In response to Donald Trump’s temporary ban of immigrants from nations with terrorism ties, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced plans to hire 10,000 refugees.
That’s nice.
Wait a minute, let’s think about it. He will hire 10,000 refugees INSTEAD of hiring unemployed non-refugee Americans. That’s a shame for all those unemployed people.
Why not hire the best person for the job? That seems more fair. Based on the “content of their character.” More American.
“but maybe a refugee would be the best person for the job.”
Sure, that could be, but in that case, there is no need for Howard Schultz to make the proclamation. That refugee would get the job anyways.
The real reason for the proclamation is to propagandize the public. “Trump is mean, we’re nice, be nice like us.”
Like all propaganda, Schultz is taking something out context, playing on emotions in an attempt to sway people towards a false narrative. I’m not saying he even knows he’s doing it. He likely is propagandized himself, which after reading about him seems to be a good possibility.
What Schultz is not saying is that there are legitimate dangers to allowing refugees and immigrants of certain backgrounds into the country. It’s not politically correct. But it is proven by history.
As per the example of Europe. Europe is currently experiencing terrible problems because of their acceptance of Syrian refugees. A sexual assault epidemic, crime increase, terrorism increase, strains on social welfare programs, Muslims not assimilating to western culture, civil unrest. It’s been so bad that in some European countries, governments are paying refugees to go back to the country they came from.
But did Schultz mention that? No. He’s propagandizing.
When a business starts to take positions on political issues, they are no longer only a business. They are a political advocacy group.
That’s fine. That’s their right if they want to do that.
However, imo, it’s unwise to alienate half or more than half of customers. As 57% of Americans agree with Trump’s temporary ban.
I would not donate money to the DNC. Why would I fund Starbucks, an organization who in part operates like them? I wouldn’t.
If a Democratic person likes Starbucks and also likes their position on political issues? I understand if that person still wants to shop at Starbucks. But that’s not me.
Boycotting Starbucks is a personal call. I won’t look down on anyone who doesn’t make that choice.
Because in fact, I only just decided to boycott months ago. Well after Starbucks “Race Together” campaign which should have signaled to me that Starbucks promotes progressive propaganda. But I overlooked it.
Maybe I should have boycotted 2 years earlier in 2013, when Schultz declared the position of the company to be in favor of gay marriage. But again, I hadn’t totally thought it through that some of the money I was spending at Starbucks was going directly towards propaganda that imo deceives and harms people.
It’s not only what Starbucks is saying, it’s also how they are saying it. Schultz sent a message to his entire company, or what he calls “partners” stating his opinions about the refugee ban as if they are foregone conclusions.
The liberal elitism and tone-deafness. The only thing they seem to listen to is the bottom line. Okay.
I don’t drink coffee. I won’t be buying their muffins, chips, hot chocolate, or anything, either.