David:
January 15th was official National Hat Day. I've been watching the news this past week, and found myself continually chuckling over the idea that the left has chosen pink, crocheted hats with little ears know as "pussy hats" as their new fashion piece. How fitting and emblematic. I'll bet you look quite dashing in yours.
Doug:
Why thank you! I think everyone looks great in their pussy hat. I think you'll find that many do find it fitting and emblematic. Pink is the new black, and these aren't made in China.
David:
While over here on the right, guys like Reagan and Bush, and many men and women across central America, have traditionally identified with cowboy hats while they were out working on the ranch.
Doug:
And the red baseball hat while working out of their... boardroom? Somehow the red cap seems to not be so fitting nor emblematic for the billionaire. But, yes, if one wanted to play "dress up" like a regular human, a red baseball cap seems to a good choice from their marketing team.
David:
Actually, Trump's hats are golf hats, which he frequently wears on his many golf courses around the world. I believe the only hat Obama ever wore was the same golf hat.
What does the hat you choose to wear say about you?
Doug:
Nothing. But speaking of the Emoluments Clause, what do you think about that?
David:
You mean when the Clinton's accepted gifts when they were President and First Lady, and later when she was Senator? And then took these gifts with them when they left, along with White House dishes and furniture, presuming that they were personal gifts? And then they were forced to return them and pay for some items they kept? I think that scenario was exactly what that clause was supposed to prevent; Presidents, Senators, or Secretaries of State enriching themselves by their position.
Doug:
Exactly. I completely agree that we should look back to these precedents. But rather than an example from decades ago that was settled, I'm concerned with things that could happen tomorrow.
David:
Right. You don't care what the Clinton's did, even though you agree it was wrong. You're only concerned with what Trump might do.
Doug:
I am concerned with what Trump is doing. But I agree with you that if he is shown to break the clause, he should have to deal with the consequences.
David:
Because you think he should be held to a higher standard than previous presidents? I don't think reasonable people would claim that someone who owns a business cannot become President of the United States because of this clause. I assume you'd like to paint Trump as enriching himself by becoming President. Unfortunately for that argument, his business was well established before he became President, and will continue on as before without any change. His hotels don't generate business because he's the President. They generate money because they are hotels in places around the world where people need hotels.
Doug:
For many decades, the president-elect would sell off those businesses. For example, Jimmy Carter sold off his peanut farm. Carter was still investigated for 6 months because his brother was taking money from the farm that Jimmy no longer owned. I think it is pretty clear that this is exactly analogous to Trump's businesses. So I agree, reasonable people would expect that the president would sell these companies.
David:
Don't forget "Billy Beer".
If it's completely analogous, and nothing happened to Old Jimmy, then following your premise that we should not rehash the past, you can just drop your false outrage. Trump has put his children in charge of his business, and has made no efforts to capitalize on his amazing victory to enrich himself.
Doug:
How will we know if any action he takes benefits him or not?
David:
You seem to be saying that anything Trump does is going to be nefarious. Nice.
Unlike the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Global Initiative. We do know they generated funds that benefited themselves because the Clinton's had access and power. Yet you assume everything they did was only with the best of intentions. Now that they're out of power, the funds have dried up. Quid pro quo. Poor Bill will have to do without a million dollar gift for his birthday next year.
Doug:
I don't understand what you are talking about. Why is the Clinton Foundation relevant? Who is out of power? What funds? Who is quid pro quoing whom?
David:
You bring up the emoluments clause, and now appear to believe it only applies to Republicans.
Doug:
Why would you say that? I agree with those past actions on the Clintons and Carter. And those same rules should apply to Trump.
David:
But back to hats. First, whether you are a hat person or not, hats do not seem to have any impact on whether people like you or not. In fact, they don't seem to have any effect at all on how you are perceived. But that is not as it has been in the past, where your hat meant, well, everything.
John F. Kennedy may have actually destroyed the hat in America. He was famous for going bare headed, yet he, and many in the crowd, still wore traditional top hats at his inauguration.
