# Travis may be an *******, but



## Toyota Guy (May 18, 2016)

*COMMENTARY*
*The hunting down of Uber's Travis Kalanick*

Travis Kalanick had serious faults, but he was hunted down because he challenged an established and politically connected industry.
The war on Uber is evident in politics and the news media.
The next true disruptor may be chilled by what happened to Kalanick.
Jake Novak | @jakejakeny
17 Hours AgoCNBC.com
341
SHARES








Mike Windle | Getty Image
This week, America witnessed the successful hunting down and bagging of a major company's CEO. Too many of us seem to be just fine with it. But we shouldn't be.

That leader was Uber's chief, Travis Kalanick, who announced on Tuesday that he was stepping down from the company he founded.

Let's get something out of the way to start: Kalanick is not a saint, and he did indeed bring much of his personal problems on himself. He will also likely live out the rest of his life as a very wealthy man, so we needn't cry (literally or figuratively) over his fate. And Uber certainly is not the perfect company with a spotless ethical record.

Still, what happened to Kalanick, and by extension Uber, this week should bother every freedom and innovation-loving person in America and the entire world.

Don't be fooled by all of Kalanick's personal missteps and Uber's ethical issues. They absolutely aren't excusable, but they're also not all that different from what dozens of other companies and CEOs face every day.

The real reason Kalanick was taken down and Uber remains in so much trouble is because it has enemies. And those enemies have power.

Most of us are familiar with who those enemies were and how they responded. Taxi companies across the world have long been one of the most politically controlled and regulated industries ever since they were just horse-drawn livery firms.

In return for undergoing often extensive licensing requirements and fees, local governments protect those taxi companies. It's a deal made in crony capitalist Heaven-except that it often leaves people who needed rides, reliable service, and affordable fares in a commuter's purgatory.

In many ways, the licensed taxi industry is essentially a public-private partnership wherever you go. So when you come for the cabs, you come for the government too.

When Uber came on the scene, and skirted these licensing rules by officially branding itself a "ride-sharing" business as opposed to a taxi company, those companies and taxi driver unions protested and lobbied their government friends to restrict and even ban Uber from their localities. That effort yielded mixed results, but the constant political and regulatory harassment was and is a reality for the company.

And the news media played a big role in this harassment too. At first, the media provided Uber with billions of dollars in virtual free advertising, with regular reports explaining and publicizing the startup. Then, newspapers, TV networks, and websites eventually started to report frequently on every Uber misstep, criminal incident involving an Uber driver, and almost any complaint coming from or on behalf of its employees.

Uber and Kalanick soldiered on and, thanks to it becoming the most well-funded tech startup in history, it was able to fight back with an aggressive political and media strategy that included a well-documented P.R. and policy war room.

Then, the targeted response to Uber changed. As every truly astute political observer in America knows, attacking a person is always a more effective way of economic harassment than targeting a company or an industry as a whole. In a tactic right out Saul Alinsky's 13th rule in his book "Rules for Radicals," Uber opponents moved to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

So the most effective attack on Uber finally gained steam when Kalanick himself became the target. That attack hit hardest by the release of a video he did not know was being taken that showed him arguing with an Uber driver, and coming off as mean and elitist.

Considering the nature of the video, some experts believe Kalanick was set up by that driver and goaded into an argument that would make him look bad on tape. Set up or not, the video had a punishing effect on Kalanick that finally began the process of his personal undoing at the company. He became too much of a liability for the company and its investors, and they finally ousted him. In the end, it took less than six months from the day the video went public for Kalanick to lose the top job of a company he founded and had run for eight years.

Again, tears need not be shed for Kalanick and his personal situation now. And while Uber may never become something similar to its investors' grandest imagined dreams, Internet-based ride hailing technology certainly seems here to stay. However, everyone who wants to see innovation in improvements in government-protected industries from health care to infrastructure should at least be a bit worried.

After seeing what happened to Kalanick, who could blame the next innovator in highly government protected industries like mass transit, medical care, or energy from shying away from making a big splash? Is it any wonder that so many of our greatest innovations in America over the past 20 years have come in the relatively non-government protected areas like consumer electronics?

