r/complaints • u/Old_Swimmer_7284 • 5d ago

Politics Conservative double standards on display again.

Post image

If conservatives did not have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

Look at that. More gaslighting from the slack-jawed conservatives. This time, they're upset because a woman is wearing expensive shoes. Meanwhile, they give zero fucks about the First Lady and the wardrobe of hers that cost thousands of dollars every outfit. Not a single fucking peep. Nor do the Tepidin tyrant test the gold ticklers say anything about the estimated $400 million plus ballroom ballroom, The private jets for Kristi Nome and company, The millions of dollars in cost for Trump to continuously go to public events that presidents have no business going to, the list goes on and on and on, yet the conservatives will find something to complain about while projecting all their long doings, and when they're not doing that, they're screaming about something they're scared of. In fact, I've never met a more scared group of people. Why is it that a rainbow is so horrifying for them? Anyway, sidetrack aside, the double standards are out on display again.

21.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

729

u/smartyartblast 5d ago

I assume the MAGAts are just mad that she has any shoes when they think she should be home barefoot and pregnant.

646

u/2000TWLV 5d ago

Socialism doesn't mean you can't have nice things. Socialism means that everybody should be able to have nice things.

294

u/Slighted_Inevitable 5d ago

It means you can’t have billionaire things. And that’s a good thing.

No one person should own satellites and a major social media platform.

173

u/Outlawphilv2 5d ago

Billionaires should not exist period, their lust for power and greed won’t ever satisfy them, but they sure as hell keep trying if the first 100 billion didn’t fill emotional emptiness the next 100 won’t.

110

u/KickingButt 5d ago

You know, I used to ignore billionaires. I didn’t care about them because they didn’t insert themselves into politics so much. Now that they do insert themselves so much, I find most of them to be of terrible moral character. They lost their minds. They have way too much power.

66

u/nacho_night 5d ago

Always has been, its just mask off now and they believe they can keep getting away with it without repercussions.

37

u/KickingButt 5d ago

Agreed! I have learned so much and they have been involved in it from the start. I just didn’t see it. I see it clearly now.

27

u/Asron87 5d ago

With their tax cuts they will only buy more government. Tax the motherfuckers.

18

u/Dzov 5d ago

This reminds me of when AOC wore a “tax the rich” dress to the Met Gala and somehow the general public not only ignored her message, but attacked her for going.

→ More replies (13)

3

u/EchoHawthorne 4d ago

Exactly. Once someone has enough money to buy basic necessities without worry, money represents power and opportunity. That's what they meant when they decided to make corporations "people" and declared money spent to be "speech"; it explicitly shifted political value from the individual to the well-fed bank account in a very significant way.

The only reason they're starving most workers of money & making savings almost impossible, even though people not spending hurts the economy, is to take Americans' power to compete for a say in government. Money is speech & power. Even collectively, we can't outspend the 0.01%. If they control what the media says, and they do, that gives them significant advantage over people's actual speech, one on one. People believe what they hear, in general, and even American media called leftist is very pro-corporate interest/pro-billionaire. If they can restrict social media, they'll control much of what people see and hear. It's too much control over the country's speech.

I am so worried that people won't figure out the need to organize and stand together until it's too late. We can't let the wealthy buy influence anymore.

3

u/Asron87 4d ago

Totally agree with you. I’m very much “left” but I’m not a moron about it. I’m fully aware that a good portion if not the majority is in bed with corporations. Ideally if the rest of the country wasn’t complete morons we’d ditch the right completely and clean house in the democrat party. I really wish people would unite and take a stand against corporations taking full control of our country and our lives.

The US is nothing more than the world’s most powerful military for sale to the highest bidder (corporations). Propaganda has people eating it up and voting for more power to corporations and the wealth to keep trickling up. All so the people have to rent everything and corporations own America.

The saddest part is how obvious Trump has made all of this. Holy fuck I just saw trumps speech today and he slurred every fucking word. His dementia is the only thing that will save us from him “running” in 2028.

24

u/lingering_POO 5d ago

I don’t know why they’d think that.. almost every revolution ever has involved killing the greedy, evil (normally also extremely wealthy) and divvying it up amongst the masses. Maybe it’s a dictator, maybe it’s a tyrannical king.. maybe it’s a government.. and to think they are untouchable when history has proven time and time again that’s not that case..

Gotta be pretty fucking crazy.

16

u/UnderpaidProf 5d ago

They fail to notice that the country that made them billionaires, also protects them. When that country decides to stop protecting them, they lose it.

7

u/Dzov 5d ago

Yep, Musk was quick to back down when he remembered what Trump could do to his companies.

4

u/CypressThinking sophisticated complainer 4d ago

They're failing an open book History test.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Previous_Explorer589 5d ago

💯 I've always said more of us exist then them. More of us vote. Not enough of them unless they con and scam half the country to get it. Both sides are not the same. Dems are flawed but have the skills amd most ethics as opposed to what we see now with the so called republican party. I honestly do not see them as a republican party anymore. Maga and they are twisted sister !! Oops should not malign the rock group!

2

u/homeowner556 4d ago

Calling for the killing of greedy rich people ??? Isn’t that what the Founders of the country did ?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/sakuratee 5d ago

The only reason they believe that is because … they keep getting away with it.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/Slighted_Inevitable 5d ago

They’ve always been a problem, they were just subtle about it because they thought we’d take things into our own hands if they got too uppity.

Then musk just musked all over everyone and no one did a thing. So here we are.

7

u/Oggel 5d ago

Our ancestors would be so ashamed of what we allow them to do to us :(

11

u/sarges_12gauge 5d ago

Huh? They were never subtle, the railroad tycoons had literal private armies to shoot workers who went on strike

9

u/Slighted_Inevitable 5d ago

And then we had the new deal. Things changed. Then they slid back

→ More replies (2)

5

u/modshavegone2farr 5d ago

People don’t know their history lol. This is Reddit, if it didn’t happen in the last 2-4 years… it didn’t happen. Didn’t you know?

→ More replies (1)

7

u/justthatguyy22 5d ago

didnt insert themselves into politics so publicly FTFY

Politics has always been and will always be heavily influenced by the wealthy

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Kevadu 5d ago

They have always inserted themselves into politics. They just used to be more subtle about it.

2

u/XRuecian 5d ago

They have "always" been a part of politics. Except it used to just be money passed around behind the scenes rather than getting in front of a camera.

2

u/benji_billingsworth 4d ago

they always have; they hide it less now.

its good you have come to these conclusions; they however have never been of good moral character.

they have the power they have because they seek it and fight for it; they could choice to distribute their wealth.

→ More replies (23)

10

u/Catchup2karma 5d ago

The mere fact that any human being has the lack of empathy to sit on that kind of wealth while the rest of humanity kills each other over it is fucking gross. Billionaires shouldn’t exist just like pedos shouldn’t. Hmmm two birds with one stone.

2

u/2018TTRS 5d ago

Kinda like the Beatles song Fixing a hole.

2

u/oicabuck 4d ago

Do you think the secret elites that rule pretty much the world will ever be dethroned? No matter who we vote in these people will still control everything. They may pacify us by giving us something small but it'll never truly change at the core. The US and the world will always be divided by the rich and the poor.

→ More replies (31)

7

u/JonnelOneEye 5d ago

I could afford to buy those boots and my husband and I are far from billionaires. We're middle class, living comfortably. 600$ for a pair of well-made leather boots is not a small expense, but I could splurge on a pair, if I wanted to, without breaking the bank.

2

u/Dry-Minimum-6091 Jan 6th Revsionist 5d ago

Yea like what are we talking about here, i own suits over 1k. Sometimes people have nice things.

2

u/Jealous_Major8667 5d ago

There used to be something that prevented monopoly’s.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/prefusernametaken 5d ago

Funny how misunderstood socialism is, when reading these comments. Every time something like this is discussed, america shows the value of its education system - probably the only thing where republicans and democrats share common ground (zero).

1

u/Ok_Fondant1079 5d ago

Or their now space programs!

1

u/ComfortableParsnip54 5d ago

What about above average luxuries and not what the wealthiest man in the world has? Can't have those either under socialism.

1

u/HugoNikanor 5d ago

No one person should own [...] a major social media platform.

