• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2036
      • Показать ещё
      Разное693
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации37
      • Показать ещё
      Люди145
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы287
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели103
      • Показать ещё
      Формат41
      Издания70
      • Показать ещё
27 марта, 10:15

Why Is Nordstrom (JWN) Down 4.5% Since the Last Earnings Report?

Nordstrom (JWN) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.

24 марта, 20:35

Holy Ethics Disaster, Batman!

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin may have violated federal ethics rules when he endorsed The LEGO Batman Movie, which he executive produced.

24 марта, 20:35

Holy Ethics Disaster, Batman!

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin may have violated federal ethics rules when he endorsed The LEGO Batman Movie, which he executive produced.

24 марта, 17:19

Nordstrom Expansion on Track, Opens Store in California

Nordstrom (JWN) remains committed to its store-expansion strategy, in a bid to improve customer experience, along with boosting its overall performance.

24 марта, 12:27

10 Amazing Beauty Sets for Those on a Budget

With these beauty kits, you can look your best without having to spend a fortune on high-end makeup and skin care products.

23 марта, 21:27

Starbucks Gives Corporate Employees 3 Times More Maternity Leave Than Baristas

Starbucks grabbed headlines and accolades earlier this year for giving its hourly workers parental leave, but few people paid attention to the inequality baked into the fine print: The coffee giant is providing vastly better benefits to its already well-paid, white-collar corporate employees. Under the new policy, which takes effect in October, Starbucks white-collar employees who give birth to a baby are eligible for up to 18 weeks paid time off. That’s three times as much as the six weeks a woman working in a Starbucks store would get if she has a baby. All other corporate employees can take 12 weeks paid time off after the arrival of a child, including fathers, adoptive and foster parents. Hourly workers? They get 12 weeks, too. Unpaid. Known for giving generous benefits to the hourly workers that comprise the vast majority of its 180,000 employees in the U.S., Starbucks called this new policy “exceptional” in a press release in January. Now some Starbucks workers are protesting the policy, decrying the unfairness of giving one class of workers more time to spend with their children than another and shining light on a problem that plagues Americans across the country. This week a few Starbucks employees traveled to the company’s annual shareholder meeting in Seattle to deliver three petitions, with more than 80,000 signatures from employees and others, demanding equal parental leave benefits.    “I think my baby is just as important as the babies of the parents in the corporate office,” said Kristin Picciolo, who works part-time at a Starbucks in Medina, Ohio, and traveled to Seattle this week to deliver the petition.  “We should have equal benefits and time to spend with them.” This is not about Starbucks, this is about people who have more actually noticing and placing value on the people that have less. Jess Svabinek, Starbucks employee Just four months ago, while she was in labor at the hospital, Picciolo got the surprising news that she fell slightly short of Starbucks’ hourly work requirements to qualify for paid maternity leave. (The current policy allows for six weeks paid leave at 67 percent pay for those that work 20 hours a week or more.) Since then, her partner’s picked up double-shifts for his job as a server in a restaurant. She went back to work last month ― sooner than she would’ve liked. “We’re stressed out,” the 22-year-old new mom says of her current situation, laughing when this reporter asked about their savings. If she worked in corporate, she’d still be home with her son, she said. And that would be better for everyone. Few would argue that big companies like Starbucks should practice equality when it comes to pay. Employees get paid different salaries and that’s how it works. A cashier probably shouldn’t make the same salary as the CEO. But parental leave is a different ballgame. And, as Starbucks is finding out, it’s hard to justify why some types of workers “deserve” more time with their children than others. Netflix ran into a similar issue a few years ago, after the Huffington Post reported that its hourly workers weren’t eligible for the same amount of parental leave benefits as its salaried workers. When asked to explain the discrepancy, a Starbucks spokesperson reiterated phrasing from its January press release, saying the expanded benefits for corporate employees were intended to “seek and retain non-store talent.” In other words, the company is competing more fiercely for these workers and needs to do more to attract them.  When Picciolo asked Starbucks president Kevin Johnson if there were any plans to equalize the benefit at the shareholder meeting on Wednesday, he skirted the question, noting that the company also raised hourly pay last year and expanded health benefits. He said that the benefits conversation is ongoing. (You can watch the video below.) Johnson, who is slated to take the reins as CEO in April, said the parental leave policy was what they were able to offer at this time. The more generous non-store worker policy actually applies to very few Starbucks employees. Of its 170,000 U.S. workers, all but 8,000 work in its stores, according to company data. And that handful of workers makes lots more money. While store workers at the company make around $10 or so an hour; pay at corporate headquarters ― for roles like systems analyst, human resource manager or IT manager ―  can run into the six-figures, according to data on Glassdoor. Starbucks is hardly the only retailer to give better benefits to its white-collar workers. Walmart gives women in its corporate office 12 weeks of paid maternity leave and its hourly workers get none, according to data compiled by Paid Leave U.S., a nonprofit advocacy group. Yum Brands only gives paid leave to corporate full-timers; not to workers in its fast-food restaurants, according to PLUS’s data. The group is planning on releasing its analysis later this year.   A handful of big companies have decided to buck the trend and offer all of its workers ― hourly or salaried ― equal benefits, including Ikea, Nordstrom and Levi’s. But they’re unusual. Paid leave inequality is something that labor groups are starting to pay more attention to, said Brianna Cayo Cotter, chief of staff at Paid Leave U.S. “The people that most need paid leave benefits are the ones being left out of these policies,” said Cotter. Her nonprofit is working alongside Working Washington, a local labor group, to push Starbucks to further improve its policy. The rub is that a typical low-wage worker is in far greater need of paid time off than her higher-paid counterpart. Nearly half of low-income workers who take unpaid or partially paid leave turn to government benefits to get by, according to a Pew study released Thursday afternoon. An even larger percentage take on debt. One in four women are back to work less than two weeks after they give birth, that’s not enough time to even physically recover from labor. The United States is one of only a handful of countries that doesn’t offer new mothers paid maternity leave. It’s the only advanced economy with no mandated sick time. That means that it’s left to the private sector to dole out what is essentially a public benefit. And of course that leads to inequality. The most competitive, highest paying jobs are the ones that offer paid leave.   And Americans apparently want to leave this policy in the private sector’s hands, the Pew study found. While the majority of survey respondents said they support paid parental leave, respondents also said that companies should be the ones to offer it. Americans were split on whether the government should require employers to offer the benefit. Most Democrats said yes; while Republican respondents disagreed. Jess Svabinek is a 37-year-old barista at a Starbucks about 40 miles outside of Seattle. She makes $11 an hour and is expecting baby this summer ― her fourth. She’ll have her baby before the benefits go into effect and she’s not sure if she is up to 20 hours a week, so she’s been tucking away her tips to save up for diapers. Her husband earns $21.50 an hour at Trader Joe’s. “We’re lucky,” Svabinek says, noting that last year they made slightly more than $50,000. He works days; she works nights; handing off the kids, an 11-year-old and six-year-old twins, in a tag team parenting style that carries a lot of hourly workers through their days. She was at the shareholder meeting Wednesday and had time to visit the Starbucks store at corporate headquarters. She said she watched the store workers smiling and serving their corporate employee counterparts coffees. “This is not about Starbucks, this is about people who have more actually noticing and placing value on the people that have less,” she told HuffPost in an email. “There is not a difference between [a corporate worker’s] baby and the barista’s baby. The only difference is that she sits upstairs in a building and the barista works down below in an apron. The time for this kind of class discrimination is over.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 марта, 21:27

