It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conway Promotes Ivanka Trump Products in White House Interview, Raising Ethics Questions

page: 2
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
So we have a successful woman talking about another successful woman and it's all of a sudden bad?





posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Don't forget ObamaCare !!

That whole thing promotes private corporate products and makes people buy by force !!




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Where is that animated avatar of the dead horse being beat?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So now you not only believe that the President is intentionally trolling 50%+ of the population but also that he is instructing his people to willfully break the law in order to achieve those goals? That's approaching Nixon levels of spite and corruption.

Why do you support this man as President?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

Capitalism. They can do whatever they want with their businesses. Considering Nordstrom saw the largest jump in stock prices in years after dumping Ivanka's line out certainly seems like the Right business decision.

Also, you can hardly say it was due to political reasons. Following the election they came right and said they would continue to sell her line despite calls for boycott. I guess the boycott was a bit more successful than anticipated.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
So we have a successful woman talking about another successful woman and it's all of a sudden bad?




If she's so successful, why is her clothing line being pulled from stores due to declining sales?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She can talk about successful women all she wants. However, once she starts explicitly endorsing a product while representing the White House she breaks the law.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

What dead horse would that be? The one where Conway says something idiotic everytime she is interviewed? Or is it the one where this administration keeps skirting to outright breaking the law?

The fact that you're trying to play off a blatant ethics violation committed by one of Trump's closest advisors as no big deal is downright deplorable.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
First let me say I do not think this is a big deal.

However, Conway is totally in the wrong here, and Trump shouldn't be tweeting about his daughters business either.

The issue is that private groups have decided to boycott Ivankas businesses. I think it is stupid and childish, but they have every right to do it.

The President and his advisors have every right to comment on thinking the treatment of his daughter is unfair (though dumb), but when Conway suggests buying Ivanka's products, thats over the line.

They can not suggest buying family products in response to private citizens boycotting those products. While this is not a big issue to me, it can quickly escalate to full out advertisements of businesses that Trump wants to push.

People boycotting Underarmor, well Trump announces that people should buy their products. This is dangerous and dumb. I am for free markets, and government pushing products is not that.

And this is coming from a Trump supporter.

All legal questions aside, shouldn't the administration be focusing on immigration, Iran, taxes, Obamacare and many other important issues? I am not saying they are not doing this, but why bring up added issues of controversy.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

LOL

What "laws" are broken ?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
If we're talking "ethics", why not talk about the company dropping Ivanka for no other reason than making a very public political statement?



So a private company choosing how to operate it's business is the same as using government office for personal gain?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

5 CFR 2635.702.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: xuenchen

5 CFR 2635.702.

And Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Sections 7301 et. seq.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
This leftist mentality to attack everyone who doesn't think like them, especially people that one way or another are related to Donald Trump has gone so far and become so disgusting that makes me wanna barf. Do they realize that what they're asking to be applied on Ivanka is non other than a typical behavior that was so humiliating and dehumanizing in the ex communist countries? Because your grand father might have done something against the government (most of the cases were just opposing verbally the system) generations after of the same family were persecuted only because of that. Was called a stain in the biography and was part of the war between classes. The working class (that shamelessly the communist elite portrayed themselves as being part of) and the enemies of the system, bourgeois, that were deemed as such by the system for opposing their party line. This is pure communism at its worst. A degenerate system that produces only oppression and suffering, a system that can work at its best only as dictatorial. And this leftist have the nerve to call others as non tolerant, bigots, fascists and racists? Wth is going on in this world?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos

The Christian Right has called for boycotts over such things as JC Penny publishing an ad that has a same sex couple.

I guess that failed boycott was justified though.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
White House just said Kellyanne has been "counseled".



Trigger Trigger !!



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Telos

The Christian Right has called for boycotts over such things as JC Penny publishing an ad that has a same sex couple.

I guess that failed boycott was justified though.


Thats right. What about the boycott of Target for their crazy bathroom policy?

Had Obama came out and suggested people shop at target to fight this unfair protest, I would have cried foul.

So I have to be willing toi call it out when "my side" does it.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway gave a “free commercial” for Ivanka Trump’s clothing line Thursday, raising questions as to whether she violated a federal rule that bars public officials from using their positions to promote private business interests.


If whats going on against Ivanka is politically motivated ?

I say they do have the right to say something about it.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


White House counselor Kellyanne Conway gave a “free commercial” for Ivanka Trump’s clothing line Thursday, raising questions as to whether she violated a federal rule that bars public officials from using their positions to promote private business interests.


If whats going on against Ivanka is politically motivated ?

I say they do have the right to say something about it.


I disagree. Had a politician from the left came out and said "Don't buy Ivankas products" then they would have been out of line.

But private citizens are allowed to boycott whatever they want, for whatever reason. The fact that it was political motivation does not give the administration the right to advertise for a private business.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: xuenchen

5 CFR 2635.702.



originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: xuenchen

5 CFR 2635.702.

And Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Sections 7301 et. seq.


Your assignments for today are as follows:

1. quote the part(s) of the law(s).

2. Present arguments that show intent.

3. Make the case as if you are the prosecutor(s)





top topics



 
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join