He's so principled he'll attach any label that furthers his career.

He voted for Trump. That's really all I need to dismiss him as a principled candidate or a man that can be trusted to hold office.

It appears a bit of a hubbub is taking place around the Starbucks executive planning to run as an Independent. He aint got nuthin' the Democrats aint got and is likely to be ignored by voters.

Nate Silver had this to say about Schultz...



He's also against healthcare reform...

This might be one of those Neoliberals I've heard about.

Schultz talks about not being able to afford Medicare For All like everybody gets it for free. Currently we don't even get it for free when we turn 65, after a lifetime of paying in. People under 65 would be paying a lot more for coverage (to buy in to Medicare) than they would pay upon reaching 65. Nobody serious actually thinks Medicare For All means free National Health for everybody.

Moving toward that would be very gradual.

It appears to me that Shultz feels that Billionaires are under-represented in the Democratic Party.



How, Howard? By taxing rich motherf*ckers like you, that's how.
No wonder he wants Democrats to lose...

I was, frankly, shocked at the "tin ear" responses of Bloomberg and Schultz, really demonstrating that they are no more qualified to be president than Trump. I think both of their campaigns essentially ended today. In brief, they overreacted, lied, and showed their true colors: they THINK they're qualified because they're rich, period. That's not how it works, buds.

Apparently not, because as we've all been told in the most shrill tones imaginable, any and all Democrats are all neoliberals, merely by virtue of their membership in the party, thus it is wrong and immoral to vote for any Democrat whatsoever.

[/sarcasm]

It's never too early to discuss getting rid of Fatass.

Hmmmm....
Feels like your referring to my posting Jeff. If so, your spinning my criticism of the Democratic Party. We've had neoliberal democratic presidents since Clinton. You may have trudged into a booth and thrown the lever for another back in 2016. To say that theres not a predominantly neoliberal concensus in the Democratic Party is like republicans saying there the Party of Lincoln.
It's really not a subtle concept to grasp. Theirs a range of democrats but the majority and the party organization is predominately neoliberal.
Sorry if that sounds shrill to your ears. Defending my posting, not trying to change your
I'll shut up now.

I almost never cite to National Review, but here's a piece that bears reading: The Sham of American ‘Centrism’. It points out that the "centrism" espoused by Schultz and other "Independents" is really a very minority view. It also explains how Trump got to the White House, and where Dems won in 2018. It could be the formula for 2020.

BTW, Corey Booker announced.