Trump is using military to keep his Scotland property afloat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

This!

+1

Yea, we should all make sure that our taxes go to Trump so that he can have more and more money. After all, his businesses have taken a hit, and we must ensure that we support his businesses. Everyone, go stay at Trump's resorts, and write congress demanding that all military and government personnel always stay at Trump's resorts so that he can make money.

Make Trump Resort Great Again!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

There are 100+ hotels closer to the airport than Trump's failed property. This is outright theft, and the chain of commaned at the USAF needs to be brought to military justice on this. Shameful at every level.

So there are 100+ hotels they could’ve kept the crew in instead? That’s what you’re saying? All of which would’ve also required money being spent, in some cases perhaps more money, to put the crew up for the night.

So is your issue here the fact that money was spent to put the crew up in lodging? Or that it was spent at a Trump property? I can’t tell which just by your outrage. For all I know, like most Trump haters, you also hate the military and would tell them to just sleep in the cargo hold for the night. So it’s hard to pin down where your hate is focused.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Trump property offered a heavily discounted rate for the crew? Maybe it was cheaper than any similar hotel? Wouldn’t that make good fiscal sense?

Because if the rate was lower and the DoD paid more to stay somewhere else, I suspect you’d be complianing that Trump was being fiscally reckless.

I wish you people would wake up.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1170126745170788358?s=20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

There are 100+ hotels closer to the airport than Trump's failed property. This is outright theft, and the chain of commaned at the USAF needs to be brought to military justice on this. Shameful at every level.

So there are 100+ hotels they could’ve kept the crew in instead? That’s what you’re saying? All of which would’ve also required money being spent, in some cases perhaps more money, to put the crew up for the night.

So is your issue here the fact that money was spent to put the crew up in lodging? Or that it was spent at a Trump property? I can’t tell which just by your outrage. For all I know, like most Trump haters, you also hate the military and would tell them to just sleep in the cargo hold for the night. So it’s hard to pin down where your hate is focused.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Trump property offered a heavily discounted rate for the crew? Maybe it was cheaper than any similar hotel? Wouldn’t that make good fiscal sense?

Because if the rate was lower and the DoD paid more to stay somewhere else, I suspect you’d be complianing that Trump was being fiscally reckless.

There was no need to go to ANY of those 100+ hotels. They never stopped off at Scotland before. It's out of the way. They normally stay the night at an American air base, which is guaranteed to be cheaper than a Trump hotel.

+1 and to add, the fuel at an American air force base is cheaper than paying for it at the Scotland airport. I seriously cannot believe people are trying to justify this is okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

There are 100+ hotels closer to the airport than Trump's failed property. This is outright theft, and the chain of commaned at the USAF needs to be brought to military justice on this. Shameful at every level.

So there are 100+ hotels they could’ve kept the crew in instead? That’s what you’re saying? All of which would’ve also required money being spent, in some cases perhaps more money, to put the crew up for the night.

So is your issue here the fact that money was spent to put the crew up in lodging? Or that it was spent at a Trump property? I can’t tell which just by your outrage. For all I know, like most Trump haters, you also hate the military and would tell them to just sleep in the cargo hold for the night. So it’s hard to pin down where your hate is focused.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Trump property offered a heavily discounted rate for the crew? Maybe it was cheaper than any similar hotel? Wouldn’t that make good fiscal sense?

Because if the rate was lower and the DoD paid more to stay somewhere else, I suspect you’d be complianing that Trump was being fiscally reckless.

Did you actually read the article?

“he texted someone close to him and said the crew’s per diem allowance wasn’t enough to cover food and drink”

Does that sound like they are being comped? Trump never comped anyone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

There are 100+ hotels closer to the airport than Trump's failed property. This is outright theft, and the chain of commaned at the USAF needs to be brought to military justice on this. Shameful at every level.

So there are 100+ hotels they could’ve kept the crew in instead? That’s what you’re saying? All of which would’ve also required money being spent, in some cases perhaps more money, to put the crew up for the night.

