Reddy

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 06:55 PM) New poll Ossof 50 - Handel 47 https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/872949...src=twsrc%5Etfw He crushed her in both debates

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 05:36 PM) friendly reminder that post seems to break all of them but #2. As someone who's an expert in Rabbit attacking him, I have to agree with him on this one..... I don't see anything wrong with what he posted.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 05:12 PM) Grilling you on the particulars of a potential presidential candidate in an election that is 3.5 years away that you speculatively support given what you know at this point is worth a lot of SS's energy. That's an exciting task on a Wednesday for him. Did you just... sort of defend me? There's hope for us yet, dammit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:52 PM) That "brand" was built off of policy positions that reinforced it. He was a "man of the people" and wasn't (and wasn't for) millionaires, and it was clear from his policies. What is Schultz's brand, what is supposed to be exciting about it, what are the tangible effects people should care about? Because I'm pretty sure "billionaire white guy CEO with zero government or public service background" isn't going to be the brand that the progressive wing of the party rallies behind. There are going to be annoying purity progressives out there for sure who won't really accept any candidate and only need one reason not to vote for someone. But there are plenty of less rigidly pure progressives who nonetheless would be pretty unhappy with more centrist technocracy behind a billionaire CEO figurehead. Dismissing those people, even if you don't think they're being rational or whatever, is only going to deepen the rift in the Democratic party. e: you were also starting off talking about policy-type positions like health care and college and social justice issues. There was no mention of "brand" when you called him "perfect" Those were things he's done. They don't inherently reflect a potential platform, but they're reasons I'm hopeful and interested in hearing more about him. Is this seriously worth this much of your energy?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:40 PM) I'm loving the packaging on New Bleach 2.0! Sounds tasty! Everyone pour a big glass! I'm sorry nuance isn't your thing, today. It's weird, because you can usually handle it. Brand is not policy platform. K? That's all I care that you take away from this. Bernie's brand was "man of the people" "not a millionaire" "one of us" "speaks his mind" "authentic" "principled", etc. Are those policy positions?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:12 PM) Why didn't you support Bernie harder then? Because 1) I didn't think he would win, 2) I find him incredibly disingenuous and narcissistic and 3) Because he had no actual plans, and he's never able to actually ACCOMPLISH anything. He has a terrible track record, is unwilling to compromise and is unwilling to budge from his positions. I want all the things he wants, but I'm not going to stand in the way of progress on an issue because it isn't the EXACT thing I want.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:35 PM) He's got the perfect brand but you have no idea what his platform would actually be. Okay. Brand =/= Platform I'm literally in a political communications course as we speak, talking about this very thing. Okay?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) You already said he was "perfect" though from a marketing/branding perspective. obviously I have no idea what his platform would be. I really give you guys too much credit...

I agree that capitalism is broken, but it's not going away, no matter how much the green party screams about it. Shultz, to me, seems like a pretty damn good way to make progress within the system that we're going to have whether I like it or not (I don't)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 12:25 PM) Is Schultz actually committed to universal health care and free college tuition for all as public policy? The most I can find on concrete political statements from him is that he was whining about the deficit and balanced budgets back in 2011, which only reinforces the point that he's just another garbage centrist. e: starbucks doesn't pay a living wage to a big chunk of their employees. Walmart actually has (or at least had, as of a few years ago) a higher rate of health insurance for employees than Starbucks. Listen, he isn't running yet, so I don't know where he'll officially land on policy. It'd be silly for me to guess. I'm also not saying I WILL support him. I just think he has a unique package to bring to the table, and I'm interested to see what he does with it. I've always admired the way he ran Starbucks and the way he was always out in front on social issues and taking care of employees. He's not afraid to make a politically unpopular move when it's the right thing (see refugees) and I applaud that. That's why at this stage I give him the benefit of the doubt and am interested in seeing more. Obviously we can debate this further in a couple years haha

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 10:18 AM) Perhaps fair is the wrong word. But it's the best I have. And how is it an impasse? I moved right pass it and said that we would have to divide up the bill not based on each person paying their exact bill. Did you just stop reading at that point? Is it fair that people are born into different situations? No. But why create another unfair situation by taking from one person and giving it to another? Now we've created a second unfair situation. Which, as I noted, is what we must deal with. call me a bleeding heart, but the "unfair situation" of taking a little from someone who has a lot, to give a little to someone who has nothing, is something I'm ok with. I understand that others aren't. But there we have the fundamental disagreement between Democrats and Republicans.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:46 AM) Not everyone wants to embrace The Gilded Age 2.0. Starbucks being marginally better than the competition while still having a multibillionaire CEO is still emblematic of our ever-growing income and wealth gaps. free college and healthcare is something you consider "marginally" better than how Walmart treats its employees? Hiring veterans and refugees at a living wage? Donating massive amounts of money to progressive causes? Yeah ok. Y'all are so wrapped up in your Bernieism that you refuse to see it when there just MIGHT be a CEO out there doing some good, who agrees with your politics, and has the power to do something to make those politics reality.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) "He's, frankly, perfect." Neoliberalism is something else. 1) I don't take that as the insult you intend it to be 2) Since when are free healthcare and college tuition "neoliberal" principles 3) Wanna actually contribute to the conversation instead of throwing out buzzwords you don't understand?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) Where did I say I didn't want politicians? One of my complaints were running people with zero political/public service experience. I don't want Democrats to mimic the Republican party, and I don't think CEO's and celebrities are qualified to be POTUS. What about Schultz gets you excited and makes you think he'd excite the rest of the progressive base. Free college, healthcare, benefits for all Sbux employees. At the forefront of every social justice issue AND created one of the great American business success stories at the same time. He's, frankly, perfect. A good CEO is far more qualified to be President than a freshman senator

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 02:11 PM) I don't want a CEO, and I don't want more technocratic fiddling around the edges and hoping for CEO's to raise wages on their own while actively fighting against regulations requiring them to do so. Yeah, Starbucks raised their sub-poverty wages to still-sub-poverty-but-a-little-better levels, but it's still difficult for their workers to get full time with benefits, to get consistent and predictable schedules. Starbucks still fights against unionization and formal workers' rights. These workers are ground to dust by poverty and a system that exploits them. Meanwhile, Schultz is worth several billion dollars. I don't want "treated like s***, but a little better than Walmart" to be hailed as some sort of victory and worthy goal. It's a larger complaint about our economic system as a whole that Schultz, as one of the wealthiest people in the world, is a symbol of. What should the progressive base get excited about with him? A 5% raise on your $9/hour wage with no hourly consistency? Having some health care when what we'd like is a universal health care system comparable to every other developed country in the world? What political causes is Schultz actually championing here? And whether you think it's valid or not, there are a lot of people out there who would probably abandon the Democrats for a generation if our choices in 2020 are two billionaires. I don't like the purity politics, either, but at some point you need to actually stand for something important and meaningful. There are millions of people being left behind by the modern economy who are more than willing to check out or to give a big "f*** you" to the whole system and vote for the idiot reality TV star clown because of it. e: some of the above is speaking for myself, some is trying to express the criticisms you'd expect to see from the more progressive wing of the base. No CEOs, no politicians, no celebrities.... who exactly DO we want to run for President?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 10:02 AM) Eh, I don't understand why Schultz would be so bad, certainly open to have missed something. He had his embarrassing rollouts with the race discussion, but he always paid his labor well, gave benefits tracks with healthcare and 401ks to baristas early. Used his platform to help unemployed veterans and refugees. When coming under criticism for taking social issues he's told investors to shove off. If you don't want a ceo out of not wanting a CEO, then I get it. Also him selling to the sonics to the group that moved them to OKC. Pro schultz as a person/ceo. We'll have a lot of cleanup though, and I think we'll want some experience. I actually, at this point, wholeheartedly support the idea of Schultz running. I'm willing to be wrong, but I think he could actually do the job well.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2017 -> 10:37 PM) Ugh nooooooooo Johnson/West?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 5, 2017 -> 02:41 PM) See, once again I am RIGHT. Thank u for the endorsement here. Of course they "cleared the field." It was Hillary. Too bad the DNC fell for the "coronation" atmosphere that was going on. Had Biden been encouraged you dont think he'd have been a winner and crushed Trump? I love how all it takes for you to proclaim you are unequivocally correct is for ONE other person to agree with you. #Trumpingregclothing

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2017 -> 10:56 AM) our choices are going to be Cuomo, Booker and Zuck and I will give up all hope Cuban and Schultz say hi.

This is exactly what I predicted would happen if Trump pulled out of the agreement, and it's the reason I wasn't totally bummed about him doing it. This will now actually create MORE of a push towards renewables than we already had. The same phenomenon that has inspired and motivated the progressive movement. Give it a common enemy, and a common threat, and the whole world will move even FASTER towards fighting climate change than they were going to before.

Like... slavery and misogyny and patriarchy and brutal dictatorships and survival of the fittest and all the s***ty f***ing things about humans are a part of "human nature", but you don't suggest we don't work on those issues do you?? Your argument is "if it's human nature, no point worrying about it!" ??

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 08:34 PM) Keep trying it...and it will take thousands of more years. What is needed is another solution. Are you seriously suggesting humanity hasn't made progress in the last couple thousands of years? What the heck is your argument here? lol

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 06:28 PM) This sounds like a campaign for talking to your children about abstinence or something. I mean come on, stop being naive. This is the way of the world you are talking about. It's human nature you are fighting against. that's what civilization has been fighting for thousands of years... We're just supposed to stop trying in 2017?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 2, 2017 -> 05:25 PM) Agreed. She had a chance to be the badass and tell everybody to f*** off, it's art. Ted Nugent never backed down did he? I still see him yapping on TV or youtube and he's still touring right? She probably was smart to have a news conference though. Fighting back is the right thing to do considering Trump is hated by so many. She probably should go on a few of the Late Night shows and resurrect her career by bashing Trump all day every day. I don't know.... a news conference where she's whining and crying about Trump ruining her career turned me off even more. And y'all know how I feel about Trump.

I don't feel bad for her either. Either don't do it, or be willing to stand behind it if you do. Because she did NEITHER - that's the reason she "may not have a career anymore". If she'd stood by her art and not rolled over the split second someone got mad, she'd be killing it right now. But as it is, take f***ing responsibility. Whining about Trump ruining your life creates zero pity from anyone.