Nordstrom is dropping Ivanka Trumps Line in their stores

[jaaron]

JoCoJenn,

I obviously don't have time to fact check that list one by one. I did do two, randomly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-pulls-anti-bailout-ad-after-white-house-call
http://www.snopes.com/amber-alert-shutdown/

I'd say, off the top of my head, that a quarter are false; a quarter are either completely unprovable or dis-provable as they're assertions, or have only the tiniest kernel of fact that has been embellished out of context; a quarter might be true but fall so far outside the purview and scope of what the president actually does they likely have nothing to do with Obama; and a quarter might be true and in the context Cruz asserts they are.

I also think, in light of where we stand today, number 62 is sidesplittingly laughable.

62. Nominated Timothy Geithner—who had significant tax issues —to head the Treasury Department, which enforces tax laws.

 

[monarch64]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

Your sig line is GOLD.

Why, thank you.

 

[the_mother_thing]

JoCoJenn,

I obviously don't have time to fact check that list one by one. I did do two, randomly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-pulls-anti-bailout-ad-after-white-house-call
http://www.snopes.com/amber-alert-shutdown/

I'd say, off the top of my head, that a quarter are false; a quarter are either completely unprovable or dis-provable as they're assertions, or have only the tiniest kernel of fact that has been embellished out of context; a quarter might be true but fall so far outside the purview and scope of what the president actually does they likely have nothing to do with Obama; and a quarter might be true and in the context Cruz asserts they are.

I also think, in light of where we stand today, number 62 is sidesplittingly laughable.

62. Nominated Timothy Geithner—who had significant tax issues —to head the Treasury Department, which enforces tax laws.

As I noted, 'background' used to put items on the list are noted in the document linked. I don't plan to debate them; I just answered your question.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

Your sig line is GOLD.

Why, thank you.

Deb is gonna be pizzed when she sees that!


kiddng

 

[Arcadian]

As far as her being dropped from stores; its a free market economy. That means that any store should drop or not drop brands as they see fit for whatever reasons they want. If that store doesn't carry what you want, then go to another. Stores like Nordstom, et al, not only have customers to think about, but they also have to bend to the will of their boards and their investors. I shopped nordstom before they dropped her line, and I'll continue after.

I would agree, but that doesn't work when it's a conservative-owned business and a dem/lib who is not happy; the owners get sued and slandered until forced to comply.

Yes and no.

If its clearly a case of civil rights violations, thats a whole other thing. Like the baker who wouldn't sell a cake to a gay couple. Frankly its none of their business. Bake the cake and be done with it. This refusal to serve someone is what triggered a civil rights violation.

It would be the same as a masseuse saying, I'll give you a massage, but wont give massages to Asians or Muslims. Being that this is a business based on a service, this is clearly a civil rights violation.

Or if a clothing store said I'll serve gays and no one else. Yes thats also a civil rights violation.

In the case of Chick Fil A. Their owner is clearly a Christian man, and he has stated he has NO ISSUE with people of all creeds coming into his store but he was a christian, gave to the republican party and has christian values. Even his chains were closed on Sunday to give his people a day of rest (for whatever reason, religious or not).

The mayor of Boston (Menino) at one time refused to have a store in his city..in particular at Fanuel Hall (while he was alive) I and lots of others who lived there felt it was wrong and sent the wrong message. There should be a clear cut separation of church and state and refusing to give someone the proper licensing based on the owners religious beliefs or political leanings is wrong. Quiet as kept, lots of very conservative folks in Massachusetts. That state is much more purple than people realize (and its quite red outside 495 loop)

Anyway Chik Fil A is a business and quite a successful one. They don't have bible versus in their stores that I know of, the people that work there do an excellent job and they don't sprout bible versus either. I don't tend to eat out at places like this but did go to a couple while I was moving as they were convenient to the hotel I was at. Service was excellent, restaurant was clean. Def. not McDonalds type of service. They've never refused service based on race, sex, or other reasons that may cause civil rights violations.

