US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:...potential leftist threats...

How wonderful of you to have such a perfect excuse.
Himmler utterly adored people thinking like you.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And now we get to see the official @POTUS twitter account retweeting an @RealDonaldTrump twitter diatribe at Nordstrom's for dropping Ivanka's clothing line. The initial tweet from his personal twitter was bad enough... but retweeting it from the @POTUS account was immeasurably worse.


The President of the United States, in his official capacity, launching an assault on an American retailer on behalf of *his* family's business interests.




I await the explanation for why this isn't a problem either and we totally don't have to worry about conflicts of interest with Trump maintaining family ownership and operation of all those businesses... because reasons.


Can we have ****one freaking day*** when this idiot isn't doing something stupid/corrupt/unethical?

I rather think this is more than protecting his family.

From having a poorly selling clothing line dropped from a retailer?

Do tell.

I recall other times in history where groups offered violence as a means to impose an economic boycott.

Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the Great Nordstrom's Riot of 2017. Could you point me at the coverage of it?



Please get real. This is about Trump family money and Trump family ego... and using the office of the presidency in the cause of both.


If Obama had pulled anything remotely like this ("America, some book store owner isn't selling 'Dreams Of My Father' This is outrageous! This is a very bad book store owner!")

...then sent his PR person out on a major news network to tell everyone to go buy Obama's book the right would have lost their collective minds.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
I rather think this is more than protecting his family.

From having a poorly selling clothing line dropped from a retailer?

Do tell.

I recall other times in history where groups offered violence as a means to impose an economic boycott.

Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the Great Nordstrom's Riot of 2017. Could you point me at the coverage of it?



Please get real. This is about Trump family money and Trump family ego... and using the office of the presidency in the cause of both.


If Obama had pulled anything remotely like this ("America, some book store owner isn't selling 'Dreams Of My Father' This is outrageous! This is a very bad book store owner!")

...then sent his PR person out on a major news network to tell everyone to go buy Obama's book the right would have lost their collective minds.

The left doesn't use violence to economically punish those they disagree with? No demonstrations outside businesses, perhaps throwing paint on those wearing furs? No threats to stop doing business with Trump voters or outright firing them?

Yeah, it is indeed more than just punishing Trump and his family.

This is a much better description of the overall theme of this particular tactic.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-ringo/about-schadenfreude/10154406821182055

PeterZ wrote:The left doesn't use violence to economically punish those they disagree with? No demonstrations outside businesses, perhaps throwing paint on those wearing furs? No threats to stop doing business with Trump voters or outright firing them?

Could you clutch those pearls a bit harder? You still haven't achieved maximum pressure.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the Great Nordstrom's Riot of 2017. Could you point me at the coverage of it?



Please get real. This is about Trump family money and Trump family ego... and using the office of the presidency in the cause of both.


If Obama had pulled anything remotely like this ("America, some book store owner isn't selling 'Dreams Of My Father' This is outrageous! This is a very bad book store owner!")

...then sent his PR person out on a major news network to tell everyone to go buy Obama's book the right would have lost their collective minds.

The left doesn't use violence to economically punish those they disagree with? No demonstrations outside businesses, perhaps throwing paint on those wearing furs? No threats to stop doing business with Trump voters or outright firing them?

Yeah, it is indeed more than just punishing Trump and his family.

This is a much better description of the overall theme of this particular tactic.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-ringo/about-schadenfreude/10154406821182055

That was a nice rambling rant, but the bottom line is a handful of dumbass hooligans doing stuff somewhere in the country does not equal "justification for voiding all ethics rules and standards that apply to the White House".

And you damn well know it doesn't Peter. The one has NOTHING to do with the other. Trump wasn't responding to someone violently forcing Nordstrom's to discontinue the clothing line at gunpoint or something, Nordstrom's dropped it because IT WAS NOT SELLING.

And Trump reacted by directing official White House public statements at them in retaliation in the interests of his family's bank account balance and nothing else. Which is completely inexcusable.

gcomeau wrote:
That was a nice rambling rant, but the bottom line is a handful of dumbass hooligans doing stuff somewhere in the country does not equal "justification for voiding all ethics rules and standards that apply to the White House".

And you damn well know it doesn't Peter. The one has NOTHING to do with the other. Trump wasn't responding to someone violently forcing Nordstrom's to discontinue the clothing line at gunpoint or something, Nordstrom's dropped it because IT WAS NOT SELLING.

And Trump reacted by directing official White House public statements at them in retaliation in the interests of his family's bank account balance and nothing else. Which is completely inexcusable.

I don't know that. Nordstrom's can do as it pleases. If it doesn't sell, then take those items off the shelf. I don't see anything wrong with addressing those retailers that do sell that merchandise from taking the items off the shelf to avoid potential confrontations.

The retailer will decide to do as it pleases in any event. Just as lefty morons will protest as violently as they please. Trump not taking the high ground here discourages companies from too easily acquiescing to this sort of potential threat. The easier companies acquiesce the greater number of protestors will follow suit. It becomes a feedback loop that feeds faster growth of the tactic.

Because it takes someone who is comfortable taking the low road to fight this, I am glad Trump is an uncouth loudmouth.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
That was a nice rambling rant, but the bottom line is a handful of dumbass hooligans doing stuff somewhere in the country does not equal "justification for voiding all ethics rules and standards that apply to the White House".

