Starbucks CEO: "It’s Time to Disrupt the Two-Party System"

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not sure about that . Look at gun control and abortion issues lately.
And NOBODY has figured out the internet of things yet.

a reply to: lakenheath24

I still believe, despite the minority screaming the loudest in favor of draconian infringement of enumerated rights and celebrating infanticide, that the majority of Americans support the Constitution and are moral enough to recognize infanticide is wrong.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

THAT disgusts me so much....legalized murder.

The problem is the silent majority is being pulled to the left and right. Its worrisome. The fringe on both sides need snipped. I get that peeps want their way on either side....and each knows best....but mama sent me to school to learn how to play with other kids. Fightin and name callin got u an ass whoopin.

Hell, maybe im just getting old, but the sense of morals i grew up with are now being presented as some sort of caveman, patriarchal, whitewashed white privilidged world...when in reality it was based in faith, family, and friends.


Rant over....chugs last beer....turns off Led Zep. Goes to bed.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


I find it hilarious he thinks it's time to disrupt the 2 party system. Didn't Trump already do that? If he is speaking the truth, would he really want the MSM treating him as they treat Trump? Would he be okay with being investigated every day by the shadow government like Trump? Is he willing to put his friends and family to the gun like he has seen happen to everyone associated with Trump?

The 2 party system has already been disrupted. This guy is a liar.

Did he? Has it? Trump is a steadfast Republican. I know he said he would, and he may act differently than the majority of politicians, but he doesn't even claim that he's 3rd party, he himself says he's -R. So, by definition, he didn't disrupt the 2 party system, because he's part of one of the 2 parties.

As for your other questions, you're right, I'm not sure the guy could take as much crap as the Republicans/Trump has for the last couple years. However, I've also never seen him in any situation other than an interview, so I could be wrong.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Dunno.

I'd rather be more informed of his ideas and platform before voting.

Look at it this way... both Reagan and Trump were disenfranchised Democrats.

They both turned out just fine to me.

Besides, with an Independent as President both crappy parties have a chance at actually starting to represent their constituents, as opposed to block party-line voting.

May get interesting indeed...

Schultz openly stated he supported confiscation of semi-automatic firearms while talking about how he "supports the 2nd" is a no-starter for most of us on the Right side. No way in hell I'd vote for someone who's positions will ultimately make me a murderer.

So he means all firearms, essentially.

a reply to: narrator

He disrupted it in the sense that the preordained did not win.

Also, when you have Paul Ryan and John McCain trying to stop you from doing what you were elected to do, you've disrupted your own party.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Dunno.

I'd rather be more informed of his ideas and platform before voting.

Look at it this way... both Reagan and Trump were disenfranchised Democrats.

They both turned out just fine to me.

Besides, with an Independent as President both crappy parties have a chance at actually starting to represent their constituents, as opposed to block party-line voting.

May get interesting indeed...

Schultz openly stated he supported confiscation of semi-automatic firearms while talking about how he "supports the 2nd" is a no-starter for most of us on the Right side. No way in hell I'd vote for someone who's positions will ultimately make me a murderer.

Well, looks like I don't have to do my homework then... since he can't seem to understand the simple phrase "shall not be infringed."

Thanks for the heads up!

a reply to: Realtruth

Why not, it's the only reason Clinton got elected in 92.

Jaden

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Obviously Schultz has not learned from history, like Canadian history. Three parties lol. Three corrupt parties in varying states of insanity. A no party solution would be better, elect people based on ideology, belief, agenda, moral and ethical character. Right now, we just have warring factions of political unions, three factions are worse than two.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Schultz: ‘It’s Time to Disrupt the Two-Party System’ — If I Run It Will Be a Three-Person Race in 50 States

I don't think so. In my country there are 3 factions of government. I say 3 factions because over the years they have all morphed into groups that are all on the same side of the fence.

This of course, is the result of the corruptive influence of big business, foreign lobbyists, powerful "friends" and the shadowy figures behind the curtain with their international agendas.

These three factions have become just different versions of the same party, and all support the same basic agenda.

I see no reason how or why this will not happen in the US ..... or anywhere else for that matter.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Great...the more the merrier