they didn’t want their non-political national brand associated with extremely politically decisive right wing media
Worth noting: Dunkin is owned by Inspire Brands, who went out of their way to toot their own horn about how they were successful in lobbying to kill inclusion of a minimum wage hike as part of COVID relief:
So they’re perfectly happy to take political positions; they just recognize these platforms are even more radioactive than bragging about opposing living wages for their workers.
Further, Inspire is owned by Roark Capital – a company literally named after an Ayn Rand character. That’s how far out in the loonie bin these folks are. And the MAGAs are too far over the line even for them, lol.
You’re right there. It’s got fuck all to do with politics and everything to do with squeezing as much money out of their run on this planet. Also the reason they won’t take certain political positions but easily do so when it might lead to more profits.
Political lobbying is kind of inherently political, no? They weren’t passive observers or commentators; they hired lobbyists to influence the legislative outcome.
Actively working to shape the legal structure of the country to better suit their company is politics. It’s different from culture war politics, but it’s still politics.
If anything, economic politics are what traditionally drove a lot of the political divide in this country. That’s taken a back seat to a degree, but it hasn’t made it not political.
Worth noting: Dunkin is owned by Inspire Brands, who went out of their way to toot their own horn about how they were successful in lobbying to kill inclusion of a minimum wage hike as part of COVID relief:
https://www.newsweek.com/this-fast-food-giant-bragged-about-killing-15-minimum-wage-1579273
So they’re perfectly happy to take political positions; they just recognize these platforms are even more radioactive than bragging about opposing living wages for their workers.
Further, Inspire is owned by Roark Capital – a company literally named after an Ayn Rand character. That’s how far out in the loonie bin these folks are. And the MAGAs are too far over the line even for them, lol.
That was quite the dick move, but genuinely asking: why is that move considered political? I’d say it’s an evil corporatism move.
You’re right there. It’s got fuck all to do with politics and everything to do with squeezing as much money out of their run on this planet. Also the reason they won’t take certain political positions but easily do so when it might lead to more profits.
Political lobbying is kind of inherently political, no? They weren’t passive observers or commentators; they hired lobbyists to influence the legislative outcome.
Actively working to shape the legal structure of the country to better suit their company is politics. It’s different from culture war politics, but it’s still politics.
If anything, economic politics are what traditionally drove a lot of the political divide in this country. That’s taken a back seat to a degree, but it hasn’t made it not political.
You’re right. If they used our political system for their benefit, then yes, it was a political move.