PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on June 19, 2017, 06:29:18 AM
-
The CEO of outdoor clothing giant Patagonia is burnishing her anti-Republican bona fides again, this time saying she intends to pledge her entire company to the “resistance” of President Donald Trump.
Patagonia CEO Rose Marcario recently attacked President Trump for his statements about rolling back President Obama’s unusually aggressive campaign of confiscating millions of acres of state lands and claiming them as “national monuments.”
“We have to fight like hell to keep every inch of public land,” Marcario said in a May article at Huffpost. “I don’t have a lot of faith in politics and politicians right now.”
In an effort to prevent citizens from retaking possession of their state lands, one of her immediate actions will be to sue the Trump administration for its efforts to scale back Obama’s unprecedented land grab.
“A president does not have the authority to rescind a national monument,” Marcario said in an April 26 statement after Trump announced his national monuments order. “An attempt to change the boundaries ignores the review process of cultural and historical characteristics and the public input.”
In particular, the Trump administration is preparing to revisit Obama’s order to create the Bears Ears National Monument. In April, Trump issued an executive order requiring the Department of the Interior to review Obama’s actions on national monuments. Ordering Interior Secretary Ray Zinke to review Obama’s policies in April, President Trump called Obama’s move an “egregious abuse of federal power.”
Many state governments fully agree with Trump’s assessment and were furious when Obama swooped in from Washington and stole away millions of acres of land from state control to create new national monuments and parks.
A poll of residents of Utah, for instance, showed that 60 percent opposed Obama’s land grab, while only 33 percent supported it.
Along with the possible lawsuit, Marcario said Patagonia would use its profits to back pro-environmental candidates in states throughout the West.
This is far from the first time the sportswear company pledged its profits to political matters. Last year, the California-based company spent over $1 million for a get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat Donald Trump and Republicans.
But, despite its acclaimed high-minded activism, Patagonia has a troubled history of its own, having been tied to human trafficking and child labor in its supply chain.
I like the outdoors, and have bought a good amount of clothing from this company. NO MORE! Why are they so pro Government over reach, and anti private citizen? I am sick of these hypocrites trying to make themselves out as SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/18/outdoor-clothing-giant-patagonia-pledging-lead-resistance-trump/
-
Okeydoke. Sane people who read about Patagona's moonbattery will quietly begin make those profits they're planning to funnel into federal overreach a lot smaller. It will be interesting to see by how much!
-
The Feds already own WAY too much land, especially out West. It rarely ever gets used for the public to enjoy, it is just a land grab, and we get kicked out. What happened to state's rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to keep their lands for their own use?
-
Did I just hear that today the Dow jones hit a record high? You would think corporate America would appreciate that. I guess she sells clothes to urban liberals who want to live in a city and vacation to get back to nature in a national park confiscated from people who actually live out in flyover country.
-
I guess she sells clothes to urban liberals who want to live in a city and vacation to get back to nature in a national park confiscated from people who actually live out in flyover country.
I think she may be betting that her main customers are the urban liberal/progressives, and back to nature types that read "Outdoors", or "Backpacker" magazines which are very, very lib/prog. However, there are customers, or potential customers like me that are conservative/libertarian, and I just crossed Patagonia off my list, so I hope more do the same. There seems to be a trend in recent years where corporations find it OK to politicize their product, or service. Yahoo, Google, MSN, Amazon, Comcast, Netflix, Disney, ESPN, and many, many others have become blatantly political, and it is always to the LEFT.
-
A lot of the big outdoors companies, including Patagonia and REI, came out against the executive order that Trump signed with regards to the national monuments. I'm not sure they actually read it, though, because it doesn't actually close down any monument, it only calls for a study into them. Too bad, I really like Patagonia stuff. Unfortunately most of the outdoors companies tend to be pretty liberal.
-
It has become much easier to identify the enemy by the way they attack us, though.
One would think stockholders would frown on moonbat CEO's ending any loyalty to their brand by 51% of the US population.
Quite unproductive for stock values.
-
It has become much easier to identify the enemy by the way they attack us, though.
One would think stockholders would frown on moonbat CEO's ending any loyalty to their brand by 51% of the US population.
Quite unproductive for stock values.
Stock holders are not in control, the board members are. We need to go back to fair elections for corporate boards to stop all this shenanigans.
-
Stock holders are not in control, the board members are. We need to go back to fair elections for corporate boards to stop all this shenanigans.
In theory the stockholders should be. This is why I try to pay attention to all those proxy vote mailings and read the boring proposals. Once in a while there will be some wild proposal "stockholder Whack O. Treehugg proposes we shut down any factory not run exclusively on windmill power. Board recommends you vote against." Although I suppose in Patagonia's case they might go for that one.
-
It has become much easier to identify the enemy by the way they attack us, though.
One would think stockholders would frown on moonbat CEO's ending any loyalty to their brand by 51% of the US population.
Quite unproductive for stock values.
Patagonia is privately held. One family owns all the stock - "Patagonia is a private company, and the sole stockholders are me and my wife...." (Yvon Chouinard, from http://grist.org/article/little-chouinard/ (http://grist.org/article/little-chouinard/))
Furthermore, it appears that Patagonia was one of the first companies to become a California "Benefit Corporation" - a new class of corporations created by California in 2012 (and by other states in recent years):
From the FAQ of their holding company:
http://www.patagoniaworks.com/faq/ (http://www.patagoniaworks.com/faq/)
Background info on Benefit corporations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation)
-
Patagonia is privately held. One family owns all the stock
Then they have every right to stupid shit like this. And we have every right to publicize it and to not shop there.
