara ranch.  Those trips probably cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.  I also seem to recall seeing an article showing that GW Bush has the record for most vacation days when compared to Obama and Clinton.  Not sure how he compares to his father and Reagan.  I don't recall if GW Bush paid for his vacations.  Do you happen to know?  I seem to recall he had something like at least double the number of days Obama or Clinton vacationed.  I also seem to recall reading that modern presidents vacation a whole lot less than the presidents who were involved in the founding of this country.  I'll take a look and see if I can find that article that mentioned that.  

As for the fundraising, don't all modern presidents have to do that?  I don't have the facts and figures but I would imagine past presidents have also fundraised on the people's dime.  Would be interesting to see a comparison of what past presidents' fundraising activities cost the taxpayer if we're going to talk about who is worse.  Have you seen such a comparison?  It would be great if you could post a link.  I'm very curious.  

Edited to add: As far as Trump's vacations go, I am kinda "meh" about them.  I didn't really complain that much about GW's vacations and Trump's vacations are the least of my worries about him and his administration.  I'd rather he be on vacation than wreaking havoc.  I think he's a giant liar and a hypocrite since he took great delight in criticizing Obama for his vacations and telling people when campaigning how he'd be all business and wouldn't be the lazy vacationing lout that Obama was.  I'm also not thrilled with having to pay for Melania and Barron to stay behind in NYC and think "Barron had to finish the school year" is a nonsense excuse considering that past kids' have just sucked it up and transferred midyear.  

Second edit to include link to listing of vacation days by president.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_vacations 

Edited by britomart
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brit your response is a perfect example of what's wrong with todays politics.  Lets just fix problems not play whose the worst.  You don't even think this whole thing is a problem and you are still making this partisan by playing the blame game.  I don't want to play the blame game (OK except that I want everyone to take some blame and not pin it all on the other side) I just want to FIX the problem. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so much fun! :D

A child is expected to suck it up when adults don't even exhibit the capacity to do just that! Hypocrisy? Just a bit?

If I laughed any harder I'd of injured myself!

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, skipped said:

Brit your response is a perfect example of what's wrong with todays politics.  Lets just fix problems not play whose the worst.  You don't even think this whole thing is a problem and you are still making this partisan by playing the blame game.  I don't want to play the blame game (OK except that I want everyone to take some blame and not pin it all on the other side) I just want to FIX the problem. 

Sigh...you pretty much missed the point of my post.  It wasn't to play the "blame game" but to illustrate that we've been paying for presidential vacations for quite a long time.  Personally, I don't have a problem with it but if you (general) do then why weren't you (general) complaining about Reagan's vacations and GW Bush's vacations also?  Were you (general) this upset over Bush's 800+ days on vacation during his term?  Were you this upset over prior president's fundraising activities?  I hope so.  

If you have a such a problem with it then look at solutions instead of carping about "But Obama blah blah blah!"  So, what solutions have you looked into? If I had a problem with paying for vacation days then I might have looked into an effort to pass legislation limiting the amount of vacation days that the President gets on the taxpayer's dime or simply limiting vacation days per year.  

If you have such a problem with presidential fundraising efforts then have you looked into campaign finance reform?  Have you supported politicians who support campaign finance reform?  What are your thoughts on the Citizens United decision?  Do you support efforts to pass legislation to essentially overturn the case?  Do you support politicians who oppose the Citizens United decision?  

Edited by britomart
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Komorebi said:

This is so much fun! :D

A child is expected to suck it up when adults don't even exhibit the capacity to do just that! Hypocrisy? Just a bit?

If I laughed any harder I'd of injured myself!

:rofl:

Not sure where the hypocrisy is when the point of my statement was that prior children whose fathers have become POTUS have "sucked it up" and switched schools midyear.  

I'm actually a bit confused at your point.  

If you're talking about adults being able to "suck it up" well, yeah, lots of adults can't.  Lots of adults lack the maturity of children - namely the Toddler in Chief who is living in the WH.  Are you trying to make the point that since Barron's father lacks the maturity and self-control of a toddler that it would be difficult to expect Barron to exhibit enough maturity to be able to switch schools midyear?  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Komorebi said:

It appears to me that the president is making an effort to improve the VA-

Pardon me? What gives you this idea?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, skipped said:

 

Endless golf trips HAAA.  I remember thinking that about Obama.  I wondered when he had time to do any work.  Actually, we were glad he spent all his time golfing and fund raising,.

Instead of New York.  There was Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii.  They had something I think on HGTV that showed where the Obamas stayed in Hawaii, where the secret service stayed and how much it cost the taxpayers.  It was quite interesting.

