moldyoldy

the fool posted a bunch of false statements that can not be backed up, so, he attacks.

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

Mrs. Obama did not have a staff of 40.
[I agreed with you that the number was incorrect. It appears that most sources agree that during different times she had 20-25 or so staffers]

Melania does nothing, so she does not need staff.
[the unt***hiness of this, and implying that Mrs. Obama was doing so much more doesn't require a response]

The white house does not want too many staff watching them.
Many positions, no one wants to take, under trump.
[Again, an opinion - and as a hero of mine once said, "I fart in your general direction"]

They are not even trying to recruit for many jobs.
[Yep, because the President knows that WE DON'T NEED SO MANY PEOPLE ON THE GOVERNMENT PAYROLL!]

$400.000 annual salary, paid quarterly, automatically a lie.
[Looks like that's a period, not a comma, so I guess you're right - $400 is not the annual salary]

In late May 2018, we received a batch of inquiries from readers asking for verification of the claim that United States President Donald Trump had donated his first-quarter 2018 salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As a candidate, Trump famously promised to forgo his entire $400,000-per-year p**********l salary if elected, following in the footsteps of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover, both of whom were independently wealthy and donated the entirety of their salaries to charitable causes.
Thus far, Trump has made good on that vow, announcing quarterly donations during the first year of his presidency to four federal agencies: the National Park Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of T***sportation
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-donate-salary-va/

This will be used as a tax write off, otherwise he would have refused to take a salary.[/quote]
[And so he's a bad guy for taking the deduction?! The Bible tells us to "..Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's...", but it doesn't say be stupid about it!]

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Ya mean like Timothy Geithner?

moldyoldy

Why the White House has a personnel problem - …
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/politics/inside-politics-forecast-white-house-staffing/index.html

https://www.opslens.com/2018/06/20/trump-white-house-facing-staffing-problems-turned-to-job-fair/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-time-to-pay-attention-to-the-white-houses-staffing-problem

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/04/26/the-unusual-process-for-staffing-the-white-house

https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/news/economy/trump-staffing-vacancies/index.html

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

Why the White House has a personnel problem - …
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/politics/inside-politics-forecast-white-house-staffing/index.html
["Washington Post's Abby Phillip reports, some Republicans see joining the White House as more risk than reward...a president who doesn't listen to some of his aides." LOL. CNN quoting a WAPO reporter telling us that President Trump values his own opinion! Stop the friggin' presses!!!]

https://www.opslens.com/2018/06/20/trump-white-house-facing-staffing-problems-turned-to-job-fair/
["Trump’s administration hasn’t relied as heavily on D.C. insiders to fill staff roles." "Importantly, comparatively low pay in combination with high stress and what is widely seen as a tumultuous work environment at the White House means the administration may continue to struggle to fill positions." And also i***ts are going to follow you around and harass you when you're out for dinner with your family]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-time-to-pay-attention-to-the-white-houses-staffing-problem
[Quoting NYT Peter Baker highlighting the Trump White House's staggering turnover rate. "More than a year into his administration, President Trump is presiding over a staff in turmoil, one with a 34 percent turnover rate, higher than any White House in decades. He has struggled to fill openings, unwilling to hire Republicans he considers disloyal and unable to entice Republicans who consider him unstable." So he won't hire folks who are against him and folks who think he's unstable are not applying - isn't that the definition of Win-Win???]

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/04/26/the-unusual-process-for-staffing-the-white-house
[A semi-interesting article that tries to imply that Mike Pompeo's promotion might have been a mistake (no real proof of that yet) and that the President has had some bad eggs in his cabinet and staff, but I might point out that most of them were told - wait for it - "You're Fired". If previous administrations weren't as anxious to remove staff that may have been less than stellar like Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jim Comey, etc., I don't see how that's bad for President Trump]

https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/news/economy/trump-staffing-vacancies/index.html
[CNN again - from Jun 2017: "As of Tuesday, only 41 of Trump's 111 nominees have cleared the Senate". I'm guessing you just threw this link in because 5 is better than 4?! So we're supposed to blame the Senate slow walking darn near every nominee's approval process on the President?]

Look Moldyoldy, anyone can google a phrase and gather up URLs that are culled as a result, and it really should be easier for liberals to do, since the powers that be at Google and elsewhere skew things in your favor. But throwing a bunch of links at someone doesn't guarantee they'll decide reading all the tripe that the links offer up is too daunting a task and give up. It's a little more difficult (as it should be) to make a cogent argument to support your premise than that.

I respect your stance and agree that we disagree on many important issues. 'Nuff said.

moldyoldy

One last point, trump is fit to be tried.

Fit2BTied Loc: Texas

Now that was funny...touche!

Kevyn

No problem, the source is the federal tax code you dolt.

EmilyD

President Trump designates a beneficiary each fiscal quarter, to receive that quarter’s money. Results are tracked and published online. No he did not give all $400,000 ti the Dept of Interior, but he did give his first quarter 2017 paycheck to the National Park Service. His first Quarter 2018 paycheck went to the VA. President Trump continues to do exactly what he said he would do.

Understand that there are laws, rules and regulations in place that apply to compensation, and the IRS carefully watches these donations and and activities. It is NOT as straight forward and easy as one might expect. Before you apply your personal agendas, reasons, and ideas to the problem, understand that the IRS is deeply restrictive of the amounts, kinds and time frames during which moneys can be given.

Added: In the first three quarters of the fiscal year, 2017, President Trump donated his salary to the National Parks Service, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. The fourth quarter went to the Dept. of T***sportation for infrastructure improvements. And the first quarter of 2018 went to the VA.

moldyoldy

The problem was the lie posted in the beginning that is making it s way around the internet

EmilyD

Maybe instead of just saying "It's a lie", you could post a reason why you think it's a lie. I don't think it is a lie - I think it is a misunderstanding. Trump selects who he wants to donate the $100,000 quarterly salary every quarter. That's been known for quite a while now. The Park Service money (where Trump's first quarter $100,000 for 2017) is being used for improvements at Antietam National Battlefield. So eagle is right - it is being used to improve graveyards and structures at Antietam, where 23,000 soldiers were k**led, wounded or missing - called the bloodiest day in American History.

moldyoldy

I already posted that, perhaps you just jumped into the fray without reading the previous posts.

EmilyD

All your first AND second posts said was that it was a lie. Why did you wait to explain it? That is what I'm referring to.

moldyoldy

The fact that I did offer proof and you still questioned it, would lead one to believe you did not read the posts earlier.

EmilyD

I read the whole thread. I just wonder why you would say it's a lie twice before providing information on why you think so. It just seems odd to me.