DiscussMormonism.com

I watched 60 Minutes last night and was incredibly impressed with Howard Schultz.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/27/ex-star ... dency.html

He's incredibly thoughtful, successful, came from a difficult background, and seems to be pretty stable. And this is a problem.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/581374/

Already top Democratic operatives working for presidential candidates and beyond say they’re worried that the only thing he’ll accomplish is making sure Donald Trump gets reelected. It’s more than just sniping at a prospective opponent; word that he might invest in an independent run has many of them clearly worried about how he’d split votes in a general election.

Considering that Jill Stein may have been enough of a factor to siphon off enough votes in critical districts, this one has me worried. What do you all think? Bad idea?

- Doc

So far, I’m with you on this conclusion.

There's a universe in which he hurts Trump rather than helps him, but his current pitch is precision targeted at moderate Democrats. Him running like that is the easiest path Trump has to reelection. That would embitter so many Democrats, and eventually the country, that Starbucks would take some serious blowback on its business. I don't know if he wants that or appreciates what would be coming, but it would be bad for his brand.

I think he is just testing the waters right now but I think he's too smart to run. Why burn so much money for nothing?

If he's going to run, he should pick a major party and go through the primary process. If he runs as an Independent, he's not really serious about winning.

Howard Schultz, in response to a question about whether he would increase corporate taxes: "I don't want to talk in the hypothetical about what I would do if I was president."

Interesting strategy for someone running for president: Refuse to talk about what you'd support if you were President.

EAllusion wrote:Howard Schultz, in response to a question about whether he would increase corporate taxes: "I don't want to talk in the hypothetical about what I would do if I was president."

Interesting strategy for someone running for president: Refuse to talk about what you'd support if you were President.

It is interesting, for sure. Then again we've discovered that no matter what you say when you're running for President odds are you're not going to do it, or you'll be so hamstrung by the process that you can't make good on your promises, anyway.

What I really, really, really want in a President is a CEO like him or a politician who is a good manager and understands managing a large organization, understands diplomacy, and understands domestic/international political realities.

- Doc

I think being a career politician has become criminally underrated by our society as something you want in a politician. The job is politics and there are large differences in outcomes between people of varying political skill.

Donald Trump would be a better example if he didn't have the mentality of a small child, but it really was dumb of the people to think he'd be an effective president because executive business experience is directly translatable to that job. It's not.

EAllusion wrote:I think being a career politician has become criminally underrated by our society as something you want in a politician. The job is politics and there are large differences in outcomes between people of varying political skill.

Donald Trump would be a better example if he didn't have the mentality of a small child, but it really was dumb of the people to think he'd be an effective president because executive business experience is directly translatable to that job. It's not.

I absolutely agree. I'd go so far as to assert an order of priority as well, with Senator or Governor experience being significantly preferable to congressperson.

EAllusion wrote:I think being a career politician has become criminally underrated by our society as something you want in a politician. The job is politics and there are large differences in outcomes between people of varying political skill.

Yup. Being a CEO is an entirely different job from being President, in at least two ways:

1. The aim of a CEO of a big company is basically straightforward: you make money for the shareholders. Do that one thing in the medium term, and you will be fine. Being the leader of a modern developed country lands you with a huge menu of aims that people expect you to achieve, some of them so incompatible as to be mutually exclusive.

2. A CEO can basically decide what the company will do, and it will be done. The leader of a modern developed country with democratic institutions cannot do that, as Trump is finding to his cost, and to the disappointment of those who believed his promises. You have to persuade, you have to compromise, you have to build ever-shifting coalitions of perceived common interests. The ability to do that is both what makes Presidents successful, and also causes the naïve to abuse them as unprincipled.