skirtcafe.org

dillon wrote:[This is going to be a "hold your nose and vote" election [...]

Whichever one "wins" will only be a figurehead. Course will remain unchanged; speed will increase.

The US has seen its last renegade President in William Clinton, who had the stones to actually make some progress, and whom was summarily (if figuratively) cut down to size. His wife has seen the inside of the machine, how it works, and who runs it -- and as such, will not dare to move against it. She is the safe bet. If Trump (who put that "T" in there?) moves against the establishment in any manner, he can either be hamstrung the way that Clinton was or be assassinated. No more funny business.

[... the] deeply disturbed T-Party crowd (T for Theocracy) [...]

I thought the "T" in that was for "Taleban". ("What's the difference between 'our' Taleban and 'their' Taleban?" / "Ours wear ties.")

Given what the place has become, I'm leaning towards finding, and voting for, the candidate most likely to cause the final collapse the quickest. Sometimes putting something out of its misery quickly is the most humane thing to do.

My favorite scenario is that after Sanders loses the nomination, he scans the field of Congressional nominees, identifies those who most strongly support his views, and gives them his full support -- speeches, rallies, the whole ball of wax.

The objective is to produce a 49%-49%-2% House or Senate, which would give the 2% huge leverage.

Note that a 49%-49%-2% Presidential election doesn't have the same result, because if no one wins the election, the vote for to the House (as currently constituted) and they would certainly vote for the Republican candidate.

It worked for the Tea Party.

Caultron wrote:My favorite scenario is that after Sanders loses the nomination, he scans the field of Congressional nominees, identifies those who most strongly support his views, and gives them his full support -- speeches, rallies, the whole ball of wax.

The objective is to produce a 49%-49%-2% House or Senate, which would give the 2% huge leverage.

Note that a 49%-49%-2% Presidential election doesn't have the same result, because if no one wins the election, the vote for to the House (as currently constituted) and they would certainly vote for the Republican candidate.

It worked for the Tea Party.

Caultron wrote:My favorite scenario is that after Sanders loses the nomination, he scans the field of Congressional nominees, identifies those who most strongly support his views, and gives them his full support -- speeches, rallies, the whole ball of wax.

The objective is to produce a 49%-49%-2% House or Senate, which would give the 2% huge leverage.

Note that a 49%-49%-2% Presidential election doesn't have the same result, because if no one wins the election, the vote for to the House (as currently constituted) and they would certainly vote for the Republican candidate.

It worked for the Tea Party.

True the House elects (appoints) the President - the Senate elects the VP - "BUT" with the shenanigans that the Senate has pulled re: the Open Seat on the SCOTUS
this could all go up in smoke and a few elections swinging this in no certain favor one way of another. Going to be tough on DT he does not have universal backing
of his own party. Much could be said about Hillary but if the Democrats want to win anything at all Bernie best come to his senses and toe the party agenda uniting
the party to have a plausible win in retaining the White House and possible control of the Senate/
And quite possibly another case of the Popular vote being sabotaged by the Electoral College !

Kicking the Presidential election to the House actually makes things even more complicated than it sounds. The Constitution gives each state delegation 1 vote, so each state's delegation of representatives has to decide which way they want to go and they aren't required to do anything except vote any way they please.

The members of the Electoral College on the other hand ARE bound by laws of their respective states. Generally, the plurality of each state's determines which ticket that state's electors are bound to. A handful of states have adopted a proportional method of determining which ticket a given elector votes for. A few are toying with the idea of voting for whoever has won the national popular vote.

Is that every bit as clear as mud to our dear friends in other nations? If you said, "No, granite seems more apt," fear not, you're in great company; many Americans don't realize that strictly speaking they are not voting for a President but for Electors who do the job for them, state by state. Perhaps even more unbelievable, in the 200+ years since we have adopted the world's first written constitution, we haven't been able to come up with a better method.

After George W. Bush was elected, a comic stated that either your Queen or Parliament had decided since we had shown we were not competent to govern ourselves, you're revoking our independence. Does all this make you think that wit was on to something?

Btw, what is the distinction between England and Britain? Why is Elizabeth the Queen of Britain and not England? And why do so many of us have it so wrong? Ray?