Here is a fascinating article describing how your hat established your societal standing, and even the most subtle change of the tilt of your hat might mean success or failure in your job or social circles:
Hats On, Hats Off. Cultural studies review by Hughes.
Hats have less meaning today, but can occasionally elicit a reaction. Just try to wear a baseball cap with a Patriot's emblem around Indianapolis during football season.
Personally, I have about a half-dozen baseball caps, a cowboy hat, a fedora for rainy days, a few knit toboggan caps for winter, and a tricornered pirate hat and a derby from past Halloween ensembles.
Doug:
I guess you really want to talk about hats.
David:
I'm just looking to discuss things other than politics that help us explain how people perceive each other, and to help illustrate we are all more alike than different. In the same way that dog and cat people are really both pet people. We can all wear different hats, but underneath, we are all the same folks wearing the hats. The post-election time period, which you claimed was going to be a time of coming together (when you assumed Hillary would win) has become bitterly divided. Your friends in their pink hats staged a rather large and impressive march to protest, um, well, it appears it was just to protest they are still mad their candidate didn't win. The hats they were wearing became a part of the protest itself. Hats can be important. Trump's red, Make-America-Great-Again hats became emblematic of the entire Trump movement.
As it turns out, hats have played a very important role in defining world cultures and delineating caste systems and social orders in various segments of history. Now you know.
But if you'd rather grab at esoteric straws to try to delegitimize the President, we can do that as well.
Doug:
That is my choice: discuss hats or agree to your fake premise? No thanks.
David:
I can see this is going to be a long four years for you and your pink-hat friends. Your so upset even discussing hats comes back around to attacking Donald Trump. And he hasn't even been President Trump for a full week. Oh well....
January 15th was official National Hat Day. I've been watching the news this past week, and found myself continually chuckling over the idea that the left has chosen pink, crocheted hats with little ears know as "pussy hats" as their new fashion piece. How fitting and emblematic. I'll bet you look quite dashing in yours.
Doug:
Why thank you! I think everyone looks great in their pussy hat. I think you'll find that many do find it fitting and emblematic. Pink is the new black, and these aren't made in China.
David:
While over here on the right, guys like Reagan and Bush, and many men and women across central America, have traditionally identified with cowboy hats while they were out working on the ranch.
Doug:
And the red baseball hat while working out of their... boardroom? Somehow the red cap seems to not be so fitting nor emblematic for the billionaire. But, yes, if one wanted to play "dress up" like a regular human, a red baseball cap seems to a good choice from their marketing team.
David:
Actually, Trump's hats are golf hats, which he frequently wears on his many golf courses around the world. I believe the only hat Obama ever wore was the same golf hat.
What does the hat you choose to wear say about you?
Doug:
Nothing. But speaking of the Emoluments Clause, what do you think about that?
David:
You mean when the Clinton's accepted gifts when they were President and First Lady, and later when she was Senator? And then took these gifts with them when they left, along with White House dishes and furniture, presuming that they were personal gifts? And then they were forced to return them and pay for some items they kept? I think that scenario was exactly what that clause was supposed to prevent; Presidents, Senators, or Secretaries of State enriching themselves by their position.
Doug:
Exactly. I completely agree that we should look back to these precedents. But rather than an example from decades ago that was settled, I'm concerned with things that could happen tomorrow.
David:
Right. You don't care what the Clinton's did, even though you agree it was wrong. You're only concerned with what Trump might do.
Doug:
I am concerned with what Trump is doing. But I agree with you that if he is shown to break the clause, he should have to deal with the consequences.
David:
Because you think he should be held to a higher standard than previous presidents? I don't think reasonable people would claim that someone who owns a business cannot become President of the United States because of this clause. I assume you'd like to paint Trump as enriching himself by becoming President. Unfortunately for that argument, his business was well established before he became President, and will continue on as before without any change. His hotels don't generate business because he's the President. They generate money because they are hotels in places around the world where people need hotels.
