Trump blasts Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka’s clothing line

Ivanka Trump is supposed to be an adult and is portrayed as a savvy business woman. She doesn't need her daddy the President throwing his weighty opinion around in her defense. No to mention she is supposed to be divested now isn't she?

originally posted by: rickymouse
But, this company is discriminating against Trumps daughter because he got elected to president. That is not right. She seems to be a decent person. I would say that all Republicans should boycott this place.

I'll never buy anything from Nordstrom as long as I live, any company who does stuff like they are doing should not be in business. Businesses need to stay neutral in politics to have long term stability. If this place is a corporation with stock, I hope their shareholders elect a new president, one who has intelligence.

To me, I think this company should crumble for the actions of it's present executives.

Any of you who believe this is because of money need to get their head examined, it is Trump protecting his daughter. Maybe we should say that presidents cannot have any children, because that is a conflict of interest.

Read what nordstrum said. They claimed her products aren't making money anymore with them so they won't carry them.
Boycotting trump products is smart. Proves he didn't divest.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986
If she thinks daddy needs to back her on a lost deal, maybe she shouldn't be making them in the first place. Fight her own battles kind of thing. It will be very telling to see if she chides him in return or not.

I'm not a supporter of anyone taking over their grown child's job woes, they're adults. Let them learn how to navigate their chosen industry without parental water wings.

First, I doubt she had anything to do with the tweet. Secondly, she didn't lose any deal? They dropped her. That means her deal was actually successful to get in the store.

This narrative you guys all share is obviously grown from hate, but where did you see him taking over her woes? A tweet means now he is taking over? Or he is using his platform to defend his daughter?

His tweet has absolutely nothing to do with him trying to teach his daughter how to navigate the business, reach much?

originally posted by: rickymouse
But, this company is discriminating against Trumps daughter because he got elected to president. That is not right. She seems to be a decent person. I would say that all Republicans should boycott this place.

You are assuming that the company dropped Ivanka due to political reasons. I am not saying they didn't drop her due to political reasons but even if they did it is not "discrimination". Just like any business, they can choose who they do business with so long as it is not discriminatory. Discrimination in the United states is based on being part of a Protected Class and Ivanka does not belong to any of them.

So just so we are 100% clear, you think it is a greater injustice that Nordstrum made a business decision against Ivanka Trump than for the President of the United states to use his office to further his personal interests by attempting to damage a private business?

originally posted by: plaindoughnut
Read what nordstrum said. They claimed her products aren't making money anymore with them so they won't carry them.
Boycotting trump products is smart. Proves he didn't divest.

Yes, Ivanka Trump's brand wasn't making any money. Never made any money. But..Nordstrum only had her brand in their store for 2 years. Hardly enough time for the brand to "catch on". It takes time for a new brand to sell. They just decided to stop promoting her brand, by displaying Ivanka's products on their store shelves, because of the unpopularity of The Donald. They don't want their customers to think they approve of Trump's policies. They don't want customers to boycott their store. So, it has nothing to do with Ivanka herself. It's all dad's fault. But, Ivanka only got into that branding business because of dad's fame and dad's money, in the first place. So, it was always Donald Trump's business, although carrying his daughter's name. Without The Donald, there would never be an Ivanka Trump brand.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Oh, its just thirty seconds or so to type a tweet.

Yes, I know. Quite a bit can be said in thirty seconds. When he is in a briefing with the intelligence community, I expect him to pay the proper attention to the matters concerned, and before you ask, the correct amount of attention is ALL OF IT! Not most of it, not nearly the whole lot, but everything he has. Every single neuron in his addled little brain, should have been dedicated to the task of wrapping his head around the data he was being fed, conceptualising its meaning in the wider geopolitical sphere, and developing bullet points for potential strategy related to the information he received.

The intelligence briefing is NOT a time for multitasking. It is a time for ABSOLUTE and TOTAL focus on the information, and NOT A DAMN THING ELSE!

That's the thing, whacky salesmen don't listen, they need to sell a spiel, anything that could interrupt that spiel, can be held off with a distractive, (if there is such a word) lie. Stuff like that is not so easy, either being a candidate to being a Pressie. Donald has too many bees in his 'elevated' bonnet to be singular about anything, and unprepared, so if in any way he is caught in a lie, therefore, and henceforth, it's everybody else that are the liars.
Just look at that hollywood video, here's a man who was bragging, (in a way putting down the guys he as talking too if you go with that flow) the elements of the discourse he says, never happened...so he was lying.
So it wasn't true, but even if it was true, he is still lying, but default everyone who heard it...wrong. What sort of fecking logic is that.

In a way his EO ban on Muslims is coming into trouble simply because it was brought forward on a lie. We know that radical Muslims, or those who have been radicalised, are doing all the atrocities, but the ban is more an insinuation than anything else...a Jeremy Clarkson with the big hammer job, you can't tell judges to insinuate, even if they wanted to...credibility gone in an instant.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: rickymouse
But, this company is discriminating against Trumps daughter because he got elected to president. That is not right. She seems to be a decent person. I would say that all Republicans should boycott this place.

You are assuming that the company dropped Ivanka due to political reasons. I am not saying they didn't drop her due to political reasons but even if they did it is not "discrimination". Just like any business, they can choose who they do business with so long as it is not discriminatory. Discrimination in the United states is based on being part of a Protected Class and Ivanka does not belong to any of them.

