Will Howard Schultz Serve a Liberty Latte or Stale Socialist Dregs?

[Ed Hudgins]

"Will Howard Schultz Serve a Liberty Latte or Stale Socialist Dregs?"
By Edward Hudgins

Far-left Democratic politicians are tripping over themselves to run for president in 2020, and the news media are tripping over themselves touting those candidacies—but only when they’re not busy praising Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s economy-destroying “Green New Deal.” Enter Starbucks founder and liberal Democrat Howard Schultz, who says he might run for president as an independent in 2020, on the assumption his own party is hopeless.

The extreme left is apoplectic, fearing he’ll divide the Democratic vote, reelecting Trump in 2020. Millionaire socialist moviemaker Michael Moore calls for a boycott of Starbucks. Millionaire Dem. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wants to tax all wealth and denounces “billionaires who think they can buy the presidency to keep the system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips away for everyone else.” She commands “these billionaires to stop being freeloaders.” This vitriol comes because Schultz is disrupting Democratic Party dogma.

First, Schultz slammed Warren, rather than apologizing for his wealth. He came from a poor family—he was one of the “everyone else” Warren allegedly loves—and created his wealth and his company, with all its jobs and benefits. Customers choose his lattes and coffee shops reminiscent of gathering-place cafes in Europe. Only a deluded demagogue could call this “freeloading.” Schultz tagged rags-to-riches stories like his own the “American Dream” he supports. While not saying so explicitly, his response challenges the envy-driven agenda of extreme-left Democrats.

Second, Schultz challenged Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and their ilk directly by saying, “I don’t believe the country should be heading to socialism.” Shades of Trump! Other Democrats silently fear that their party’s extreme leftists could throw 2020 to Trump. Schultz challenges the extremists out loud.

Third, Schultz sees the now $22 trillion federal debt as an existential threat to our country. Obama drove it up more than all previous American presidents combined, and the GOP, good on so many cut-back-the-government policies, hasn’t been much better. Will Schultz be tempted to hike taxes to cut deficits? Such hikes historically slow down economies, thus reducing tax revenue—or, at the very least, slowing its growth.

Further, Starbucks recently announced Trump’s tax cuts “accelerated” wage increases, employee stock grants, and other benefits for its workers. Successful entrepreneur Schultz ... (continue reading here.)

[Jon Letendre]

Schultz endorsed Killery for President.

What demented evil fuck would endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States?

[Peter]

12 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Schultz endorsed Killery for President.

What demented evil fuck would endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States?

49.9 percent of voting Americans.

[Jon Letendre]

5 minutes ago, Peter said:

49.9 percent of voting Americans.

You still believe that?

[Peter]

Belief is not involved as a means of observing the facts of reality for an objectivist. I think Trump pulled the election out the hat around 9pm on voting night. Do you believe Trump won? Was his winning legitimately based on the electoral vote? Using your theory of distrust of our institutions would you say Hillary "actually got" fewer or more votes than were projected on my TV? Was the electoral college manipulated by Russians?

[Jon Letendre]

Half of her “votes” were pure fraud, Peter. Wake up. All the polling is fiction.  Nowhere near half of your countrymen voted for that evil hag.

In any case, I don’t mean regular Americans many of whom can be 60% forgiven for being systematically brainwashed.

But Schultz rubbed elbows for decades, all the way up at the top. He knows what she is all about and he approves, the demented evil fuck.

(And that Starbucks logo, those are her legs. She is the ancient Babylonian goddess of limitless fornication or some such twisted shit. He is in the sick cult that all the above-the-law super elites  are in.)

[Peter]

I remember that there was "evidence" that Chicago and other democrat strongholds can rig their portion of the election but as far as proving it you need admissible evidence. I remember President Trump saying he would not "go after" Old Hickory Clinton which is a mistake in my opinion. And I think there is enough evidence to prove collusion within the top echelons of the FBI to keep Trump from being elected. But is it enough to put those sob's behind bars? Apparently not.

