That egoistic billionaire is trying to hand the other egoistic billionaire his second term for nothing but a narcissistical satisfaction. Just hit him where it hurts the most.
@SCC you never took the challenge to prove I’m Russian. I wonder why?
Because I truly don't give a hoot. As far as we are all concerned you are a troll who stinks up our threads without any useful contribution. Why you waste your time doing this is your concern not ours.
So, lets punish the people working at Starbucks because their ex CEO is running for President.
He is worth far, far more than Elon and Elon blew his nose at the $20,000,000 fine he had to pay. Do you really think Schultz is going to even notice you not buy a Grande.......?
Personally I think what he is planning to do is dangerous. Imagine another 4 years of Trump. Yes we need to attack him every which way.
I'm going to be sorry I waded into the sewer, but I can't help myself. Hate, anger, attack. I see this on both sides. Dem and Rep. Dysfunction at new levels. Camps forming on both sides. uber left and uber right with the majority of rational people in the middle.
I believe we may have reached a point where we will have 3rd party candidates running from both sides. Maybe Bloomberg breaks ranks with the dems and runs as an independent. Maybe Kasich breaks with the republicans and runs as an independent. Unfortunately I believe both parties dems and republicans have good people within them, but as a whole are captive puppets of big $. I personally believe a four person race that DEEPLY hurts/scares both parties would be a very healthy thing. Perhaps we could then stop shouting at each other and get back to talking to each other.
Anyone who believes that republicans are solely responsible for electing Trump are missing the bigger picture. Our democracy is showing signs of fracture. Civility, along with campaign finance reform, tort reform, lobbyist reform and.... Well, that is not going to happen until we have a shock to the political system. I therefore welcome Bloomberg, Kasich and anyone else to run as an independent to break this insane log jam we currently have.
"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.”
I don't see why the Dems freaked out about him running. Based on the stuff he has said, it would be very hard to find anyone who would vote for a Dem that would vote for him. He says getting rid of healthcare insurance by way of Medicare for all would be un-American.. And, of course he;s against a 70% marginal tax for income over $10M.
He prefers status quo with healthcare for profit and the middle-man insurance companies that profit from the transactions. Most people would call such a system immoral. He calls American pride. Yet Dems are afraid that he would take votes away from Dems, which says a lot more about Dems and their inability to stand for something, than Schultz.
@jjs. Don’t be sorry. Thanks for your input. We are a democracy and legally anyone can can stand. And we are all entitled to vote anyway we want. However the reality is that within the party structure it is very unlikely a 3rd party candidate will be elected. Since I have been in the US 3rd party candidates have been no more than spoilers. Arguably Ross Perot probably cost Bush the election against Clinton, Nader likely cost Gore the election against young Bush and arguably Green cost Hillary the election against Trump. Schultz claims to be a Democrat. If he is successful and he has money to fund himself he is more likely to harm the Dem candidate and help Trump. He will not win. If he wants to run then he should test his strength in the Democrat primary. While a Republican President with a Democrat house and Senate is tolerable and part of democracy another 4 years of this buffoon is not.
@Babyiocko. I think that he is likely to siphon off enough conservative Dems to potentially cost the Dems the election.
@SCCRENDO, if that is true, then the Dems won't deserve to win. "Conservative Dem," there should be no such thing. That is the problem with the Democratic Party. When you try to be everything to everybody, you are ultimately nothing to anybody.
If I were to run for president, I would run as an independent and Trump chances of winning would increase because I would take all the liberal votes away from the Dem candidate, Trump would get the deplorable votes, and the Dem candidate would take the leftover. That should be enough for the Dems to realize that the more liberal the candidate, the better chance of winning. But, they will NEVER figure this out. They will continue to push a "centrist," playing Republican-lite. This is what entirely pisses me off about the Democratic Party. They're just flat out stupid with strategy.
SCCRENDO - Bull Moose
The problem with Dems is they are not honest. They promise things that are not only impossible, they are unconstitutional. Some of it down right anti-American. They've become worse than socialist-fascist. People grow up and realize that. That's why Schultz is a threat. Many Dems who aren't batshiid crazy will see that. Just the idea that the DNC is trial ballooning Clinton and Biden shows you they've learned nothing. Harris? Do you really think a San Francisco leftist is going to appeal to the sane parts of the country? Look at the feces, drug needless, taxes, illegal immigration and traffic in California. Where's the cross party appeal? Think outside of the bubble you live in. Trump didn't win on fear. He won on fame, success and ideas that covered enough Electoral College votes. Dems can't win based on an anti-Trump free everything platform. In fact it's a core strategy for Trump to troll Dems precisely to isolate them from focusing attention on things people really want.
@babyjocko. Unfortunately I believe that to be the reality. Even though Hillary was a flawed candidate we would have been far better off with Hillary as president. Yet many Dems including Bernie supporters voted for Trump. We have a very broad field this time and hopefully we will field a more attractive candidate that can start on the left but also win over more centrist Dems, “independents” and disappointed Republicans. Unfortunately Howard Schultz if successful may win over enough of the latter groups to spoil the chances of the Dem candidate.
@jjs. I call BULL MOOSE on you.
Hillary a better President? That’s funny...
@Darth: You prefer a treasonous narcissist?
Are you guys serious?
You want to boycott Starbucks because this guy used to work there?
This David Horsey cartoon says everything you need to know about Shultz!
Uncle Paul, yep, it appears so. Though apparently it's because he is one of the largest shareholders of Starbucks stock.
"Guilt by association" vs by actually doing something wrong, is all it takes.
Yes as stated. Frankly there are better coffee houses than Starbucks. We need to do everything legal to hit him where it may hurt. He is the largest shareholder. In any battle there is collateral damage and I do feel for the workers but we feel the benefits outweigh the consequences.We are not trying to bankrupt Starbucks and fire workers but understand that some jobs could be lost. Very different from holding federal workers salaries hostage for a boondoggle wall.
@Darthamerica, oh my! Wouldn't want to live in YOUR "reality."
@SCCRENDO, I strongly disagree. Winning "centrist" votes is the WRONG strategy. Anybody who is torn between the GOP candidate vs the Dem candidate (in general) doesn't follow politics. IOW, they are stupid, not centrist. To win their vote requires appeal, not pander.
Instead, Dems should focus on the liberal base whom they have ignored for years as they seek corporate and special intrest money. The majority of this country is liberal. They just don't vote because they have been abandoned. A liberal candidate would win the Dem vote, bring out the liberals, AND the independent vote because the liberal message is really quite simple enough for even a caveman to understand.
"Are you guys serious?
You want to boycott Starbucks because this guy used to work there?"
@Uncle Paul, I really doubt anyone would boycott Starbucks over this. I boycott Starbucks because I'm not a coffee drinker and certainly wouldn't buy $5 coffee if I were.
@Jim He’s not treasonous. NOTHING he’s done is even remotely treason. Perhaps you need to look up the US Code defining treason before you make such a wild allegation. If he is treasonous then you have nothing to worry about because Mueller will uncover it if so and then Trump’s out.
Conspiring with a hostile foreign power to effect our election is treason. Rosenbergs were executed for collusion with russians.
I guess you don't deny he is a malignant narcissist?
There is no proof outside of deluded liberal minds that he “conspired” with a foreign power to “affect our election”. And if he did Mueller will say so and you have nothing to worry about in 2020. With regard to him being malignant, that’s another liberal delusion. You guys need to learn that a difference in political ideology does not mean a person is evil. That kind of thinking is how fascism starts, be warned. I agree he’s a narcissist and don’t care.
Make me laugh @Darth, your scumbag POTUS is a Russian Asset, and TRAITOR! Lots of people disagree with your worthless opinion. Time will tell, but I am betting he is a worthless TRAITOR!
@babyjjocko, totally agree with your post to @SCCRENDO.
Disgusting troll flagged.
RBG is one of best Justices ever on court, and is an inspiration. Don’t hold your breath on your wish troll.
"You guys need to learn that a difference in political ideology does not mean a person is evil"
This may be true in general. However, the GOP has gone way beyond ideology. Consider the GOP ideology before Trump. Then compare it with the GOP of today. As you can see, it is no longer an ideology. Instead, it's a tribal following. Moreover, only 1% of the people would genuinely adopt GOP ideology as that is their true voting base. The rest have been suckered by their demagoguery.
GOP candidates cannot get elected in this country based on logic. That's why they resort to demagoguery and Trump has been the biggest demagogue to date (actually, worldwide since Hitler). So, GOP voters really don't have much to argue with as they are, for the most part, simply sheep.
Regarding "centrist" vote, the only reason why Dems want centrist votes and assumes the independent voter is centrist is because the Democratic Party has become "centrist." Actually, based on a true sociopolitical scale, Dems have become the conservatives Republicans used to be pre-Reagan.
Since 1991, the sociopolitical spectrum has been shifting further and further towards the right. A true "centrist" would be called a left-wing radical today. Two main factors have caused this shift: 1) the gutting of unions that began with Regan's firing of air traffic controllers, and 2) the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine.
Dems used to get their funding from unions. But since Republicans successfully gutted unions, Dems have been getting their money from the same sources as the GOP: corporations and special interests. Doing so has caused the Dems to side with their donor's issues. The Dems try to claim that they are still for "the people." But, "the people" are not fools. They know they have been abandoned and no longer vote for Dems. So, the Dems strategy has been to pander to the undecided voters figuring they are "centrists" (between GOP and Dem's way of thinking). Yet, they are so wrong because undecided voters are not centrist (not even centrists by today's standards). Instead, they are ignorant to politics in general. They will vote for whoever makes them feel good.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to offer equal weight to political opinion. Few, if any, cared to keep track in lieu of getting fined by the FCC. So, there was no such thing as Talk Radio or Fox News. But, soon after the FD was abolished in 1991, Talk Radio sprung up everywhere and Fox News followed a few years later. Broadcast media, by far, has the biggest impact on cultural influence than anything else. The GOP has greatly used this to their advantage by influencing those who would have never considered voting for the party that caters to the top 1%. The poorest family in Bumbledock, Mississippi will vote GOP if for no other reason than Rush Limbaugh told them to. But, GOP also know how to use demagoguery to get votes. So, although every Republican may not be racist, every racist will likely vote Republican. That connection is there for a reason as are so many other issues based on fear and hatred.
So, what the Dems need to do, is stop being scared of liberal candidates who know to get their funding from the general public. Dems today put more effort into attacking liberal Dems than far-right Repubs. Just ask AOC, Tulsi Gabbard, and Bernie. Instead, Dems should embrace liberal candidates as that would be their best bet to winning every election – national and statewide. But, this likely won’t happen because the low hanging fruit is cooperate and special interest money. And, that who’s wagging the tail of the Democratic Party.
@Darth. Lots of evidence that you are a foreign disrupter. A member of the Fifth Column. There's nothing wrong with foreign commentators. But you have a mission. Undermining. You complain that no one took your bet about being Russian.
On the other hand, you haven't shown us your birth certificate the way your hero demanded. Bet you supported him in that dark alley. If not, you can disavow it here. You haven't shown us your keyboard with its foreign layout that causes you carelessly expose your anti-American bent.
@babyjocko. I am in full agreement that the Dems should chose leftist candidate. Many of them do have broad appeal. However if a centrist Dem /Republican like Schultz stands he may be attractive enough to peel off more conservative Dems and Republicans dissatisfied with Trump to hurt the Dam candidate. You seem to think that this will not matter. I disagree.
@SCCRENDO, based on the words that come out of Schultz' mouth, I suspect he may get <1% of Dem voter if the Dems were to nominate a progressive candidate the likes of Bernie, Gabbard, Warren. He would only be a threat to Dems if the Dems were to nominate the likes of Biden, Beto, Bloomberg, etc.
Apparently, based on the Dem's fear of such threat and based on current behavior, they will attack and marginalize their progressive candidates with the hope that a centrist candidate is left standing. If that happens, Dems will NOT win. I guarantee it! A centrist candidate has no attraction. Such a candidate is nothing more than a panderer who tries to please all people, talking from both sides of the mouth. This is why Hillary was seen as being insincere. It won't work. Yet, Dem's continue with status quo. But, that is because of their donor base: corporations and special interests.
If a progressive can survive the onslaught of propaganda attacks, which has already begun, that person will win. But, those attacks come from both sides: Dems and GOP. And, the majority of Americans are quite susceptible to propaganda as they are not educated enough about the candidates.
So if one side pulls extreme right, the other side has to pull extreme left?
@RedShift, apparently you haven't read the entire conversation and missed the part where I explained how the sociopolitical spectrum has shifted far to the right. A "centrist" of today would have been right of Nixon. Therefore, a centrist today is merely a Republican-lite and won't bring out the liberal vote, which is the largest base in the country, but has been abandoned by the establishment. Therefore, if Dems were to nominate a "centrist" candidate, the only candidate that would have an enthusiastic base would be the GOP candidate. The Dem candidate would get apathetic votes. The majority would stay home. So, essentially, the Dems are hoping that there will be more apathetic voters than enthused voters!
As I've said, this is due to bad strategy and the Dem's donor base: corporations and special interests that never would want a progressive president. So, they bombard the media with propaganda campaigns against progressive candidates. And, it works. The only way to defeat the propaganda is to know politics, know the candidates, know their source of funding, and know the real issues, all of which few Americans have a clue. Therefore, they are susceptible to the propaganda and don't even know it.
@SCCRENDO, BTW, apparently you don't follow the NBA. The Settle Supersonics no longer exist. The team moved to OK City in 2008 and became the OKC Thunder.
In theory corporations and wealthy people should not like progressive ideas. In reality they mostly do. That is pretty obvious from Silicon Valley companies to those so called coastal elites. They got where they are today because they have ability to accept new ideas. Not to mention they are educated and smart enough to know conservative rhetorics do them no good. Exeptions are mostly from those old money guys where to preserve status quo is the utmost goal.
I believe catering only to one side is repeating the folly of he enemy.
@carlk, I think you are conflating social ideology with politico-economic ideology. One who is socially progressive is open-minded towards human interaction and, when mixed with ingenuity, come up with great ideas to make life better. However, if such a person starts a corporation (especially in the US) to sell the realized idea, his fiduciary responsibility and concern (according to law and practice) would be to assure profit for the shareholders/venture capitalists.
Capitalism is to capitalize from the productivity of others. Profits and liabilities are directly improportionate. A major dichotomy would exist if the CEO of a corporation were to fulfill the desires of the employees and satisfy the shareholders at the same time. Therefore, corporations and the people who run them (regardless of them being in California or Mississippi) don't prefer progressive politicians, who are for the employees and can potentially apply regulations to corporate profits. It just doesn't mix.
As I've said, the Democratic Party is too open from progressives to conservatives. This may be due to the fact that the US only has two major political parties: one conservative, the other extremely conservative. So, there may be people who are considered "liberal" or progressive that head corporations. But, really? End the end, they will ALWAYS favor the money side, where conservatism prevails.
As an example, many consider Jeff Bezos as progressive? Why? Just because he donates to Dems. Corporate-owned Dems. He only raised the wages of his employees to $15/hr because he was bombarded by a Bernie-led campaign. Progressives can win small battles like this. In order to win bigger battles, more and bigger political offices are needed.
It's not just social ideology although you can't easily separate betwwen the two. Warrant Buffet for example has been advocating higher taxes for the weathy for a long while. If you look at the giving pledge it's like who's who of America's self made (and mostly liberal) billionaires. Preseving the wealth for their own future generations is NOT the purpose of why they are doing what they do.
@carlk, we may never know the true reasons why rich people are philanthropic. But, I would bet it is not always for altruistic reasons.
Warren Buffet, OK, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But, although he heads Berkshire Hathaway, it is essentially a holding company. He doesn't get involved with the proletariat side of things. OTHO, many other people on that list I can assure are assholes: Larry Ellison (may be the biggest asshole on the planet), Bloomberg, Icahn.
As I said, there's a difference between social ideology and politico-economic ideology. Yet, one affects the other.
BTW, for all who haven't yet done so, you may want to take the test at https://www.politicalcompass.org to see where you reside within the sociopolitical spectrum.
You and I may think money is everything but people with that kind of money will not benefit from it that much other than bragging rights. They might have a more important purpose of life than that. Even I would want to help people I don't even know as much as I can comfortably to do.
Just heard Mark Shields on PBS NewsHour comment Trump is the only president in US history who has never had a positive opinion poll personally or professionally and he needs a third party candidate to win the second term. It was also mentioned Ralph Nader definitely helped Bush to win Florida and the presidency. Don't take this too lightly unless you want Trump to be there after 2020.
People are all caught up in their team winning.
Don't forget that the American political process is designed to let all people have their say. There are eligibility requirements, and if you meet those requirements then you are encouraged and allowed to run.
This keeps just one or two entrenched political parties from having exclusive rights to put their favored people forward.
Telling someone not to run, because he may become a spoiler for your favorite guy or party is short sighted.
Even if the American economy is overall better off under Trump (not saying it is) many people would still want him taken out because he does not represent their own individual philosophy.
Radicals on each side will rarely get everything they want, but the system will slowly shift one way or the other as the winds shift.
@Uncle Paul We all understand the American Political system and everyone is free to vote their conscience or whatever. What @Carlk and myself are talking about is reality. While it is possible for a third party candidate to make it in this political environment it seems unlikely. Indeed the likelihood is that the 3rd party candidate is likely to be a spoiler. The Democratic Party as indeed the Republican Party has a broad umbrella. Trump succeeded because the Republican Party rallied behind him, Hillary was a poor candidate but also there were elements of the more liberal wing of the party did. not support her and indeed Bernie may have hurt her chances because I believe his endorsement was slow and reluctant. Last time my mistake was to support Hillary because I thought she was more electable and that was a mistake. This time I am certainly going to after the candidate that I align with and whoever wins I will then endorse even if they are more centrist. If Howard Shultz stands in the Dem primary and wins it I will strongly support him. But to go out of the party structure I am pretty sure he won't win but contrary to the opinion of others here I think he can seriously hurt the chances of the Democratic nominee. This is not an election to experiment because the consequences could be another 4 years of Trump.
Now on the rumor side. NBC is suggesting that the Russian trolls may be directing their support for Tulsi Gabbards. I guess we should see if Darth wants Tulsi to win the Dam primary
@Uncle Paul Everyone should be able to have his say but for someone doing things this significant he can't just brush away consequece of his actions.
As some mentioned he did own Supersonics and the ending is not too pleasant. Wealthy people do different things with their money but a lot of thme buy a sports team to satisfy the ego instead of for business reasons. When Shultz bought the team he insisted that he was trying to help a Seatle area team but the end result was just the opposite. Sounds familiar?
@SCCRENDO, Tulsi Gabbard is the biggest threat to the establishment on both GOP side and Dem side. The propaganda against her has started with a vengeance. Tulsi has the same agenda as Bernie and AOC. But, unlike Bernie and AOC, 99.9% of the population don't know where Tusli stands. So the establishment is taking advantage of her anonymity by getting a head start with a bombardment of propaganda to marginalize her. Otherwise, she would take the country by storm.
She would bring out and win the liberal votes, Dem votes, and believe it or not, Trump votes. Trump was able to win because he knew that typical GOP voters vote against their best interest and only do so because the GOP has gets them by demagoguing social issues. Trump went a step further by playing them on what they really want: better healthcare (which was a lie), better security (the wall, another lie), and tax cuts (another lie). This is why many previous Dem voters voted for him also. Come the day a sincere progressive candidate with a smooth delivery and persona (what Bernie lacked) comes on the scene, that candidate will win (unless the propaganda against that candidate wins first). That candidate is Tulsi Gabbard.
As I've said, RESEARCH the candidates. Don't let the news come to you because, for the most part, that news is BS. Go to the candidates' website to see how they stand on the issues.
I'll say it one more time. You guys are wasting your time on this Schulz thing. The only reason there would be to worry about and independent Schultz helping Trump win would be if the Dem's candidate is more to the right of Schultz. And, even as conservative and corporate as the establishment of the Dem party is, that would be extremely unlikely. I figure most Dem voters would vote for any Bush before they would vote for Schultz.