Trump cuts $22 Million from White House Budget
-
5 Minutes. Funny. Laughable. Insane waste of money. 22 people to dress Michelle Obama.
-
REALLY??? I mean REALLY?? You take "Wellness Natasha" at her word but call CNN fake news?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp
The 22 milion saved is from an article today in breitbart. I'll assume for the moment it is true, so here is where the cuts came according to them:
" Andrzejewski (pronounced And-gee-eff-ski) noted that there are now 110 fewer White House employees since Obama left office, saving nearly $5 million alone. Also, the First Lady’s staff has been cut from 24 staffers to only five. Michelle Obama entered the White House with a staff of 22 costing nearly $2 million annually, up from the $1.4 million spent during the George W. Bush era.
Another area of savings was the elimination of the so-called policy “czars” with which Obama stocked the White House staff. The Trump budget shows not a single “czar” employed for 2017.
Trump also seems to have ended Obama’s shady “fellowship” positions, people responsible for such special programs as Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative and others. Some of these “fellowship” candidates in Obama’s administration made up to $158,000 annually."
Get real, man.
-
So you proved my point? Trump cut all those ridiculous costs that were a total waste of taxpayer money…
-
So you proved my point? Trump cut all those ridiculous costs that were a total waste of taxpayer money…
I agree he is saving money. But the good laugh you had at Michelle Obama's expense was the definition of Fake News.
-
Snopes doesn't have the honesty it did 10 years ago. They have been caught in some lies that favoured the left.
I'm not saying that is the case with this story though, but a warning not to blindly trust them.
-
Snopes doesn't have the honesty it did 10 years ago. They have been caught in some lies that favoured the left.
I'm not saying that is the case with this story though, but a warning not to blindly trust them.
I also cited the original Breitbart article which itself cited a third source. I have no objection to discussing the issue of governmental glut and budget cuts as long as we stick to the facts. But relying on Wellness Natasha as the source for those facts is ridiculous.
-
Snopes doesn't have the honesty it did 10 years ago. They have been caught in some lies that favoured the left.
I'm not saying that is the case with this story though, but a warning not to blindly trust them.
I also cited the original Breitbart article which itself cited a third source. I have no objection to discussing the issue of governmental glut and budget cuts as long as we stick to the facts. But relying on Wellness Natasha as the source for those facts is ridiculous.
It's funny to see you showing concern for "facts"… you are a disciple of "fake news" pppussi
-
Wellness Natasha isn't a news reporter. She's just a Red White and Blue American commenting and giving her opinion ON the news - OBVIOUSLY. I never presented her video as an official story. It was just to show you how ridiculous real people think you are.
-
Snopes doesn't have the honesty it did 10 years ago. They have been caught in some lies that favoured the left.
I'm not saying that is the case with this story though, but a warning not to blindly trust them.
I also cited the original Breitbart article which itself cited a third source. I have no objection to discussing the issue of governmental glut and budget cuts as long as we stick to the facts. But relying on Wellness Natasha as the source for those facts is ridiculous.
It's funny to see you showing concern for "facts"… you are a disciple of "fake news" pppussi
Stop changing my username. I don't call you Frederadick. Second, give me one example of "fake news" that I have mentioned on this board. Just defending CNN does not make me a disciple of fake news.
-
5 Minutes. Funny. Laughable. Insane waste of money. 22 people to dress Michelle Obama.
If it is indeed, true, that Michelle's / Melania's "staff" has been reduced by a ratio of 24 (or 22) to five, it has little to do with Michelle's personal styling, and more to the fact that Melania's off to a really slow start – or more accurately, no start and no visible staff -- in the traditional areas of "causes" taken on by FLOTUSes -- in her case, the unbelievably ironic "cyberbullying." From last week...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/29/reminder-melania-trump-pledged-create-anti-cyberbulling-campaign/439247001/ , as excerpted:
"Days before the 2016 election, Melania Trump said in a speech that she intended to fight cyberbullying if her husband was elected.
