Jump to content

Melania vs. Michelle Payroll


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

More like a stab at her bloated payroll but thanks for playing.

 

And what role would that be if just being First Lady isn’t good enough? 

I haven't critiqued her role. I don't care if a First Lady chooses to keep to herself, raise her family, attend to her career or do yoga all day. Proud's post thrust her into the political discussion as a prop to whack Michelle. I also don't care if a First Lady opts for a more traditional role with causes and appearances-- the cost is minimal and hardly worth a discussion-- compare it to travel and security costs if one want wants to flout her thriftiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

“As with all things that she does, she is being very deliberate in her hiring, focusing on quality over quantity,” communications director Stephanie Grisham said in an email.

All things except choosing a husband. She went with quantitity there. ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I haven't critiqued her role. I don't care if a First Lady chooses to keep to herself, raise her family, attend to her career or do yoga all day. Proud's post thrust her into the political discussion as a prop to whack Michelle. I also don't care if a First Lady opts for a more traditional role with causes and appearances-- the cost is minimal and hardly worth a discussion-- compare it to travel and security costs if one want wants to flout her thriftiness.

I posted a fact. No stab intended. You just choose to make it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

“As with all things that she does, she is being very deliberate in her hiring, focusing on quality over quantity,” communications director Stephanie Grisham said in an email.

All things except choosing a husband. She went with quantitity there. ???

You just couldn't give her any credit without bashing Trump could you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

You just couldn't give her any credit without bashing Trump could you?

 

Considering that FLOTUS cost taxpayers a million dollars living apart from her husband, I'd say Fox News could use some perspective on Melania saving taxpayers money.

But if it makes you feel better, I think she's very pretty. And looks good naked. But I bet you already know this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Proud's post thrust her into the political discussion as a prop to whack Michelle.

It’s a direct comparison of their respective payrolls. That’s it.

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

also don't care if a First Lady opts for a more traditional role with causes and appearances

The current First Lady appears to be more traditional of a First Lady than Michelle Obama was so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Most First Ladies stayed to themselves and to their families until Eleanor Roosevelt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Considering that FLOTUS cost taxpayers a million dollars living apart from her husband, I'd say Fox News could use some perspective on Melania saving taxpayers money.

But if it makes you feel better, I think she's very pretty. And looks good naked. But I bet you already know this. 

How do you know it cost taxpayers anything since she lived in their NY apartment while son Baron finished school year.

Since YOU said she looked good naked I take you at your word. Didn't know you went for the ladies. You lose your bet. But I bet her IQ is higher than yours and mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

How do you know it cost taxpayers anything since she lived in their NY apartment while son Baron finished school year.

Since YOU said she looked good naked I take you at your word. Didn't know you went for the ladies. You lose your bet. But I bet her IQ is higher than yours and mine.

I know this because I have a brain. She had to have Secret Service protection during that time. And it. It's taxpayers money.

Personally I prefer men. But I'm not insulted by you insinuating I'm a lesbian. I have no idea about her IQ and it could be higher than mine. I'm not going to be baited into a Trumpian IQ contest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

It’s a direct comparison of their respective payrolls. That’s it.

The current First Lady appears to be more traditional of a First Lady than Michelle Obama was so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Most First Ladies stayed to themselves and to their families until Eleanor Roosevelt.

Right. Most until 1932. You're just disagreeable by nature. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Right. Most until 1932. You're just disagreeable by nature. Got it.

So I was right. Got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Hardly. Just disagreeable.

Says the guy who just confirmed that it was traditional for First Ladies to not get involved in politics. 

Get Help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Says the guy who just confirmed that it was traditional for First Ladies to not get involved in politics. 

Get Help.

Before 1932. Get real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle Obama’s career as a Harvard-educated lawyer and her near-perfect performance on the campaign trail made her appear poised to be able to hit that very narrow target of being an effective—but not overreaching—first lady. She even hinted at keeping her job—a 2008 

article reported her as saying that she sees the role of the first lady as a full time commitment, but that “she reserved the right to change her mind if she gets there.”

Once in office, though, she visibly played it cautious, working only two or three days of the week and sticking to the traditional women’s and children’s-interest advocacy role.