Starbucks Gives Corporate Employees 3 Times More Maternity Leave Than Baristas

Starbucks grabbed headlines and accolades earlier this year for giving its hourly workers parental leave, but few people paid attention to the inequality baked into the fine print: The coffee giant is providing vastly better benefits to its already well-paid, white-collar corporate employees. Under the new policy, which takes effect in October, Starbucks white-collar employees who give birth to a baby are eligible for up to 18 weeks paid time off. That’s three times as much as the six weeks a woman working in a Starbucks store would get if she has a baby. All other corporate employees can take 12 weeks paid time off after the arrival of a child, including fathers, adoptive and foster parents. Hourly workers? They get 12 weeks, too. Unpaid. Known for giving generous benefits to the hourly workers that comprise the vast majority of its 180,000 employees in the U.S., Starbucks called this new policy “exceptional” in a press release in January. Now some Starbucks workers are protesting the policy, decrying the unfairness of giving one class of workers more time to spend with their children than another and shining light on a problem that plagues Americans across the country. This week a few Starbucks employees traveled to the company’s annual shareholder meeting in Seattle to deliver three petitions, with more than 80,000 signatures from employees and others, demanding equal parental leave benefits.    “I think my baby is just as important as the babies of the parents in the corporate office,” said Kristin Picciolo, who works part-time at a Starbucks in Medina, Ohio, and traveled to Seattle this week to deliver the petition.  “We should have equal benefits and time to spend with them.” This is not about Starbucks, this is about people who have more actually noticing and placing value on the people that have less. Jess Svabinek, Starbucks employee Just four months ago, while she was in labor at the hospital, Picciolo got the surprising news that she fell slightly short of Starbucks’ hourly work requirements to qualify for paid maternity leave. (The current policy allows for six weeks paid leave at 67 percent pay for those that work 20 hours a week or more.) Since then, her partner’s picked up double-shifts for his job as a server in a restaurant. She went back to work last month ― sooner than she would’ve liked. “We’re stressed out,” the 22-year-old new mom says of her current situation, laughing when this reporter asked about their savings. If she worked in corporate, she’d still be home with her son, she said. And that would be better for everyone. Few would argue that big companies like Starbucks should practice equality when it comes to pay. Employees get paid different salaries and that’s how it works. A cashier probably shouldn’t make the same salary as the CEO. But parental leave is a different ballgame. And, as Starbucks is finding out, it’s hard to justify why some types of workers “deserve” more time with their children than others. Netflix ran into a similar issue a few years ago, after the Huffington Post reported that its hourly workers weren’t eligible for the same amount of parental leave benefits as its salaried workers. When asked to explain the discrepancy, a Starbucks spokesperson reiterated phrasing from its January press release, saying the expanded benefits for corporate employees were intended to “seek and retain non-store talent.” In other words, the company is competing more fiercely for these workers and needs to do more to attract them.  When Picciolo asked Starbucks president Kevin Johnson if there were any plans to equalize the benefit at the shareholder meeting on Wednesday, he skirted the question, noting that the company also raised hourly pay last year and expanded health benefits. He said that the benefits conversation is ongoing. (You can watch the video below.) Johnson, who is slated to take the reins as CEO in April, said the parental leave policy was what they were able to offer at this time. The more generous non-store worker policy actually applies to very few Starbucks employees. Of its 170,000 U.S. workers, all but 8,000 work in its stores, according to company data. And that handful of workers makes lots more money. While store workers at the company make around $10 or so an hour; pay at corporate headquarters ― for roles like systems analyst, human resource manager or IT manager ―  can run into the six-figures, according to data on Glassdoor. Starbucks is hardly the only retailer to give better benefits to its white-collar workers. Walmart gives women in its corporate office 12 weeks of paid maternity leave and its hourly workers get none, according to data compiled by Paid Leave U.S., a nonprofit advocacy group. Yum Brands only gives paid leave to corporate full-timers; not to workers in its fast-food restaurants, according to PLUS’s data. The group is planning on releasing its analysis later this year.   A handful of big companies have decided to buck the trend and offer all of its workers ― hourly or salaried ― equal benefits, including Ikea, Nordstrom and Levi’s. But they’re unusual. Paid leave inequality is something that labor groups are starting to pay more attention to, said Brianna Cayo Cotter, chief of staff at Paid Leave U.S. “The people that most need paid leave benefits are the ones being left out of these policies,” said Cotter. Her nonprofit is working alongside Working Washington, a local labor group, to push Starbucks to further improve its policy. The rub is that a typical low-wage worker is in far greater need of paid time off than her higher-paid counterpart. Nearly half of low-income workers who take unpaid or partially paid leave turn to government benefits to get by, according to a Pew study released Thursday afternoon. An even larger percentage take on debt. One in four women are back to work less than two weeks after they give birth, that’s not enough time to even physically recover from labor. The United States is one of only a handful of countries that doesn’t offer new mothers paid maternity leave. It’s the only advanced economy with no mandated sick time. That means that it’s left to the private sector to dole out what is essentially a public benefit. And of course that leads to inequality. The most competitive, highest paying jobs are the ones that offer paid leave.   And Americans apparently want to leave this policy in the private sector’s hands, the Pew study found. While the majority of survey respondents said they support paid parental leave, respondents also said that companies should be the ones to offer it. Americans were split on whether the government should require employers to offer the benefit. Most Democrats said yes; while Republican respondents disagreed. Jess Svabinek is a 37-year-old barista at a Starbucks about 40 miles outside of Seattle. She makes $11 an hour and is expecting baby this summer ― her fourth. She’ll have her baby before the benefits go into effect and she’s not sure if she is up to 20 hours a week, so she’s been tucking away her tips to save up for diapers. Her husband earns $21.50 an hour at Trader Joe’s. “We’re lucky,” Svabinek says, noting that last year they made slightly more than $50,000. He works days; she works nights; handing off the kids, an 11-year-old and six-year-old twins, in a tag team parenting style that carries a lot of hourly workers through their days. She was at the shareholder meeting Wednesday and had time to visit the Starbucks store at corporate headquarters. She said she watched the store workers smiling and serving their corporate employee counterparts coffees. “This is not about Starbucks, this is about people who have more actually noticing and placing value on the people that have less,” she told HuffPost in an email. “There is not a difference between [a corporate worker’s] baby and the barista’s baby. The only difference is that she sits upstairs in a building and the barista works down below in an apron. The time for this kind of class discrimination is over.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 марта, 21:19

Ivanka Trump, Tommy Hilfiger Among Top Brands Being Purged From Closets

When it comes to getting rid of old clothing, certain brands are resold more than others, according to a new report from a fashion resale website.  ThredUp, an online site that specializes in reselling secondhand women’s and kids’ clothing, recently released its first “Purge Surge” report. The analysis tracks which brands and styles people are purging the most from their closets, based on all items sold to ThredUp in 2015 compared to all items sold to ThredUp in 2016, according to ThredUp spokesperson Samantha Jacob. For reference, the company processes about 75,000 items of clothing in four distribution centers per day.  New York & Company was the most-purged brand on the list, with Tommy Hilfiger and Kate Hudson’s Fabletics coming in at numbers 2 and 3, respectively. Ivanka Trump’s brand landed at number 7 on the list.  Below are the full findings: 1. New York & Company, 472 percent increase from 2016 over 2015 2. Tommy Hilfiger, 469 percent  3. Fabletics, 326 percent  4. Liz Lange Maternity, 269 percent  5. Gap Fit, 256 percent  6. Lou & Grey, 249 percent  7. Ivanka Trump, 223 percent  8. Madewell, 218 percent  9. Active by Old Navy, 213 percent  10. Vera Bradley, 119 percent  The Ivanka Trump brand has experienced criticism and boycotts since Donald Trump was elected president. Retailers like TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus dropped or distanced themselves from her line. Though Jacob could not speculate as to why the Ivanka Trump brand experienced a purge surge on ThredUp, she told HuffPost it could come down to two factors.   “There are two general reasons we’d see a purge surge: (1) the brand is declining in popularity or (2) the brand has grown in volume,” she said via email. “For Ivanka, the data suggests that the ‘Purge Surge’ rationale varies by market.” Jacob shared insights from the data collected on the Trump brand, based on specific markets:  - In NYC and LA for example, supply of the Ivanka Trump brand has outpaced demand significantly, meaning more people are selling than buying the brand. - In Dallas and Houston, demand has outpaced supply, meaning more people have intent to buy, or are buying, the brand than are selling. - Interestingly, of all major metro areas, Washington DC saw the greatest difference rate of supply versus demand, implying that the Ivanka Trump brand is declining more in popularity in DC versus other major cities. Despite all this, Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said the clothing and accessories line saw a spike in sales in February.  “Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Klem said in a statement a few weeks ago. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.” And so the saga continues. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 марта, 21:19

Ivanka Trump, Tommy Hilfiger Among Top Brands Being Purged From Closets

When it comes to getting rid of old clothing, certain brands are resold more than others, according to a new report from a fashion resale website.  ThredUp, an online site that specializes in reselling secondhand women’s and kids’ clothing, recently released its first “Purge Surge” report. The analysis tracks which brands and styles people are purging the most from their closets, based on all items sold to ThredUp in 2015 compared to all items sold to ThredUp in 2016, according to ThredUp spokesperson Samantha Jacob. For reference, the company processes about 75,000 items of clothing in four distribution centers per day.  New York & Company was the most-purged brand on the list, with Tommy Hilfiger and Kate Hudson’s Fabletics coming in at numbers 2 and 3, respectively. Ivanka Trump’s brand landed at number 7 on the list.  Below are the full findings: 1. New York & Company, 472 percent increase from 2016 over 2015 2. Tommy Hilfiger, 469 percent  3. Fabletics, 326 percent  4. Liz Lange Maternity, 269 percent  5. Gap Fit, 256 percent  6. Lou & Grey, 249 percent  7. Ivanka Trump, 223 percent  8. Madewell, 218 percent  9. Active by Old Navy, 213 percent  10. Vera Bradley, 119 percent  The Ivanka Trump brand has experienced criticism and boycotts since Donald Trump was elected president. Retailers like TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus dropped or distanced themselves from her line. Though Jacob could not speculate as to why the Ivanka Trump brand experienced a purge surge on ThredUp, she told HuffPost it could come down to two factors.   “There are two general reasons we’d see a purge surge: (1) the brand is declining in popularity or (2) the brand has grown in volume,” she said via email. “For Ivanka, the data suggests that the ‘Purge Surge’ rationale varies by market.” Jacob shared insights from the data collected on the Trump brand, based on specific markets:  - In NYC and LA for example, supply of the Ivanka Trump brand has outpaced demand significantly, meaning more people are selling than buying the brand. - In Dallas and Houston, demand has outpaced supply, meaning more people have intent to buy, or are buying, the brand than are selling. - Interestingly, of all major metro areas, Washington DC saw the greatest difference rate of supply versus demand, implying that the Ivanka Trump brand is declining more in popularity in DC versus other major cities. Despite all this, Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said the clothing and accessories line saw a spike in sales in February.  “Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Klem said in a statement a few weeks ago. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.” And so the saga continues. function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 марта, 16:37

Campbell Soup Authorizes Share Buyback, Declares Dividend

Packaged foods retailer, Campbell Soup Company (CPB) rewarded investors by approving a new share repurchase program to buy back shares to the tune of $1.5 billion, sans expiration date.

