Three activists recently went undercover and discovered that workers making Ivanka's shoes worked overtime past 12:00 am, steep production quotas as well as horrible verbal abuse!
The founder of the activist group described the factory as such: "Among the worst he has seen in nearly two decades investigating labor abuses."
Make America great again!
Didn't Beyonce Blue Ivy clothing line which is manufactured in Sri Lanka was accused of abusing the workers and paying them 63 cents an hour? A lot of companies hire manufacturers from these third world countries to produce their products at very cheap prices , resulting in terrible working conditions and human rights violation.
Yeah but she can get away with it though. Then Mrs. Obama can get outraged at the way Trump spoke of women, and contradict herself standing on stage with Beyonce and J z who talks about bitches and hoes in his music. He can say "big pimpin" to the public overtly, but Trump can't make an exaggerated private sexual comment like probably half of males privately do.
@cavmanier all good points. Democrats and their supporters are massive hypocrites
Lulz, Make America Great again.
*posts pictures of Chinese workers*
imgflip.com/s/meme/Captain-Picard-Facepalm.jpg
Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, Nike etc etc have been doing this for decades and suddenly these activists are concerned now? So conveniently with a business that just happens to be owned by Trump's daughter?
Don't forget about Coca-Cola and Pepsi draining the water table in South American countries causing droughts
It's stupid people like sally never cared about any of these people or these issues until Trump got elected then all of a sudden it becomes a problem? And notice how she completely ignores every other company in the world that does this and focuses directly on Trumps daughter.
*sniff* I smell propaganda and bullshit.
Opinion
21Opinion
People saying to lay off her bc other people do it are a part of the problem. Just because she is one of many wrong doers doesn't make her any less wrong, as head of the company -with her name on the company- she profits from suffering. As consumers are made more aware of what their dollar really buys, they are speaking with their wallets-conscious shopping is a growing trend. So, a really smart business person (and a good person) would make sure the people making her product is done humanely (bc her name will suffer otherwise)(or people will not care for bs reasons)
I'm a broke recent graduate, I don't have loads of money to spend on clothes but I don't shop at places like Zara bc there have scandals in the past involving slave labor-and I'm not down for that, no matter how good the deal. And after reading this, (link below) I do feel bad for shopping recently (and for the first time) at H&M. I probably will just look next time I'm out with friends vs buying anything.
I don't see what the issue is-if something is wrong and the solution is as simple as not spending money, how is it really difficult?
https://projectjust.com/brand_hm/
This is every company that outsources to the 3rd world and the fashion industry is the biggest culprit of it. Basically everyone from the owner to the designer to models and to the person buying those goods is just as responsible. The paid overtime past 12.00 to meet quota is common in any factory as is the picture you've shown but I suspect you have a grudge against Ivanka because of who her father is and for her politics when in fact she represents the strong role model white feminists long for being a working mother and wife, a successful buissness woman, as published author, her , as a model, as a fashion designer, as a spokeswoman for women's rights. Not to mention her high level of education and charity work.
I don't understand why she gets so much hate and internalised mysogny from white feminist and antisemitic hatred from SJW'S.
Also could I have a link to your activist group as the whole thing sounds made up.
Reminds me of
s2.quickmeme.com/.../...f7fbed5800abbe78700aa7.jpg
You're mad at his daughter for capitalizing on foreign cheap labor, but ignore the Clinton Foundation's corruptions or Obama's 800,000 for two speeches to wall street companies. You aren't going to mention how Trump donated his whole paycheck to the national park service though right?
Trump's got other money, so he can easily afford Uruguayan president José Música gave 90% of his salery to the poor, and that was the only money he had.
Why do rich "philanthropists" always set up "foundations" instead of just giving money to a homeless person or writing a cheque to a proper charity? Why are these foundations always run by a son or daughter of the founder despite the fact that he or she has zero employment experience? Do foundations exist solely to provide sinecures for children who were they born poor would be working in Walmart for minimum wage?
@Bezbozhnikustanka I agree Trump has money. The point is she isn't going to say anything positive he's done. Only negative things.
I don't know all the answers.
Here's the meme I mean to post by the way
http://i.imgur.com/A0lXY0z.jpg
Mujica, bloody spell checker!