Why would this article say such a thing if First Ladies traditionally participanted in politics?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/380753/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower were the last first ladies born during the Victorian era in the 1800s. Bess Truman married Harry S. Truman, a World War II veteran and West Point graduate. Mamie Eisenhower married Dwight D. Eisenhower, a career military officer. Both women served traditional, domestic roles and, unlike the first ladies who would follow, did not hold careers outside of the home.

I cannot possibly figure out why all these articles are calling the family- attending First Ladies more traditional?  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

How did the role of first lady came to be?


Martha Washington is considered to be the first "first lady," but the term wasn't used until after her death. Her main function was to play hostess for social events, and she set the standard for the subsequent first ladies.

The role has historically been reserved for the president's spouse, but some first ladies have not been married to POTUS. Emily Donelson took over the hostessing duties during the presidency of her uncle Andrew Jackson, a widow. Harriet Lane did the same during the administration of James Buchanan, who never married.

However, our contemporary understanding of the role can be traced back to Eleanor Roosevelt, according to Dr. Katherine Jellison, chair of the history department at Ohio University, who has studied extensively the topic of first ladies.

During her time at the White House, Roosevelt expanded her duties beyond just being a hostess, spending her time working on social reform projects.

"She is the first first lady to have press conferences, she is the first first lady to have a significant number of staff working for her," Jellinson said. "She is the one who made the role of first lady as high profile as it is today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

 

 

I cannot possibly figure out why all these articles are calling the family- attending First Ladies more traditional?  ?

Like I said disagreeable to a pathological degree. First, I've clearly said I don't care how a First Lady approaches the job, but you want to argue anyway. And now you think you've scored some big win because the First Ladies of the 1950's had different roles than their successors. Get a life. Get a clue. Get some help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Like I said disagreeable to a pathological degree. First, I've clearly said I don't care how a First Lady approaches the job, but you want to argue anyway. And now you think you've scored some big win because the First Ladies of the 1950's had different roles than their predecessors. Get a life. Get a clue. Get some help.

So I take it upon myself to freely correct you( against my own inclinations) and that makes me disagreeable. ? I’ll take it every time and you should too unless you enjoy sounding happily ignorant when you post. 

It’s absurd to even try to rationalize that because 4 or five First Ladies out of 45 FLOTUS’s cared about politics that those four were the traditional ones. Like I said, seek help. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

So I take it upon myself to freely correct you( against my own inclinations) and that makes me disagreeable. ? I’ll take it every time and you should too unless you enjoy sounding happily ignorant when you post. 

It’s absurd to even try to rationalize that because 4 or five First Ladies out of 45 FLOTUS’s cared about politics that those four were the traditional ones. Like I said, seek help. 

 

Goodnight Jeff. These last few weeks have helped me understand others issues with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Goodnight Jeff. These last few weeks have helped me understand others issues with you.

If others have  issues, tell them to PM me. But calling me disagreeable just to squirm out of being wrong only shines a light on your own egregious flaws. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Sorry Salty. Failed attempt at humor. I know who she is.

Sorry PT,  Tex labeled her the "trophy wife" saying his comment was disgusting. Thought you had read the entire thread. Label Michelle and see what gets you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2017 at 4:18 PM, TexasTiger said:

She's not doing much in the role, is she? She hasn't even lived in the WH very long. Where's that Cyberbullying effort?  Wouldn't cost much to wrestle Twitter away from hubby.

"the role" awful Tex, disappointing.....obviously, you think women are here to play a "role" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2017 at 3:16 PM, Proud Tiger said:

How do you know it cost taxpayers anything since she lived in their NY apartment while son Baron finished school year.

Because she doesn't just sit up in their NYC home with nothing changing.  The security costs associated with protecting two full time residences vs one, the security costs associated with protecting a regular residence vs one that has been built over the years with security as a main focus - all that stuff adds up.  There were estimates on the high end of it costing taxpayers $450,000 or so per day.  The low end tended to be around $250,000-300,000 per day.  And these figures aren't hard to find.

She was in NYC from the inauguration until June 11th, about 110 days.  Based on the figures above that puts the extra cost to taxpayers over what it would have been had she moved to Washington immediately between $30 million and $50 million dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...