I am pretty sure that a voter who would "support [Schultz] or Trump" isn't one that the Democrats have to worry about losing all that much.
If you think it is part of America and moral to force someone to live off of $10 million plus change (that 10% the government does not take) then ...
edit: *trigger warning* May offend sensitive viewers. I made this highly offensive image, but I actually like the guy just fine -- complicated, right? I just don't want him as our next president.
I love how the people that think they're elite and part of an intelligencia like to mock someone that has built a $100 billion dollar business and put on a pedestal someone like Obama who never did or built anything besides hang in intelligent government circles and be a politician. Like those people with all their academic nonsense have any idea how to manage a large organization than people that have built multinational businesses managed hundreds of thousands of people and created value through a consumers choice not a government mandate by law. I don't know much about Shultz philosophies but I respect what he has done and seems a pragmatic man. I also appreciate that he sees the democratic party for what it has become; a group of zealots pushing policies that aim to use government force to create a utopia that will never exist. I can't see how people knowingly want to give all the power to the government away from themselves as people for a few free goodies.
Wow, you got all that out of a meme that is clearly intended to be humorous and based on the fact he runs Starbucks? Nowhere was there any criticism of Schultz. Nowhere was there anything that didn't respect what he has accomplished as a businessman. What little I know he has an impressive personal story. But you start talking about elites and intelligencia and academic nonsense and how we have attacked Schultz. Then some weird bit about giving all the power to the government. Perhaps you meant this in a different thread?
It reeks of envy and animosity and personal failure when people use the term Billionaire in the pejorative. When someone comes from nothing and builds a global business, employing hundreds of thousands of people and happens to make a tremendous amount of money for themselves. Starbucks is valued at nearly $100 billion dollars and are now all over the world. To me building value through customers willingly paying for your service and then having a corporation that employs, offers great health, education and other benefits is the most moral thing an American can do. When anyone puts that down again it strikes of envy and personal resentment at their own failures.
Bro, clearly you prioritize the creation of wealth above all else. That's your prerogative. I think that's dumb. I don't and would never place mutli-millionaire plus business owners on some pedestal as being better than another person at anything in any way other than things very specific to each job. Schultz is likely a better choice to lead a coffee chain than Obama, I guess. If you really want to nail down whose the best at leading large organizations, that's probably the successful COO more than CEO. But of course, that shouldn't be the criteria either, and theoretically the CEO will typically be better at bigger picture things. I think its sad that so much of value in America today is tied to that net worth $$ amount next to your name. I'd much rather my kids be great at a lot of things before they're great at making money. It doesn't mean I don't want them to be great at that, too, if that's what they want, just that it's definitely not at the top of the list.
He makes money in business then Elizabeth Warren asks him for donations and now demonizes billionaires after asking them for donations for her campaign. The hypocrisy is laughable. All these liars about climate change and socialism while hanging with billionaires, getting donations to their campaigns and libraries and partying on their yachts. What I love about Trump is that he owns it, rather than these liars and the fools that follow them (Obama, Clinton, Warren etc.)
People are mocking his experience and marginalizing it about coffee when he built a business that profitably manages 250,000 people with great benefits and created prosperity for our country and himself. Its not about money but proven success. Most people here put some academic like Obama on a pedestal and don't realize that all of our lifestyle in the US was afforded by people that built great businesses that allows us to be different than Argentina or Italy or other nations. That people would look down on a billionaire businessman and marginalize him relative to some political slug that just knows how to give a speech and raise money is foolhardy.
Hadn't read this yet when I posted what I did, but it definitely hammers home my point. I don't think I've ever heard the term moral described with an example like that. It baffles my mind. BTW, Fox News is already blasting Schultz as having only donated about 2.5% of his wealth. It's probably a bit higher, but it's not likely this guy is Robin Hood out there. Moreover, I can both say "I don't want to see anymore billionaires or even multi-millionaires running for office" while not using the term as a pejorative or even with envy or animosity. I don't want to see anymore billionaire or multi-millionaire politicians. Multi-millionaires represent like 3% of the American population, while billionaires represent much much much less, obviously. The likelihood of any of their desires remotely being reflective of what the majority of Americans want is low.
I think you're too dialed in on details. If people are mocking his experience - they shouldn't be - its relative to his qualifications as president. Which are not many, relative to lots of other people... who simply don't have the bankroll to do what Shultz is doing right now.
How many great businessmen have been great leaders on a national level? History shows they've made terrible leaders and right after Trump we want to try another?
I have a feeling this announcement has more to do with his book tour and drumming up support and sales than an actual serious run at the presidency. Now he gets a bit more media attention, he's already going on a book tour so he's not really spending much more money than he was, and he gets to test the waters to see if he gains any traction as an independent. If not, he jumps once the tour is over or once the paperback comes out and he goes back to doing what he does.
