Post: #1

http://www.hrc.org/blog/breaking-more-th...rolina-rep

Quote:Dear Governor McCrory,

We write with concerns about legislation you signed into law last week, HB 2, which has overturned protections for LGBT people and sanctioned discrimination across North Carolina. Put simply, HB 2 is not a bill that reflects the values of our companies, of our country, or even the overwhelming majority of North Carolinians.

We are disappointed in your decision to sign this discriminatory legislation into law. The business community, by and large, has consistently communicated to lawmakers at every level that such laws are bad for our employees and bad for business. This is not a direction in which states move when they are seeking to provide successful, thriving hubs for business and economic development. We believe that HB 2 will make it far more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain the nation’s best and brightest workers and attract the most talented students from across the nation. It will also diminish the state’s draw as a destination for tourism, new businesses, and economic activity.

Discrimination is wrong and we believe it has no place in North Carolina or anywhere in our country. As companies that pride ourselves on being inclusive and welcoming to all, we strongly urge you and the leadership of North Carolina’s legislature to repeal this law in the upcoming legislative session.

Sincerely,

Karen Appleton, Senior Vice President, Box

Brandee Barker, Cofounder, The Pramana Collective

Marc Benioff, CEO, Salesforce

Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.

Michael Birch, Founder, Blab

Ed Black, President and CEO, Computer & Communications Industry Association

Nathan Blecharczyk, Cofounder and CTO, Airbnb

Steven R. Boal, CEO, Quotient Technology Inc.

Lorna Borenstein, CEO, Grokker

Brad Brinegar, Chairman and CEO, McKinney

Lloyd Carney, CEO, Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.

Brian Chesky, CEO, Airbnb

Ron Conway, Founder and Co-Managing Partner, SV Angel

Tim Cook, CEO, Apple

Dean Debnam, Chairman and CEO, Workplace Options

Jack Dorsey, CEO, Square and Twitter

David Ebersman, Cofounder and CEO, Lyra Health

Jared Fliesler, General Partner, Matrix Partners

Joe Gebbia, Cofounder and Chief Product Officer, Airbnb

Jason Goldberg, CEO, Pepo

Alan King, President and COO, Workplace Options

Kristen Koh Goldstein, CEO, BackOps

Mitchell Gold, co-founder and chair-man, Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams

John H. Graham IV, President and CEO, American Society of Association Executives

Logan Green, CEO, Lyft

Paul Graham, Founder, Y Combinator

David Hassell, CEO, 15Five

Charles H. Hill III, Executive Vice President, Worldwide Human Resources, Pfizer Inc.

Reid Hoffman, Chairman, LinkedIn

Robert Hohman, Cofounder & CEO, Glassdoor

Drew Houston, CEO, Dropbox

Chad Hurley, Cofounder, YouTube

Dave Imre, Partner and CEO, IMRE

Dev Ittycheria, President & CEO, MongoDB

Laurene Powell Jobs, President, Emerson Collective

Cecily Joseph, VP Corporate Responsibility and Chief Diversity Officer, Symantec Corporation

David Karp, Founder and CEO, Tumblr

Travis Katz, Founder and CEO, Gogobot

Brian Krzanich, CEO, Intel

Joshua Kushner, Managing Partner, Thrive Capital

Max Levchin, CEO, Affirm

Dion Lim, CEO, NextLesson

Shan-lyn Ma, CEO, Zola

Marissa Mayer, President and CEO, Yahoo

Melody McCloskey, CEO, StyleSeat

Douglas Merrill, CEO, Zestfinance

Dyke Messinger, President and CEO, Power Curbers Inc.

Hari Nair, Vice President and General Manager, Orbitz.com & CheapTickets.com

Michael Natenshon, CEO, Marine Layer

Alexi G. Nazem, Cofounder and CEO, Nomad Health

Laurie J. Olson, EVP, Strategy, Portfolio and Commercial Operations, Pfizer Inc.

Bob Page, Founder and CEO, Replacements, Ltd.

Michelle Peluso, Strategic Advisor and former CEO, Gilt

Sundar Pichai, CEO, Google

Mark Pincus, Founder and Executive Chairman, Zynga

Hosain Rahman, CEO, Jawbone

Bill Ready, CEO, Braintree

Evan Reece, CEO, Liftopia

Stan Reiss, General Partner, Matrix Partners

John Replogle, CEO, Seventh Generation

Virginia M. Rometty, Chairman, President and CEO, IBM Corporation

Dan Rosensweig, CEO, Chegg

Kevin P. Ryan, Founder and Chairman, Alleycorp

Bijan Sabet, General Partner, Spark Capital

Julie Samuels, President, Engine

George A. Scangos, PhD, CEO, Biogen

Dan Schulman, President and CEO, PayPal

Adam Shankman, Director and Producer

Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association

David A. Shaywitz, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, DNAnexus

Ben Silbermann, CEO, Pinterest

Brad Smith, President and Chief Legal Officer, Microsoft

Arne Sorenson, President and CEO, Marriott International

David Spector, Cofounder, ThirdLove

Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO, Yelp

Bret Taylor, CEO, Quip

Todd Thibodeaux, CEO, CompTIA

David Tisch, Managing Partner, BoxGroup

Nirav Tolia, Cofounder and CEO, Nextdoor

Kevin A. Trapani, President and CEO, The Redwood Groups

Ken Wasch, President, Software & Information Industry Association

Bob & Harvey Weinstein, Co-Founders and Co-Chairmen, The Weinstein Company

Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO, Facebook

Reading this long list of CEOs got me thinking why major businesses support causes that inherently harbor anti-capitalist views. In other words, why are major corporations today such big adherents of leftist policies? This also includes everything from global warming to diversity/feminism. I'm pretty sure the majority of people who work at these 80 companies fit into the Bernie Sanders/"capitalism is inherently evil" mold. Yet they don't realize that they're supporting a cause that will ultimately hurt their companies and also their source of income?

Something just doesn't add up.

Consumers 140xs more likely to buy from liberal-sponsoring corporations
This is just a ranking of many major corporations found in the US, from liberal to conservative. Many of them leaned liberal. Only a few like Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A, and Bass Pro Shops leaned conservative (no surprises there).


Why Corporations Are Seemingly Leftist
This is a blog post where the author tries to answer the same question. However, he comes to a conclusion that I believe is only half true:

Quote:But worse, Gen X is the first generation and "SJW prototype" to have been brainwashed by leftist indoctrination as it pertains to businesses.

But reliably and predictably, despite all claiming to be "independent minded," the brainwashing in school and college worked. Today's business leaders really do think taking political positions on race, sex, privilege, the environment, etc., is a genuine and effective business strategy. They think bragging about how they hire "minorities" but not "the best" is a long term managerial strategy. They think donating 5% of their pre-tax profit (because a corporate tax rate of 40% just wasn't enough) will win people over.

Alas, this is the newest generation of business leaders. People who use "fads," "political correctness" and "leftism" to sell their products. And if you thought the Baby Boomers were bad business managers, just wait for these over-educdated, political-correct-crusaderist Gen X'ers to fully be at the helm.

I would agree with him, that the kids who have grown up in a heavily political educational system are now entering the business world. Just as planned, they are influencing that environment with the ideas they grew up hearing over and over again. However, I don't think that's all there is to this matter.



Liberal Corporations

Quote:Anti-capitalist activists have always protested the usual suspects, banks and oil companies. It came as a shock to Google and other Silicon Valley tech employees to find themselves at the wrong end of a lefty San Francisco protest.

The actual protest, being left wing, is irrelevant. The real news is the reaction of the Silicon Valley employees. “I thought we were the good guys”, and “we’re trying to save the world too”, etc.

Many companies like Starbucks, Whole Foods and Hollywood studios have a liberal and progressive self-image. The keyword is self-image. The kids at Silicon Valley especially so. These companies try to hide their profit-maximizing, tax-avoiding capitalist practices. Not to mention their low-wage Asian factories, labor union prevention, pollution, etc. If consumers only knew that these liberal corporations were no more ‘ethical’ than Wal-Mart and Chevron.

This blog paints the image that it's more of a facade than anything else. Perhaps the SJW stuff is to keep the low and middle level employees distracted and docile, while the bigshots at the top who make the real decisions are more realistic/ruthless.

A few questions that I have are:
Why are all these corporations so organized and coordinated in their pro-SJW beliefs? It's like they're copying and pasting the same stuff over and over again.
Going into "conspiracy theory" territory, is it possible that these major corporations really are cooperating together behind the scenes to further their own agendas? Possibly with the government, in return for tax breaks or preferential statuses?
What is their true motive for doing this?
Does it really cause a significant increase in their profits? I really doubt it does, no average consumer really cares about a company's political stance over the convenience involved in buying their product. So then why do the companies do it?

This was just a list of my initial observations after looking into this topic. Definitely going to try to research this more. I'd like to hear your thoughts and observations too.

Post: #2

Same folks that want open borders and live behind gated communities with private police forces.......

Post: #3

There are no simple answers in life. But all the bolded ones belong to a certain tribe.

(04-02-2016 02:52 PM)The Truth Wrote:  Karen Appleton, Senior Vice President, Box

Brandee Barker, Cofounder, The Pramana Collective

Marc Benioff, CEO, Salesforce

Chip Bergh, President and CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.

Michael Birch, Founder, Blab

Ed Black, President and CEO, Computer & Communications Industry Association

Nathan Blecharczyk, Cofounder and CTO, Airbnb

Steven R. Boal, CEO, Quotient Technology Inc.

Lorna Borenstein, CEO, Grokker

Brad Brinegar, Chairman and CEO, McKinney

Lloyd Carney, CEO, Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.

Brian Chesky, CEO, Airbnb

Ron Conway, Founder and Co-Managing Partner, SV Angel

Tim Cook, CEO, Apple

Dean Debnam, Chairman and CEO, Workplace Options

Jack Dorsey, CEO, Square and Twitter

David Ebersman, Cofounder and CEO, Lyra Health

Jared Fliesler, General Partner, Matrix Partners

Joe Gebbia, Cofounder and Chief Product Officer, Airbnb

Jason Goldberg, CEO, Pepo

Alan King, President and COO, Workplace Options

Kristen Koh Goldstein, CEO, BackOps

Mitchell Gold, co-founder and chair-man, Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams

John H. Graham IV, President and CEO, American Society of Association Executives

Logan Green, CEO, Lyft

Paul Graham, Founder, Y Combinator

David Hassell, CEO, 15Five

Charles H. Hill III, Executive Vice President, Worldwide Human Resources, Pfizer Inc.

Reid Hoffman, Chairman, LinkedIn

Robert Hohman, Cofounder & CEO, Glassdoor

Drew Houston, CEO, Dropbox

Chad Hurley, Cofounder, YouTube

Dave Imre, Partner and CEO, IMRE

Dev Ittycheria, President & CEO, MongoDB

Laurene Powell Jobs, President, Emerson Collective

Cecily Joseph, VP Corporate Responsibility and Chief Diversity Officer, Symantec Corporation

David Karp, Founder and CEO, Tumblr

Travis Katz, Founder and CEO, Gogobot

Brian Krzanich, CEO, Intel

Joshua Kushner, Managing Partner, Thrive Capital

Max Levchin, CEO, Affirm

Dion Lim, CEO, NextLesson

Shan-lyn Ma, CEO, Zola

Marissa Mayer, President and CEO, Yahoo

Melody McCloskey, CEO, StyleSeat

Douglas Merrill, CEO, Zestfinance

Dyke Messinger, President and CEO, Power Curbers Inc.

Hari Nair, Vice President and General Manager, Orbitz.com & CheapTickets.com

Michael Natenshon, CEO, Marine Layer

Alexi G. Nazem, Cofounder and CEO, Nomad Health

Laurie J. Olson, EVP, Strategy, Portfolio and Commercial Operations, Pfizer Inc.

Bob Page, Founder and CEO, Replacements, Ltd.

Michelle Peluso, Strategic Advisor and former CEO, Gilt

Sundar Pichai, CEO, Google

Mark Pincus, Founder and Executive Chairman, Zynga

Hosain Rahman, CEO, Jawbone

Bill Ready, CEO, Braintree

Evan Reece Gilman, CEO, Liftopia

Stan Reiss, General Partner, Matrix Partners

John Replogle, CEO, Seventh Generation

Virginia M. Rometty, Chairman, President and CEO, IBM Corporation

Dan Rosensweig, CEO, Chegg

Kevin P. Ryan, Founder and Chairman, Alleycorp

Bijan Sabet, General Partner, Spark Capital

Julie Samuels, President, Engine

George A. Scangos, PhD, CEO, Biogen

Dan Schulman, President and CEO, PayPal

Adam Shankman, Director and Producer

Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association

David A. Shaywitz, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, DNAnexus

Ben Silbermann, CEO, Pinterest

Brad Smith, President and Chief Legal Officer, Microsoft

Arne Sorenson, President and CEO, Marriott International

David Spector, Cofounder, ThirdLove

Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO, Yelp

Bret Taylor, CEO, Quip

Todd Thibodeaux, CEO, CompTIA

David Tisch, Managing Partner, BoxGroup

Nirav Tolia, Cofounder and CEO, Nextdoor

Kevin A. Trapani, President and CEO, The Redwood Groups

Ken Wasch, President, Software & Information Industry Association

Bob & Harvey Weinstein, Co-Founders and Co-Chairmen, The Weinstein Company

Mark Zuckerberg, Founder and CEO, Facebook

Post: #4

A large part of it is 'the tribe' as the above member pointed out. Don't toe the line and you will cease receiving any/all media attention. And funding if you require an outside source. Again, it's worth researching the heavyweights in the industries which support a company's fundraising/marketing efforts.

This really is the only answer when you realize the self-sabotage a company must partake in to conform to these agendas. Refusing to take a distinct mission statement or target demographic which would assure brand loyalty is just one of many.

A possible thought is the hypocrisy at play. They aren't necessarily doing all that they preach, so if you follow in what you believe to be their footsteps(as the average wannabe entrepreneur is apt to do) you'll never be a risk. Kind of like planting bad info if you're sure an employee is spying for a competitor.

The simplest factor at play is that you're dealing with zealots in a society where identity based on anything other than ideals is taboo. Anyone so comited to their own lie needs not worry about confidence, they're naturals at sales. They're well versed I'm selling shit to their most critical buyer(themselves) and if they weren't they'd be paralyzed with cognitive dissonance.

Post: #5

Many leftist policies are beneficial to the elite. It does not benefit regular men and women. It's that simple. People advocate for what benefits them.

Post: #6

(04-02-2016 03:23 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  There are no simple answers in life. But all the bolded ones belong to a certain tribe.

A whoooooooole lot of (((echoes))) in those names!

Post: #7

Previous posts have nailed it. You are also being duped by the media that is throwing up these names as THE corporations. Think about the corp names you don't see here...chick fil a. Hobby lobby. Walmart. Caterpillar. Halliburton. Lockheed martin

The bitch corporations protesting are the ones with sjw customers. Opposing this is good marketing. I'm surprised I didn't see burger king.

Post: #8

I was just thinking today how sleazy these companies are by identifying their "values" as anything that is deemed politically and socially acceptable at the time. If radical right-wingism was trending then this list would be an endorsement.

How dare these scumbags join in the SJW campaign trying to reshape my own morality, and try to make a buck in the process. As if these pieces of shit objectively know what is best for the rest of us. Fuck them.

Post: #9

dear LGBTs - don't want to get fired for being a fag? Don't advertise it.

Post: #10

The first CEO is Karen Appleton of something called BOX.

What the hell is box, and do they make boxes?

Aloha!

Post: #11

Two things that explain why corporations appear leftist:

(1) It's good advertising. Why not try to appeal to the degenerate portion of the market? It's not like most of these guys have retail stores where Joe Cuckservative might ever have to mingle with the pink-haired carpetlicker set, so it's not like they're actually risking their normal hetero market.

(2) When you reduce the incorporation of lefty policies down to numbers, for the most part it's (a) not enacted in practice or (b) is simply passed on to their customers by an increased price.

One thing that stuck with me in an industry article about "fair trade" coffee I read once: the article concluded (in a somewhat surprised but cold tone) that consumers are willing pay a higher price to assuage their own conscience. See, fair trade coffee ain't that fair when you track it back. Even doubling the price of the coffee is not going to allow BundaBunda the bean farmer to live in a mansion, mainly because BundaBunda the bean farmer generally cannot count to twenty-one and has never been educated to understand compound interest even if he did.

