Quote:

---

I'm a little leery that there are more than two dozen hotels near Prestwick that are cheaper than Trump Turnberry, but I'll wait and see what Politico turns up.

---

This is from the NY Times ;
The crew, which consisted of active duty and national guard members from Alaska, was charged $136 per room, which was less expensive than a Marriott property’s rate of $161. And both were under the per diem rate of $166.

Air Force landings @ Prestwick rose from 180 in 2017 to 257 last year and 259 so far this year. But Lt. Gen. Jon T. Thomas, the deputy commander of the Air Force Air Mobility Command, said in an interview on Monday that the rising number of military stopovers at Prestwick was entirely based on operational demands, as the airport is in a convenient location, has 24-hour operations and offers ample aircraft parking, among other advantages. He added that the Air Force has been using Prestwick for stopovers since at least the late 1990s.


​https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/u...turnberry.html

From the same article - there's always more to the story when Trump is involved. The Air Force is still checking.


But documents obtained from Scottish government agencies show that the Trump Organization, and Mr. Trump himself, played a direct role in setting up an arrangement between the Turnberry resort and officials at Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

The government records, released through Scottish Freedom of Information law, show that the Trump organization, starting in 2014, entered a partnership with the airport to try to increase private and commercial air traffic to the region.

As part of that arrangement, the Trump Organization worked to get Trump Turnberry added to a list of hotels that the airport would routinely send aircrews to, even though the Turnberry resort is 20 miles from the airport, farther away than many other hotels, and has higher advertised prices.

The article said all of this (the business arrangements) happened from 2014 to 2016 before Trump was president. Why is it an issue?

yeah I mentioned in earlier comments that the airport doing well was important to Trump's resort . But his involvement was in 2014 and Air Force landings there began years before Trump became President . I think this is just one more fishing expedition by Cummings . Got no issue with the Air Force reviewing protocol.

If the traffic has increased since the dufus became president, Cummings would be quite derelict in his duty if he didn't look into this. Definitely review the Air Force protocols on such matters. I mean shouldn't you look into the appearance of hanky panky to make sure it's not full blown corruption?

I must say: Cummings and Nadler are the WORST FISHERMEN I have ever seen! How long have they been fishing for that Trump Fish now? They haven't so much as had a nibble much less a bite. They just can't seen to catch anything! And The Penguin (Nadler) is near comical in his vain attempts to be serious and scowling all the time.....guy needs to lighten-up some.

Meanwhile, Teflon Don, just dropped Bolton on his head: Another example: Dissention WILL NOT be tolerated. Honestly, that is the way it should be at that level, you are either IN or OUT and you are either with us or against us.

Two rules on the Trump Administration: Rule #1: Trump will take his own decisions and Rule #2: You can't do anything about Rule #1.

Quote:

---

Two rules on the Trump Administration: Rule #1: Trump will take his own decisions and Rule #2: You can't do anything about Rule #1.

---

A little scary.

Rule is the way of dictators, monardhs and despots. I would much prefer he governed with consensus. yeah, that's more that a little scary.

jlisenbe: No, not scary: This used to be Standard Operating Practice amongst men....and history has many examples of this, amongst them were the taken decisions of President Truman when: 1) He decided to drop the A-Bombs during WWII despite many around him advising otherwise and 2) He decided to fire General MacArthur during the Korean conflict despite many around him advising otherwise. You also saw it in President Reagan when he listened to advisors and walked out and fired all of the on-strike Air Traffic Controllers.

Today, being decisive is widely frowned upon.....today, it is more acceptable to have "Analysis Paralysis" because most men are TOO AFRAID OF MAKING MISTAKES.....to make a mistake, today, is just something that crushes people and they cannot take it, it wrecks their psyches. Trump doesn't have that problem....he doesn't have that fear and, so, he is able to take decisions and live with them, rightly or wrongly.

Now, whether you like or do not like Trump is not nearly as important as is knowing that Trump is pretty fearless.....and, I think, most of us, deep down, want a leader who is fearless.

Fearless and ruling by fear are vastly different. I don't think it serves the country well nor respects the checks and balances that you need to collectively govern. Seems more like intentional chaos than effective good orderly direction.

To each his own I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

...Trump is pretty fearless

---

You're confusing fearless with feckless.

I agree with Bolton's foreign policy positions much more than Trump with his belief that he can change the world through the sheer force of his personality . I think he weakens the US position when there is no extensive prep work before head to head meeting . I am hearing now that now Trump is trying to have head to head meetings with the head 12er Rouhani . Rouhani is not to be trusted .

I don't trust the dufus, but agree totally with the prep work. I can't stand this hurry up and take a picture crap! How phony is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Dissention WILL NOT be tolerated. Honestly, that is the way it should be at that level, you are either IN or OUT and you are either with us or against us.

---

You have it backwards. As another president said, "I'm paying you a salary not to agree with me but to tell me what you think".

Bolton's foreign policy is now a mote point. Only one view prevailed, Trump is not the hawk Bolton is, perhaps he has learned something while in office. Is the world a safer place with Trump in office? perhaps. No new wars have been initiated which is more than can be said for the american presidents of the last thirty years before him.

Athos: I've heard all the stuff about being able to disagree and various viewpoints are welcome....yep, heard that in meetings I've been in.....then was pulled to the side and scolded profoundly for not agreeing with "the boss", whom, I was told, was RIGHT even when he was WRONG! Heard that all my career......been beat down by it, not submitted yet, but beat down!

Paraclete: There is something to be said about all the crazy SOBs around the world going to sleep at night worrying about what the crazy SOB President of The U.S. was going to do next....instead of the other way around! kind of keeps the crazies guessing!

Talaniman: Government is disfunctional right now.....it is upside down....there is no communication....particularly between Congress and Senate....and Executive, really, is the only entity that has real leadership.....in other words: You look at the Whitehouse and YOU KNOW who is in charge.....you might not agree with him but you know Trump is in charge....people tend to gravitate toward what they feel is strong. Trump won't be challenged in public but I think you can challenge him in private without fear of retributions.

Quote:

---

Paraclete: There is something to be said about all the crazy SOBs around the world going to sleep at night worrying about what the crazy SOB President of The U.S. was going to do next....instead of the other way around! kind of keeps the crazies guessing!

---

Clearly, this strategy is not working. I personally would prefer that the US President is not the crazy SOB he appears to be

Athos: I've heard all the stuff about being able to disagree and various viewpoints are welcome....yep, heard that in meetings I've been in.....then was pulled to the side and scolded profoundly for not agreeing with "the boss", whom, I was told, was RIGHT even when he was WRONG! Heard that all my career......been beat down by it, not submitted yet, but beat down!

So why do you think it's the right thing to do for the dufus to beat down his subordinates to keep them in line?

Paraclete: There is something to be said about all the crazy SOBs around the world going to sleep at night worrying about what the crazy SOB President of The U.S. was going to do next....instead of the other way around! kind of keeps the crazies guessing!

Those crazy sobs around the world aren't guessing, they have and always have had an agenda for power control and getting more wealth for themselves, That's just what they do so just as the dufus does to with the same instruments of fear and hate and surronded by enough sycophants to acheive that end.

Talaniman: Government is disfunctional right now.....it is upside down....there is no communication....particularly between Congress and Senate....and Executive, really, is the only entity that has real leadership.....in other words: You look at the Whitehouse and YOU KNOW who is in charge.....you might not agree with him but you know Trump is in charge....people tend to gravitate toward what they feel is strong. Trump won't be challenged in public but I think you can challenge him in private without fear of retributions.

Granted our government has been dysfunctional for a long time, divided effectively by tribal differences and agendas a lot higher up than main street who has borne the brunt of that dysfunction, which is INTENTIONAL. Oldest tactic in the book divide and conquer is, and obviously it works rather well.

No you will not challenge the dufus in private for long because his sycophants and yes men below him won't tolerate it if you are a threat to their power and position. Yeah it seems right now the dufus is a real force compared to the antics of Moscow Mitch and repubs united in doing absolutely nothing to rock the boat.

That's not their job. It is the job of the American voters though to correct that dysfunction.

Talaniman: You rascal! You make some really good points, as usual......I will think these through!

Quote:

---

Granted our government has been dysfunctional for a long time, divided effectively by tribal differences and agendas a lot higher up than main street who has borne the brunt of that dysfunction, which is INTENTIONAL. Oldest tactic in the book divide and conquer is, and obviously it works rather well.

---

True. Both parties practice it because they see in it the ability to weaken the opposition. Hopefully there must be some "cause" above our tribal affiliations that will join us together rather than pull us apart. It takes true leadership to take us in that direction. The last pres I can think of who did this, even in some degree, was Reagan. Probably Roosevelt did this as well even though I don't like much of what he did.

jlisenbe: I am not much of a FDR fan either: Talk about a POTUS who coerced, threatened, compromised, and ran roughshod over people who opposed him, he was the quintessential one! Just look how he threatened to STACK the Supreme Court and how he changed the law so he run and be elected more than two terms. FDR bordered on being boorish and was certainly thuggish in many respects.

But I will give FDR credit, too: Some of the employment entities he created are still in business and going strong, like the one my company works with a lot: TVA.

We have to be careful how we look back on history and judge the actors of that time period through the prism of our current times: Facts are, TIMES WERE DIFFERENT BACK THEN! Perhaps FDR was who we needed at a time when we needed him. Its just hard for me to stomach his socialist policies.

As I read it the congress always twarted his lagresses, but what socialists policies are you talking about that so aggrieves you?

Talaniman: From a domestic standpoint, I was speaking to certain acts he undertook as part of the New Deal, many of which are still with us today.....the one that was particularly bad was the payment to farmers to leave land Farrell (unplanted)….this one has also stayed with us, too.

From and international respect, the irritant for me was that FDR hated General Francisco Franco, the Spanish Head Of State, for no good reason other than he was Fascist.....Franco did nothing but save his country from a Marxist coup d'état that was in the works well before he showed up to defend the people of Spain....Franco did accept Italian and German assistance during the Spanish Civil War but he did not join the Axis during WWII.....it didn't matter to FDR, he still hated Franco. My opinions may be a bit jaded or colored on this because of relatives on my Mother's side who were Franco supporters from Spain....but this is what they have told me.

FDR a popular giant of his time was hard pressed to deal with some very dire circumstances of that era. I don't put him on the same pedestal, as he did a lot of good, and somethings not so good, given the politics of the time. There was more than just facism about Franco that FDR hated. I mean the guy was a brutal dictator above all else, from what I read, and lead a bloody divisive regime at the time. Like the dufus supporters, if you are on his side you would see things differently than those that are not, but history is not kind to Franco if the facts are true. The dufus's history is still being written.

I ain't a supporter of the dufus, and have yet to see any good he has done and that includes his only accomplishment of tax cuts for the rich that every repub does when the dems have stabilized the economy in my lifetime, except Bush I, faced with a looming recession, and deficits, after promising not to raise taxes though Reagan to his credit did several times in his eight years, modestly though, and lowered them just as modestly. The aggregate was lower taxes, but Bush got booted for that common sense tactic at the time so we get Clinton, who RAISED taxes on his way to balancing the budget, by cutting military spending in "peace" time, and reforming domestic programs while expanding local economies. Boy was I making money in the 90's, but people are raising hell over some of those policies NOW, and rightfully so as like FDR, a lot of people were left out of the party times big time.

My record though is perfect, because I survived all those presidents and their policies, and God willing, I'll survive this dufus!

Talaniman: Excellent capture of the historical account!

I have a feeling that you will be just fine with this POTUS.....whenever he leaves office.

I think you must always strive to survive and thrive in any circumstance Vac.

Quote:

---

I ain't a supporter of the dufus, and have yet to see any good he has done and that includes his only accomplishment of tax cuts for the rich that every repub does when the dems have stabilized the economy in my lifetime,

---

That one made me laugh. If you want to say that Obama "stabilized" the economy, then fine, but he did so by doubling the national debt. It is only under Mr. Trump that the economy has gone beyond "stable" and is setting records for low unemployment. And yet you can't see that?

Quote:

---

so we get Clinton, who RAISED taxes on his way to balancing the budget, by cutting military spending in "peace" time, and reforming domestic programs while expanding local economies.