So just so we are 100% clear, you think it is a greater injustice that Nordstrum made a business decision against Ivanka Trump than for the President of the United states to use his office to further his personal interests by attempting to damage a private business?

They can do what ever they want in their own business. I just think this is politically motivated and those things wind up going sour quickly. I predict that company will be losing a lot of sales, the liberals will try to buy from them for a little while till someone tempts them with a dollar on a string like in that insurance commercial.

All trump did was tweet that Nordstroms seemed to be treating his daughter unfairly. He said she is a nice person. A president also has freedom of speech. It isn't like he threatened them. He tweeted like a bird. Boy people sure twisted his tweet into a big controvercy.

a reply to: rickymouse

A political or business motivated move makes no difference, Trump's tweet was the wrong thing he could do.

a reply to: Profusion

He spoke of a clothing line of his daughter's, not his own, and he didn't endorse it. He simply said they were treating her badly. He's right.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: plaindoughnut
Read what nordstrum said. They claimed her products aren't making money anymore with them so they won't carry them.
Boycotting trump products is smart. Proves he didn't divest.

Yes, Ivanka Trump's brand wasn't making any money. Never made any money. But..Nordstrum only had her brand in their store for 2 years. Hardly enough time for the brand to "catch on". It takes time for a new brand to sell. They just decided to stop promoting her brand, by displaying Ivanka's products on their store shelves, because of the unpopularity of The Donald. They don't want their customers to think they approve of Trump's policies. They don't want customers to boycott their store. So, it has nothing to do with Ivanka herself. It's all dad's fault. But, Ivanka only got into that branding business because of dad's fame and dad's money, in the first place. So, it was always Donald Trump's business, although carrying his daughter's name. Without The Donald, there would never be an Ivanka Trump brand.

Stupid argument.
They drop 10 percent of their brands every year if they don't make money.
Would have dropped it sooner. But it recently stopped making money.
Wonder why.
Is it because most Nordstroms are I'm cities and most cities hate trump?

Snowflake of the highest order. My god, this is just madness. And to the people saying he is just defending his daughter. WHat? Defending his grown ass adult daughter who can defend herself? Trump sycophants, I tell you.

a reply to: rickymouse

You are by far the pettiest human I have ever met. You aren't buying clothes from a business who made a business move. Not because it conflicts with your morals as a person, but because it went against your supreme leader's daughter's interests?

This world...

a reply to: Isurrender73

What in the hell was there to defend? Her poor sales, which are on the record? People saying her brand is terrible; well the poor sales indicate it is terrible, so one could conclude that.

No, he is defending his ego because he views Ivanka not as her own person, but as an extension of himself, his ego (as all Narcissists do) so when his, GOLDEN CHILD experiences a ego blow, he experiences one and is compelled to protect it.


Are you getting it yet, sycophant? Are yous seeing the patterns? You have countless people on here literally showing you his pathology and methodology and you still refuse to see this SPADE for what he is. A SPADE.

originally posted by: FelisOrion
Snowflake of the highest order. My god, this is just madness. And to the people saying he is just defending his daughter. WHat? Defending his grown ass adult daughter who can defend herself? Trump sycophants, I tell you.

I find it funny, really. If this was a high-powered liberal and their kid, they'd accuse them of molly-coddling and juvenile tactics a la "Wait til I tell my daddy, THEN you're be sorry!"

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: rickymouse

You are by far the pettiest human I have ever met. You aren't buying clothes from a business who made a business move. Not because it conflicts with your morals as a person, but because it went against your supreme leader's daughter's interests?

This world...

If a store locally dropped my friends line of clothes for possible political affiliations, I would not buy from that store. I can pick and choose where I spend my money, if you want to spend your money there go right ahead. I have a right to spend my money anywhere I want, except of course when I have to pay taxes.

a reply to: rickymouse

I love how your response to your pathetic reasoning for boycotting it is a proclamation of your rights. As if I am some police officer stopping you with no reason. It doesn't change the fact that its a pathetic reason. I wouldn't stop shopping at a store if someone dropped my friends clothing line due to it not being successful, especially if I like the clothing there.

You are correct though, as pathetic as your reasons are, you do have a right to spend your money how you want.

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: rickymouse

I love how your response to your pathetic reasoning for boycotting it is a proclamation of your rights. As if I am some police officer stopping you with no reason. It doesn't change the fact that its a pathetic reason. I wouldn't stop shopping at a store if someone dropped my friends clothing line due to it not being successful, especially if I like the clothing there.

You are correct though, as pathetic as your reasons are, you do have a right to spend your money how you want.

I had a successful business and was a foreman a big part of my life. How pathetic that I would want to spend my money where I would want to spend it. First of all, I spend my money locally most time, supporting my local people. I would probably never buy from that store in the first place, I only buy certain things on line, things I can't get locally. I also do not like to buy online because I am not paying sales tax to my state to take care of the roads and the schools.

So, my chances of buying from this company were null from the beginning. I feel sorry for the UPS drivers hauling all those packages,their jobs got way harder.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Community Announcement re: Decorum

You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: windword

Someone retweeted it who has access to the @POTUS account, I'm going to make a wild guess that was Donald Trump.

And now... it is gone from Sears and Kmart, too!

SO SAD!
BIG LOSER! (Ivanka, that is. If you ask for my opinion..)

Source