And at the end of the day, a corporation just passes the increased cost of its policies on to its consumers. Their profit slice does not decrease one iota; the guy who pays for the leftist policies is you -- if you frequent these businesses, as they know you would. In many of these cases the company has a massive market share already so can charge you an extra few dimes to allow buttfucker handicaps in its HR Department. Alternatively, the company isn't really bothered about its cheaper competitors, mainly because the sort of idiot who's willing to pay twice or even half as much more for a fucking coffee just so BundaBunda the bean farmer can afford two cows instead of one isn't the sort of idiot who shops with the cheapest price in mind.

The only way you hold a business, or a capitalist, to account is to relentlessly look for the lowest price that provides the same value. A person interested or willing to support these businesses because of their lefty policies is, by definition, not someone who is shopping for the lowest price, so they know they can gouge them.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #12

(04-02-2016 08:28 PM)Laurifer Wrote:  I was just thinking today how sleazy these companies are by identifying their "values" as anything that is deemed politically and socially acceptable at the time. If radical right-wingism was trending then this list would be an endorsement.

Exactly.

"Dear prelate of Phnom Penh, we the undersigned are very sad that you are not murdering intellectuals fast enough."

These cowards will support whatever is trendy.

On one hand there is some semblance of good business sense because they did the calculation that it will help more than hurt. On the other hand, sell me the fucking service and shut the fuck up.

Post: #13

I think Paraceisus nailed it.

Marketing/Branding combined with InGroup/Virtue signalling with various ancillary effects.

-Having the 'right' values can make businesses more attractive to clients/customers especially when you can't/don't want to compete on price.
-Smokescreen to cover ruthless capitalist business practices. SJWs are less likely to investigate/turn on ingroup companies that fly LGBTAWTFBBQ flags in their outlets.
-Implementing lefty social policies will in most cases aid in profit maximisation unless the corporation has been infected at the executive level with entryist 'true believers'.

As an aside, I remember engineering/consultancy companies adopting the 'no alcohol' policy of their mining/resource clients to 'align corporate values'. Admin workers for the design firm in the CBD/Downtown couldn't have a beer at lunch because of the same spectre of random drug/alcohol testing that haunted blue collar construction workers at remote mine sites. Of course I never actually heard of anyone being tested from the office after token tests at launch so the policy was not enacted in practice. Fireable offenses give companies options in countries where you must show cause for getting rid of your employees.

Post: #14

The above, plus all of these liberal companies get huge government paydays in exchange for pushing their employees and customers toward liberal politicians. Conservatives don't play ball the same way unless it's for defense...consequently, defense companies (like the military itself) only cater to the fag community when forced to by liberal politicians.

I was once employed by a major financial institution that was VERY pro-fag. A year and a half later, while working with an investment banking firm, I met a former high ranking official (if I gave even the title, you'd know the name) who was hammered at an after party. He started drunkenly explaining how he was forced into participating in San Francisco fag events solely to win favor with politicians and get major corporate accounts from co-sponsors. I was all just a game to manipulate the masses.

Post: #15

No need to point it out but it's again but it's liberal hypocrisy. Bernie's campaign is basically F corporations they can't control us/elections. When corporations take a stand for leftist causes and basically bully people into doing it then they cheer for them. Why are corporations dictating laws that people already voted for?

Post: #16

I expect a major re-alignment in the coming future. A Trump presidency would force these idiots to fall back and focus on primarily business ventures.



Homosexuality, usury, and a black horse. One of the signs of the apocalypse? You decide.

Post: #17

Corporations push these leftist policies for the same reason they push climate change regulations.

Large corporations work in tandem with bought and paid for American politicians to create regulations that make it harder for other businesses to compete.

Even something as simple as handicapped accessible doorways and floors make it so that a Mom and Pop hardware store has to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket just to exist.

Extend that to climate change regulations like carbon credits or LGBT friendly establishments (something no sane person wants to put up with) and it starts to make sense why they would do it. No one wants three or four different bathrooms, but when you have a gigantic corporation with the economies of scale to make it happen, an extra bathroom, a handicapped entrance, and a little faggot pandering goes a long way towards decreasing the competition.

Post: #18

(04-03-2016 12:44 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  I was once employed by a major financial institution that was VERY pro-fag. A year and a half later, while working with an investment banking firm, I met a former high ranking official (if I gave even the title, you'd know the name) who was hammered at an after party. He started drunkenly explaining how he was forced into participating in San Francisco fag events solely to win favor with politicians and get major corporate accounts from co-sponsors. I was all just a game to manipulate the masses.

Similar story here, when I worked in middle management at a Fortune 500.

One of my bosses during of one my annual reviews: "I didn't know this, but apparently, the diversity part of these reviews basically means we're forced to do volunteer work."

Post: #19

Also, note that the businesses listed are largely tech companies. Tech companies employ software devs, who are generally leftist SJW types. As the CEO, you'd better support homosexuality lest you enjoy dealing with an employee revolt.

Post: #20

As others have stated there are a multitude of reasons, virtue signaling, marketing/branding, ect.. One more broad point I would like to add is that when the majority of people who spend money in your society happen to be of one particular gender, the majority of businesses are going to align themselves with whatever that gender seems to value by for example, championing certain rights or promoting "muh feelz" over facts in an effort to seem the most trendy/popular, and by extension have people buy your product or service over your competitors.

However a minority companies will utilize this to their advantage to stand out- for example the protein world advert that caused a scandal. I don't know the exact figures but due to the exposure the company made way more sales then they initially projected. I only hope more companies will stand up to the leftist mob, but it seems individuals or companies that are prepared to take risks is shrinking by the day, gotta love living in an overt gynocentric society.

Post: #21

(04-02-2016 11:44 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(04-02-2016 08:28 PM)Laurifer Wrote:  I was just thinking today how sleazy these companies are by identifying their "values" as anything that is deemed politically and socially acceptable at the time. If radical right-wingism was trending then this list would be an endorsement.

Exactly.

"Dear prelate of Phnom Penh, we the undersigned are very sad that you are not murdering intellectuals fast enough."

These cowards will support whatever is trendy.

On one hand there is some semblance of good business sense because they did the calculation that it will help more than hurt. On the other hand, sell me the fucking service and shut the fuck up.

While there are firms that trend towards one end of the political spectrum like with Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby to the right and Starbucks to the left I do think the majority of corporations are simply apolitical and simply try to read what the current cultural zeitgeist is and then go along with the wave. LGBT activists have achieved huge victories and I don't seem their grievance mongering train slowing down any time soon so all these big companies are just eager to get on the bandwagon. I'm pretty certain that the marketing departments for these companies are not thinking in terms of "morality" but instead are simply basing their decision on how much more support they'll get from group A and how much backlash they'll get from group B and then estimating if the support from the former will outweigh the backlash from the latter.

Post: #22

(04-02-2016 10:55 PM)Kona Wrote:  The first CEO is Karen Appleton of something called BOX.

What the hell is box, and do they make boxes?

Aloha!

its like business to business dropbox, I saw it used more in europe than I did in north america.

Post: #23

The CEO of Starbucks made veiled insults at Trump and his supporters at the Starbucks annual shareholder meeting a few days ago. The CEO's name is Howard Schultz, a German name but I thought his (((attitude))) didn't seemed very WASPish.

So I looked him up on Wiki.

Quote:Schultz was born to a Jewish family[7] on July 19, 1953 in Brooklyn, New York,

Every. Fucking. Time.

Here's an article about the annual meeting:

Quote:Schultz said he has 'struggled for weeks to find the right words to express the pain I feel in my heart about where America is headed and the cloud hanging over the American people.' And he said there are times when he's had a hard time recognizing 'who we are and who we are becoming.'

Two years ago, on the same stage in Seattle, Schultz challenged shareholders to think about the role and responsibility of a for-profit company.

In the two years since, 'dysfunction and polarization have worsened,' he said.

Viewing the American Dream as a 'reservoir' that is replenished with the values, work ethic and integrity of the American people, Schultz said, 'Sadly, our reservoir is running dry, depleted by cynicism, despair, division, exclusion, fear and indifference.'

He suggested citizens fill the reservoir of the American Dream back up, 'not with cynicism, but with optimism. Not with despair, but with possibility. Not with division, but with unity. Not with exclusion, but with inclusion. Not with fear, but with compassion. Not with indifference, but with love.'
'It's not about the choice we make every four years,' Schultz said. 'This is about the choices we make every day.'

