Ivanka Trump loses clothes deal. Why? Crappy clothes or crappy president?

[rdean]

What was it Bush was signing? It's on fucking video. You can't say he didn't sign anything. What was it he signed?

Not NAFTA.

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs...American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia​

So much for that revisionist history...it was almost ONE FULL YEAR into Clinton's presidency that NAFTA was passed and signed into law. I understand it's embarrassing, but it is a fact none the less.

​

Then what did Bush sign?

 

[Care4all]

What was it Bush was signing? It's on fucking video. You can't say he didn't sign anything. What was it he signed?

Not NAFTA.

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs...American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia​

So much for that revisionist history...it was almost ONE FULL YEAR into Clinton's presidency that NAFTA was passed and signed into law. I understand it's embarrassing, but it is a fact none the less.

​

When clinton was running for President, and confronted by the Press on President Bush's NAFTA treaty that was agreed upon by all the Presidential/parliamentary heads of the 3 Nations involved, and asked if he would support and sign NAFTA if Congress passed it and he said, YES....

So you are absolutely correct, Clinton showed signs of supporting it, even before he became President.

but clinton, outside of the amendment addition that protected employees affected more, did not write one itty bitty word of NAFTA, with the other 2 Nation Leader....the Treaty was written and signed off on before clinton ever came in to office....he did not design it, he did not negotiate it, he did not write any of the measures in the NAFTA treaty....

he DID however, write what could be called NAFTA 2, where they amended the agreement to give employees more protections....and he did this in order to get some of the Democratic congress critters to vote FOR IT.... Because before he did the ADDITIONAL amendment to NAFTA, the Democrats were not going to vote for it at all, for the most part....it was ALL Republicans wanting to pass it.

so, NAFTA began with Pres Reagan, Pres Bush 1 created and wrote the measures in the agreement treaty, and had the 2 other Nation Presidents involved sign it, and Pres Clinton after the House and senate passed it, signed it in to law.

You can probably and fairly say, that Clinton took steps to get President Bush1's NAFTA treaty passed in both houses by luring democrats to support it with, the additional amendment giving employees affected more protections, that NAFTA may not have passed....OR there might have been enough republicans with a handful of democrats supporting it to pass it, but Clinton would have been forced and pressured by all the Democrats against it, to Veto it and congress would not have had the 2/3's congressional veto override, to get it through!

that's how I remember it ALL going down Missourian....

 

[Missourian]

When clinton was running for President, and confronted by the Press on President Bush's NAFTA treaty that was agreed upon by all the Presidential/parliamentary heads of the 3 Nations involved, and asked if he would support and sign NAFTA if Congress passed it and he said, YES....

So you are absolutely correct, Clinton showed signs of supporting it, even before he became President.

but clinton, outside of the amendment addition that protected employees affected more, did not write one itty bitty word of NAFTA, with the other 2 Nation Leader....the Treaty was written and signed off on before clinton ever came in to office....he did not design it, he did not negotiate it, he did not write any of the measures in the NAFTA treaty....

he DID however, write what could be called NAFTA 2, where they amended the agreement to give employees more protections....and he did this in order to get some of the Democratic congress critters to vote FOR IT.... Because before he did the ADDITIONAL amendment to NAFTA, the Democrats were not going to vote for it at all, for the most part....it was ALL Republicans wanting to pass it.

so, NAFTA began with Pres Reagan, Pres Bush 1 created and wrote the measures in the agreement treaty, and had the 2 other Nation Presidents involved sign it, and Pres Clinton after the House and senate passed it, signed it in to law.

You can probably and fairly say, that Clinton took steps to get President Bush1's NAFTA treaty passed in both houses by luring democrats to support it with, the additional amendment giving employees affected more protections, that NAFTA may not have passed....OR there might have been enough republicans with a handful of democrats supporting it to pass it, but Clinton would have been forced and pressured by all the Democrats against it, to Veto it and congress would not have had the 2/3's congressional veto override, to get it through!

that's how I remember it ALL going down Missourian....

