Forum Thread

Howard Schultz

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 12 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Howard Schultz just announced that he is thinking about running for president as an independent. My advice to him would be "DON'T DO IT!"

    Schultz is a great guy, and a great businessman, but his candidacy would not do any of us any good.

    In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent, and captured 18.97% of the popular vote, the highest independent percentage registered since Teddy ran on the Bull Moose ticket. In the 1992 race, Clinton got 43% of the vote, Bush 41 got 37.4%, and Perot got 18.97. The Clinton campaign estimates that the Perot candidacy cost them 7% points.

    Ever since then, all the presidential races have been very close, and a swing of 7% would have changed the outcome of ALL of them.

    In 2000, George W. got 47.9% of the vote, but squeaked out an electoral college victory by ONE POINT. Roughly 500 votes in Florida cost Gore the presidency, and a later count by independent sources found that Bush has actually LOST the popular vote in Florida.

    In 2004, Bush got 50.7 % of the vote.

    In 2008, Obama got 52.9% of the vote, but a healthy 365 electoral votes.

    In 2012, Obama captured 51.5% of the vote, and his electoral votes dropped to 332

    In 2016, Trump got 46.1% of the vote (a difference of 3,000,000 voters) but managed to get 304 electoral votes due to the dirty tricks used by his campaign and the Russians.

    Success in business does not necessarily transfer to success in politics.

    Abe Lincoln is considered to be our greatest president, but he was a lousy businessman.

    Warren Harding was a successful businessman (he saved the Marion Star, a failing Ohio newspaper) but was one of our worst presidents.

    George W. Bush was a moderately successful businessman, due to some of his connections, but a poor president.

    Obama has NO business experience at all, but is one of our best presidents.

    Trump is a terrible businessman, and a terrible president.

    Schultz might actually be an asset in government someplace, possibly in a cabinet position, but I'd prefer that he did not run as president.

    Here is a link to Howard Schultz's books:

    https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=howard+schultz

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    A billionaire that could care less how electing Trump would hurt the country and most of the people.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Another out of touch rich business person wants to be in charge of our nuclear codes? What can possibly go wrong?!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I also wouldn't put Schultz up on a pedestal. Peel back a few layers of his onion and he's just like every other billionaire who is convinced their shit doesn't stink.

    Think he's a man who cares about his workers? Think again. After he purchased the Seattle Supersonics in the 90's he gave every worker in the organization a $3 gift card to Starbucks. Back then the lowest gift card amount was $5.

    Think about that for a second.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    Success in business does not necessarily transfer to success in politics.

    Abe Lincoln is considered to be our greatest president, but he was a lousy businessman.

    Warren Harding was a successful businessman (he saved the Marion Star, a failing Ohio newspaper) but was one of our worst presidents.

    George W. Bush was a moderately successful businessman, due to some of his connections, but a poor president.

    Obama has NO business experience at all, but is one of our best presidents.

    Trump is a terrible businessman, and a terrible president.

    There is a reason success in business almost never translates into a successful presidency. I have mentioned this before, but a CEO of a company that has spent his/her entire life making that company profitable has lived by a simple mission statement that calls for "maximizing shareholder value", and often ignoring stakeholders.

    The Preamble to the United States Constitution, on the other hand, calls for amongst other things, "promoting the general welfare".

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

    The two opposing principles require two different mindsets and worldviews. Therefore, a successful business CEO cannot easily"change his brain" to think differently -- to providing for the general welfare for "we the People" rather than "maximizing shareholder value".

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    WH: "Somebody get Nader on the phone A-SAP. Putin is willing to give him a blank check"
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Typical American; they think here if you are "rich" then you are also "smart". Like with Trump; he got it all from his daddy and is not smart at all. But yeah Americans don't think farther then the length of their noses as they say in Holland.

    Neither do they think here that the "system" of elections is "corrupted" by the "rich" In any "normal" country only "votes" should count not the manipulation by the rich. It should be such that the rich should have the same rules as everyone else only their personal vote should count, not their money, power, or influence. Amen.

    Furthermore the outdated "election system" is at fault; it is absolutely asking for corruption. As everything in this country. Yes the truth hurts.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    We've discussed this before, but I'll say it again and again. If we complain about government, then we should look in the mirror and ask what we have done individually to make things better. Number One of course is to educate ourselves on the issues and vote intelligently. Poll after poll in the last 40 years have largely favored the Democrats on the issues, but when we take our democracy for granted and are too lazy to vote or too ideologically opposed to a Democrat candidate who doesn't pass our purity test, well then we elect Republicans.

    When I look back at past elections and think about how things could have been so different had we not elected Ronald Reagan, or the two Bushes, or Trump, I lament the fact that if only Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, none of these tax and spend policies favoring the rich would be in force...and we would have a Supreme Court make-up that included more liberal justices. Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for starters would not be there, and we would not have so many 5-4 rulings favoring the rich and religious nuts.

    The billionaire Howard Schultz proposed policies seem to favor the rich. He is a DINO.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    We've discussed this before, but I'll say it again and again. If we complain about government, then we should look in the mirror and ask what we have done individually to make things better. Number One of course is to educate ourselves on the issues and vote intelligently. Poll after poll in the last 40 years have largely favored the Democrats on the issues, but when we take our democracy for granted and are too lazy to vote or too ideologically opposed to a Democrat candidate who doesn't pass our purity test, well then we elect Republicans.

    When I look back at past elections and think about how things could have been so different had we not elected Ronald Reagan, or the two Bushes, or Trump, I lament the fact that if only Democrats had turned out in larger numbers, none of these tax and spend policies favoring the rich would be in force...and we would have a Supreme Court make-up that included more liberal justices. Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for starters would not be there, and we would not have so many 5-4 rulings favoring the rich and religious nuts.

    The billionaire Howard Schultz proposed policies seem to favor the rich. He is a DINO.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo.

    Yes you are correct as usual; however indeed things could have been different if the "dumb" area's in this country would get better education instead of "bible" classes. Also as I've said a million times" get the money and billionaires out of elections. As well let only "votes" count. Start with A and end up with Z. Start always at the cause!!!!!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    According to George Will, Amy Klobuchar may actually be the best presidential contender for the Democrats. After reading his column, I would tend to agree.

    https://tucson.com/opinion/national/george-will-klobuchar-could-break-minnesota-s-presidential-losing-streak/article_6aa5af8e-c003-56b8-9633-1d818295e6f2.html

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "the best presidential contender for the Democrats"

    The growing list of Democratic contenders is taking away from the needs of the people. Just because a Democratic victory is probable a lot of people are running and that takes away from the importance of the needs of the people. The battle to the nomination won't build and strengthen the party. In all likelihood it tends to divide and polarize the party. The Democratic convention to nominate a candidate should be now. Then the party would have almost two years to educate the country to the benefits of a Democratic President .

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Another one joined the fray yesterday.

    I heard Cory Booker on "The View" a while back, and he impressed the heck out of me. The problem (?) that the Democrats have is that virtually all of the candidates so far would be an excellent choice, a marked contrast to the 2016 Republican field, where the ONLY acceptable choice was John Kasich.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/cory-booker-presidential-run.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage