Understand wrote:
PIO!! wrote:
You do realize that you are employing the same "Look, squirrel!" defense that the Trumpettes get roasted for (rightfully), right?
Do you understand that Trump is the president, and the others are not?
Not relevant.
Got anything relevant?
e·mol·u·ment wrote:
PIO!! wrote:
Trump may well be a thief. But those sums that you are quoting are miniscule. Utterly trivial.
e·mol·u·ment — [əˈmälyəmənt] – a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
The Constitution of the United States. Article I: Legislative. Emoluments Clause.
No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever.
Wow, so you can copy and paste definitions and sh!t! So impressive!!!
Trump may well be a thief. But those sums that you are quoting are miniscule. Utterly trivial.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/minisculep.n. wrote:
PIO!! wrote:
Trump may well be a thief. But those sums that you are quoting are miniscule.
minuscule
But thanks for the "correction". I actually appreciate it when folks point out spelling and grammar errors - good way to learn.
PIO!! wrote:
e·mol·u·ment wrote:
e·mol·u·ment — [əˈmälyəmənt] – a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.
The Constitution of the United States. Article I: Legislative. Emoluments Clause.
No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever.
Wow, so you can copy and paste definitions and sh!t! So impressive!!!
Are you a complete idiot? Did you know that "quoting" the Constitution, and a dictionary, means cut and paste? Otherwise you would be rewriting what each actually says. But you are simply too stupid to understand something even a child would understand.
I doubt if people are going to suffer through caffeine headaches if Shultz runs as an independent.
I don't agree that Shultz running as an independent would hand the election to Trump. If Schultz is polling at around 15%, people that hate Trump are likely to vote for the Democrat. The independent votes in 2016 were from people that hated both Hillary and Trump.
Huh??? wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I am not dancing around anything. You believe that I believe Starbucks should be boycotted OR that for some reason I am defending or will defend a boycotting of Starbucks. I have not connected boycotting to Starbucks in any way, so I do not have a dog in this fight. Someone else answered your question. I suggest you converse with that person on this issue.
I will say this again about boycotting...people can boycott any company for any reason, and NO reason bothers me in the slightest. If it is a GOOD reason, it may be large and have staying power. If it's a bad reason, it won't.
Explain to me what Starbucks did wrong again to get boycotted?
Thanks for telling us that you didn't say anything about boycotting Starbucks. We can all read.
The question is, and I'll type it very slow for you and others, what did Starbucks do wrong to get boycotted?
I see that you are a very weak writer - starting a sentence with "So." I digress.
Your interpretation is incorrect. I was clear.
The dance around the question is perplexing
^those are the only things this poster has posted in this string.
how the hell do you get that he is saying you believe starbucks should be boycotted or you are defending the boycotting of starbucks.
have you gone insane?
Nope. I just understand things that you do not. By asking me, "what did Starbucks do wrong to get boycotted?" he is asking me to defend the boycotting of Starbucks. I have no dog in this fight and so I don't plan to answer that it did something wrong or it didn't. My opinion stands as stated...a person can boycott any company for any reason. If it's a good reason, it might do some damage. If it's a bad reason, it likely won't. He asked me this question based on an assumption that I DID support a boycott specifically against Starbucks (I don't believe any answer to the contrary), and nothing I have said indicates that.
Trump Uni Investor wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Shareholders of any company do not need to continue being shareholders for ANY reason. That reason could be that the company did something that politically you don't like, or that their profits are going down, or that their company name has two "oo"s in it which reminds you of Moose, and you don't like Moose. Doesn't matter the reason. You can stop being a shareholder at any time.
I invested in Trump University. I got nothing when Trump bankrupted it. So, WHAT ABOUT ME?
Sucks to be you if true, and hopefully you've learned a lesson.
Fat hurts wrote:
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1090623576162660353
That's funny, but I wish Democrats (especially those likely to run for President) would leave the childish stuff to Trump...and that was childish...funny, but childish.
PIO!! is HardLoper wrote:
True. The twin trolls, JaminLoper, post the majority of the stolen name posts. They like the name SAlly for some odd reason.
Ann Coulter blasts Trump as a lazy, incompetent lunatic
https://news.yahoo.com/ann-coulter-lunatic-trump-challenged-2020-right-165049018.html
Yet Coulter wrote a book titled, "In Trump We Trust."
Rick Wilson's opinion piece about those in Trump's circle is exactly how I feel about Trumpers. This in particular sums it up well:
"From this point on, any freshly departed Trump staffer’s public postmortem will only help fill in the blanks. It will add nothing to the by-now-plain-as-day big picture: Trump is the worst president ever. Only a suck-up won’t admit it.
If you’re the next press secretary, policy adviser or White House counsel contemplating a melodramatic, self-absolving throwing-in of your Trump-caddying towel, don’t expect hosannas from the public in return for your pseudo-courage. You might hope Trump’s stench will fade, but I’ll still smell it. If there’s any justice left, everybody else will, too. Like a bad ‘80s haircut, your political cowardice will be forever preserved on the Interwebs. Your 15 minutes of shame won’t rehabilitate you, because selling out your Trump-world cronies can’t erase your original sin: selling out your country."
PIO!! is HardLoper wrote:
PIO!! wrote:
Wow, so you can copy and paste definitions and sh!t! So impressive!!!
Are you a complete idiot? Did you know that "quoting" the Constitution, and a dictionary, means cut and paste? Otherwise you would be rewriting what each actually says. But you are simply too stupid to understand something even a child would understand.
0/10
Try harder
What about me? wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Starbucks has a founder and major shareholder who is endangering the world by throwing the 2020 election to a Russian asset.
It is wrong to endanger the world.
What about the rest of us shareholders? We're just collateral damage?
It's your choice to remain a SB stockholder. No one is forcing you to hold your stock. People are not making their decision on what's best for you. If you think about, it kind of makes sense... people making decisions based on what they think is best for them. Similar to you thinking others should be concerned with your portfolio value.
Ashamed wrote:
sell-buy wrote:
Idiot. Sell SBUX NOW!!! And then BUY back later! Sell high. Buy low. Maximize profit.
Personally, I find this threat to boycott Starbucks by many Dems just because Schultz wants to run for office shameful. If he were planning to run as a Dem, they would have no issue whatsoever.
Join us or we will ruin your life (and thousands of other people's lives). It reeks of organized crime.
Yes. Just like millions of people joining together and voting someone into office someone who doesn't belong there...
a boycott is the same thing as a vote....they are voting against him running as something other than a D..... you are just against this because you want Schultz to run as an indy to help Trump. if it hurt Trumps chances you'd be all for a boycott.
Flagpole wrote:
Huh??? wrote:
^those are the only things this poster has posted in this string.
how the hell do you get that he is saying you believe starbucks should be boycotted or you are defending the boycotting of starbucks.
have you gone insane?
Nope. I just understand things that you do not. By asking me, "what did Starbucks do wrong to get boycotted?" he is asking me to defend the boycotting of Starbucks. I have no dog in this fight and so I don't plan to answer that it did something wrong or it didn't. My opinion stands as stated...a person can boycott any company for any reason. If it's a good reason, it might do some damage. If it's a bad reason, it likely won't. He asked me this question based on an assumption that I DID support a boycott specifically against Starbucks (I don't believe any answer to the contrary), and nothing I have said indicates that.
You’re reading too much into this. The guy even said your interpretation was wrong.
You are insane (and paranoid).
Huh??? wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Nope. I just understand things that you do not. By asking me, "what did Starbucks do wrong to get boycotted?" he is asking me to defend the boycotting of Starbucks. I have no dog in this fight and so I don't plan to answer that it did something wrong or it didn't. My opinion stands as stated...a person can boycott any company for any reason. If it's a good reason, it might do some damage. If it's a bad reason, it likely won't. He asked me this question based on an assumption that I DID support a boycott specifically against Starbucks (I don't believe any answer to the contrary), and nothing I have said indicates that.
You’re reading too much into this. The guy even said your interpretation was wrong.
You are insane (and paranoid).
No paranoia. I am correct about this. What his reason to ask me what Starbucks did wrong to be boycotted? He wanted me to respond in some way about Schultz, and then he would respond that Schultz isn't the CEO there anymore. Meh. Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, and he was trying to get me to.
Coulter Trump wrote:
Ann Coulter blasts Trump as a lazy, incompetent lunatic
https://news.yahoo.com/ann-coulter-lunatic-trump-challenged-2020-right-165049018.html
Yeah I think it’s now 60/40 someone will run against Trump....maybe even 2 opponents? If he doesn’t get the wall funding I think someone will run on that and I think a moderate will run as well.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Coulter Trump wrote:
Ann Coulter blasts Trump as a lazy, incompetent lunatic
https://news.yahoo.com/ann-coulter-lunatic-trump-challenged-2020-right-165049018.htmlYeah I think it’s now 60/40 someone will run against Trump....maybe even 2 opponents? If he doesn’t get the wall funding I think someone will run on that and I think a moderate will run as well.
Alan
Trump might get so pissed off being challenged that he will run as the leader of a new party: The Trump Party, as someone posted earlier. Trump will take his base with him. Trump won't win, but neither will whoever runs as a Republican. Trump's end goal might be to see which states are his majority supporters, and then see if he can convince them to secede from the US and install him as Dear Leader for life.
Yes.... yes... wrote:
Ashamed wrote:
Personally, I find this threat to boycott Starbucks by many Dems just because Schultz wants to run for office shameful. If he were planning to run as a Dem, they would have no issue whatsoever.
Join us or we will ruin your life (and thousands of other people's lives). It reeks of organized crime.
Yes. Just like millions of people joining together and voting someone into office someone who doesn't belong there...
a boycott is the same thing as a vote....they are voting against him running as something other than a D..... you are just against this because you want Schultz to run as an indy to help Trump. if it hurt Trumps chances you'd be all for a boycott.
Why just not vote for him in the election? Isn't that the democratic way instead of trying to financially ruin him before he runs?
Just say No wrote:
Why just not vote for him [Shultz] in the election? Isn't that the democratic way instead of trying to financially ruin him before he runs?
Explain how boycotting Starbucks would financially ruin someone who does not work there?
While you are at it, also explain my multiple bankruptcies failed to financially run Derp President Trump.