Ruby said, "For others he represents a shaking up of a capitalist system which has failed many."

Unfortunately, that is not what he actually is. This administration's version of "capitalist shakeup" is to hasten it in precisely the wrong direction and give more power to corporations. Pretty much every nomination to a government post has been a wealthy capitalist who has a proven record of hostility toward the agency he or she was chosen to lead, and they are almost all completely unqualified for their positions. They are not there to govern but to loot and destroy. This is not a solution to a capitalist system that has failed many but a guarantee that it will fail many more.

I'll add that little of this machination is really his. It's clear that he's being run by a right-wing machine that has been putting these plans together for decades and only needed a figurehead to fall into place for it to start tearing down the institutions that protect us from corporate greed.

Edited to add: They have lost no time in trying to sell off our national resources to corporate interests, for example. This page, for instance, highlights only a few facets of their coordinated assault on the environment.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com.....2323415689

This hasn't much to do with opinion or or a statement of political tastes. This is about what they are actually doing. It is part of what some of us hoped to prevent.

Sorry not to be making any attempt to moderate this runaway thread. I'm in a theater production for the next couple of weeks, so have very little free time. (Actually -- if we do start a separate section on Politics and Fashion, I'll post about the play there. It's a piece about islamophobia and western perceptions of the hijab -- very interesting in terms of gender, culture, dress, and signalling...)

That said, I am slowly working my way through the last 7 pages of comments. I am amazed by the breadth and depth of the commentary coming from all sides here. And as far as I can tell, on the whole, this has been a markedly civil thread compared to much of what I see online these days.

I'm a political theorist and a teacher by trade, and I tend to avoid framing things in terms of partisan politics because it's an inherently narrow lens. I very explicitly did not start this thread as a "Yay Nordstrom, Boo Trump" thread, or vice versa. If anything, my stance would be, "Yay, consumers acting on their beliefs and having an impact." And to be fair, the conservative side has had its share of boycotts too (remember the whole Lands End/Gloria Steinem uproar a few years ago?), so it's not like this sort of consumer action can be characterized as exclusive to the left.

I think many conservatives were quick to read Nordstrom's decision as a political gesture, and I think many liberals saw it as an heroic one. I think neither is the case. Nordstrom is a business, they made an economic decision to separate from a line that has become increasingly controversial and therefore less lucrative. Neiman Marcus, Belk, and others are making similar decisions. From a business perspective, their actions make sense to me.

Now, the recent developments with Trump publicly attacking Nordstrom's decision and Conway appearing on TV and encouraging people to purchase IT brand items? This I find more interesting, less clearcut, and somewhat problematic -- because Trump and his team are ethically obligated to be financially disinterested in the Trump brand(s) as long as he's an elected official and public servant. As a politician, every. single. comment. he. makes. is political. Whether he likes it or not, whether he intends it or not.

This new slew of attacks on Nordstrom doesn't make much sense to me, from either a political or an economic standpoint (and it's pretty clear that we won't be able to treat politics and economics as separate spheres for the foreseeable future, not that they ever truly are). What is the political gain for Trump? Deepening the cultural divide to consolidate his target demographics? Greater outrage as a smokescreen to distract the public? Distract from what?

And what are the economic gains? Will a few scathing words directed at these retailers save his daughter's brand? It caused a brief dip in Nordstrom's stock, but will there be long term ramifications? Or is the point a show of strength? As a reminder to other companies that there will be repercussions if they act in ways that are not compatible with the goals of the President and his family? I honestly don't know the answers here, but it does seem worth thinking about.

Trump just appeared with Abe on tv. Trump looks like Dubya did... like he just met the true master of the world and it's depressing...