And you damn well know it doesn't Peter. The one has NOTHING to do with the other. Trump wasn't responding to someone violently forcing Nordstrom's to discontinue the clothing line at gunpoint or something, Nordstrom's dropped it because IT WAS NOT SELLING.

And Trump reacted by directing official White House public statements at them in retaliation in the interests of his family's bank account balance and nothing else. Which is completely inexcusable.

I don't know that. Nordstrom's can do as it pleases. If it doesn't sell, then take those items off the shelf.

Then why are you defending the White House attacking Nordstrom's for doing it? Because that's what just happened in case you missed what was going on.

I don't see anything wrong with addressing those retailers that do sell that merchandise from taking the items off the shelf to avoid potential confrontations.

What?

(Seriously, what? I think that sentence got away from you.)

The retailer will decide to do as it pleases in any event. Just as lefty morons will protest as violently as they please. Trump not taking the high ground here discourages companies from too easily acquiescing to this sort of potential threat. The easier companies acquiesce the greater number of protestors will follow suit. It becomes a feedback loop that feeds faster growth of the tactic.

Because it takes someone who is comfortable taking the low road to fight this, I am glad Trump is an uncouth loudmouth.

FIGHT WHAT??????

We just covered this. Nordstrom's pulled a product line that wasn't selling. That is all that happened here. That is the ONLY thing Trump was fighting with that tweet. You just finished claiming Nordstrom's wasn't in the wrong to do it. So what the hell are we talking about him "fighting"?


And FFS, *whatever* the heck it is you think he's "fighting" here besides that we are not talking about just "taking the low road" and being "uncouth". We are talking about serious ethics violations and the corruption of the nation's government to the cause of the White House occupant's and his family's personal enrichment. And you're treating it like we're just talking about him being unpolished or foulmouthed or something. Like we're sitting around discussing some kind of social faux pas.

Our system is far from perfect, but if a PM was to do this here, he wouldn't last past midday. Mindboggling third world stuff.

gcomeau wrote:snip
FIGHT WHAT??????

We just covered this. Nordstrom's pulled a product line that wasn't selling. That is all that happened here. That is the ONLY thing Trump was fighting with that tweet. You just finished claiming Nordstrom's wasn't in the wrong to do it. So what the hell are we talking about him "fighting"?


And FFS, *whatever* the heck it is you think he's "fighting" here besides that we are not talking about just "taking the low road" and being "uncouth". We are talking about serious ethics violations and the corruption of the nation's government to the cause of the White House occupant's and his family's personal enrichment. And you're treating it like we're just talking about him being unpolished or foulmouthed or something. Like we're sitting around discussing some kind of social faux pas.

I think he is fighting for his daughter. I also think that lefty protestors will begin targeting businesses that do business with him and those that are seen to support him. This can be seen in how the Berkeley bozos behaved. Businesses are especially vulnerable to that sort of attack. We have seen hateful elements of the left do just this over and over again. Looney left protestors have violently targeted supporters of causes they disagree with. They have targeted patrons of retailers. This isn't new.

So, I see nothing wrong with his making such comments disagreeing with how a retailer does its business. He runs the risk of destroying support if he makes his protestations too often. He can also cry wolf too often, just as the left is seen as crying wolf too often right now.

If his actions remind retailers there is a price for acquiescing too easily to violence, then they simply encourage more violence. Exactly like negotiating with terrorists breeds more terrorist acts. I'm ok with Trump demanding a price for the appearance of caving in to violent protestors and the possibility of violent protestors. I am ok with his attempting to protecting his family if the result also discourages violent looney leftist protestors from engaging in more of this violence.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:snip
FIGHT WHAT??????

We just covered this. Nordstrom's pulled a product line that wasn't selling. That is all that happened here. That is the ONLY thing Trump was fighting with that tweet. You just finished claiming Nordstrom's wasn't in the wrong to do it. So what the hell are we talking about him "fighting"?


And FFS, *whatever* the heck it is you think he's "fighting" here besides that we are not talking about just "taking the low road" and being "uncouth". We are talking about serious ethics violations and the corruption of the nation's government to the cause of the White House occupant's and his family's personal enrichment. And you're treating it like we're just talking about him being unpolished or foulmouthed or something. Like we're sitting around discussing some kind of social faux pas.

I think he is fighting for his daughter.

Oh I think he's fighting for her too. Specifically, fighting for her business. In his capacity as President of the United States.

That. Is. The. Problem.

That could be the entry in the dictionary next to "conflict of interest" or "government corruption".

I also think that lefty protestors will begin targeting businesses that do business with him and those that are seen to support him. This can be seen in how the Berkeley bozos behaved. Businesses are especially vulnerable to that sort of attack.If his actions remind retailers there is a price for acquiescing too easily to violence, then they simply encourage more violence. Exactly like negotiating with terrorists breeds more terrorist acts. I'm ok with Trump demanding a price for the appearance of caving in to violent protestors and the possibility of violent protestors.

For the love of whatever you find holy there WERE NO VIOLENT PROTESTERS pressuring Nordstrom's.


THE LINE WASN'T SELLING.


Your argument is like saying "terrorists could *hypothetically* pressure France into changing a policy to something we don't like."

"The UK on their own implemented this policy we don't like."

"We need to invade the UK... to resist terrorism."


W.T.F?