---

The only way Clinton got to balanced budgets was because he worked with a republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich. This was back before the federal government was paralyzed by mutual hatred. A key ingredient was welfare reform, insisted on by the republicans, which controlled spending in that area, and an economy that was doing really well. And, of course, Clinton's problem with abusing women wasn't mentioned as well. But like you, I do give him credit for creating the last of the budget surpluses. I liked some things about Bush, but he should have his rear end kicked for his immediate return to deficit spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That one made me laugh. If you want to say that Obama "stabilized" the economy, then fine, but he did so by doubling the national debt. It is only under Mr. Trump that the economy has gone beyond "stable" and is setting records for low unemployment. And yet you can't see that?

---

The unemployment numbers have been trending down for years as well as modest economic growth, and deficit spending under the dufus has grown steadily thanks to his ill timed deficit funded tax cuts that have failed to produce more growth, or juice the economy. LOL, maybe in your world the economy is beyond stable, but many Americans ain't feeling what you're feeling at this time. Of course, maybe you can't see that, but economic health is a lot more that unemployment numbers, or Wall Street projections. Some sectors are doing worse than others and whole towns are struggling once you get out in the countryside in many states.

Quote:

---

The only way Clinton got to balanced budgets was because he worked with a republican Congress led by Newt Gingrich. This was back before the federal government was paralyzed by mutual hatred. A key ingredient was welfare reform, insisted on by the republicans, which controlled spending in that area, and an economy that was doing really well. And, of course, Clinton's problem with abusing women wasn't mentioned as well. But like you, I do give him credit for creating the last of the budget surpluses. I liked some things about Bush, but he should have his rear end kicked for his immediate return to deficit spending.

---

I predict the dufus will be raising the debt and deficit in a few short weeks and join the other presidents before him in even MORE deficit spending. The feelings cut both ways about the dufus as they did Obama either you were for them, or against them. and we both know that working together gets it done, and NOT working together get's nothing done, so maybe when the dufus has to work with a dem congress he may do better if he doesn't get booted out, impeached, or carted off to jail.

Quote:

---

maybe in your world the economy is beyond stable, but many Americans ain't feeling what you're feeling at this time. Of course, maybe you can't see that, but economic health is a lot more that unemployment numbers, or Wall Street projections. Some sectors are doing worse than others and whole towns are struggling once you get out in the countryside in many states.

---

The glass is 9/10 full and yet you complain. Some sectors are doing worse than others? You know of a period of time in American history when that was not true?

Quote:

---

I predict the dufus will be raising the debt and deficit in a few short weeks and join the other presidents before him in even MORE deficit spending. The feelings cut both ways about the dufus as they did Obama either you were for them, or against them. and we both know that working together gets it done, and NOT working together get's nothing done, so maybe when the dufus has to work with a dem congress he may do better if he doesn't get booted out, impeached, or carted off to jail.

---

It always gets my attention when a person is so critical of Trump for doing exactly what Obama did, and yet never can be critical of Obama. If Trump is wrong to engage in deficit spending, and in my view he is terribly wrong to do so, then wasn't Obama wrong as well? Maybe you can make excuses for the first year or two, but for all eight years???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The glass is 9/10 full and yet you complain. Some sectors are doing worse than others? You know of a period of time in American history when that was not true?

---

I argue with your 9/10ths full glass figure, as the elderly, the young and the displaced, as well as the traumatized may not agree, nor the millions of females and minorities slipping through the ever widening cracks of the dufus policies, both foreign and domestic which from your comfortable perch you easily dismiss as unimportant. Just like the dufus. That's sad.

Quote:

---

It always gets my attention when a person is so critical of Trump for doing exactly what Obama did, and yet never can be critical of Obama. If Trump is wrong to engage in deficit spending, and in my view he is terribly wrong to do so, then wasn't Obama wrong as well? Maybe you can make excuses for the first year or two, but for all eight years???

---

Obama was cleaning up a global mess, and government is the last resort in such economically negative times, yet the dufus and you think you can take full credit for his efforts (Even you concede Obama stabilized things from chaos), yet cannot grasp that the dufus inheriting a STABLE economy is spending like a drunk sailor on that credit card that needs paying.