I'd say that is a fair assessment...now, let's take it one step further.

Who is ultimately responsible for the consequences of an economic treaty...the person who negotiates it, the congress that passes it...or the President who signs it into law?

Where does the buck stop?

 

[hadit]

More liberal terrorism.

Come on. That doesn't look like a flour sack? It looks like bad couch material with unfinished edges.

It wasn't sewn, it was macrame.

Looks like something Hillary would wear.

 

[hadit]

Nordstrom Drops Ivanka Trump's Fashion Line Due To Lagging Sales

Donald Trump is saying his daughter is being treated unfairly.

But I don't think it has anything to do with politics or being treated fairly. I think these closes just look shitty. Take a look.

What is this pink thing. It looks like someone made a mistake on the zipper.

OMG. Wrinkle city. Poorly fitted.

Yuck.

Did someone barf on a table cloth?

I can't even figure out what this is. Was it made from leftovers?

Flour Sack Fashion? I don't think so.

Half black, half used handkerchief.

Perhaps Trump should concentrate on bringing jobs to this country? That would be novel.

Sartorial taste and sartorial elegance are very important to me and all of those clothes are pretty hideous, Haute Couture they certainly are not, they are a form of badly designed prêt-à-porter.

WTF?! Everything about them is wrong from the colour schemes, to the cut, to the fabric.

Dior and Chanel darling, Dior and Chanel

Massimo Vignelli T-Shirt dress. Do you have one yet?

I have plenty of Tee-shirts. I just never considered any of them a dress.

You obviously need to widen your fashion sense. The guys would love it.

 

[rdean]

When clinton was running for President, and confronted by the Press on President Bush's NAFTA treaty that was agreed upon by all the Presidential/parliamentary heads of the 3 Nations involved, and asked if he would support and sign NAFTA if Congress passed it and he said, YES....

So you are absolutely correct, Clinton showed signs of supporting it, even before he became President.

but clinton, outside of the amendment addition that protected employees affected more, did not write one itty bitty word of NAFTA, with the other 2 Nation Leader....the Treaty was written and signed off on before clinton ever came in to office....he did not design it, he did not negotiate it, he did not write any of the measures in the NAFTA treaty....

he DID however, write what could be called NAFTA 2, where they amended the agreement to give employees more protections....and he did this in order to get some of the Democratic congress critters to vote FOR IT.... Because before he did the ADDITIONAL amendment to NAFTA, the Democrats were not going to vote for it at all, for the most part....it was ALL Republicans wanting to pass it.

so, NAFTA began with Pres Reagan, Pres Bush 1 created and wrote the measures in the agreement treaty, and had the 2 other Nation Presidents involved sign it, and Pres Clinton after the House and senate passed it, signed it in to law.

You can probably and fairly say, that Clinton took steps to get President Bush1's NAFTA treaty passed in both houses by luring democrats to support it with, the additional amendment giving employees affected more protections, that NAFTA may not have passed....OR there might have been enough republicans with a handful of democrats supporting it to pass it, but Clinton would have been forced and pressured by all the Democrats against it, to Veto it and congress would not have had the 2/3's congressional veto override, to get it through!

that's how I remember it ALL going down Missourian....

I'd say that is a fair assessment...now, let's take it one step further.

Who is ultimately responsible for the consequences of an economic treaty...the person who negotiates it, the congress that passes it...or the President who signs it into law?

Where does the buck stop?

Trump doesn't take responsibility for anything. But he does take credit for good things he had nothing to do with.

 

[rdean]

Nordstrom Drops Ivanka Trump's Fashion Line Due To Lagging Sales

Donald Trump is saying his daughter is being treated unfairly.

But I don't think it has anything to do with politics or being treated fairly. I think these closes just look shitty. Take a look.

What is this pink thing. It looks like someone made a mistake on the zipper.

