I don't remember those same people complaining before Trump was elected ...

Obama sits with Castro, gets
standing ovation at baseball game
https://nypost.com/2016/03/22/obama-sits-with-castro-gets-standing-ovation-at-baseball-game/

Seems to me, since the Super Bowl increases security anyway due to the event being a very possible target for terrorists, layering on the Secret Service would be an added bonus.  More eyes on the event can only increase security for everyone.

The ultimate question for me is whether it was a waste of government money. I saw they reported it cost $20 million which I doubt is the accurate cost. I suspect much of that price includes the salaries of agents who would be paid whether Trump went to the game or not.

Even if the additional cost of Trump attending a sporting event was only $5 million I still think he should not have gone. The fact his administration is going on a huge budget cutting campaign while he costs taxpayers a bunch of money on a non-essential event makes it hypocritical and undermines a good thing he is doing in his presidency. 

BTW, I am a bit of a budget hawk, I have criticized presidents left and right for travel costs that have no government purpose or which could be performed by a lower official. Taxpayers shouldn't pay so a president can go to a superbowl game or so he can toss out bottled water at a natural disaster site, etc.

Presidents should be seen.  Out mingling with the public.  Town Halls.  Baseball games.  Even the Super Bowl.

Shaking hands, lending an ear, and yes, even kissing babies.

People need to see their President out and about. 

In my opinion this expense is different than corrupt and greedy government bureaucrats funneling tax monies to people and places that were not intended to recieve those monies.

Presidents should be seen.  Out mingling with the public.  Town Halls.  Baseball games.  Even the Super Bowl.

Shaking hands, lending an ear, and yes, even kissing babies.

People need to see their President out and about. 

In my opinion this expense is different than corrupt and greedy government bureaucrats funneling tax monies to people and places that were not intended to recieve those monies.

At least with a Super Bowl attendance, there's transparency in where that money was spent.  I have no problem with that.  Trump works harder and longer hours than any of his predecessors from what everyone says.  i think if he wants to go to the game and support his team in person, there's absolutely nothing wrok with that.  He deserves a few hours of getting out and about wherever he chooses.

Anyone who has a problem with the cost should remember -- he's not accepting his salary nor his retirement pay.  I'm sure that more than offsets a Super Bowl when you factor out the fixed costs that would already be spent regardless.

Salary ~ $450,000/year x 8 yrs = $3,600,000 + retirement.

He also saved the country millions, if not billions, by capping the new AF One purchase at $4 billion -- threatening to cancel the project if it exceeds that ceiling.

People cry over every dollar Trump spends for things like a sports event, but turn a blind eye to the trillions wasted on Ukraine.

Presidents should be seen.  Out mingling with the public.  Town Halls.  Baseball games.  Even the Super Bowl.

Shaking hands, lending an ear, and yes, even kissing babies.

People need to see their President out and about. 

In my opinion this expense is different than corrupt and greedy government bureaucrats funneling tax monies to people and places that were not intended to receive those monies.

I can't disagree with your last sentence.
Personally I am rather thrifty with not only my money but with any money budgeted to me so if I were president I would delegate those jobs to people who could do it more efficiently. There is nothing I would magically do as president that some appointee couldn't do just as well for cheaper. But that's just me.

I can't disagree with your last sentence.
Personally I am rather thrifty with not only my money but with any money budgeted to me so if I were president I would delegate those jobs to people who could do it more efficiently. There is nothing I would magically do as president that some appointee couldn't do just as well for cheaper. But that's just me.

So what events do you think the POTUS should be allowed to attend?  We know Super Bowl is one that you feel no POTUS should attend.

FYI, this should make you feel better, any food he eats in the WH and it's not an event, he and his family has to pay for. So he gets hungry at 1am and wants a sandwich, guess what, he gets billed for it.

So what events do you think the POTUS should be allowed to attend?  We know Super Bowl is one that you feel no POTUS should attend.

FYI, this should make you feel better, any food he eats in the WH and it's not an event, he and his family has to pay for. So he gets hungry at 1am and wants a sandwich, guess what, he gets billed for it.

