Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz criticized for running as an Independent Presidential Candidate

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/29/howard-schultz-gets-heckled-after-teasing-2020-presidential-bid/

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz got heckled minutes into his Monday evening book event at a New York City Barnes & Noble, days after he first announced he would seriously consider entering the 2020 race as a centrist independent.

Schultz was in the middle of explaining what it means to be 'an independent' when the heckler began shouting, claiming he would be a spoiler candidate who would help re-elect President Donald Trump.

"Don't help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire a**hole!" the heckler shouted. "Go back to getting ratioed on Twitter. Go back to Davos with the other billionaire elite who think they know how to run the world!"

Several people booed the heckler, who was escorted out by security. But other hecklers took his place.

"Health care is a human right! Health care is a human right! Health care is a human right! Health care is a human right! Health care is a human right!" the second heckler screamed.

Schultz, who held the event at the Manhattan Barnes & Noble to promote his book From the Ground Up, announced in a Sunday evening interview with CBS's 60 Minutes that he was seriously thinking of running for president as a centrist independent in 2020.

Since the former Starbucks CEO made his presidential ambitions known, Democrats grew increasingly worried that Schultz would split the vote and give Trump a path to re-election in 2020.

Trump dismissed Schultz's potential 2020 bid, tweeting that he "doesn't have the guts" to successfully run for president.

It's all gona be oligarchs and media personalities from now on, huh?

PsychedelicDiamond:
It's all gona be oligarchs and media personalities from now on, huh?

Has it ever NOT been?

If a "centrist independent" was what the majority of the modern electorate actually wanted, it seems to me that at least one would have been president by now. The way to unseat Donald Trump is not to put celebrity against celebrity or businessman against businessman. Whatever meagre gains of politically uneducated votes can be made from such spectacle politics, it can't offset the loss that will come as a consequence of the subsequent disillusionment and dissapointment of long-time voters. Besides, fishing for republican votes seems ill advised for Schultz given that fox news keeps using Starbucks as a boogieman in their imagined narrative about the "war on christmas"

Pretty sure he'd only run if Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard won the Democratic primary. He just doesn't want his taxes to go up.

Seanchaidh:
Pretty sure he'd only run if Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard won the Democratic primary. He just doesn't want his taxes to go up.

yeah, he's noticed the call for better left-wing representation in the dems and is afraid they may not be supportive of his exploitative ilk for much longer if things continue.

Neurotic Void Melody:

Seanchaidh:
Pretty sure he'd only run if Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard won the Democratic primary. He just doesn't want his taxes to go up.

yeah, he's noticed the call for better left-wing representation in the dems and is afraid they may not be supportive of his exploitative ilk for much longer if things continue.

Indeed.

Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

Seanchaidh:
Indeed.

Oh wow, he just admits it. That makes worrying about being dismissed as crazy when talking of his intentions fade somewhat. A minor blessing perhaps. The problem is that if he loses to trump, he still essentially wins and so does everyone else sharing his position. It's simply another republican party.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

Starbucks died in Australia. Becuase we expect better. Gloria Jeans is better and... it's still generally not good. Or even Coffee Club. My partner likes Zarrafass but I dont think their good either. We just expect better than what a chain can provide. Americans or Europeans dont understand coffee or how to make it. So slop like Starbuck still sells well there.

But saying that, there is a Starbucks at my local shopping centre. It's a strange taste, somehow way too watery and milky at the same time.

I don't like Starbucks, so I don't think I'll be voting for him. But if the guy in charge of Chick-Fil-A runs, I would vote for him.

Seanchaidh:
Pretty sure he'd only run if Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard won the Democratic primary. He just doesn't want his taxes to go up.

But, he clearly IS running. Or is there another definition of 'run' in play here?

trunkage:

Starbucks died in Australia. Becuase we expect better. Gloria Jeans is better and... it's still generally not good. Or even Coffee Club. My partner likes Zarrafass but I dont think their good either. We just expect better than what a chain can provide. Americans or Europeans dont understand coffee or how to make it. So slop like Starbuck still sells well there.

But saying that, there is a Starbucks at my local shopping centre. It's a strange taste, somehow way too watery and milky at the same time.

Yeah. I had a flat white once in one and that was enough to never want to go into one again. And it wasn't even cheap, to boot. They expected me to pay more for it than a small cafe with better coffee and with staff that know you enough to just say 'the ush'. Australians don't comparatively consume as much coffee as other places, but cafe culture is still going strong mainly due to the French, Italian and Greek diaspora after the war, when Australia ran a mass immigration drive ('populate or perish') targeting Europeans displaced by WW2.

So despite a relatively low total coffee consumption, but the idea of personally knowing your barista, meeting your apartment or townhouse neighbours at the nearby cafe, and so on became a thing. And something like a Starbucks, lacking community engagement, lacking that cultural frameworks, lacking an appreciation of the marketplace itself that should be measured in blocks rather than mass market, is where Starbucks could never hope to compete.

That being said, Australia is a 'high tourist volume' market, so that lends itself well to chain branding... the whole reason why you see a lot of Chinese milk tea places throughout Sydney. Why those succeed whereas a Starbucks would fail is due to that tourist/temporary resident demographic.

Kwak:

Seanchaidh:
Pretty sure he'd only run if Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard won the Democratic primary. He just doesn't want his taxes to go up.

But, he clearly IS running. Or is there another definition of 'run' in play here?

I don't think he's actually made any announcement yet, merely hinted that he might do it. And around the same time he's launching a book so I wouldn't be surprised if this is more a bid for publicity to add a few sales

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

I see a Starbucks every time I catch the bus to work.

Haven't been there in years though - used to get frapucinos when I worked in the Sydney CBD, but simple fact is that I don't drink coffee, so...

CM156:
I don't like Starbucks, so I don't think I'll be voting for him. But if the guy in charge of Chick-Fil-A runs, I would vote for him.

I'm guessing this is a joke but I have no idea if Chick-Fil-A is cool or a jackass

I question the wisdom of running for office while you share your last name with SGT. Hans "I see nussink, I hear nussink" Schultz.

Hawki:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

I see a Starbucks every time I catch the bus to work.

Haven't been there in years though - used to get frapucinos when I worked in the Sydney CBD, but simple fact is that I don't drink coffee, so...

There was one on George but that is the only one coming to mind. To be fair, it's not something I would be actively looking for.

trunkage:
Europeans dont understand coffee or how to make it.

That's not true, Ireland has a pretty good coffee culture... mostly because half of our 20 to 30 year olds lived in Australia for a year or two but still.

CheetoDust:
That's not true, Ireland has a pretty good coffee culture... mostly because half of our 20 to 30 year olds lived in Australia for a year or two but still.

I don't remember the coffee being especially bad in Rome. I don't remember a lot of things, but specifically on coffee Italians seem to get it mostly right.

trunkage:

CM156:
I don't like Starbucks, so I don't think I'll be voting for him. But if the guy in charge of Chick-Fil-A runs, I would vote for him.

I'm guessing this is a joke but I have no idea if Chick-Fil-A is cool or a jackass

Arseholes, ostensibly. Their COO is the worst and in depends on how people measure who is 'in charge' when it comes down to it. They fund Christian idiocy groups and promote conversion therapy retreats... because nothing says 'Christian' like torturing LGBTQ kids for shits and gigs.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

CheetoDust:
That's not true, Ireland has a pretty good coffee culture... mostly because half of our 20 to 30 year olds lived in Australia for a year or two but still.

I don't remember the coffee being especially bad in Rome. I don't remember a lot of things, but specifically on coffee Italians seem to get it mostly right.

The problem with Italian coffee is that it tastes the same now as it did 400 years ago. The majority of people like darker flavours in their coffee though so I'm not knocking it. Just that Italy hasn't really caught up with specialty grade coffee and are still using the same 14g in 60g out in 24 seconds with very dark roasted beans. They have no interest in brew methods, roast profiles or experimenting with recipes. Same with France. The best places to get coffee in Europe (IMO) are actually Ireland and Germany. We had no coffee traditions to speak of so it was a lot easier to introduce new ideas here. In Italy if you charge someone more than 0.70c for an espresso they'll think you're insane or straight up stealing from them.

Slightly on topic, I hate Starbucks with a fiery passion. Mostly because they flout planning permission laws, run smaller shops out of business and I used to work for another company that the Starbucks license holders in Ireland owned at the time and they are the worst employers I've encountered. At one stage there was 3 Starbucks on one street in Dublin they're just the worst. And even more annoying they don't know anything about coffee and are spreading their ignorance. Nobody knows what a macchiato is anymore! Also

"According to a Starbucks spokesperson, its flat white "is made with two ristretto shots, topped with a thin layer of velvety steamed whole milk and finished with a latte art dot. "

A dot is not latte art! I didn't learn how to free pour a swan just so some jaggoff with an automatic milk steamer can call a dot latte art.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

Yeah... but you visit the UK and try the leading coffee chain Costa, you'll get a whole new appreciation for Starbucks.

* * *

On topic, however, I think the last thing the USA needs are more billionare egotists who think that because they've run a business they should run the whole country.

I was reading with some amusement a Danish historian invited to Davos finally told these guys stuff they really need to hear: hey rich guys - pay your fucking taxes. Needless to say, the response was negative. What many of these economic elites seem to think is that they should change the world without changing the world. They want their stratospheric salaries, neoliberal economics, and have their messiah complexes that by chucking a few dollars here and there from their personal stash they can solve the world's problems. They're exactly the sort of people who might preach on climate change personally using their private jet 50 times a year and whilst their companies lobby for reduced environmental regulations to save 3 cents per widget. If they're going to help out, it has to be entirely on their own terms.

It's a sort of cheap end Davos, but this article is well worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/16/powder-mountain-ski-resort-summit-elite-club-rich-millennials

On the one hand we can at least appreciate these guys have some good intentions, but let's also face the reality that they are never going to achieve anything, because they've no real idea what to do or why or whether it's worth asking most of the world what they want or need. Philanthropy for narcissists.

trunkage:

CM156:
I don't like Starbucks, so I don't think I'll be voting for him. But if the guy in charge of Chick-Fil-A runs, I would vote for him.

I'm guessing this is a joke but I have no idea if Chick-Fil-A is cool or a jackass

They're very Christian. And also very anti-LGBT. They are also closed on Sundays and frankly both treat and pay their employees better than other fast food places. The one here also has exceptional service for a fast food place.

CheetoDust:

I don't remember the coffee being especially bad in Rome. I don't remember a lot of things, but specifically on coffee Italians seem to get it mostly right. The problem with Italian coffee is that it tastes the same now as it did 400 years ago. The majority of people like darker flavours in their coffee though so I'm not knocking it. Just that Italy hasn't really caught up with specialty grade coffee and are still using the same 14g in 60g out in 24 seconds with very dark roasted beans. They have no interest in brew methods, roast profiles or experimenting with recipes. Same with France. The best places to get coffee in Europe (IMO) are actually Ireland and Germany. We had no coffee traditions to speak of so it was a lot easier to introduce new ideas here. In Italy if you charge someone more than 0.70c for an espresso they'll think you're insane or straight up stealing from them.

It's a completely different ethos, isn't it?

Italian coffee isn't about exploring new beans, roasts, etc. - it's a traditional drink Italians grow up with and love, like the British drink Assam-like "English breakfast" style blends. Or even like arguing that Coca-Cola Corporation is useless at cola because it's tied to its classic formulation. If you want to drink your way through traditional Belgian, German or British beers, they might not be "exciting" like the novel microbrewery stuff which confuses "tasty" with "sledgehammering the palate with excessive hops", but they don't need to be and it doesn't mean they're bad beers.

Schadrach:

They're very Christian. And also very anti-LGBT. They are also closed on Sundays and frankly both treat and pay their employees better than other fast food places. The one here also has exceptional service for a fast food place.

The one everywhere has exceptional service for a fast food place. I've never seen a Chick-Fil-A be slow or understaffed, I've never seen one be dirty, I've never received poorly prepared food, and non-coincidentally, I've never seen a Chick-Fil-A not be busy. It's a different culture than most fast food, and it works. Some attribute that to the super-Christian part, but I think that's only true if the super-Christian part is what made them decide to neither franchise out with the same model as other chains nor become a publicly traded company. They control their restaurants and are beholden to nobody, and they've made a great company. I'm sure the original comment was a joke, but there's actually a pretty good case for supporting a Chick-Fil-A president over a Starbucks president, as the former has actively run a company with a better reputation without fiddling about with investors and managed to become the more wealthy of the two, and is still doing things like attending store openings instead of pretending to run for president to advertise the book he wrote about himself. I trust the Chick-Fil-A guy more.

One of the best tweets I've ever seen is about Chick-Fil-A: "I trust Chick-fil-A so much that I don't even check my bag and if they get my order wrong I just assume they know what's best for me."

Agema:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

Yeah... but you visit the UK and try the leading coffee chain Costa, you'll get a whole new appreciation for Starbucks.

* * *

On topic, however, I think the last thing the USA needs are more billionare egotists who think that because they've run a business they should run the whole country.

I was reading with some amusement a Danish historian invited to Davos finally told these guys stuff they really need to hear: hey rich guys - pay your fucking taxes. Needless to say, the response was negative. What many of these economic elites seem to think is that they should change the world without changing the world. They want their stratospheric salaries, neoliberal economics, and have their messiah complexes that by chucking a few dollars here and there from their personal stash they can solve the world's problems. They're exactly the sort of people who might preach on climate change personally using their private jet 50 times a year and whilst their companies lobby for reduced environmental regulations to save 3 cents per widget. If they're going to help out, it has to be entirely on their own terms.

Dutch, not Danish. I know we are rather similar, and I have nothing against the Danish, but I have to correct that. Anyway, it was glorious and you can watch the whole think on youtube should you want to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

Thing is, Plutocrats are not going to solve the problem of the plutocracy. Even those who are reasonably well-willing can't really do it, precisely because of their scruples. Best they can do is not put their money in the Kaymans, do more philanthropy and don't be the Koch brothers. But philanthropy is not a sustainable or dignified way to solve the worlds problems. The rest of the world just needs to raise taxes on them to take their unreasonable amount of hoarded resources and reverse the enormous growth in inequality we've had since Tatcher and Reagan.

Edit: on topic. As mentioned above by Seanchaidt Howard Schuldt is pretty much doing this because he doesn't like the right for their racism and bigotry but he also hates the left because as a plutocrat he stands to lose if the plutocracy is reduced to the point where he'd merely be rich enough to live in total luxury, but without the ability to subvert democracy and with a smaller but still 10-12 digit number on his bank account. Which is what Sanders or Warren or Gabbart might do. So fuck him. He doesn't need all of that money, and many other people do, so he should pay his fair share in taxes.

Pseudonym:

Agema:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Wait, Starbucks still exists? I don't think I've seen a Starbucks in over a decade. Nor drink anything more foul, mind you. It takes a special talent to make coffee taste like untreated sewerage.

Yeah... but you visit the UK and try the leading coffee chain Costa, you'll get a whole new appreciation for Starbucks.

* * *

On topic, however, I think the last thing the USA needs are more billionare egotists who think that because they've run a business they should run the whole country.

I was reading with some amusement a Danish historian invited to Davos finally told these guys stuff they really need to hear: hey rich guys - pay your fucking taxes. Needless to say, the response was negative. What many of these economic elites seem to think is that they should change the world without changing the world. They want their stratospheric salaries, neoliberal economics, and have their messiah complexes that by chucking a few dollars here and there from their personal stash they can solve the world's problems. They're exactly the sort of people who might preach on climate change personally using their private jet 50 times a year and whilst their companies lobby for reduced environmental regulations to save 3 cents per widget. If they're going to help out, it has to be entirely on their own terms.

Dutch, not Danish. I know we are rather similar, and I have nothing against the Danish, but I have to correct that. Anyway, it was glorious and you can watch the whole think on youtube should you want to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

Thing is, Plutocrats are not going to solve the problem of the plutocracy. Even those who are reasonably well-willing can't really do it, precisely because of their scruples. Best they can do is not put their money in the Kaymans, do more philanthropy and don't be the Koch brothers. But philanthropy is not a sustainable or dignified way to solve the worlds problems. The rest of the world just needs to raise taxes on them to take their unreasonable amount of hoarded resources and reverse the enormous growth in inequality we've had since Tatcher and Reagan.

Edit: on topic. As mentioned above by Seanchaidt Howard Schuldt is pretty much doing this because he doesn't like the right for their racism and bigotry but he also hates the left because as a plutocrat he stands to lose if the plutocracy is reduced to the point where he'd merely be rich enough to live in total luxury, but without the ability to subvert democracy and with a smaller but still 10-12 digit number on his bank account. Which is what Sanders or Warren or Gabbart might do. So fuck him. He doesn't need all of that money, and many other people do, so he should pay his fair share in taxes.

Is this guy (Erik Brynjolfsson) Danish (surname sounds like it could be)? More than one academic has told billionaires to pay their taxes at Davos this year. In fact, I think Michael Dell and this guy is the exchange Rutger Bregman is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8akySjXuOAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_lictGa5g

Agema:
they might not be "exciting" like the novel microbrewery stuff which confuses "tasty" with "sledgehammering the palate with excessive hops"

This drives me mad. At some point, ridiculous levels of hops stopped being about covering up the taste of a badly brewed beer (which is a lot of what it is used for) and became the goal in itself. And heavily hopped beers all taste the same.

Seanchaidh:

Is this guy (Erik Brynjolfsson) Danish (surname sounds like it could be)? More than one academic has told billionaires to pay their taxes at Davos this year. In fact, I think Michael Dell and this guy is the exchange Rutger Bregman is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8akySjXuOAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_lictGa5g

Ah, my bad. Thanks.

Yeah, he's literally only considering running because there's a chance his taxes go up. Also he just released another one of his shitty, wildly self important books which I'm sure he wants to sell. However, the one thing I don't understand is why anyone is talking about him like he'd be a "spoiler" candidate. What the hell would he spoil? He's a billionaire who's position is "I want to get everyone together to work things out and not raise my taxes". I can't see people protest voting for this guy. Hell, he's the kind of person one would make a protest vote against.

Nedoras:
Yeah, he's literally only considering running because there's a chance his taxes go up. Also he just released another one of his shitty, wildly self important books which I'm sure he wants to sell. However, the one thing I don't understand is why anyone is talking about him like he'd be a "spoiler" candidate. What the hell would he spoil? He's a billionaire who's position is "I want to get everyone together to work things out and not raise my taxes". I can't see people protest voting for this guy. Hell, he's the kind of person one would make a protest vote against.

I can actually see him being a spoiler vote.

The thing is, he'd be more of a spoiler vote for Trump supporters. Which narcissistic oligarch are they supposed to vote for?

erttheking:

Nedoras:
Yeah, he's literally only considering running because there's a chance his taxes go up. Also he just released another one of his shitty, wildly self important books which I'm sure he wants to sell. However, the one thing I don't understand is why anyone is talking about him like he'd be a "spoiler" candidate. What the hell would he spoil? He's a billionaire who's position is "I want to get everyone together to work things out and not raise my taxes". I can't see people protest voting for this guy. Hell, he's the kind of person one would make a protest vote against.

I can actually see him being a spoiler vote.

The thing is, he'd be more of a spoiler vote for Trump supporters. Which narcissistic oligarch are they supposed to vote for?

Yea, I think he is more of a threat to Trump than anyone else at this point since most of those who actually want the US to be a plutocracy are in Trumps pocket. Trump may have pissed off enough with his mouth that may be willing to vote for this guy. That and they may be worried about him being impeached.

He gives never Trumpers an alternative.

Lil devils x:

erttheking:

Nedoras:
Yeah, he's literally only considering running because there's a chance his taxes go up. Also he just released another one of his shitty, wildly self important books which I'm sure he wants to sell. However, the one thing I don't understand is why anyone is talking about him like he'd be a "spoiler" candidate. What the hell would he spoil? He's a billionaire who's position is "I want to get everyone together to work things out and not raise my taxes". I can't see people protest voting for this guy. Hell, he's the kind of person one would make a protest vote against.

I can actually see him being a spoiler vote.

The thing is, he'd be more of a spoiler vote for Trump supporters. Which narcissistic oligarch are they supposed to vote for?

Yea, I think he is more of a threat to Trump than anyone else at this point since most of those who actually want the US to be a plutocracy are in Trumps pocket. Trump may have pissed off enough with his mouth that may be willing to vote for this guy. That and they may be worried about him being impeached.

He gives never Trumpers an alternative.

Trump supporters aren't likely to jump ship for another billionaire. Never Trumpers and centrist Democrats certainly might, but... they're kind of anti-Trump already. That being said, maybe a small number of centrist Democrats would vote for Trump over someone like Bernie Sanders if Schultz wasn't available to provide a boot to lick. Centrist Democrats who are odious but not completely deranged might throw a vote to Schultz instead of Bernie Sanders if Schultz runs. That last, I think, is the bigger threat-- Schultz can appeal to affluent, performatively anti-racist white professionals who wouldn't vote for Trump but yet like his tax policy (and who, in reality, are not at all anti-racist if the issue directly affects them).

Seanchaidh:

Lil devils x:

erttheking:

I can actually see him being a spoiler vote.

The thing is, he'd be more of a spoiler vote for Trump supporters. Which narcissistic oligarch are they supposed to vote for?

Yea, I think he is more of a threat to Trump than anyone else at this point since most of those who actually want the US to be a plutocracy are in Trumps pocket. Trump may have pissed off enough with his mouth that may be willing to vote for this guy. That and they may be worried about him being impeached.

He gives never Trumpers an alternative.

Trump supporters aren't likely to jump ship for another billionaire. Never Trumpers and centrist Democrats certainly might, but... they're kind of anti-Trump already. That being said, maybe a small number of centrist Democrats would vote for Trump over someone like Bernie Sanders if Schultz wasn't available to provide a boot to lick. Centrist Democrats who are odious but not completely deranged might throw a vote to Schultz instead of Bernie Sanders if Schultz runs. That last, I think, is the bigger threat-- Schultz can appeal to affluent, performatively anti-racist white professionals who wouldn't vote for Trump but yet like his tax policy (and who, in reality, are not at all anti-racist if the issue directly affects them).

While I think there are people who voted for Trump that very well would shift to this guy due to Trumps erratic behavior, I also agree that he could pull some support from centrist democrats as well. Not enough to win, but enough to mess things up for both sides a bit.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here