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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

While I don't believe that for a minute, if that is the case, then it was the illegal outcry and advertisement from the President and his advisor, Kellyanne, that swayed the market, and violated the law and ethics rules and can be added to the list of that many 'abuse of power' accusations accumulating against this administration.

Impeachment looms!



Or it was the fact her products were pulled under pressure from crazy liberals and the news media gloated about it. Backfired.
Either way, Ivanka wins and Kelly Ann has a job to get on with.




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



It should also be noted that Kelly Anne Conway does not hold public office.


Yes she does.


PUBLIC OFFICE:
a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public, especially within the government:
a job in the government that you have because you were chosen or elected


She was being interviewed in her official capacity from the White House when she made the offending comment.





She is neither in a position of authority or offering a service to the public.


She is Senior Adviser to Trump. That is a Federal Employee.

Now you're attempting to derail the actual concern (which is that she broke the law) to planting bogus seeds of doubt about her status as an actual employee. Stick with BRExit, something that likely is more apt to affect you than US politics.


Now have you explained the 'public office' part of the argument yet


As a government employee, she is bound by the OGE constraints, so, yes, I certainly have, many times over.



Ivanka walks away with bigger profits, Nothing happens to Conway, and you cry.


So then, you endorse breaking the law if it suits your particular lifestyle and argument to do so....then that explains quite a bit of why you're arguing so fervently with these concerns.


So at least we can agree that those in public office CAN endorse products as long as they do not use their public office to do so. Finally.



Actually, it's moot...she IS in public office 100% of the time so long as she continues to be President Trump's Senior adviser....if he fires her, then she can endorse away.



Endorse her actions? No.


If you want to talk about agreement, considering you do not condone her actions, then you agree she has broken the law. Finally.



So if she is a bar with her pal and says she likes BMW's she is breaking the law, right? You really think that?


Nope. But she wasn't in a bar talking with her friends about what her opinions are on a product.

She was on national television being interviewed and told people to "Go out and buy"....that is an endorsement.

But I will entertain your drivel for the time being.

If you're going to cite, cite the whole thing, not just the parts you "want"



A prohibition against employees using public office for their own private gain for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-Government capacity, or for the endorsement or any product, service, or enterprise


By endorsing Ivanka's line and telling people to "Go out and buy", there was potential for Ivanka's personal gain based upon that....by telling her friends at a bar she likes BMW's there is no personal gain potential for anyone that she is affiliated with.


It was you who dismissed another poster because they brought up the relevance of 'public office', now you are saying she can endorse a product as long as she is not using her public office. That's progress at least.

With that said, this is still an irrelevant issue, but it is funny that you are still pushing it. Does it upset you that much that Ivanka made money and Kelly Ann Conway was not punished?


I never dismissed ANYTHING about public office, what I dismissed was the irrelevant 'private gain' that he was harping upon. Stop attempting dereailment...it's not working and you wont 'win the internetz'....

Conway endorsed a product.
Conway is Senior Adviser to Trump which makes
Conway a Federal Employee
Conway broke the law.

All your spin and hyperbole in the world can't change that fact.


Nope.

You were asked this:



how was ms conways statement " using public office " ?


to which you replied:



Not applicable to the concerns at hand. Move along.


All very clear. No spin or hyperbole required.


Of course it wasn't relevant, a question that states "how was ms Conway using public office" is an irrelevant question in the first place. As a Federal employee being interviewed on national television in the capacity of Senior Adviser to the President it can only be under the auspice of 'using public office'.


Earlier on you said you were replying to a question about 'personal gain'. So now we know you were not, the response changes? OK. You make it up as you go along.


I was. So why would I answer a question that only has one answer?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



It should also be noted that Kelly Anne Conway does not hold public office.


Yes she does.


PUBLIC OFFICE:
a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public, especially within the government:
a job in the government that you have because you were chosen or elected


She was being interviewed in her official capacity from the White House when she made the offending comment.





She is neither in a position of authority or offering a service to the public.


She is Senior Adviser to Trump. That is a Federal Employee.

Now you're attempting to derail the actual concern (which is that she broke the law) to planting bogus seeds of doubt about her status as an actual employee. Stick with BRExit, something that likely is more apt to affect you than US politics.


Now have you explained the 'public office' part of the argument yet


As a government employee, she is bound by the OGE constraints, so, yes, I certainly have, many times over.



Ivanka walks away with bigger profits, Nothing happens to Conway, and you cry.


So then, you endorse breaking the law if it suits your particular lifestyle and argument to do so....then that explains quite a bit of why you're arguing so fervently with these concerns.


So at least we can agree that those in public office CAN endorse products as long as they do not use their public office to do so. Finally.



Actually, it's moot...she IS in public office 100% of the time so long as she continues to be President Trump's Senior adviser....if he fires her, then she can endorse away.



Endorse her actions? No.


If you want to talk about agreement, considering you do not condone her actions, then you agree she has broken the law. Finally.



So if she is a bar with her pal and says she likes BMW's she is breaking the law, right? You really think that?


Nope. But she wasn't in a bar talking with her friends about what her opinions are on a product.

She was on national television being interviewed and told people to "Go out and buy"....that is an endorsement.

But I will entertain your drivel for the time being.

If you're going to cite, cite the whole thing, not just the parts you "want"



A prohibition against employees using public office for their own private gain for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-Government capacity, or for the endorsement or any product, service, or enterprise


By endorsing Ivanka's line and telling people to "Go out and buy", there was potential for Ivanka's personal gain based upon that....by telling her friends at a bar she likes BMW's there is no personal gain potential for anyone that she is affiliated with.


It was you who dismissed another poster because they brought up the relevance of 'public office', now you are saying she can endorse a product as long as she is not using her public office. That's progress at least.

With that said, this is still an irrelevant issue, but it is funny that you are still pushing it. Does it upset you that much that Ivanka made money and Kelly Ann Conway was not punished?


I never dismissed ANYTHING about public office, what I dismissed was the irrelevant 'private gain' that he was harping upon. Stop attempting dereailment...it's not working and you wont 'win the internetz'....

Conway endorsed a product.
Conway is Senior Adviser to Trump which makes
Conway a Federal Employee
Conway broke the law.

All your spin and hyperbole in the world can't change that fact.


Nope.

You were asked this:



how was ms conways statement " using public office " ?


to which you replied:



Not applicable to the concerns at hand. Move along.


All very clear. No spin or hyperbole required.


Of course it wasn't relevant, a question that states "how was ms Conway using public office" is an irrelevant question in the first place. As a Federal employee being interviewed on national television in the capacity of Senior Adviser to the President it can only be under the auspice of 'using public office'.


Earlier on you said you were replying to a question about 'personal gain'. So now we know you were not, the response changes? OK. You make it up as you go along.


I was. So why would I answer a question that only has one answer?


So you gave an answer not relevant to the question asked? No wonder you tie yourself in knots.


So anyway, what do you think the chances are of Kelly Ann being fired because Ivanka is doing so well?
edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



It should also be noted that Kelly Anne Conway does not hold public office.


Yes she does.


PUBLIC OFFICE:
a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public, especially within the government:
a job in the government that you have because you were chosen or elected


She was being interviewed in her official capacity from the White House when she made the offending comment.





She is neither in a position of authority or offering a service to the public.


She is Senior Adviser to Trump. That is a Federal Employee.

Now you're attempting to derail the actual concern (which is that she broke the law) to planting bogus seeds of doubt about her status as an actual employee. Stick with BRExit, something that likely is more apt to affect you than US politics.


Now have you explained the 'public office' part of the argument yet


As a government employee, she is bound by the OGE constraints, so, yes, I certainly have, many times over.



Ivanka walks away with bigger profits, Nothing happens to Conway, and you cry.


So then, you endorse breaking the law if it suits your particular lifestyle and argument to do so....then that explains quite a bit of why you're arguing so fervently with these concerns.


So at least we can agree that those in public office CAN endorse products as long as they do not use their public office to do so. Finally.



Actually, it's moot...she IS in public office 100% of the time so long as she continues to be President Trump's Senior adviser....if he fires her, then she can endorse away.



Endorse her actions? No.


If you want to talk about agreement, considering you do not condone her actions, then you agree she has broken the law. Finally.



So if she is a bar with her pal and says she likes BMW's she is breaking the law, right? You really think that?


Nope. But she wasn't in a bar talking with her friends about what her opinions are on a product.

She was on national television being interviewed and told people to "Go out and buy"....that is an endorsement.

But I will entertain your drivel for the time being.

If you're going to cite, cite the whole thing, not just the parts you "want"



A prohibition against employees using public office for their own private gain for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-Government capacity, or for the endorsement or any product, service, or enterprise


By endorsing Ivanka's line and telling people to "Go out and buy", there was potential for Ivanka's personal gain based upon that....by telling her friends at a bar she likes BMW's there is no personal gain potential for anyone that she is affiliated with.


It was you who dismissed another poster because they brought up the relevance of 'public office', now you are saying she can endorse a product as long as she is not using her public office. That's progress at least.

With that said, this is still an irrelevant issue, but it is funny that you are still pushing it. Does it upset you that much that Ivanka made money and Kelly Ann Conway was not punished?


I never dismissed ANYTHING about public office, what I dismissed was the irrelevant 'private gain' that he was harping upon. Stop attempting dereailment...it's not working and you wont 'win the internetz'....

Conway endorsed a product.
Conway is Senior Adviser to Trump which makes
Conway a Federal Employee
Conway broke the law.

All your spin and hyperbole in the world can't change that fact.


Nope.

You were asked this:



how was ms conways statement " using public office " ?


to which you replied:



Not applicable to the concerns at hand. Move along.


All very clear. No spin or hyperbole required.


Of course it wasn't relevant, a question that states "how was ms Conway using public office" is an irrelevant question in the first place. As a Federal employee being interviewed on national television in the capacity of Senior Adviser to the President it can only be under the auspice of 'using public office'.


Earlier on you said you were replying to a question about 'personal gain'. So now we know you were not, the response changes? OK. You make it up as you go along.


I was. So why would I answer a question that only has one answer?


So you gave an answer not relevant to the question asked? No wonder you tie yourself in knots.


No. I rebuked the question asked as it was a non-question in the first place. Play all the games you want, as it simply doesn't matter to me, and frankly anything you have to say on the subject doesn't matter to US politics...no one is going to be swayed by your prepubescent word games here in the US.

I'm sure your full-time of slinging pasties to Essex chicks will be safe no matter what happens to Trump.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Denial much? Her products were pulled because they were tanking amid the highest retail sales season of the year. It's highly suspicious that her sales went up during historic downturned retail trends.

I highly doubt that Ivanka's line shows a profit at all, after all is said and done, even with this suspicious artificial and temporary boost to her profile. I doubt she'll ever show a profit in US markets, that's why she needs to sell in Japan and now China, thanks to daddy's new trademark favors.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Because the motto of ATS is Deny Ignorance. Should I have just let the question go unanswered? It's clear you weren't going to answer it despite admitting Conway did something wrong.

To be honest I wasn't even going to respond to this thread. This issue is long dead. Conway has been reprimanded and is seemingly banned from doing interviews. I figured I could answer a simple question without triggering anyone. I guess I was wrong.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth



It should also be noted that Kelly Anne Conway does not hold public office.


Yes she does.


PUBLIC OFFICE:
a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public, especially within the government:
a job in the government that you have because you were chosen or elected


She was being interviewed in her official capacity from the White House when she made the offending comment.





She is neither in a position of authority or offering a service to the public.


She is Senior Adviser to Trump. That is a Federal Employee.

Now you're attempting to derail the actual concern (which is that she broke the law) to planting bogus seeds of doubt about her status as an actual employee. Stick with BRExit, something that likely is more apt to affect you than US politics.


Now have you explained the 'public office' part of the argument yet


As a government employee, she is bound by the OGE constraints, so, yes, I certainly have, many times over.



Ivanka walks away with bigger profits, Nothing happens to Conway, and you cry.


So then, you endorse breaking the law if it suits your particular lifestyle and argument to do so....then that explains quite a bit of why you're arguing so fervently with these concerns.


So at least we can agree that those in public office CAN endorse products as long as they do not use their public office to do so. Finally.



Actually, it's moot...she IS in public office 100% of the time so long as she continues to be President Trump's Senior adviser....if he fires her, then she can endorse away.



Endorse her actions? No.


If you want to talk about agreement, considering you do not condone her actions, then you agree she has broken the law. Finally.



So if she is a bar with her pal and says she likes BMW's she is breaking the law, right? You really think that?


Nope. But she wasn't in a bar talking with her friends about what her opinions are on a product.

She was on national television being interviewed and told people to "Go out and buy"....that is an endorsement.

But I will entertain your drivel for the time being.

If you're going to cite, cite the whole thing, not just the parts you "want"



A prohibition against employees using public office for their own private gain for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-Government capacity, or for the endorsement or any product, service, or enterprise


By endorsing Ivanka's line and telling people to "Go out and buy", there was potential for Ivanka's personal gain based upon that....by telling her friends at a bar she likes BMW's there is no personal gain potential for anyone that she is affiliated with.


It was you who dismissed another poster because they brought up the relevance of 'public office', now you are saying she can endorse a product as long as she is not using her public office. That's progress at least.

With that said, this is still an irrelevant issue, but it is funny that you are still pushing it. Does it upset you that much that Ivanka made money and Kelly Ann Conway was not punished?


I never dismissed ANYTHING about public office, what I dismissed was the irrelevant 'private gain' that he was harping upon. Stop attempting dereailment...it's not working and you wont 'win the internetz'....

Conway endorsed a product.
Conway is Senior Adviser to Trump which makes
Conway a Federal Employee
Conway broke the law.

All your spin and hyperbole in the world can't change that fact.


Nope.

You were asked this:



how was ms conways statement " using public office " ?


to which you replied:



Not applicable to the concerns at hand. Move along.


All very clear. No spin or hyperbole required.


Of course it wasn't relevant, a question that states "how was ms Conway using public office" is an irrelevant question in the first place. As a Federal employee being interviewed on national television in the capacity of Senior Adviser to the President it can only be under the auspice of 'using public office'.


Earlier on you said you were replying to a question about 'personal gain'. So now we know you were not, the response changes? OK. You make it up as you go along.


I was. So why would I answer a question that only has one answer?


So you gave an answer not relevant to the question asked? No wonder you tie yourself in knots.


No. I rebuked the question asked as it was a non-question in the first place. Play all the games you want, as it simply doesn't matter to me, and frankly anything you have to say on the subject doesn't matter to US politics...no one is going to be swayed by your prepubescent word games here in the US.

I'm sure your full-time of slinging pasties to Essex chicks will be safe no matter what happens to Trump.


Lol, you seem upset.
So you answered a question different to the one asked because you had already made up your mind you were right. Got it. Rather immature all round.

Now, do you actually have a view on the likelihood that Kelly Ann will be fired because Ivanka is doing so well, or are you going to answer a different question in your own mind, like what the weather is like in Paris (scratch that.. somewhere in America.. as you have an aversion to foreigners)?


edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

Because the motto of ATS is Deny Ignorance. Should I have just let the question go unanswered? It's clear you weren't going to answer it despite admitting Conway did something wrong.

To be honest I wasn't even going to respond to this thread. This issue is long dead. Conway has been reprimanded and is seemingly banned from doing interviews. I figured I could answer a simple question without triggering anyone. I guess I was wrong.


You are right in the respect that this issue is long dead. Agreed.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Denial much? Her products were pulled because they were tanking amid the highest retail sales season of the year. It's highly suspicious that her sales went up during historic downturned retail trends.

I highly doubt that Ivanka's line shows a profit at all, after all is said and done, even with this suspicious artificial and temporary boost to her profile. I doubt she'll ever show a profit in US markets, that's why she needs to sell in Japan and now China, thanks to daddy's new trademark favors.



Whatever you want your fantasy to be... that's your right.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Given., Sure took a lot of arguing to get to that point!



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Given., Sure took a lot of arguing to get to that point!



Ha, fair enough.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

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





oh, that's a bunch of BS. you think the grown kids of trump don't have an idea why they are doing so well?.....give me a break, even trump voters aren't that stupid


Swish

Ya missed it again




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Some stores dropped Ivanka's line because of politics. When they did that, people didn't like it, and went out to support Ivanka. Simple as that, clear to anyone with common sense. It's like when stores wouldn't carry Dinesh D'Souza's book. Liberals aren't burning books (yet), but they are definitely trying to limit access to products of those they disagree with.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Some stores dropped Ivanka's line because of politics. When they did that, people didn't like it, and went out to support Ivanka. Simple as that, clear to anyone with common sense. It's like when stores wouldn't carry Dinesh D'Souza's book. Liberals aren't burning books (yet), but they are definitely trying to limit access to products of those they disagree with.


That's absolutely ridiculous. You truly believe -that- many people purchased her line of goods because they were trying to make a statement about politics? Please..

I have a feeling it's a bit of this.. a bit of that.. the plug probably didn't hurt. But I expected Trump's businesses to get involved at some point in the Presidency.. no surprise there. I'm much more worried about him making a colossal foreign affairs blunder that sets back relations decades, or starts a war, than I am over his personal profit. Not happy with it, but what can you do.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What..they are that stupid? you're probably right.


edit on 13-3-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I tried to low-ball a seller on eBay of Ivanka Trump's jewelry. He would have nothing of it!


(post by Dawgishly removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dawgishly
a reply to: alphabetaone

An analogy of OP's false logic, "In Chicago, when ice cream sales rise, so to do homicides. Therefore, ice cream is to blame for the homicides." Obviously there is a third factor, summer time, that drives the increase in both ice cream sales and homicides.



Unless it can be proven and verified that Ice Cream sales rising actually causes death, then this is nothing even remotely close to an analogy.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Get a grip, OP. Her brand saw increased sales due to the undeserved Liberal witch hunt and because it was being carried by less expensive retailers than Nordstrom.

You're right about one thing, this is old news. If you call this news.

Sorry to melt your snowflake but Kellyanne isn't going anywhere. First female campaign manager to win a presidential election but she's treated like dirt by the left and feminists because she 1. doesn't look like a man and 2. won it for Trump.

The old ATS would've closed this thread.

I miss the old ATS.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
My theory is this. The name Trump is better known now that Donald Trump is the president. More people google the name Trump and therefore more people come across Ivanka Trump's brand and therefore more people look into her clothing line and therefore Ivanka Trump's line sells better.
edit on 13-3-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join