Clinton about inequality in $12k Armani

[RAMROD 118,103]

No wonder she had that ear to ear smile

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12k? It's a glorified potato sack

She needs to stick to colorful tones like blue. 

-----

Anyway being wealthy and talking about fixing income inequality is no different than being white and fixing racial inequality.

You don't have to live in someone's shoes to understand the need to help them. It's this thing called empathy.

Shes a wealthy woman because of her illustrious career. She has earned every cent and she can spend it on what she wants.

Some people, especially those in the media and public eye like politicians and celebrities, will always earn a lot of money when performing services because they bring in a lot of money to begin with due to their influence.

Wanting them to earn less is saying you want the companies to pay a smaller share for their own profits. 

Battling income inequality isn't about bringing people down to poverty. It's bringing everyone up to the point of being financial comfortable.

[AJH219 4,448]

Who the fck cares? Honestly, what is the goddamn big deal? Rich woman wears expensive, ugly, outfit to political rally. SHOCKING. At this point, people are just reaching for the stars trying to drag her.  

[Lion Heart 15,041]

LMAO 

[Whispering 18,865]

Wealthy people wear expensive clothes? Who would have guessed? 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

I'll just leave this here too...

Your whole thread about the Armani jacket is an opinion piece base on the author's theory. It's a supposition piece not based on fact and thinly veiled as a news article in the NY Post. The NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He also owns Fox News.

While the jacket was originally worth $12k it's been on sale for a while now at $7k. It's still a lot of money for a jacket, but no one knows when she purchased the jacket and she wore it a day or two ago for the first time. So already the price of $12k has a big question mark attached to it. I think we all know this gif fits here perfectly.

Then the article goes on to say, 'And there’s a good chance that cash is coming out of her own pocket. For example, no designers are actively promoting that she’s wearing their labels.'

Please explain to me how the statement above can be considered a fact. The author gave a theory and expects you to come to the same conclusion as he did. (That she paid for the jacket).

Then you go on to say it was reported by all the news outlets, Though that was true, there was no fact checking done by any of the news outlets and those other news outlets were just quoting the NY Post article. 

Then you go on to ask people opinions on a derogatory article based on a theory created by the author. LOL  

 

 

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/Giorgio-Armani-3-4-Sleeve-Long-Jacket-W-Leather-Trim-Fantasia/prod183200396/p.prod?ecid=NMCS__GooglePLA&gclid=CLT4mc3_mM0CFcYlgQodi5IPdQ

[Didymus 34,380]

@just4fun

First of all: I only posted the Armani thing because it was all over news sites and social media, which I explicitly stated. Besides, the article I picked did not express an opinion, it just stated that it was found out that the jacket she wore in April was 12k and then expanded on her fashion choices in her political career. Barely any opinion in it. Even if (some of) the facts are wrong (the majority isn't though, the majority you ignored of course), that matters very little for the actual thread: this is spreading in the news, what do you think about it?

So what that your reply tells me is that you (1) didn't read the entire OP; (2) you didn't read the rest of the thread in which I clearly defend Hillary and reject criticism and even the idea of discussing her fashion choices, as was already explicit in the OP; (3) you ignored the fact that I asked specific discussion questions that had nothing to do with the 12k jacket or the other possibly false facts about which I didn't care, clearly; (4) you're comparing an opinion piece appearing in only one source with an actual news story that's spreading just to be able to call me a hypocrite.

I mean.. that's just really embarrassing Like, for real. I honestly feel embarrassed for you.

And for you, @Whispering for liking that abysmal attack (in the other thread, which I didn't respond to 'cause it's off-topic there).

[Pierre 10,480]

1. Probably her money.

2. Probably a deal with Mr. Armani, do you really think a famous celebrity will pay for clothes? 80% of times is all about the brand adn the person wearing it, 50%-50% benefits.

3. Probably a stylist choice, she doesn't have time to select pieces or watching fashion shows, she has people working for her in that department. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

8 hours ago, brendablethyn said:

She's going to get dragged for whatever she wears. It's what happens when you're a woman in politics.

Wow, another "feminist" on the internet chiming in to throw in the gender card to cover for Hillary Clinton's sh*t decisions.

This has nothing to do about gender. Hillary Clinton got a $600 dollar haircut a few months back. She claims to be a common woman when in reality her net worth is 30 millions USD and she lives an extravagant life.

The fact that she lives such an extravagant life is not the problem here. The problem is that she tries to paint the image that she left the white house "dirt poor" and she conveniently never once checked back in to tell us she's DIRTY RICH!

And let's not even get into why she's made that money. Is it because she started a company? No. Created jobs? No. Secretary of State's salary? Nope. It's because she takes a HUGE slice of the money donated to the Clinton foundation as her salary. She even did so as SoS, even though it clearly presented a dangerous conflict of interest when foreign governments could have (and may as well have) given her "donations" in exchange for favorable foreign policy initiatives.

People who make comments like this in response to a female getting criticized is why mode feminism is cancer. 

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Wow, another "feminist" on the internet chiming in to throw in the gender card to cover for Hillary Clinton's sh*t decisions.

This has nothing to do about gender. Hillary Clinton got a $600 dollar haircut a few months back. She claims to be a common woman when in reality her net worth is 30 millions USD and she lives an extravagant life.

The fact that she lives such an extravagant life is not the problem here. The problem is that she tries to paint the image that she left the white house "dirt poor" and she conveniently never once checked back in to tell us she's DIRTY RICH!

And let's not even get into why she's made that money. Is it because she started a company? No. Created jobs? No. Secretary of State's salary? Nope. It's because she takes a HUGE slice of the money donated to the Clinton foundation as her salary. She even did so as SoS, even though it clearly presented a dangerous conflict of interest when foreign governments could have (and may as well have) given her "donations" in exchange for favorable foreign policy initiatives.

People who make comments like this in response to a female getting criticized is why mode feminism is cancer. 

Dayum.

You brought it

I'm not that familiar with Hillary, so I don't know if she has pretended to be an everyday woman etc. that much, but if so.. yeah, that's not cool. And the Clinton foundation? Mess if true.

[ImTired 3,956]

Cause Trump gets his suits at Goodwill. Bish please. 

 

[ImTired 3,956]

6 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

12k? It's a glorified potato sack

She needs to stick to colorful tones like blue. 

-----

Anyway being wealthy and talking about fixing income inequality is no different than being white and fixing racial inequality.

You don't have to live in someone's shoes to understand the need to help them. It's this thing called empathy.

Shes a wealthy woman because of her illustrious career. She has earned every cent and she can spend it on what she wants.

Some people, especially those in the media and public eye like politicians and celebrities, will always earn a lot of money when performing services because they bring in a lot of money to begin with due to their influence.

Wanting them to earn less is saying you want the companies to pay a smaller share for their own profits. 

Battling income inequality isn't about bringing people down to poverty. It's bringing everyone up to the point of being financial comfortable.

I found out awhile ago that a lot of that potato sack look is because she has to wear a bulletproof vest underneath.  Its not as noticeable on guys in suit jackets.

[MJHolland 12,725]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Dayum.

You brought it

I'm not that familiar with Hillary, so I don't know if she has pretended to be an everyday woman etc. that much, but if so.. yeah, that's not cool. And the Clinton foundation? Mess if true.

She goes through painful attempts to keep up her persona of being quote "broke". Do I have to remind us all of when she tried to show us how she rides to subway only to mortifyingly fail?

At the end of the day, Hillary is a 1%er just like Donald Trump.

6 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

She's a wealthy woman because of her illustrious career. She has earned every cent and she can spend it on what she wants.

 

Really? Most of her income comes from donations. How the hell is that earned? She takes a big ol' slab of money from her foundation. You realize that in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $149 million according to it's IRS tax form, and donated only $9 million to charity? Where do you think the rest of that goes? Oh right, into her pocket.

[MJHolland 12,725]

@Didymus

Liberals, and especially supporters of HRC on this forum, always talk about how we need to drastically lower CEO pay. They try aimlessly to paint the picture that CEOs take wayyy to much money and that it could be redistributed to the poor. 

In reality, ONE paid speech by Hillary Clinton of average is more than a CEO annual salary.  You read that right. Their entire salary for a whole YEAR is less than one average speech given by Hillary Clinton. I've never heard a liberal ever say she deserves less money for speeches, even though they say that CEOs deserve less money when they actually create a good for the public and create jobs. Its shameful. 

[Didymus 34,380]

22 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Its shameful. 

Out of likes, so this counts as one, though not really.

26 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Do I have to remind us all of when she tried to show us how she rides to subway only to mortifyingly fail?

lol lemme Google that