Even when people protested and did a sit in at their restaurant, they STILL did nothing to get in the way of these people's civil rights.

If they wanted to take the city of Boston to court I feel like they had just cause, but I don't think they ever did. Right before I left they did put a restaurant in framingham (and boy was it busy!!)

If you as a store owner refuse to serve a subset of people based on anything that may trigger civil rights violations, be it based on LBQT, or different religions, or, different origins, then sure, be prepared to go to court.

But if you just don't carry a line of clothing...well, so be it, don't carry it. People can shop elsewhere. I've never known a store to be forced to carry a line of clothing against their will.

So all of that above is just to say this; I can agree with where you're going with some exception. But in truth small business owners need to be very smart about the law, and about what they can or cannot do.

 

[redwood66]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

Your sig line is GOLD.

Why, thank you.

Deb is gonna be pizzed when she sees that!


kiddng

I can't see it. My dang computer does not show anyone's siggy. What does it say?

 

[redwood66]

As far as her being dropped from stores; its a free market economy. That means that any store should drop or not drop brands as they see fit for whatever reasons they want. If that store doesn't carry what you want, then go to another. Stores like Nordstom, et al, not only have customers to think about, but they also have to bend to the will of their boards and their investors. I shopped nordstom before they dropped her line, and I'll continue after.

I would agree, but that doesn't work when it's a conservative-owned business and a dem/lib who is not happy; the owners get sued and slandered until forced to comply.

Yes and no.

If its clearly a case of civil rights violations, thats a whole other thing. Like the baker who wouldn't sell a cake to a gay couple. Frankly its none of their business. Bake the cake and be done with it. This refusal to serve someone is what triggered a civil rights violation.

It would be the same as a masseuse saying, I'll give you a massage, but wont give massages to Asians or Muslims. Being that this is a business based on a service, this is clearly a civil rights violation.

Or if a clothing store said I'll serve gays and no one else. Yes thats also a civil rights violation.

In the case of Chick Fil A. Their owner is clearly a Christian man, and he has stated he has NO ISSUE with people of all creeds coming into his store but he was a christian, gave to the republican party and has christian values. Even his chains were closed on Sunday to give his people a day of rest (for whatever reason, religious or not).

The mayor of Boston (Menino) at one time refused to have a store in his city..in particular at Fanuel Hall (while he was alive) I and lots of others who lived there felt it was wrong and sent the wrong message. There should be a clear cut separation of church and state and refusing to give someone the proper licensing based on the owners religious beliefs or political leanings is wrong. Quiet as kept, lots of very conservative folks in Massachusetts. That state is much more purple than people realize (and its quite red outside 495 loop)

Anyway Chik Fil A is a business and quite a successful one. They don't have bible versus in their stores that I know of, the people that work there do an excellent job and they don't sprout bible versus either. I don't tend to eat out at places like this but did go to a couple while I was moving as they were convenient to the hotel I was at. Service was excellent, restaurant was clean. Def. not McDonalds type of service. They've never refused service based on race, sex, or other reasons that may cause civil rights violations.

Even when people protested and did a sit in at their restaurant, they STILL did nothing to get in the way of these people's civil rights.

If they wanted to take the city of Boston to court I feel like they had just cause, but I don't think they ever did. Right before I left they did put a restaurant in framingham (and boy was it busy!!)

If you as a store owner refuse to serve a subset of people based on anything that may trigger civil rights violations, be it based on LBQT, or different religions, or, different origins, then sure, be prepared to go to court.

But if you just don't carry a line of clothing...well, so be it, don't carry it. People can shop elsewhere. I've never known a store to be forced to carry a line of clothing against their will.

So all of that above is just to say this; I can agree with where you're going with some exception. But in truth small business owners need to be very smart about the law, and about what they can or cannot do.

In N Out prints bible verses on their packaging. I see no issue with this and people love them. Wish I had one near me but I always go when in CA.

 

[AGBF]

Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa *cough* RFRA *cough*

Your sig line is GOLD.

Why, thank you.

Deb is gonna be pizzed when she sees that!


kiddng

I can't see it. My dang computer does not show anyone's siggy. What does it say?

Monnie's new-ish sig line says, "Some people have to have the last word. Some people have to have the last 8 paragraphs. ". I had already seen it before this discussion took place (and admired its wit). Since I usually post one or two line responses, I know it wasn't aimed at me.

Deb

 

[lovedogs]

Weird--I don't see a sig line. But that's a great one!

 

[redwood66]

I get the last word!!

 

[mary poppins]

In addition to making SNL great again, Trump made Nordstrom great again, too!


Nordstrom Stock Soared by 7 Percent After Trump Slammed it on Twitter

President Donald Trump may have inadvertently done Nordstrom a favor this week when he slammed the Seattle-based retailer on Twitter — shares have risen by 7 percent.

After the department store announced it would not carry Ivanka Trump's spring collection — characterizing the move as a business decision — the Trump camp disputed Nordstrom's claim that her merchandise wasn't selling well.

Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway added more fuel to the fire Thursday when she delivered what she called a "commercial" in support of the brand during a live TV interview. Threats of boycotts from both pro- and anti-Trump factions surfaced on social media, but the dust-up spared the retailer's stock. In fact, after dipping briefly, shares rebounded.

Retail experts say the reason Nordstrom stock shook off the controversy while other companies have seen their share prices fall after being on the receiving end of a disgruntled tweet was simple: Unlike Lockheed Martin, which depends on U.S. government contracts, or General Motors, whose investments in Mexico could be threatened by an import tax, there isn't much Donald Trump can do to hurt the fortunes of a high-end department store chain.

Retail analysts dismissed the idea that the decision to drop Ivanka Trump's brand was politically motivated.

Consumers Come First
"The fashion business is all about the product," said Richard Jaffe, research analyst and managing director at Stifel Nicolaus. "What's happening at Nordstrom, what's happening with the Ivanka brand, we believe, is simply about the product and consumers' response to it."

Nordstrom's brand identity revolves around listening to customers and delivering a high level of service, said Matt Sargent, senior vice president for retail at Frank N. Magid Associates, suggested that Wall Street found the company's responsiveness reassuring.

"That's what Nordstrom has highlighted here, that they do understand their customer," he said. "Investors are rewarding Nordstrom for being in touch with their core customer."

"Like many celebrity lines, it apparently did very well at the outset," said Mark Cohen, director of retail studies and adjunct professor at Columbia Business School, adding that popularity is typically fleeting for these kinds of name brands.

"Most celebrity lines that launch strongly eventually fail. They kind of peter out because the celebrity is not a designer," he said.

Ivanka Trump said last month that she would be stepping down from her executive roles in both the Trump Organization as well as her own brand. Scaling back her involvement also could have been a factor prompting Nordstrom to tap the brakes.

This isn't to say politics didn't play a role, albeit an indirect one. "Obviously, we're living in very politically charged times," Sargent said. "It's incredibly important for retailers to understand how their customer is going to respond."

Simply Too Controversial?
Some retail industry pros speculated that the falloff in sales could be due to the Ivanka brand's association with Donald Trump.

"I think it's probably being more affected by the politics of the boycott rather than something fundamentally wrong with the brand," said retail analyst Jan R. Kniffen, founder and CEO of J. Rogers Kniffen Worldwide Enterprises, referring to Nordstrom's inclusion on the "Grab Your Wallet" list, a social media protest campaign urging Trump opponents to stop shopping at stores that sell Trump-branded products.

"Between either the boycott affecting the store or the boycott affecting the brand, Nordstrom said, 'We don't need this,'" Kniffen said.

"The line has not been performing. Maybe that is because some are boycotting the line but the fact remains, it's not selling," Liz Dunn, founder and CEO of Talmage Advisors, said via email.

"I find it bizarre that anyone would seriously suggest a company do something not in the best interest of its bottom line solely to please the current administration."

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/nordstrom-stock-soared-7-percent-after-trump-slammed-it-twitter-n719506