this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
355 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2156 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross-posted from "Too Bad, So Sad, Too Late - McDonald’s tells U.S. restaurants it’s not a ‘political brand’ after Trump visit" by @JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee in !news@beehaw.org


Excerpt:

Though President Donald Trump visited a Pennsylvania McDonald’s location on Sunday, the fast-food giant is trying to stay neutral in the presidential race.

“As we’ve seen, our brand has been a fixture of conversation in this election cycle. While we’ve not sought this, it’s a testament to how much McDonald’s resonates with so many Americans. McDonald’s does not endorse candidates for elected office and that remains true in this race for the next President,” the company said in an internal message viewed by CNBC and confirmed by a source familiar with the matter.


I haven't eaten at a McDonalds since before covid, and I don't really miss it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Nope the corporate had to have been fully aware since there was a joke on SNL about his visit happening the next day. It was in the news that it was gonna happen and McDonald's did nothing to stop it.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

since there was a joke on SNL about his visit happening the next day

It was in the news

I think you're confused.

Because I said they likely found out when everyone else did...

And you replied saying they found out...

When everyone else did?

McDonald’s did nothing to stop it.

Then there's the part where I'd still need to explain how franchising works

McD's might be unique in this regard, but they actually own the land the building is on for most franchises. So they'd have the authority to deny if they wanted to (at least in the standard agreement in the US).

This was well explained in the biopic, The Founder https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4276820/

Sadly, it makes sense that corporate would not deny it in this case - the store was going to be closed so there was no impact on business (as compared to the store being closed for a more typical reason), and they'd probably fear the public relations backlash after seeing "McD refuses to allow store to be borrowed by GOP/MAGA campaign"

[–] houndeyes@toast.ooo 1 points 1 month ago

Then there's the part where I'd still need to explain how franchising works

Hah! I love how palpable you made your exasperation!

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

McDonalds is a franchise, local owners are separate entities from the franchise "parent".

Plus, McDonalds is a huge company. They probably couldn't move their massive legal machinery to respond in time to stop it. Even if they could they would probably have had to know which franchisee was doing it ahead of time, and also have to find something in the franchise agreement specifically they were violating.

[–] Leeks@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In b4 McD’s changes the franchising agreement to require all events with media present to be approved by McD’s corp prior to the event.

[–] thebeardedpotato@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I would be surprised if they don’t already have this

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

If they had done something to stop it, they would have been sued by the franchise owner who did nothing to violate the franchise agreement.

Which is interesting, because usually corporate has all the power in franchise agreements.