At the risk of sounding egotistical, I've arrived at the conclusion there pretty much isn't a skirt that I don't look good in, which probably explains why I have some 60 skirts, and counting.

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:Kicking the Presidential election to the House actually makes things even more complicated than it sounds. The Constitution gives each state delegation 1 vote, so each state's delegation of representatives has to decide which way they want to go and they aren't required to do anything except vote any way they please.

The members of the Electoral College on the other hand ARE bound by laws of their respective states. Generally, the plurality of each state's determines which ticket that state's electors are bound to. A handful of states have adopted a proportional method of determining which ticket a given elector votes for. A few are toying with the idea of voting for whoever has won the national popular vote.

Is that every bit as clear as mud to our dear friends in other nations? If you said, "No, granite seems more apt," fear not, you're in great company; many Americans don't realize that strictly speaking they are not voting for a President but for Electors who do the job for them, state by state. Perhaps even more unbelievable, in the 200+ years since we have adopted the world's first written constitution, we haven't been able to come up with a better method.

After George W. Bush was elected, a comic stated that either your Queen or Parliament had decided since we had shown we were not competent to govern ourselves, you're revoking our independence. Does all this make you think that wit was on to something?

Btw, what is the distinction between England and Britain? Why is Elizabeth the Queen of Britain and not England? And why do so many of us have it so wrong? Ray?

What you've said is basically correct, but states do have variable laws covering the electors, who ultimately have the decision as to who will be President. Not all states have electors bound to the state's popular decision. The existence of the Electoral College basically stems from the lack of confidence that the Founders had in the intelligence of the common man, and the nervousness they had about their fledgling democracy undoing itself democratically. We tend to think our votes matter, but, as the old song goes, "It Ain't Necessarily So..."

Further, an elector can violate the laws and be punished for doing so, but that does not necessarily negate his vote, once cast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

So, is the Electoral College a good idea or just a means of usurping the will of the people? Thus far, it hasn't been used maliciously, though 2000 was an election that was arguably stolen by the SCOTUS. However, the Gore Campaign had asked only for recounts in Dade and a couple other Florida counties. It turns out those alone would not have made the difference, but poor election administration was so pervasive in Florida that, had the whole state's votes been recounted as journalists investigating the matter later did, Gore would have been the winner.

I have heard it argued that the best government is benevolent dictatorship...

This is an interesting take on the entire democratic process. I think you will find this piece well worth reading. It is an impressive work in its clarity and considerations:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... trump.html

Gentlemen,

Thanks for keeping the discussion on societal mechanics and politics civil -- thank you VERY MUCH, for that matter -- but can we please move it to the "Off Topic" section?

I'm not trying to throttle discussion, but this doesn't really belong in "cannot stop the skirts" unless there's a subtext I'm too dense to grasp.

Merci.

crfriend wrote:Gentlemen,

Thanks for keeping the discussion on societal mechanics and politics civil -- thank you VERY MUCH, for that matter -- but can we please move it to the "Off Topic" section?

I'm not trying to throttle discussion, but this doesn't really belong in "cannot stop the skirts" unless there's a subtext I'm too dense to grasp.

Merci.

You may presume too much in thinking that I am aware of the topic to which I am responding, lol. And isn't that the moderators' job? To put things where they belong? Also, didn't one of the mods, who shall be unnamed, contribute a couple posts which did not pertain to the stated subject of the thread?

Yes, yes, yes, PLEASE get all the political talk into the off-topic section. It is annoying when perfectly good topics, like skirt addiction, get hijacked in a LONG series of posts. I'm as scared as anyone about Trump, but let's keep this section limited to the world of freestyle fashion.

Just to finish this section our Queen's official title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Great Britain, or just Britain is comprised of the three countries comprising the main island- England, Scotland and Wales, although if you ask most Brits then they would say that Britain includes Northern Ireland but seen from her title it doesn't.

To bring this back to theme, my son has his children up for the holidays so my skirt wearing is curtailed for a few days but I will get back to wearing them. Haven't managed to get on with my statement that I would wear a skirt to work but whilst at work yet because MOH has been at home and I've not had chance.

Sinned wrote:Just to finish this section our Queen's official title is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Great Britain, or just Britain is comprised of the three countries comprising the main island- England, Scotland and Wales, although if you ask most Brits then they would say that Britain includes Northern Ireland but seen from her title it doesn't.

To bring this back to theme, my son has his children up for the holidays so my skirt wearing is curtailed for a few days but I will get back to wearing them. Haven't managed to get on with my statement that I would wear a skirt to work but whilst at work yet because MOH has been at home and I've not had chance.

After Half Term, just put on a smart pencil skirt (black or grey) and set off to work. Medium denier tights may still be needed if the weather is as crap as today's Is your employer okay with you wearing a skirt to their premises? Perhaps a cargo skirt would suffice if it is not a formal office environment. Just a simple skirt you can wear and get on with the rest of the day. Sometimes in life you just have to be defiant what's the worst that could happen?

kilty wrote: Sometimes in life you just have to be defiant what's the worst that could happen?

The worst? Unemployment, though the law may protect you more on the east side of the Atlantic. For me, I've just worn a skirt to work about once a month since last summer with only a comment or two the first time.

I think my employer may be tolerant of my wearing a skirt to work although I have told them it is most unlikely I would do so as there is too much bending down to low shelves or going up and down ladders for me to be comfortable wearing one in employ. I have worn a skirt whilst at work on a charity day and to out of hours meetings and I have not been shy about my proclivity. I think that they just tolerate me. Having suffered a year of unemployment recently I know what it is like and it's not pleasant. I'm not overly happy in my current role and am looking around for something else but any job, unless really, viciously unpleasant is better than none at all.

One thing that I have noticed since it was outed at work that I wear skirts on my own time, is the discussions I've had with those who know seem to universally acknowledge that there is indeed a "double standard" in regards to work place attire. Perhaps with the gradual erosion of hard nose gender roles in this country, the day may soon come when a man wearing a skirt in a work setting appropriate for such will not result in termination. It's not so far fetched, just a few decades ago, men having long hair was a not allowed at many places of employment. Now I see it almost everywhere. Even at my own place of employment, while a very few (two to be precise) seemed to have an negative issue with my hair growing out, many spoke positively about it, almost with a tone of encouragement.

And when I cut it last month, many people in the stores seemed almost disappointed.

I think on the all, most people, even in this neck of the woods tend to be accepting of what we do, provided we're not hurting anyone or being overly obnoxious about it. I'd be willing to bet that if a man wanted to wear a skirt at the store level, a great majority of the store associates wouldn't have a problem with it, however it's the small minority you have to worry about, the narcs that like to cause trouble and make a fuss about anything that doesn't fit their world view.

And unfortunately, our nation has a bad habit of pandering to right wing religious zealots who are in the minority. I lived through that personally. In all my time wearing some downright flamboyant skirts, virtually EVERYONE in the stores treated me well, just like any other day. When I outed myself on facebook, virtually EVERYBODY who called me was at least tolerant if not supportive. It wasn't until ONE PERSON had a problem with it[0], then the sh!t hit the fan.

All it takes is one person... When that one person complains, the only thing protecting you is law, and in Virginia, there is no law protecting men who wear skirts. We can indeed be fired simply for wearing a skirt on OR off the clock. They CAN cite that as the "official reason", and it would hold up in court.

Land of the free indeed. Until prejudice is eliminated in this country, we will NEVER be free! Not even close!

[0] Yes that one person who I can't know for sure because he remained anonymous, but I believe he was also one of the ones that took issue with my long hair.

moonshadow wrote: Land of the free indeed. Until prejudice is eliminated in this country, we will NEVER be free! Not even close!

I am often accused of being an undying pessimist, and my nickname is Eeyore, but I consider myself a realist. In that vein, I have to say that we will never get to the point where prejudice is eliminated. It's just too much a part of human nature; it's bred into us by millions of years of evolution to be suspicious of anything that our little brain perceives as "different".

That said, I think that the goal for those of us who wear skirts is (a) to make it less "different", and (b) to cope with the prejudice.

The more men wear skirts, the more common it will be. Long hair for men is a good example. Years ago it was uncommon and people noticed because it was "different". These days, maybe people still notice, but it's more along the lines of noticing hair color or style. The level of prejudice against men with long hair is much lower. Not zero, but much lower.

As for coping with it, the attitude I've observed in this group is to just be confident, be yourself, and accept that some small fraction of the population will have an issue. But most people will be either neutral or positive.