One could argue that one such intrepid innovator is Elon Musk, who is indeed starting to push the envelope in areas like mass transit and energy. But the key word here is "starting." Not even Musk's super-popular car company Tesla has made a significant dent in the entrenched auto industry's sales. His SolarCity business is an even smaller blip. And his efforts to actually tunnel under the highly regulated streets of Los Angeles are bold and exciting, but haven't really started yet.

If and when any of those factors change, it's a good bet Musk may get something similar to Kalanick's treatment.

That's the real shame here. Also somewhat shameful is the way too many of Kalanick's peers in the tech world are silent about the forces he faced, which ultimately defeated him. Perhaps his former colleagues will just quietly learn from his story and avoid his mistakes.

However, the rest of us should at least be a little more aware of why this particular innovator became such a hated target. And if that awareness grows, maybe those entrenched powers in business and government will find it harder to stop the next disruptor who comes down the line.

_Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist. Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny._

_For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter._


Jake NovakSenior columnist, CNBC.com


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

I got one sentence in and stopped..

He challenged an established and politically connected industry?

Or he ruined a decent paying industry? 

Talk about propaganda.. yes he challenged an industry by subidizing fares and burning billions while lowering wages for everyone across the board in the name of destroying everyone.. not just taxis.. everyone.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

None of this would have happen if he didnt kill tipping. Think about it. You are a worker that derives your bread and butter from cash tips. Your boss spent billions on doing 2 things
1. Reduced the average hourly wage for hundreds of thousands of people like you
2. Destroyed your ability of making your bread ans butter with lies and coercion.
How do you like your boss now.?
How do you like your boss after he says he is sorry but completely incapable to undo the damage because the culture is now set in stone.?
Ubers investors still dont realize that every single tipless ride has cost them one dollar or more and will continue to cost them until they are gone. The irony is that one day uber will likely spearhead the tipping revival. In the near future if they got every rider to tip it would save them billions per year in ride subsidies


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

I honestly think it's a little less about tipping...but about the constant rate cuts...especially in the smaller markets. It's about the constant onboarding of new (and sometimes totally clueless) drivers with no sense of direction and bad driving skills. It's about elimination of surge in what was once dependable income in a lot of markets. We deserved that money just for working that late-night bar rush on the weekends. That used to make or break me. Now, it's ALL broken.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Toyota Guy said:


> *COMMENTARY*
> *The hunting down of Uber's Travis Kalanick*
> 
> Travis Kalanick had serious faults, but he was hunted down because he challenged an established and politically connected industry.
> ...


The Liberal Leftists ATTACKED him after he was asked by the President of the United States of America to serve on a committee.

The same hammer wielding car and building burning protestors who defiled the inauguration.



ABC123DEF said:


> I honestly think it's a little less about tipping...but about the constant rate cuts...especially in the smaller markets. It's about the constant on boarding of new (and sometimes totally clueless drivers with no sense of direction and bad driving skills). It's about elimination of surge in what was once dependable income in a lot of markets. We deserved that money just for working that late-night bar rush on the weekends. That used to make or break me. Now, it's ALL broken.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> The Liberal Leftists ATTACKED him after he was asked by the President of the United States of America to serve on a committee.
> 
> The same hammer wielding car and building burning protestors who defiled the inauguration.


To be fair I don't think he should have taken that much abuse for that? Musk is on there too and no one questions him.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Uber succeeded because they offered very low rates to riders. They needed drivers, and lots of them, to serve the riders. Signup incentives solved the initial driver shortage. Uber realized they had a surplus of drivers and lowered their rate. That also lowered the fare to the rider, so more market share. There were still plenty of drivers so Uber lowered the rate again, which means even more riders. But drivers are still willing to drive for the low rates. There are a more drivers in Las Vegas at $0.90/mile than there were at $1.80/mile and with fewer and shorter surges. 

Uber didn't ruin the industry, they reformed it. Riders are much happier with the low fares of Uber vs. taxis. Instead of 3000 cabbies making a living, we have 25,000 drivers earning something. For some of those 25,000, $5/hour is better than not eating or having their car repossessed or not paying their cell bill, etc. There are lots of reasons a $5/hour job would be good for some.

Sexual harassment in the workplace is unacceptable. If TK looked the other way while it was happening, he should be gone. The no tipping was stupid. Receiving tips in the app isn't a great thing for drivers due to tax implications, but its better than not having it. A $5 tip on a 10 mile ride effectively removes the IRS ~$0.50/mile deduction. 

Being on Trump's economic council doesn't mean TK supported Trump's actions in Syria. Uber and TK took a bad rap on that one. 

Uber took some taxi customers. Uber took some mass transportation customers. But Uber also created new customers due to the low fares. Uber makes riders happy (or happier than taking a taxi). Uber allows just about anyone to scratch out a few needed bucks by driving. The only groups that should have a complaint are the groups that lost customers. 

If Uber would raise there rates, me and thousands of other would flood the streets. Due to the excess supply of drivers, Uber would lower the driver's incentives (pay) again and we're back at square one. The only solution I see is to improve the overall economy so that there are fewer under employed people and fewer willing to trade their car's equity for some quick cash. We shouldn't blame Uber for taking advantage of a willing labor pool.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

bsliv said:


> Uber succeeded because they offered very low rates to riders. They needed drivers, and lots of them, to serve the riders. Signup incentives solved the initial driver shortage. Uber realized they had a surplus of drivers and lowered their rate. That also lowered the fare to the rider, so more market share. There were still plenty of drivers so Uber lowered the rate again, which means even more riders. But drivers are still willing to drive for the low rates. There are a more drivers in Las Vegas at $0.90/mile than there were at $1.80/mile and with fewer and shorter surges.
> 
> Uber didn't ruin the industry, they reformed it. Riders are much happier with the low fares of Uber vs. taxis. Instead of 3000 cabbies making a living, we have 25,000 drivers earning something. For some of those 25,000, $5/hour is better than not eating or having their car repossessed or not paying their cell bill, etc. There are lots of reasons a $5/hour job would be good for some.
> 
> ...


I'm not quite so sure the streets would be so full of drivers if the rates went back up. Most of us want to have free and spare time. I, for one, would make the money that I need to make then and get the eff OFF the streets. There's too much liability and risk in doing this stuff as it is...PLUS it's unhealthy to be sitting on your rump for hours on end. I think there would be a continuous stream of drivers logging in and off - even with more drivers being active. That driver who was doing 12-hour days for 7 days a week might only do 6-8 hour days 4-6 days a week now.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Uber succeeded because they offered very low rates to riders. They needed drivers, and lots of them, to serve the riders. Signup incentives solved the initial driver shortage. Uber realized they had a surplus of drivers and lowered their rate. That also lowered the fare to the rider, so more market share. There were still plenty of drivers so Uber lowered the rate again, which means even more riders. But drivers are still willing to drive for the low rates. There are a more drivers in Las Vegas at $0.90/mile than there were at $1.80/mile and with fewer and shorter surges.
> 
> Uber didn't ruin the industry, they reformed it. Riders are much happier with the low fares of Uber vs. taxis. Instead of 3000 cabbies making a living, we have 25,000 drivers earning something. For some of those 25,000, $5/hour is better than not eating or having their car repossessed or not paying their cell bill, etc. There are lots of reasons a $5/hour job would be good for some.
> 
> ...


Do you think Uber really wants to have less drivers on the road?


----------



## villetta (Feb 11, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Uber didn't ruin the industry, they reformed it. Riders are much happier with the low fares of Uber vs. taxis. Instead of 3000 cabbies making a living, we have 25,000 drivers earning something. For some of those 25,000, $5/hour is better than not eating or having their car repossessed or not paying their cell bill, etc. There are lots of reasons a $5/hour job would be good for some.


Uber has none of the payroll costs for hiring some 400,000 US drivers, and none of the costs of owning and operating very expensive equipment needed to provide the actual transportation of for hire passengers. Uber can afford to set rates far below the costs of taxi/limo services because you, the drivers, are bearing all of the real costs with no compensation.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

ABC123DEF said:


> I'm not quite so sure the streets would be so full of drivers if the rates went back up. Most of us want to have free and spare time. I, for one, would make the money that I need to make then and get the eff OFF the streets. There's too much liability and risk in doing this stuff as it is...PLUS it's unhealthy to be sitting on your rump for hours on end. I think there would be a continuous stream of drivers logging in and off - even with more drivers being active. That driver who was doing 12-hour days for 7 days a week might only do 6-8 hour days 4-6 days a week now.


You may be right. But with a pay raise, I think more non-drivers would become part time drivers and more part time drivers would become full time drivers. Full time drivers may be over time drivers. Smart drivers will get what they need/want and get out.



Brooklyn said:


> Do you think Uber really wants to have less drivers on the road?


Not at all. Uber wants every driver in the world to drive for them.



villetta said:


> Uber has none of the payroll costs for hiring some 400,000 US drivers, and none of the costs of owning and operating very expensive equipment needed to provide the actual transportation of for hire passengers. Uber can afford to set rates far below the costs of taxi/limo services because you, the drivers, are bearing all of the real costs with no compensation.


You're absolutely right. Uber is smart in that regard. Drivers, on the other hand, maybe not so smart driving at peanut rates. I don't blame the drivers either, tho. Some desperately need the peanuts.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

I think the word is getting out about how Uber really operates and what it does to your car long-term. Many of us here that started in the early days basically pioneered this ship on the ground level. We really had nothing to go by about the industry...EXCEPT what some of the taxi drivers were willing to tell us. They had already been in the trenches and knew how the biz works. Uber really knew/knows nothing about how transportation works. They just know formulas, numbers, analytics, and data.


----------



## Driftinginn (Mar 22, 2017)

villetta said:


> Uber has none of the payroll costs for hiring some 400,000 US drivers, and none of the costs of owning and operating very expensive equipment needed to provide the actual transportation of for hire passengers. Uber can afford to set rates far below the costs of taxi/limo services because you, the drivers, are bearing all of the real costs with no compensation.


Exactly..... not to mention not having to pay unemployment taxes and health care benefits to drivers. They also do not have to fund any kind of retirement for drivers. It truly is slave labor.
The independent operator model is a total sham in my opinion.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Uber succeeded because they offered very low rates to riders. They needed drivers, and lots of them, to serve the riders. Signup incentives solved the initial driver shortage. Uber realized they had a surplus of drivers and lowered their rate. That also lowered the fare to the rider, so more market share. There were still plenty of drivers so Uber lowered the rate again, which means even more riders. But drivers are still willing to drive for the low rates. There are a more drivers in Las Vegas at $0.90/mile than there were at $1.80/mile and with fewer and shorter surges.
> 
> Uber didn't ruin the industry, they reformed it. Riders are much happier with the low fares of Uber vs. taxis. Instead of 3000 cabbies making a living, we have 25,000 drivers earning something. For some of those 25,000, $5/hour is better than not eating or having their car repossessed or not paying their cell bill, etc. There are lots of reasons a $5/hour job would be good for some.
> 
> ...


Uber succeeded because they broke a bunch of laws. I'm no businessman but if I could run a factory using child labor I'd make some serious money.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Demon said:


> Uber succeeded because they broke a bunch of laws. I'm no businessman but if I could run a factory using child labor I'd make some serious money.


I respectfully disagree, in part. Uber only exploited adult labor. And that labor were free to leave at any time. The laws they broke were anti competition laws which generally harms the economy and I doubt they would pass a US Constitution test. Competition generally creates lower prices and spurs innovation. The competition will cause the less efficient business to close and the more efficient to thrive.

Imagine laws that restricted competition among the sellers of loaves of bread. Only Albertsons and Fresh Foods were allowed to sell bread. Then imagine they had a cap of 3,000 loaves a day. The price of bread would skyrocket. Albertsons and Fresh Foods would profit. Then some innovator comes along and says anyone can make a loaf. And people start baking. The innovator makes an app to connect the bakers to sandwich makers. Everyone is happy, except the former monopoly and those that collect protection money from the monopolists.

Any transaction between two competent adults, each acting in their own best interest and doesn't infringe on the rights of a third party, should not be illegal. Said another way, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. *I do not add* *'within the limits of the law'* because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." _T. Jefferson, 1819_. (bold added by me)


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I respectfully disagree, in part. Uber only exploited adult labor. And that labor were free to leave at any time. The laws they broke were anti competition laws which generally harms the economy and I doubt they would pass a US Constitution test. Competition generally creates lower prices and spurs innovation. The competition will cause the less efficient business to close and the more efficient to thrive.
> 
> Imagine laws that restricted competition among the sellers of loaves of bread. Only Albertsons and Fresh Foods were allowed to sell bread. Then imagine they had a cap of 3,000 loaves a day. The price of bread would skyrocket. Albertsons and Fresh Foods would profit. Then some innovator comes along and says anyone can make a loaf. And people start baking. The innovator makes an app to connect the bakers to sandwich makers. Everyone is happy, except the former monopoly and those that collect protection money from the monopolists.
> 
> Any transaction between two competent adults, each acting in their own best interest and doesn't infringe on the rights of a third party, should not be illegal. Said another way, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. *I do not add* *'within the limits of the law'* because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." _T. Jefferson, 1819_. (bold added by me)


You miss the point, we're not talking about competition. We're talking about a group coming in and demanding an unfair advantage over the other groups and calling themselves innovators. 
In your bread analogy it would be like people baking in their home ovens that the board of health couldn't inspect.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Toyota Guy said:


> *COMMENTARY*
> *The hunting down of Uber's Travis Kalanick*
> 
> Travis Kalanick had serious faults, but he was hunted down because he challenged an established and politically connected industry.
> ...


Kalanick tried to turn a taxi service into the city bus. and flushed billions down the toilet trying to do so. Simple as that


----------



## UberSolo (Jul 21, 2016)

Brooklyn said:


> Do you think Uber really wants to have less drivers on the road?


Actually, Uber wants zero drivers on the road. AKA: autonomous vehicles


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Demon said:


> You miss the point, we're not talking about competition. We're talking about a group coming in and demanding an unfair advantage over the other groups and calling themselves innovators.
> In your bread analogy it would be like people baking in their home ovens that the board of health couldn't inspect.


I agree with all you said except "demanding and unfair advantage." I'm only familiar with laws that effect me so your area may be different. We have a handful of taxi companies. These companies pressured and paid legislators to create a monopoly for their cartel. They limited the number of taxis. These restrictions made this taxi cartel very wealthy at a cost to the public (high, fixed fares, $3 credit card fee, very long wait times for those away from the LV strip, etc.). If the taxi companies tried doing this on their own, they'd be guilty of collusion. Uber was in no position to demand anything. They simply did it. Did Uber have an advantage? They sure did. But the taxi companies setup their playing field by trying to eliminate any competition. Drivers in Nevada operate under one transportation authority. Our Clark County commissioners setup their own transportation authority with their own setup of police. Several of our county commissioners went to prison on corruptions charges not too long ago. The feds had to get them. A federal court also said our commissioners were incompetent in assigning paving contracts (favoring a union firm over a non-union). Governments should not be in the position to favor one business over another. The temptation for corruption is too great. They should let business people make business decisions.


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Driftinginn said:


> Exactly..... not to mention not having to pay unemployment taxes and health care benefits to drivers. They also do not have to fund any kind of retirement for drivers. It truly is slave labor.
> The independent operator model is a total sham in my opinion.


Uber could have even charged a little bit more than taxis because it's a better service. Kalanick is an idiot for trying to fight on price. Uber would have been turning a profit on day one. Apple charges a premium because it's a better product. Kalanick is an idiot



UberSolo said:


> Actually, Uber wants zero drivers on the road. AKA: autonomous vehicles


Autonomous vehicles are going to happen with or without Uber. Even more of a reason to become profitable right away instead of trying to corner the market on a product that will be obsolete in five or ten years


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Commuter's purgatory? You mean the bus stop where people should go instead of destroying another person's vehicle so they can "get a ride" at the driver's expense while Kalanick filled his pockets? Those selfish bastards that didn't wanna offer transportation to people willing to pay bus fare.

**** this article and **** Kalanick.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

Kalanick et al. never wanted to make money through rides /transportation to begin with. Period. Their plan was to get enough market share to hit $100 billion with a B worth of market valuation so that they can hit the highest IPO jackpot mankind ever witnessed. He hired Arianna Huffington to become his Dr. Goebbels , the chief Nazi propaganda officer to show that sun rises from the west and sets in the east. The very name 'Uber' has Germanic root.

The autonomous vehicle project was created to get more greedy venture capitalists on board to make Uber too big to fail and of course , to write the fat paychecks of the Uber executives including Kalanick.

In a nutshell, Travis Kalanick is in the quest of becoming the undisputed 'Führer' of start up or scam up industry whatever you name it. The great con artist Elon Musk comes the closest.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Dear Mr. Novak:

I will ask you a question similar to one that I asked the Editorial Board of the _*Washington Post*_ when the meters went into the Washington, D.C. cabs and it published all of this commentary about Adrian Fenty's "standing up to a 'politically connected industry' ". My question to you is this: If, in fact, the "taxi industry" is as "wealthy and politically connected" as you state that it is, how is it that Uber and Lyft are still in operation? I will pass over the TNCs' getting into operation in the first place.

A point to ponder.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Signed, Another Uber Driver


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Demon said:


> Uber succeeded because they broke a bunch of laws. I'm no businessman but if I could run a factory using child labor I'd make some serious money.


----------



## blackjackross (Dec 16, 2016)

Toyota Guy said:


> *COMMENTARY*
> *The hunting down of Uber's Travis Kalanick*
> 
> Travis Kalanick had serious faults, but he was hunted down because he challenged an established and politically connected industry.
> ...


It wasn't the establishment that forced Travis out. It was the fat-cat investors on the board who bet on Uber to disrupt the taxi industry and were seriously concerned that he was pissing away their money. They were betting on change not against it. So while the argument that the establishment was to blame has some appeal, it doesn't stand up to the facts.


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

"Tears must be shed"


----------



## run26912 (Sep 23, 2015)

Toyota Guy said:


> *COMMENTARY*
> *The hunting down of Uber's Travis Kalanick*
> 
> Travis Kalanick had serious faults, but he was hunted down because he challenged an established and politically connected industry.
> ...


To SUM IT ALL UP: T.K. sold $0.50 hamburgers for $0.10 and sucked in over $12 billion of "smart money" to finance the world's largest private money pit in the HISTORY of mankind... and arrogantly MISSED the primo window of opportunity to cash out in an monster IPO (when "unicorns" were still HOT) ... and insisted on waiting "at least 6 years"... then tried to pump autonomous cars (Uber's cars needed human intervention at least ONCE every MILE) and flying cars.. to hype a pig...

by the way, the idea for Uber was stolen from Celluride Wireless... his next-door neighbor in the incubator compound.. http://blog.jipel.law.nyu.edu/2015/...verview-of-kevin-halpern-v-uber-technologies/

BONG!!!


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> The Liberal Leftists ATTACKED him after he was asked by the President of the United States of America to serve on a committee.


Honestly with this line of rhetoric...

If anyone and I do mean anyone despised ____ who won the presidency they to would resent the public face of a company if they decided to sign on to a cabinet position.

Do you know what Betsy DeVos does? No she's old(er) money and conducts herself in accordance with old money rules. Sure people hate her ideas and by extension her but no one says #boycotDeVos Industries.

Plenty of people despise the Koch brothers politics but they have the good sense to not officially/publicly align with ____ politician. What's that? You're boycotting Brawny paper towels because it's a subsidiary of Koch Industries? That's cool we own at least 3 other paper towel companies *and* were issuing a manufactures coupon until this news cycle blow over (Trump's mouth made that exceedingly easy)... Old money play book



tohunt4me said:


> The same hammer wielding car and building burning protestors who defiled the inauguration.


Please remember our history President GW Bush had a "defiled" inauguration as he was banned from his walk by the Secret Service for security reasons. The last two Presidents had protestors as well as President Trump but the latter had no such issues. Only President G Dub had proceedings that were "defiled" to the point that they could not go on in accordance to historical precedence.

And of course if you somehow can't remember the disrespectful (of the office and human), racist, violent, terrorist threat things that were slung at President Obama then I don't know if we can have a conversation on the subject. The difference is there wasn't this massive anti Republican Rightest (in reference to your Liberal Leftist) rhetoric and propaganda. *Almost* everyone simply separated those who had different political views from the nut-jobs instead of placing them all in one group. Over here are Libertarians and genuine Republicans and over here are the racist arseholes, 4chan trolls, and people paid to oppose President no matter what.


----------



## Fubernuber (Jan 15, 2017)

Brooklyn said:


> To be fair I don't think he should have taken that much abuse for that? Musk is on there too and no one questions him.


Musk doesnt have immature liberal millenials for customers who outnumber the rest in major cities


----------



## john2g1 (Nov 10, 2016)

Fubernuber said:


> Musk doesnt have immature liberal millenials for customers who outnumber the rest in major cities


You're oversimplifying and making assumptions about people who buy $70 - $150,000 electric cars (that's a very "liberal" thing to do) but yes you are generally correct sir.

Additionally you left out that Musk is not a public figure head for Arseholes R' Us.


----------

