Trump donates 1 million of his own money to Houston!

[Belize]

According to the report, they will run out at the end of this month. We knew we were using napkin math so, being off 18 days doesn't really bother me much. Also, if we accept the narrative that Trump is just burning through the money, they should have ran out of money long, long ago.

You mean how they had to ask for more money earlier in the year, and are already burning through that extra cash?

Hm.

[Edge-]

Has he donated it yet

Still no confirmation. I think they're still crowdsourcing actual charities from the White House press corps right now.

[Orbitus]

You are partway there. The point isn't just that they are covering more people. They are covering the same proportion of additional people as the budget shortfall they are experiencing. It directly lines up. If Trump is costing more to cover, the ONLY way that is true, mathematically, is if somehow the others being covered are costing less. Otherwise, they would have ran out of budget before the end of September, exactly at the 75% mark, which matches the 25% more people figure.

Do you not realize that Trump has traveled more, to unsecure locations, than any other president has in less than a year, compared to any other president? Usually when presidents want to take some time off, they go to Martha's Vineyard or Camp David, something that is always patrolled and heavily guarded. Not to Mar-A-Lago, or his golfclub in Virginia or New Jersey. Not to mention, usually the first lady ALWAYS stays with the president at the Whitehouse, not at home for the first 4 or so months of the term. Don't forget, that Trump was charging them RIDICULOUS rent. So that probably came out of their budget. Which in turn caused their budget shortfalls.

[Edge-]

Do you not realize that Trump has traveled more, to unsecure locations, than any other president has in less than a year, compared to any other president? Usually when presidents want to take some time off, they go to Martha's Vineyard or Camp David, something that is always patrolled and heavily guarded. Not to Mar-A-Lago, or his golfclub in Virginia or New Jersey. Not to mention, usually the first lady ALWAYS stays with the president at the Whitehouse, not at home for the first 4 or so months of the term. Don't forget, that Trump was charging them RIDICULOUS rent. So that probably came out of their budget. Which in turn caused their budget shortfalls.

Not to mention that the presidents immediate family, who are under SS protection, usually aren't constantly traveling all around the world. I don't believe we've ever had a First Family this large and mobile, and consequently expensive, before.

[Orange Joe]

You are partway there. The point isn't just that they are covering more people. They are covering the same proportion of additional people as the budget shortfall they are experiencing. It directly lines up. If Trump is costing more to cover, the ONLY way that is true, mathematically, is if somehow the others being covered are costing less. Otherwise, they would have ran out of budget before the end of September, exactly at the 75% mark, which matches the 25% more people figure.

You do know the USSS does more than just protect the president right? Not all of their budget is for the president. In fact the US SS handles most of the counterfeiting case Among other things.

So the 25% more people = 25% more budget isn't right.

[Tijuana]

You do know the USSS does more than just protect the president right? Not all of their budget is for the president. In fact the US SS handles most of the counterfeiting case Among other things.

So the 25% more people = 25% more budget isn't right.

Fair point. However, the mantra that Trump was spending in mere months what others spend in years doesn't seem to be true, even with your point taken in to consideration. The increase factually cannot be that severe, if we made it to October with the old budget. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

You mean how they had to ask for more money earlier in the year, and are already burning through that extra cash?

Hm.

Source....

[Orbitus]

Fair point. However, the mantra that Trump was spending in mere months what others spend in years doesn't seem to be true, even with your point taken in to consideration. The increase factually cannot be that severe, if we made it to October with the old budget. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -



Source....

This was from March:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.ab8175570cdc
https://www.usnews.com/news/national...t-trump-family
http://www.businessinsider.com/secre...t-trump-2017-3
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...t-trump-family

They asked for $60 million more to protect the Trumps because at the time, the Secret Service was living in Trump Tower to protect Melania and Barron. To which, Trump made money on from the rent.

[Dontrike]

Last try.

But if what you say is true, they would have ran out of money before now. Yet, they did not. How do you hand wave away the fact that their budget should have come up 25% short, due to covering 25% more people, and yet they ran out of money 75% through the year? That math lines up exactly. Again, the ONLY way you can be right, is if there is some unknown reason for why all the other people being protected cost less this year. Address the math, instead of the talking points, or move along and stop replying. You are wrong, and you have yet to refute that with a fact or with logic.

I suspect a KEY part of your confusion, is not understanding that there will always be SS present with Trump, no matter where he goes. That labor cost is static, even if the accommodations for the SS are not.

What do you not get about Trump literally making them pay to stay at his hotel?

[Breccia]

What do you not get about Trump literally making them pay to stay at his hotel?

