Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, LanasNerfGun said: Don't forget many designer houses often gift their items to public figures in exchange for free advertising for their brand. Jeez guys, c'mon don't start with this misogynistic crap here YAWN why are there no threads on Trump's suits? That's addressed in the article. This thread isn't anti-Hillary, which should be clear if you read the entire thing. I alluded to a possible misogynistic element at the bottom of the OP, so you're free to discuss that, but not like this pls Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanasNerfGun 4,679 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Didymus said: That's addressed in the article. This thread isn't anti-Hillary, which should be clear if you read the entire thing. I alluded to a possible misogynistic element at the bottom of the OP, so you're free to discuss that, but not like this pls I'll admit I did skim through the majority of the post. I just got on from twitter where most of the conversation revolved bashing her for her clothes. Apologies, Senior Member Didymus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic 20,830 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 I'm against inequality, and if I went into politics I wouldn't stop purchasing the Chanel products I do now, lol. If you have the money, buy what you want. I don't think she needs to be licking trash cans for banana peels and slapping rats with a broom in an NYC slum apartment to be taken seriously for her views on inequality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 It's also like.. where's the limit? Like.. if she was getting her food from McDonald's and her clothes from H&M you could make exactly the same claim about her not caring about inequality but the other way around Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 23 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: This is JUST being posted on here?!? Because only people trying to pick a fight care what she wears. I could care less what she wears, though $12k for a shity jacket is a little ridiculous This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,380 Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, FATCAT said: Because only people trying to pick a fight care what she wears. For the record, I don't Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Just now, Didymus said: For the record, I don't Your OP clearly stated this, wasn't coming for you This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstreak 6,653 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 40 minutes ago, LePetitMonstr said: She can spend HER money however the **** she wants. Americans are too critical about people. I have seen people buy things on food stamps and yet have an iPhone 6 plus and designer handbags. And yet no one says ****. But a rich person buys something expensive and the whole country is in uproar. So............. But the thing is, discussions like this neglect the nuance of how said person might have come across such items. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about a woman describing the comments and looks she'd get for having a nice car while using foodstamps, she went on to explain how that car had been given to her by her parents because she needed a vehicle during the hard economic times she was facing. People could also be well off enough to buy such items, then through circumstances lose the income they had accumulated. That situation doesn't make the luxury items they acquired before those circumstances suddenly disappear. Even for myself, the iPhone 6 I have was free because of the phone plan I have giving me a free upgrade every two years as long as I stay with that plan. There's a myriad of reasons why someone may have the items they do yet still require government assistance. I'm not saying that you are saying all of those things, just that I think it's an important discussion to expound on. Take a moment to think of just flexibility, love, and trust~ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
En_Sabah_Nur 9,366 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, FATCAT said: Because only people trying to pick a fight care what she wears. I could care less what she wears, though $12k for a shity jacket is a little ridiculous True on both counts!! Cuz god knows that jacket is UUUGGGLLLYYY!!!!! SMH Egypt. W Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LePetitGAGABLover 21,234 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Redstreak said: But the thing is, discussions like this neglect the nuance of how said person might have come across such items. I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about a woman describing the comments and looks she'd get for having a nice car while using foodstamps, she went on to explain how that car had been given to her by her parents because she needed a vehicle during the hard economic times she was facing. People could also be well off to buy such items, then through circumstances lose the income they had accumulated. That situation doesn't make the luxury items they acquired before those circumstances suddenly disappear. Even for myself, the iPhone 6 I have was free because of the phone plane I have giving me a free upgrade every two years as long as I stay with that plan. There's a myriad of reasons why someone may have the items they do yet still require government assistance. I'm not saying that you are saying all of those things, just that I think it's an important discussions to expound on. I agree and you make a great point. But just like we shouldn't judge that person you described because of her car and food stamps, we shouldn't also judge a rich woman because she buys expensive clothes. For all we know, wearing different types of clothes is irrelevant to the issue of inequality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATCAT 60,888 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said: True on both counts!! Cuz god knows that jacket is UUUGGGLLLYYY!!!!! SMH Though, this being news leads me down a new path. With a woman candidate, will fashion now be of import to news media? "And here we have Clinton from the right, she's wearing armani beige this afternoon, ripe for a debate with Senor Trump" Makes me wonder. This kitten over here (meow) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusKeepBreathin 19,311 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, FATCAT said: Though, this being news leads me down a new path. With a woman candidate, will fashion now be of import to news media? "And here we have Clinton from the right, she's wearing armani beige this afternoon, ripe for a debate with Senor Trump" Makes me wonder. Well, it was important enough to make a thread about it. I would assume the media will also start discussing what she wears on a regular basis. "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Surrealist 27,470 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Ugly Jacket. She can do what she wants. Case closed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brendablethyn 536 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 She's going to get dragged for whatever she wears. It's what happens when you're a woman in politics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBEY 57,109 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Same goes for Gaga or any celebs lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.