It’s very possible that her brand tanked over that period due to her father’s controversial statements and behaviour - there is some evidence to suggest his brand certainly has. That’s not the same as her being specifically punished for political reasons.
Boycotts are the free market in action. It takes a special kind of entitled capitalist to not understand that when you repell your customers for any reason, you can’t expect them to keep buying your shit. If Trump has a problem with this law of natural consequences, he shouldn’t have gone into politics.
Being born with Trump’s last name is how Ivanka was even able to get her products sold by Nordstrom. Boo fucking hoo if now that name is costing her deals.
For real. Ivanka Trump may be forced by this to get a job. While I’m not all about harassing the families of scoundrels, I don’t think refusing to buy things with her name on them rises to the level of harassment.
I don’t see why they’re upset. Nordstrom and other chains looked at their sales and decided to drop a line, something they do on a regular basis. Free enterprise at work. Instead of having daddy fight her battles, Ivanka should focus on developing better products.
This is pretty much how licensing one’s name really works, isn’t it? As long as Tiger Woods is a hot athlete his name is worth a ton. As soon as it’s revealed he’s maybe cheating on his wife, not so much any more. That’s how the wind blows when it’s all about ‘brand’, one minute hot, next minute not. Whether by poor decision making or bad luck. Think Trump Steaks, Trump University, etc. They were all viable right up until the wind shifted. Nature of the game, I’m afraid.
No one damaged this brand except them. How can you be so classless as to use your first interview to hawk a 10,000 piece of jewellery from your tacky line and not think there will be blowback? Completely tone deaf move.
Conservatives have told me that it is no big deal if someone is being discriminated from a place of business, since there are always a kabillion other businesses who’d gladly take their business.
When you have the president’s adviser using national news media to exhort people to go out and buy Ivanka’s merchandise, people are turned off by the sheer unethical audacity of that whole gang of self-serving con artists exploiting the presidency for personal gain. The old expression “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas” comes to mind. If Ivanka now finds herself itching all over, it’s her own damn fault.
No.
Let me expound on that - fuck, no.
Perhaps a little additional clarity is in order :
A.) Ivanka and her husband lay claim to being moderates, or even liberals. B.) They apparently have Trump’s ear.
Then they better start using that access to do some goddamn good, because of Trump so far is “Trump moderated by Ivanka and Jared” then I’m pretty sure either A or B is false. They are not influencing him in a good direction.
So, they absolutely should be pressured to show some goddamn results, or the public should stop crediting them as moderates, and just assume the simple, obvious conclusion - that they’re just as complicit in Dad’s shitty actions as anybody else.
Ivanka is in the political ring … that makes her fair game for political criticism … and her clothing line looks like shit …
Absolutely! Maybe Soros can buy those extra copies.
Yikes! Hillary’s Memoir Book on “DEEP DISCOUNT” After EPIC Election Loss
http://truthfeed.com/yikes-hillarys-memoir-book-on-deep-discount-after-epic-election-loss/44001/
Knock off the unrelated rubbish.
[/moderating]
Ivanka Trump is not Barron Trump, nor Tiffany Trump. She’s acting as a policy advisor, sitting in on meetings. I assume that we are still also waiting for transparency about the Trump Org and her continued involvement there. She’s absolutely fair game.
PS: the “Javanka are liberals who so don’t deserve all this negative press” line is one that, reportedly, Javanka have been shopping hard to D.C. and NY media, for obvious self-serving reasons.
The far left doesn’t tend to believe in ethical consumerism under capitalism so I don’t think you can blame them. It’s more likely the demographic of urban middle to upper class women who shop at these stores aren’t likely to be Trump supporters. She should try selling them in Walmart or Kohl’s. I’ve also heard some people say (the best, smartest people, believe me) that Ivanka’s dresses are cheaply made and overpriced.
Ivanka could be a liberal. People called Trump a liberal. It doesn’t really mean anything anymore. She’s cosmopolitan and said something about maternity leave once, close enough.
Maybe because there’s a metric shit-ton of evidence to back up that point?
Even the Wall Street Journal criticized Costco for the way they treat their employees.
I did find the WSJ article but it’s behind a paywall.
Not participating in politics doesn’t save the children of presidents from criticism/ridicule. It certainly didn’t save Chelsea Clinton from being called a dog (Limbaugh), nor the Obama girls from being criticized for the clothes & body language at a WH ceremony. And they were juvenile children of the POTUS.
I think that Ivanka is not like other presidential children. She is inserting herself into the politics and she is fair game. I agree that she is a typical limousine liberal but noone seems to give a shit about that.
Attacking Chelsea Clinton while she was still a child was out of bounds but targetting her while she was acting as a surrogate for her mother is fair game.
I’ll tell you the deep secret about boycotts.
Most of the people who boycott a product or store don’t shop it anyway.
I’m a Nordstrom shopper. I enjoy it. I shopped there when they carried Ivanka’s stuff, I’ll shop there now that they don’t. And I wouldn’t change my behavior either way.
But I might SAY that I would, one way or the other, to make noise, to make a point. To see if I can influence.
Liberals - and conservatives - should buy whatever the hell they want. Shop at WalMart, don’t shop at WalMart. Buy your coffee at Starbucks, don’t buy your coffee at Starbucks. If you justify your decision based off politics, that’s fine. If its off product, that’s fine as well.
What shouldn’t happen is that other people should get all butt hurt about it. If Ivanka didn’t want a backlash on her business, Ivanka should have distanced herself from her father. Because it doesn’t matter what his politics are, someone will take exception and boycott. If she was too stupid to realize that, she’s too stupid to own a company to start with.
One of the major, and justified, fears about Trump is that he’s going to be corrupt, that he’s going use his political power to enrich himself and his immediate family. A boycott of any Trump-related businesses is absolutely an appropriate response to that.
I agree, nothing is ever gained by such attacks.
It made Trump look like (even more of) a bitter vindictive little shit, so there’s that.