So is your issue here the fact that money was spent to put the crew up in lodging? Or that it was spent at a Trump property? I can’t tell which just by your outrage. For all I know, like most Trump haters, you also hate the military and would tell them to just sleep in the cargo hold for the night. So it’s hard to pin down where your hate is focused.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Trump property offered a heavily discounted rate for the crew? Maybe it was cheaper than any similar hotel? Wouldn’t that make good fiscal sense?

Because if the rate was lower and the DoD paid more to stay somewhere else, I suspect you’d be complianing that Trump was being fiscally reckless.

Do you understand how USG international per diem rates work? The USG determines the rate for each country based on cost of living and, if necessary, a higher rate for expensive urban centers in a country. Unlike domestic travel, where the USG determines a rate for lodging and a separate one for food, the international rate is one rate and the government employee must cover both lodging and food out of it. In many instances, if the employee produces a letter from the US embassy, the international hotels are cognizant of the US per diem rate and will offer a discount rate (similar to many hotel chains in the states). Clearly Trump's hotel is not doing that or the soldiers would have at least some many remaining for meals. So Trump's hotel is maxing out the USG per diem for Scotland and, moreover, forcing the soldiers to cover their meals when on government work.

[Anonymous]

Why does a "billionaire" need to grift US servicemen for food and rink money?

Maybe, uh, he isn't a billionaire?

[Anonymous]

*drink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

Why do you think it's okay to force the aircrew to spend their own money (outside their per diem) to be able to afford eating at the resort/

[Anonymous]

I am almost certain I've said this before...but this is OUTRAGEOUS.

[Anonymous]

Do you all think Trump will lose military support?

I’m not even sure. Trumpists seem all-in for life or something. Maybe they take a blood oath...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you all think Trump will lose military support?

I’m not even sure. Trumpists seem all-in for life or something. Maybe they take a blood oath...

Well, the Pentagon is stonewalling Congress on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure that aircrew was appreciative of a little downtime at such a nice place.

Globemasters aren’t like flying commercial. They’re slower, wayyyyyy louder inside, and generally are about as comfortable as riding on a wood bench in the back of a moving truck. I’d be thrilled at the prospect of a sauna dip and a comfy bed after 6,000 miles on a C17.

Good for Trump for thinking of those Airmen’s comfort. That’s class.

There are 100+ hotels closer to the airport than Trump's failed property. This is outright theft, and the chain of commaned at the USAF needs to be brought to military justice on this. Shameful at every level.

So there are 100+ hotels they could’ve kept the crew in instead? That’s what you’re saying? All of which would’ve also required money being spent, in some cases perhaps more money, to put the crew up for the night.

So is your issue here the fact that money was spent to put the crew up in lodging? Or that it was spent at a Trump property? I can’t tell which just by your outrage. For all I know, like most Trump haters, you also hate the military and would tell them to just sleep in the cargo hold for the night. So it’s hard to pin down where your hate is focused.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Trump property offered a heavily discounted rate for the crew? Maybe it was cheaper than any similar hotel? Wouldn’t that make good fiscal sense?

Because if the rate was lower and the DoD paid more to stay somewhere else, I suspect you’d be complianing that Trump was being fiscally reckless.

It's that the Trump property was selected specifically to provide benefits to Trump. If you can't see the corruption that entails, you're being dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Can't wait til a Democrat gets to enrich themselves while they are President. No one will be able to complain because there is a precedent now! Thanks republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Side note: this isn’t a pen emoluments situation. Emoluments are payments from foreign governments— if France was using this resort for example. This is payments from our own government.

That said, this is corrupt AF. And when we finally clean house after Trump, we clearly need strong anti-corruption legislation.

Actually, that’s not true. There are two emoluments clauses. We’re most familiar with the foreign emoluments clause, but the Constitution also contains a “domestic emoluments clause” (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 7), which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a Compensation” for his “Services” as chief executive. In any case, this is blatant corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait til a Democrat gets to enrich themselves while they are President. No one will be able to complain because there is a precedent now! Thanks republicans.

There will be a lot of "well.. Trump did it and Rs were fine with it".. that's for sure.