Ivanka Trumps line getting pulled

tigerwife

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 12:03 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if you're referring to private labeling.

Let's see if I can explain, for others at least.

Mazel tov. You're the owner of Molly's Modest Maternity. You sell name brands. But you also want to sell a private label, Molly Maternity. Now, you could hire someone to design the line. But you're still small. You find someone who makes private label goods. Sometimes you can customize. Sometimes you just pick what they have and they put your label in it. So its Molly Maternity goods, but Frummy Fantastic Fashions may be selling the same, or just about the same thing, in her store.

Licensng is in the opposite direction. Molly's Modest Maternity is a big hit. You've made billions revolutionizing the market. Now someone comes to you and wants to license your name for crib sheets. They make the product, but people want to buy it because of your name. Now, you have some control. The amount depends on the license. You specify quality. Where it can be sold. Types of designs. But its their product.

Lots of designers license lower-end lines. And ancillary products. The Calvin Klein skirt I bought in TJ Maxx isn't the same skirt that's selling in Neiman Marcus.

This is so off topic already but I wonder what Ivanka's brand really is. She does have a team and an Ivanka's HQ- I'm sure they do more than paint her nails and serve coffee. I've been involved in licensing from the other end (as an artist). Maybe I'm biased because I don't go for her line but is she really big enough that her name alone sells the clothes? Also regarding the knock-offs- many brands take styles off the runway (think Zara and HM), so I wouldn't call out her brand particularly for it. But if it's a separate designer anyway, does that mean she has a hold on that specific design and no one else can use that from the original factory? When I think licensed products, I think Disney Ts which aren't brilliantly designed but have licensed illustrations printed on. If someone commissioned me for an illustration and then wanted to use it to print on mugs, they would need to pay me for the license or pay royalties. I don't see how that interprets into specifically designed clothes. Do you mean if my factory makes a triple pleated skirt and IT likes the design, they can pay me for producing that skirt under their name?

ectomorph

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 12:05 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I don't find anyone who takes "facts, data, statistics''" and toss[es] them out the window" to be a particularly persuasive or educated voter, no matter what degrees she has.

You look at a snapshot in time, and don't seem to care what created that.

You don't attach the economic instability of the Obama years to the near collapse of the economy under Bush, that in turn was created by the type of deregulation that Trump wants.

While anti-Israel animus on campuses surged in the past 2 years, it has been on the rise since the turn of the century.

Under Bush, there were 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel, 20 of which resulted in at least one fatality. Limiting ourselves to embassies, there were 13 Embassy attacks 66 deaths 3 American diplomats killed 22 Embassy employees killed. Under Obama, there were 2 Embassy attacks 4 American deaths. So blaming the Obama administration for "acceptance of terrorism" is ridiculous.

But you don't care about facts, or statistics. You "toss them out the window." Meaningless to you.

Me, I worry about the morals of a president who sees nothing wrong with using his office to promote private business. Who walks into a ballroom of his privately-owned resort, which the government is paying a lot of money or secret service to stay at on his weekends away, grabs a microphone, and pays homage to a newlywed couple by saying, "They've been members of this club for a long time. They've paid me a fortune." And worry more that he elected to conduct an important strategy session about a Korean missile launch in a public dining hall, with club members watching, reviewing documents by cellphone lights. Who sees nothing wrong with the presentation of "alternative facts." Who seems more concerned with whether news sources report how popular he is that, for example, the flooding risk in Northern California. (And while there are plenty of Jews near the Oroville Dam, most probably aren't Orthodox.)

But I guess you'd tell me those are just facts, and you don't care about facts.

and yet, you are fine with Hilary doing pay to play for access to the white house.

33055

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 12:12 pm

Fox wrote:

Don't be so literal-minded; I'm simply saying that members of various communities should support their own members within reason. I would think they would want to help fledgling minority-owned businesses. We do so in the Jewish community, and various ethnic communites do so as well.

Oregon has crafted anti-discrimination laws that prevent artisans from refusing commissions for religious reasons. The evidence suggests to me that most of the people who engineered this legislation are not devoutly religious themselves and can't understand people who are genuinely motivated by religious sentiments. They see anyone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding as a bigot. Period. That, IMHO, is an extremely ignorant and parochial way of seeing the world, but the citizens of Oregon apparently do not mind givng that impression.

Two thirds of the citizens of Oregon are against the way the law was applied. It is bureaucrats run amok.

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 12:28 pm

tigerwife wrote:

Its all complicated. But yes, the Trump business -- and I mean with Donald and Ivanka -- is largely licensing. They allow others to use their name in connection with various businesses, in return for payments. This is an article on a couple of Trump-licensed properties that ran into trouble, but that Trump had no ownership in: http://www.forbes.com/sites/st.....026e7

Trump created a brand, and name recognition. Forget politics. His brand is luxury and over-the-top wealth. "Trump Hotel" calls to mind something different from "Motel 6" or "Holiday Inn." And what it calls to mind is valuable to a lot of people.

