Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Someone ask about corruption?
Ivanka's biz prospers as politics mixes with business
On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
As the first daughter crafts a political career from her West Wing office, her brand is flourishing, despite boycotts and several stores limiting her merchandise. U.S. imports, almost all of them from China, shot up an estimated 166 percent last year, while sales hit record levels in 2017. The brand, which Trump still owns, says distribution is growing. It has launched new activewear and affordable jewelry lines and is working to expand its global intellectual property footprint. In addition to winning the approvals from China, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC applied for at least nine new trademarks in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Canada and the U.S. after the election.
"Put the business on hold and stop trying to get trademarks while you're in government," advised Richard Painter, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush.
To address ethical concerns, Trump has shifted the brand's assets to a family-run trust valued at more than $50 million and pledged to recuse herself from issues that present conflicts.
"Ivanka will not weigh in on business strategy, marketing issues, or the commercial terms of agreements," her attorney, Jamie Gorelick, said in a statement. "She has retained authority to direct the trustees to terminate agreements that she determines create a conflict of interest or the appearance of one."
In a recent interview with CBS News, Trump argued that her business would be doing even better if she hadn't moved to Washington and placed restrictions on her team to ensure that "any growth is done with extreme caution."
China, however, remains a nagging concern. "Ivanka has so many China ties and conflicts, yet she and Jared appear deeply involved in China contacts and policy. I would never have allowed it," said Norman Eisen, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer under Barack Obama. "For their own sake, and the country's, Ivanka and Jared should consider stepping away from China matters."
Instead, the first daughter and her husband have emerged as prominent interlocutors with China, where they have both had significant business ties. Last year, Kushner pursued hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate investments from Anbang Insurance Group, a financial conglomerate with close ties to the Chinese state. After media reports about the deal, talks were called off.
Publicly, Ivanka has taken a gracious, charming approach toward Beijing. During the Mar-a-Lago meetings, her daughter, 5-year-old Arabella stood in a gilded room and sang a traditional Chinese song, in Mandarin, for China's president, Xi Jinping. The video, which was lavishly praised by Chinese state media, played over 2.2 million times on China's popular news portal qq.com.
The week of the summit, 3.4 tons of Ivanka Trump handbags, wallets and blouses arrived in the U.S. from Hong Kong and Shanghai. U.S. imports of her merchandise grew an estimated 40 percent in the first quarter of this year, according to Panjiva Inc., which maintains and analyzes global shipping records.
Gorelick, Ivanka Trump's attorney, said that Ivanka and her husband would steer clear of specific areas that could impact her business, or be seen as conflicts of interest, but are under no legal obligation to step back from huge swaths of policy, like trade with China.
Under the rules, Trump would recuse herself from conversations about duties on clothing imported from China, Gorelick said, but not broad foreign policy.
"In between, you have to assess it case-by-case," she said.
Today, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC has 16 registered trademarks in China and 32 pending applications, along with a total of four marks granted preliminary approval since the inauguration, according to China's Trademark Office. Altogether, they cover a wide range of goods and services, including cosmetics, jewelry, leather handbags, luggage, clothes, shoes, retail, spa and beauty services. There is no sign the recent approvals were particularly swift. China's Trademark Office did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump did not sign off on the new trademark applications, her brand said in a statement, adding that they are "not necessarily an indication that the brand is planning to launch a category or a store in a specific territory."
Whatever the future plans, right now sales are growing — helped, some argue, by the glow of Ivanka Trump's political rise.
Data from Lyst, a massive fashion e-commerce platform, indicates some of this growth coincided with specific political events.
The number of Ivanka Trump items sold through Lyst was 46 percent higher the month her father was elected president than in November 2015. Sales spiked 771 percent in February over the same month last year, after White House counselor Kellyanne Conway exhorted Fox viewers to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff." Conway was later reprimanded. The bounce appears somewhat sustained. March sales on Lyst were up 262 percent over the same period last year.
"You can't separate Ivanka from her role in life and from her business," said Allen Adamson, founder of Brand Simple Consulting. "Her celebrity status is now not only being fueled by her wealth and her family connection, but by her huge role in the White House. All that buzz is hardwired to her products." That, he added, is a competitive advantage other brands just can't match — though it does come with risk.
Things could easily cut the other way for the first daughter. Ashley King, 28 of Calabasas, California, bought Ivanka Trump black flats and a cardigan several years ago. But King, who voted for Hillary Clinton, said she believes Trump's role in the White House represents a conflict of interest.