-
Then they have every right to stupid shit like this. And we have every right to publicize it and to not shop there.
Of course.
Just wanted everyone to be aware that the company was essentially private and acting according to the principles of its owners. So their actions aren't generalizable to public companies.
I don't think I've ever purchased anything from Patagonia. I was vaguely aware they were run by ecological liberals, but had not bothered to research them till this thread appeared.
-
Of course.
Just wanted everyone to be aware that the company was essentially private and acting according to the principles of its owners. So their actions aren't generalizable to public companies.
I think everyone knew you were doing that; we are just sayin. I didn't know they were private and I learned something new about benefit corporations. Interesting. It's all about reducing your fiduciary responsibility to stockholders or rather CREATING a fiduciary responsibility to vague non - human entities such as "the environment" and "society in general" all for the purpose of expanding your ability to have non- profit- related goals while still being a for-profit company, and avoiding legal entanglements over not trying to maximize profit as your primary goal. I won't jump to the conclusion all benefit companies have a left wing agenda, maybe there are some right wingers too. Kind of like Amazon smile lets you have Amazon donate money to the NRA on your behalf.
I don't think I've ever purchased anything from Patagonia. I was vaguely aware they were run by ecological liberals, but had not bothered to research them till this thread appeared.
Me too.
-
They can do, or say anything they want. I will choose to no longer purchase their products.
-
http://moonbattery.com/?p=85317
(http://)
-
http://moonbattery.com/?p=85317
(http://)
Obama's land grabs aside, what are you trying to say with this image?
-
Obama's land grabs aside, what are you trying to say with this image?
I was not aware of the amount of federal land ownership. O's land grabs strike me as political theater.
On thread topic, here is an interesting site for those interested in supporting/not supporting businesses based on what they do or fund.
http://www.2ndvote.com
-
I was not aware of the amount of federal land ownership. O's land grabs strike me as political theater.
On thread topic, here is an interesting site for those interested in supporting/not supporting businesses based on what they do or fund.
http://www.2ndvote.com
Out west they do own a lot of land. It's Constitutional and it's also in federal law. A lot of people like to go on about federal land ownership out west but don't understand the history behind how and why the federal land owns that much land. Again, my comments are not speaking about Obama's land grabs, only what the federal government has historically owned.
-
I like the outdoors, and have bought a good amount of clothing from this company. NO MORE! Why are they so pro Government over reach, and anti private citizen? I am sick of these hypocrites trying to make themselves out as SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/18/outdoor-clothing-giant-patagonia-pledging-lead-resistance-trump/
Bit confused here. Is the angst the fact that a private company is taking a position on a social issue -or- is it that they are taking an position you disagree with?
-
Out west they do own a lot of land. It's Constitutional and it's also in federal law. A lot of people like to go on about federal land ownership out west but don't understand the history behind how and why the federal land owns that much land. Again, my comments are not speaking about Obama's land grabs, only what the federal government has historically owned.
Yes they do. At one time they owned it all (pretty much). The government selling land was a major source of revenue for many years.
One thing I'm not clear on, was a bit of talk about a "land grab". Was that the government taking private property or re-designating land they already owned.
-
Bit confused here. Is the angst the fact that a private company is taking a position on a social issue -or- is it that they are taking an position you disagree with?
I won't speak for Anthony, but for me it's the latter. There was such a strong reaction by many outdoors companies, including REI, when Trump signed the executive order for national monuments. The executive order merely ordered a study of national monuments. It didn't change anything or take away any monuments and yet these companies are jumping on it as if Trump is seizing the land and going to build a hotel on it.
Many people, including the local tribe, didn't want Bears Ears to even become a national monument. Obama created a lot of these monuments for political reasons, not because he actually cared about creating a national monument.
-
Bit confused here. Is the angst the fact that a private company is taking a position on a social issue -or- is it that they are taking an position you disagree with?
Why are you confused. The answer is the latter.
-
Bit confused here. Is the angst the fact that a private company is taking a position on a social issue -or- is it that they are taking an position you disagree with?
Here, I don't even know what their position is. What I am upset about is that they are encouraging disrespect for the office of the President because they childishly cannot stand who is in it. Now I might have missed it, but I don't recall the right calling for Obama's assassination 8 years ago, nor plays which used an Obama look alike was used as Caesar, to be stabbed daily. Nor any right leaning actor asking if it wasn't time that an actor shot the president again. I don't remember any music artists saying that they thought a lot about blowing up the White House. Now if I missed that, someone please point it out and I will condemn it.
Private company, they can do what they want. Obviously in this day, they will suffer some fallout for it, but it's their choice. I really don't care whether that's left or right as I'm in the middle and think both sides are pretty moronic at times. On the other hand, I wasn't really upset with Hobby Lobby. I can't think of a private liberal company that said something I disagree with, maybe because I rarely see the right get riled up about things. Anyone have an example other than the current one?
Public company, they should not be engaging in politics because the CEO does not own the company. When the CEO opens their mouth about polarized topics the company loses customers and shareholders lose money. It's estimated that Target's CEO cost shareholders between 6 and 8 billion in lost market cap because of his public statements regarding transgender bathrooms. In the last two years Starbuck's stock has been largely flat and that is at least partially attributed to the former CEO's loud mouth in saying things like "if you don't agree with us about * (race, homosexuality, etc), don't buy our coffee". A lot of people said "yeah, ok, we won't". It is borderline criminal for a public CEO to put their personal desires ahead of shareholder values. It isn't their money to play with.