• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key lawmakers seek probe of Kellyanne Conway's 'go buy Ivanka's stuff' message

I am fine with the show no mercy as long as that also goes for Hillary.

No complaining from here on out about anything but justice being served properly. Good for the goose, good for ol thunder-thighs herself. Right?

This isn't about Hillary, or some people's pathological need to insert her into almost every topic.
 
Geeze. This is what our lawmakers are spending their time on? They have nothing more important that requires their attention?

I think the reason for concern here is that there was speculation prior to inauguration that Trump and his administrators would use his position as president to promote his businesses. There has been some evidence that he plans to do exactly that.
 
Hey, mainstream media. Here's a bit of advice for you.

Nobody cares one iota about this non-story. Nobody. You're wetting yourselves over something that is so incredibly irrelevant, you're just proving Trump's point about you more and more. People care about lots of important things, but you won't cover that stuff. No, you're obsessed with Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom's. THAT is why no one respects you.

LOL, are you going to step in every bear trap out there?

Some people do care about a senior advisor using her official position to pimp a family business. It's not a big problem, and wouldn't it be great if that was the only issue arising yesterday, but it needed to be addressed and was. Thankfully, there is room for lots of stories online and in print. It's actually possible to devote a story about this AND stuff like Flynn lying about his Russia contacts, which was also in the news yesterday. I know because I saw both stories! Hard to believe it's possible - TWO stories on two different subjects (actually thousands of them on thousands of subjects) - but it happened!
 
I think the reason for concern here is that there was speculation prior to inauguration that Trump and his administrators would use his position as president to promote his businesses. There has been some evidence that he plans to do exactly that.

And I think that concern is over-blown. I prefer the Clinton standard. It's okay to rent out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign and personal donations. Selling it outright and having it removed from the building is over the line.

However, I believe Kellyanne is not going to be a long-term employee, so I'm not overly concerned about her off the cuff remark. When she takes some action with forethought to the end you describe, I'll be right there with ya.
 
I guess there's no freedom of speech?

LOL... No, government employees cannot use their official government position to pimp private companies.

See page 601 and 602 here
 
Hey, mainstream media. Here's a bit of advice for you.

Nobody cares one iota about this non-story. Nobody. You're wetting yourselves over something that is so incredibly irrelevant, you're just proving Trump's point about you more and more. People care about lots of important things, but you won't cover that stuff. No, you're obsessed with Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom's. THAT is why no one respects you.

LOL, are you going to step in every bear trap out there?

Hmm... a rabidly hyper-partisan Trump-booster justifies ethics violations within the Trump administration by attacking the media that reported on it?!
Say it ain't so!
 
LOL... No, government employees cannot use their official government position to pimp private companies.

See page 601 and 602 here

Its obvious Trumps team do not check facts before making a statement, or releasing a poorly written EO.
 
And I think that concern is over-blown. I prefer the Clinton standard. It's okay to rent out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign and personal donations. Selling it outright and having it removed from the building is over the line.

However, I believe Kellyanne is not going to be a long-term employee, so I'm not overly concerned about her off the cuff remark. When she takes some action with forethought to the end you describe, I'll be right there with ya.

I get what you're saying, but I think it is important to set a precedent. Congress needs to make an example by saying, "This may not be a huge deal, but we're going to tell you right now that we will not tolerate it." If they let it slide, it will only become more blatant. Trump already publicly shamed Nordstrom's for cancelling Ivanka's clothing line, even though sales were down 25 percent. As the self-proclaimed best businessman in the history of the universe, he should understand that if a product is losing money, you don't continue to throw money at it. But, that's beside the point. It wasn't any of his business to use his position as POTUS to make those statements. It was extremely "unethical" which is where the outrage lies.
 
I get what you're saying, but I think it is important to set a precedent. Congress needs to make an example by saying, "This may not be a huge deal, but we're going to tell you right now that we will not tolerate it." If they let it slide, it will only become more blatant. Trump already publicly shamed Nordstrom's for cancelling Ivanka's clothing line, even though sales were down 25 percent. As the self-proclaimed best businessman in the history of the universe, he should understand that if a product is losing money, you don't continue to throw money at it. But, that's beside the point. It wasn't any of his business to use his position as POTUS to make those statements. It was extremely "unethical" which is where the outrage lies.

I don't have any problem with congress telling them to watch it. I just don't think it rises to the level of outrage expressed by some. I think that Conway is disappointing in her remark - the possibility that Trump could exploit his position for personal gain has been raised, so she should be more circumspect in her remarks with that concern already expressed. With regard to Nordstom, I expect Trump is just being a father. He's allowed to do that.
 
Okay. Make a really, really big deal out of it. :coffeepap

You can ignore it. I don't expect anything less from Trump devotees. The people tasked with managing ethics violations aren't ignoring it, nor should they. The rules are crystal clear, and she broke them.

I'll bet you wouldn't make a big deal out of Valerie Jarrett telling people to buy from a company owned by Obama's daughter while standing in front of the "Office of the POTUS" sign either, and make the suggestion that everyone just ignore it.
 
I don't have any problem with congress telling them to watch it. I just don't think it rises to the level of outrage expressed by some. I think that Conway is disappointing in her remark - the possibility that Trump could exploit his position for personal gain has been raised, so she should be more circumspect in her remarks with that concern already expressed. With regard to Nordstom, I expect Trump is just being a father. He's allowed to do that.

Then he shouldn't use the official POTUS twitter to slam the company. Do you see the conflict of interest there, and how that could be construed as an overreach of power?
 
Hey, mainstream media. Here's a bit of advice for you.

Nobody cares one iota about this non-story. Nobody. You're wetting yourselves over something that is so incredibly irrelevant, you're just proving Trump's point about you more and more. People care about lots of important things, but you won't cover that stuff. No, you're obsessed with Ivanka Trump and Nordstrom's. THAT is why no one respects you.

LOL, are you going to step in every bear trap out there?

Nobody cares, well, except Jason Chaffetz and the Ethics Committee, who is supposed to be ensuring that the office of POTUS doesn't violate ethics requirements. They care, as they should. Actually a lot of us care about it as well. I didn't like the ACA because I believed it was out of line for the President to require citizens to purchase a third party good or service, thereby picking favorites and using his office to do so. I didn't like Obama out there pushing the green cars on us and bribing people to turn in their old cars and get money for buying energy efficient cars. Some of us have integrity and high expectations for the people in the office of the President.
 
I don't have any problem with congress telling them to watch it. I just don't think it rises to the level of outrage expressed by some. I think that Conway is disappointing in her remark - the possibility that Trump could exploit his position for personal gain has been raised, so she should be more circumspect in her remarks with that concern already expressed. With regard to Nordstom, I expect Trump is just being a father. He's allowed to do that.

Fact is he's no longer just a "father" and should act the role of being POTUS. There can no longer be a separation between Trump the person and Trump the leader of the country. When he speaks, no matter on what platform or which Twitter account, he just IS speaking as POTUS. He might be "allowed" but it's not acceptable for the POTUS to bully private companies from his official position as POTUS, which is what he did.
 
You can ignore it. I don't expect anything less from Trump devotees. The people tasked with managing ethics violations aren't ignoring it, nor should they. The rules are crystal clear, and she broke them.

I'm not a Trump devotee. My vote was cast very reluctantly. But, have it your way and boil her in oil. Conway doesn't concern me.

I'll bet you wouldn't make a big deal out of Valerie Jarrett telling people to buy from a company owned by Obama's daughter while standing in front of the "Office of the POTUS" sign either, and make the suggestion that everyone just ignore it.

Valerie Jarrett was largely ignored by the media and Congress anyway. I didn't say Conway's comments were great, good, or anything of that nature, but if you want to go over that hyperbolic cliff, don't let me stop you. Right now I give a whole lot more of a damn about what Trump's foreign policy is going to look like that what Conway says about Ivanka Trump's goodies. I'm content to let the Ethics Committee justify their existence.
 
I'm not a Trump devotee. My vote was cast very reluctantly. But, have it your way and boil her in oil. Conway doesn't concern me.



Valerie Jarrett was largely ignored by the media and Congress anyway. I didn't say Conway's comments were great, good, or anything of that nature, but if you want to go over that hyperbolic cliff, don't let me stop you. Right now I give a whole lot more of a damn about what Trump's foreign policy is going to look like that what Conway says about Ivanka Trump's goodies. I'm content to let the Ethics Committee justify their existence.

You suggested her clear and non-debatable ethics violation should be ignored. I guarantee you wouldn't say that about Jarrett. If you have no problem with ethics violations in the White House, then you'll have an easier time the next 4 years than those of us with an expectation of ethics in the WH will.
 
Fact is he's no longer just a "father" and should act the role of being POTUS. There can no longer be a separation between Trump the person and Trump the leader of the country. When he speaks, no matter on what platform or which Twitter account, he just IS speaking as POTUS. He might be "allowed" but it's not acceptable for the POTUS to bully private companies from his official position as POTUS, which is what he did.

I wonder if the "Jobs President" is going to lash out at all American companies, particularly retailers, that drop product lines. If Nordstrom stops carrying Vera Wang purses, will he complain about that? If Neiman Marcus says no more blue socks from John Smith sock company, will he Tweet his displeasure? I'm going to guess no. This is a sign of things to come. The "Jobs President" is going to use the bully pulpit to attack any American company that doesn't put his personal interests or the interests of his children first.

This is not a good sign.
 
Fact is he's no longer just a "father" and should act the role of being POTUS. There can no longer be a separation between Trump the person and Trump the leader of the country. When he speaks, no matter on what platform or which Twitter account, he just IS speaking as POTUS. He might be "allowed" but it's not acceptable for the POTUS to bully private companies from his official position as POTUS, which is what he did.

Sorry but there is a separation. I don't like Trump's bullying tactics at all, but he'll be a father for life and he'll be president for a number of years only. It sounds odd with regard to Trump, but just because he's the president doesn't mean he has to sacrifice the average humanity he shares with the rest of us. He may need to find better ways to express himself - and I don't hold out much hope in that regard - but I'll allow him his fatherhood. You don't have to. I do. It's my nature.
 
You suggested her clear and non-debatable ethics violation should be ignored.

No, I suggested some are making a huge deal out of something not so significant.

I guarantee you wouldn't say that about Jarrett.

The two situations aren't congruent in any way to start with, but during her tenure, I had very little to say about Jarret anyway.

If you have no problem with ethics violations in the White House, then you'll have an easier time the next 4 years than those of us with an expectation of ethics in the WH will.

Again, I didn't say I had no problem. I said I don't believe this instance is as egregious as you claim it is. Did you take a righteous indignation pill this morning?
 
No, I suggested some are making a huge deal out of something not so significant.



The two situations aren't congruent in any way to start with, but during her tenure, I had very little to say about Jarret anyway.



Again, I didn't say I had no problem. I said I don't believe this instance is as egregious as you claim it is. Did you take a righteous indignation pill this morning?

So you want the media to ignore ethics violations. Got it.
 
Sorry but there is a separation. I don't like Trump's bullying tactics at all, but he'll be a father for life and he'll be president for a number of years only. It sounds odd with regard to Trump, but just because he's the president doesn't mean he has to sacrifice the average humanity he shares with the rest of us. He may need to find better ways to express himself - and I don't hold out much hope in that regard - but I'll allow him his fatherhood. You don't have to. I do. It's my nature.

My point is when he speaks, he just IS speaking as the POTUS, who has millions of devoted followers, and who just DO pay attention to what he says. You don't have to believe me - here's a story in Breitbart, highlighting Trump's tweet about it. No matter what you think about his intentions, his criticism DOES feed the boycott efforts:

Exclusive ? Women Nationwide Cut Up Nordstrom?s Cards, Plan Boycotts After Political Decision to Drop Ivanka Trump Line - Breitbart

I don't think that's acceptable. And I'm sorry but running for and accepting the position of POTUS does in fact mean he can't be a private citizen while also being our POTUS. There is nothing to argue about - as POTUS, his words just DO carry a lot of weight, and do matter, and he can no longer (and be a responsible POTUS) act like he did before he assumed the job as leader of the free world.
 
Nobody cares, well, except Jason Chaffetz and the Ethics Committee, who is supposed to be ensuring that the office of POTUS doesn't violate ethics requirements. They care, as they should. Actually a lot of us care about it as well. I didn't like the ACA because I believed it was out of line for the President to require citizens to purchase a third party good or service, thereby picking favorites and using his office to do so. I didn't like Obama out there pushing the green cars on us and bribing people to turn in their old cars and get money for buying energy efficient cars. Some of us have integrity and high expectations for the people in the office of the President.

I get it, but this is silly. How is Kellyanne Conway financially benefitting from this? She's not.

This was an off-hand cutesy remark meant for sarcasm. It wasn't an attempt to financially gain from a political position. By the way, lots of senators and representatives have used their office to gain financially over the years in an actual sense. This is not that.
 
I get it, but this is silly. How is Kellyanne Conway financially benefitting from this? She's not.

This was an off-hand cutesy remark meant for sarcasm. It wasn't an attempt to financially gain from a political position. By the way, lots of senators and representatives have used their office to gain financially over the years in an actual sense. This is not that.

I didn't say she was financially benefitting from it, Erod. I said it was an ethics violation, and a very clear one. And as such, people do care. I know I certainly do. I would care if it was Marco Rubio's daughter's company and his senior advisor said the same thing. Sorry, but Trump has to learn the rules, and so do his people. The sooner the better, too.
 
Some people do care about a senior advisor using her official position to pimp a family business. It's not a big problem, and wouldn't it be great if that was the only issue arising yesterday, but it needed to be addressed and was. Thankfully, there is room for lots of stories online and in print. It's actually possible to devote a story about this AND stuff like Flynn lying about his Russia contacts, which was also in the news yesterday. I know because I saw both stories! Hard to believe it's possible - TWO stories on two different subjects (actually thousands of them on thousands of subjects) - but it happened!

How is Kellyanne benefitting from this? She's not. She reacted to NEWS that Ivanka's line was dropped by Nordstrom's, and she was being sarcastic. Technically, this is a no-no, but it wasn't done with any real intention in that regard.

Americans do not care about this one iota. It's just important to the ideological media and liberals to hyperventilate over.
 
Back
Top Bottom