Before Sunday, Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, was one of the wise and lucky people who weren't on Twitter. Then, in a series of three tweets, he announced that he intended to run for president as an independent centrist and, as a result, set something of a record for successfully ratio-ing 100 percent of his tweets. The majority of his responses seem to be from people begging him not to run. Some are more polite than others:

It's not entirely clear what Schultz's base would be, despite his insistence that there's a hunger for nonpartisan candidates with no real ideology to speak of. The rising stars in the Democratic Party are left-wing or socialist politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and recent polls by the Pew Research Center found that the majority of Republican voters want the GOP to become even more conservative in the future.

Schultz's credentials are similar to Trump's, minus the name recognition and provocations of racial animus. Specifically, he's a billionaire, and his ability to amass an absurd amount of money is allegedly evidence that he's qualified to understand and meet people's needs. In reality, being that rich is what leads people like Wilbur Ross to dismiss federal workers not getting paid because that only represents a tiny fraction of the GDP.

Schultz followed up his tweets with a 60 Minutes interview, where he said he was concerned about Americans struggling in poverty but also added, "What the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall. And that is free health care for all, which the country cannot afford."

This should give us pause over Schultz's alleged business savvy. Whether or not Americans can afford Medicare for All is an opinion, not a fact. But if it is true, then they most certainly cannot afford the health-care system as is, because according to a study by the uber-libertarian, Koch-funded Mercatus Center, Americans will spend $2 trillion more over the next 10 years than they would with a single-payer program. And the suggestion that a larger country cannot afford the same safety nets as a smaller one is ridiculous on its face, since a country with the size and wealth of the United States is actually better positioned to pay those costs.

But then again, these are issues of public welfare and equitable distribution of resources, two things that are central to running a government and nowhere near the top priorities of CEOs.