This bolded quote really irks me, because not only shouldn't you support Trump, you are an immoral person if you do so:

Quote:Schultz, who is outspoken, progressive, and often controversial on social issues, told an annual meeting of Starbucks shareholders in Seattle on Wednesday that he feels enormous pain at the harsh and coarse tenor of political discourse and growing cynicism among the electorate.

“There are moments where I’ve had a hard time recognizing who we are and who we are becoming,” Schultz said. He added: “We are facing a test not only of our character but of our morality as a people.”

I did some research on where he lives. He lives not just behind one gated community but two! A gated comity within a gated community!

Quote:Howard Schultz was paid $21.7 million in 2010 by Starbucks. This was a raise of $9.6 million over 2009. He is Starbucks’ founder and CEO. This pay package was the highest for a Washington state public company executive in 2010. This was reported in a recent Puget Sound Business Journal article. Schultz has also been in the recent news with his political and charity activities.

His home is on page 21 in LW 130 Homes. It is in Madison Park, south of the high rises, in an exclusive gated community of nine homes that are on the property of the William Garrard Reed estate. (He is the father of Gary Reed [10/1/10 blog post].) Howard drives through the community’s gate and then another gate to his property. His mansion and property, with 16,880 sq ft on 1.8 acres with 248 ft of waterfront, are the largest in community. It is best viewed between this time of year and March.

So he's all "yay diversity" and lecturing the rest of us on "inclusion" and suggesting those of us who support Trump are moral scum, yet he lives behind two gates to keep the vibrancy away. He lectures the average American about fear, but what other than fear motivates a man to live in a gated community within a gated community?

What other than the desire for exclusion motivates a man to live in a gated community within a gated community?

Post: #24

Good responses from all of you.

I can now see why Hillary has so many corporate backers. She obviously has leftist policies but she's been in the upper circles for so long that they know she's going to leave the situation as is without making any new changes. Giving them the same level of control over the system as they have now.

But if Bernie gets elected, he'll actually implement his socialist policies, which will be disastrous to many corporations' net profits with the insanely high corporate tax rates. They'll never let him win.

Same thing with Trump too. His policies on tariffs and American protectionism are directly opposing the multinational corporation business model. To say he's facing an uphill battle is a major understatement.

I guess the best way to understand the original question is that they are leftist in name only. Their preferred style of operations would be the Hillary model. Where they claim to be SJW's to attract the masses but will carry on all the same old shit behind the scenes.

Post: #25

Quote:North Carolina Law May Risk Federal Aid

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday.

Cutting off any federal money — or even simply threatening to do so — would put major new pressure on North Carolina to repeal the law, which eliminated local protections for gay and transgender people and restricted which bathrooms transgender people can use. A loss of federal money could send the state into a budget crisis and jeopardize services that are central to daily life.

This is how the Federal Govt chokes off the power of States. In a real Republic Federation set up this should not be allowed. But over many decades the Feds have chipped away at State power by creating a funding system which forces Federal power onto the States to ensure funding streams remain in tact.

I went into detail about it in this post in relation to how the bank controls how the Federal Government operates and how that model is essentially used to Cuck State power.

If N.C. has balls they will tell the Feds to go get fucked and play the populist card that D.C. is out to undermine N.C. State. There is very little the Feds can do aside from what I assume is essentially take N.C. to Court and hope for a SCOTUS ruling.

In regards to Corporations. Just follow the money. Many have brought this up and it is important. Women are the lions share of consumers in the economy and they spend the majority of their income into the economy. Since men have been cast off the totem pole economically in America you see Corporate America color them selves pink and in rainbows to pander to the dominate spending class which is chiefly females and gays. Remember how masculine Corporate America used to be when Men controlled spending? They are the ultimate shills and will go wherever the wind blows.

Corporate America loves to pander to gays because they spend just as much as women into the economy but still have strait male work ethic and maintain high income levels and high wage-productivity rates versus women who languish on that front. This is the chief reason it feels that everything around you in the mainstream is getting painted with rainbows, it is because the Corporate class can't get enough of that money. Remember that these gays don't pass down their wealth (No biological motivation to pass down as they do no pro-create), and any make high volumes of income and die at 50 with the money all burned way into the economy (If it does get passed down to a "spouse" it just gets spent anyways). Most American men peak with income at around 38-43 so imagine sitting on fat pile money and having a ticking clock that you have to spend it in 7-10 years...