But I do agree with you.   All these travels do cost a lot of money.  If they aren't travelling for government business (and FUNDRAISING doesn't count, politicians should be limited in  how much personal travel the taxpayer will pay for.  But calling Trump out as if he is the only one who ever did this type of stuff is complete BS.

No, here's the REAL BS....

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-often-trump-golfed-during-first-100-days-compared-to-obama-bush-and-clinton-2017-4

First 100 days, golf outings:

Obama - 1

Bush- 0

Clinton- 7

Trump- 19

For a guy who criticized Obama's golf-playing, promising he wouldn't have the time for golf, he found time every 5 days to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PattyGram said:

Pardon me? What gives you this idea?   

It appears, to me, that the facts are out there concerning if he is or isn't making an effort to improve the VA- The fact is that some appear to think he is and others think the opposite -- including veterans- As well as staff including doctors and nurses who have come forth and shared their experiences-

I shared why I think he is in one of my above posts-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, britomart said:

Not sure where the hypocrisy is when the point of my statement was that prior children whose fathers have become POTUS have "sucked it up" and switched schools midyear.  

I'm actually a bit confused at your point.  

If you're talking about adults being able to "suck it up" well, yeah, lots of adults can't.  Lots of adults lack the maturity of children - namely the Toddler in Chief who is living in the WH.  Are you trying to make the point that since Barron's father lacks the maturity and self-control of a toddler that it would be difficult to expect Barron to exhibit enough maturity to be able to switch schools midyear?  

How about making it a law that first family children don't have to suck it up?  Just because others did doesn't make not sucking it up wrong- Because if it's wrong for any of the president's family to live outside of the white house let's talk about Hillary Clinton, when she excused herself from her duties as first lady while running for office of senator and set up a residence in NY- She didn't suck it up as an adult and yet a child is expected to- That's not hypocrisy?

Edited by Komorebi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Komorebi said:

How about making it a law that first family children don't have to suck it up?  Just because others did doesn't make not sucking it up wrong- Because if it's wrong for any of the president's family to live outside of the white house let's talk about Hillary Clinton, when she excused herself from her duties as first lady while running for office of senator and set up a residence in NY- She didn't suck it up as an adult and yet a child is expected to- That's not hypocrisy?

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of her doing that either.  Especially so because at the time I was super-fed up with both Bill and Hillary.  I was living in NYC at the time she did that and had I stayed until the election I wouldn't have voted for her when she ran for the senate.  I wouldn't mind a law that said all of the first family (POTUS, spouse and minor kids) must live in the WH starting Jan 20 and ending at the end of POTUS's term.  Or possibly something requiring expenses for living outside the WH to be paid by the first family. Either way she should have just sucked it up and waited till the next election cycle to run for something or she and Bill should have footed the bill for her relocation.  So, again, not sure what you're saying is hypocritical.    

Edited by britomart
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, britomart said:

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of her doing that either.  Especially so because at the time I was super-fed up with both Bill and Hillary.  I was living in NYC at the time she did that and had I stayed until the election I wouldn't have voted for her when she ran for the senate.  I wouldn't mind a law that said all of the first family (POTUS, spouse and minor kids) must live in the WH starting Jan 20 and ending at the end of POTUS's term.  Or possibly something requiring expenses for living outside the WH to be paid by the first family. Either way she should have just sucked it up and waited till the next election cycle to run for something or she and Bill should have footed the bill for her relocation.  So, again, not sure what you're saying is hypocritical.    

As adults we don't suck it up when it comes to what those in the white house do or don't do -- and by suck it up, I mean accept every decision without issue, or balking- Or making any, or every, effort to change it- Yet a child is expected to- That's my point- I think it's hypocritical- And I think that perhaps the law you suggest above could potentially create an unwelcome backlash for parents overall because it would interfere with parents rights and what they believe they are doing in the best interest of their children- Maybe?

Edited by Komorebi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Komorebi said:

As adults we don't suck it up when it comes to what those in the white house do or don't do -- and by suck it up, I mean accept every decision without issue, or balking- Or making any, or every, effort to change it- Yet a child is expected to- That's my point- I think it's hypocritical- And I think that perhaps the law you suggest above could potentially create an unwelcome backlash for parents overall because it would interfere with what parents rights and what they believe they are doing in the best interest of their children- Maybe?

Okay I'm having trouble following you because you're all over the place with your argument.  You first make the point that it's hypocritical to say Barron should suck it up and live in the WH despite the fact that all other Presidents' kids in modern history have done so as minors because Hillary moved during Bill's term.  Okay. I think Hillary should have sucked it up and stayed until the end of the term.  You don't address that and are now trying to compare a situation where parents make the choice for their family to try to become the First Family and the consequences that come with it (relocating to DC) with accepting without question the actions taken by the politicians we elect.  You're comparing apples and cars.  