I never said anything about being allowed to attend. I am talking about what events he chooses to attend.
If I were trying to make a name for myself about cutting government waste I sure wouldn't go around spending large amounts of taxpayer money on non-essential travel. But Trump doesn't have that type of integrity so I am not expecting much. During his first term he commented about how he would be so busy he could probably not play any golf as president. He was full of crap.

I never said anything about being allowed to attend. I am talking about what events he chooses to attend.
If I were trying to make a name for myself about cutting government waste I sure wouldn't go around spending large amounts of taxpayer money on non-essential travel. But Trump doesn't have that type of integrity so I am not expecting much. During his first term he commented about how he would be so busy he could probably not play any golf as president. He was full of crap.

Show us where Trump is only trying to cut waste in spending to "make a name for himself."

if you believe that's the case, you're hopeless.

I never said anything about being allowed to attend. I am talking about what events he chooses to attend.
If I were trying to make a name for myself about cutting government waste I sure wouldn't go around spending large amounts of taxpayer money on non-essential travel. But Trump doesn't have that type of integrity so I am not expecting much. During his first term he commented about how he would be so busy he could probably not play any golf as president. He was full of crap.

Here's your quote. Did you forget what you posted about the Super Bowl.

Re: They ran out of fake news to report
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2025, 09:51:10 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Flapp_Jackson on February 13, 2025, 12:26:02 PM
I don't remember those same people complaining before Trump was elected ...

Obama sits with Castro, gets
standing ovation at baseball game
https://nypost.com/2016/03/22/obama-sits-with-castro-gets-standing-ovation-at-baseball-game/

Seems to me, since the Super Bowl increases security anyway due to the event being a very possible target for terrorists, layering on the Secret Service would be an added bonus.  More eyes on the event can only increase security for everyone.

The ultimate question for me is whether it was a waste of government money. I saw they reported it cost $20 million which I doubt is the accurate cost. I suspect much of that price includes the salaries of agents who would be paid whether Trump went to the game or not.

Even if the additional cost of Trump attending a sporting event was only $5 million I still think he should not have gone. The fact his administration is going on a huge budget cutting campaign while he costs taxpayers a bunch of money on a non-essential event makes it hypocritical and undermines a good thing he is doing in his presidency.

BTW, I am a bit of a budget hawk, I have criticized presidents left and right for travel costs that have no government purpose or which could be performed by a lower official. Taxpayers shouldn't pay so a president can go to a superbowl game or so he can toss out bottled water at a natural disaster site, etc.

Are you going to admit that you were wrong?  I doubt it.

How about answer my questions on what events should be not go to. Should he jsut stay at the WH for anything but official events?

Show us where Trump is only trying to cut waste in spending to "make a name for himself."

if you believe that's the case, you're hopeless.

I didn't say he was only cutting waste to make a name for himself.
I am saying if cutting waste was one of his big goals then he should lead by example rather than telling other people to cut costs yet but still spend millions of taxpayer money to see a sporting event.

Are you going to admit that you were wrong?  I doubt it.

How about answer my questions on what events should be not go to. Should he jsut stay at the WH for anything but official events?

Maybe you should read my actual quote if you are going to quote me. Nowhere did I say allowed, again it is about his choice, a leadership decision.

To answer your question, yes I would argue that presidents should stay in the White House most of the time. Basically travel for official events where his attendance is important. The occasional vacation I would argue is warranted as well. 

I didn't say he was only cutting waste to make a name for himself.
I am saying if cutting waste was one of his big goals then he should lead by example rather than telling other people to cut costs yet but still spend millions of taxpayer money to see a sporting event.

He does lead by example.  Depriving himself of a public event because it might cost money is not being a hypocrite.  It's showing he's made the decision based on priorities.  Going to a major sporting event helps public morale.  He's the popular choice in the elections, so he's just embracing that.

Biden hid in his basement until he campaigned for reelection.  Even then he wasn't in public very much.  I guess you'd prefer Trump do that instead.

Maybe you should read my actual quote if you are going to quote me. Nowhere did I say allowed, again it is about his choice, a leadership decision.

To answer your question, yes I would argue that presidents should stay in the White House most of the time. Basically travel for official events where his attendance is important. The occasional vacation I would argue is warranted as well.

And here's the goal post. Like usual, facts are presented which counter what you think and then goal post are moved by yourself. 