Doug:
For many decades, the president-elect would sell off those businesses. For example, Jimmy Carter sold off his peanut farm. Carter was still investigated for 6 months because his brother was taking money from the farm that Jimmy no longer owned. I think it is pretty clear that this is exactly analogous to Trump's businesses. So I agree, reasonable people would expect that the president would sell these companies.
David:
Don't forget "Billy Beer".
If it's completely analogous, and nothing happened to Old Jimmy, then following your premise that we should not rehash the past, you can just drop your false outrage. Trump has put his children in charge of his business, and has made no efforts to capitalize on his amazing victory to enrich himself.
Doug:
How will we know if any action he takes benefits him or not?
David:
You seem to be saying that anything Trump does is going to be nefarious. Nice.
Unlike the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Global Initiative. We do know they generated funds that benefited themselves because the Clinton's had access and power. Yet you assume everything they did was only with the best of intentions. Now that they're out of power, the funds have dried up. Quid pro quo. Poor Bill will have to do without a million dollar gift for his birthday next year.
Doug:
I don't understand what you are talking about. Why is the Clinton Foundation relevant? Who is out of power? What funds? Who is quid pro quoing whom?
David:
You bring up the emoluments clause, and now appear to believe it only applies to Republicans.
Doug:
Why would you say that? I agree with those past actions on the Clintons and Carter. And those same rules should apply to Trump.
David:
But back to hats. First, whether you are a hat person or not, hats do not seem to have any impact on whether people like you or not. In fact, they don't seem to have any effect at all on how you are perceived. But that is not as it has been in the past, where your hat meant, well, everything.
John F. Kennedy may have actually destroyed the hat in America. He was famous for going bare headed, yet he, and many in the crowd, still wore traditional top hats at his inauguration.
 |
| JFK was the last president to wear a top hat at the inauguration |
Here is a fascinating article describing how your hat established your societal standing, and even the most subtle change of the tilt of your hat might mean success or failure in your job or social circles:
Hats On, Hats Off. Cultural studies review by Hughes.
Hats have less meaning today, but can occasionally elicit a reaction. Just try to wear a baseball cap with a Patriot's emblem around Indianapolis during football season.
Personally, I have about a half-dozen baseball caps, a cowboy hat, a fedora for rainy days, a few knit toboggan caps for winter, and a tricornered pirate hat and a derby from past Halloween ensembles.
Doug:
I guess you really want to talk about hats.
David:
I'm just looking to discuss things other than politics that help us explain how people perceive each other, and to help illustrate we are all more alike than different. In the same way that dog and cat people are really both pet people. We can all wear different hats, but underneath, we are all the same folks wearing the hats. The post-election time period, which you claimed was going to be a time of coming together (when you assumed Hillary would win) has become bitterly divided. Your friends in their pink hats staged a rather large and impressive march to protest, um, well, it appears it was just to protest they are still mad their candidate didn't win. The hats they were wearing became a part of the protest itself. Hats can be important. Trump's red, Make-America-Great-Again hats became emblematic of the entire Trump movement.
As it turns out, hats have played a very important role in defining world cultures and delineating caste systems and social orders in various segments of history. Now you know.
Even within a hat group, subtle variances in the way you tilted your hat, or the way you creased it could speak volumes. Take cowboy hats. Back in the heyday of the cowboy, the way the hat was creased said a lot about the person wearing it. You could take one look at a man’s hat, know he was a cattle-wrangler, was raised in Montana, or know what ranch he worked on. Many regions had their own custom way they would fold or crease their hat. Different races, occupations and sexes would also have a custom crease.
 |
| "Gus" hat, popularized in the Montana region |
But if you'd rather grab at esoteric straws to try to delegitimize the President, we can do that as well.
Doug:
That is my choice: discuss hats or agree to your fake premise? No thanks.
David:
I can see this is going to be a long four years for you and your pink-hat friends. Your so upset even discussing hats comes back around to attacking Donald Trump. And he hasn't even been President Trump for a full week. Oh well....
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!