"This is bothering me more and more," she said. As for the Ivanka Trump items in her closet, she said, "I will be donating them."
@Ambar: Good God, you are patronizing and judgmental. "Youth" are not a single homogeneous block all of whom have exactly the same beliefs and flaws. Frankly, your suggestion that they all suffer from some sort of savior complex is dismissive and insulting. You can get away with this on the internet, because no one knows what demographic category you belong to- otherwise you would be vulnerable to the same sort of dismissive attitude. Everyone's votes count, the values of all communities are meaningful, and the progressive cause needs every single solitary vote it can get.
@Everybody else: On average, it is true that younger voters turn out less often than others, but those who do turn out are not marginalized by the inactions of their peers. If I understand the pragmatic argument correctly, the idea is that no one should support non-centrist candidate, because they are the only one's who could possibly get elected. Idealistic candidates do attract younger voters, but this doesn't matter because they vote enough. The mistake you are all making is assuming that a candidate cant appeal to a wide range of voters, including voters of all ages, all across the political spectrum, from different racial, gendered and religious communities, simultaneously. Instead we seem to be assuming that it's enough to win with one more vote than the other guy, nevermind how sustainable that plurality may not be.
I have several problems with this style of thinking. First off, it isn't enough to win- you also have to win for the right reasons. Opposing Trump by itself isn't enough- to be a national leader, one has to stand for something positive. You have declare where you stand on this country's most vexing social conflicts. It isn't enough to support some isolated policies designed to appeal to X% of some targeted demographic. So, for example, I don't care how high a candidate wants to raise the minimum wage, I want to know why they want to raise the minimum wage. Do they really believe that working and middle class citizens have been systematically disempowered over time, and do they sincerely wish to redress that problem? That's a pretty radical stand to take- Sanders took it, did anyone else?
It's hard to take principled positions that appeal to a large enough cross-section of voters that one can win. It's hard to win for the right reasons. It's still worth doing. Because one of the main problems we are facing right now is polarization- the fact that the right-wing opinion manufacturing machine has been very successful in changing people's minds, and has been almost unopposed for over a generation. If we want to move forward as a country in a progressive direction, we cant do that with only a plurality of citizens in support of it. We can win elections, but we cant move the country without persuading a bunch of people to change their beliefs. We aren't just trying to win mere elections, ultimately we want to change American political culture. You need a critical mass of people to do that. Those who already agree with us are not enough.
So young people don't vote in large enough numbers. Neither do blacks, or the the poor. The answer isn't to dismiss the opinions and beliefs of these communities, it's to get them more engaged. That will mean addressing their concerns, which, lets be frank, few mainstream politicians, including Democrats, bother to do. It will mean trying to change some opinions, which is hard, but has to be done.
You don't change a culture by dismissing the opinions, or impugning the integrity, of anyone who disagrees with you. Even if you disagree with them a whole lot. Even if they are wrong and you are right.
Research on group polarization indicates that the best way to get someone to listen to you is to treat them with respect. This is also the best way to isolate and neutralize abusive, confrontational group members. Right now we are analogous to a team of people arranged around a table, and we are spending all our energy yelling at the one person on the other side who vocally disagrees with us (whether that's a member of the "alt-right", or a leftie who wants to primary your favorite candidate). That's a waste of time. Invest it instead in engaging the silent members of the group, who are always a majority. Research indicates that if one party speaks respectfully while another party yells and acts aggressive, there is backlash against the loud aggressive one. There is less research on large scale, mass opinion change, but there is no reason to assume it wont scale up. I'm not talking about being nice for being nice' sake- I'm talking about treating people respectfully in order to win.
This doesn't mean agreeing with them, or respecting objectionable statements. There is a dignified way to criticize someone's opinion, but calling them names isn't it. We must continue to call out statements and policies that are discriminatory and prejudiced. But we must do so in a way that will build mass support for policies that are not. Otherwise we lose this game.
Confrontation creates it's own resistance. That's why more people are supporting progressive change now than during Obama's administration. Trump is a trojan horse, the worst mistake the Republican Party ever made. Lets not make the same mistake.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
So "silent majority" and "everyone is entitled to civility".
Yeah, since that worked wonders last time. The silent majority spoke - they didn't give a shit or knowingly voted for white supremacy.
