• 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!

Ivanka's Brand Takes Hit

Sweden said:
Not so. Anymore than my never having bought or used an illegal substance amounts to 'waging war on drugs'. One cannot 'boycott' something one has never purchased.
Click to expand...

Same effect...
 
calamity said:
Watch the hit 84 Lumber will take after the Superbowl. Already a RW boycott is forming online over their new ad.

Are you going to whine about RW'ers being intolerant?
Click to expand...

So what, RW'ers are not an American now according to you?

Learn to read please.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
No really, America is more divided and more intolerant than we have been since the late 60's early 70's.

We have gone in reverse.
Click to expand...

At the risk of completely derailing this thread... that is not true at all.

There were parts of the US, in the 1960's, that went bat **** crazy if a black person drank out of the same water fountain as a white person. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950's to 1970's and the social revolutions across this nation of the late 1960's and 1970's suggested anything but tolerance for one another.

You are going to lose the debate on social, racial, and/or economic cohesion in the 1960's and 1970's vs. today. We were not all that tolerant of each other then, and we are not all that tolerant of each other now.

The perception of things getting worse is the speed of information exchange today vs. then, and in the context of this thread the implication is owning a business (or business interest) today and having political involvement is usually detrimental to one or both.
 
OrphanSlug said:
At the risk of completely derailing this thread... that is not true at all.

There were parts of the US, in the 1960's, that went bat **** crazy if a black person drank out of the same water fountain as a white person. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950's to 1970's and the social revolutions across this nation of the late 1960's and 1970's suggested anything but tolerance for one another.

You are going to lose the debate on social, racial, and/or economic cohesion in the 1960's and 1970's vs. today. We were not all that tolerant of each other then, and we are not all that tolerant of each other now.

The perception of things getting worse is the speed of information exchange today vs. then, and in the context of this thread the implication is owning a business (or business interest) today and having political involvement is usually detrimental to one or both.
Click to expand...

There's a reason guys like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, when he was good, stayed out of politics. Protecting the brand was it.
 
calamity said:
Hey, feel free to boycott Clinton's brand. That won't help Ivanka though :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, I don't have the kind of cash or the need to buy Hillary's product.

The same applies to Ivanka's.

I guess I'm not the target demographic in either of these folk's marketing.

I think it's hysterically funny that the Clinton Charity folded when their pay for play extortion ring was abruptly ended by the November election.

The veneer depth goals of the fashion conscious and the outlandishly obvious pay for play goals of the CGI contributors are interesting when compared to each other. One is just an odd manifestation of style while the other is the obvious manifestation of of the greedy influence peddlers interacting with the needy influence seekers.

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative | Observer
 
code1211 said:
Well, I don't have the kind of cash or the need to buy Hillary's product.

The same applies to Ivanka's.

I guess I'm not the target demographic in either of these folk's marketing.

I think it's hysterically funny that the Clinton Charity folded when their pay for play extortion ring was abruptly ended by the November election.

The veneer depth goals of the fashion conscious and the outlandishly obvious pay for play goals of the CGI contributors are interesting when compared to each other. One is just an odd manifestation of style while the other is the obvious manifestation of of the greedy influence peddlers interacting with the needy influence seekers.

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative | Observer
Click to expand...

And this is related to Ivanka's brand tanking how exactly?
 
calamity said:
And this is related to Ivanka's brand tanking how exactly?
Click to expand...

This is your post to which i responded:

"Hey, feel free to boycott Clinton's brand. That won't help Ivanka though "

YOU compared the two "brands". I only expanded on your comparison.

Both were negatively affected by the results of the election, apparently.

Neither were supported by me or my money in any way at any time.

My response was to you and to what you posted.
 
OrphanSlug said:
At the risk of completely derailing this thread... that is not true at all.

There were parts of the US, in the 1960's, that went bat **** crazy if a black person drank out of the same water fountain as a white person. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950's to 1970's and the social revolutions across this nation of the late 1960's and 1970's suggested anything but tolerance for one another.

You are going to lose the debate on social, racial, and/or economic cohesion in the 1960's and 1970's vs. today. We were not all that tolerant of each other then, and we are not all that tolerant of each other now.

The perception of things getting worse is the speed of information exchange today vs. then, and in the context of this thread the implication is owning a business (or business interest) today and having political involvement is usually detrimental to one or both.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension score:
F
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom