Usa

[supercomrade]

People are entitled to their opinion ... but not to their own facts.


COST TO VACATION (WEEKLY)

Obama - $12.1 M yearly divided by 52 weeks = $232,700.00

Trump - $24 M (10 weeks) = $2,400,000

So the increased threat to Trump requires a ten-fold increase in security costs? WOW!

I never said this either. You're just putting words in my mouth at this point. I said that the Anti-Trump crowd HELPS drive his costs up which makes it a Oxymoron that they complain about his security costs. I never said they are the sole reason his vacations are so pricey.

But the Anti-Trump crowd enormous hate defiantly CONTRIBUTES(once again, not the sole reason) to that cost.

 

[colay1]

Maybe the fact that Trump goes on vacation 10X more frequently than Obama has something to do with it? Just wondering...

 

[supercomrade]

Maybe the fact that Trump goes on vacation 10X more frequently than Obama has something to do with it? Just wondering...

Oh yes. Defiantly.

But the Anti-Trump crowd who threatens him with assassination attempts a few hundred thousand times every single day might also have something to do with driving his security force up.

 

[Preceptor]

Thread locked pending discussion among the Mod team.
This thread has not only gone Off Topic, but has dropped in quality very rapidly in the last few hours.

Well that actually makes sense but the oxymoron here is, the anti-Trump crowd force the secret service to boost his security up a lot.

I personally see daily death threats towards Trump on social media every single day. Obama did not get this much hate. I am sure the couple hundred thousand a day(taking a guess), assassination threats force them to take way more expensive security measures.

Like I said....the Oxymoron here is the people who hate Trump help drive this cost up

I would very strongly suggest doing research prior to posting a claim in the future. Doing so would hopefully prevent making such an unsupported and realistically unsupportable claim as was done, and therefore help maintain the desired quality of discussion on Defence Talk.

Having done some quick research, which was really just to get details and confirm facts, here is what I came up with.

There have been 44 different men who have served as President of the United States (Grover Cleveland served two, non-consecutive terms, hence he is the 22nd and 24th POTUS). Of these, three (Lincoln, Garfield, and Kennedy) have been assassinated, while another was shot but survived an assassination attempt (Reagan). Keep in mind this is just what is in the public domain.

The Secret Service makes plans and operates protection details based upon the assumption that threats exist. This is due in no small measure to all the threats the Secret Service and other intelligence/law enforcement agencies receive. I forget the exact number, but I believe it was something like 1,400 potentials per day, back in the 1990's.

Stating that the costs to protect a specific president are higher and then blaming those costs on a group, all because of comments you have personally read on the internet, requires a number of assumptions to be made. For instance, in the 1990's and before, when the Secret Service would investigate potential threats to the POTUS it became aware of, these threats were not made over social media. Instead these threats might have been made via phone, fax, email (which first was developed in the 1960's) mail, signs, statements made to or overheard by others, etc. Realistically, how a threat was made does not really matter, what matters is whether or not the Secret Service can determine if a threat is credible or not.

Now the question would be if, under a specific POTUS, there were more credible threats made, that could impact the costs for protection plans and details. However, the public is not going to be aware of whether or not more credible threats are made against one POTUS or another. Also, the source of potential threats to a POTUS (or any other famous or significant person for that matter) cover a broad range of people and grounds, both domestically and internationally. These range from people with grudges, the mentally ill, to those looking to become infamous, and more reasons besides. Again, blaming one specific group, especially when most people who would describe themselves as belonging to that group do not engage in the behavior, while ignoring all other groups and factors, is one of the behaviors common to other forums, but unwelcome at Defence Talk.

If you have any other questions or concerns, PM either myself or another member of the Mod team. Otherwise no response is desired.
-Preceptor