Maybe you're born into money. Maybe you've never had someone insult you from the other side of the train station for where they thought you were from. Maybe you don't have to look out your window with unease due to militia types "on patrol" for "illegals" and "troublemakers". Your own claims that Ambar is dismissing the experiences of a group belies your own dismissal.
M84: Yes. The best part was that the bill was completely unenforceable had it passed.
edited 18th Apr '17 11:39:23 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThis.
It's what I call systemic corruption.
![]()
It's benign compared to the sort of behavior that's commonplace in Russia or China (or pretty much every country outside of the developed world), and doesn't violate any laws if we're talking about the usual way of doing things. Without major reforms to campaign finance law, the fundraising arms race will continue to escalate and there'll be an ever greater need to lean on mega-donors.
edited 18th Apr '17 11:44:30 AM by CaptainCapsase
The Trump administration has yet to nominate a candidate for the State Department post overseeing overseas diplomatic security
. Over three dozen other State Department positions remain unfilled as well.
Who needs diplomacy when you have bluster?
edited 18th Apr '17 11:45:27 AM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThere will always be benevolent oligarchs. Doesn't mean that I like oligarchy.
It's okay to have money. What's not okay is rigging things in your favor at the expense of the population.
edited 18th Apr '17 12:07:57 PM by MadSkillz
Ah, yes, the Clinton foundation. The not-corrupt-at-all Foundation where the biggest scandals were idiot hacks like Chris Cilizza dismissing evidence and going by their 'feelz' in articles published by the Washington Post. But hey, people asked for favors and didn't get them, so corruption.
This is why allegations of corruption are so...lazy.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Despite all the talk about stakes, around 42 percent of eligible voters sat out this election cycle
.
Promising them free stuff or outsiders alone isn't going to change that. There's always using civics education to impart the importance of voting and the power it gives you to influence how you're governed, but then who's insisting that nothing will ever change?
52 percent of white women and 63 percent of white men voted for Trump
. So excuse me if I'm not terribly endeared to the type of folk who complain that my ilk are taking away jobs they don't even know how to do.
edited 18th Apr '17 12:21:18 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotAny time someone talks about corruption among elites and then brings up the Clinton Foundation as an example, I can safely dismiss anything they have to say on the topic. They have lost anything resembling discernment or critical thinking skills.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"For what it's worth, regarding youth voters: while they have lower turnout rates than other age categories, it's not as low
as some people in this thread make it sound. They have similar turnout to Hispanics, for example, and I don't think anyone here would argue that they aren't an important part of the Democratic voter coalition either. Youth turnout in last year's election is estimated
to be around 50%, which would be comparable to Obama levels - the problem is that this time relatively much more young whites voted and much less young minorities, which resulted in a higher amount of Trump votes with this group.
Regarding them being more prone to populism than other voters: probably not, since they voted en masse against Brexit, Trump, Wilders and so on, and far left parties in Europe aren't really popular with them either. 'More idealistic' is probably a better description, although some people here make it sound like they all have the mentality of 16 year olds, while we're talking about 18-29 year olds.
The closest things to pay-to-play that came out of the Clinton Foundation was foreign diplomats donating to the foundation...and then making appointments with Hillary Clinton, aka, the woman who's job it was to deal with foreign diplomats, and that one case of someone getting a seat changed at an event. Most of them got their requests turned down anyway.
The foreign diplomats might have thought they were paying for special access, but Clinton was just doing her job. Especially since she, you know, has basically nothing to do with the running of the Foundation and gets nothing out of it.
![]()
No. At least, not any more than that old Dungeons and Dragons cartoon that had moral guardians force a conformity The Complainer Is Always Wrong aesop.
edited 18th Apr '17 12:32:59 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@Krieger American youth voted for Hillary over Trump.
Obama over Mc Cain and Romney.
Al Gore and Kerry over Bush.
@Krieger: Once again, what would you suggest the democrats do, going forwards? If you insist on shooting down all of the various the suggestions coming from the left wing of the party and can't come up with an alternative, you're just being contrarian and unhelpful.
edited 18th Apr '17 12:37:09 PM by CaptainCapsase

* That Sanders' campaign during the primary was able to maintain parity with the Clinton campaign using what was essentially a crowdfunding model was one of the big reasons i think it's a shame he lost the primaries; pulling that off and going on to win the presidency with the same funding model could completely change the game of political fundraising in the same way the Clintons pioneered the current day fundraising strategy in American politics.
edited 18th Apr '17 11:27:17 AM by CaptainCapsase