Does a president REALLY need to live in the White House?

[RandySF]

Last edited Sun Nov 27, 2016, 05:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton live in the NYC metropolitan area. Bernie lives in Burlington, VT and Martin O'Malley is in Baltimore. Given today's communications technology and the proximity to Washington, DC (with Sanders being a BIT further), does a president REALLY need to reside in the White House? Or is the White House uniquely secure in a way that makes it easier to gueard the POTUS and their family? What do you think?

[underthematrix]

1. Yes the President needs to live in the WHITE HOUSE because

it is designed to handle secure communications and to move the President and his family from one place to another safely. By not living at the WH would it require creating another situation room somewhere else?

I'm glad they won't be living there but I think it means more cost to US taxpayers.

[doc03]

2. The Republicans didn't want Obama there then bitched about the cost

every time he left Washington.

[SMC22307]

3. Quite frankly, I don't want him in my city.

And the thought of those blinged-out assholes at Camp David makes me ill.

[Lithos]

4. o F* you all who disagree

The Whitehouse is the home of the people...

It's the home of the President and anyone who choses not to live there is abandoning this relationship

L-

On Edit:

Before people get pissy on me...

If Trump decides to not to live there, then f* him..Just showing, he's too good to be our President...

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

5. Symbolism is important

Greeting foreign dignitaries in the Oval Office is different than having them ushered into the back door of Trump Tower to avoid protesters.

Additionally, making the Trump Tower secure -- replacing glass with bullet proof glass, installing anti-missile weapons on the roof -- is going to cost millions of dollars, and that's not including the exorbitant rent Trump will charge to house the Secret Service and support staff. Plus there's no underground command facility in case of an attack.

Another example: There's probably more than enough room in any good-sized conference building to hold both houses of Congress plus their support staffs and amenities. And it would probably cost less to maintain than the Capitol Building. But the history and the symbolism of that building far outweighs economics and convenience.

Trump is a dick. As far as I know every president has lived in the White House since it was built (except when the British attacked Washington, of course). Why should an exception be made for Trump's ego?

[canetoad]

6. Forget that we're talking

About the fat orange arsehole. Can you separate the President from the Presidency. Subtle difference.

Personalities come and go, the position, the institution of the presidency is historic and ongoing. It's traditional that the President lives in the White House. OK, tradition is not set in stone and can be broken with. At what point in time, what actions are deemed to be outside tradition?

Security is one aspect, convenience, centralisation are others. Why would a president chose to live elsewhere?

Look to the position, not the person.

[FarCenter]

7. No but it would cost less if he did

The West Wing and associated office buildings house the various executive departments that the President is responsible for. So constant communications and frequent travel would be required.

Trump might spend the week in DC and the weekends in NYC with his family.

[hatrack]

8. Do mayors need to live in the cities they govern? Shit, let's just have them do it remotely!

They can stay informed and engaged from their vacation cabins, or Antigua, or Tahiti!

And seriously, should Representatives or Senators actually be from the states they represent? I mean, how 19th-Century can you get??

[bigtree]

9. why are we allowing Trump to risk so many lives in these unconventional residences

...and why isn't there a limitation to the cost of securing his properties??