Выбор редакции
21 марта, 15:55

На бренд Иванки Трамп подали в суд

Ритейлер Modern Appealing Clothing из Сан-Франциско подал иск против бренда Ivanka Trump, заявив о нечестной конкуренции

21 марта, 15:39

Nordstrom's Collaboration with Infor Boosts Digital Growth

Nordstrom (JWN) chose to partner with Infor Rhythm for Commerce.

21 марта, 07:58

Lawsuit Accuses Ivanka Trump Company Of Unfairly Profiting From White House

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); A San Francisco clothing retailer has filed a class-action lawsuit against Ivanka Trump’s clothing and accessory company, accusing the operation of unfair competition because of her connections to the White House. Modern Appealing Clothing claims that the first daughter’s company, Ivanka Trump Marks, has gained an “unfair advantage” in the marketplace by leveraging the influence of the presidency. “President Donald J. Trump and his individual and White House employees and agents have, since the election, promoted defendant Ivanka Trump’s brand by exploiting the power and prestige of the White House,” read the complaint, filed last week in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit also accuses company employees of “piggy backing” product promotions on government events. The lawsuit points to a company sales boost after Donald Trump slammed Nordstrom department store on Twitter in February for dumping his daughter’s products. It also cites Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway’s touting of Ivanka Trump products during an interview on national TV. “I’m going to give a free commercial here,” Conway said on Fox News. “Go buy it today, everybody.” My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017 Sales of Ivanka Trump products soared 346 percent from January to February compared with the same period last year because she and her family are exploiting their White House connections, the lawsuit states. “As a result of their unlawful acts, defendants have reaped and continue to reap unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of plaintiff MAC and the class it seeks to represent,” said the 11-page complaint. “That advantage is specifically prohibited by the Constitution and laws of the United States ... and California.” The lawsuit seeks to represent a class including all women’s clothing and accessory companies that operated in California between November 9, 2016 ― the day after the election — through the date of trial. The suit is seeking restraining orders barring Ivanka Trump’s brand from continuing to compete unfairly in California and seeks unspecified damages. Ivanka Trump’s company has not commented on the suit. Ivanka Trump is maintaining ownership of all her businesses, just as her father is, though she served on the Trump transition team and appears about to take a new role in the White House. She has been given an office, security clearance and government-issued phones or computers, Politico reported Monday. She has placed her company in a trust — though not a blind trust — run by relatives of her husband yet continues to wield significant power over her brand, The New York Times reported. The unfair competition lawsuit represents an intriguing legal strategy to address concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House as the president — and family members — remain private business owners while also being charged with the task of fairly representing the public. Earlier this month, a wine bar sued the president and his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., for unfair local competition. The lawsuit claims that the president’s ownership and promotion of the hotel gives it an unfair advantage in attracting business to the hotel’s restaurants and bar. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58c19053e4b0ed71826ac039,58d056ffe4b00705db520f50 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 марта, 07:58

Lawsuit Accuses Ivanka Trump Company Of Unfairly Profiting From White House

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); A San Francisco clothing retailer has filed a class-action lawsuit against Ivanka Trump’s clothing and accessory company, accusing the operation of unfair competition because of her connections to the White House. Modern Appealing Clothing claims that the first daughter’s company, Ivanka Trump Marks, has gained an “unfair advantage” in the marketplace by leveraging the influence of the presidency. “President Donald J. Trump and his individual and White House employees and agents have, since the election, promoted defendant Ivanka Trump’s brand by exploiting the power and prestige of the White House,” read the complaint, filed last week in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit also accuses company employees of “piggy backing” product promotions on government events. The lawsuit points to a company sales boost after Donald Trump slammed Nordstrom department store on Twitter in February for dumping his daughter’s products. It also cites Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway’s touting of Ivanka Trump products during an interview on national TV. “I’m going to give a free commercial here,” Conway said on Fox News. “Go buy it today, everybody.” My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017 Sales of Ivanka Trump products soared 346 percent from January to February compared with the same period last year because she and her family are exploiting their White House connections, the lawsuit states. “As a result of their unlawful acts, defendants have reaped and continue to reap unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of plaintiff MAC and the class it seeks to represent,” said the 11-page complaint. “That advantage is specifically prohibited by the Constitution and laws of the United States ... and California.” The lawsuit seeks to represent a class including all women’s clothing and accessory companies that operated in California between November 9, 2016 ― the day after the election — through the date of trial. The suit is seeking restraining orders barring Ivanka Trump’s brand from continuing to compete unfairly in California and seeks unspecified damages. Ivanka Trump’s company has not commented on the suit. Ivanka Trump is maintaining ownership of all her businesses, just as her father is, though she served on the Trump transition team and appears about to take a new role in the White House. She has been given an office, security clearance and government-issued phones or computers, Politico reported Monday. She has placed her company in a trust — though not a blind trust — run by relatives of her husband yet continues to wield significant power over her brand, The New York Times reported. The unfair competition lawsuit represents an intriguing legal strategy to address concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House as the president — and family members — remain private business owners while also being charged with the task of fairly representing the public. Earlier this month, a wine bar sued the president and his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., for unfair local competition. The lawsuit claims that the president’s ownership and promotion of the hotel gives it an unfair advantage in attracting business to the hotel’s restaurants and bar. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58c19053e4b0ed71826ac039,58d056ffe4b00705db520f50 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 марта, 13:00

