Ivanka Trump is skiing and We The People are footing the bill

originally posted by: angeldoll
Because all this security is costing way too much, this might call for a change in policy.

Only one residence will be provided extensive security. Not three.
The immediate family members will be provided extensive security. In this case, Don, Melania, and Barrron, and not to include multiple children who are millionaires in their own right, and their children.

Social Service members should not be asked to be babysitters for the President's grandchildren. If they are put in this position they have permission to take selfies.

It never occurred to me when he took office that security would be extended past the immediate three members of the family. Maybe include Tiffany, because she is young and on her own. But these other folks? Ridiculous.

So no security for Ivanka then and the rest of the family...because all of a sudden it costs too much?
Perhaps if extremist liberals were less violent and unhinged, it would be easier to keep good people safe.
LOL

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
A report is coming out now that Ivanka Trump is receiving her own office in the West Wing. She still has no official position, but will be getting a security clearance. Hmm...

www.politico.com...

Actually I heard she's buying the "Billy Goat Tavern" brand.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: MysticPearl

They can stay home. That's what repubs wanted the Obama's to do. Complained about every golf game. But Trump was suppose to be different.

neener neener

nord

a reply to: Byrd

She has to have secret service because of freakshows on the left. Consider this a direct cost of leftist acting violent in public. Berkeley alone likely increased the SS staff on Ivanka's detail by 10.

a reply to: angeldoll

How can you expect family members to not be protected when liberals across this country are violently attacking anyone deemed to support Trump? Ivanka couldn't even sit for 10 mins on a commercial flight before she and her child were harassed by looney liberals and she had to get off the plane.

This is also standard operating procedure. Chelsea was flanked by security at Stanford. Barbara Bush had security at Yale.

You want big government you got it.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
Because all this security is costing way too much, this might call for a change in policy.

Only one residence will be provided extensive security. Not three.
The immediate family members will be provided extensive security. In this case, Don, Melania, and Barrron, and not to include multiple children who are millionaires in their own right, and their children.

Social Service members should not be asked to be babysitters for the President's grandchildren. If they are put in this position they have permission to take selfies.

It never occurred to me when he took office that security would be extended past the immediate three members of the family. Maybe include Tiffany, because she is young and on her own. But these other folks? Ridiculous.

So no security for Ivanka then and the rest of the family...because all of a sudden it costs too much?
Perhaps if extremist liberals were less violent and unhinged, it would be eaiser to keep good people safe.
LOL

Correct. No Secret Service security for Ivanka, who is married to a billionaire, and she is a millionaire in her own right. These adult wealthy children can purchase their own security if they think they need it.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
Because all this security is costing way too much, this might call for a change in policy.

Only one residence will be provided extensive security. Not three.
The immediate family members will be provided extensive security. In this case, Don, Melania, and Barrron, and not to include multiple children who are millionaires in their own right, and their children.

Social Service members should not be asked to be babysitters for the President's grandchildren. If they are put in this position they have permission to take selfies.

It never occurred to me when he took office that security would be extended past the immediate three members of the family. Maybe include Tiffany, because she is young and on her own. But these other folks? Ridiculous.

So no security for Ivanka then and the rest of the family...because all of a sudden it costs too much?
Perhaps if extremist liberals were less violent and unhinged, it would be eaiser to keep good people safe.
LOL

Correct. No Secret Service security for Ivanka, who is married to a billionaire, and she is a millionaire in her own right. These adult wealthy children can purchase their own security if they think they need it.

Make your proposal for your new rules to the relevant people. Don't waste too much time though, it might not be too productive, LOL.
I like the fact that liberal violence has increased security concerns and effort. You reap what you sew. Perhaps a lesson will be learned.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: angeldoll

How can you expect family members to not be protected when liberals across this country are violently attacking anyone deemed to support Trump?

Lol.

Ivanka couldn't even sit for 10 mins on a commercial flight before she and her child were harassed by looney liberals and she had to get off the plane.

Airlines and airports have security. If it's good enough for you, it's good enough for Ivanka.

This is also standard operating procedure. Chelsea was flanked by security at Stanford. Barbara Bush had security at Yale.

As she should have been. Like Tiffany, Chelsea was a young woman on her own in school.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
Because all this security is costing way too much, this might call for a change in policy.

Only one residence will be provided extensive security. Not three.
The immediate family members will be provided extensive security. In this case, Don, Melania, and Barrron, and not to include multiple children who are millionaires in their own right, and their children.

Social Service members should not be asked to be babysitters for the President's grandchildren. If they are put in this position they have permission to take selfies.

It never occurred to me when he took office that security would be extended past the immediate three members of the family. Maybe include Tiffany, because she is young and on her own. But these other folks? Ridiculous.

So no security for Ivanka then and the rest of the family...because all of a sudden it costs too much?
Perhaps if extremist liberals were less violent and unhinged, it would be eaiser to keep good people safe.
LOL

Correct. No Secret Service security for Ivanka, who is married to a billionaire, and she is a millionaire in her own right. These adult wealthy children can purchase their own security if they think they need it.