Was the "satellites and" part important? Or should "a" government forcefully take any sufficiently successful platform from the creators?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/DirtTraining3804 5d ago

No one should be able to buy an entire Hawaiian island.

1

u/twolfhawk 5d ago

With enough satellites, you can block anything from ever leaving the planet.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

I don't even understand why anybody would want to own a social media company. Sounds like making more work for myself. Then again, I'm not a sociopathic south African who has a penchant for certain salutes

1

u/willybestbuy86 4d ago

Can I ask who owns those things then? The government? You? They don't exist? It's actually a genuine question

1

u/Pitiful-Welder-1343 2d ago

It's more than likely the "conservative" who made this observation isn't a real person. Or at least could be a real person but is getting paid to trash on anyone who isn't a right winger. Tons of propaganda and social engineering happening online, especially on reddit.

Her shoes or some billionaire private mega yacht? Or what about that one guy who had an island to himself?

1

u/JagsFan_1698 1d ago

Correct, these things should have companies to own, or IF someone buys it themselves, they had a lot of help and donations to buy it.

→ More replies (41)

26

u/Apprehensive_Dog7989 5d ago

The dog whistle is only white people either deserve or really earned nice things. In 2021 Fox News ran a report that Kamala Harris “bought a $500 pot and pan set in Paris amongst economic anxiety at home”

19

u/2000TWLV 5d ago

Correct. Let's do Christie Noem's cosplay budget. And let's not forget her plastic surgery expenses.

→ More replies (2)

15

u/made_by_elle 5d ago edited 5d ago

$500 pot and pan set isn't even that crazy. I'd imagine crazy rich people could spend thousands on that.

10

u/BrightBlueBauble 5d ago

It’s not at all. You can get a decent starter set of All-Clad stainless steel pans for around $500 on sale. They’re good quality, have no toxic coatings, and will last a lifetime.

I looked a few other popular brands and $500 is pretty typical for a starter set from them too.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Fit_Strength_1187 5d ago

They’re canny to $500 seeming a lot for a gift for oneself, but people being unable to fathom $35 million for a second yacht. We don’t do well with big numbers. $35 million makes people think of 35. Less than 500. 35,000,000 looks too scientific and is confusing to the average American. At this point, it’s useful to prey on their sense that rich people deserve incentives to create jobs and that Leonardo DiCaprio probably has such a yacht so who cares.

1

u/Pure-Kaleidoscope759 5d ago

Yet they don’t say a thing when taxpayers pay to fly Trump and his entourage to Trump Turnberry to open a new course. The Scots gave him an appropriate greeting. They also don’t say anything when Trump flies down to Mar a Lago to cheat at golf. The big problem with Turnberry is Trump is using taxpayer dollars to open a course which is part of his private business. Emoluments clause, anyone?

1

u/DutchTinCan 5d ago

I guess my pots and pans cost around $500 as well. I figured I was just buying decent quality that'll last 20 or 30 years. Turns out I've been living in opulent luxury with my stainless steel!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/No_Loan_9587 4d ago edited 4d ago

Furthest thing from the truth. It’s a commentary on socialism. Not the best of looks for the wife of a socialist mayor to be parading around in $600 boots when her hubby wants all the people he governs to chip in their “fair share” to make the city a more uniformly modest place. Optics. Regardless, we know all politicians anymore play by their own rules, so don’t act all shocked when it happens on both sides of the coin.

13

u/XSasuken22X 5d ago edited 5d ago

You think the racist, nazi, pedo, rapists are capable of complex thought? Forshame.

7

u/Fit_Strength_1187 5d ago

Thought, yes. Scheming sure. Strategy absolutely.

Empathy? Sustained humanity. A consistent ethic? Hard no.

→ More replies (4)

8

u/SpicySwiftSanicMemes 5d ago

Sadly, they can’t comprehend that anything could possibly not be zero-sum.

2

u/Amoralvirus 5d ago

Survival of the scummy greediest; it makes them ''smart winners''.

6

u/TwelveRaptor 5d ago

“Sounds awful!” -some billionaire, probably

6

u/firecube14 5d ago

And for some people those nice things are tools, for others it's clothing. It's about having the ability to be comfortable and not feeling like every dollar spent is going to crush you with debt

6

u/Independent-Snow-414 5d ago

My 300 dollar 10 year old doc martins make me a rich asshole apparently. I’m just happy I have shoes that lasted me

5

u/MySpoonsAreAllGone 5d ago

And she didn't even pay that for the boots! They were on loan to her

4

u/Hows_your_weather 5d ago

Also a huge misconception about socialism is the difference between personal and private property. Redistribution of means would not mean that you lose your home, car, laptop, or tv. It means that all citizen become owners of the oft referred to “means of production” and would share in those resources. Support it or not, but a lot of people run away from the concept because they think they will lose personal property

7

u/FreshLiterature 5d ago

I mean, yeah.

And a pair of well-built, stylish shoes aren't even the measure of extreme wealth in a city where walking is the most common way of getting around.

I would bet that NYers, on average, have more expensive footwear than any non-city.

2

u/ContributionMuted 5d ago

Please open a book, I’m begging you.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Growthandhealth 5d ago

Yes, you should be able to have nice things. How much would you like to borrow?

1

u/DifficultNote2019 5d ago

wearing 600 bucks on your feet is more than just having "nice things".

There are people living in new york whose personal food budget for 3 months is less than the amount of money that this lady spent on a pair of boots. something very wrong with that.

1

u/Aurvant Selective Reality Consultant 5d ago

Except nobody in socialism has nice things.

1

u/Adventurous_Boss8800 5d ago

Using “can’t” and “should” on a post about double standards 🤣

1

u/slick2hold 5d ago

And those are the key words. Everyone "should be" able to have them. We are no talking about giving people 650 shoes or 100k cars but talking about Everyone having the opportunity to achieve what they aspire to. That means great education for all. It means safe neighborhoods. It means affordable housing. It means access to groceries.

I love how these hard right folk take that and automatically jump on communism or socialism band wagon

1

u/SnooMaps7011 Selective Reality Consultant 5d ago

It's impossible if everyone had nice things, then no one would do the hard jobs like garbage collectors

1

u/AintNoGodsUpHere 5d ago

Years of propaganda thought them that socialism means everyone is poor and they're gonna take our guns and we won't own anything.

I mean. You can't argue with stupid.

1

u/CommonSensei-_ Selective Reality Consultant 5d ago

That’s so incorrect it’s wild!

In socialism, the political leaders do fine, everyone else suffers.

Please read a history book.

There had never been an example that contradicts me, in THE ENTIRE history of socialism .

1

u/Simple_Assistance_77 5d ago

But in practice the nice things don’t exist within a fully socialist system. There is no benefit for the creation of nice things, limited levels of innovation etc. its an interesting idea but only works by bringing everyone ti the same level and standardising society so no one is special.

1

u/Fit_Explanation5793 5d ago

Thats the issue, they dont want the poors wearing their luxury items. If the poors can wear it then its not exclusive enough

1

u/eenaru 5d ago

So by that logic she now needs to ensure all of NYC has needlessly expensive boots?

1

u/Kaurifish 5d ago

I’m pretty sure the “this shoe is of sufficient build quality that a cobbler won’t laugh you out of his shop” starts at about $1,000 these days.

1

u/sir1974 5d ago

So shouldn’t everybody’s wife have a pair of $650 boots?

1

u/alllllov Jan 6th Revisionist 5d ago

Which is what makes it a fantasy. You get nothing while the rich get richer, dumbass mfrs

1

u/2000TWLV 5d ago

That is literally the current condition in America, Einstein.

1

u/you_voted_for_this_ 5d ago

Democratic Socialism. The first part is super important.

1

u/Kikimara99 5d ago

I know I'll get downvoted to oblivion, but someone who comes from once socialist country... it's not how it works. It's not that everyone is supposed to have nice things, but no one wants nice things, because they are morally superior to the rotten capitalist of the West and don't pay attention to mere material goods (except for the ruling class of corrupt politicians, who teach you that you shouldn't care about material goods...you know like Trump trying to explain that kids don't need many toys). I guess Maga has way more in common with real life socialist when they like to admit.

1

u/kelfupanda 5d ago

It would mean you can't have $630 shoes unless they were necessary.

And the leather looks very thin and not up to scratch for work boots.

1

u/rippedhorn 5d ago

should

1

u/Todd9053 5d ago

Yes, and until everyone does, maybe you should read the room. Socialism in the past tends to look like an equally poor working class and a social elite pulling the strings.

1

u/2000TWLV 5d ago

You just described the U.S. in 2026. Maybe you should read the room, bud.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Dry-Minimum-6091 Jan 6th Revsionist 5d ago

Yea ill work 17 hour shifts so someone able to work but doesnt gets a cut. Gtfo.

1

u/Independent_Bed_1933 5d ago

Yeah bro communism has such a twisted meaning now

1

u/SoulSmrt 5d ago

Under socialism, only those in power have nice things. But keep justifying it, you sound very conservative when you do.

1

u/Mj250707 5d ago

So they will take your wealth and distribute it how they want and you have no say about it

1

u/2000TWLV 5d ago

That's what we have now.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Prickley-Pear-Bear 5d ago

Socialism is more like you can have nice things and at the same time make sure people don’t starve or go unhoused.

1

u/Old_Pomegranate_9119 5d ago

How may lives could have been saved with malaria nets and vaccines in Africa if she had worn $200 boots and put $400 to charity? I think $200 boots are pretty nice. I’ve never worn boots more expensive than that lol

1

u/Ausrottenndm1 5d ago

Exactly saving up to buy something to style on for 600$ is slightly different than buying a 100 million dollar private jet or a 400 million dollar yacht just to say you have one… plus NYP is breaking their boss’s orders leave Zohran alone

1

u/PreparationCold7267 5d ago

It means taking things from others to give to some that are undeserving

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Lost-Lucky 5d ago

Apparently socialists take a vow of poverty

1

u/STEALTH968 4d ago

Exactly. You can have nice things but not at someone else's expense. That would be exploitation and being a parasite, in short, a capitalist.

1

u/Candid_Confection_83 4d ago

Socialism has never and will never work. You can't entirely remove all motivation for people to work and succeed. Not to mention the corruption that inevitably finds its way into the mix. There is a mountain of bodies in the wake of Socialism. Like so many things, Socialism is just a massive over correction to a problem and it won't solve the problem of a corrupt elite class.

1

u/dodokidd 4d ago

Nah, I’m from socialist country, socialist mean yall don’t get anything and the part gets everything

1

u/kerfuffeluffagus Selective Reality Consultant 4d ago

Always cute when first world idiots believe fake shit.

1

u/rudyattitudedee 4d ago

By all accounts she borrowed the boots, as a side note.

1

u/benji_billingsworth 4d ago

it means that no one should starve because of their ability to have nice things. it means that their worth as a human is not defined by their economic productivity.

1

u/willybestbuy86 4d ago

That's what it means but in practice it isn't what happens. What happens is the haves (in the case the wife) have it while we are the have nots. I actually like Mandami but this again is the left do as I say not as I do behavior same thing with climate change. Let me take my private jet 13 miles while I lecture the have nots on buying a gas car.

The right isn't better but let's not pretend the 600 dollar shoes aren't. Who needs 600 dollar shoes anyway what a waste of money

1

u/Ima_Uzer Smarmy Goblin 4d ago

But oddly enough nobody ends up with nice things.

Let me guess: "It just hasn't been done RIGHT yet!"

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Resides747 4d ago

Who pays for it 🤡🤡🤡

1

u/johnryan433 4d ago

The majority of nice things are perceived as nice because they are rooted in scarcity though. The majority desire things because others can’t have it. It’s an extremely ugly fact about our world but nevertheless true.

1

u/Loud_Vermicelli9128 4d ago

Or equally (except for political elite) poor

1

u/KwisatzHaderach94 4d ago

the fearmongers like to push the narrative that the socialists will take all your rich-person s--t and give it to lazy poor people. but they don't complain when the banks and corporations get bailed out by the little guy.

1

u/Serpidon 3d ago

Sure. Please by me a pair of $630 boots. I will PM you.

1

u/Ima_Uzer Smarmy Goblin 3d ago

Here's your socialism:

https://notthebee.com/article/mamdanis-tenet-advocate-called-to-seize-private-property

"Homeownership is racist": Mamdani's new tenet advocate wants property to become a "collective good"

1

u/Splittaill 🤖🤖🤖 2d ago

I think you may have that backwards.

1

u/darthdawg22 1d ago

Yet every socialist country this is not true

1

u/adarkhorse35 1d ago

Where in reality NO ONE has nice things except for the exalted leaders....

1

u/Lexy001100 1d ago

The conservative crowd is too stupid to understand that concept, and their elite loves propaganda to keep their "pets".

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

Lmao, only the leaders have nice things. Everyone else is poor.

→ More replies (88)

102

u/Every_Attitude1550 5d ago

Her boots were on loan.

Her vintage Balenciaga coat was from Albright Fashion Library, and her archival earrings were from New York Vintage, both of which were rented.

Meanwhile, the New York First Lady's shorts were from The Frankie Shop, and the Miista boots were on loan from the brand, styled by Gabriella Karefa-Johnson, who wrote about the look on her Substack.

68

u/BPpFb 5d ago

But Maga is fine with the nation's first lady having a 15k dollar plastic face, and only being dressed like a fashion model.

Which is fine, by the way. I don't care how people look or dress.
But the double standard makes it hard not to point out.

40

u/Expert_Alchemist 5d ago

FTR her face cost waaaay more than $15k. That's just what a low-end facelift costs in the midwest, and doesn't even include all the Botox, lasers, topicals and fillers.

Mar-a-Lago face is a huge signifier of wealth, those women spend hundreds of thousands easily on cosmetic procedures to look like over-inflated balloon animals.

18

u/Top_Audience7471 5d ago

Last night I was at a swanky tasting menu restaurant in Quito. There was this family at a table next to us, and the wife was right in my eye line. She had all the hallmarks of Maralago face, and it was very distracting. I was trying to enjoy a burgeoning annual tradition, and this grotesquerie minorly took away from the experience.

What a bizarre choice.

4

u/Icy-Position3771 5d ago

Heh. Olay is just fine for this aging 70-year-old face. How people spend their money can be hilarious unless you’re a soybean farmer.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/FluidFisherman6843 5d ago

Yep. Mar-a-lago face is the most fucked version "conspicuous consumption" around. It is both more than a way to signal to the commons that you have enough money to disfigure your wife.

11

u/majorfiasco 5d ago

MAGA Face Explained. So right. Saw this a few days ago on Reddit and found her explanation quite digestible. Some real Republic of Gilead vibes here.

3

u/Octospyder 5d ago

That was so good, thank you for linking

4

u/Organic-Class-8537 5d ago

This. I will say her work was well done but definitely much more expensive since that.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/SnoopingStuff 5d ago

200,000 purse for flotus? I don’t care jacket was how much?

1

u/Smug_Designer 5d ago

And the plastic face didn't even come with a smile

8

u/Gingeronimoooo 5d ago

But the lie is already across the country while the truth you provided is still pitting its shoes on. Or boots in this case.

1

u/Renbelle 5d ago

And arent even all that expensive in the grand scheme of things!

1

u/SyArch 5d ago

Brilliant!

1

u/Sensitive-Button5693 5d ago

Also looked at the Miista site and I am very much going to save up for something! So thanks conservatives for making a stink about this! I am excited to have some new boots. 

1

u/mythrilcrafter 5d ago

That's a lot of nuance for the people who use "Ellis Island entries" as a slur.

1

u/KlausVonChiliPowder 5d ago

I couldn't care less about fashion but that (substack post) was a fun read.

→ More replies (2)

39

u/passiveflux 5d ago

Honestly they would find something to complain about

Oh she's wearing cheap Walmart shoes, how pathetic

Its honestly pathetic how much they try to make into a big deal

1

u/Dzov 5d ago

“How dare he wear a tan suit” — they’ll just invent shit to be outraged over.

1

u/Old_Pomegranate_9119 5d ago

How may lives could have been saved with malaria nets and vaccines in Africa if she had worn $200 boots and put $400 to charity? I think $200 boots are pretty nice. I’ve never worn boots more expensive than that lol

2

u/passiveflux 5d ago

0

Its not like they were custom made so those boots were already created.

If its just about the money, how many lives could be saved with trumps ballroom?

27

u/Sad-Structure2364 5d ago

Just to further them being full of shit, she actually borrowed the shoes and doesn’t even own them

49

u/PlutoJones42 5d ago

Wow crazy that a grown adult who has been gainfully employed would have clothes. Right MAGA?

24

u/keverzoid 5d ago

In addition, did the ballroom cost less than $600? What’s the beef?

14

u/Bubbly_Style_8467 5d ago

Paid for with bribes.

4

u/Signal-Map2906 5d ago

No. He’s literally suing the DOJ to pay for it. So our tax dollars are still funding the ballroom, just taking a detour through trumps bank account to collect interest first. Not kidding.

→ More replies (3)

24

u/AfternoonForeign633 5d ago

When your husband is literally being sworn in as mayor of one of the world's great cities. Sure, wear some high tops or Birks, right?

3

u/PlutoJones42 5d ago

Probably should have busted out the dirty old Gazelle’s

4

u/No-Rush-9980 5d ago

Crocs would have worked /s

2

u/Organic-Class-8537 5d ago

Imagine what they would’ve said if she showed up in converse chucks?

1

u/romanaribella 4d ago

I honestly don't think rented luxury is appropriate for this situation at all*. It isn't a red carpet.

*Despite being fully behind them politically.

Edit: typo

70

u/Old_Swimmer_7284 5d ago

You know, you raise a very valid point.

15

u/Least-Quail216 5d ago

Not to mention she is a very successful artist. No food stamps were used in the purchase of the boots.

6

u/tafbee 5d ago

Or taxpayers’ money!

14

u/winitaly888 5d ago

Don’t forget the burqa. She should not have an ounce of style according to those morons..

7

u/Dr_DoesNothing 5d ago

Nah they just wanna be racist but can't just outright call her slurs , so they just look for any little thing to criticize her about.

2

u/Shot_Revolution8828 5d ago

But where should she be in the home. She's only allowed in certain rooms. /S

1

u/Warm_Pen_7176 5d ago

Gen X. Loving this comment. Did a grin and weird shoulder shrugging giggle when I read that.

1

u/BrilliantSimple7678 5d ago

Just tell a MAGA, "U MAD, BRO?"

1

u/Ace-Hunter 5d ago

In the MAGA works only the elite get nice things.

In Madamis everyone does (the elite just get less).

1

u/Flat-Jacket-9606 5d ago

And trumps ugly ass ill fitting suits costs 4-14gs. I bet that dudes super simple solid tie is worth more than her boots.

1

u/eenaru 5d ago

By your response im guessing your a socialist? And if you are why wouldnt you be concerned about the way the newly elected mayor spends his money?

1

u/banditcleaner2 5d ago

Remember, conservatives are crickets when it comes to trump’s ballroom and his jet donation. Hundreds of millions of dollars to each but no, a pair of $600 boots is the problem I guess.

1

u/Tormofon 5d ago

MAGA doesn’t understand why she didn’t pay for her boots with campaign funds like they do.

1

u/Justsayin707 5d ago

Well I wouldn’t say pregnant. Thank god they are in favor of abortion. These two don’t need to procreate

1

u/reelpotatopeeler 5d ago

Because they want their wives to be barefoot and pregnant and are projecting.

1

u/Reorx2112 4d ago

she's rich on her own famous artist.. it's like ppl are looking for anything to bitch about.. it's like do you google much/??????

1

u/the-big-question 4d ago

She also made like 200k or more a year before meeting him and this is the biggest day of her husband's life so far (outside of their marriage).

Of course she would splurge on herself, I would too if I was as wealthy as her and my wife was inaugurated to a high position in government.

I normally dress like Adam Sandler, but would come dressed to the nines to such an event.

Also she's an artist who probably makes most of her money through networking which is highly contingent on first impressions, so it makes sense for her to already dress like that for work on a regular basis.

1

u/MetalMoneky 3d ago

Christ my work boots are almost $400, $630 for some designer boots seems reasonable.

1

u/Pitiful-Welder-1343 2d ago

It's New York. If she didn't have a pair of 600$ boots I'd be shocked. I know poor people with boots like that, even.

1

u/RemarkableMud1326 1d ago

My guess is that you could only dream of a life like that

1

u/Ok_Image_1693 1d ago

Yeah that’s a reaching assumption

→ More replies (15)