Patagonia owners give away their company

[Celery Man 21078]

Because it's apparent that almost nobody watches "Nathan For You" -  in an episode of the show, Nathan Fielder discovered that Taiga (the brand whose jacket he wore) memorialized a holocaust denier in their catalogue. He proceeded to spend an episode creating an outdoor apparel company that promotes a) quality winter jackets and b)the truth about the holocaust. He actually offered the products for sale in the real world and in a later episode was able to present a check for a couple hundred grand to a holocaust foundation.

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

i can spot a camel toe from a mile away

[Celery Man 21078]

5 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

i can spot a camel toe from a mile away

didn't even notice there was another woman in the picture

[aggie08 21749]

21 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

Kudos to the Patagonia folks for at least trying to do something with a net benefit.  Whether or not such gestures actually result in a net positive is debatable, I suppose, but it's most likely better than doing nothing at all.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Careful on that limb!

[52-80 19375]

58 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

 

what do i need to say to bone her ?

[texasdago 7754]

I'm not judging anyone for wearing Patagonia, North Face, etc. etc. because I get it... good looking, functional wear that keeps you warm especially when doing winter sports but its comfortable stuff.  I like gear by https://colourwear.com/en-ww/snow - good functional gear although it looks like they are clearing out a ton of gear so not sure what's up there.

 

Now Crocs... yeah, don't come to me talking about comfort... Crocs suck.  They are the minivan of footwear.

 

 

[SquishMitten 10493]

Never heard of Summit Ice and have no ideal what you're saying about the holocaust.

Summit Ice is a non-profit company founded to promote Holocaust awareness. I’m not sure if it was done so specifically is response to Taiga promoting a Holocaust denier, or if they just latched onto that, but I think that’s how they really came to prominence. I believe you can trade in any Taiga gear and Summit Ice will give you an equivalent item for free (and whatever monetary donation you are willing to give).

[52-80 19375]

[Bevo 13831]

2 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Wearing clothes that make me smile when I look in the mirror work and have a lifetime warranty makes me an insufferable cunt?

I must be missing something. 

Nah 

[Bevo 13831]

And has anyone really taken back cloths to Patagonia? That”s hilarious. Is a receipt required? Store credit or do they patch it up for you?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Nah 

i don't even get it.

This must be a Texas thing.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

And has anyone really taken back cloths to Patagonia? That”s hilarious. Is a receipt required? Store credit or do they patch it up for you?

What's funny about returning clothes?

[F250 29181]

5 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

What's funny about returning clothes?

 

[CooterBrown 18273]

i can spot a camel toe from a mile away

Pretty sure your fupa gets in the way of you seeing your crotch.

[Chewbacca 7827]

13 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

We need more wealthy people just to fucking give their money away, straight up, cash money honey, no strings, no provisos, no building naming ceremonies.  And it can be done: Mackenzie Scott. 
 

But in the absence of that, yes, this is a good thing. 

Give it to whom?  For what purpose?  Giving away huge sums of money and wanting it to have a real impact and not just be wasted is a full time business.  That's why Gates has his foundation.  It's a major operation.

[Degenerate Gardner 4135]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

And has anyone really taken back cloths to Patagonia? That”s hilarious. Is a receipt required? Store credit or do they patch it up for you?

You can actually take their old clothes into stores and get a credit to use on their used clothing website Worn Wear. Repairs or warranty replacements don’t require receipts. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

5 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

You can actually take their old clothes into stores and get a credit to use on their used clothing website Worn Wear. Repairs or warranty replacements don’t require receipts. 

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

ha?

[Samson's Wig 3225]

17 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

 

Perhaps you spend a little too much time judging yourself and everyone around you on the basis of tiny little labels on clothing.

You see a guy in a Patagonia [or insert brand here] jacket and you think “he’s an insufferable cunt.”

I see a guy in a Patagonia jacket and think, well nothing really, he’s just a guy in a jacket like everyone else in a jacket when it’s cold.

If you go to the grocery store in Texas in the winter, you will likely encounter 10-20% of people wearing a Patagonia puff jacket, fleece, or vest. Why? To stay warm. Not to mention people wearing North Face or whatever other clothing of choice. Probably 50% of people have some visible brand label on their jacket. Are all of those people douchebags in your eyes?

That must be an awful way to go through life, constantly worried about what everyone else is wearing.

 

lol, no.  I was either unclear or you just mistook my meaning.  I don't give a shit what other people wear, and have my head so far up my own ass in general that I can't recall the last time I noticed what someone else was wearing.  I can still acknowledge that lots of people make judgments based on brands and may think those things about me based on what I'm wearing. The postmodern world can't escape brands.  You can't find a writer/screenwriter under the age of 40 who can even put together a story without using brands as shorthand to set tone and describe characters.  It's sad, to me, but it's the world we live in.  A dumber, shallower world.  Just because most people are inured to it doesn't mean it isn't there.  That's the goal of every company's branding, to make it ubiquitous to the point we simply expect to see it.

As for avoiding labels, I just don't enjoy being a walking billboard. It's hard to avoid anymore, and I'm as susceptible to marketing as anyone else.  If you don't think that the vast majority of people walking around wearing Patagonia, North Face, etc. etc. don't do so because they like being attached to the messaging of those brands and what it says about them, you're dreaming.  They may not do it consciously, but there's a reason those folks bought a name brand fleece or puff jacket instead of picking up a generic one that works just as well.  Non-branded clothing also sends a message in this nutto world we live in.  

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

8 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

They may not do it consciously, but there's a reason those folks bought a name brand fleece or puff jacket instead of picking up a generic one that works just as well. 

here's your clue you don't know what you're talking about.

[Bateshorn 9989]

29 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Give it to whom?  For what purpose?  Giving away huge sums of money and wanting it to have a real impact and not just be wasted is a full time business.  That's why Gates has his foundation.  It's a major operation.

I'm not saying it's a full time operation: it is.  But it also doesn't have to become a giant bureaucracy in it's own right. You can just identify qualified needs and cut them a check.  This arrangement, in effect, allows the Patagonia family to turn the company into a form of non profit climate based charity.  Which will doll out up to $100 million  a year to environmental causes.  There's literally dozens of foundations already doing that (Energy Foundation, Walmart Foundation, etc.).  It's a noble and worthy cause.  But it's also a structure designed to allow them to remain in control of both Patagonia and the giving.

One of the hardest parts of charity is how little of it often actually goes to charity.  It's rare to find a lean org that identifies priorities and doles out funds. It can be done, and done well, but you have to be willing to put aside your ego and need for control and make it the focus of your work as the rich person.

[Chewbacca 7827]

3 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

here's your clue you don't know what you're talking about.

Who wants good gear when you're out in the elements, right?  Walmart hoodie is just as good as anything else.  And don't forget the scotch guard on your jeans.

[Chewbacca 7827]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I'm not saying it's a full time operation: it is.  But it also doesn't have to become a giant bureaucracy in it's own right. You can just identify qualified needs and cut them a check.  This arrangement, in effect, allows the Patagonia family to turn the company into a form of non profit climate based charity.  Which will doll out up to $100 million  a year to environmental causes.  There's literally dozens of foundations already doing that (Energy Foundation, Walmart Foundation, etc.).  It's a noble and worthy cause.  But it's also a structure designed to allow them to remain in control of both Patagonia and the giving.

One of the hardest parts of charity is how little of it often actually goes to charity.  It's rare to find a lean org that identifies priorities and doles out funds. It can be done, and done well, but you have to be willing to put aside your ego and need for control and make it the focus of your work as the rich person.

If you don't care about the impacts of your giving, sure, do it your way.  But people who make this kind of money want to know their donations are having an impact and they often want to measure that impact so they can adjust their approach.  That requires staff.

Think of it as a multi-billion dollar corporation.  Would you expect that to have 3 people working at it?  Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if Mackenzie Bezos is having the impact she desires because she's giving money away so fast.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Who wants good gear when you're out in the elements, right?  Walmart hoodie is just as good as anything else.  And don't forget the scotch guard on your jeans.

wife had a patagonia shell that was wet when she packed it into something...completely forgot about it, opened up whatever it was in a couple of years later and it was moldy. She tried cleaning the mold off but no dice...mailed it back to patagonia (with no proof of purchase) and got $250 credit for a new shell no questions asked.* I'm sure target would have done the same.

*hahahahahahahahahahaha?

[F250 29181]

As a resident of the Texas hill country I require a bear fur coat to battle the elements for the 20 or so days a year it gets chilly outside.

[Biff Tannen 46075]

4 hours ago, texasdago said:

I'm not judging anyone for wearing Patagonia, North Face, etc. etc. because I get it... good looking, functional wear that keeps you warm especially when doing winter sports but its comfortable stuff.  I like gear by https://colourwear.com/en-ww/snow - good functional gear although it looks like they are clearing out a ton of gear so not sure what's up there.

 

Now Crocs... yeah, don't come to me talking about comfort... Crocs suck.  They are the minivan of footwear.

 

 

Ironically, crocs are widely used in the backpacking world as camp shoes at the end of the day.

[Bevo 13831]

27 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

wife had a patagonia shell that was wet when she packed it into something...completely forgot about it, opened up whatever it was in a couple of years later and it was moldy. She tried cleaning the mold off but no dice...mailed it back to patagonia (with no proof of purchase) and got $250 credit for a new shell no questions asked.* I'm sure target would have done the same.

*hahahahahahahahahahaha?

Yeah, sorry about that. Glad the raincoat came in handy, though.

[BabaYaga 15536]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ironically, crocs are widely used in the backpacking world as camp shoes at the end of the day.

Beat me to it.  Also good on the beach.  They are like snowshoes for sand

[Bateshorn 9989]

46 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

If you don't care about the impacts of your giving, sure, do it your way.  But people who make this kind of money want to know their donations are having an impact and they often want to measure that impact so they can adjust their approach.  That requires staff.

Think of it as a multi-billion dollar corporation.  Would you expect that to have 3 people working at it?  Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if Mackenzie Bezos is having the impact she desires because she's giving money away so fast.

Let's just say I've seen the opposite side of it here in DC.  As a denizen of the non-profit world, the amount of charity bloat and bureaucracy I see is mind bottling.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Bateshorn

[Chewbacca 7827]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Let's just say I've seen the opposite side of it here in DC.  As a denizen of the non-profit world, the amount of charity bloat and bureaucracy I see is mind bottling.

Private foundations are much different from public charities, in my experience.

[Samson's Wig 3225]

41 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

here's your clue you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm glad you're a Patagonia fanboy. As noted above, I too own Patagonia products.  I own YETI products as well, but I'm not so stupid as to think they're the only company that can make a good cooler.

[Bateshorn 9989]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Private foundations are much different from public charities, in my experience.

Not in mine. 

You and I aren't going to agree on this.  I understand your position, i just think there was a more low key and direct way to accomplish their goals. But I support their overall mission.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Bateshorn

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I'm glad you're a Patagonia fanboy. As noted above, I too own Patagonia products.  I own YETI products as well, but I'm not so stupid as to think they're the only company that can make a good cooler.

why would you own a Patagonia product if there's something that is much cheaper that provides equal performance and is backed by the same warranty?

[Bateshorn 9989]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

why would you own a Patagonia product if there's something that is much cheaper that provides equal performance and is backed by the same warranty?

I'll take this one.   I tend to buy REI Co-op where I can, but some products are better.  The Nano-Puff is exhibit #1.  The flip is I like the REI packable rain shell much better than the Patagonia, which I find gets clammy and damp.

[Chewbacca 7827]

14 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Not in mine. 

You and I aren't going to agree on this.  I understand your position, i just think there was a more low key and direct way to accomplish their goals. But I support their overall mission.

The rest of the world doesn't operate like DC operates.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I'll take this one.   I tend to buy REI Co-op where I can, but some products are better.  The Nano-Puff is exhibit #1.  The flip is I like the REI packable rain shell much better than the Patagonia, which I find gets clammy and damp.

So you purchased your Patagonia gear based on how it performs and not the label. Got it.

[Bateshorn 9989]

17 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

So you purchased your Patagonia gear based on how it performs and not the label. Got it.

I pretty much buy everything that way, except maybe my GTI. Which is a pretty big maybe.  😆  😢 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Bateshorn

[texasdago 7754]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ironically, crocs are widely used in the backpacking world as camp shoes at the end of the day.

Oh, well that totally changes my long-held belief on Crocs

[Samson's Wig 3225]

21 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

why would you own a Patagonia product if there's something that is much cheaper that provides equal performance and is backed by the same warranty?

Because I'm just as big of a moron as you and everyone else is.  Marketing works.  Their fleeces are no better than what you can get at many places such as Lands End, for a third of the price and with no visible label. I've owned fleece jackets from both companies.  There is no discernible difference in quality.  Even their better products that don't have lower priced comps, like the nano puff, have comparable options from other overpriced outdoor brands that similarly put their label forward, but you choose Patagonia.  Why?  Because you're not above being manipulated by marketers. No one is. .  Patagonia sells a message first and clothing second, and if that message resonates with you go for it.  It's a big chunk of the sticker price you're paying. Our only difference is I'm not ashamed to admit it.  

[Helobious 9787]

Fuck yea samson

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

55 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Because I'm just as big of a moron as you and everyone else is.  Marketing works.  Their fleeces are no better than what you can get at many places such as Lands End, for a third of the price and with no visible label. I've owned fleece jackets from both companies.  There is no discernible difference in quality.  Even their better products that don't have lower priced comps, like the nano puff, have comparable options from other overpriced outdoor brands that similarly put their label forward, but you choose Patagonia.  Why?  Because you're not above being manipulated by marketers. No one is. .  Patagonia sells a message first and clothing second, and if that message resonates with you go for it.  It's a big chunk of the sticker price you're paying. Our only difference is I'm not ashamed to admit it.  

It's ultimately a question of perceived value, like every other purchasing decision. Helobious purchases Yankee gear and walks around South Texas wearing it because of the perceived increase in street cred that purchase gives him. 

For me, I don't mind spending the extra money if I know I'm not going to have to spend that money again. When I buy a Patagonia product (or other similar higher priced outdoor brands), I know I don't ever have to invest that money again. I have a Patagonia jacket that I've had for a decade. If the zipper fails on it, I know I won't have to spend money on a new jacket. There's value in that for me.

If there are outdoor brands that offer the same quality and back their products like that and are cheaper, let me know. Don't worry about whether or not there's a label, I couldn't give a rat's ass.

[po elvis 2137]

6 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

wife had a patagonia shell that was wet when she packed it into something...completely forgot about it, opened up whatever it was in a couple of years later and it was moldy. She tried cleaning the mold off but no dice...mailed it back to patagonia (with no proof of purchase) and got $250 credit for a new shell no questions asked.* I'm sure target would have done the same.

*hahahahahahahahahahaha?

Why should they ?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

12 hours ago, po elvis said:

Why should they ?

They shouldn’t. They sell cheap shit. The expectation when you buy cheap shit is that it won’t last long and then you’ll buy something else to replace it.

[Bevo 13831]

Patagonia Billionaire Who Gave Up Company Skirts $700 Million Tax Hit

Founder Yvon Chouinard structured the transfer of his firm in a way that keeps control within the family and avoids taxes.

Ben StevermanSeptember 16, 2022, 2:10 PM CDT

Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard described his decision to give away the outdoor apparel-maker as his last-ditch effort to do all he could to protect the planet.

The deal is structured in ways that also bring the billionaire other perks, by letting him and his family keep control of Patagonia while shielding them from tax bills that could have totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

[hornian 5281]

59 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Patagonia Billionaire Who Gave Up Company Skirts $700 Million Tax Hit

Founder Yvon Chouinard structured the transfer of his firm in a way that keeps control within the family and avoids taxes.

Ben StevermanSeptember 16, 2022, 2:10 PM CDT

Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard described his decision to give away the outdoor apparel-maker as his last-ditch effort to do all he could to protect the planet.

The deal is structured in ways that also bring the billionaire other perks, by letting him and his family keep control of Patagonia while shielding them from tax bills that could have totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

There’s nothing immoral about paying the least amount of tax legally possible. Don’t blame the billionaires, blame the lawmakers. 

[Parliament 14575]

I prefer Carhart vests.

[Celery Man 21078]

One way to avoid paying taxes is to not earn income. If the $700MM in taxes that they dodged is the taxes that would have been paid if they had sold the company for a bunch of money instead of whatever the mechanism to transfer control to a board and profits to a trust.... it would seem like you could write that headline if you didn't care about being disingenuous. Is that what that story is?

[MeerkatBong 115]

6 hours ago, hornian said:

There’s nothing immoral about paying the least amount of tax legally possible. Don’t blame the billionaires, blame the lawmakers. 

Hmmmm. You sure about that? What about voting for policies that minimize how much tax you pay? Where is the moral line drawn, generally? For you?

I wear Patagonia, but only because it’s an occupational dress code. You can’t find any finance guys worth their salt without their KKR or Blackstone vest, and that’s because Patagonia stopped doing Corporate swag only recently, so all the Tryharders and junior nerds just have the regular pat vests. Gross.

[wild_turkey 3280]

On 9/16/2022 at 2:59 PM, Samson's Wig said:

Our only difference is I'm not ashamed to admit it.  

Well that, and you are claiming that anyone with a visible label on their clothing is somewhere between a gigantic douchebag and insufferable cunt.

What about tennis shoes? Can I wear tennis shoes or running shoes in public even if they have a visible brand name or logo? Or does that make me a cunt? Should I maybe look for a razor blade and try to remove the Nike swoosh from the side of my shoes so I can be less pretentious when I'm out for a run?

What about UT apparel, most of which has the brand (Nike, etc.) displayed somewhere on the shirt? Are most sports fans cunts for wearing this stuff? 

What about women wearing their yoga gear around town? Are they cunts for having leggings that display a Lululemon, Alo, etc logo? There are certainly cheaper yoga clothes available.

I'm honestly curious where you draw the line on this stuff. In your opinion, what are the rules a person needs to follow to be appropriately dressed in public without appearing to be a cunt?

[Bevo 13831]

8 hours ago, Celery Man said:

One way to avoid paying taxes is to not earn income. If the $700MM in taxes that they dodged is the taxes that would have been paid if they had sold the company for a bunch of money instead of whatever the mechanism to transfer control to a board and profits to a trust.... it would seem like you could write that headline if you didn't care about being disingenuous. Is that what that story is?

Patagonia Billionaire Who Gave Up Company Skirts $700 Million Tax Hit

Founder Yvon Chouinard structured the transfer of his firm in a way that keeps control within the family and avoids taxes.

ByDevon Pendleton andBen Steverman

September 15, 2022 at 4:02 PM CDT

Updated onSeptember 16, 2022 at 2:10 PM CDT

 

NYT

 

 

Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard described his decision to give away the outdoor apparel-maker as his last-ditch effort to do all he could to protect the planet.

The deal is structured in ways that also bring the billionaire other perks, by letting him and his family keep control of Patagonia while shielding them from tax bills that could have totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

By donating most of the company, which is valued at $3 billion according to the New York Times, Chouinard is at the fore of a small-but-growing movement among the ultra-wealthy to use nonprofits to exert political influence long past their lifetimes.

Chouinard, 83, transferred 98% of Patagonia shares to Holdfast Collective, a nonprofit that will deploy its roughly $100 million in annual profits “to fighting the environmental crisis and defending nature,” according to a statement Wednesday. He moved all of his family’s voting stock, equal to 2% of its total shares, to an entity called the Patagonia Purpose Trust.

“As the business leader I never wanted to be, I am doing my part,” Chouinard said in the statement.

Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard

Photographer: Ben Gabbe/Getty Images North America

While many billionaires make living donations with tax and estate planning as the primary considerations, Chouinard seems to have structured his Patagonia transfer with at least a few purposes in mind. Holdfast is a 501(c)(4), a nonprofit that can make unlimited political donations — unlike its cousin, the 501(c)(3). For that reason, any giving to a 501(c)(4) isn’t eligible for income-tax deductions. In addition, the Patagonia founder will owe $17.5 million in gift taxes for the shares he transferred to the trust.

Still, the moves mean Chouinard won’t have to pay the federal capital gains taxes he would have owed had he sold the company, an option he said was under consideration. On a $3 billion sale, that bill could be more than $700 million. It also helps Chouinard avoid the US estate and gift tax, which is a 40% levy on large fortunes when they’re transferred to heirs.

“There was never an ask from the Chouinard family that we avoid taxes” when structuring the transaction, said Corley Kenna, a Patagonia spokeswoman. The company has a long history of paying its taxes and “supporting tax increases that could benefit the planet,” she added, noting that Patagonia’s CEO backed a higher corporate rate in support of President Biden’s Build Back Better plan.

Chouinard said in his statement that the trust was “created to protect the company’s values” of preserving nature through business practices. It already gives away 1% of sales each year to environmental nonprofits.

Still, Ray Madoff, a professor at Boston College Law School, said there’s a broader question of whether the ultra-wealthy should be able to circumvent taxes.

 

“We are letting people opt out of supporting all the expenses of government to do whatever they want with their money,” Madoff said. “This is highly problematic from the point of view of democracy, and it can mean a higher tax burden for the rest of Americans.”

A Patagonia store in New York

Photographer: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images North America

Donating to a foundation or other 501(c)(3) nonprofit could have brought even more tax savings — namely, with a charitable deduction offsetting other income — but US rules make it difficult for those organizations to own private businesses, said Ellen Harrison, a tax attorney at McDermott Will & Emery in Washington. Using a 501(c)(4) and trust lets Chouinard and his family continue to effectively control the company (family members will remain on its board under the new ownership structure).

“I suspect the driver was trying to preserve the company,” Harrison said of the transaction. Founders often “almost view these companies as part of their family.”

 

Chouinard’s move evokes a similar transfer done last year by a Chicago billionaire supporting starkly different causes.

 

Electronics manufacturing mogul Barre Seid donated his company Tripp Lite to a 501(c)(4), Marble Freedom Trust, which then sold the business for $1.65 billion, sparing Seid from paying capital gains taxes on the transaction. The organization is led by a conservative activist whose activities helped cement the conservative dominance of the US Supreme Court and counter abortion rights, voting rules and climate policy.

It’s unclear to what extent Chouinard’s Holdfast nonprofit will get involved in politics, since the issue of climate change is broad and could entail lobbying for legislation or apolitical charitable work, Harrison said.

“Battling climate change can mean a lot of things,” she said.

With a historically polarized government leading to repeated stalemates on legislation, it’s likely that more billionaires will see 501(c)(4)s as the most expedient way to ensure their policy aims and charitable intentions outlive them.

“If someone wanted to leave their votes behind after they die, we don’t let people do that,” Madoff said. “But through these organizations” they’re doing something similar, she said. “And their money is so much more powerful than a single vote."

[F250 29181]

2 hours ago, wild_turkey said:

What about women wearing their yoga gear around town? Are they cunts for having leggings that display a Lululemon, Alo, etc logo? There are certainly cheaper yoga clothes available.

I don't think I have ever noticed a logo on a woman's yoga pants. There is only a moment to make an observation and ain't no time for a logo.