2 Months In, Trump May Already Own A First: Most Corrupt POTUS. Ever.

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON – Imagine a foreign potentate who uses his official position to promote his private businesses. Who makes face time with visiting dignitaries a perk for his paying customers. Whose top aide urges the citizenry to embrace products sold by the sovereign’s daughter. For two months now, Americans have not had to imagine any of this. They have been living it. As President Donald Trump enters his third month in office, he has already established at least one record, however dubious: the president most open and willing to use the prestige of the White House to enrich himself and his family. “I’m at a loss,” said Robert Maguire, an investigator with the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that advocates for more transparency in government and campaigns. “This idea that the presidency is something to enrich your private interest to the extent he’s doing, not by going on the speaking tour or getting a big book deal after he leaves office, but while he’s in office, sort of milking the office for all it’s worth ― it’s tacky.” For years, Trump made sure to feature one of his properties and his name-emblazoned jetliner in each episode of his reality TV show “The Apprentice.” Just so, over the past seven weekends, Trump has visited his hotel in Washington, D.C., his golf courses in Palm Beach County and, most frequently, his Mar-a-Lago resort there. The weekend of March 11 – only the second in a month and a half that he did not travel to Florida – he had lunch with top aides at his golf course across the Potomac River from the White House. He did not play golf. He did not stay overnight. All he did was have lunch. And with each of these visits have come the attendant media coverage, with photos and videos of his for-profit enterprises. “He should not use his official position to promote his businesses. That doesn’t make him a good businessman. That makes him a bad president,” said Richard Painter, the former top ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush’s White House. Trump’s White House did not respond to emails for this story. And even some of his usual defenders declined to do so on this topic. “It’s the full employment act for people who write about ethics,” said one former campaign official on the condition he could speak anonymously. Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based GOP consultant who often defends Trump, said he couldn’t really offer a sincere defense on this one. “I think he enjoys being at his own properties. He has pride in them. He is comfortable in them. He feels he has a level of control over them,” he said. “Should he not be allowed to go to his own properties?” He should not use his official position to promote his businesses. That doesn’t make him a good businessman. That makes him a bad president." -- Richard Painter, former top ethics lawyer for George W. Bush's White House Trump’s behavior has no precedent, going back to at least the turn of the last century, ethics experts say. Even in the presidency most often associated with open corruption, it was Warren Harding’s Interior secretary, not Harding himself, who had taken bribes in the Teapot Dome oil lease scandal. Presidents in recent years have taken care to place their assets in blind trusts, to eliminate possible perceptions of conflicts between their personal interests and those of the United States. “I don’t think any president in modern history has had a serious conflict,” Painter said. At a Jan. 11 news conference, though, Trump declared that the president of the United States was legally incapable of having any conflicts of interest, and that, if he chose to, he could serve as president while also running his businesses. Rather than place his assets in a blind trust – in which he would not even know what holdings he owned, let alone be able to control them – Trump merely turned over temporary managerial control to his adult sons. And they, in turn, have been aggressively marketing the Trump brand abroad, taxpayer-provided Secret Service contingents in tow. Eric Trump earlier this month even boasted about how well it is going. “I think our brand is the hottest it has ever been,” he told the New York Times. Meanwhile, the family of his brother-in-law and top White House aide, Jared Kushner, is reportedly negotiating a deal with a Chinese firm that analysts are calling unusually favorable to the Kushners. It would allow them to dramatically reduce their liability on a nine-figure loan on a Manhattan high-rise. At the same time, Kushner has emerged as Trump’s informal but possibly most influential foreign policy negotiator and has already met with Chinese leaders among others. Kushner’s wife, Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, has been the beneficiary of a different top Trump aide. Kellyanne Conway, reacting to news that department store chain Nordstrom was dropping Ivanka Trump’s clothing line because of poor sales, in a TV interview from the White House briefing room urged viewers to take action. “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff,” Conway told Fox News on Feb. 9. “I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer later said Conway had “been counseled” about her remarks – but Spicer himself had defended Trump’s involvement in the episode, saying he had every right to write angry tweets about Nordstrom because they picked on his daughter. “He ran for president. He won. He’s leading this country,” Spicer had said at the previous day’s White House press briefing. “For people to take out their concern about his actions or his executive order on members of his family, he has every right to stand up for his family and applaud their business activities, their success.” Spicer further has defended Trump’s refusal to put his assets in the blind trust and his repeated choices to use his own properties for both time off as well as official meetings. Indeed, in early February, Spicer began referring to Trump’s for-profit Palm Beach resort – which doubled its initiation fees from $100,000 before Trump’s election win to $200,000 now – in this manner: “This weekend, the president will be shifting the operation of the White House down to the winter White House at Mar-a-Lago,” Spicer said from the briefing room podium. It’s the full employment act for people who write about ethics." Former Trump campaign official Spicer’s and Conway’s words, though, merely reflect the attitude set from the top by the most openly transactional and self-dealing president in modern times. During his campaign, Trump insisted on using both his own private jetliner for travel and his own office tower as headquarters – even though he could have saved his donors millions had he rented space in a less expensive building and chartered a more efficient plane. For months as he traveled the country, he spoke about how he had given money to politicians over the years with the expectation that they would later do what he wanted on a particular issue. He then accused his opponents of taking money from “special interests” with that same understanding. He spoke about how he would treat someone nicely if that person had treated him nicely – even using that rationale to defend Russian President Vladimir Putin from charges of murdering his political opponents. That attitude has continued even after his election, to the point where he appears to feel obliged to mingle with dues-paying members of Mar-a-Lago and his other properties. During the transition, he visited with a dinner reception at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, during a weekend trip there and bragged about all the Cabinet interviews he was planning to hold there the next day. He has reportedly solicited Mar-a-Lago guests for their thoughts on policies he is considering. And during the visit of Japan’s prime minister to Mar-a-Lago last month, Trump introduced Shinzo Abe to club members hosting a wedding reception. “They’ve been members of this club for a long time,” Trump explained. “They’ve paid me a fortune.” “This pay-to-play game has got to stop. He’s president of the United States. It’s corruption of government,” said Painter, now a law professor at the University of Minnesota and part of the legal team suing Trump over the payments his hotels are receiving from foreign entities, possibly in violation of the Constitution.  The Center for Responsive Politics’ Maguire said Trump’s behavior has disproven predictions by those who believed he would evolve to meet the decorum expected of the presidency. “The expectation was, once he gets into office, of course he won’t be like this,” Maguire said. “And, of course, he has.” Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 марта, 22:14

Can The Kardashians Survive In The Trump Era?

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); In October, the Kardashians will officially celebrate 10 years on television. In that time, the family has managed to cram 13 seasons’ worth of bickering, bonding, pregnancies, weddings and trips to their cosmetic surgeon into their flagship reality series, “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” Ten years on television is impressive for any show, let alone a reality series, which more often than not creates just fleeting moments of fame for its stars. But the Kardashians aren’t just reality stars, they’re the first family of reality TV. When E!’s “KUWTK” premiered on Oct. 14, 2007, George W. Bush was president, American troops had been fighting in Iraq for four years, the financial crisis was just beginning to devastate the economy and Trump was hosting a reality show on NBC. A modern-day “Brady Bunch” reality program about a wealthy, obnoxious, blended Hollywood family was a welcome distraction for viewers dealing with difficult times. The show was such a hit that the network renewed it for a second season after only weeks on the air. The Kardashians’ success only grew over time and the family left competitors in the genre, like “Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels” and “Hogan Knows Best” in its dust. But America has changed a lot in a decade, and the Kardashian’s brand of frivolous escapism might not suit these times quite as well. Some, in fact, even blame the Kardashian Klan for the subsequent elevation of reality TV stars into prominent public figures. In January, longtime Kardashian critic Chelsea Handler told Variety that she “blamed” the famous family for the way the media covered Trump during the election, which she believed subsequently aided his victory. “They were treating him as an entertainer first. It was a reality show. We’ve turned into a reality show. I blame the Kardashians, personally; the beginning of the end was the Kardashians,” Handler said. “The way these people have blown up and don’t go away — it’s surreal. Everyone is for sale.” Handler’s blame feels slightly misplaced, but she’s not wrong about the comparison. We rely on the Kardashians to flaunt their wealth, feud with fellow celebrities, and entertain us with their personal drama and over-the-top antics. (Surprise engagements! Attempts to contact the dead a with creepy medium! Ugly crying!) But the Kardashians begin to feel redundant when the president of the United States is a ratings-obsessed self-proclaimed billionaire who picks fights with Meryl Streep, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Snoop Dogg, and talks about his cabinet choices as though he were handing out roses on “The Bachelor.” Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2016 It might seem cruel to compare the Kardashians to Trump, as they actually promote a lot of progressive values, including championing the transgender community. Plus Kim has openly supported Hillary Clinton, frequently promotes gun control and, after Trump instituted his travel ban, she even tweeted out a statistical graphic showing that Americans are more likely to die by being shot by another American than by an Islamic jihadist. And while Trump is rumored to be a “never-nude,” the Kardashians wouldn’t fall into that category. But make no mistake: Both the Kardashians and Trump are operating out of the same reality TV playbook that calls for conflict, misdirection, manipulation and scandals allegedly featuring golden showers. Trump has been president for nearly 60 days, yet he’s still acting as though he’s starring on “The Apprentice” ― and it seems intentional. Between the endless leaks and reported infighting among Trump’s top aides, there is no shortage of drama coming from the White House.  Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't voluntarily leaving the Apprentice, he was fired by his bad (pathetic) ratings, not by me. Sad end to great show— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 “I don’t think it’s surprising that conflict is being stoked, created, and encouraged [within Trump’s staff],” Jeff Jenkins, a co-president at the production company behind “KUWTK,” told Vanity Fair in December. “I think the sad and horrifying reality from my perspective is that all of that conflict and all of those small skirmishes ... that’s just a smoke screen. We, as citizens, are getting distracted. It’s an unfortunate technique, but it’s effective.” Given that the news is already saturated with reports that Trump hates the way press secretary Sean Spicer dresses, will anyone care the next time Kanye West overhauls Kim’s closet? Or with rumblings that White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus are at war with one another for control, is there any room to mull over whether or not Kim invited Blac Chyna to a baby shower? When Trump uses both his personal and official presidential Twitter accounts to attack Nordstrom for dropping his daughter Ivanka’s clothing line, does that leave room for us to care if Khloe comes to Kim’s defense when Amber Rose calls her a “whore”? And with Trump’s completely unsubstantiated claims that Obama wiretapped his phones during the campaign, it’s unlikely anyone will raise their eyebrows the next time Kim gets paranoid and accuses her BFF Jonathan Cheban of leaking stories to the press.  The Kardashians thrived in the Obama era, but Trump’s win has prompted somewhat of a shift in celebrity coverage. Although sex will always sell, these days, a female celebrity can get just as much, if not more, attention for voicing her political views as she can for posting a bikini photo on Instagram. This poses a problem for the Kardashians, who rely on beachside bikini photos, nude selfies and the public tittering over their cleavage to generate headlines. Now, that’s not to say the Kardashians aren’t political at times, nor that they’re entirely flippant. But there are already signs the Kardashians’ spotlight is dimming. Part of their current strategy has been to use their “KUWTK” show as a commercial platform for their larger empire. Even though they split a six-figure salary per episode, the real money is in the endorsement deals, clothing lines, video games and lip kits. But staying on TV is paramount to their continued exposure, marketing and success. Which is why declining viewership is such a concern. Season 12, which aired from May to November 2016, resulted in the show’s lowest ratings ever. The premiere of Season 13, which aired on Sunday night, was watched by 1.48 million viewers ― making it the series’ least-watched season premiere since 2008. One theory for the drop in viewership is that the Kardashians have actually been undermining audience interest in “KUWTK” with their amped-up social media presence. The show has historically been used as a platform for major announcements to mine for ratings, but by the time the episode rolls around these days, the pregnancy reveals, engagements and cover shoots are old news. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the Kardashians have been sharing much more about their personal lives with their increased focus on Snapchat, their personal apps and live-stream chats. “When people looked at me in a way like, ‘Why is she stepping into the tech world? That’s not her territory! Stick to reality TV!’ I was like, ‘No,’” Kim told Forbes in July. “This is fun for me. Now I’m coming up with Kimojis and the app and all these other ideas. I don’t see myself stopping.” And considering Kim told “60 Minutes” she owes her career to social media, it seems the Kardashians are willing to keep embracing more social platforms at the risk of losing TV viewers. Bypassing the networks, cultivating their own audiences on social media so they can speak directly to the public. Hmm. Where have we heard of that before? Ironically, Kim’s three-month hiatus could actually be a boon to the show if viewers tune in to see what she was up to during her social media blackout. It seems that’s what “KUWTK,” which bills itself as a way for fans to go behind the headlines and separate fact from fiction, is banking on. Fans who tuned in on Sunday night were no doubt expecting the season to start with Kim opening up about her October Paris robbery, which is what the trailer for the show certainly implied. Instead, viewers were treated to one of the most boring hours of television, consisting of the eldest three Kardashian sisters arguing about whether or not they should close their line of clothing stores and Khloe revealing her relationship with NBA player Tristan Thompson (which she already confirmed via Snapchat in September). Viewers will have to watch next week’s episode if they want to learn what really went down in Paris ― a clever and somewhat deceptive ratings tactic. Beyond the drop in ratings, there are other signs the Kardashian era is ending. The family is actually losing ground on social media. In fact, Kim hasn’t been the most-followed person on Instagram since August 2015 and was quickly usurped by Taylor Swift. Today, she’s been bumped down to the fifth most-followed person, while Selena Gomez holds the top honor. On Twitter, Katy Perry, who is trying her hand at politically tinged music for the first time, is the most-followed, while Kim sits at No. 13 and Khloe ranks all the way at No. 56. It’s only on Snapchat where Kylie Jenner continues to reign supreme. The 19-year-old is still the most-followed person on the app “by a long-shot.” But a more general indicator that the Kardashians should be worried is a decline in overall search. A chart in Google Trends for the term “Kim Kardashian” shows a clear dip in the months after Kardashian’s robbery. Though it remains to be seen if Kim’s post-robbery break will actually increase interest in the show, the three months in which she retreated from the public eye coincided with Trump’s win. In that time, most of Hollywood responded with loud cries of resistance. Patton Oswalt has generated seemingly endless headlines with his tweets about Trump and managed to raise his overall public profile in the process. Likewise, celebrities including Tom Hanks, Amy Schumer and Meryl Streep garnered more attention for their clear anti-Trump sentiments than for their professional projects in recent months. No one can blame Kim for taking time to recover from her traumatic experience. But with the exception of the aforementioned tweet that appeared to criticize Trump’s travel ban, neither Kim nor her sisters have made any statements concerning Trump or his policies. That’s not to say they owe anyone their political opinions. Still, if we’re looking at strategies to help keep them relevant, it’s certainly an idea. Consider that while E! saw a 3 percent decline in viewership in 2016, cable news networks enjoyed massive ratings increases ahead of the election. CNN saw a 77 percent jump in overall viewers, while MSNBC increased its viewership by 87 percent. Ratings have dipped in 2017, but cable news networks are still seeing impressive numbers compared to this time last year. Meanwhile, TV comedians are mercilessly skewering the president and reaping the rewards of what’s been dubbed the “Trump bump.” “Saturday Night Live” is having its highest-rated season in 24 years, “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” has seen a huge surge in overall viewership, and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” has been dominating late-night for six consecutive weeks amid rumors NBC is pressuring “Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon to “get more political” in light of his own declining viewership. So while a change in strategy might seem like the obvious answer for the Kardashians, that could backfire, too. If audiences were looking for a way to escape when “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” premiered in 2007, that doesn’t seem to be the case now. Even if the Kardashians were to suddenly begin featuring episodes with intense political discourse instead of bikini-baring family vacations, it’s doubtful it would affect their ratings issue. Just look at what happened when Caitlyn Jenner tried to showcase actual issues faced by the transgender community on “I Am Cait.” The show was heralded by critics as groundbreaking and lauded for sparking important conversations, but it was canceled after two seasons due to low ratings.   No, it doesn’t seem productive to ask the Kardashians to change, but they don’t seem too worried yet. Of course, they’d never talk about something as uncouth as ratings. To be fair, despite the decline in viewership, the show isn’t in any immediate danger of being canceled, since E! still considers it “one of the most-watched series in cable.” Ten years is a long time to dominate the world of reality TV. While the stars of once-successful shows like “The Simple Life,” The Hills” and “The Jersey Shore” have more or less faded into obscurity, the Kardashians understood how to perpetually keep themselves in the spotlight. Now that the country has its hands full keeping up with Trump, perhaps the Kardashians can take some time off and ready themselves for when Kanye runs for president in 2020 ... or 2024. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 марта, 16:30

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Nordstrom, V.F., Michael Kors Holdings and Burberry Group

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Nordstrom, V.F., Michael Kors Holdings and Burberry Group

17 марта, 01:50

Hawaii Is Totally Down For That Whole #BoycottHawaii Thing

After a federal court in Hawaii ruled to place a nationwide hold on President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, his supporters were unsurprisingly outraged. Trump backers pushed for a boycott against Hawaii  and denounced the Aloha State. They called Hawaii un-American after Trump’s second attempt at a ban that targets Muslim-majority countries was halted. One Twitter user even asked Hawaii what they knew about attacks on the U.S., completely forgetting Pearl Harbor and its “date which will live in infamy.” #BoycottHawaiiHawaii, what do you know?You were 5,000 miles from 9/11.You run your little world and let the grownups run the mainland. pic.twitter.com/jDySlmxevp— Philip Schuyler (@FiveRights) March 16, 2017 Just switched my vacation plans! Heading east instead! Key West, FL here we come! #BoycottHawaii #TravelBan pic.twitter.com/MX06yNj9oZ— Theresa_Cali (@Theresa_Cali) March 16, 2017 Trump supporters launched similar boycotts against Nordstroms after the department store dropped Ivanka Trump’s clothing line, and Starbucks after it announced it would hire 10,000 refugees. This time, boycotters want to punish the Aloha State by hurting its substantial tourism industry.  But if they wanted to piss off Hawaiians, they apparently failed. Hawaii has always had a love-hate relationship with tourists. Where Trump supporters saw the ultimate act of revenge, the Aloha State saw empty beaches, less traffic and fewer xenophobic visitors from the mainland. Hawaii residents watching ignorant haoles using the #BoycottHawaii be like pic.twitter.com/3lKsGGFY8t— L E H U A (@TheLehuaFlower) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii amused me because I'm sure Native Hawaiians have wanted white people off their sacred land for years— April Ludgate (@N8VChey) March 16, 2017 Hawaii locals when we see #BoycottHawaii trending. Yesss, please cancel your trips. We won't miss your racist & colonial attitudes. pic.twitter.com/Ybj8Y74Kqn— sierra (@sierraawolf) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii is the best thing I've heard all day buh-byeeee — Alyssa (@AlyssaSasaki) March 16, 2017 White people: We are never going to Hawaii again. What a terrible place. #BoycottHawaiiHawaii: Okay. pic.twitter.com/5LrAXVMbQC— A. Lit (@Yaboiandyy) March 16, 2017 Hawaiians are gonna be celebrating their state being free of Trump supporters like #BoycottHawaii pic.twitter.com/LieREDoxJx— Matthew A. Cherry (@MatthewACherry) March 16, 2017 If boycotters wanted to stop Americans from visiting the islands, their plan seems to be backfiring. Many people in the continental U.S. thought that a Hawaii free of Trump supporters made the island chain an even more attractive destination. Wait, so all the bigots & xenophobe's want to boycott Hawaii? RT if you just found your next vacation destination. Don't #BoycottHawaii— Simar (@sahluwal) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii and turn it even more into the paradise it is. No Trump supporters? I'm there!— Vincent Molina (@VincentMolina80) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii pls stay true to your words. I want empty beaches. Legal hikes. Everything that tourists ruin. Hawaii im going back✈️ — Megan (@GamaMegan) March 16, 2017 So Hawaii is going to be officially bigot-free? Say no more. #BoycottHawaii pic.twitter.com/tC1rrKrra9— Brexoxo' (@BreLynnor) March 16, 2017 So if you’re thinking of taking the 50th state off your travel bucket list, remember this: Hawaii thinks it will be just fine (if not better) without you. You guys would hate it there anyway, everyone is friendly and cares about the environment. #BoycottHawaii pic.twitter.com/n8lptWjYdN— Supreme Hakim (@PhoenicianState) March 16, 2017 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

17 марта, 01:50

Hawaii Is Totally Down For That Whole #BoycottHawaii Thing

After a federal court in Hawaii ruled to place a nationwide hold on President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, his supporters were unsurprisingly outraged. Trump backers pushed for a boycott against Hawaii  and denounced the Aloha State. They called Hawaii un-American after Trump’s second attempt at a ban that targets Muslim-majority countries was halted. One Twitter user even asked Hawaii what they knew about attacks on the U.S., completely forgetting Pearl Harbor and its “date which will live in infamy.” #BoycottHawaiiHawaii, what do you know?You were 5,000 miles from 9/11.You run your little world and let the grownups run the mainland. pic.twitter.com/jDySlmxevp— Philip Schuyler (@FiveRights) March 16, 2017 Just switched my vacation plans! Heading east instead! Key West, FL here we come! #BoycottHawaii #TravelBan pic.twitter.com/MX06yNj9oZ— Theresa_Cali (@Theresa_Cali) March 16, 2017 Trump supporters launched similar boycotts against Nordstroms after the department store dropped Ivanka Trump’s clothing line, and Starbucks after it announced it would hire 10,000 refugees. This time, boycotters want to punish the Aloha State by hurting its substantial tourism industry.  But if they wanted to piss off Hawaiians, they apparently failed. Hawaii has always had a love-hate relationship with tourists. Where Trump supporters saw the ultimate act of revenge, the Aloha State saw empty beaches, less traffic and fewer xenophobic visitors from the mainland. Hawaii residents watching ignorant haoles using the #BoycottHawaii be like pic.twitter.com/3lKsGGFY8t— L E H U A (@TheLehuaFlower) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii amused me because I'm sure Native Hawaiians have wanted white people off their sacred land for years— April Ludgate (@N8VChey) March 16, 2017 Hawaii locals when we see #BoycottHawaii trending. Yesss, please cancel your trips. We won't miss your racist & colonial attitudes. pic.twitter.com/Ybj8Y74Kqn— sierra (@sierraawolf) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii is the best thing I've heard all day buh-byeeee — Alyssa (@AlyssaSasaki) March 16, 2017 White people: We are never going to Hawaii again. What a terrible place. #BoycottHawaiiHawaii: Okay. pic.twitter.com/5LrAXVMbQC— A. Lit (@Yaboiandyy) March 16, 2017 Hawaiians are gonna be celebrating their state being free of Trump supporters like #BoycottHawaii pic.twitter.com/LieREDoxJx— Matthew A. Cherry (@MatthewACherry) March 16, 2017 If boycotters wanted to stop Americans from visiting the islands, their plan seems to be backfiring. Many people in the continental U.S. thought that a Hawaii free of Trump supporters made the island chain an even more attractive destination. Wait, so all the bigots & xenophobe's want to boycott Hawaii? RT if you just found your next vacation destination. Don't #BoycottHawaii— Simar (@sahluwal) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii and turn it even more into the paradise it is. No Trump supporters? I'm there!— Vincent Molina (@VincentMolina80) March 16, 2017 #BoycottHawaii pls stay true to your words. I want empty beaches. Legal hikes. Everything that tourists ruin. Hawaii im going back✈️ — Megan (@GamaMegan) March 16, 2017 So Hawaii is going to be officially bigot-free? Say no more. #BoycottHawaii pic.twitter.com/tC1rrKrra9— Brexoxo' (@BreLynnor) March 16, 2017 So if you’re thinking of taking the 50th state off your travel bucket list, remember this: Hawaii thinks it will be just fine (if not better) without you. You guys would hate it there anyway, everyone is friendly and cares about the environment. #BoycottHawaii pic.twitter.com/n8lptWjYdN— Supreme Hakim (@PhoenicianState) March 16, 2017 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

16 марта, 17:57

Can Canada Goose Sustain Growth Momentum After the IPO?

Canada Goose looks like a solid investment bet from its growth journey so far and the future plans. The company has been setting a fashion statement and gaining in popularity given its strategies and vivacious product lines.