awpitt
Main Streeter
Yeah, the big difference is that Obama was traveling on diplomatic missions. On the other hand, Trump has been vacationing at HIS resort.
Trump on track to surpass all of Obama's travel costs in 2 years or less
- Thread starter awpitt
- Start date
Yeah, the big difference is that Obama was traveling on diplomatic missions. On the other hand, Trump has been vacationing at HIS resort.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Yes, and the costs for that "template" came from the GAO.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
YES - and the author of that report, Brian Lepore, says the costs don't align and it shouldn't be used.
Which is in my link.
Anyway, I give up. I'm convinced this is yet another red herring story designed to have us all chase our tails and to make Trump look bad, because there's no chance the same news organizations have the slightest interest in showing that he might actually be doing a better job.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok, but that's the beauty of the forums; we don't have to accept ANY report and can discuss among ourselves what WE think. So far, he seems to be doing reasonably well and is showing signs of being willing to ditch the GOP and make deals with D's if it comes to that in the mid terms. One story in need of writing is that so much of the media is sooooo far out on a limb they can NOT afford for him to be seen as doing ANYTHING right unless they can claim their pressure made him do something good. That's a terrible place to be but it does reflect where so many Trump haters are; WAY out on thin ice of their own choosing and their own making.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Damn and here I thought the President of China and Trump were working diplomatically when he visited at Mar a Lago.
Then China tells N'Korea to cool it.
Just shows how wrong I could be
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think it is about the broken promise. The cost comparisons are clearly inaccurate (nicest way of saying it), and Trump's costs are clearly exaggerated, but the fact is he promised to stay in DC and work because there was so much to do, and he's taking a trip every weekend (give or take).
This_person
Well-Known Member
Show me your link to the GAO. You linked an article, which linked another article, which got cost estimates for something less than you're suggesting.
Show me the GAO cost estimates for all Obama's trips compared with the GAO estimates for all Trump's trips, and then we'll be talking. What you provided is grossly misleading.
This_person
Well-Known Member
And performing diplomatic missions (meeting world leaders).
But, that's away from the point - you said 20 looks like a home-body compared to 27 over the same time period. I disagree. Especially when the home-body is circling the world, and Trump is meeting world leaders in an informal location. Seems rather comparable in terms of "home-body"-ness
That's exactly what it was, delude yourself all you want, but no one wanted Hill in the WH and selecting SC judges.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Do you even begin to comprehend just how non-sensical that argument is? That the MOST important function of one branch is who gets on the other? That they be in concert? ANY understanding of checks and balances, and belief in it, says, clearly, that if you prefer X in this spot, you're better served with Y in this one and Z in the other. Otherwise, the ENTIRE point of our system of checks and balances is pointless.
Now, you're free to believe in that stupid #### all you like and I know you have counterparts on the left who are just as narrow minded and want a totalitarian system too, only their way. Which, of course, is the FUNCTION of checks and balances in the first place; to obviate totalitarianism.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
So Larry: You believe that the Supreme Court and who would get appointed had nothing to do with the election?
My argument is nonsensical? yours is just an avoidance of the truth. The SC is as close to a governmental trump card as you can get. With several SC justices are getting close to a rendezvous with the grim reaper, the next pick or two could set the tone of the court for a generation. This last pick has put the court on the cusp and the next could put it over the edge. Yes there are checks and balances, but with a two party political it's going to go one of the two ways. Personally I prefer to see it go towards a more hands off, originalistic bent, but the left seems to like a more hands on paternalistic approach.
Yes I'm going to keep believing that stupid #### and no I don't want a totalitarian government, but if the left takes over the court that's the way it will go. Once they've taken a right away it's not coming back, ever.
This_person
Well-Known Member
But, that's not how it works. It's not like the Supreme Court will be left if the president is right, or vice versa. So, those who believe in originalist interpretations of the constitution will want right, and those who believe in the "living document" theory will want the Supreme Court to be left - and therefore the person appointing to be of that persuasion as well.
You're suggesting the Congress be one way, the Executive another, and the Court another still. I would suggest the original intention of having the federal government represented by the Executive, the people represented by the House of Representatives, and the states' interests represented by the Senate gives you exactly what you seek - real checks and balances regardless of ideological leanings. Put the Supreme Court as the final check of "do you have that right/authority", and we're good.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
For me to be avoiding the truth, it would require you to show how GOP appointed justices have performed vs. D appointed ones and that there is some sort of pattern that supports that it is 'better' rather than merely partisan.
I'll check back later and see how that's coming.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's a stupid question. You're suggesting that WHO makes the choices is either good or bad and that SHOULD be a simple contention that R appointed justices have equaled given outcomes YOU think best and D appointed justices have given us outcomes YOU think bad.
For one thing, there is NO such consistency. NONE. I know you're not real big on reading but you could research a few justices like, say, Stephens, and see my point. Or, you could save the effort and think about, say Roberts and the ACA ruling and see the point.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
That isn't what I asked Larry. I simply asked if you believe the appointment to the Supreme Court had anything to do with how Americans voted.
Don't fill it with BS Do you believe that many Americans looked at who was running , and the vacancy on the supreme Court and voted for Trump?
Yes or No will do fine.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I KNOW it had something to do with it but it's a pointless point. Didn't just as many vote Hillary for the same perceived reason? And what of the plurality of American's who voted for NEITHER? It is pointless to say it was a major reason Trump won. And, further, the stuff you tend to consider BS, history, shows it's pointless. All it is is another hot button issue to motivate people who are acting emotionally and absent any actual reasoning. As I illustrated.
For me to be avoiding the truth, it would require you to show how GOP appointed justices have performed vs. D appointed ones and that there is some sort of pattern that supports that it is 'better' rather than merely partisan.
I'll check back later and see how that's coming.
Yeah Larry, let me just prove that negative. It is my personal opinion, and the majority of the conservatives, that a Trump pick is going to be considerably more conservative than a Hillary pick. Deny it all you want, you're not convincing anyone otherwise.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
http://www.youngcons.com/gorsuch-br...ust-did-during-1st-day-supreme-court-justice/
Sorry but I disagree, A lot of people including myself reasoned that a Hillary win would give us a Supreme Court that would be untenable for the next 25 years.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You disagree that Hillary didn't have voters with the same narrow minded, unfounded concern?