But in the months since then, the first lady has not yet publicly made any efforts to do so. Back in May, USA TODAY reported that the effort was, per Trump's office, a work in progress."Stephanie Grisham, the first lady's spokeswoman, confirmed Thursday that Trump was 'continuing to be thoughtful about her platform.'"
Thoughtful…!?! I mean, we are 164 days into this administration -- one that is, of more importance, riddled with unfilled ambassadorships and vital government posts (just ask ol' slow-hand Tillerson). So, perhaps Mel is just taking her cues from the inner circle.
Thinking back, I wonder how many stylists it took to prep Melania during the 10 identified instances she illegally accepted payment as a model in the U.S., before getting her working papers?
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d "Melania Trump modeled in US prior to getting work visa"
For that matter, how many PR hacks and failed reporters were employed to write Melania's now-infamous speech at the Republican National Convention, with key passages plagiarized from… wait for it, wait for it... Michelle Obama...?
Did that wild-eyed YouTube cackler ever intelligently address any of these Melania-specific issues from the comfort of that fuzzy sofa? And congrats to Mrs. Trump, with her small staff – and to date, her exquisitely small contributions -- as FLOTUS.
-
Wellness Natasha isn't a news reporter. She's just a Red White and Blue American commenting and giving her opinion ON the news - OBVIOUSLY. I never presented her video as an official story. It was just to show you how ridiculous real people think you are.
People in ridiculous houses shouldn't throw stones.
-
-
Snopes doesn't have the honesty it did 10 years ago. They have been caught in some lies that favoured the left.
I'm not saying that is the case with this story though, but a warning not to blindly trust them.
I also cited the original Breitbart article which itself cited a third source. I have no objection to discussing the issue of governmental glut and budget cuts as long as we stick to the facts. But relying on Wellness Natasha as the source for those facts is ridiculous.
It's funny to see you showing concern for "facts"… you are a disciple of "fake news" pppussi
Stop changing my username. I don't call you Frederadick. Second, give me one example of "fake news" that I have mentioned on this board. Just defending CNN does not make me a disciple of fake news.
Thanks for the idea! Just about every one of your messages contains references to "fake news" sources. I will have to start pointing that out. Great idea!
-
[Thanks for the idea! Just about every one of your messages contains references to "fake news" sources. I will have to start pointing that out. Great idea!
[/quote]So what news outlets do you trust? Perhaps we can meet on some middle ground so we can have a fact-based discussion. I am not going to let you spout your mouth without some legitimate fact-checking. And no, the president's twitter feed doesn't count.
-
Stop changing my username. I don't call you Frederadick.
:police: agreed :police:
-
5 Minutes. Funny. Laughable. Insane waste of money. 22 people to dress Michelle Obama.
If it is indeed, true, that Michelle's / Melania's "staff" has been reduced by a ratio of 24 (or 22) to five, it has little to do with Michelle's personal styling, and more to the fact that Melania's off to a really slow start – or more accurately, no start and no visible staff -- in the traditional areas of "causes" taken on by FLOTUSes -- in her case, the unbelievably ironic "cyberbullying." From last week...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/29/reminder-melania-trump-pledged-create-anti-cyberbulling-campaign/439247001/ , as excerpted:
"Days before the 2016 election, Melania Trump said in a speech that she intended to fight cyberbullying if her husband was elected.
But in the months since then, the first lady has not yet publicly made any efforts to do so. Back in May, USA TODAY reported that the effort was, per Trump's office, a work in progress."Stephanie Grisham, the first lady's spokeswoman, confirmed Thursday that Trump was 'continuing to be thoughtful about her platform.'"
Thoughtful…!?! I mean, we are 164 days into this administration -- one that is, of more importance, riddled with unfilled ambassadorships and vital government posts (just ask ol' slow-hand Tillerson). So, perhaps Mel is just taking her cues from the inner circle.
Thinking back, I wonder how many stylists it took to prep Melania during the 10 identified instances she illegally accepted payment as a model in the U.S., before getting her working papers?
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d "Melania Trump modeled in US prior to getting work visa"
For that matter, how many PR hacks and failed reporters were employed to write Melania's now-infamous speech at the Republican National Convention, with key passages plagiarized from… wait for it, wait for it... Michelle Obama...?
Did that wild-eyed YouTube cackler ever intelligently address any of these Melania-specific issues from the comfort of that fuzzy sofa? And congrats to Mrs. Trump, with her small staff – and to date, her exquisitely small contributions -- as FLOTUS.
flozen you're just a hater. What did Melania do to deserve such hatred? She expressed that she wants to do something, but the world is complicated. It's not as simple as slapping some butter on a piece of bread. I can't believe you are attacking her. She's done way more than you ever could have. Show me your website. You are such a hypocrite. You are throwing stones against someone when you have no foundation to even begin to stand on. What a pathetic string of words coming out of your mouth… You actually dare attack someone when you have less to be proud of? That's obscene. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Regarding your response above, mhorndisk, I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for Melania, who didn't sign on for the role of First Lady.
However, I feel no sympathy for her having lied about her illegal modeling work, as well as falsely claiming she wrote her convention speech "with as little help as possible":
http://www.today.com/news/melania-trump-convention-speech-i-wrote-it-little-help-possible-t100942
And I do question her decision-making skills, choosing "cyberbullying" as her FLOTUS cause, when her husband was already a renowned, serial Twitter ranter and raver.
The real howler here is, in your defending Melania, you ask, "Show me your website." Since you're obviously clueless, read a bit about Melania's pre-First Lady website, which she took down once it was revealed to have material factual inaccuracies, including the untruth that she received an undergraduate degree in Slovenia in design and architecture:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289530-melania-trump-website-scrubbed-from-internet
With apologies to the current First Lady, when YouTube rubes begin comparing accomplishments on a Michelle vs. Melania basis, the truth must be told. In this example, Mrs. Obama graduated from Princeton, and later, Harvard Law School. For real.
Finally, stop stating that I've "done less than so-and-so." You know absolutely nothing of me as an individual, including my educational or charitable endeavors. It's a baseless and spurious claim, worthy of the cop hat, however unlikely that may be.
-
If it's baseless, Truly, as you say, and that I don't know you, than show us what YOU have done. I suspect NOTHING. You sit there and attack people for not being an example of what you claim is good, but can you TRULY claim that you can hold a candle to that flame? Go ahead. You can attack her all you want, but you have nothing to show for yourself. You can say I don't know you - WHATEVER. You don't come close to her. PERIOD. Compared to her, you have no stone to throw. I bet compared to you, she has a pretty stellar record. You say she's not as good as you, go ahead, before you throw those stones, show us what you've done. Or shut up.
-
Go ahead and tell us what YOU have done that deserves us to acknowledge your disrespect for the First Lady.
We're waiting… FOR NOTHING. Because we all know you aren't capable of handling or holding that light. You and your "she doesn't want to" garbage. You can't compare yourself with her, so quit attacking her. It's OBSCENE. And Absurd.
That kind of pure disgusting behavior is why you will continue to LOSE.
-
If it's baseless, Truly, as you say, and that I don't know you, than show us what YOU have done. I suspect NOTHING. You sit there and attack people for not being an example of what you claim is good, but can you TRULY claim that you can hold a candle to that flame? Go ahead. You can attack her all you want, but you have nothing to show for yourself. You can say I don't know you - WHATEVER. You don't come close to her. PERIOD. Compared to her, you have no stone to throw. I bet compared to you, she has a pretty stellar record. You say she's not as good as you, go ahead, before you throw those stones, show us what you've done. Or shut up.
Who, on either side of the political fence here, has ever posted a resume of their private life for evaluation? Have you done so, to somehow atone for all your crude insults, and grotesque sexual innuendos about fellating public figures?
Dream on, buddy.
You took exactly nine minutes to respond. So, you clearly didn't review the citations I provided, which would allow you to at least comment with some degree of targeted relevance.
You're nothing but a loose cannon with loose quips, and unworthy of my carrying this conversation further. Buh-bye. :cheers:
