Rolling in the D’OH!

104 Views

Although billionaire Howard Schultz is capturing a lot of headlines these days, there’s another billionaire who is upset at it. I’m referring to one of the “good” billionaires, Tom Steyer, the guy funding “Impeach Trump” commercials that haven’t moved the needle, but has Leftists creaming themselves. Anyway, Steyer recently tweeted the following:

@HowardSchultz isn’t ready for prime time. His knee-jerk rejection of a wealth tax shows why. We can’t end inequality until people like Howard & me are required to invest our fair share into our country. It’s not “punitive”—it’s patriotic.

Steyer’s tweet is full of the typical Leftist squawking points, but one part of it caught my eye: “required to invest in our country.” It’s not enough Schultz created a business that employs millions, supports Leftist causes, and elevates people and industries worldwide. Apparently, he needs to do more by force of government (because, let’s face it, that’s what Leftists want). And Schultz’s refusal to submit to force means he’s not a serious Presidential candidate?

There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’ll give you a moment to get a sammich and a cold drink. Ready? Here we go.

The First Amendment outlines a right to peaceably assemble, which means Congress can’t tell us who we can hang out with as long as it’s done without causing harm to others. At first blush, this seems to underscore Steyer’s point, but not when Leftist ideology used in another part of the First Amendment is brought into play. Leftists have maintained the freedom of religion also applies to the freedom from religion, meaning people should be free not to feel obligated to be part of a religion. So, in order for the Left’s argument regarding religion to be logical, they would have to reject Steyer’s idea that billionaires should be forced to contribute.

Judging from the responses to his tweet, that ain’t happening.

Plus, there’s the whole idea of being forced to do something for the common good. These days, the only things people can agree upon are hating the New England Patriots and Michael Bay movies. Beyond that, there is no common approach to the common good. It’s all about perspective.

Say for example you think it would be in the common good to bulldoze a crack house and erect a park. Many people might agree with your idea and support it, but others, like the International Brotherhood of Crack Dealers Local 305, would disagree with it. In their eyes, a crack house is a source of income and putting up a park would affect it. Which common good should prevail? Are both ideas valid? Could there be a compromise, like turning it into a Crack Fun House?

Whenever you invoke the common good, you have to deal with the possibility of pushback, and Steyer hasn’t considered that yet. Even though I’m not a billionaire (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), I would be one of the first to object to his plan to force people like him to give more to the government because a) the government can’t spend the money it already gets effectively, and b) using force to make a desired societal change opens the door to swing the other way once people of a different ideological persuasion get into power. And it will, sooner or later. Don’t damage yourself down the road for a little instant gratification.

However, I do have an idea for Mr. Steyer if he thinks he should pay more in taxes. The IRS takes gifts, and it’s not hard to find out where to send it. If he’s serious about Schultz’s lack of contribution, he should lead the way and voluntarily give up more of his income.

But notice his tweet doesn’t mention that. He’s waiting for government to tell him to do it, meaning…he’s not willing to do it himself. And he’s telling us Howard Schultz isn’t ready to be a leader?

Let that sink in, folks. Then, promptly tell Tom Steyer to shove his idea where the sun don’t shine. That’s right, I’m referring to his brain.

Which, appropriately enough, is shoved up his ass.

Lattes and Leftists

110 Views

Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, announced recently he is running for President in 2020. You would think Leftists would be happy (or at least less pissy than they usually are), but they’re not. Yes, dear reader, Leftists are unhappy that the CEO of the Mocha Mecca of Leftist ideology is running for the highest office of the land because…they don’t think he’ll win. To be fair, though, I could have been just as accurate if I had stopped after “think” in the previous sentence.

The Left is doing their best to make Schultz as unappealing as possible within their ideological bubble, up to and including inventing conspiracy theories about why he’s really running. The most popular one (and the one that is debunked with a little bit of research) is that Schultz running will mean Donald Trump will win reelection by splitting votes on the Left. The main problem with this idea is creates a built-in excuse for the Democrats if their candidate doesn’t win, but it doesn’t address the problem: maybe their candidate sucks on ice. For all the people who blame Ralph Nader for siphoning votes away from Al Gore, I don’t think many of them stopped for a moment and considered Gore could have been less like an animatronic display at Disney’s Hall of Presidents and more like an actual President and been more popular, or possibly even adopted some of Nader’s positions as a means to undercut Nader’s popularity.

But that would require insight and honesty not available in the current model of Leftist.

And that’s exactly what Schultz is bringing to the table. He’s been described as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, meaning he knows how to make money and then piss it away again. He hasn’t adopted some of the current Leftist must-haves, like support for Medicare for All (a plan that would make Obamacare look like a well-oiled machine, or at least a website that worked), and he’s made an appeal to the right of many of the current Leftist darlings, like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That means the Left hates him. Well, that, and the fact he’s a billionaire who isn’t “paying his fair share” or “paying his dues” by running for a lower office first.

Of course, all of these excuses hold less water than a bucket made of air.

The real reason the Left is attacking Schultz is because he left their utopia. In earlier statements, he has lamented how far left the Left has gotten and expressed how he no longer identifies with them. The Left may not want to admit this, but Schultz’s story rings true to a lot of people, and that means more potential voters for his campaign. It’s not exactly a secret that the current incarnation of the Left is driving away or at least muting the voices of more moderates and right-leaning Democrats, so a Schultz candidacy might do what Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and Bernie Sanders couldn’t do: put a public end to the notion the only two choices are Democrats and Republicans.

And that scares Leftists shitless.

Once people break out of the two-party concept, it leaves people of all political stripes the freedom to choose someone who more closely aligns with their beliefs if it isn’t a Democrat or a Republican. As much as the Left loves to talk about choice, the only choice they support is one they agree with (or can make money from).

I, on the other hand, welcome Mr. Schultz to the Presidential arena/clown car. In fairness to him, I will listen to what he has to say and determine if he’s worthy of my support. I may disagree with much of his platform, but I won’t know until I hear him out, something the Left doesn’t want me to do. And instead of focusing on trivial matters, like whether he’s really self-made, I want to ask the important questions.

Like how he justifies paying $5 for a large cup of coffee flavored milk that tastes like the beans were roasted in Mt. Vesuvius.