Starbucks CEO fed up with U.S. politics

Again-the people who are likely to stop donating are the people who donate to Democrats, and democrats are the ones who are trying to compromise. It sends the message of "It doesn't matter whether you try and compromise or not, you're still going to get reamed."

Now, the Tea Party is increasingly becoming hated in America-more than us atheists according to one poll!-so it's unclear how much this sort of thing will affect elections, but with people like Good ol' Grover Norquist (NORQUIIIIIIIIIST!) funding Tea Party candidates personally, I just can't see this effort as being anything but a detriment to actual compromise.

^Their scones are like pieces of rock covered in bland frosting.

edited 17th Aug '11 1:43:41 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Like a corporate coffee shop that's decorated and treated like it's a small mom & pop coffee place with a "hipster" spin.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work too well, and this attempt infuriates some raeg from others.

And what are they like? I've also never been to a coffee shop.

Whoa. That's impressive.

I think, given what the middle class white folk I'm constantly surrounded by are saying, that people are realizing that the Tea Party is mostly astroturf to get more money for the corporations. Such is why their popularity is slowly falling off the deep end...

@Tomu: I know you want to Demonize Norquist and his cronies, but I feel compelled to mention the Koch Brothers as the other major funder of the Teabagger agenda.

I always found Starbucks to be bloody expensive food, and I hate coffee and tea. So I generally try to stay the hell away from the places.

Norquist is specifically 100% anti tax "Even if that means we kill our grandmas."

The Koch brothers are, as I understand it, more about long-term strategy for making sure that the Republicans of the future get elected by killing unions, and have been more influential in state politics.

[Needs to find Tomu next month]

edited 17th Aug '11 1:59:28 PM by Kino

Oh, are you headin to Savannah again sometime in September?

It's a possibility, though i've got to see if I'll even be free; didn't see you on River St. last year.

I've only been here since April.

Son of a bitch...

We've been over this before ;P

Yeah I like Panera better, though it'd be nice if they could get my order right once in a while. I've only ever been to a Starbucks twice.

Anyway it is disappointing that Starbucks is withholding funding from the Democrats. It's pretty much the opposite of their stated message.

Exactly. Unless they can get corporations that donate almost entirely to Republicans to sign on board, the whole thing is wonderfully counter productive.

"No more money for you, let the other corps win!"

That will end... poorly

Well, they're perfectly right on principle... I imagine the man is honestly idealistic enough to think all the corporate buddies he has will go along with this.

Poor sap...

edited 17th Aug '11 3:20:04 PM by USAF713

About Starbucks:

I think the US experience of Starbucks is much... different to our experience of Starbucks.

In that, here, actual people drink at Starbucks. And they make good hot chocolate.

ON TOPIC:

Anyway, I think that any company following suit would not exactly be anyone. Really, who wants to raise taxes on themselves? Individuals are okay with it. Corps = profit.

Taxes = less profit.

edited 17th Aug '11 3:27:37 PM by Inhopelessguy

Not necessarily. In the short run it's certainly true that taxes are bad for businesses, but the Tea Party has shown that a rampant anti-tax mentality can be catastrophic for business because it leads to things like refusing to raise the debt ceiling. It is theoretically possible that people that normally fund anti-tax candidates are realizing what happens when they go too far.

If the economy tanks, you may have more wealth relative to the people around you, but you're still overall poorer.

I would think that retail and food service corporations are probably more willing to pay higher taxes than, say, investment bankers.

edited 17th Aug '11 3:30:20 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Yep exactly. I'm concerned that's the solution some people might go for because of all the sane and intelligent CE Os that could run the country instead of the current slew of idiots.

Yes, sane and intelligent, but also corrupt and greedy, mostly...

And if not already, then power corrupts...

Then truly the only option left is to have no units of society over a hundred people. Less power, less ability to corrupt.

That only gives us, what, about 60 million clusters of 100 individuals, right?

Societal force always changes anarchy and tribalism to proper nation-states unless you're willing to use incredible lengths and overt force to keep them in the lower state of "society."