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: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Telos
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?


Not to go off topic , it is not just the left. The right side of the line does the same. In the end you have the spokeswoman for the white house breeching a line that had no business being crossed and is concerning. Regardless of political affiliation.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.



(c)Endorsements. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service or enterprise except:

(1) In furtherance of statutory authority to promote products, services or enterprises; or

(2) As a result of documentation of compliance with agency requirements or standards or as the result of recognition for achievement given under an agency program of recognition for accomplishment in support of the agency's mission.


I think that's pretty clear cut. Conway was on Fox News as a representative of the White House and as such acting in an official capacity. I think her intent was also pretty clear. She came right out and said that she was going to give Ivanka's line a free commercial, also known as an endorsement.

She broke the law plain and simple. But you don't have to take my word for it. We have people from both Obama's and Bush's administrations, among others, stating that what she did violated the law.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cypress

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?

Where'd I say that?

I didn't even pass judgement on how ethical Nordstrom's decision was. Successful business =/= ethical. But if we're going to start talking about ethics, then talk about both sides. Why is it considered not ethical for a Christian bakery to refuse making cakes for a gay wedding? That's political in nature. But there was an uproar about that from the left.

Essentially, stop picking and choosing which ethical example you want to push if you don't want to be deemed a biased clown.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

At least in the case of Nordstrom we know it's financially motivated. Once again they came out after the election and said that they would continue to sell Ivanka's line despite threats of protest.

Look on the bright side. Maybe the space that would've been used for Ivanka's clothes will instead be used on a line that is actually produced in the US. MAGA, right?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

Refusing to provide a product based on sexual preference violates discrimination laws. Refusing to sell a product due to that product failing to sell is called capitalism.

The differences seem pretty clear cut to me.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Feel free to disagree.

However.



Nordstrom, Inc. (/ˈnɔːrdstrəm/) is an American chain of luxury department stores headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


en.wikipedia.org...

What other news has come out of Washington ?

Like a judge blocking an EO.

They don't have to come out and say it.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I personally judge Conways endorsement as alternative advice. She has become to be known for this trait in a short period of time



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Grambler

Feel free to disagree.

However.



Nordstrom, Inc. (/ˈnɔːrdstrəm/) is an American chain of luxury department stores headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


en.wikipedia.org...

What other news has come out of Washington ?

Like a judge blocking an EO.

They don't have to come out and say it.


Hey yo will get no argument from me. Nordstrom can say what they want, I believe their pulling of her products was politically motivated.

That changes nothing however, about what Conway did was appropriate or not. Nordstrom are not elected officials, they can do whatever they want.

Conway is part of the administration, she can not advertise products, no matter how strongly she feels what Nordstrom did was unjust.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Ultimately, Nordstrom went on, "Every single brand we offer is evaluated on their results—if people don't buy it, we won't sell it." And since the Ivanka Trump brand, he wrote, "has grown to be a sizable and successful business," Nordstrom has concluded that it's not worth jettisoning, even if some of its customers feel passionately that it should.


Source from 11/22/16



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



Actually Hillary is good at defending child rapists and we all know that's who you supported. Hows that projection for ya.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



Possibly. And it is bound to get worse still........ What I can't judge is the amount of people that will follow. Nonetheless, frightning how easy it is that people get drawn into obsession. One way or the other



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Kellyanne needs to be canned! ASAP!



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



Actually Hillary is good at defending child rapists and we all know that's who you supported. Hows that projection for ya.


Trump they say actually raped a child...

Touche


Does truth mean anything to you Trump supporters anymore?

perhaps it never did and it never will!



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



Actually Hillary is good at defending child rapists and we all know that's who you supported. Hows that projection for ya.


Trump they say actually raped a child...

Touche


Does truth mean anything to you Trump supporters anymore?

perhaps it never did and it never will!



Got a source for those claims....guess not as usual.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: alexpmi

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



Possibly. And it is bound to get worse still........ What I can't judge is the amount of people that will follow. Nonetheless, frightning how easy it is that people get drawn into obsession. One way or the other


You’re right, obsession is involved where a person because of their too ardent support for someone loses perspective.

However, frankly, it may be that many Trump supporters NEVER really had perspective.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Amazing how you people are being programmed to defend the indefensible and they constantly do it.

If Trump called for child rape you would find some defense of him



Actually Hillary is good at defending child rapists and we all know that's who you supported. Hows that projection for ya.


Trump they say actually raped a child...

Touche


Does truth mean anything to you Trump supporters anymore?

perhaps it never did and it never will!



Got a source for those claims....guess not as usual.

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

www.snopes.com...


Boy you’re easy



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Sigh, Ivanka doesn't deserve to have people act biggoted towards her, due to their dislike of her father. Its the height of hypocrisy.

I think Kelly Ann is riding the fine line here and would of been better leaving it lay.

Ivanka is a wonderful person from what I can tell, screw Nordstrom and their customers if theyre so thin skinned. Her line is beautiful.


She might be a wonderful person but that doesn't mean she should get unfair business treatment. Nordstrom is a private company, they can choose to do business with whoever they wish without government interference. Isn't that the very definition of a big, out of control government?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   



Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

www.snopes.com...


Boy you’re easy



I want to be the first to say. Alternative or fake news

/sarcasm out



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.


When I taught law school classes in legal research and writing, I didn't DO "assignments. I still don't. It's not that hard to do. Might I suggest Google?

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)





When I taught law school classes in legal research and writing, I didn't DO "assignments. I still don't. It's not that hard to do. Might I suggest Google?
edit on 9-2-2017 by F4guy because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join