A very real difference my friend as raising that debt limit even higher looms large. The last 6 years repubs went along with that deficit spending you blame on just Obama, but you can't seem to acknowledge that. However forget the past for now, it's more important to deal with the present and the problems in our face. LOL, I have long acknowledged the good both Nixon, Reagan, and Bush have done despite blasting them too, so let leave Obama alone as obviously I'm to busy blasting the dufus to revisit the Obama flaws and mistakes you so easily keep front and center.

I'm go into have my fun my friend no matter how it aggravates you, or your fellow conservatives to have a stick poked up the dufus's arse every chance I get. You'll survive.

Quote:

---

I argue with your 9/10ths full glass figure, as the elderly, the young and the displaced, as well as the traumatized may not agree, nor the millions of females and minorities slipping through the ever widening cracks of the dufus policies, both foreign and domestic which from your comfortable perch you easily dismiss as unimportant. Just like the dufus. That's sad.

---

What is sad is that you're just making it up as you go along. The "traumatized"??? You have no evidence for any of those groups.

As to the deficit, there is no end of the excuses you make for eight years of Obama's fantastic overspending. The repubs tried to stop it, but every time they were accused of shutting down the government and, with the national media always obedient to their master, Mr. Obama, they had no chance to win that battle.

There is a difference between the two of us. I hate deficit spending no matter who does it. You support everything Obama and nothing Trump. It would be nice of you to develop some consistency in supporting policies rather than politicians.

update time from the Washington Post .
1.

Approximately six percent of those crews stayed at the Trump Turnberry

“As a practice, we generally send aircrews to the closest, most suitable accommodations within the government hotel rate. The review also indicated that about 75 percent of the crews stayed in the immediate vicinity of the airfield and 18 percent stayed in Glasgow.”

2.

The stays result from two separate agreements that both predate Trump’s presidency. Before Trump ran for president, the airport agreed to send visiting crews to Trump’s course. And while President Barack Obama was still in office, the Air Force agreed to send refueling aircraft to the airport.

3. there is no evidence that Trump changed the terms of the deal since he became President .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e1c_story.html

From the NY Times .
4.

the deal involved the Air Force paying a discounted rate of as little as $130 a night, compared with a typical rate of more than $300 a night.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/u...core-ios-share

5 . Rep Adam Kinzinger (retired pilot ANG ) has this to say.....

For everyone still spinning up over this story, I have a spoiler alert: not everyone in an aircrew will be happy with every accommodation, whether it’s a Trump hotel or a cheap motel down the road.I preferred the nicer places during my time in the Air Force, but some I flew with preferred to pocket the extra money.It’s a choice, and it’s that of our service members to make – not the firing squads on Twitter. And this choice is in the regulation written by our Department of Defense.

Well, that settles it. He needs to be impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, that settles it. He needs to be impeached.

---

Yes, definitely! Trump is using the office of the President to enrich himself.

Uhm...sarcasm.

Now if you can show us where he has used his office to enrich himself, it would be something to see. No one else seems to have been able to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Uhm...sarcasm.

Now if you can show us where he has used his office to enrich himself, it would be something to see. No one else seems to have been able to do that.

---

Sarcasm again! You are so silly! He's a BUSINESSMAN!

You know how it works JL, the investigation(S) continue.

Quote:

---

He's a BUSINESSMAN!

---

So he's automatically guilty??? Really??

Quote:

---

You know how it works JL, the investigation(S) continue.

---

Yes it does. Endlessly. Nauseating politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So he's automatically guilty??? Really??

---

Feel free to google this with a variety of keywords. The information is out there on a number of websites.

Quote:

---

Feel free to google this with a variety of keywords. The information is out there on a number of websites.

---

You want me to google this "with a variety of keywords"? So you want ME to look up the evidence to verify YOUR allegation? Think I'll pass on that. I won't ask you to back up my statements if you won't ask me to back up yours.

Honestly, it would just seem logical that you have no evidence to present. If you did, you wouldn't punt the ball back to me. I don't mean that to be ugly. It's just foreign to me to ask someone else to look for my evidence. Don't understand it.