I’m always so interested to see what a phrase such as “data-driven conservative” actually means to the person who claims it.
It means that I believe the status quo (e.g., government should do as little as possible) is an advisable path until data moves me to believe otherwise.
You seem actually and astoundingly to be saying that the only thing that would prove to you that Schultz’s hubris and ego are in charge (conditioned on his enormous business success) is if he came out and said so.
Well, what candidate for President DOESN’T believes what you accuse Schultz of? That’s part of what incents them to run. And in evidence of that, the last three presidents have pretty much abandoned any sort of collaborative approach to governance, preferring a “this is the way I think it should be done” type solutions to collaborative ones — — and Clinton only turned collaborative after he got his teeth kicked in in the 1994 election.
So, instead of calling you out for a straw man, I should have just added that your accusations against Schultz were weak tea, accusations that certainly can be levied against virtually all candidates I can think of over the last 30 years.
It isn’t necessary to read someone’s mind or find another way to probe and learn that person’s deep motivations to make useful and true observations about their acts.
I wrote nothing about Schultz’s motivations.
Well, you kind of did. You rambled on from Schultz onto a rather long tirade (I snipped most of it) on classism which heavily implied that motivations are driven by class.
The plain facts are these: absent a grassroots demand for someone’s candidacy, no one but a very wealthy individual could launch and finance an independent campaign for president.
However, I consider this a feature, not a bug, especially in the case of Schultz, who come from humble backgrounds to achieve a high level of success. He’s a role-model type, which possibly is another reason why his entry onto the political scene has met with such antagonism from the leftists.
I’m flattered that you thought it was worth so much effort to attempt to debunk my analysis, but sadly, all you’ve done is set up a bunch of straw men you could then knock down.
Data and facts are not straw men. You may choose to disagree with them, but the basic point being made is that there is precisely no reason why ANY American would *not* want a man like Schultz entering the political circus. He’s centrist enough to not offend anyone but the radical left and radical right, he’s not a “daddy’s money” success story (being raised in the projects), and his product (Starbucks) appeals to everyone.
Seriously now. What’s not to like about him? Remove the “he might steal votes from my favorite candidate” issue, and the “He might get Trump re-elected” issue, and ask yourself “what’s the real issue here?” He’s the type of person who would support universal health care, climate change regulation, higher minimum wages, family leave, and appoint people like Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS.
He’s a liberal’s panacea, for crying out loud. :-)
So, other than “he’ll steal votes from my fave”, what’s the problem? Just hate rich people in general? Or is it that you dislike non politicians entering politics?
Or is that he won’t screw the rich and the corporations enough for your liking? :-)
You are missing the difference between feelings/beliefs/attitudes and actions.
Well, it’s mostly that I only care about the last one. I really don’t care if Trump is a racist; Lincoln, LBJ, and Earl Long were all racists, but they were racists who were dead set in their opinion that black americans were entitled to the same rights as the majority race. (That’s not an odd position for liberals to take, btw — — liberal politicians have been doing the “I personally hate abortion, but I believe in abortion rights) dance for decades.)
So, ultimately, my vote doesn’t go to people, it goes to the policies they espouse. That way, it doesn’t bother me if the president is an asshole; I care about what gets done and more importantly, what gets left alone.
What matters is whether their actions uphold a broken and oppressive system.
Well, good. So we don’t disagree on point that only actions matter, what we disagree on is this:
- You believe we have a broken and oppressive system, while…
- …I believe that we already have the most fair system known to history (capitalism) that is suffering from an overdose of corporatism enabled by too much government involvement in the economy, the solution being a rationalized economic libertarianism and less government involvement rather than more.
So, excellent. We understand each other. :-)
Schultz’s campaign expresses the worst of our money-driven politics; Trump’s actions advance a white supremacist social order.
See above, to my comment within the “***” box. Who cares about the “money-driven” part? You’ve just argued that ACTIONS are what matter, and there’s little doubt that his ACTIONS would fulfill a good portion of the liberal wish list. So, I continue to struggle with exactly what your problem with him is.
As for the rest, Trump has advanced no policies nor legislation which target and thereby disadvantage minority americans relative to the current status quo. So, I guess you’re just upset about his hyperbole and verbal diarrhea. (We all are.)
All the rest is apologetics, and I’m sorry to see anyone offer them with such passionate conviction as yourself.
It’s not “apologetics” to point out that that you’ve provided no solid reasons why “Schultz is bad”, outside of your desire to see Trump defeated; nor is it apologetics to point out, using facts, charts, and data, why the ideas of the far left are economically unachievable.
But, hell, we would never want to return to a collaborative form of politics where we COMPROMISE (urk!) with the “other side”, now, would we? :-)