So you want any POTUS to have more of a house arrest?  POTUS is free to roam the nation as he pleases like majority of other citizens.  You're making the presidency sound more like a work release program/prison.  I'm glad you're not a decision maker on how a free citizen spends their time.

Lets see how you try to deflect this and change your tune. It would probably start with "I never said...."

THe fake news has told the people that medicare and social security will be cut.  But Trump stated that it won't.  But there are those who shouldn't be receiving it and that will stop.  Like how DOGE found out that lots of money is being sent overseas to people who don't qualify for it.  I'm not 100% sure of Trumps statement, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I've had multiple older people talk to me about it and they were concerned.

Fake news radio 88.1 NPR was bashing Trump on how he said no one has heard of Leutu or something (African country) and how they cut millions for LGBT funding there.  I've never heard of it and I'm sure many others haven't either.  I listen to this station on occassion to see what BS they're spewing.  Their President even made a statement that he's upset cause people have heard of Leuto.

THe fake news has told the people that medicare and social security will be cut.  But Trump stated that it won't.  But there are those who shouldn't be receiving it and that will stop.  Like how DOGE found out that lots of money is being sent overseas to people who don't qualify for it.  I'm not 100% sure of Trumps statement, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I've had multiple older people talk to me about it and they were concerned.

Fake news radio 88.1 NPR was bashing Trump on how he said no one has heard of Leutu or something (African country) and how they cut millions for LGBT funding there.  I've never heard of it and I'm sure many others haven't either.  I listen to this station on occassion to see what BS they're spewing.  Their President even made a statement that he's upset cause people have heard of Leuto.

Same old Democrat/media propaganda playbook.  If the Dems want a 10% increase in spending, and the GOP agrees to a 5% increase, the Left screams with their hair on fire that the GOP is cutting spending -- as opposed to the truth which is they are cutting the requested increase.  it's still an increase, but the liars can't manipulate voters as easily with "smaller increase" outcries.

It's fun watching Democrats defend wasteful spending and a bloated IRS while demanding billionaires pay more in taxes supposedly so they themselves won't have to.  I don't think they understand how billionaires who operate corporations will just pass those tax increases on to their customers.   

He does lead by example.  Depriving himself of a public event because it might cost money is not being a hypocrite.  It's showing he's made the decision based on priorities.  Going to a major sporting event helps public morale.  He's the popular choice in the elections, so he's just embracing that.

Biden hid in his basement until he campaigned for reelection.  Even then he wasn't in public very much.  I guess you'd prefer Trump do that instead.

I disagree.
I don't see any great benefit to public morale by having Trump at a sporting event, nor do I think it is the president's job to help public morale. I can think of many more things to improve the welfare of the American people with $20 million than would be accomplished by seeing Trump at a sporting event.

So you want any POTUS to have more of a house arrest? 

Another strawman

POTUS is free to roam the nation as he pleases like majority of other citizens.

Another purposeful misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere did I say anything about restricting his movements. Don't debate me if you can't do so honestly.

do you have proof that it cost 20 million for him to attend the super bowl?

I disagree.
I don't see any great benefit to public morale by having Trump at a sporting event, nor do I think it is the president's job to help public morale. I can think of many more things to improve the welfare of the American people with $20 million than would be accomplished by seeing Trump at a sporting event.

I disagree.
I don't see any great benefit to public morale by having Trump at a sporting event, nor do I think it is the president's job to help public morale. I can think of many more things to improve the welfare of the American people with $20 million than would be accomplished by seeing Trump at a sporting event.

So in 1 post you said that he shouldn't attend the Super Bowl. Then when I called you out on it, you said "that's not what I said". Now you repeat how the money was wasted, which means he shouldn't attend the Super Bowl.

This is what happens when you don't just admit that you were wrong when you said he shouldn't attend the SB.

Another strawman

Another purposeful misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere did I say anything about restricting his movements. Don't debate me if you can't do so honestly.

Hahhahahaha. Here's 1 tactic, lets see what others emerge since you are once again wrong.

do you have proof that it cost 20 million for him to attend the super bowl?

That is what I heard reported in the news. As I said earlier the number might actually be quite a bit lower since some associated costs, such as salaries, would be paid whether they went or not. Even if the attendance only cost $5 million I do not think that is a good expenditure of taxpayer money.