The same thing he doesn't get about the USSS protecting Obama, and Clinton, and Trump during 2016, and still never running out of money.

Tijuana has proven incapable of having a fact-based discussion on the topic. Accept that you're right and let it go.

[Belize]

@Tijuana did you see what @Orbitus posted?

Maybe you should try to be more politically informed.

[PosPosPos]

@Tijuana did you see what @Orbitus posted?

Maybe you should try to be more politically informed.

It's impossible for the alt-right to be educated on current affairs, or anything at all for that matter.

[Tijuana]

This was from March:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.ab8175570cdc
https://www.usnews.com/news/national...t-trump-family
http://www.businessinsider.com/secre...t-trump-2017-3
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...t-trump-family

They asked for $60 million more to protect the Trumps because at the time, the Secret Service was living in Trump Tower to protect Melania and Barron. To which, Trump made money on from the rent.

Joe Biden did and still to this day, does charge the SS rent to live on his property. What are you on about with that?

- - - Updated - - -

What do you not get about Trump literally making them pay to stay at his hotel?

You mean like Joe Biden does?

[Edge-]

Joe Biden did and still to this day, does charge the SS rent to live on his property. What are you on about with that?

I enjoy that you completely ignored his post.

Yes, Biden (at least as of 2011, I couldn't find anything past that) was charging the SS $2,200 a month to rent a rental property next to his house. I don't agree with that, but it's also a pretty minor expense overall.

That's about 1/3 of the price of what the SS spent renting port-o-potties for a weekend at one of Trump's golf courses ($7,100).

You're still not very good at this.

[Breccia]

Trump has now said where the money would go. It'd be really awkward of him to say this, and not follow through in a timely fashion.



Still hasn't done it, but he's a step closer.

[Xargoth6634]

At the very least it means democrats don't have power to pass anything they want to happen. If democrats aren't achieving their goals then that is a win in my book.

Typical republican obstructionist shithead mentality here, big surprise.

[Orbitus]

Joe Biden did and still to this day, does charge the SS rent to live on his property. What are you on about with that?

- - - Updated - - -



You mean like Joe Biden does?

Did Joe Biden charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars a month? How about charging them to use the fucking elevator? Because Trump charged $64,000 in "elevator fees" in Trump Tower. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-...inue-to-mount/

[cubby]

Joe Biden did and still to this day, does charge the SS rent to live on his property. What are you on about with that?

I see you're still up to your usual posting antics. Deflection in the face of facts and reason is part of Phase 2.

Or do you still not understand that Trump is making millions of dollars in PROFIT each weekend he visits one of his properties. And yet you can't even understand the basics of how he "donated his salary" and what a total scam that was (again) on the american people.

[Tijuana]

I enjoy that you completely ignored his post.

Yes, Biden (at least as of 2011, I couldn't find anything past that) was charging the SS $2,200 a month to rent a rental property next to his house. I don't agree with that, but it's also a pretty minor expense overall.

That's about 1/3 of the price of what the SS spent renting port-o-potties for a weekend at one of Trump's golf courses ($7,100).

You're still not very good at this.

Why don't you agree with it? It's the closest place to house them, and therefore provides the greatest security. My point was not to say that Biden was engaged in a money making scheme. My point is that reasonable people understand that the closest proximity is the highest level of security, and that it doesn't really matter who cashes the check, so long as the price is market value. If the cottage next to Biden was owned by someone besides him, no doubt they would just be paying that person instead. What difference does it make?

The fact that you feel the need to add insults to the end of your post shows your character rather well, don't you think? Also, is your point so weak that it can't stand on it's own merit? Does it require insults to prop it up? Why not just be civil instead?

[cubby]

Why don't you agree with it? It's the closest place to house them, and therefore provides the greatest security. My point was not to say that Biden was engaged in a money making scheme. My point is that reasonable people understand that the closest proximity is the highest level of security, and that it doesn't really matter who cashes the check, so long as the price is market value. If the cottage next to Biden was owned by someone besides him, no doubt they would just be paying that person instead. What difference does it make?

The fact that you feel the need to add insults to the end of your post shows your character rather well, don't you think? Also, is your point so weak that it can't stand on it's own merit? Does it require insults to prop it up? Why not just be civil instead?

His point stands completely on it's merit, you just (continue) to ignore and instead deflect. Let us know when you're ready to address Trump making a profit every time he visits one of his properties (a profit measured in the millions, each visit).

[Ripster42]

Why cant you stay civil friend. Please stay on topic. No need to name call.

I just hit bingo. TJ crying about people not being civil when he himself refuses to be honest, a basic requirement for a civil discussion.