Trump famously slammed Obama’s frequent golfing at a rally in February 2016, promising that, as president, he would give up visiting his courses in Scotland and South Florida.
“I love golf, but if I were in the White House, I don’t think I’d ever see Turnberry again. I don’t think I’d ever see Doral again,” Trump said. “I don’t ever think I’d see anything. I just want to stay in the White House and work my ass off.”
And this is a conservative estimate!
Most of the costs come from military and law enforcement salaries, which haven’t kept up with inflation, so the figures aren’t adjusted to current dollars… the real costs are almost certainly higher than these unadjusted estimates.
What do you mean by “it” that they all do? Because it’s definitely not spending this much time, or amount of money per trip, that they’re all doing.
In contrast, former President Joe Biden’s trips to Wilmington, Delaware, and Rehoboth Beach cost far less than Trump’s golf trips because he used smaller aircraft or helicopters, as the local airport cannot accommodate a 747.
Former President Barack Obama was also known for his frequent golf outings, but they were far cheaper than Trump’s, as he would also use smaller aircraft or play at nearby courses, including on the course at Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews.
The apologist say it’s good for networking. Which maybe in theory, but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny how he’s using it.
Trump has also used golf as a tool for influence and relationship-building. Politicians and world leaders, from Finnish president Alexander Stubb to US senator Lindsey Graham, have played rounds with him, seeking to win favor or maintain alliances.
And the stretch to justify continues:
Trump’s latest health report also cited his frequent golfing as proof of his physical fitness, framing it as part of an active lifestyle.
If it gave party leaders more in depth knowledge of which candidates had broad appeal (which is likely - knowing how popular each first + second choice combination is gives power to data analytics), they could more accurately spend resources to win more general elections. Actually giving the party more power.
Eventually. They would have to completely rebuild many of the established campaign strategy tools. I think sunk cost fallacy (we invested in these tools, we can’t switch to a system where our expensive software and stuff isn’t used!) is a more powerful block here than power hunger.
Amendment. Or as the other comment alluded to, interstate compact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
They believe the other option would have resulted in even worse outcome. As long as they can imagine it being worse, they can believe voting for their (misguided, but not as much as the other) team is the right thing to do.
The silver lining is that if their team is less inspirational, some voters will become discouraged and stay home instead of voting.
Homeless people, on average, contribute less to society than housed people, on average. Generally multiple societal structural failures and bad luck are major contributions to a person ending up homeless, but their own genetic- and nuture-driven characteristics play a role, too, and having a higher physical and mental disability burden than the average human is common.
Also, living remotely often means subsistence is a major part of how people get on, and subsistence is an intensely knowledge- and skill-based task highly specific to locale. Hunting in rural Alaska is not immediately transferable to hunting in Greenland, and dumping someone in rural Montana is not going to poof make them an expert gatherer.
Insider trading is a bipartisan rep problem for sure (legal! since they make the laws!) Not sure it’s any better or just different: in the case of the reps, the corruption wealth gains are not direct money from taxpayers. Stockholders get the short end of the stick on that one.
But the president historically has held to higher standards. What Trump is doing is a new level of corruption, both for the specific office of president and for the direct taxpayers source of his wealth gain. It’s reasonable to have fresh outrage over it, even for people with outrage fatigue on the Congress insider trading issue.