I can tell you haven't thought this thru.

One, the security demands now, given the climate and that her father is POTUS, are far greater than they were as a private family. Why should she split the difference when her father is serving the country?

Two, where's your little magical cutoff in terms of wealth and when a family member is wealthy enough to foot the bill compared to when they aren't? If Ivanka was a PE teacher, would you require her to pay for her security? Or are you just punishing success?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
Because all this security is costing way too much, this might call for a change in policy.

Only one residence will be provided extensive security. Not three.
The immediate family members will be provided extensive security. In this case, Don, Melania, and Barrron, and not to include multiple children who are millionaires in their own right, and their children.

Social Service members should not be asked to be babysitters for the President's grandchildren. If they are put in this position they have permission to take selfies.

It never occurred to me when he took office that security would be extended past the immediate three members of the family. Maybe include Tiffany, because she is young and on her own. But these other folks? Ridiculous.

So no security for Ivanka then and the rest of the family...because all of a sudden it costs too much?
Perhaps if extremist liberals were less violent and unhinged, it would be eaiser to keep good people safe.
LOL

Correct. No Secret Service security for Ivanka, who is married to a billionaire, and she is a millionaire in her own right. These adult wealthy children can purchase their own security if they think they need it.

Make your proposal for your new rules to the relevant people. Don't waste too much time though, it might not be too productive, LOL.
I like the fact that liberal violence has increased security concerns and effort. You reap what you sew. Perhaps a lesson will be learned.

I expect after this absurd amount tax payers are paying for security for this entire extended family and three residences, I won't need to suggest changes period. I expect some of the legislatures will eventually do that.

Why do liberals hate women and believe they should be forced to stay home?

I guess that explains why they support Islamization of the west.

a reply to: MysticPearl

None of the above (I didn't quote you, but you know what you said.)

I'm saying all this security is costing us millions a month, and they are too selfish and narcissistic to give a rat's ass.
That's actually what I''m saying. They can't be "put out", or have slight inconveniences on which mansion they live in (they need three!) Or be bothered to think what other accomplishments might be achieved with those funds that might benefit people other than themselves.

Now you know.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
Because all this security is costing way too much, this might call for a change in policy.

Only one residence will be provided extensive security. Not three.
The immediate family members will be provided extensive security. In this case, Don, Melania, and Barrron, and not to include multiple children who are millionaires in their own right, and their children.

Social Service members should not be asked to be babysitters for the President's grandchildren. If they are put in this position they have permission to take selfies.

It never occurred to me when he took office that security would be extended past the immediate three members of the family. Maybe include Tiffany, because she is young and on her own. But these other folks? Ridiculous.

So no security for Ivanka then and the rest of the family...because all of a sudden it costs too much?
Perhaps if extremist liberals were less violent and unhinged, it would be eaiser to keep good people safe.
LOL

Correct. No Secret Service security for Ivanka, who is married to a billionaire, and she is a millionaire in her own right. These adult wealthy children can purchase their own security if they think they need it.

Make your proposal for your new rules to the relevant people. Don't waste too much time though, it might not be too productive, LOL.
I like the fact that liberal violence has increased security concerns and effort. You reap what you sew. Perhaps a lesson will be learned.

I expect after this absurd amount tax payers are paying for security for this entire extended family and three residences, I won't need to suggest changes period. I expect some of the legislatures will eventually do that.

Sure, they are going to take away Trump's daughters security. Don't die in a ditch over that one... you are likely to end up disappointed - again.

Oh, Eric & Lara have just announced a new addition to #teamTrump - a boy due in September.
Looks like you'll have to dig a bit deeper. Shame.

a reply to: Byrd

I can't, in good faith, defend this.

I assailed Obama and his vacations. I can't defend this.

The sides have switched. Totally.

People that used to defend Obama for lying, for taking vacations, are now attacking Trump. . . for lying and for taking vacations.

People that used to attack Obama for lying and taking vacations, are now defending Trump. . . . for lying and taking vacations.


Sorry ATS. I hate to be "that guy".

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm reasonably sure it's not just me who is concerned over this. I believe in time, there will be limits on how much money a first family can consume in security, since the provision is clearing being abused in this situation.

It's total BS when they cut meals on wheels, a 227 million dollar program to feed thousands of poor old people as to expensive.

www.washingtonpost.com... _story.html?utm_term=.b2fb9761e68b


But 2 million a day to maintain the Trump family. Thats 730 million a year.

ijr.com...


Enjoy your ski trip Ivanka!

a reply to: Byrd

I should have become a secret service agent - Travel around the world, free food, lodging, great benefits and pay, and no physical labor! Must be in the top 10 job listings.

If I was afraid of violence from raging far left liberals.. SKIING is the LAST place Id go. Have you been to a ski resort lately?? LMAO! That and Coachella... stay away from Coachella, Ivanka.

Newsflash: There's literally 1000s of active threats against the Trump family