Donald Trump blasts department store Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka's line, raising new concern on business ties

I'm sure you've all heard the story by now. So Nordstrom makes a commercial decision to drop Ivanka's line, and Trump uses (abuses) the office of POTUS to attack this commercial decision.

Nordstrom's share price immediately drops - in case anyone has any doubts about the influence statements coming out of the office of POTUS has.

But as if that wasn't bad enough. We now have Mrs Alternative Facts also using (abusing) the office of POTUS to shamelessly plug a business who just happens to be owned by the daughter of the POTUS.

Even putting aside for one moment the fact that there is actually a law against this behaviour, ethically, how on earth can anyone defend such blatantly corrupt behaviour? Boges? Mechanic? Sprint? By all means I invite you to try. Do the fanboys at least concede that Trump has some serious conflicts of interest here?

who cares!!!!!! even a president has the right to speak up for his daughter.

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:55am:


Fine, explain Kellyanne Conway then

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:55am:


Through the office of POTUS with all the influence that wields?

No Cods, he doesn't.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:44am:



Honkys excuse yesterday was that he was defending his daughter. 

cods wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:55am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:25pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:



SO in other words, he should be allowed to tweet the nuclear codes because he has a right to free speech.

these are all blips on the radar compared to the mammoth task ahead. removing leftardism from all educational and public institutions is the highest priority. trump is one step in helping to achieve this.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:


yep. the left never played by any joint rules, so why should the right?

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:06pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:02pm:


f**kin' oath.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:09pm:



Well you know, the irony of you asking us for citations. Strong!

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:15pm:




Not shaming you, just pointing out the irony in asking me to provide evidence. Personally I don't think some hick from Bumbugger Victoria is capable of shame.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:21pm:



Well you know, when its not the ACT anywhere is Bumbugger.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:


for starters, he retains his business interests.


let the excuses begin

Agnes wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:35pm:


One bit.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:34pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:



yeah ... cause I've got nothing better to do than troll US legislation for your sake 

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 1:49pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 12:35pm:



You really dont know the difference between rights and responsibilities. Next you will defend his 'right'  to screw underage girls. And I am serious. you WOULD defend that.

It would appear that Kellyanne Conway has violated the federal ethics rules regarding her "free commercial" of Ivanka's line.

The rules state that an employee of the government’s executive branch cannot use public office for personal gain or to endorse products or services on behalf of friends or relatives. Legal experts said Ms. Conway, whose title is counselor to the president, appeared to have violated that and possibly other conflict-of-interest rules, which do not apply to the president and vice president, but do apply to their staffs.

yes, i would have avoided answering that too if I was you

blah blah blah .... i notice even trump hasn't used you right to freedom of speech excuse 

and he loves pathetic excuses 

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:


I'll remind you of that when he gets impeached.

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:58pm:

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:



says the guy dreaming that trump will make a good president despite all the evidence to date being to the contrary 

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 5:23pm:


Try yelling 'fire' in a cinema or 'hijack' in a plane and see how your 'freedom of speech' argument works.

imbecile.

Panther wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:


Thats about the silliest thing I've heard all day - and thats something because I've been dealing with freediver's inane circus act too.

Do you think the President has "freedom" to say leak state secrets to the Russians? give out the nuclear codes? You really didn't put too much thought into that panther.

But as to the specific topic, all government employees, which includes the President, have statutary limitations on their speech - including the previously mentioned prohibition of giving the appearance of either endorsing or sanctioning "the activities of a private party".

Quote:


No Bet.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 7:17pm:







 

John Smith wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:13pm:


Indeed, he will.

Imagine what he'll do when Trump is dead.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:44am:



Trump jumped to the defense of his daughter because she was being punished for who her father is. Considering the job he now holds he needs to be more diplomatic in his responses. This chicken shlt action by Nordstroms deserves the same type of boycott other outwardly liberal businesses get. The Target chain saw their Stock price drop after they announced "open rest rooms for all". When a business takes strong political stands they open themselves up to backlash!

Mortdooley wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 11:35pm:


Really??

And here Raven was, thinking they dropped it because it wasn't selling.

How dare a company do that, just because sales have dropped dramatically over the last year, it doesn't give them the right to exercise their discretion on whether or not they keep selling the First Daughter's clothes.

No doubt luxury retailer Neiman Marcus Group are also punishing Ivanka when they stopped selling her jewellery line

Two companies dropped two Trump lines because of commercial-only decisions. Surely as an alleged businessman he would understand the reasons behind such things.

Who are we kidding... this is Trump the Narcissist.

Big Donger wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:

What about Trump's personal email server?

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 10:23am:


Are you saying Hillary gave this information to the wrong person, Panther?

Please explain. It seems to me that if Mr Trump's free to say what he thinks about businesses, judges and his daughter's line of lingerie, Hillary should be free to send private emails to people.

It's in your constitution, yes?

Big Donger wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 1:12pm:

But Panther. Two FBI enquiries said she didn't do any of those things.

Trump is using his POTUS Twitter account to conduct private business and vandettas.

Is this allowed in your constitution?

I'm just astonished how so many thing that made Clinton utterly unelectable and the most corrupt and dishonest politician ever are not only acceptable but defending when they are actions Trump takes.

Clearly those are not the reasons to vote against Clinton or not support her, something else must be at play.

At the same time, the moment Trump took the oath people were claiming he'd already made America great again.  He did nothing at that point.

Again, something else must be at play.

I know what it looks like from the outside observer, but it can't really be that simple, can it?

Panther wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:58pm:


Good heavens, you're not an Amerikan?