If he had no other income and he could afford to give 90% of it away the Uraguayans must be massively overpaying their presidents.
@Bezbozhnikustanka the Uraguayans? lol
@Rissyanne I bet he's changing laws to benefit businesses he and his family own.
@Bezbozhnikustanka That's possible he wants to change laws to benefit himself. Think about it logically though. He's worth several billion dollars right now. He's 70. Do you think making 5 more billion is his goal in life right now? He can't spend it. People his age with wealth tend to want to give back to the world. You may not agree with his policy approach, but he does want good for the country just like Obama did. They just have different ways of trying to reach their goals.
His family will clearly get brand recognition and lots of contacts (they already kind of had those), but even with policy changes, they have to compete with other business on the free market. Rich people are wealthy due to their capital. It's been like that since the concept of wealth was created.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-epr8lPIZYE
If it's 1 minute to the final whistle and you're winning 12 nil and you see an opportunity will you think "no, we've scored enough goal today, I won't bother" or will you hit the back of the net? Rich people worship money, they can never get enough, plus, he wants to leave as much as he can to his children and grandchildren.
If I'd been born rich I could invest £1,000,000 in a farm at 5% and "earn" £50,000 without lifting a finger, meanwhile 100 Polish farmhands would work 80 hours a week for minimum wage. Dose that sound fair to you?
@Rissyanne If you're starving all you can think of is food, sure I'm obsessed with money, I'll never have a day's happiness as long as I live and it's all Bob Turner's fault. Why was he even allowed into the country, the Yanks made their decision in 1776, they rejected us, we didn't reject them, so why was a bastard Yank let back into the country to fuck us over?
@Rissyanne Trump won for a variety of reasons. The first and foremost is that the electoral college went against the popular vote. The second is that in this election, whether a candidate was pro or anti establishment was a more important factor than in previous elections and Hilary was the most pro-establishment candidate that the democratic party had. But the third reason (which you are partially right on) is the split between the progressive and the regressive left. What's the difference: well it's that progressive leftists want to addresses the causes of inequality while the regressive left (SJW types) only want to address the effects of it. But so many progressive leftists jumped on the anti-SJW bandwagon that they didn't keep their bashing (and yeah I support bashing SJWs because they're a bunch of douche-bags) of the SJWs in context. And that context is this: as bad as SJWs are, the mainstream right (let alone the alt right) is way worse.
If you say something that SJWs disagree with they will accuse you of being a racist or homophobe, conservatives will say that this if you don't like (my interpretation of) America, you can get the fuck out (a conservative president actually said that atheists shouldn't be citizens). When SJWs don't agree with free speech, they try to get it banned on college campuses and make their safe spaces. When conservatives don't agree with what's being said, they try to get it outlawed and turn the whole country into their safe space (I'm going to let you in on a little secret, everybody only likes free speech that they agree with, the issue is whether or not you try to get speech you don't like outlawed). SJWs rioted and engaged in property destruction when Trump was elected, conservatives engaged in hate crimes when Obama (and Trump) got elected. So conservatives are more intolerant than SJWs. You may make the case that their is a greater degree of hypocrisy with the SJWs.
Because the conservatives who spit this BS about how this is (my fanciful view of) America and if you don't like it you can leave don't claim to be tolerant, but that's about it but by no means does it end there. SJWs want to make people respect the sensitivities of groups like Muslims, conservatives tried to get their religious beliefs taught in public schools. SJWs want to get flags taken down off college campuses, conservatives wanted to have the flag of an organization that violently rebelled against the US government because it was opposed to freedom flying over government buildings. SJWs want to give your wealth to the poor, conservatives want to make you pay companies that get rich by keeping the poor of this country in destitution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNiNv97ZdM
SJWs want to take in refugees and use your taxpayer dollars to help shelter people who might be terrorists. Conservatives want to make you pay for wars that make people refugees and destabilize countries making them havens for terrorists. SJWs call soldiers monsters and murders, conservatives sent them off to die for corporate interests. So don't get me wrong, I don't support SJWs, I think Milo and Ann should have spoken at UC Berkeley, I was just keeping everything in context ;) You asked why I didn't bash the people rioting. Well many liberals have already condemned them and my name ad quid orator means speaker of the unsaid in Latin and no one has ever talked about this.
@Bezbozhnikustanka I didn't see your response, but no inheriting wealth is not fair of course. It's also not fair I was born in the US vs Somalia. It's also not fair I didn't grow up in Auberdine Washington where houses cost 100k instead of the close to 1M in the bay area. Life isn't fair in general. Capitalism is more about generating prosperity rather than fairness. Even poor people benefit. I mean look at the poor in the US vs the poor in Somalia or Vietnam or China.
@Ad_Quid_Orator
"Trump won for a variety of reasons. The first and foremost is that the electoral college went against the popular vote"
So you're saying if he won the popular vote, he wouldn't have won the election. Not my words lol. (just trolling you b t w)
Oh you're listening to the liberal media. A lot of those "hate" crimes were debunked. It's just not reported because it wouldn't fit the liberal narrative of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVTVg6yO5Q
Just like how like the other day when the media presented Trump as not believing Russia interfered with the election. And many people believe the word twisting of course. This if fake news
http://i.imgur.com/hkOR45g.jpg
This is what was said
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOJTZQK_RzM
Of course if the liberal media reported what was actually said, their argument and narrative of Trump believing Russia would be destroyed and their evidence of him being the boogie man would weaken. People seem to follow along with the lies and exaggerations like cattle though 🐑🐑
"SJWs want to give your wealth to the poor, conservatives want to make you pay companies that get rich by keeping the poor of this country in destitution"
That's not true bro. Statistically speaking conservatives donate and do more charity than liberals (while having lower incomes overall). Of course if you're an alien watching how our planet works from space you wouldn't believe that. Obviously because the left controls most of that rhetoric. First, generalizing all conservatives and liberals isn't accurate. Going past the no generalizing disclaimer, fiscal conservatives goal isn't to make companies rich and people poor. They tend to believe in financial responsibility and on how capitalistic societies benefit us all more than the wealth regression socialism tends to incentivize.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Your opinions are very rigidly compartmentalized and don't nearly express the situations past a surface level, and the issues are much more complicated than to be categorized that simply.
Well, I never mentioned Russian interference here so I don't know why you brought that up. As for conservatives being more charitable while having a lower average income, it really doesn't say anything about whether it's the rich or poor among the conservatives who are more charitable. But it doesn't change the fact that conservatives have enacted policies that put more people in private prisons to make the owners of them rich.
@Ad_Quid_Orator If you read "Oh you're listening to the liberal media" and "Just like," I was relating it to how unreliable credible information tends to be with the media.
"conservatives have enacted policies that put more people in private prisons to make the owners of them rich"
You misinterpreted their intentions. The goal is to not make prisons rich. The logic is that private prisons have an incentive to be cost efficient. Government has no incentive to run prisons cost efficiently. The conservatives in favor of that want the best product of prison they can for the lowest price (free market vs socialism). Lower prices means citizens have more access to other services that hopefully benefits society overall. People actually believe that conservatives want to make prisons rich though 😂😂 Man the medias influence is strong!
"People actually believe that conservatives want to make prisons rich though Man the medias influence is strong!" That wasn't from any news outlet, that was from internal communications from the people who run the prisons. And conservatives politicians do have an incentive for wanting people in prison: campaign contributions. And yes the government does have an incentive to run prisons cost effectively: it doesn't have an unlimited budget but that's not even the biggest flaw in your argument about cost efficiency; the government has to pay to have people imprisoned (whether it owns them or not) while organizations like the CCA get paid to put people in prison and cost efficiency per person isn't the only thing that factors into their total profit, the total number of people also factor into it, so they have an incentive (which they act upon) to influence policy to get more people incarcerated so they can make more money keeping the poor destitute.
@Ad_Quid_Orator you do know that bill Clinton put a bunch of black men in prison.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I've heard that logic in the news.
"that was from internal communications from the people who run the prisons"
Oh okay so individual people that supposedly work at the prisons (with no sources verifiable of course :)) opinions mean more than economic theory 👍
"And conservatives politicians do have an incentive for wanting people in prison"
Whether established prisons operate by government or private prisons, is separate from who goes to prison. The government judicial system controls inflow entirely. Not private prisons.
Where's the biggest flaw in my argument? Are you saying if a prison is private, it gets to control the flow of inmate population? And if a prison isn't private, that changes?
@Ad_Quid_Orator I got news for you. The only reason liberals want refugees and illegal immigrants in the country is votes
@Rissyanne The upward trend in mass incarceration of black men started under Reagan and Bush, not Clinton.
www.ssc.wisc.edu/.../
@Ad_Quid_Orator Clinton put some in prison also.
@Ad_Quid_Orator just because you have a link that disagrees with me doesn't make it right.
As for a source, here you go, www.aclu.org/banking-bondage-private-prisons-and-mass-incarceration . And no they don't control the judicial system completely but can (and do) influence it with their campaign contributions. You may label this as opinions but the fact of the matter is that the incarceration rate increased over three fold from 1982 to now and the amount of money the US has spent on incarceration is now 6.6 times higher than it was in 1982 . The US population is now 1.5 times larger than it was in 1982 and inflation is 2.5 times higher so adjusted for both (if the switch to private prisons saved us money) should only be 3.75 times what it was in 1982. We may spend less per prisoner when adjusted for inflation, but we're spending more on incarceration than we did when the prisons were privatized.
That's because the profit made isn't only determined by the cost per prisoner, but by the total number of people incarcerated and that results in an (inflation/population growth adjusted) increase in the amount the government spends on prisons. Facts > (your) economic "theory" ;)
@Rissyanne Every president put people of every race in prison, so your point. The link alone doesn't prove it but the fact that it's from someone who dedicated her life to the study of sociology and contributed to the field lends a lot more credence than your opinion.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I don't care enough to read a long article honestly. I don't know prison numbers obviously, but we can assume all the info you gave is true for gag discussion purposes. So you're saying that rates have went up by 3 times (300%) and we spend 2.5 times as much in terms of real money. And you're implying private prison lobbying caused the justice system to cause some combination of either more guilty verdicts or be less leniency on sentencing length or some other method. If that's true, we don't know the total number and the percentage of inmates that were in private prisons before and now to see the private prisons benefit. I found a little info online (maybe you have better). According to pew (I've found pretty reliable)--quoting them-- "in 2015, just 8% of the nearly 1.53 million state and federal prisoners in the U. S. were in private facilities, up slightly from 5% in 1999."
So 126,000 (8%) of 1.53 million prisoners are in private prisons. So in 16 years of the time frame you gave, private prisons have grown 8% of the 141% overall scalable prison growth (adjusting for the 300% over 34 years you gave). I agree that a business can get less per transaction while yielding more due to more transactions. According to pew over the years I found, they don't seem to have benefited from scaled growth like government prisons. I'm not saying lobbying can't create influence either, but private prisons seems to be a small player overall, and I'm skeptical they have a lot of influence. If they have great influence, why are they only 8% of the market? They can get better lobbyists. And I'm not saying their lobbyist have zero impact, but there are many other factors that influence incarceration rates such as corresponding historical laws, economic and unemployment rates, wealth distribution law enforcement numbers (and technology) and many others that I'm unaware of.
Actually I said that the incarceration rate is up 6.6 times from 1982 and that inflation is up 2.5 times from then. And as you pointed out the number of people in private prisons is increasing and (5% to 8% is up 167%) so yeah they do benefit from more strict codes that land more people in prison because even if they are a small (but rapidly growing) portion of the prisons in the US more people incarcerated still means more money for them.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Good point. Their growth is still outpaced by overall prisons 310% (higher if factoring out private prisons) over those years. Their number have been decreasing since 2012 actually. Well we'll agree to disagree about the influence of a tiny market player increasing incarceration rates by 6.6 times over ~34 years.
@Ad_Quid_Orator but that is a good point on them trying to lobby to increase rates. It's something to hopefully be prepared for. I never thought about it. If fire departments were private, they may start fires lol (but if they got caught it be a big deal). We can also say maybe doctors or hospitals are trying to poison our water supply or subsidizing McDonald's in order to create demand lol. But doctors are seriously busy and don't need more business. Auto mechanics are trying to block electric cars maybe because they don't use many moving parts or whatever else we can think of.
Actually I never made the claim that everything should be socialized, just that the systems operated by the US government (including prisons) should be nationalized. When you have things like that that the government depends on in private hands then you end up with crony capitalism where they lobby the government to engage in policies that would make them rich at our expense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
@Ad_Quid_Orator I think prisons should be self sufficient. Not one penny of taxpayer money should have to support these criminals. They need to be on work farms.
@Rissyanne that's one solution (so long as no one is profiting) but another is to decriminalize things that get victim-less criminals locked up.
@Ad_Quid_Orator you mean like armed robbery? And breaking and entering? Tell me... do you believe that a person has a right to protect their home by force if necessary
@Rissyanne Armed Robbery? Breaking and entering? Of course people have the right to defend themselves but those aren't victim-less crimes so I don't know why you brought them up.
@Ad_Quid_Orator tell me your definition of a victimless crime.
@Rissyanne A crime that doesn't have a victim. For example, if Joe assaults Mike, Mike is a victim of Joe's crime of aggregated assault. But if Mike uses crack, then he's not hurting anybody else; i. e. his crime has no victim.
@Ad_Quid_Orator if he gets into a car and kills someone that's not a victimless crime. Or if mike breaks into someone's home to steal money... it's not a victimless crime
@Rissyanne In that case it's a different story but if he does it in his house then it's victim-less. Just like if someone gets wasted out of their mind in their home they have no victim but drunk driving is illegal.
@Ad_Quid_Orator if he is doing crack. He is a drug addict. He's not working... he's sponging off the government more than likely. Therefore it's not a victimless crime.
@Rissyanne Actually 10% of drug users are unemployed. Yeah it's higher than the national average but still the majority of them are employed.
money.cnn.com/.../index.html
But by that logic we should make being lazy a crime.
@Ad_Quid_Orator sorry but I don't believe that. Crack heads are the worst. I know I have those assholes in my family. They broke into my parents home and stole tvs money. I have no sympathy for a drug addict
@Rissyanne Well you may not believe it but policy is decided by statistics, not anecdotal experiences. Also, no one here is asking for you to give them sympathy; just not to have them incarcerated for using drugs. Now if they did something like break into someone's house then they should be punished for doing that but not for the drug use alone.
@Ad_Quid_Orator no just my tax money
@Rissyanne Your (or anyone else's) tax money alone doesn't dictate policy.
@Ad_Quid_Orator but I should have a say so where my money goes. I don't want it going to people who make poor choices in life
@Rissyanne That's a fair enough request, but instead of putting them in jail it would be easier to just not pay them welfare if they're unemployed and are making no effort to get employed.
@Ad_Quid_Orator You said "systems operated by the US government should be nationalized." (That's technically the definition of nationalize). So if the government operated zero prisons, then they shouldn't be nationalized right? As long as both the government and private industry both don't operate?
"When you have things like that that the government depends on in private hands then you end up with crony capitalism"
The government relies on computers, private security, airplanes, food, energy, steel, roofs, water, etc. All of these service and product providers need to be nationalized then?
Not all of the companies but it should build its own manufacturing plants.
I find it interesting that before the election china was the source of all evil to trump. After the election, over a piece of chocolate cake (not the McDonald's big Mack he claimed he would feed him) trump and the chairman become boosum buddies and THE VERY SAME DAY all of trumps pending permits for business and building were expedited.
Now china is suddenly his best buddy.
What happened to china being the bad guys?
It's amazing people believe and support a known lier.
When everyone's a liar you can get away with it. Since when has someone that told the truth been elected? not in the past 100 years at least if ever.
@lEat70sBush Hillary Clinton told so many lies her alziemers means she can't keep track of them.
They don't like it they can quit and go work as whores. In places like Thailand and other 3rd world shit holes I can guarantee Ivanka's "abuse" would be mild by comparison. Don't like the way a boss treats you? Then quit, simple. No one is going to take a leather whip to them or forcing them to work at gunpoint. Unless she's contracted with North Korean factories of course. Just another perk besides cheaper labor and laxer environmental regulations and yet another reason jobs are outsourced: there they can't strike or sue you or quit and collect unemployment (which the boss pays the premiums for) if you decide to be an asshole.