The people who decide they want to become POTUS are making a decision for their immediate family and there are consequences that come with that decision.  There are things that citizens have generally expected of the First Family and if those consequences are too much for someone in their immediate family then maybe they shouldn't be running to be the POTUS.  That is something they need to consider when they decide to run.  They don't have to be POTUS but if they do make the choice to run and they win then their immediate family should "suck it up" and deal with the consequences that typically come with that decision, one of them being having to relocate to DC.  Becoming POTUS is something the person who won wanted and they should have darn well okay'd that decision and it's consequences with their family before going through with it.  

When people vote in an election it doesn't negate their ability to take action to oppose the decisions of the administration that is in power.  First of all, there are an awful lot of people who didn't vote for the person who won so it not like it's even their "fault" (can't think of a better word here) that the administration is doing things with which they disagree.  And it's kind of expected that if you are unhappy with what a politician is doing you can oppose it by calling his office to complain, staging a demonstration, seeking recourse in the courts, etc.  The fact that we have a system of checks and balances in our three branches of government shows that our founders intended for us to have the ability to oppose the actions of politicians if we did not agree with them.  This is not at all similar to the situation where a person decides to run for POTUS and subject his/her family to the consequences that typically come with that decision so I'm not understanding why you're trying to compare the two.

If you want to debate a different point that you raised - whether the law that I propose would interfere with parents' rights - we can do that.  I imagine if there were such a law there would also be a provision for exceptions to the law.  I'm not entirely convinced that it would interfere with parental rights.  Honestly, I haven't really thought about it but my first thoughts are - As I said above, no one has to be POTUS.  You (general) can make a perfectly good living without ever being POTUS.  It's a decision that a person makes voluntarily and it is also one that generally has consequences not only for POTUS but also for his immediate family.  If someone doesn't want to "suffer" those consequences then maybe they shouldn't run for the position.  I can't think of another job where the employer would be required to pay for someone to work in the city of the employer and also pay for his family to live in another city.  (My brain is tired since it's the end of the day so I'll continue to think and if I come up with something I'll update this.)  I imagine if you (applied) for a job that required you to move and you told your employer that you were fine with doing so but your wife and child were going to stay behind and you expected the employer to pay for it you would get laughed out of the room.   So, I'm not seeing how a job that one volunteers for and that would require one's immediate family to relocate would interfere with parental rights.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so over Trump. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, britomart said:

Okay I'm having trouble following you because you're all over the place with your argument.  You first make the point that it's hypocritical to say Barron should suck it up and live in the WH despite the fact that all other Presidents' kids in modern history have done so as minors because Hillary moved during Bill's term.  Okay. I think Hillary should have sucked it up and stayed until the end of the term.  You don't address that and are now trying to compare a situation where parents make the choice for their family to try to become the First Family and the consequences that come with it (relocating to DC) with accepting without question the actions taken by the politicians we elect.  You're comparing apples and cars.  

The people who decide they want to become POTUS are making a decision for their immediate family and there are consequences that come with that decision.  There are things that citizens have generally expected of the First Family and if those consequences are too much for someone in their immediate family then maybe they shouldn't be running to be the POTUS.  That is something they need to consider when they decide to run.  They don't have to be POTUS but if they do make the choice to run and they win then their immediate family should "suck it up" and deal with the consequences that typically come with that decision, one of them being having to relocate to DC.  Becoming POTUS is something the person who won wanted and they should have darn well okay'd that decision and it's consequences with their family before going through with it.  

When people vote in an election it doesn't negate their ability to take action to oppose the decisions of the administration that is in power.  First of all, there are an awful lot of people who didn't vote for the person who won so it not like it's even their "fault" (can't think of a better word here) that the administration is doing things with which they disagree.  And it's kind of expected that if you are unhappy with what a politician is doing you can oppose it by calling his office to complain, staging a demonstration, seeking recourse in the courts, etc.  The fact that we have a system of checks and balances in our three branches of government shows that our founders intended for us to have the ability to oppose the actions of politicians if we did not agree with them.  This is not at all similar to the situation where a person decides to run for POTUS and subject his/her family to the consequences that typically come with that decision so I'm not understanding why you're trying to compare the two.

