Howard Schultz Threatens 3rd Party Run

acbytesla said:
It does. But Schultz is smarter and was actually a successful business man. And even though I despise Trump, he's still the train wreck that you turn to watch. Schultz is more boring to watch than grass growing.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of The Sing-Song of Old Man Kangaroo.

Progressives: "We want an exciting president who's interesting to watch in action!"

Trump Voters: "Hold my beer."

Seriously, don't you want a nice boring president who just does the job and doesn't make a big scene or fuss?

Because that's what I want. I want a president who keeps his mouth shut, stays away from the bully pulpit, and sends a State of the Union letter to Congress every year.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Reminds me of The Sing-Song of Old Man Kangaroo.

Progressives: "We want an exciting president who's interesting to watch in action!"

Trump Voters: "Hold my beer."

Seriously, don't you want a nice boring president who just does the job and doesn't make a big scene or fuss?

Because that's what I want. I want a president who keeps his mouth shut, stays away from the bully pulpit, and sends a State of the Union letter to Congress every year.
Click to expand...

I would love a boring President. But that's just NOT how this works. If it was, Hillary would be President. Boring people don't make it through the primaries let alone winning a general election. I want a progressive candidate that the electorate responds to and votes for.
 
I have no interest in seeing him run. Whatever issues he has with the two-party system, this is not the election to bumble **** around with them. That said. We don't need free Medicare for all. We need to just go back to Obama Care/ACA, say if there are no carriers in your area, you can pay your premium at whatever the ACA subsidized rate is and call it a day. Free Medicare for all is a solution in search of a problem. Let's not go all crazy about it.

Same with education. It's okay if students come out of college with some debt, just not the debt they have now. Why does it take three years in the UK and Europe to get a BSC and four years in the US? There could be some savings there.

Progressives shouldn't talk about free, they should talk about costing less, huge difference there.
 
Craig4 said:
I have no interest in seeing him run. Whatever issues he has with the two-party system, this is not the election to bumble **** around with them. That said. We don't need free Medicare for all. We need to just go back to Obama Care/ACA, say if there are no carriers in your area, you can pay your premium at whatever the ACA subsidized rate is and call it a day. Free Medicare for all is a solution in search of a problem. Let's not go all crazy about it.

Same with education. It's okay if students come out of college with some debt, just not the debt they have now. Why does it take three years in the UK and Europe to get a BSC and four years in the US? There could be some savings there.

Progressives shouldn't talk about free, they should talk about costing less, huge difference there.
Click to expand...

NO, it's not. The Affordable Care Act was better than nothing. But one only need to look around the rest of the Developed World and see that our system works poorly.
I ABSOLUTELY believe we need to go to some form of Universal Healthcare and the ACA is just a bandaid for a broken system.
 
theprestige said:
Reminds me of The Sing-Song of Old Man Kangaroo.

Progressives: "We want an exciting president who's interesting to watch in action!"

Trump Voters: "Hold my beer."

Seriously, don't you want a nice boring president who just does the job and doesn't make a big scene or fuss?

Because that's what I want. I want a president who keeps his mouth shut, stays away from the bully pulpit, and sends a State of the Union letter to Congress every year.
Click to expand...

Most progressives I know are leaning Warren. She's a law professor who's easy to imagine as a benevolent 5th grade teacher.

Progressives are a-ok with boring as long as the policies are correct.
 
Craig4 said:
I have no interest in seeing him run. Whatever issues he has with the two-party system, this is not the election to bumble **** around with them. That said. We don't need free Medicare for all. We need to just go back to Obama Care/ACA, say if there are no carriers in your area, you can pay your premium at whatever the ACA subsidized rate is and call it a day. Free Medicare for all is a solution in search of a problem. Let's not go all crazy about it.

Same with education. It's okay if students come out of college with some debt, just not the debt they have now. Why does it take three years in the UK and Europe to get a BSC and four years in the US? There could be some savings there.

Progressives shouldn't talk about free, they should talk about costing less, huge difference there.
Click to expand...

Some things work better when they're paid for via taxes. Highways, emergency fire service, and military are good examples.

Healthcare is like them.

We really need to join the rest of the developed world on this.
 
acbytesla said:
I ABSOLUTELY believe we need to go to some form of Universal Healthcare and the ACA is just a bandaid for a broken system.
Click to expand...

Indeed. "We can't afford it" is such nonsense. In a lot of ways we can't afford to not have some form of universal health care. Here are two things we can do to help us "afford" it:
1) increase taxes
2) spend less on our socialist military jobs program
bonus #3 – eliminate fossil fuel subsidies

It's quite simple, really. For healthier, happier, more productive people we can raise more money and stop spending so much on stuff we don't need.
 
The Shrike said:
Indeed. "We can't afford it" is such nonsense. In a lot of ways we can't afford to not have some form of universal health care. Here are two things we can do to help us "afford" it:
1) increase taxes
2) spend less on our socialist military jobs program
bonus #3 – eliminate fossil fuel subsidies

It's quite simple, really. For healthier, happier, more productive people we can raise more money and stop spending so much on stuff we don't need.
Click to expand...

I just ask those people who say we can't afford it, why is it that so many other countries can? How is it possible that France, Japan, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Germany etc, etc, etc can?
 
acbytesla said:
I just ask those people who say we can't afford it, why is it that so many other countries can? How is it possible that France, Japan, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Germany etc, etc, etc can?
Click to expand...

Because those are all socialist countries and they're all going to hell....
 
Problem I have with Schultz is he is not really a centrist..but a de facto BIg BUsiness Republican pretending to be a centrist.
 
Puppycow said:
Clearly 'Murica is "Doing It Wrong" when it comes to healthcare. And maybe Japan's system isn't perfect, I get that, but it is affordable, rational and efficient.
Click to expand...

It's always so fascinating to hear Americans talk about how "we can't afford all of these nice things" when essentially all other major developed western countries can and (if their politicians want it) do offer "free" higher public education, healthcare and public insurance together with acceptable social welfare provisions.

In truth Americans really can afford this, as in most cases publicly funded non-profit driven healthcare systems ends up being far more cost effective than for-profit systems, it's just that they can't muster the courage to raise taxes. They won't raise enough taxes to pay their bills, because it would be unpopular, so they end up taking loans to fund their budget instead. This gives the incorrect impression that the current public expenditure is simply too high and unsustainable when in reality it really is sustainable.

Republicans "starve the beast" tactic has failed catastrophically and made the debate about public fiances incredibly toxic and politically sensitive. They have even come to believe their own ******** and lies.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Problem I have with Schultz is he is not really a centrist..but a de facto BIg BUsiness Republican pretending to be a centrist.
Click to expand...

"Centrist" nowadays just means "big business republican who isn't a religious nut or full on anarcho-capitalist. "
ETA: Bush-era neoconservatives are "centrists" now, as is the "donor base" of the Democratic Party.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom