When starting a boycott, one would think it’s important to consider your target. Surprisingly, in California, IN-N-OUT is not a good boycott target.
Also a good idea to link to actual news sources. I think she’s moved on to Fox now but this site is essentially like the hate diary of a lunatic like Tomi Lauren, isn’t it? I’m not clicking to read it but we’re never eating In n Out again after learning about the donations.
I’m mystified what you think that story demonstrates, other than that a bunch of Republican Party officials, elected Republicans, and prominent Republicans are opposed to an making fun of the idea of boycotting?
Yeah, bad choice. In n out is going to beat any politician in terms of popularity. They are well run too, and take good care of their employees, from what I’ve heard from folks who worked there.
Given they have actually donated more money to Democrats than to the GOP, it seems like this is a poorly conceived move by the Democrat leadership.
Also their burgers are awesome.
It demonstrates that, if you’re going to organize a boycott, pick a target that people will actually boycott. And since you folks have your undies in a bunch over the news source, how about this one:
And btw, In-N-Out, like many large companies, regularly donates to both political parties. They don’t do it because they agree or disagree with either party’s positions or philosophy, they do it for access, in case there’s legislation that’s important to their business.
Yes, Devin Nunes mocking a call for a boycott totally makes that point.
And ‘call for boycott might not work’ is basically ‘dog bites man’. It’s a way hot take, that one.
< plonk >
I feel like you don’t understand what in n out is.
Really? You basically linked to Infowars and I’m the one with a problem here?
Since the Democrats are by far the dominant party in California that makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.
So, therefore, you ignore the fact that the NY Times article said the same thing. Yeah, that makes sense.
I think the point is that you should’ve started with the NYT link (an actual news organization with a history of fact-based journalism) instead of the link that a lot of people here won’t click at all.
That, plus The NY Times article isn’t any different in content than the first one, in that it simply quotes a bunch of Republicans who mock the call for a boycott, as if they would have any other reaction. It isn’t news.
Conveniently ignoring that the NY Times story says that the Democratic Party spokesperson said that the party chair’s call for a boycott was “a personal one.” Meaning, of course, they aren’t going along.
That’s very newsy, thanks.
I see. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the motto of the New York Times “All the News That’s Fit to Print?”
So the NY Times thinks it newsworthy, but scottagibson determines it’s not. I bow to your superior judgement.
That’s kind of you. Again, thanks.
On a completely different topic, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday that New York needs to codify Roe v.Wade into state law as a hedge against the Supreme Court overturning the abortion rights decision. That, of course, is perfectly reasonable and would be the best way for NY to protect abortion rights within its borders.
Unfortunately, Cuomo, like so many politicians on the campaign stump, couldn’t resist going too far, and he said this: "I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection and we have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts because I will sue when the Supreme Court acts and I want the New York state law in place.”
Oy vey. Predictably the right-wing news organizations and web sites had a good laugh at this, ignoring the substantive part about the legislation and focusing on the “I’m going to sue the Supreme Court” part. (I won’t cite those sources here for fear of sparking another outcry (see above), but, if you’re interested, all you need do is Google “Cuomo and Roe” and they’ll pop right up.)
I understand that Cuomo, who under normal circumstances would be considered a pretty liberal governor, is facing a challenge from his left, but, nevertheless, a lesson in being careful what you say, even on the stump.
Here’s an article from the New York Law Journal, which I can affirm is a respected source of legal news:
They may have donated to the GOP, but they have also donated more to the Dems. They also are rare in the fast food business in that they have health care benefits for their employees. I believe they pay better as well.
And are you planning on boycotting every business that gives to both the Dems and the GOP, because if you are I think you will have a pretty damn long list.
Even the conservative Ag Industry in California, which gives to the GOP, is a major donor to people like Barbara Feinstein.
This is true, but we shouldn’t support businesses who pay both sides to ensure they have influence is a perfectly reasonable position. I mean, what they’re doing is subversive of democracy, right?
How is lobbying both sides a threat to democracy?