Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-27-2019, 05:58 PM
Dan Turk is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pinellas Park, FL, USA
Posts: 278

Howard Schultz considers run; urged against.


According to sources across the board, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is a life-long Democrat exploring a run as an Independent for POTUS in 2020.

Of course, many are urging against this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...ary-2019-01-27

Thoughts?
  #2  
Old 01-27-2019, 06:04 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,515
If he does, and it fucks shit up to the point that Trump gets elected again, Starbucks can kiss its ass goodbye.
  #3  
Old 01-27-2019, 07:49 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,327
A businessman with no political experience becoming President.

I don't know why but I get a bad feeling about that.
  #4  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:07 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,781
Yeah, if the last two years have taught us anything it's that the skill set required to run a for-profit organization is entirely dissimilar to that required to run the worlds largest non-profit organization.
  #5  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:32 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
Seems to me that in every Presidential election I can remember, there's chatter about some zillionaire launching an Independent bid, mobilizing the neglected center, and overturning the two-party system and making the establishment fall flat on its face. But the zillionaire never wins, and other than Ross Perot he never even runs. Perhaps that's because support for such a campaign seems limited to editorial writers for the Washington Post and New York Times.

Ahem.
  #6  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:34 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,828
If he wishes to enter politics, he should run for mayor, Congress, state legislature, etc., not president.
  #7  
Old 01-27-2019, 08:59 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, if the last two years have taught us anything it's that the skill set required to run a for-profit organization is entirely dissimilar to that required to run the worlds largest non-profit organization.
There was an argument, based on films like Electra and Catwoman, that a female-lead superhero movie was a bad idea that could never work. That was not true, they were just crappy films.

Likewise, extending Trump to the wider range of all possibilities that could ever exist is probably not reasonable. Though, obviously, he certainly doesn't encourage one to continue down that path.

Ultimately, I think, the job requires that everyone has a basic trust in that person, that the person be a person who accepts reality, and that it be someone who does have experience managing a large organization (i.e., they can keep a lot of balls in the air at the same time and not melt down). While I'm sure that there are better and worse negotiators, better and worse politicos, etc. a businessman who knows that he's not much of a politician can always hire a good political VP or set of cabinet heads to deal with Congress. Being a political animal is probably not a hard requirement for success, if you're someone who everyone trusts and someone who knows his own limitations.

A CEO is probably not the worst job to hold prior to becoming President. I would suspect that it is better than being a politician, on average, since that gives you no executive experience. Serving as a governor is good experience, but probably so would something like being the 2nd or 3rd in command at a large company - since you're managing a large group at the same time as having to negotiate for funding and projects, and also having to restrict yourself to what your overseers are ordering. Running a large charity would probably be good experience since, again, you're somewhat at the mercy of the gods as you try to run things, while still being asked to keep together a large and complex organization.

Personally, I think that we do it the wrong way by letting people choose themselves as candidates. A lot of the best leaders in history were the ones who were forced to take the role.

Study of CEO governors:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10...-governors.pdf

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-27-2019 at 09:00 PM.
  #8  
Old 01-27-2019, 09:04 PM
Pork Rind's Avatar
Pork Rind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 2,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, if the last two years have taught us anything it's that the skill set required to run a for-profit organization is entirely dissimilar to that required to run the worlds largest non-profit organization.
I might make the distinction between the CEO of a small, privately owned family operation that stumbles from bankruptcy to bankruptcy, and the CEO of a major, publicly held multinational org that the CEO nearly built from scratch.

That said, I still wouldnít vote for him*. Heís a super cool guy though; he was a major investor at a place I worked a while back. He watched me pour the better part of a whole beer right into my crotch.

*not just because he would potentially be a spoiler, but because that asshole sold my Sonics to those dicks in OKC.
  #9  
Old 01-27-2019, 09:07 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
My initial reaction was "No, don't do it"

But really, I don't see a compelling reason why he shouldn't. It's not like people are just going to give him the nomination.

If I were current Starbucks board members and executive management, I'd be very, very nervous right now. He's obviously going to use his success and the success of Starbucks as a resume bullet point, so there will be blow back of some kind.

Personally, I don't think he'd be a horrible candidate, but I don't plan on voting for him.
  #10  
Old 01-27-2019, 09:10 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,820
He'd be woefully incompetent in any public servant job.

I for one welcome his quixotic candidacy for Eggbeater if the Free World. It's best that venture capitalists with political desires reach beyond their grasp and fail.
  #11  
Old 01-27-2019, 09:33 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,664
As for Schultz himself, his "Let's have the workers talk with the customers about race relations" thing seems pretty...well...let's say that I'm not certain he's still a member of every day reality. And while that might not really matter so far as running the country is concerned, I think it's fair to say that a candidate who seems entirely out of touch with reality is unlikely to do well.

Granted, Trump's views on life are probably pretty divorced from reality as well, but I think he has the bling/gangsta lifestyle going that your average person views as the ultimate goal in life, so I think they cut him some slack.

An ivory tower idealist rich guy...slack is not in the cards.
  #12  
Old 01-27-2019, 09:39 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,781
I don't think I quite made my position clear. It's not that for-profit is necessarily the deal killer. It's running the corporation.

Remember, a successful CEO is essentially a fascist dictator. Yes, he has to answer to his board but most of those are pretty tame because he may be on a board for something they run. (Parenthetical aside: We'd gain much from outlawing interlocking boards or limiting the number of such one person could be on.)

A CEO wants to succeed. A politician wants to succeed as much as possible while realizing that 50% of less is still a good percentage in terms of getting your positions through. A president can't rule by fiat and expect to be obeyed. There are too many divisive issues and competing interests to allow that to happen. It's simply a different skill set and set of expectations to allow the two jobs to map properly.
  #13  
Old 01-27-2019, 10:40 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Remember, a successful CEO is essentially a fascist dictator.
Uh, no, that is not true. Do you even know what the words "fascist" and "dictator" mean?

A dictator is a person who rules a country with absolute power. Fascist means an ideology believing that everyone's life is completely dedicated to advancing the state.

A CEO of a public corporation is not a dictator, since he doesn't rule a country. In fact he doesn't rule anything. He is an employee of the corporation. He can make a limited number of choices. Nor is he fascist, even in a figurative sense. No CEO expects employees to dedicate their lives to the corporation. The CEO knows that each employee spends (typically) 40 hours a week working for the corporation, and then goes home and spends the other 128 hours of the week not working for the corporation.
  #14  
Old 01-27-2019, 10:52 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,068
If he'd said "literally" and not "essentially", your objections would make some sense. As it stands, they seem.... irrelevant. Tangential at best.


Let Schultz get some political seasoning by running for governor of Washington (or whatever his state of residence is) or for congress. The presidency should never again be given to a novice, especially one who'll build a cabinet from people who themselves have no experience in politics because he doesn't know anybody in politics.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 01-27-2019 at 10:53 PM.
  #15  
Old 01-28-2019, 12:55 AM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
If he thinks he would make a good president, then the motherfucker should run in either the Democratic or Republican primary. If he won't do that, he's helping to reelect Trump. Ask me how I feel about motherfuckers who help Trump.
  #16  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:31 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
If he thinks he would make a good president, then the motherfucker should run in either the Democratic or Republican primary. If he won't do that, he's helping to reelect Trump. Ask me how I feel about motherfuckers who help Trump.
If he thinks he would make a good President, then he presumably also thinks he would make a good Governor or a good Senator. If he succeeds in those offices, he'll have gained some experience in politics and we'll have something to judge him by. And if he fails in those offices, we're better off for having found that out at a lower level than the Presidency.
  #17  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:38 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,440
To try to go into politics at the top is a bit like trying to launch a chain of coffee shops by setting up thousands of them from the outset, wouldn't you say?
  #18  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:44 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
No CEO expects employees to dedicate their lives to the corporation. The CEO knows that each employee spends (typically) 40 hours a week working for the corporation, and then goes home and spends the other 128 hours of the week not working for the corporation.
Are you from Belgium?