Licensing is big business. Particularly in fashion, where designers create high-end lines, then license their names for lower end goods that plebes like me purchase.

But suffice it to say that whomever was responsible for the similarities in the shoes, it wasn't Ivanka Trump.

Fox

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 12:46 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

happybeingamom wrote:

If I am a bakery and sell cookies, muffins and cakes then all people who pay should be able to by my generic product. When I am asked to make a custom item aka a personalized christening cake in the shape of a cross I should have the right to decline. No one should be forced to decorate a cake, photograph etc something that they have a religious disagreement with. Should a custom furniture maker be forced to upholster a chair with fabric that has nudity on it, if he hold that is against his religious beliefs?

That all sounds generically ok, unfortunately the laws in Oregon disagree with you.

How am I distorting what you said regarding the Oregon law? According to you, the laws in Oregon would prohibit an artisan from refusing a commission based on religious criteria.

Per your suggestion, I looked up a bit about the Oregon Equality Act and found the best summary of it here: Oregon Equality Act

The section that applies to Sweet Cakes by Melissa would appear to be the part that prohibits discrimination based on s-xual orientation or gender identity in public accommodations, meaning places open to the public such as businesses that sell goods or services, recreational facilities and providers of medical services.

So it seems we were both a little bit wrong.

This particular statute wouldn't prohibit a Christian bakery from declining to bake a "Happy Satanist Day" cake, but if they refused to do so because the Satanist who requested it were gay, then they'd be in trouble.

The problem comes in defining what constitutes "public accommodations." Obviously, no one has advocated for bakeries to bar people from entering the premises. However, taking a commission is a bit grayer an area.

Having now read quite a few articles on the case, I'm even more convinced that the underlying problem is that many well-intentioned people genuinely can't understand people who adhere strongly to their religious faith and attempt to live by it. They just can't believe that someone could be a kind, tolerant person yet reject gay marriage on religious grounds. It just has to be bigotry and hate.

33055

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 12:47 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I disagree.

But I'll ask you the same question.

Since you were so bothered by allegations of pay to play by Clinton, are you protesting against Trump's channeling of funds to his own businesses, and promoting his and his children's businesses through official channels?

I am not bothered by the channeling of funds say from his campaign to his own businesses as long as it doesn't violate code. I am not bothered by Ivanka wearing her own earrings.

I am bothered by comment of Kellyanne Conway urging people to buy Ivanka's stuff. I think she suffered sufficient humiliation, and I hope that is the end. It is wrong.

I am a lot more bothered by whitewater and option trading that defies the odds. That is outright fraud.

Fox

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 1:20 pm

Here's what I just don't get, and I'm not being disingenuous or insincere:

Why is it necessary to detest President Trump?

I can understand not voting for him. I can understand being disappointed that he was elected. I can understand opposing various policies or agendas. I can understand questioning his qualifications. I can definitely understand cringing at some of his more unfiltered tweets.

But it seems that anyone who isn't enraged almost to the point of incoherence is branded as morally bankrupt. It's not enough to be skeptical-but-hopeful. It's not enough to be cautious-but-optimistic. It's not enough to be concerned-but-open-minded. Anyone who wants the President to be successful is, well, deplorable.

This is the experience Chadwick Moore wrote about, and his experiences appear to resonate with many people in different communities.

I voted for Trump for two reasons:

1. I felt he was more committed to results than to ideology. I had voted for Obama in 2008, but I was disappointed by his response to failure. It seemed that instead of saying, "Okay, that didn't work; let's try something else," he doubled down and refused to acknowledge obvious problems. I was hopeful that Trump, when confronted with failure, would metaphorically bellow, "You're fired," and try to fix the problem.

2. I am gravely concerned about the cultural Marxism that dominates so many universities and its long-term effects, especially on Jews. While I don't believe that a president can directly tackle this problem, I am in favor of leaders who will stand up to it when they can.

These are not stupid reasons, IMHO, but I can completely understand that these might not be everyone's priorities. That's fine. But who agrees with everything a particular candidate advocates? Most of us have enough trouble getting along with our kids' schools!

I get accused of being patronizing, but I believe that it is far more patronizing to insist that "if only you knew (or acknowledged) the facts, you'd agree with me." It's possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Really, it's possible to oppose Trump on various issues without appearing to get spittle all over the keyboard.

amother

Pumpkin

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 1:30 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Disagree. Bush's lower tax rates INCREASED tax revenue. The chain reaction was he added 1 million jobs to the economy, etc.

Let's not dumb down the discussion.

Worth noting, Reagan's "reaganomics" produced a gdp of 3.5; Obama's was a pitiful 1.4

SixOfWands

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 1:42 pm

amother wrote:

But you're discussing FACTS. What the other poster claimed were irrelevant. I'll be more than happy to discuss FACTS with you. Even if we disagree on their import.

Obama inherited an economy on the brink of collapse. The US was losing 800,000 jobs a MONTH. There was real fear of depression. In the end, he added 11+ million jobs, as opposed to a net 2.1 million under Bush. 2014 and 2015 were the best years for jobs gains since the late 1990s.

But the recovery was uneven. Leading to the election of Trump.

Blue jay

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 1:42 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Well part of my right as a free American, is to choose my facts. And your facts do not make any sense at all.

Under Obama
More terror attacks on US soil
More racial tension
More anti israel/Jewish threats on campus.
Police targeting
Racial targeting
the rise of more world wide terror

Come on, sounds like a lousy resume to me!
and guess what most of America agrees with me too.

amother

Pumpkin

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 1:50 pm

JoyInTheMorning wrote:

Nobody on the right is even responding (in this thread) to Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts," the many instances of her and other administration members' blatant lies, and the fact that she was clearly seen on TV last week violating conflict-of-interest ethics. I find conversations with the right wing frustrating for this reason.

I get that some Orthodox Jews believe that Trump will be better for them than a Democratic president would have been. I don't at all agree, and I think you will be sorely disappointed (if not worse), but I get that you feel that way. But al least you should own the fact that you are compromising your ethics for what you think will be a win for your small corner of the world. Realize that you are blinding yourself to Holocaust denial -- well, denial that it was something that was particularly Jewish, which the Holocaust was, by definition; to rising anti-Semitism; to what is likely to be worsening conditions for the working class (since the economy is dependent on immigration, at both the high and low ends); to treasonous closed-door agreements with Russians; to greater international unrest; all in order to -- I'm not sure what. To get a government that once again breaks its promises to Israel? To get vouchers for Yeshivas, which are unlikely to happen, because these arise from state rather than national policy? To get a ruling that permits states to outlaw abortions, so that someday some Jewish woman who needs an abortion in her second semester to save her life won't be able to get one, even if mandate by Halacha? I'm not sure what your end game is here. I don't think you'll get what I think you want. But in any case, you should at least be aware of what you're selling your souls for.

There are very legitimate reasons for voting Republican. In fact, I read these threads because the reasons are so obvious to me, so logical, that I try to see where others are coming from.

For me, the two main issues, which outweigh most of the others, are:
(1) Research showing that, historically, conservative fiscal policies create more jobs and grow the economy, whereas liberal policies do the opposite, and,

(2) Re radical Islamists, appeasement doesn't work and Obama's policies have clearly been a disaster

I'd love to discuss different areas of research and opinion pieces that support various conclusions, but stating that I have personal self-serving motives for voting a particular way, implying that I do not care about issues and have not researched them, forecloses any real discussion and is insulting.

amother

Pumpkin

Mon, Feb 13 2017, 2:25 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Ok, facts. The economy's NET gain under Bush was 1.09 million jobs. Context: Bush inherited an economy in recession from Clinton. The .com bubble burst just at the end of Clinton's tenure, and the nasdaq crashed. Then 9/11 happened just months into Bush's tenure. He stabilized the economy, until the housing crisis hit.

What precipitated the housing crisis was left-wing economic policy, laws enacted during Clinton's tenure forcing banks to extend loans to risky buyers.

The worst of the recession was already over before Obama's stimulus took effect.

Regarding Obama's job creation rate, here's an interesting analysis:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....lion/

First of all, the US economy is not in great shape. If it was the Fed would be raising interest rates. Because the economy is not in great shape the Fed has again decided to delay raising rates. Obama will probably not raise interest rates through the end of his term with some estimates that the US will be in a recession by August.

As far as the claim that the US has gained 14 million jobs during his reign, this is not accurate for a number of reasons.

First – When Obama makes this claim he begins his calculation in February of 2010, nearly a year after he took office. If Obama would begin his count in January 2009 — which is how job growth is normally measured — the number of private-sector jobs has increased just 5.6 million.

Second – When considering the number of new entrants into the country since he took office of more than 20 million, then Obama actually lost 14 million jobs. When compared to Reagan, for the six years starting in 1982, the population grew by 12.4 million but the number of jobs grew by 18.4 million.

See the difference?

Third – A large percent of the number of new jobs that are counted by Obama are actually part time jobs. This phenomena is related to Obamacare which resulted in the unintended consequence of reducing the number of full time jobs and replacing them with part time workers.

Finally – When comparing Obama’s 14 million jobs lost to other economic disasters created by his administration, the results are stunning. With an increase in the national debt of around $10 trillion during his administration, the US lost each job at a cost of more than $70,000 per job to the American taxpayer.

But don’t expect the media to correct this corrupt man when he flouts his phony progress.
It just won’t happen.

Eta. I'm not looking to debate this topic, just wanted to make the point that people with conservative views HAVE researched the issues, and ARE capable of stringing a few coherent ideas together.