I agree with La Pedestrienne that the decisions of businesses (unless there is a public statement from a CEO about a political issue which happens from time to time) is most likely a simple response to sales levels and an avoidance of controversy. Nordstrom has said as much. TJ Maxx for example recently mixed the Ivanka line items in with other clothes rather than having a separate section with signs. Sales levels can potentially respond to social media calls for boycotting behavior (as the brief dump Uber call which led to changes by the CEO), but it doesn't even necessarily have to be something the consumer is made aware of. Consumers may just see the name and have their own individual conscious or subconscious reactions which affects their buying patterns. I also agree that the reactions of the administration after news reports about Nordstrom might cause more harm than good to Ivanka's brand performance, ethics and illegality issues aside.

One little thing on calling representatives. Everything I've read lately by members of Congress and Congressional aides urges folks only to call their own elected officials. The reason for this is that the DC and local offices are only beholden to constituents and discount outside calls. Also in times of high call volume (particularly in the Senate right now it's historic how busy the phones are) it prevents constituents, who's voices do count, from getting through with the same messages. Also certain members of congress are using outside calls as an excuse to blame high call volume totally on people outside their state, not 'real' voters, even if a lot of constituents are calling as well. Luckily there are offices for the committees that congresspeople head, so you can call those numbers directly if you are out of state but interested in pushing those on a committee to take action. Here's the contact page with phone for the Dems on the House Oversight Committee: https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/contact

LaPed, what an interesting and nuanced analysis -- thank you.

Ledonna, yes we are a country whose debt is out of control. Middle class America is a middle class in a debt crisis.

Who said Nordygate? I'd have to look back, I forget. Love it.

LaPedestrienne, I agree with you re Nordstrom's decision and the way it is viewed by conservatives and liberals. I still think it was largely a political gesture, though.

LaPedestrienne, can you post about your play in off topic? I'd love to read about it. We have many Muslim families in the district where I teach.

Some market research sales statistics over time on IT's line, not just from Nordstrom, but other retailers as well.

"According to market research firm Slice Intelligence, online sales for the first daughter’s line of apparel, accessories and shoes dipped 26 percent in January 2017 relative to the same month last year. (Slice Intelligence analyzed data from a panel of 4.4 million online shoppers.)

What’s more, the company found that Ivanka’s brand experienced sales declines across all online merchants in the back half of 2016. Specifically, sales declined 31 percent at Amazon, 63 percent at Nordstrom Inc. and 43 percent at Zappos in the fourth quarter of 2016. (Slice measured the data using calendar quarters, not fiscal quarters.)"

http://footwearnews.com/2017/b.....ction-pres

Operation Ivanka

Claudia, those are very interesting and compelling numbers indeed. Large retailers really are motivated by the bottom line, and it's been clear to most observers that her stuff is not selling. I was flipping through the racks at Marshalls or TJM one day and a woman near me started to pull something out, muttered "oh no, Ivanka Trump" and put it back on the rack, and I knew exactly what she meant. IT is an attractive woman, and I believe the smartest of the bunch, but I personally don't care to contribute to any of the family's businesses. Clearly I have lots of company. We are all free to vote with our wallets when it comes to what businesses we support, and that's true whether it's IT, Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, American Apparel, etc. I begrudge no one for choosing according to their values in our supposed free market society. To have a president's spokesperson actively needle people to do otherwise is unacceptable. And illegal.

This is interesting: Joe Biden's daughter is launching a clothing brand that will benefit underserved American zip codes, and the clothing will actually be MADE in the USA. She is a social worker.

http://www.teenvogue.com/story.....?mbid=soci

Trump does need to be careful about what he says. I also think the media blows things out of proportion, but that's a whole different topic. I read the same sales figures but couldn't find any from before her father became a presidential candidate. Probably her sales declined more because of her father and less because people actually didn't like her clothes. Since people are walking into stores, seeing her items and saying "Oh no, IT" I would think retailers would want to rid themselves of her brand, even though there are people like me, obviously in he minority, who will not applaud them for it. Perhaps it started with that name association and the declining sales were the icing on the cake. I still think Nordstrom's statement that their decision was solely based on sales figures is a false one. I also tried to find information on other brands with similar declining sales to see if Nordstrom plans to stop carrying them as well, but I didn't come up with anything.

I think the reason for declining sales is often irrelevant to retailers. It's a brutal business. For whatever reason, if a line is not selling, they're going to discount it, unload it, and stop carrying it.

Frankly, if IT was really that concerned about that particular business, perhaps she could have distanced herself from her father's candidacy rather than be a prominent spokesperson. It is disingenuous to suggest that she couldn't have foreseen this kind of reaction, considering the strong opposition to her father's campaign messages and behaviors. She made her decision, for better or for worse, and is now experiencing the consequences. That's the free market for you.

I'm sure politics isn't helping Ivanka's business (and I agree with Janet that she could have handled things differently). But if you go to sites like amazon and Zappos and read reviews from over a year ago, you will still find plenty of apolitical, negative reviews of her products.

I agree with you, Janet. Public opinion is fickle, and retail too competitive an enterprise to continue stocking brands which fall from favor. Associating a brand with a celebrity name has always been a tricky business.

Ivanka Trump made a business decision to highlight the Trump name when labeling her brand. That decision worked in her favor until, to many people, the negative associations of the Trump name outweighed any positive ones. It will be interesting to see if the Trump-emblazoned hotels suffer a similar fate, especially those located in other countries.

La Pedestrienne, have you read Walled States, Waning Sovereignty? I'm not sure what your area of PT is, but Brown's book offers an interesting thesis, if you're in need of reading material.

LisaP, I loved your line re: the bottom of the tax return. Very true.

The cases of Obama vs. HRC in the primaries, and Trump vs. HRC in the election, confirm existing research that people like who they like, and then use facts selectively to support their preference. I had the impression then, and have that impression now, after speaking with a few very intelligent, well-connected people I know who voted for T. Something I learned during my first MA--you can't disprove a good conspiracy.

Well, I have to agree the media is a problem. We don't have news, we have infotainment. If the media was doing its job, they would have known how strong Trump's campaign was and that Hillary was unelectable. An individual story can be rigorously researched, but that's only half the story so to speak. What you pay attention to, what stories you greenlight to work on - that's the other half. In this day and age, you can't pick one channel and watch it and believe it. They're just another bunch of organizations whose activity you have to monitor.

Nordstrom dropped other lines, discontinued other partnerships, but they weren't entertaining like dropping the IT line. No one picked up those press releases.

Although, one does have to watch what the Trump companies are doing. Businesses don't have the rule of law; they rule through the law. It's a tool of their will; it doesn't shape it. In its historical conception, a company could only exist as a corporation for a limited amount of time. We should go back to that, because companies are not people. To say the company did it, not me, is false.

Oh and let's not forget the Democratic Party shoved Hillary down the throats of its members, stonewalling Bernie Sanders - and the media did too. It's unfathomable to me why she was more important than the platform. It's unfathomable to me period. Did they want to lose? What do they gain by losing?

My cousin, a politico - I asked her about it. Well, I had to preface it with an 'I told you so.' And she said, 'I didn't realize how deep the loathing ran.' Her husband thinks the electoral college should go. One thing my cousin and I agree on is that it shouldn't. If citified people make all the calls, we'll starve to death in the dark. We don't learn how to DO anything.

Found at my local Marshalls while baby shopping for little nugget.

Most of the stuff was marked under $2.00 at the sales rack.

Making America Great Again while made in China. Some of the stuff looked cheap with mediocre fabrics.

Rachy, I completely agree with every word of your last two posts.

I don't think the electoral college should disappear, but I do think there is some serious need for fixing the out of control gerrymandering.

I'm against both political parties right now. I hold the DNC as responsible for the state of affairs as I do the RNC. I think both parties are more interested in maintaining their co-rulership than they are in doing the right thing. It's party first, America second (if even) and I'm appalled by that.

We, the people, used to hold differing opinions on things, but we agreed on the facts of a matter and we had respected fact sources and experts we mostly all trusted. That's no longer the case. We can't even agree on the most basic of facts anymore. There's no moving forward from there.

Even with the sales data to support them, the people who don't want to believe that Nordstrom's decision was not political will not believe it. As in the election, facts don't matter; or, rather, alternative facts do.

As others have said, fashion retailing is cut-throat. Stores cannot afford to give leeway to brands that aren't selling. There have likely been many brands in the past that retailers dropped, but because they were not in the news, no one noticed. No one claimed it was personal or political. It is what it is, and when it comes time to make buying decisions, a store will do what it thinks is best for its bottom line. Other stores continue to carry the IT line, so those who support it can continue to purchase it. Those who do not can purchase from stores who do not carry it. That's what the free market allows; I don't see why it's controversial.

I do wish there was a "like" button here. Many others have made such good comments that I agree with and feel that I cannot add anything valuable to, but the only way for me to say so is by taking up space to actually say so.

I think the media has changed as the web expanded. An individual can read the news on their phone now. I look back at Franklin D Roosevelt and the public, at least the majority of it, did not know he was in a wheelchair. They also did not have access to live streaming of congress. Technology has changed how the political train runs down the track, for better or worse. I can remember in the 50's my dad complaining about the newspapers and would only real one in our city because he viewed the other as too liberal. Now, very few read newspapers.

I stopped reading the SF Chronicle when it went to the web. Their web was nothing but a collection of bloggers on rants. There was no news. I feel the paper followed suit. Very little data. Little historical memory to give context. Felt it was like people yelling at a horse race. Don't trust the NYT much anymore... none of them really.

Amen to everything you said, Rachylou.

@Karie et al...the sales slide was huge, and ran counter to the increases the total store....

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/11.....et-journal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/s.....ast-year-1

Rachy, I have to disagree. NYT is excellent. SFChron is not very good, though.

Just read that Kmart and Sears dumped the Trumps line.

I agree with Aileen. I "trust" some sources like NYT, but that doesn't mean I always agree with their interpretations or their opinion pieces.

My trust is based on that paper's commitment to research, fact checking and citing sources, providing credentials for the "experts" they consult, providing and verifying evidence to support their "facts", acknowledging what is still unclear or unknown, and clearly distinguishing between opinion pieces and news stories.

I also "trust" other sources who commit to following the same principles, like the BBC, Reuters, and the Economist. If several of my "trusted" sources report the same event and draw similar interpretations, I feel more confident in forming my own opinions.

I DON'T trust media sources which use inflammatory language, refuse to distinguish fact from opinion, rely on a limited group of "experts" or research to support their conclusions, or which expect me to buy into their perspective without checking other sources. I read, but with a skeptical eye, media which depends on funding from advocacy groups, think tanks, and/or a few wealthy backers. I'm amused by Twitter and Facebook news, and articles and information presented in forums (yes, even YLF!), but I don't "trust" it until I've done my own research.

Can you tell it bothers me when I read comments like "you can't trust the media"?

That's a good way to be Gaylene, I also try to read articles from an alternative editorial viewpoint.

I gravitate towards the Guardian because it reinforces my point of view, however, I do not wish to be too comfortable so I counterbalance my reading with articles from the more conservative Telegraph.

I find NYT's editing poor. I don't mean punctuation, but rate of retraction.

They've beefed up the role of their ombudsman, which probably has to do with their rate of retraction, but it was after they got caught as being rife with outright journalistic fraud ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Nor......reporter/ )

I don't know of any other paper in a situation like that, quite honestly. The scandal explosion was awhile ago, but it's really hard to root out problems like that in a corporate culture, esp when aspiring journalists see it as the big prize. It's like landing a job at Goldman Sachs. It's not as if Wall St or the big banks have been cleaned up yet either. Look at Wells Fargo, I mean.

Let's be clear tho about who's not in the running at all for being called a news organization: FB and Breitbart