GThe bosses pay the premiums for unemployment out of surplus labour they stole from the workers, so, really workers pay the premiums for unemployment.
@Bezbozhnikustanka Yeah, well, the gov't doesn't look at it that way.
Well, the government's wrong. Everything is explained in minute detail in "Das Kapital".
"Three activists recently went undercover and discovered..."
You lost me right there. I did not vote for Donald Trump and am not a fan, but neither am I a fan of people who do anything they can to bring him down or trash his reputation, including indirectly via his daughter.
Exposing hypocrisy is extremely fair... No matter who someone is.
I agree, as long as they are not trumped up charges (forgive the pun).
Are you still spewing the same cancerous garbage?
Also you do realize that virtually every company in the world does this? But yet to people like you it only matters once Trump is president and his daughter owns a shoe company. Up until that point you wouldn't have given a rats ass about any of those people and still don't, you only want to push this political agenda and nothing else matters.
and you also will always defend him despite whatever shit he does... because he's the "President" you chose and you couldnt possibly admit to have been wrong to some degree...
@SteppingOnRoses I never defended the president or his daughter I just stated a fact. She and a lot of other people never cared about nor even brought up the subject until Trump became president. You can't hate one company for doing something just because they are affiliated with someone and then completely ignore every other company that does the exact same thing because they're not in any way related to Trump or his family.
In what world does that make any sense?
She's the kind of hypocrite that will talk and bitch about this kind of stuff and then go buy shoes made in a sweatshop.
Plus Sally has a reputation on here for spewing all sorts of nonsense, this is no exception. All she cares about is propaganda that's it. She can't be reasoned with, even when you prove her wrong she still thinks she's right.
And someone from the UK has little right to complain given the current state of Europe and the UK as a whole.
Europe will sort itself out. Dont worry.
I do hope the US also sorts itself out though.
True, which is what I've been saying all along. Not that I care about Ivanka Trump's shoes, but this is why goods are so cheap. If we made our own stuff in the West it would cost five times as much and we wouldn't even be able to buy clothes, electronic goods, anything but food actually.
Pretty normal if you're a business trying to maximize profits
Just so happens we feel the 'need' to pick on her cause her father is the president
Leave the president's daughter alone hahah
They're all the same, those who controls the means of production all steal surplus labour from the poor sods who operate the means of production.
@Rissyanne Why don't you steralize all rich people? When we play Monopoly we all start on go with £200 and no property, so, why is it acceptable for people like Chelsea Clinton, Ivanka Trump and Prince Charles to be born with more money than me? Castrate all millionaires, problem solved!
@Rissyanne Would you agree to play Monopoly with me if I insisted you start with nothing and I start with £10,000 and hotels on Mayfare and Park Avenue?
That's how Republicans get rich. 'Good, smart business' practices usually involve sweatshops, usually filled with illegals (at the same time they want to build a wall).
Did she start this business " with a small loan of a million dollars" from her father?
@Bezbozhnikustanka - I don't know much about Ivanka, but I'm sure she's gotten everything from daddy, just like George W Bush.
No, the smart businesses put the sweat shops in the source country and simply ship the finished product here, no illegals required.
Sorry but didn't nearly every company donate to Hillary?
Verbal abuse... lol... people have no idea what that truly fucking is
Just like Apple, Zara and every other big global company.
Of you want to do something about it, buy in local manufacturies.
The Trumps still need the cheap Chinese labour to make their gear to make business in Amerika.
This is what a bunch of companies do, and now suddenly because it's Trump's daughter, it is terrible?
And the designs are stolen, according to a fashion designer.
Yeah looking for a cash payment.
You know how you can choose cheap battery eggs or free range. Why can't you choose cheap sweat shop or decent conditions?
Much as I am suspicious of things that confirm my bias. I find it hard to muster surprise.
Republicans do not care about other people, just making tons of profits. They're sick human beings!!
Sounds like the same working conditions reported for makers of iPhones.
I hate people
I hate Trump
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions