Starbucks Take a Hit

Schultz quickly found out the hard way that while most adult-aged Americans can agree that they like coffee, roughly 50% disagree with his leftist political opinions. Which, according to Yahoo Finance, has sent the company’s “brand perception” into a downward spiral since January 29th


“I write to you today with deep concern, a heavy heart…etc”

What a load of emotional drivel! Looks like he’s trying to imitate the beginning of the Sherlock Holmes short story “The Final Problem”:
“It is with a heavy heart that I take up my pen to write these the last words…”

I don’t patronize Starbucks because they monetarily support a myriad of social issues antithetical to my moral beliefs.Besides,their coffees isn’t very good either;)

McDonald’s coffee tastes better to me and it’s a lot cheaper. :wink:

Where I live the hipsters, folkys , and hippies support the locally owned coffee shops anyway. Starbucks is considered corporate. They seem to reject Starbucks like they do Sports Bars.

Starbucks always could have targeted hiring LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, if they felt it was their moral imperative and they made capable employees. Nobody would object to that imperitive.

That they adopted and publicized this policy only when the National discussion focused on ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS was just a lame attempt to pander to the left. It was a shallow PR move that deserves a hand slap.

This is too bad, because Howard Schultz has been doing a lot to help the people who work for him develop good work havits which spill out into the rest of their lives. I’ve been reading about this in a book called *The Power of Habit *by ? Dulhigg. The structure would probably be very helpful to refugees in terms of integrating, which would be a really good thing.

Schultz could hire 10,000 refugees and 10,000 veterans; Starbucks employs 157,000 people in the US, and almost that many again outside the US.

There are refugees here. Getting political about helping people seem self-defeating.

Absolutely agree on both accounts.

The thing I find most offensive about Starbucks is the taste of its coffee

Bear in mind where corporate profits go. Planned Parenthood. Same-sex unions. IIRC, the use of artificial flavors developed via aborted embryo research. Virtually everything which opposes the Church. As good as helping immigrants and vets would be, it comes at the cost of innocent human blood.

You want good coffee? Make it at home. Take it with you. Genuine Carmelite Monks in Wyoming at award-winning Mystic Monk Coffee.

The monks here in South Carolina, some brew beer, and some brew coffee. Those folks are some awesome busy people. I think I’d rather support monks anyway.:thumbsup:


Wow, what a shame. I don’t drink coffee, so I never paid any attention to them before reading about the programs they have in place for their employees in this book.

So frustrating!

Yes, Starbucks he done more for Dunkin Donut coffee sales than anything else
I really don’t care one single product of theirs, nor their marketing schemes.

Wait, Shultz is left wing?
Nooooo. Impossible! Isn’t he a rich man in charge of a large company…
Aren’t all those people republicans?
I’m shocked!

Being someone who is neither Democrat or Republican (until I run for office) this gave me a giggle.

He indicated refugees, not illegal immigrants. :confused:

Actually, in America liberals make more than conservatives and give less than a quarter what their conservative brethren give to charity.

6, maybe 7 of the world’s 8 richest people wanted Clinton in office.

And look around— numerous techie gurus, CEO and Fortune 500 is lead by liberals, many of whom are jumpy around SJWs on twitter.

Fact is many of them can afford the nonsense.

Take Google for instance. By funneling their money through banks in Ireland and the Caymans, they avoided paying millions in taxes during Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s tenure in office.

You mean I am supposed to take information posted on some right-wing site as valid?

Zerohedge? They have a donation link on their site - which tells me a lot of the number of readers they attract.

What this article fails to indicate is that Starbucks was priced at 58.70 on January 25th. According to the described “dive” - they tumbled to 53.87 on February 2nd. However, if anyone noticed - they ended at 57.84 today - February 24th. The sudden drop was more likely due to the announcement of the latest quarterly earnings which financial reports stated; Starbucks shares tumble on lowest same-store sales growth since 2009.

I would like to know how this reporter arrived at his “roughly 50% disagree with his leftist political opinions” comment? He could not have extracted that from the price of the stock.

Truly just another dummy uploading his personal comments to his WordPress site.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit