Karie, I agree that kind of language isn't very helpful in discussing different positions. But I also think most YLFer are trying very hard to express their feelings without throwing out negative labels to describe those who have opposing views.

Can you give the majority of us a chance before you write off the forum as an unwelcoming place?

IMPORTANT:

We are on page 7 of this political post, and I've decided to let it run its course - (unless something changes my mind and I need to shut it down).

Understandably, emotions are high at the moment because we're living in very turbulent times (especially if you live in the US). We need a place to talk about it, and share opposing perspectives (from ALL corners of the globe). This thread will test your discipline, tact, patience and emotional intelligence, which is not a bad thing. It's a learning curve for all of us - and for me too.

PLEASE keep your comments respectful, constructive and educational. If the topic is not your cup of tea, focus on the blog, the main part of the forum, or simply don't keep coming back to this thread in Off Topic. Over the last ten years, women have helped and supported each other enormously on YLF, so I really don't want to discontinue our Off Topic section. But I need your co-operation in keeping the tone civil and informative. Please direct your passion constructively, with good intentions, and with a lot of care. I know you can do it.

Just thought it might be a good time to share Rabit's post from my post about a new section on "Fashion and Politics" -

From Rabit:
I'm agreeing with points made by Gigi, Ledonna, and Janet, as well as rachylou. Three things have increasingly convinced me that talking about or reacting to questions of character with regard to the current US president is simply ineffective and non-conducive to either change or conversation across the party divide so I'm trying to remind myself not to do it. One is the election results, and the fact that despite an intense focus on personal attributes and statements and behaviors, that didn't serve as an impediment to party line or 'shake things up' voting behavior. Second, there have been many think pieces out in the national and international press written by those who have first hand experience with populist authoritarian regimes in other countries. Many say character attacks tend to historically fail, and that only by engaging with the policies, not the leader, have resistance movements had some forms of success. Thirdly, from my experience during the US primary battles, I saw how alienating it is to voters (who may agree on certain policies) to have their guy or gal or their voting block criticized on character questions, even when facts and context are supplied. It leads to a siege mentality and can strengthen identification with the leader in question and prevent issue-based cooperation.
Anyhow, that's a long way of saying that commiserating about character can be a way of bonding within a homogeneous political group, but in a heterogeneous group its effect, if not its intent, to my mind can impede real communication, can 'feel' like a personal affront, and can get in the way of where discussion and change can take place, about policies.
For myself, I also think that discussions about policies that intersect both politics and fashion (like today's tweets) are interesting and I get a lot out of reading them when they take place with care and in an area that makes it relatively easy for folks to opt out such as off-topic.

Karie, as a teacher, what do you think of the new secretary of education? Before the election, Trump said he has all the best people. Do you think she's the best? Do you think she's qualified? I'm genuinely curious.

There is a minority on this group that has already said they feel uncomfortable -- they are probably centrists, conservatives -- and I am aware of liberals who have said they are uncomfortable with some of the comments being made on YLF. Despite their reasons (do you need to give a reason for your feelings?), they are feelings of YLF community members.

Some folks are concerned. Some feel that the promotion of their views and political intentions are more important than the feelings of YLF members. And have said so.

For the concerned: Here are related posts:

Rachylou Post (section)....But frankly, 'X clothing retailer just did something really liberal/conservative, that's great/hideous' is not conducive to free and open discussion. That's shutting conversation down. An 'I statement' is needed somewhere in there. I could go more into the communication mechanics of that, that's my field, but suffice it to say that's how that works.

Gigi: I really liked what you said, rachylou. I totally agree that it's the "how" that matters. A universal statement like "X is horrible" is a universal statement that leaves no room for discussion. But "I think X is horrible" changes the statement from a universal one to a subjective one. To me, it makes the conflict less intense and points up the fact that we are *sharing* opinions...

Another Gigi post (I asked her to go deeper): Yes, "uncomfortable" would be a generic term for how some people could feel. If the "X" is something that I like, I can actually feel somewhat attacked. For instance, "Seventies-style dressing is for idiots" makes me feel put down, because I like seventies-style clothing. Or "Small-town people are so narrow-minded" makes me feel written off and judged, because I come from a small town. But rephrasing things--for instance, "I have a strong dislike for seventies style" (in this one, removing the hot-button word "idiots" is also required) or "In my experience, people from small towns tend to be narrow-minded"--sounds less confrontational. The "I" statement makes all the difference to me; it sounds more like a sharing of opinions than an outright debate or a challenging stance.
We are very careful on the forum about judging various styles of clothing because we're aware of the fact that some YLFer might really enjoy that type of clothing, even if it looks odd to 90% of us. People take pains to express their views charitably: "I'll be honest, I really don't care for that style of clothing." Or "Definitely not for me." My hope is that even when politically tinged posts come up, we can express our opinions with the same tact as we do when we talk about style.

I was reading this thread with interest, but I was not sure if I should comment on it. I don't live in US, I never even been there. But results of US elecetions affect us all in many diffrenet ways. And I am getting increasingly concerned. I would really want to understand why people voted for Trump? I don't want to insult anyone, it is just that from what I am hearing on the news it is really incomprehensible to me.

Suz, regarding your point that those people who support president Trump, and who are now feeling marginalized on this forum: I think the key word is marginalized. I think that's what has made this thread go on for 7 pages (I wonder if it'll crack 200 comments?). Judging by the comments, I estimate that the majority of us are scratching our heads, wondering how on Earth Trump got voted in, and a smaller group are feeling 'marginalized' because they can see, though the forceful language some of some of us have been using (myself included), the general anger and bewilderment of the majority. Yet the Trump administration is making choices that attack other groups that are routinely marginalized. Trump himself is frequently guilty of mocking and putting down minorities. So it seems to me that there's an inherent hypocrisy to complaining about marginalization on the forum, especially when just about every poster has clearly made a sincere effort to be polite and rational.

And, in case I've been off-putting in my comments, from now on I'll use "I" statements when expressing my opinions.

I also second Gaylene's and Suz's comments about how this forum provides a place to discuss things with people outside one's everyday social circle. I have yet to talk to anyone IRL who voted for Trump, or who would have if they were American. Given my strong feelings, you must see why I am genuinely at a loss to understand what would motivate someone to vote for him -- and indeed, why such large numbers of people voted for him. News articles offer various explanations, but it's not the same as listening to a real person. I would welcome an explanation from a Trump supporter, but so far, no one has stepped up to offer one.

I said I was not going to comment again BUT, for me this is fustrating on so many levels.

I feel as if I am one of a few minorities on this blog. I understand the feeling of exclusion. The way I look, the clothes I choose to wear. I've been the only woman and black during g my 10 years in the Army and the additional 15 yeas of my current position. .

I feel as if this discussion is productive only if somone chooses to give there viewpoint. No one needs to justify how they feel. The point is that that person or group feels that way.

I may never understand the why but I would feel as if I can empathize in the feeling of exclusion. This is the difficulty our relatively young country faces.

Minorities have felt excluded sense this country was invaded ant taken over.

Native Americans until today (the Dakota pipeline is a prime example)

African Americans (stolen from our homeland and still displaced trying to make the best of difficult situations being shot down in cold blood on camera. While a home grown terrorist can murder 7 Afro-American in cold blood and live)

Now it's Muslims saying you cannot come into "our " country.

Some people don't get it. Feeling left out or segregated until it affects their way of life.

I feel as if There is a shift because the world is changing and now this change is resulting in Trump's of the world.

I say now others know exactly how minorities feel and have felt for 100's of years. I feel as if Change is what this country needs. As for me. I'm going to sit and watch the goings on of the next 4 years.

Statements that Trump has made about Chicago are "Alternative Facts". You are now a,world leader your voice has power. Yet you choose to tweet from the POTUS account about your daughter and nordstrom.

Who does this?

I have yet to hear you talk about the Tornadoes in New Orleans only the negatives. I want you to be a leader not a divider.

OK, so I've re-engaged myself in this discussion for a bit. I haven't read everything since I last posted, but:

Gaylene: I could never fully write off YLF as an unwelcoming place. Maybe the natural tendency is to feel like "You don't like A but I like A so you don't like me" and whether it's true or not, I think it's how some people feel.

I'm thankful that Angie has reminded us all to keep our comments respectful, constructive, and educational. I for one would never want the Off Topic section to be discontinued. And, like most of us I would assume, sometimes need to step back or step away for awhile for many different reasons.

JAlleen: I do like Trump but certainly not everything, and I don't care for Trump's pick for Secretary of Education. I think that the media misconstrues a lot of things, so I do need to do more research on her but so far I don't like what I'm seeing and hearing. I support parent choice: Private schools are great, homeschooling is great, but charter schools give me pause, and she's a big supporter of charter schools. I don't want to offend any charter school teachers as I know you are all fabulous. What I take issue with is the thought that (and this didn't come from Trump or her, but from a political commentator) we need charter schools since our inner city schools are failing because of the teachers. To this commentator (and Trump and Betsy DeVos if they feel this way) I say "Come do what I do for a day and then we'll talk." The inner city teachers I work with are some of the most hard working, dedicated, talented teachers I know, and we do it all under tremendous stress and pressure. We had a charter school in the city where I teach and it failed and closed, and the students came back to us.

I agree we should express our opinions with the same tact that we do when we talk about style.

To get back to our regularly scheduled programming:

Fashion and politics do intersect as do sports and politics. I was dumbfounded when I read that The Donald tweeted his outrage that Nordstrom dropped his daughter's line, supposedly making him late for a security briefing. What?!? No mention that it was dropped because IT stuff wasn't selling well, an argument that should make sense to a businessman.

Unlike LeBron James, Steph Curry, the Golden State Warrior's super star has avoided political statements. But he has one of Under Armour's biggest endorsement deals. The sports apparel company's CEO recently praised Pres. Trump, so Steph issued a statement taking issue with that. So did Misty Copeland. This type of thing is new to me. But so is the controversy engendered by #45.

OK guys, I am not good at the emotional stuff but I can give an example of one of the reasons Trump was voted in. People think he can run the government like he runs his companies. I believe he even thinks this. But it does not work that way. I live in California and remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was voted in because he promised to "blow up the boxes"? It could not happen because the state constitution would not allow it. He could not just get rid of an agency with the swipe of a pen. Trump is also a corporate person and does not understand the differences between how our government works and how a corporation works. Corporations work toward a bottom line, i.e.. profit. Government receives their money up front and the goal is to use up the allotted funds. Agencies are not allowed to carry over left over funds. Our federal and state constitutions do not allow it. Corporate laws are very cut and dry (mostly) but allow the heads of corporations to do what they want. There are many more laws affecting the actions of a government employee, and lets face it. Trump is now a government employee, whether he likes it or not. He does not have the leeway to do what he wants, hence the checks and balances and I imagine this is very frustrating for him and his supporters. He also has a steep learning curve which he most likely never expected. Do I agree with him? No. Do I think he is a bully? Yes. Did I vote for him? No. But as with any new president (or employee for that matter), only time will tell what ramifications he will have on this country and the world. Oh, and I was a child of the 60's and remember the Viet Nam War and Nixon fiascos like they were yesterday. We have been through this before.

Karie, thank you. I was genuinely curious as to your thoughts.

I know that people who supported Mrs. Clinton were very angry with the election results. I totally get that. The thing that surprises me is how angry some of the people who supported President Trump seem. Any perceived negative comment is met with such disdain and complaint that it seems more like something that should come from the side that lost. I have asked several acquaintances about this, saying, "Why are you so angry? Why are you calling me names? You WON. You got everything you wanted." I find it exceedingly curious. None of them have really acknowledged the anger that I see on display.
On another note, I think we are all sturdy enough on this forum to discuss many different things. I am not a believer, yet people who post outfits that they wore to church do not offend me. I am not triggered by shopping links, nor do I take offense at every mention of body type. But if I did, I would find a way to either ignore it, accept it, or move on.
For an introvert, that was pretty long. Sorry.

I'm in a bit of rush (although I've read the whole thread) and I just wanted to quickly say a few things, hopefully I'll have a chance to come back later.

Karie, I'm glad you are willing to engage and discuss and appreciate you sharing what concerns you about policy related to a cabinet post as well as what you might agree with. Teachers need support and most do the absolute best for their kids that they can (as a former teacher, I truly believe that). I hope that as a teacher you do make your voice heard to your elected officials should you so choose to. For example a bill has been introduced to abolish the Department of Education http://thehill.com/blogs/floor.....ment-of-ed (it's unclear if it will get far, but it's out of committee and in the current congress there may be support for it).

Ledonna - thank you, as always for sharing your truth, and your lived experience. I always really appreciate it when you do.

I sat in my parked car reading Vix's two articles, very interesting, heartening in some ways because with courage and reaching out minds can be changed, terrifying in others. They also echo what this Slate article that came out yesterday said: http://www.slate.com/articles/.....tionalism_ I would hope that folks regardless of who they voted for (or if they didn't) would consider reading it, because it's about policy. It's not about character, it's not about personality, it's not about liberal or conservative but about the collective priorities of some key figures who have a shared ideology and are writing policy in the white house.

In the last two weeks new Executive Orders and rollbacks of previous legislation have been happening with dizzying speed. These orders do not seem to have started by focusing on jobs or infrastructure, or putting America to work. Think about who they will hurt and are hurting, and what is the stated benefit, and does that presumed benefit stand up to fact-checking from multiple knowledgeable sources.

Also, here's another thing. Everybody wants their voice to be heard by their government. thousands of people in the street and jamming the congressional phone lines are embodying that wish, and that right.

But to me, there is one subset of voices that potentially has more leverage right now than during my lifetime (including Nixon) and that is people in the US who vote Republican and/or voted for this President. Here is the reason. So far Republican congressmen have not provided any substantive checks or balances on the executive. Polls may show that the country as a whole disapproves of certain things, but as long as their voting base does not push back by calling and writing them or visiting townhalls, they will not push back, they will not set limits, even if something is personally worrisome or distasteful to them or to those who voted them in.

So think about it. Think about how it is possible you may agree with certain policies or appointments, but not with others. Think about using your voice and setting limits.

I'm sure plenty of folks who voted for GW Bush didn't explicitly endorse the Rumsfeld/Cheney policies which led to the Iraq war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....an_Century but what if they had spoken up? What if they spoke up now?

My major concern right now is ego. It feels like Trump is more interested in being "right" than in uniting the country or even running the country. Indeed, it very much feels as though he has not given a second thought to trying to bring Americans together.

I was not a fan of W. However, despite the multitude of things he did wrong (from my POV), he at least tried to ignore what people said about him and govern. He made speeches that were obviously intended to unify - whether they actually achieved that goal is debatable, but he did try. Our current president seems more interested in winning Twitter beefs. He seems to take huge personal offense to the things people say about him. And while I cannot say I would not be offended if people said those things about me, it is not in his own interest or the interest of the country to have such a thin skin. W did not win the popular vote, either. What did he do about it? Nothing. Because that's exactly what he had to do - nothing. He won, and nothing was going to change the result, so to engage in any sort of argument about it would be counter productive. Trump instead chooses to try to present alternative facts to make it seem like he might have won the popular vote, which was childish, unnecessary and decidedly unpresidential.

He also seems to take pride in goading other countries. It looks as though he is trying to offend them to promote his tough-guy persona. From the POV of a mum with a 16 year old son, that seems dangerous and irresponsible. The POTUS must also be the diplomat in chief, and it so far appears that Trump is incapable of letting anything roll off his back or saying anything other than what pops into his head at the moment. That is DANGEROUS in the state of the world today.

It isn't a matter of being a poor loser. It is a matter of national security and the reputation of the US worldwide. I am genuinely concerned about where this election will lead us because I haven't seen anything remotely unifying or reassuring coming from the top political office in the land.

Karie, I really appreciate hearing your views on this.

And rabbit, so much love for what you just wrote. DItto Ledonna.

I wonder if Nordy-gate is partly bread and circuses, to distract the public from very serious questions about 1) 45's tax returns and 2) Russia. Well, no bread. Just circus.

I would not doubt it at all, flytigress.

Yes, thank you to Ledonna and rabbit. This is really such an amazing conversation. I'm learning so much from it.

