Not intended to be political commentary but an appropriateness question.

 

I hope Joe made them feel comfortable by wearing a Ramones t-shirt. Wow have we moved to an uncomfortable place (sartorially, of course). Sheesh.

 

Dress shoes, no sneakers.

 

Nay.

 

Nay.

 

I would assume someone had foot problems, and a doctor suggested they wear sneakers, without providing alternatives. Without further guidance, dress sneakers are the result.

 

There were
Three out of seven in the meeting had those abominations on their feet, so it must have been catching.

 

There is no such thing as "dress sneakers" . There is such a thing as "brands trying, successfully alas, to market sneakers as dress shoes".

 

I keep thinking of the saying that "it all went to hell when they gave California it's own pizza"

 

 

I did not go to the white house but I use these when I occasionally wear canvas shoes. They are certainly not dress shoes.

 

Were they wearing white athletic socks too?

 

No, but the Speaker and Minority leader both had on bright striped socks. It was way too informal for me and they should be shamed.

 

First of all there is no such thing as dress sneakers. Second of all this is just another sign of dropping of traditional standard. Are they going to show up next time in an Adidas Track suit ? Not that it would matter, Joe is so far gone he probably doesn't even know what room he is in or if he is awake or not.

 

Dress sneakers are for Senator Fetterman.

For every one else, DRESS SHOES.

 

My view on this, regardless of the appropriateness intrinsic to the setting, is based on my own experiences in the political arena: why give anyone ammunition?

If you decide to flaunt convention, it should have a payoff which "pays for" any fallout generated. If you wear sneakers to a very non-sneakerly function, someone WILL use that as an opportunity to call your judgement into question if you are in a profession which purports to reward good judgement.

So unless you are specifically branding yourself as an iconoclast or "that guy" (though even then, caution is advised - denim suits and a comical toupee didn't keep James Traficant out of prison), there's simply no positive ROI to be found in it.

(Even AOC, for example, who positions herself as fairly revolutionary, cuts a very professional figure in her tailored, feminine suits, nice shoes, and perfect hair and makeup... because she knows that a SINGLE misstep, ever, and conservative media would be all over it. Smart.)

To quote mob boss Remo Gaggi from "Casino": "look... why take a chance?"

DH

 

I dislike the wearing of sneakers other than for working out or wearing them for their siped soles when sailing. The concept of a dress sneaker is silly. If they are sneakers with leather uppers, they are not dress sneakers. They are leather shoes with cheap, ugly soles.

 

How unfortunate. I wear “smart” sneakers quite often but there are no such thing as “dress” sneakers. I would, however, have no problem with their sartorial mis-steps if they would just do their job. Most everyone here recalls when a navy blazer/gray slacks/shirt/tie/loafers was considered casual. I knew the world was sliding toward oblivion when IBM began allow non-white dress shirts on Fridays in the late 1980’s…

 

Greeting Gents-
The query concerns our opinions of two things related to yesterday's New York Times report regarding senior house and senate leaders arriving at a meeting with the President wearing leather sneakers. Even though there are undoubtedly more urgent issues that require attention, the "NY Times" is allowing this type of article to be published. Additionally, the post-COVID-19 lifestyle has given rise to issues that may have been present in the background—dare I say, all along—since the adage hindsight is 20/20 is no longer just a cliché.

Cheers

 

the "NY Times" is allowing this type of article to be published.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

 

I have to join the chorus. Show some respect, even simple self-respect, and wear a decent pair of shoes.

 

Or go "all in" and show up barefoot or in flip flops. Frankly I do not care what they are wearing as long as they are prepared, open minded, and willing to compromise. Our world has gotten so casual that articles like this are sort of ho hum.

 

This train left the station a long time ago at least as far back as Obama, in which I think they wore flip flops. I would guess the NYTimes has its reasons for writing about this deviation from traditional usage as if it were remarkable, but it’s not.

 

This train left the station a long time ago at least as far back as Obama, in which I think they wore flip flops.

Moronic post.

 

I would say nay to dress sneakers in the White House. I think that’s a place where formal shoes are more appropriate and respectful. I don’t think sneakers belong in such a setting, even if they are leather or suede. That’s just my opinion, though.

 

While we're at it, let's mention U.S. Senator John Fetterman, who showed up recently at a Senate press conference in a hoodie and a pair of baggy gym shorts.

 

He clearly needed to have his shorts tailored.

 

Recently the British Prime Minster said to her members, to dress like Gentlemen not like slobs... ...As you are professionals! And regarding your question, it doesn't mater the the PM is, they represent the people (like lawyers) they should dress properly, not like if it is casual Friday!

 

Aaargh! Any meeting with the president is a formal occasion. Sneakers....really?

 

Depends on the time and circumstances of the meeting. Was it outside normal hours and an “informal” meeting? Was it in the West Wing or the residence? It depends.

 

Nay

 

One of many indicators of cultural decline. Hopefully, this is reversable.

 

Hard NO! Even Schumer was too casual with loafers.

 

Ummm...no he wasn't.

 

If I have a jacket on, tie or not, I'm weariing a traditional dressier shoe. It may not be a lace up brogue etc. but definitely will have a traditional sole and not some sneakerish vibe.