OMG. Wrinkle city. Poorly fitted.

Yuck.

Did someone barf on a table cloth?

I can't even figure out what this is. Was it made from leftovers?

Flour Sack Fashion? I don't think so.

Half black, half used handkerchief.

Perhaps Trump should concentrate on bringing jobs to this country? That would be novel.

Sartorial taste and sartorial elegance are very important to me and all of those clothes are pretty hideous, Haute Couture they certainly are not, they are a form of badly designed prêt-à-porter.

WTF?! Everything about them is wrong from the colour schemes, to the cut, to the fabric.

Dior and Chanel darling, Dior and Chanel

Massimo Vignelli T-Shirt dress. Do you have one yet?

I have plenty of Tee-shirts. I just never considered any of them a dress.

You obviously need to widen your fashion sense. The guys would love it.

If I were wearing the Tee shirt as a dress, they would only like it because they would be laughing at it.

 

[Care4all]

The bottom line is her line of goods are not selling at the rate the Buyer needs to make the Dept store meet their ROI and profit expectations..... if her brand/line was HOT and selling like firecrackers, then the Nordstrom Buyer would be buying more.....period.

That's simply how it works....

Ivanka s line could be cute as a button with all the right looks, but if the customers do not buy it, whether for political reasons or other reasons...it's NOT selling the rate it needs to be selling, in order for the Buyer to continue purchasing the brand to take up limited real estate on her limited sales floor space..... if another line of goods is selling at a faster rate of sale, then that brand will win the real estate.

 

[hadit]

The bottom line is her line of goods are not selling at the rate the Buyer needs to make the Dept store meet their ROI and profit expectations..... if her brand/line was HOT and selling like firecrackers, then the Nordstrom Buyer would be buying more.....period.

That's simply how it works....

Ivanka s line could be cute as a button with all the right looks, but if the customers do not buy it, whether for political reasons or other reasons...it's NOT selling the rate it needs to be selling, in order for the Buyer to continue purchasing the brand to take up limited real estate on her limited sales floor space..... if another line of goods is selling at a faster rate of sale, then that brand will win the real estate.

That is the correct motorcycle. There's nothing that forces anyone to buy or not buy anything (except for health insurance, of course), but mocking Ivanka because of president Trump is just plain mean and exposes those doing it as very small minded, very insecure immature children. It is the same as the idiots who carried on for the last 8 years about Mrs. Obama being ugly.

It is a side of politics that makes me yak.

 

[rdean]

The bottom line is her line of goods are not selling at the rate the Buyer needs to make the Dept store meet their ROI and profit expectations..... if her brand/line was HOT and selling like firecrackers, then the Nordstrom Buyer would be buying more.....period.

That's simply how it works....

Ivanka s line could be cute as a button with all the right looks, but if the customers do not buy it, whether for political reasons or other reasons...it's NOT selling the rate it needs to be selling, in order for the Buyer to continue purchasing the brand to take up limited real estate on her limited sales floor space..... if another line of goods is selling at a faster rate of sale, then that brand will win the real estate.

That is the correct motorcycle. There's nothing that forces anyone to buy or not buy anything (except for health insurance, of course), but mocking Ivanka because of president Trump is just plain mean and exposes those doing it as very small minded, very insecure immature children. It is the same as the idiots who carried on for the last 8 years about Mrs. Obama being ugly.

It is a side of politics that makes me yak.

Presidential spokes people didn't tell America to buy Michelle's clothes.

 

[BlueGin]

When clinton was running for President, and confronted by the Press on President Bush's NAFTA treaty that was agreed upon by all the Presidential/parliamentary heads of the 3 Nations involved, and asked if he would support and sign NAFTA if Congress passed it and he said, YES....

So you are absolutely correct, Clinton showed signs of supporting it, even before he became President.

but clinton, outside of the amendment addition that protected employees affected more, did not write one itty bitty word of NAFTA, with the other 2 Nation Leader....the Treaty was written and signed off on before clinton ever came in to office....he did not design it, he did not negotiate it, he did not write any of the measures in the NAFTA treaty....

he DID however, write what could be called NAFTA 2, where they amended the agreement to give employees more protections....and he did this in order to get some of the Democratic congress critters to vote FOR IT.... Because before he did the ADDITIONAL amendment to NAFTA, the Democrats were not going to vote for it at all, for the most part....it was ALL Republicans wanting to pass it.

so, NAFTA began with Pres Reagan, Pres Bush 1 created and wrote the measures in the agreement treaty, and had the 2 other Nation Presidents involved sign it, and Pres Clinton after the House and senate passed it, signed it in to law.

You can probably and fairly say, that Clinton took steps to get President Bush1's NAFTA treaty passed in both houses by luring democrats to support it with, the additional amendment giving employees affected more protections, that NAFTA may not have passed....OR there might have been enough republicans with a handful of democrats supporting it to pass it, but Clinton would have been forced and pressured by all the Democrats against it, to Veto it and congress would not have had the 2/3's congressional veto override, to get it through!

that's how I remember it ALL going down Missourian....

I'd say that is a fair assessment...now, let's take it one step further.

Who is ultimately responsible for the consequences of an economic treaty...the person who negotiates it, the congress that passes it...or the President who signs it into law?

Where does the buck stop?

Trump doesn't take responsibility for anything. But he does take credit for good things he had nothing to do with.

Sounds exactly like Obama.

 

[rdean]

When clinton was running for President, and confronted by the Press on President Bush's NAFTA treaty that was agreed upon by all the Presidential/parliamentary heads of the 3 Nations involved, and asked if he would support and sign NAFTA if Congress passed it and he said, YES....

So you are absolutely correct, Clinton showed signs of supporting it, even before he became President.

but clinton, outside of the amendment addition that protected employees affected more, did not write one itty bitty word of NAFTA, with the other 2 Nation Leader....the Treaty was written and signed off on before clinton ever came in to office....he did not design it, he did not negotiate it, he did not write any of the measures in the NAFTA treaty....

he DID however, write what could be called NAFTA 2, where they amended the agreement to give employees more protections....and he did this in order to get some of the Democratic congress critters to vote FOR IT.... Because before he did the ADDITIONAL amendment to NAFTA, the Democrats were not going to vote for it at all, for the most part....it was ALL Republicans wanting to pass it.

so, NAFTA began with Pres Reagan, Pres Bush 1 created and wrote the measures in the agreement treaty, and had the 2 other Nation Presidents involved sign it, and Pres Clinton after the House and senate passed it, signed it in to law.

You can probably and fairly say, that Clinton took steps to get President Bush1's NAFTA treaty passed in both houses by luring democrats to support it with, the additional amendment giving employees affected more protections, that NAFTA may not have passed....OR there might have been enough republicans with a handful of democrats supporting it to pass it, but Clinton would have been forced and pressured by all the Democrats against it, to Veto it and congress would not have had the 2/3's congressional veto override, to get it through!

that's how I remember it ALL going down Missourian....

I'd say that is a fair assessment...now, let's take it one step further.

Who is ultimately responsible for the consequences of an economic treaty...the person who negotiates it, the congress that passes it...or the President who signs it into law?

Where does the buck stop?

Trump doesn't take responsibility for anything. But he does take credit for good things he had nothing to do with.

Sounds exactly like Obama.

Not really. This is what an apology looks like:

A Special Apology From Obama After Gaffe

Obama Apologizes to Special Olympics for Bowling Joke

This is what an apology doesn't look like:

 

[talksalot]

More liberal terrorism.

Come on. That doesn't look like a flour sack? It looks like bad couch material with unfinished edges.

It wasn't sewn, it was macrame.

Looks like something Hillary would wear.

Hillary's tailor is the same as the president of North Korea.