Right before his father's inauguration, taxpayer paid just under $100,000 for a 2-night get-away to Uruguay for Eric Tru
-
pvd295 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 06:41 AM)
Were Eric Trump's travel expenses legitimate?
No, he doesn't work for the government. So his expenses - paid for by taxpayers - was not legitimate. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?
"What matters is the size of your heart and your character" - Herman Munster -
JamesAvalon — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 09:41 AM)
Is he now supposed to stop all business meetings now that his father is president?
And can you name one time that Obama and his wife had to travel on separate planes and therefore increase the overall cost of the vacation by hundreds of thousands of dollars that you complained?
Did you complain about the billions of dollars Obama gave Iran?
Or the billions he spent taking out Khadaffi?
Or the billions he wasted on Obamacare?
If you had done all those things, your criticisms of Eric Trump would hold more substance. But you didn't. You let Obama do whatever he wanted. -
pvd295 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 10:20 AM)
Is he now supposed to stop all business meetings now that his father is president?
No - let him go on as many "business meetings" as he pleases. Just pay out of your own pocket, and not the taxpayer's. It's that simple. We didn't elect him to the White House, he has no role in government, he should not be lodging on the taxpayer's dime for a $100,000 get-away weekend. It's that simple.
"What matters is the size of your heart and your character" - Herman Munster -
pvd295 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 06:47 PM)
So no security for the son of the POTUS?
Sure there should be security - but there's a reasonable limit. How many SS agents did he have to have for a weekend get-away, and why did the Embassy have to send 'staffers' to keep the agents company?
He is not the President, the First Lady, or a minor child of the couple. If he needs 'extra security' then let him pay out of his own pocket.
"What matters is the size of your heart and your character" - Herman Munster -
yobets — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 07:18 PM)
Whether we like it or not, adult children of the the POTUS & Vice-POTUS do get protection from the Secret Service.
The problem I have is Trump making money off the SS. If any of the Trump children take one of Donald's private jets, the gov't pays the jet owner (Trump) for the SS to travel. Another conflict of interest. The kids can only fly Air Force One if the President is with them. -
pvd295 — 9 years ago(February 07, 2017 05:42 AM)
Whether we like it or not, adult children of the the POTUS & Vice-POTUS do get protection from the Secret Service.
And that's fine. For a 2 day weekend, why is the hotel bill (alone!) nearly $100,000 to protect one adult?
"What matters is the size of your heart and your character" - Herman Munster -
/.ㅤ — 1 year ago(September 29, 2024 12:36 AM)
pvd295 said...
Whether we like it or not, adult children of the the POTUS & Vice-POTUS do get protection from the Secret Service.
And that's fine. For a 2 day weekend, why is the hotel bill (alone!) nearly $100,000 to protect one adult?
"What matters is the size of your heart and your character" - Herman Munster
expand
My password is password. -
truetexian — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 10:22 AM)
No, I don't suppose that he is to be expected to stop all business meetings now that his father is president. It's in our best interests to see to his protection no matter where he is in the world or what he's doing, now that his father is president.
But, since we did elect his father as our president, this is something we've opened ourselves up for. I for one wish we hadn't. It will be impossible to separate where our necessary and legitimate obligations as U.S. citizens to Trump's extended family lie to that of simply being on the hook and footing the bill for the enrichment of Trump's organization.
I sympathized with those on the right (and those in the middle, and yes even those of us on the left) who had concerns about issues of conflict of interests where the Clinton Foundation was concerned. For those of you who shared these concerns it's disingenuous of you to cast a blind eye to this fine kettle of fish we find ourselves in now.