I see a  need for evidence when a "pattern" is noted, like your reference to a coffee logo. A clear, fact based investigation is needed to explain swastika like drawings on ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics or conspiracy theories about The Masons too. Though that Nicolas Cage movie "National Treasure" was a lot of fun, how often are those theories unprovable because they are false?    

[Ed Hudgins]

Peter - Joe's not worth debating with. Reason won't  reach him. Anyway, Schultz adds an interesting element to the Democrats' inter-party battles. 

[Jon Letendre]

They (the people whose names you've never heard but who rule over you) worship deities you've never heard of.

Same with "that junk I [Donald J. Trump] destroyed at Bonwit Teller" https://secretsofmanhattan.wordpress.com/2017/08/16/the-bonwit-teller-building-how-donald-trump-destroyed-an-art-deco-treasure/

They worship that deity also. That is why they went apeshit when he destroyed it, and why he reveled so much in their grieving. More here:

 

An an earlier version:

[Jon Letendre]

3 hours ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Peter - Joe's not worth debating with. Reason won't  reach him. Anyway, Schultz adds an interesting element to the Democrats' inter-party battles. 

Did you endorse Killery, Ted?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Peter - Joe's not...

Ed,

Who is Joe?

btw - This is only tangentially related to your article, but you might find it amusing.

The leftie propaganda actually does work on the young.

I wonder if Schulz will speak at UCLA after this video reaches its peak of virality. I mean, according to the left, if anyone needs a reeducation camp, it's him.

 

Michael

[Ed Hudgins]

Michael - Sorry, I meant Jon, the guy who seems to be trolling Peter. My bad!

[Ed Hudgins]

Michael - On the concentration camps for Trump supporters, I hope Schultz and the few remaining halfway reasonable Dems will realize they are, indeed, on course to reelect Trump because they are so insanely radical and irrational. That's why Schultz is looking at a run as an independent rather than in the Dem. Party.

[Jon Letendre]

5 minutes ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Michael - Sorry, I meant Jon, the guy who seems to be trolling Peter. My bad!

Did you endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Michael - Sorry, I meant Jon, the guy who seems to be trolling Peter. My bad!

Ed,

Jon's actually one of the good guys. One day he just got really, really, really pissed off that pedophilia--especially among the ruling class--keeps getting normalized and brushed aside by intellectuals, even in O-Land, and he snapped. Now he vents and I let it be.

If someone gets that pissed off, it's good that it's for the right reason. And I agree with his reason. If people generally don't want to think about the damaged children left over from ruling class perverts getting their jollies, there are a few of us around who will not forget them and brush them aside. Later we will work on how to actually make a change in the world with this pent up passion and actually help keep children from being abused.

I even set up a section on OL about child abuse, human trafficking and so on called For The Children. I don't contribute to it nearly as much as I should. Why? Because this topic depresses the hell out of me. Frankly, I get emotional and spiritual fuel from Jon's take no prisoners attitude. But I admit, this passion eventually should be directed toward something productive.

As to his posting of QAnon and things like that, I mean, why is CNN or MSNBC or any of the other mainstream fake news outlets respectable and QAnon not? If we think in principles, it can't be because of, say, CNN's commitment to telling the truth or behaving rationally. CNN simply lies too much and is about as irrational as they come. Ditto for the others. And they're all doing this 24/7.

Talk about bullshit. 

In a world (and even here in O-Land) where that is the standard of what is normal and respectable, what's wrong with taking a walk on the wild side? I say go for it. One will find more truth following strange paths because one sees something intriguing and wants to pursue it than among elitist crony corporatist liars who lie on purpose and constantly gaslight people so they will not think for themselves--all driven by ruling class political agendas. To hell with them. Give me the colorful and the innocent of heart anytime.

As to Jon, once you get to know him, íf you ever do, I have no doubt you'll like him. He's a lot more like you than you could ever imagine right now. (To me, you're one of the good guys, too.  ) Also, back when I first started writing on the old SoloHQ, he was one of the first to gush--and sincerely gush--about my writing, especially the stuff that was very painful for me to write. Sorry folks, humans can't change the past and I never forget. What Jon did is forever. Now he can do no wrong in my eyes, so suck it up, people.  

Jon's been wondering whether you voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race and I know you may not want to talk to him. So I can sort of answer, if that is OK with you.

As I remember it, you supported Gary Johnson up to the point where he dropped out, then you didn't write all that much about the elections except, mostly, to criticize Hillary. But it wasn't all that often. That indicates to me you did not vote for her. Whether you voted for Trump, I can easily see you doing that to vote against her more than vote for him, and I can also see you annulling your vote in some manner. But I can't see you voting for Clinton... ever.

Did I get that right?

 

Michael

[Ed Hudgins]

Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding!

.......

Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies!  That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon  makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy!  That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!

Edited February 26, 2019 by Ed Hudgins
Saw response after I posted.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Ed Hudgins said:

... I hope Schultz and the few remaining halfway reasonable Dems will realize they are, indeed, on course to reelect Trump because they are so insanely radical and irrational.

Ed,

I hope they realize it, too.

That will make Trump's victory all the more bitter for them.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Ed Hudgins said:

"See that crazy!  That's Objectivist living. I rest my case."

Ed,

If you know me, you know that would make me very proud.

 

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding!

.......

Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies!  That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon  makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy!  That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!

Can't you answer the question?

[Ed Hudgins]

Hi again Michael!

On child abuse, with two beautiful little daughters, I'd be the first the rip the throat out of anyone who would assault kids.

As for politics, I am not and never have been a Hillary supporter. No problem there! Currently, I work to change policy where there is leverage to do so and, happily, there is. I'm just about to come out with another paper on liberalizing the drug approval process, and I'm looking at some interesting opportunities for really major disruption of the educational system. Most of our policy and cultural battles are rear guard actions against the dogmatism, irrationalism, and outright rejection of objective reality brainwashed into kids, especially in higher educ. What's the point of writing a study that brilliantly proves with mountains of data that free market are better if the politicians, media mogels, and public "intellectuals" simply don;t care and want to just live in their fictional "narrative." We need to bust up their indoctrination system. Stay tuned!

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Ed Hudgins said:

Hi again Michael!

On child abuse, with two beautiful little daughters, I'd be the first the rip the throat out of anyone who would assault kids.

As for politics, I am not and never have been a Hillary supporter. No problem there! Currently, I work to change policy where there is leverage to do so and, happily, there is. I'm just about to come out with another paper on liberalizing the drug approval process, and I'm looking at some interesting opportunities for really major disruption of the educational system. Most of our policy and cultural battles are rear guard actions against the dogmatism, irrationalism, and outright rejection of objective reality brainwashed into kids, especially in higher educ. What's the point of writing a study that brilliantly proves with mountains of data that free market are better if the politicians, media mogels, and public "intellectuals" simply don;t care and want to just live in their fictional "narrative." We need to bust up their indoctrination system. Stay tuned!

Then you recommended voting for Trump?

[Jon Letendre]

Aaaaand, he's logged out.

Simple question. Evaded.

It's a shame so many of his type infest our movement.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Aaaaand, he's logged out.

Simple question. Evaded.

It's a shame so many of his type infest our movement.

Jon,

Ed's one of the good guys, too.

 

His thing, from everything I have read of his, is seeing the world through the principles stated in Randian capitalism literature. He's probably dealt with other stuff, but that is what I have read.

His focus on "Objectivist movement" is based on his professional choices--his career is working at think tanks. He was many years at TAS. Now he's at Heartland. So he will tend to see OL through that lens, through a saving the world through politics and the right philosophy lens. I get the impression he does not really know what OL is all about (using Objectivism as a starting point, not end point, for people to develop their own thinking).

For people with Ed's "movement" approach, I like him a lot more that I do the fundies.  

Also, I'm pretty sure he has difficulty understanding what the hell Barbara Branden ever saw in me.  

As to Trump, in his think-tank world, you have to talk the talk more than walk the walk. That's not a criticism so much as an identification of the reality of that world. Think tank people are words over deeds people. Words are their product. With the way Trump talked during the elections, I imagine Ed was too horrified by Trump's words to look at what he actually did over his life and try to project that into the political realm. The fact is, though, Trump got elected and Ed's preferred folks generally don't.

I'm hoping over time he will come to understand why and not just brush it off with some variation of that's what people do when they are not taught the right philosophy (which I see as a variation on Original Sin, but that's another discussion).

I, personally, think the election of Trump shows just how much the American people (in general) rock. They are not stupid. They see things the pundits and intellectuals don't. And when they've had enough bullshit, they clean house. 

From that lens, this is where I would disagree with Ed about Obama's elections, for example. Instead of saying the American people were following the wrong philosophy and that was the cause, I would say the American people just wanted to follow their individual dreams and take care of their loved ones, but the politics kept interfering. They got real tired of crony ruling class bullshit--with Bush being the latest version at that time. So they tried something completely different (Obama). They didn't like that, either. It was the same old crony ruling class bullshit, but worse. So they went with a total outsider (Trump) who was a high-end achiever in the real world, knew how to negotiate with scumbags, and wanted to fix the stuff that was interfering with their individual lives (especially massive illegal immigration, endless wars for ruling class profit, and globalism crap).

You won't find that kind of analysis within Ed's world. But that's what Trump supporters (the ones like me) see. There are plenty of people I know who are just like that.

But, like I said, I like Ed. He lives on the happy side, not the dark side. I resonate with that. Also, he's a hell of a nice guy.

I believe you would like him if you ever got to know him better.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Think tank people are words over deeds people. Words are their product. With the way Trump talked during the elections, I imagine Ed was too horrified by Trump's words to look at what he actually did over his life and try to project that into the political realm.

Another tsk-tsking delicate flower. Those are useles. A trillion of them couldn’t overcome what we are up against.

[Ed Hudgins]

Hi Michael – Thanks for your thoughtful response. Actually, you’ve got some of the think tank stuff backwards. There’s a range of think tank activities from original deep research in books and policy papers to direct public policy action. Heartland calls itself a think thank and action tank because we’re closer to the latter.

Mind you, our founder Joe Bast a dozen years ago decided a way to fight the global warming alarmism was to actually engage real scientists to counter the bad science and panic-mongering that was driving public policy. We’ve published four volumes of “Climate Change Reconsidered,” each about 1,000 pages, with contributions by dozens of well-credentialed scientists. I doubt many people have read these cover-to-cover but they are a resource along with the spinoffs, papers, conferences and the like that probably had the most to do with Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords--Joe was in the Rose Garden when Trump made the announcement--and has provided foundations for much of the good on environment and energy policy from this administration.

And here’s the point. Our new Heartland president, a former Congressman, is keen as are we all to actually bring about change. He always asks, “Why are we doing this paper? Who’s the audience? Is this what need to make a difference?” That’s what I’m doing on my FDA and other projects. We have a lot of opportunities with this administration. We don’t want to listen to ourselves talk. We want to change thing.

Also, Heartland uniquely focuses at the state level, so our government relations people are always on the road, working with state policymakers or doing policy papers that show how the reforms in states A, B, and C can work in states X, Y, and Z! We sometimes hear complaints that “You’re not pure libertarian enough and should be advocating abolishing most of government!” That’s because we’re not a sophomore college bull session. There’s a place for such advocacy; I’ve done enough of it myself. But where are we after decades of such stuff? Is government rolled back? We realize you often need to change things step by step. Hasn’t the left done that, step by step undermined our liberties? I’m for moving as fast as is doable but simply writing another paper on how we need to abolish this or that government department is not our market niche.

Objectivist Living, of course, has its market niche! It's about applying the principles to one's life. I would just observe this. On many Facebook threads there will be some interesting discussants and, sadly, some obnoxious and irrational loudmouths who add no value to a conversation or your thinking, and whose unpleasant company you would rather not keep. Perhaps you find some value in the likes of Jon, but I certainly don’t.

But when I do stop by Objectivist Living, your company is always welcome! See you in my next topic post!

Regards,

Ed

Edited February 27, 2019 by Ed Hudgins