. . . . . . Since he and his family are not, and will not be happy living in the little ole White House! "He" may work/stay there for periods of time, but likely he won't want to "live" there!

In the News today:


Protecting President-elect Donald Trump and his family is presenting the Secret Service some unique challenges.

"The Secret Service is looking at at least one floor inside Trump Tower to basically set up a command post.

However, the Secret Service reportedly might take over two floors of Trump Tower for security purposes.

In addition, it has been said the Donald has indicated that he and his family intend/will spend time in their Mar-A-Lago estate in Palm Beach, also adding to the Secret Service dilemma.

And then, the Donald also has several more estates.

Anyone see any conflict of interest having the Secret Service using taxpayers dollars to pay rent leasing two floors in the Trump Tower, property that the the Donald owns?

It will be cheaper than Mrs. Obama and her entourage going to China. And whats wrong with a person going to work in a different state than where they live? I bet if you look into it a bit more you will find that the secret service utilizing an existing building will be cheaper than renting or leasing another.
I'm tellin ya that Trump will do the job, cut the waste and get rid of wasteful government expenditures. You are grasping at straws that the media tells you to grasp. Both sides Republicans and Democrats are realizing that he will gut all their pork and that their free ride may be over or at least revealed to the public for their records.
He hasn't even sat down in the oval office and pundits are commenting on what he will do. Business and private industry is behind him no matter what is said about what he "might" do.
Why not listen to the polls and have a gleaning of what "might" happen or just let the transfer of power become legitimate. Geez.........I even gave Obama at least till March to see what crap he was really into after the election. At least I waited to see before passing judgement.
America needs a businessman not a feather in the winds of change. Drifting.

Your pom-poms are getting a major workout here, Mags.

I'm not trusting that Trump is going to do what you want him to do because you say he said so and so he will......anymore than I'm trusting he won't really do some things he said he would do because you say he won't.

I'll judge him on his own words and actions, which are reported in media (same as everything available publicly), not your opinions and not according to pundit narrative. Facts still count to many of us and judgments and opinions based upon them is still good subject matter for discussion, in my view.

If Michelle Obama had refused to move into the White House and had a similar arrangement for her and her daughters (costing taxpayers additional $$$ millions in Secret Services and local police), I find it extremely difficult to believe that you would have been chastising people for questioning/criticizing it -- especially if it also meant small businesses in the area were losing revenue due to the disruption, and traffic jams and street closures were regular inconveniences to the citizens living in the area (as is the happs around Trump Tower in Manhattan -- that's a fact).

The way Obama rides a bicycle and carries an umbrella, plus his family vacations (on par or less than other presidents), were enough to get you bitching, FFS.

At any rate, because I'm up for discussing the circumstances and facts leading to his presidency doesn't imply that I'm not giving Trump a chance, obviously.

(11-26-2016, 06:34 PM)Maggot Wrote: It will be cheaper than Mrs. Obama and her entourage going to China. And whats wrong with a person going to work in a different state than where they live? I bet if you look into it a bit more you will find that the secret service utilizing an existing building will be cheaper than renting or leasing another.
I'm tellin ya that Trump will do the job, cut the waste and get rid of wasteful government expenditures. You are grasping at straws that the media tells you to grasp. Both sides Republicans and Democrats are realizing that he will gut all their pork and that their free ride may be over or at least revealed to the public for their records.
He hasn't even sat down in the oval office and pundits are commenting on what he will do. Business and private industry is behind him no matter what is said about what he "might" do.
Why not listen to the polls and have a gleaning of what "might" happen or just let the transfer of power become legitimate. Geez.........I even gave Obama at least till March to see what crap he was really into after the election. At least I waited to see before passing judgement.
America needs a businessman not a feather in the winds of change. Drifting.

Hey Maggs, I'm not passing judgement on Trump, I too believe he will clean up Washington pork bellies. Most those DC fat bellies in their cushy jobs are scared shitless of him!

I'm just mentioning the "Security nightmare" that the Donald's revolving living conditions are producing. Actually, it was said that the yearly lease for the two tower floors would only cost $3 million dollars per year, not out of line by any means. Trump has already stated he will not accept a salary for being POTUS. He may address the COI by not charging the Secret Service for the lease, it's all in the planning stages right now, we will have to wait and see how it all plays out in the end. Time will tell.

If the Donald only keeps half of his campaign promises DC will be 100% better straitened out then it is now!

(11-26-2016, 04:25 PM)Carsman Wrote: Anyone see any conflict of interest having the Secret Service using taxpayers dollars to pay rent leasing two floors in the Trump Tower, property that the the Donald owns?

Yes, Cars, I do think it's a conflict of interest for Trump to lease vacant building space to the Secret Service IF he makes a profit off of it. If he simply covers his costs and that plan ensures the best level of security for Mrs. Trump and Little Trump, I don't have a problem with it, however.

Personally, I think if you're gonna run for President and you really want the job, your spouse and minor children should be on board to live at the securest place for everyone and join you in the White House.

But, since that's apparently not a requirement or law and the Trumps aren't willing to follow tradition, we the people are gonna have to pay extra in security to suit their preferences while keeping them safe.

(11-26-2016, 08:28 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 04:25 PM)Carsman Wrote: Anyone see any conflict of interest having the Secret Service using taxpayers dollars to pay rent leasing two floors in the Trump Tower, property that the the Donald owns?

Yes, Cars, I do think it's a potential conflict of interest for Trump to lease building space to the Secret Service IF he makes a profit off of it. If he simply covers his costs and that plan ensures the best level of security Mrs. Trump and Little Trump, I don't have a problem with it, however.

Personally, I think if you're gonna run for President and you really want the job, your spouse and minor children should be on board to live at the securest place for everyone and join you in the White House.

But, since that's apparently not a requirement or law and the Trumps aren't willing to follow tradition, we the people are gonna have to pay extra in security to suit their preferences while keeping them safe.

I'm sure you have seen the vote "Re-count" initiation that has been started, things are/can be subject to change, stay tuned America.

I don't see a problem with it

bravo my good man.

(11-26-2016, 08:28 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 04:25 PM)Carsman Wrote: Anyone see any conflict of interest having the Secret Service using taxpayers dollars to pay rent leasing two floors in the Trump Tower, property that the the Donald owns?

Yes, Cars, I do think it's a conflict of interest for Trump to lease vacant building space to the Secret Service IF he makes a profit off of it. If he simply covers his costs and that plan ensures the best level of security for Mrs. Trump and Little Trump, I don't have a problem with it, however.

Personally, I think if you're gonna run for President and you really want the job, your spouse and minor children should be on board to live at the securest place for everyone and join you in the White House.

But, since that's apparently not a requirement or law and the Trumps aren't willing to follow tradition, we the people are gonna have to pay extra in security to suit their preferences while keeping them safe.

Actually your assumption of the securest place may not be all that accurate. No where is the securest place, even with highest security.

IMO the House is right out in the open, and if it had not been for those brave souls on United Airlines Flight 93 who fought/chose to crash the plane in a field in PA on 911, the White House quite likely would not be there in DC now.

It's not an assumption that the White House is more secure than Trump Tower on 5^th Avenue in Manhattan, Cars. It's a fact.

That's why it will cost millions in additional tax payer dollars to up the security in and around Trump Tower in order for Melania and Barron Trump to remain living there full-time after President Trump takes residence in the White House.

I'm not claiming that any place is impenetrable, but the White House is set up with state of the art security in and around the facility, rooftop snipers, hundreds of Security Service agents/guards, bullet proof windows, alarms and infrared sensors to immediately summons guards in the case of outside perimeter gate crashers, monitored entry/exit, etc...

Despite several attempts, nobody has launched a successful attack on the White House since the Brits took to burning down the House during the war of 1812, and no one has ever been assassinated in the White House. The same cannot be said for skyscrapers/towers in New York City obviously, and assassinations have indeed been carried out in public spaces in NYC and elsewhere.

(11-27-2016, 09:58 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It's not an assumption that the White House is more secure than Trump Tower on 5^th Avenue in Manhattan, Cars. It's a fact.

That's why it will cost millions in additional tax payer dollars to up the security in and around Trump Tower in order for Melania and Barron Trump to remain living there full-time after President Trump takes residence in the White House.

I'm not claiming that any place is impenetrable, but the White House is set up with state of the art security in and around the facility, rooftop snipers, hundreds of Security Service agents/guards, bullet proof windows, alarms and infrared sensors to immediately summons guards in the case of outside perimeter gate crashers, monitored entry/exit, etc...
Despite several attempts, nobody has launched a successful attack on the White House since the Brits took to burning down the House during the war of 1812, and no one has ever been assassinated in the White House. The same cannot be said for skyscrapers/towers in New York City obviously, and assassinations have indeed been carried out in public spaces in NYC and elsewhere.

All that high security stuff kinda goes out the window if Flt 93 would have reached it's target, don't you think?
(Yeah, yeah same with skyscrapers.)

He's an inconsiderate twat, no surprise there. Several media outlets reported in the days following the election that it was costing NYC over a million bucks a day because he choose to take all his meetings at home rather than the WH where it is traditionally done.

(11-27-2016, 11:15 AM)Carsman Wrote: All that high security stuff kinda goes out the window if Flt 93 would have reached it's target, don't you think?
(Yeah, yeah same with skyscrapers.)

I think you're missing the point here, Cars.

As I said, I'm not claiming any place is impenetrable. And, any time you have leaders and high-profile people (especially controversial ones) in a location, that location likely becomes more of a target by nature of the people occupying it. That's why the White House is an effin' fortress.

If Melania and Barron Trump were to move into the White House, the facility security would suffice. It's set up to provide the best available protection to whomever occupies it. I'm not sure why you're arguing that Trump Tower in New York City is as secure as the White House based on the events of 911. Think about it -- that defies logic, don't you think?

The White House is a lot more secure by design and process than a business/residential tower in the heart of one of the busiest locations in the world. That includes secure from attack by plane (which you bet your ass is something constantly on the radar by government officials now, with an alarm and evacuation plan in place for planes approaching the White House outside normal air traffic parameters). It's not impossible that either location could be attacked, as I've already noted. But, there are a lot more built-in barriers between potential attackers at the White House than most anywhere else (and fewer innocent people would likely be injured at the White House than the heart of NYC if a plane or explosive was used by attackers).

(11-27-2016, 11:59 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 11:15 AM)Carsman Wrote: All that high security stuff kinda goes out the window if Flt 93 would have reached it's target, don't you think?
(Yeah, yeah same with skyscrapers.)

I think you're missing the point here, Cars.

As I said, I'm not claiming any place is impenetrable. And, any time you have leaders and high-profile people (especially controversial ones) in a location, that location likely becomes more of a target by nature of the people occupying it. That's why the White House is an effin' fortress.

If Melania and Barron Trump were to move into the White House, the facility security would suffice. It's set up to provide the best available protection to whomever occupies it. I'm not sure why you're arguing that Trump Tower in New York City is as secure as the White House based on the events of 911. Think about it -- that defies logic, don't you think?

The White House is a lot more secure by design and process than a business/residential tower in the heart of one of the busiest locations in the world. That includes secure from attack by plane (which you bet your ass is something constantly on the radar by government officials now, with an alarm and evacuation plan in place for planes approaching the White House outside normal air traffic parameters). It's not impossible that either location could be attacked, as I've already noted. But, there are a lot more built-in barriers between potential attackers at the White House than most anywhere else (and fewer innocent people would likely be injured at the White House than the heart of NYC if a plane or explosive was used by attackers).

No point missed, I remember, you don't charge by the word!

Sorry Cars, I thought you were actually interested in discussing the OP question you posed and related factors.

My bad - no charge.

Carry on.

(11-27-2016, 12:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Sorry Cars, I thought you were actually interested in discussing the OP question you posed and related factors.

My bad - no charge.

Carry on.

I did, seems only your point of view counts, so you always have to have the last word, you got it.

(11-27-2016, 12:59 PM)Carsman Wrote: I did, seems only your point of view counts, so you always have to have the last word, you got it.

Why would you say that? She responded to your post, she wasn't rude, she didn't cuss you, she did nothing more than respond. You frequently take this attitude, so what's the problem exactly?

(11-27-2016, 12:59 PM)Carsman Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 12:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Sorry Cars, I thought you were actually interested in discussing the OP question you posed and related factors.

My bad - no charge.

Carry on.

I did, seems only your point of view counts, so you always have to have the last word, you got it.

I gave you my view and backed up my responses to your replies. Responding with a more comprehensive comment (in agreement or contrast) is continuing the discussion, not discounting or ignoring your view.

But, reply to this response with another post-style critique instead of addressing the topic you brought forth if the last word is so important to you. I won't bother replying, promise.

(11-27-2016, 01:06 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 12:59 PM)Carsman Wrote: I did, seems only your point of view counts, so you always have to have the last word, you got it.

Why would you say that? She responded to your post, she wasn't rude, she didn't cuss you, she did nothing more than respond. You frequently take this attitude, so what's the problem exactly?

He's a grumpy old fuck, what do you think his problem is?

Oh, and HotD does like to have the last word, JS.

(11-27-2016, 07:55 PM)sally Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 01:06 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(11-27-2016, 12:59 PM)Carsman Wrote: I did, seems only your point of view counts, so you always have to have the last word, you got it.

Why would you say that? She responded to your post, she wasn't rude, she didn't cuss you, she did nothing more than respond. You frequently take this attitude, so what's the problem exactly?

He's a grumpy old fuck, what do you think his problem is?

Oh, and HotD does like to have the last word, JS.

I'd love to see HotD paddle his grumpy old ass.