If you want to debate a different point that you raised - whether the law that I propose would interfere with parents' rights - we can do that.  I imagine if there were such a law there would also be a provision for exceptions to the law.  I'm not entirely convinced that it would interfere with parental rights.  Honestly, I haven't really thought about it but my first thoughts are - As I said above, no one has to be POTUS.  You (general) can make a perfectly good living without ever being POTUS.  It's a decision that a person makes voluntarily and it is also one that generally has consequences not only for POTUS but also for his immediate family.  If someone doesn't want to "suffer" those consequences then maybe they shouldn't run for the position.  I can't think of another job where the employer would be required to pay for someone to work in the city of the employer and also pay for his family to live in another city.  (My brain is tired since it's the end of the day so I'll continue to think and if I come up with something I'll update this.)  I imagine if you (applied) for a job that required you to move and you told your employer that you were fine with doing so but your wife and child were going to stay behind and you expected the employer to pay for it you would get laughed out of the room.   So, I'm not seeing how a job that one volunteers for and that would require one's immediate family to relocate would interfere with parental rights.  

My responses have been brief, too brief to have made it all over the map, to spin or to twist, or mince or mislead- I'm being clear- I doubt most who are against the first family remaining in NYC would welcome being told where their children have to go to school and when- That's being hypocritical- We all have a right to be hypocritical should we choose to be- And the right to deny and deflect that we are, when we are- But it doesn't change the fact that we are being hypocritical-

Bottom line, we are talking protection, how much it costs -- and evidently who isn't worthy of or worth the cost- That's what it boils down to-

As far as sacrifices are concerned, citizens have to make those to- Expecting the first family to make them, but not us, is .. hypocritical-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Komorebi said:

My responses have been brief, too brief to have made it all over the map, to spin or to twist, or mince or mislead- I'm being clear- I doubt most who are against the first family remaining in NYC would welcome being told where their children have to go to school and when- That's being hypocritical- We all have a right to be hypocritical should we choose to be- And the right to deny and deflect that we are, when we are- But it doesn't change the fact that we are being hypocritical-

Bottom line, we are talking protection, how much it costs -- and evidently who isn't worthy of or worth the cost- That's what it boils down to-

As far as sacrifices are concerned, citizens have to make those to- Expecting the first family to make them, but not us, is .. hypocritical-

Again, all over the map and not sure what point you're trying to make.  You're again comparing apples and cars.  What is typically expected of the First Family is a totally different issue than people being told where and when their children have to go to school.  And for the record people are required, at least in my state, to provide an education for their children (whether it be public, private or homeschool) starting when the child is 6.  Yes, we are talking about the cost of protecting the first family but I'm not sure where anyone said anything about whether a particular person (or persons) was worthy or not.  The sacrifices issue is an entirely different debate and whoever said people (in general) don't have to sometimes make sacrifices?  I'm honestly not sure what your point is.  

Edited by britomart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, britomart said:

Again, all over the map and not sure what point you're trying to make.  You're again comparing apples and cars.  What is typically expected of the First Family is a totally different issue than people being told where and when their children have to go to school.  And for the record people are required, at least in my state, to provide an education for their children (whether it be public, private or homeschool) starting when the child is 6.  Yes, we are talking about the cost of protecting the first family but I wasn't sure where anyone said anything about whether a particular person (or persons) was worthy or not.  The sacrifices issue is an entirely different debate and whoever said people (in general) don't have to sometimes make sacrifices.  I'm honestly not sure what your point is.  

I didn't mention either -- not apples, not cars- I think my point is clear- Perhaps we can agree to disagree regarding that- I don't think people's expectations of the first family match, meaning they just might not be as typical as you think- Have you considered how often peoples expectations of the first family change? How each first family appears to be considerably different? At the moment, we've the wealthiest president in US history- ( I think? )  Which isn't typical- 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, britomart said:

Again, all over the map and not sure what point you're trying to make.  You're again comparing apples and cars.  What is typically expected of the First Family is a totally different issue than people being told where and when their children have to go to school.  And for the record people are required, at least in my state, to provide an education for their children (whether it be public, private or homeschool) starting when the child is 6.  Yes, we are talking about the cost of protecting the first family but I wasn't sure where anyone said anything about whether a particular person (or persons) was worthy or not.  The sacrifices issue is an entirely different debate and whoever said people (in general) don't have to sometimes make sacrifices.  I'm honestly not sure what your point is.  

Im using a wonky kindle which wont allow me to edit so .. I'll continue ..

I think when  cost comparisons are laid on the table, and one accepts what it costs to protect one first family and not the other, it appears to me that accepting to pay x amount for potecting one but not x amount for another does indeed suggest that protecting that family isnt worth it-

As far as the education subject is concerned, Im sticking with what I said previously-

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now