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.

 

‘Go buy Ivanka’s stuff,’ Kellyanne Conway said. Then Ivanka's fashion sales exploded

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think this post speaks to a different perspective, too:

4 million free advertisements for Ivanka Trump posted online. conway said something once, and from there it echod incessantly.


Indeed. If only the Federal Government and (the USA as a whole) were a product it would be sheer brilliance.




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Its ok, they can by all the cheap stuff made in china for extra cause it has a trump name on it.

There very savvy buyers lol.

edit on 11-3-2017 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
donald trump products are doing well also. But its not kellyanne. Its the free publicity the trumps get dumb #grabyourwallet and other boycotts. Everytime a store drops a trump product it hits the news and the ppl are like "oh wow. Didnt even know nordstroms had a trump shoe line". "What? Donald trump wine?". Railing against rude boycotters



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Are you postulating that Ivanka's clothing line has exploded because Kelly-Anne Conway suggested off-hand that people should go and buy it?

There is zero evidence of that, and the correlation does not imply causation. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that the media's over-reporting of such a non-event advertised for the Ivanka Trump brand, just as it did the Trump candidacy over the election.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I didn't mean intelligent as in IQ, I meant as in having general knowledge or the desire for it. I'm sorry you don't know me better, but I find a strong distinction between the two which English does not covey well.


No it's ok, I think I understood yu perfectly and you're right! IQ is only a distant cousin to intelligence.




Also, I tend to find ethics as less important than law when it comes to people under a microscope. Just my way of perceiving.


Well, for the President there is nothing formally binding him to NOT endorse a product, but for the other officials in his/her administration they are bound by law....ethics law from the Office of Government Ethics....this is why I bring it up.


True.

I may have come from the foolish anxious notion that some would run with this as if it was more than it is.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: alphabetaone

Are you postulating that Ivanka's clothing line has exploded because Kelly-Anne Conway suggested off-hand that people should go and buy it?


No. I'm stating that the article is postulating that.

If I'm postulating anything at all, it's that there is an emergent pattern developing within the Trump Administration...a pattern of lie, obfuscate, then ignore the lie....instead of what should have happened. Disciplinary action based upon laws stemming from the Office of Governmental Ethics.



There is zero evidence of that, and the correlation does not imply causation. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that the media's over-reporting of such a non-event advertised for the Ivanka Trump brand, just as it did the Trump candidacy over the election.


Take it up with Forbes and Lyst, not me.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
She didn't have malicious intent.





Maybe not "malicious intent" but she did intend to use her position to give Ivanka's stuff a free commercial, knowingly breaking the law.

While daddy Trumpy is whining on Twitter about how his little girl isn't being treated unfairly by big bad Nordstrom's, Kellyanne is on TV pulling emotional strings, telling folks to GO BUY poor little abused Ivanka's stuff!

In the meantime, they're trying to tell us that Ivanka is a "strong" successful business woman and an example of modern feminism! LOL!

It's not surprising that Trumpy wouldn't discipline Kellyanne for using her office to promote a private business, since he himself was using his office to blast Nordstrom's and defend his little girl's business, first! POTUS sets the example!

Can't wait for impeachment!



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Did you start threads calling for Michelle Obama to be fired and banned from ruining school lunches when she was endorsing Subway?

Or are you a hypocrite?




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone




No. I'm stating that the article is postulating that. If I'm postulating anything at all, it's that there is an emergent pattern developing within the Trump Administration...a pattern of lie, obfuscate, then ignore the lie....instead of what should have happened. Disciplinary action based upon laws stemming from the Office of Governmental Ethics.


That's the democrat's line anyways. But if we are to hear both sides of the story, Kelly-Anne's statements were lighthearted and off-hand, not an actual endorsement, and she was simply defending someone she thought was being unfairly treated.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Did you start threads calling for Michelle Obama to be fired and banned from ruining school lunches when she was endorsing Subway?

Or are you a hypocrite?



So, I would have had to either:

a - Create a Thread about Michelle Obama endorsing Subway (which by the way a first lady is also not bound by the OGE Ethics law)

b- Be a hypocrite


is it at all possible, in your small little world that there is a c? I simply didn't know about it and simply had no time to be around on ATS to actually post a thread about it?

No, of course not, you wish to bring partisan politics into something that is a non-partisan issue.

Conway is an official in Trumps administration, Michelle Obama was not...



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: alphabetaone




No. I'm stating that the article is postulating that. If I'm postulating anything at all, it's that there is an emergent pattern developing within the Trump Administration...a pattern of lie, obfuscate, then ignore the lie....instead of what should have happened. Disciplinary action based upon laws stemming from the Office of Governmental Ethics.


That's the democrat's line anyways. But if we are to hear both sides of the story, Kelly-Anne's statements were lighthearted and off-hand, not an actual endorsement, and she was simply defending someone she thought was being unfairly treated.


I have no doubt about that. I doubt highly it was meant as an actual intentional endorsement. However, it WAS one, intentional or otherwise and as such there was an infraction.
edit on 11-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Michelle was an official part of the Obama adaministration.


She changed school lunches nationwide.


The same rules apply to her as Conway.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I didn't mean intelligent as in IQ, I meant as in having general knowledge or the desire for it. I'm sorry you don't know me better, but I find a strong distinction between the two which English does not covey well.


No it's ok, I think I understood yu perfectly and you're right! IQ is only a distant cousin to intelligence.




Also, I tend to find ethics as less important than law when it comes to people under a microscope. Just my way of perceiving.


Well, for the President there is nothing formally binding him to NOT endorse a product, but for the other officials in his/her administration they are bound by law....ethics law from the Office of Government Ethics....this is why I bring it up.


True.

I may have come from the foolish anxious notion that some would run with this as if it was more than it is.



And I can completely understand why you would think that. It's rampant.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: alphabetaone

Michelle was an official part of the Obama adaministration.


She changed school lunches nationwide.


The same rules apply to her as Conway.


And if you're right about that, then maybe someone should have started a thread about it, with all the bells and whistles at that time in 2014 too.

But, according to Wikipedia, I don't think your argument is sound



First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS)[1] is the informal but accepted title held by the wife of the President of the United States, concurrent with the president's term of office. Although the first lady’s role has never been codified or officially defined, she figures prominently in the political and social life of the nation.[2] Melania Trump is the current First Lady


also...



The position of the First Lady is not an elected one and carries only ceremonial duties


She is not considered an Official of the Administration


edit on 11-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think this post speaks to a different perspective, too:

4 million free advertisements for Ivanka Trump posted online. conway said something once, and from there it echod incessantly.


No, it was actually a reaction to Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus boycotting her products and removing them from shelves.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

These are business owners. If You want government rule followers, why didnt you work harder to get hillary elected President?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: alphabetaone

These are business owners. If You want government rule followers, why didnt you work harder to get hillary elected President?


Why would I do that? I didn't want her to be President.

But that's beside the point. You're bringing partisanship into a discussion revolving around ethics concerns. Why is that precisely?
edit on 11-3-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
nordstrom decided to stop selling the clothing line because it was under performing. donald the snowflake threw a hissy fit, its not fair that my daughters clothing line will not be sold at nordstroms because it was under performing, is he suggesting that it should continue to be sold even though its sales were terrible? great business man that donald.

donald and his family are profiting from the age old adage "succes de scandale" "there is no such thing as bad publicity."
edit on 11-3-2017 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
It was a combination of both. Either way, what Kelly did was marketing a product/brand for retail consumption. I think she is ditzy enough to not realize at the time she was in fact doing it. Unless, it was absolutely intentional. Either way, it fits the definition of a commercial advertisement.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think this post speaks to a different perspective, too:

4 million free advertisements for Ivanka Trump posted online. conway said something once, and from there it echod incessantly.


Indeed. If only the Federal Government and (the USA as a whole) were a product it would be sheer brilliance.


I would counter with, "indeed, if only the "free press" in the US existed, instead of "media", we wouldn't have mudslinging fluff pieces controlling the news cycle".

Conway didn't do this all alone. She simply said the words once. It was the echo that did it.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join