Is the sitting POTUS supposed to be endorsing a candidate and campaigning on there behalf?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two things bother me about this.

1. Are the taxpayers paying for Obama to fly all over the place in airfare 1?

2. Us normal people only get 2 weeks vacation per year, are we paying the president's salary while he travels around and campaigns for Hillary or does he have to take leave without pay or is he using part of his 2 weeks vacation?

No, he's using up the comp time he accrues by working 100+ hour weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two things bother me about this.

1. Are the taxpayers paying for Obama to fly all over the place in airfare 1?

The long-standing policy is that the President or the campaign pays the cost of first class air tickets for all non-government travel. While the taxpayer still pays the bill for flying Air Force One around, any other way would just be unfair, because the President could not pay for one flight on Air Force One out of his own pocket, and it's not like he has any other way to travel.

2. Us normal people only get 2 weeks vacation per year, are we paying the president's salary while he travels around and campaigns for Hillary or does he have to take leave without pay or is he using part of his 2 weeks vacation?

The President has "vacations" but he works every day even on vacation. He gets daily intelligence briefs, meets with staff on urgent matters and takes important phone calls no matter where he is. And unlike most of us, he is on-call 24/7. He runs an organization of 2 million people for tiny fraction of a corporate CEO salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It disturbs me to see how Obama has so much of a vested interest in endorsing Hillary. Shouldn't he remain neutral?

Are you 10 years old? This isn't anything new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It disturbs me to see how Obama has so much of a vested interest in endorsing Hillary. Shouldn't he remain neutral?

Yes, he should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It disturbs me to see how Obama has so much of a vested interest in endorsing Hillary. Shouldn't he remain neutral?

Yes, he should.

Says who? Are you one of the morons who think the Hatch Act applies to the President?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What planet have you been on till now, OP?

Probably West Virginia.

I'm not from the beautiful state of West Virginia. But why be ugly? I just don't understand it.

Don't be shocked. On this forum, many so-called liberal, all-inclusive posters think it's fine to denigrate certain states and groups of people.

OH NO! Do you need a safe space or a trigger warning, PP? I didn't realize you were so fragile!

[Anonymous]

The president is the head of his party. Of COURSE he should endorse a candidate from his party. If he is a popular president, he should campain for the candidate strongly. This is the person who will succeed him and carry on his legacy. Of COURSE he will care who that person is, and will have an opinion, and should share it publicly and often.

It would be shocking for a president, or a former president, to fail to endorse a candidate from his own party, as well. That would be strong criticism of the candidate. Especially when you consider that past presidents are those who best know what kind of intelligence, stamina, and temperament are needed for the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What planet have you been on till now, OP?

Probably West Virginia.

I'm not from the beautiful state of West Virginia. But why be ugly? I just don't understand it.

Don't be shocked. On this forum, many so-called liberal, all-inclusive posters think it's fine to denigrate certain states and groups of people.

OH NO! Do you need a safe space or a trigger warning, PP? I didn't realize you were so fragile!

Not fragil. Don't need a safe space or a trgger warning. I'm not even the one who asked the question. I just don't understand the mindset of someone who types out a mean-spirited response just for the sake of being mean. This is a political discussion, so of course things get heated. But why insult an entire state out of nowhere? It was in no way related to the topic and added nothing of value to the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What planet have you been on till now, OP?

Probably West Virginia.

I'm not from the beautiful state of West Virginia. But why be ugly? I just don't understand it.

Don't be shocked. On this forum, many so-called liberal, all-inclusive posters think it's fine to denigrate certain states and groups of people.

OH NO! Do you need a safe space or a trigger warning, PP? I didn't realize you were so fragile!

Nope, don't need a warning and not fragile. Just calling it like it is. Have a great evening!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The president is the head of his party. Of COURSE he should endorse a candidate from his party. If he is a popular president, he should campain for the candidate strongly. This is the person who will succeed him and carry on his legacy. Of COURSE he will care who that person is, and will have an opinion, and should share it publicly and often.

It would be shocking for a president, or a former president, to fail to endorse a candidate from his own party, as well. That would be strong criticism of the candidate. Especially when you consider that past presidents are those who best know what kind of intelligence, stamina, and temperament are needed for the job.

IMHO, once a person is elected President of the US, he/she should be president of all the people and not get involved with an election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It disturbs me to see how Obama has so much of a vested interest in endorsing Hillary. Shouldn't he remain neutral?

If you ask Harry Reid, it's a violation of Hatch Act.

You are a complete idiot. The Hatch Act does not apply to the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gore didn't want Bill on the road for him and no one wanted GWB's endorsement, so the last time it really happened was in 1988 when Reagan endorsed Papa Bush.

Did he and Nancy actively campaign for Bush?

They didn't need to - Dukakis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It disturbs me to see how Obama has so much of a vested interest in endorsing Hillary. Shouldn't he remain neutral?

If you ask Harry Reid, it's a violation of Hatch Act.

You are a complete idiot. The Hatch Act does not apply to the president. [/quote

Pretty sure the pp you're responding to said "according to Harry Reid." I see it right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The president is the head of his party. Of COURSE he should endorse a candidate from his party. If he is a popular president, he should campain for the candidate strongly. This is the person who will succeed him and carry on his legacy. Of COURSE he will care who that person is, and will have an opinion, and should share it publicly and often.

It would be shocking for a president, or a former president, to fail to endorse a candidate from his own party, as well. That would be strong criticism of the candidate. Especially when you consider that past presidents are those who best know what kind of intelligence, stamina, and temperament are needed for the job.

IMHO, once a person is elected President of the US, he/she should be president of all the people and not get involved with an election.

Nope! Presidents are political creatures. That's our system in this country, and always has been. If you don't like it, leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps you could consider that these "MOFOs" may be new to the process. There's no need to be so snarky.

Did they also fail high school civics?