Corporate USA literally has managers who try to develop a feeling of "team" or "family" in their employees—even when those employees have no ownership in the company and can be fired at will. It's a form of mental manipulation, legal here in Extreme Capitalist Paradise.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 01-28-2019 at 02:47 AM.
  #19  
Old 01-28-2019, 04:57 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Uh, no, that is not true. Do you even know what the words "fascist" and "dictator" mean?

A dictator is a person who rules a country with absolute power. Fascist means an ideology believing that everyone's life is completely dedicated to advancing the state.
Ruling with absolute power and believing that everyone's life is completely dedicated to advancing the company? Yes, this sounds absolutely nothing like a CEO.

Quote:
No CEO expects employees to dedicate their lives to the corporation.
Let it be known that this attitude is so pervasive in the USA that I, as an expat, not only will never move back to the USA, but fundamentally refuse to work for any American company located here in Munich. Because fuck that noise.

As for this guy's run... Oh joy, another out-of-touch billionaire whose massive, overinflated ego leads him to think he's just what America needs. Hopefully he fucks right off ASAP.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-28-2019 at 04:58 AM.
  #20  
Old 01-28-2019, 05:58 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,711
If he wants to run he should either challenge Trump for the Republican nomination or run as a Democrat. Anything else and he's just trying to be a spoiler.
  #21  
Old 01-28-2019, 06:31 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
I'm beginning to think that the Constitution needs to be re-written to eliminate the Executive branch altogether. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, their fear was the influence of popular power, which is still a valid concern today. But the presidency seems to compete with the Executive, and it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have the public vote on someone every four years who competes with another body of branch of government that's voted on every two years. Yes, I know it's Mitch McConnell's Senate who's doing the obstructing, but I think that if we were to do away with presidential elections, the American people would take those congressional races a lot more seriously.

Back to Schultz, my theory is he probably wouldn't have run had it not been for the recent successes of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but the billionaire class is frightened by their rise in popularity, and if they have to undercut Democrats, even at the risk of Trump's re-election, they'll gladly do it. If Schultz doesn't do it, another billionaire - Mark Cuban, maybe - probably will. The billionaire class is going to fight tax increases tooth and nail, and if they lose influence in the Democratic party, then they'll simply find a way to weaken them.
  #22  
Old 01-28-2019, 06:45 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm beginning to think that the Constitution needs to be re-written to eliminate the Executive branch altogether. When the Framers wrote the Constitution, their fear was the influence of popular power, which is still a valid concern today. But the presidency seems to compete with the Executive, and it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have the public vote on someone every four years who competes with another body of branch of government that's voted on every two years. Yes, I know it's Mitch McConnell's Senate who's doing the obstructing, but I think that if we were to do away with presidential elections, the American people would take those congressional races a lot more seriously.

Back to Schultz, my theory is he probably wouldn't have run had it not been for the recent successes of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but the billionaire class is frightened by their rise in popularity, and if they have to undercut Democrats, even at the risk of Trump's re-election, they'll gladly do it. If Schultz doesn't do it, another billionaire - Mark Cuban, maybe - probably will. The billionaire class is going to fight tax increases tooth and nail, and if they lose influence in the Democratic party, then they'll simply find a way to weaken them.
Accurate take. Here is one of many valid responses to that: https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OGC.a...oxE29DwEt21cZw
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #23  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:26 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,414
I had never heard of Howard Schultz. Sounds to me like just another vanity run by someone who needs his ego stroked. Democrats in 2020 are not going to vote 3rd party, we know the importance of this election and are not about to split the electorate for someone's ego trip.
  #24  
Old 01-28-2019, 07:33 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I had never heard of Howard Schultz. Sounds to me like just another vanity run by someone who needs his ego stroked. Democrats in 2020 are not going to vote 3rd party, we know the importance of this election and are not about to split the electorate for someone's ego trip.
I don't worry about Democrats; I worry about those clueless voters we call independents, who believe both parties suck equally and that independent businessmen like Schultz would make political partisanship magically disappear. The reality, however, is that a strong independent would make razor sharp political divisions even sharper and encourage extreme tactics such as obstructionism by the right. It would also probably encourage the left to go even harder left. Multi-polar, multi-party politics almost always makes divisions and politics nastier, not better. It's better to have one party act as a clear representative of popular will, with an opposition party that is a clear minority but still strong enough to force the majority part to compete.

Last edited by asahi; 01-28-2019 at 07:34 AM.
  #25  
Old 01-28-2019, 08:41 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
Don't forget Ross Perot was leading in polls in 92 before he imploded. I don't think Schultz has the kind of problems Perot had so he could do even better than Perot. Anyone running is based on having a big ego.
  #26  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:35 AM
Ambrosio Spinola is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Don't forget Ross Perot was leading in polls in 92 before he imploded. I don't think Schultz has the kind of problems Perot had so he could do even better than Perot. Anyone running is based on having a big ego.
Seems to me like he has substantially different problems than Perot had, starting with lack of a constituency. I don't think anyone is clamoring for a candidate who's running on a cuts-to-Medicare-and-Medicaid to reduce the deficit platform outside of a couple of op-ed writers at large newspapers. I mean, liberals don't want that and the conservatives who do want that don't like to advertise it. It seems like basically all of his positions are calculated not to excite anybody, really. Say what you like about Trump (and I do, in four letter words at excessive length frequently) but he fires up his base and as a consequence has fired up people who hate him into opposing him. 2020 is not going to feature mousy centrists one way or another.
  #27  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:41 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I had never heard of Howard Schultz. Sounds to me like just another vanity run by someone who needs his ego stroked. Democrats in 2020 are not going to vote 3rd party, we know the importance of this election and are not about to split the electorate for someone's ego trip.
But what might the Jill Stein voters from 2016 do?
  #28  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:48 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
people are assuming he's only going to pull away from the Dem candidate. Going back to Perot the polls showed he pulled equally from both candidates. Perot had positions that appealed to both, for example he was pro choice but was more conservative on fiscal issues.
  #29  
Old 01-28-2019, 09:57 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I don't think I quite made my position clear. It's not that for-profit is necessarily the deal killer. It's running the corporation.

Remember, a successful CEO is essentially a fascist dictator. Yes, he has to answer to his board but most of those are pretty tame because he may be on a board for something they run. (Parenthetical aside: We'd gain much from outlawing interlocking boards or limiting the number of such one person could be on.)

A CEO wants to succeed. A politician wants to succeed as much as possible while realizing that 50% of less is still a good percentage in terms of getting your positions through. A president can't rule by fiat and expect to be obeyed. There are too many divisive issues and competing interests to allow that to happen. It's simply a different skill set and set of expectations to allow the two jobs to map properly.
Nope. A CEO answers to his customers who are involved voluntarily. Basic business knowledge.
  #30  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:23 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,068
No, a CEO answers to the stockholders. Even more basic business knowledge.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #31  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:25 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,290
The fact that he’s thinking of running as an independent already shows that he’s not qualified.

There are not millions of so-called independent voters out there just looking for a savior from the two party system. I have a family member who calls herself independent. She likes to think she weighs the pros and cons of each candidate. Funny how she always ends up pushing the R button. One night, after a few too many glasses of wine I actually snapped and said, ‘You’re a Republican, the last time you probably voted for a Democrat was JFK!’

There are also so-called independents who simply don’t vote because they simply don’t understand or care about politics. No magical unicorn with a latte is going to get them to vote.

You don’t have to like the two party system and I understand it’s easier to whine about it than doing the unbelievably hard work of changing the constitution. But, the Republicans and Democrats are not ideologically rigid, Trump was certainly out of step with the Republicans on many issues.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #32  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:38 AM
Ambrosio Spinola is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
You donít have to like the two party system and I understand itís easier to whine about it than doing the unbelievably hard work of changing the constitution. But, the Republicans and Democrats are not ideologically rigid, Trump was certainly out of step with the Republicans on many issues.
Yeah, remember when Trump was running on the platform of giving great, cheap healthcare to everybody? Obviously that was a huge lie, but I think that the "independent" fusion platform that would actually resonate would be a combination of hippie-punching and taxing the bejeezus out of billionaires to provide medical insurance to red-blooded Americans - our current party alignment will only get you one of these.
But Schultz is proposing the exact inverse of this, thereby pleasing nobody.
  #33  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:03 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
some people are so focused on getting rid of Trump that anything that might make him win is seen as a really bad thing. I just saw Nate Silver tweet that the party that attacks the 3rd party guy ends us losing voters based on the past history with 3rd party candidates.
  #34  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:08 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
some people are so focused on getting rid of Trump that anything that might make him win is seen as a really bad thing.
...Yeah. All other things being equal, something that makes Trump more likely to win is a bad thing, because Trump is a terrible president. And while certain things (economic upswings, for example) are good on net despite improving his chances, having a billionaire run as a third-party candidate (and probably lose) is a no-brainer bad thing - it's not good in its own right and it improves Trump's chances.
  #35  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:11 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
I assume if Schultz ran in the GOP primaries many people here would be thrilled ?
  #36  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:26 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,404
Well, slightly pleased, maybe. But he's not going to accomplish anything that way, either, so it mostly doesn't matter.
  #37  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:42 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I assume if Schultz ran in the GOP primaries many people here would be thrilled ?
That changes the calculus completely. In that case, it's a "moderate" challenging Trump in the republican field - there's no way he can hurt the dems that way, and he may very well hurt Trump quite a bit in doing so.
  #38  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:57 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
Bernie Sanders ran against Democrats and won many times. But yet many Dems think he walks on water. What's the difference between him and Schultz?
  #39  
Old 01-28-2019, 11:59 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Bernie Sanders ran against Democrats and won many times. But yet many Dems think he walks on water. What's the difference between him and Schultz?
Nearly everything, to the point where this question seems hard to take seriously. Can you name any similarities that go beyond "person is running as an independent"?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-28-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #40  
Old 01-28-2019, 12:49 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
if Trump is so awful the Dems should be able to beat him even with a 3rd party in the race. If Trump wins again, the Dems should just disband for being such a pitiful party.
  #41  
Old 01-28-2019, 12:50 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,457
Dunmo why I expected an answer, tbh.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #42  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:06 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,412
Little Nemo:

Quote:
A businessman with no political experience becoming President.

I don't know why but I get a bad feeling about that.
Michael Bloomberg did pretty well as mayor of NYC. It's not President of the USA, but it's still a pretty darned big government to run.
  #43  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:38 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
NYC has more people than 39 states so mayor of NYC is like being governor of a large state.
  #44  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:46 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
If he wishes to enter politics, he should run for mayor, Congress, state legislature, etc., not president.
Where's the +10 button (for when a +1 button is just not enough)?
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #45  
Old 01-28-2019, 01:49 PM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 587
If Democrats run a Bernie Sanders type I would have to vote for Howard Schultz.
  #46  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:03 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrosio Spinola View Post
Seems to me like he has substantially different problems than Perot had, starting with lack of a constituency.
He's probably going to be pretty popular with the Kremlin disinformation bot constituency.
  #47  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:09 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
No, a CEO answers to the stockholders. Even more basic business knowledge.
Yes it is more basic, perhaps we should elevate your understanding of the firm.

Thatís like saying the president is accountable to the electoral college. This is what some would call a pedantic understanding, but not a practical understanding.
  #48  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:13 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
if Trump is so awful the Dems should be able to beat him even with a 3rd party in the race. If Trump wins again, the Dems should just disband for being such a pitiful party.
They should have done this after they lost to him the first time.
  #49  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:13 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,406
in 2016 Sanders was the only real alternative to Clinton, the rest were nobodies. This time if Sanders runs he will have a large group of well known people to battle . The anti front runner vote will be divided. (whoever the front runner ends up being)
  #50  
Old 01-28-2019, 02:15 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,396
It certainly is funny how so many "independents" on the internet always seem to end up voting a straight Republican ticket, because the Democrats are always too extreme in some way or another.

You're not an independent. You're a Republican with an asterisk, and that asterisk doesn't count, because it doesn't count when you vote.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017