Ledonna, yes to everything you wrote. Thank you for speaking the truth so well.

Thank you Ledonna, you wrote beautifully.

Karie, thanks for your expressions too - I identify with your comments re charter schools.

Thanks to everyone else who has contributed. I know it is hard and challenging to do so at times.

Thank you, Deb, for your reply. It makes good sense.

I'm off on a tangent again, but there have been times in my life when I've been with people who I agree with and yet felt alienated. I still felt 'attacked' and/or 'threatened.' Don't you think that's weird? Bite the hand that feeds, maybe. Or maybe it's a matter of where a person is taking it - like we agree but don't. Or mannerisms. It's just a curious thing to me.

Rachy, it is the psychology of this conversation and the world conversation that I find interesting. To me it is basically the same as the family disagreements we had at the dinner table when I was a kid. we all see from our own perspective and how it affects us personally. or the fear of the affect.

I have read this thread with interest, as someone living outside of the US I was reluctant to add my perspective but here's my tuppence worth.

Both sides of this debate must see Donald Trump is a controversial figure and, therefore, everything which carries the Trump name will be tarnished by controversy also.

It would be interesting to see the sales figures for the Ivanka Trump line, has the range been in decline for several seasons?

With regards to the current administration, for some Donald Trump is a figurehead for a worrying shift to the political right. For others he represents a shaking up of a capitalist system which has failed many.

Someone mentioned the middle class, the middle class are in a precarious position because their lives rely on their access to debt. The beautiful house, the mid range car, the holiday abroad can often be the result of secured and unsecured loans. It only takes job loss or illness for a default to occur and the whole illusion is shattered.

In the U.K. a large study conducted found that a significant number of households are only two pay cheques away from homelessness.

I am a lefty, socialist leaning woman who personally is a fearful of the Trump administration, however, I can see how and why he gained power.

I don't think it is fair to ask Trump supporters to explain their vote, that is not how democracy works. It deepens the divide when as a society we need to work together to tackle the issues at hand.

How have the worlds largest economies created a system so unequal the most vulnerable have become the scapegoat?

I think the view from the outside is most helpful. Thank you, Ruby! I think your summation is a good one, too. This is where we're at. And every direction seems to be quite dangerous. The vast majority are living close to edge if not right on it. I find each direction's threat to be different, but equally 'lethal'.

Ruby, excellent post. Re Ivanka's line, there's my next research - I'd like to see the sales figures over time too.

I've read a similar study about households, and it applies to the U.S. too.

I am much more on the conservative side, and there are things I like about Trump and things I don't.

Ruby and Karie thank you for your input.

I've read studies that say the Average American is only one paycheck away. Most people see the face of the American poor as people of color. When that is far from the truth. There is such a great division between the rich and the poor. Studies have also shown that the too 2% are richer than all of the people in America. There is an illusion of Middle class America. When it is truly only debt. Most American property is owned by Japan or foreign investors.

I've always felt that there should be term limits set for our congress men and women. They can be elected and re-elected until they literally die out. If the president can only serve 2 terms then so should others.

Only a certain demographic can afford to shop at nordstrom and of that only a certain amount can afford the trump line which is high end. Business is business but I also feel that no matter what the rich stay rich.

In the end we can Only wait and see what trump will.do.

Whatever your thoughts about 45, Kellyanne Conway's plug for his daughter's clothing line was an ethics violation.

On Thursday, February 9th, Kellyanne Conway told Fox News viewers to, “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff!” in response to retailers dropping Ms. Trump’s clothing line. This was not a casual plug; it was illegal. Federal ethics law 2635.702 prohibits the use of public office for private gain. It also states no employee of that public official may use the office to endorse a product, service or enterprise in which their friends, relatives or affiliates are involved. This law is an important check on executive power and it falls to the Congressional Oversight Committee to uphold it.

If you want to take action as a concerned citizen, here is how:

Here is an update on Nordstromgate:

http://www.teenvogue.com/story.....rump-tweet

I placed an order yesterday. ; )

You are right, flytigress. It is incontestable that this is an egregious ethics violation. It may be small in the larger scheme of all that's going on right now, but I'm going to call the number you provided to voice my opinion. Thank you.