Mark Cuban Identifies The Biggest Problem Of The Republican Party

[spurraider21]

I actually agree with most of what he said and his views (though laid out quite simplistically) seem to align quite a bit with mine...



Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on Tuesday weighed in on the status of the Republican Party.

In a post on his Cyber Dust social-media app (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-cyber-dust-messaging-app-snapchat-2014-12), the outspoken billionaire investor wrote that he would prefer to join the GOP but had an issue with the party's push for conformity.

"I would prefer to be a Republican," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News (http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/mark-cuban-i-would-prefer-to-be-a-republican-but-the-party-has-one-big-problem-thatll-crush-them-in-every-presidential-election.html/). "I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans. Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues. The Republicans have a much bigger problem that will crush them in every presidential election until this changes."

Cuban lamented that those who disagree with the "consensus" were called fake Republicans.

"The Republican Party requires that all their presidential candidates conform to consensus," he said. "If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem."

The "Shark Tank" star's desire to avoid party orthodoxy could be related to his recent praise for real-estate mogul Donald Trump, whom he hailed (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-donald-trump-best-thing-2015-7) as "the best thing to happen" to politics in a long time. Indeed, Cuban even told Business Insider he would consider being Trump's vice president if asked (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-donald-trump-vice-president-2015-7), though he said he would probably decline the hypothetical offer.

In his Tuesday Cyber Dust post, Cuban also reflected on the meaning of leadership:

Leaders don't conform to the consensus. They create consensus to their vision and goals.

Leaders don't change their positions mid debate. They welcome scorn from the masses because it creates the opportunity for dialogue.

Leaders don't look backwards to condemn what has already been done, they look forward to create a better future.

Leaders are not dogmatic. They are principled and know that change is never easy, but when it's necessary, they must lead.

The Republican Party does everything possible to discourage leadership.

They want dogma.

They want conformity.

They want to conserve their romanticized past.

That's a shame. I wish they wanted to conserve the best of what America is today and find a leader that can take us to new places that make our future better.
I realize that's not the way politics work in this day and age. And that just proves the point.


"And btw, I know a lot of the same can be said about the Democrats, but I don't want to be a Democrat," he concluded. "Until things change, I'll sit in the middle and think for myself. Unlike the Republicans."



http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-republican-party-big-problem-2015-8

[spurraider21]

to be fair, i think this is the big problem with both parties, and why i find politics/elections insufferable

[Nbadan]

"The Republican Party requires that all their presidential candidates conform to consensus," he said. "If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem."

True dat.....at least, until the Primary is won...then they swing centrists..

[Nbadan]

The GOP would win if they had a candidate that ran on a platform of less regulation, lower taxes on the middle class, closing tax loopholes on corporations, and states right's on social issues....but instead they run on stupid shit, like attacking roe-wade, border protection and kicking out illegals....f that...

[Splits]

The GOP would win if they had a candidate that ran on a platform of less regulation, lower taxes on the middle class, closing tax loopholes on corporations, and states right's on social issues....but instead they run on stupid shit, like attacking roe-wade, border protection and kicking out illegals....f that...

They don't run on those issues because they don't believe in those issues. Slut-shaming and protecting the 1% are the red meat to the base. So that's what they run on.

[ElNono]

What's hilarious is that some of them think McCain or Romney didn't win because they weren't "pure" enough...

[boutons_deux]

to be fair, i think this is the big problem with both parties, and why i find politics/elections insufferable

there's been no intimidation and purging of moderates in the Dem party like there has been in the Repugs. There is diversity of positions.

VRWC-financed Repug extremists and Bible humpers demand conformity to their extreme positions, or they will "primary" you with an opponent billionaire funds.

"small govt" is code word for "no regulation, no enforcement" so BigCorp, 1%, FIRE can cheat, steal, pollute, evade taxes. Seems like almost every week there is another $100Ms theft from Medicare and Medicaid due to fraud by doctors, clinics, BigInsurance due to lack of funds for enforcement. Same with IRS, Repugs constant cutting of IRS by $100Ms to kill enforcement.

[CosmicCowboy]

I pretty much agree with Cuban. Republicans need to just shut the fuck up about social issues like abortion, gays, etc. Immigration needs to be discussed but rationally accepting that the status of those that are here already needs to be resolved.

On immigration, I do agree that finally closing the border is necessary for a permanent resolution. People sneer at the concept of a wall but that might just be what it takes.

I really think that a Republican candidate in the primaries could get traction with a moderate philosophy like that.

[Infinite_limit]

I pretty much agree with Cuban. Republicans need to just shut the fuck up about social issues like abortion, gays, etc. Immigration needs to be discussed but rationally accepting that the status of those that are here already needs to be resolved.

On immigration, I do agree that finally closing the border is necessary for a permanent resolution. People sneer at the concept of a wall but that might just be what it takes.

I really think that a Republican candidate in the primaries could get traction with a moderate philosophy like that.
You can't allow Democrats to run wild on social issues. I voted for Kerry & Obama and I am not okay with the amount of cultural changes over the past decade: homosexuality, feminism, multiculturalism.

Someone has to force the pendulum to the middle. Atleast in a backwards 2-Party system.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can't allow Democrats to run wild on social issues. I voted for Kerry & Obama and I am not okay with the amount of cultural changes over the past decade: homosexuality, feminism, multiculturalism.

Someone has to force the pendulum to the middle. Atleast in a backwards 2-Party system.

Involving the Federal Government in social issues is in direct conflict with the principles of limiting the power and intrusion of the Federal Government. It is hypocritical to try to have it both ways.

[CosmicCowboy]

I realize that social issues have to be addressed but I would prefer that this be done totally at the state level. That would produce a more united federal government concentrating on economic and defense issues while the States govern on the details. With our mobile society one could then choose the state that best fits ones personal desires and beliefs.

If bouton's wants to marry a guy he could move to Massachusetts.

If Boutons wanted to marry his sister he could move to Arkansas.

If boutons wanted to dress in drag and identify as a woman he could move to San Francisco.

THATS freedom.

[boutons_deux]

Republicans need to just shut the fuck up about social issues like abortion, gays, etc. Immigration needs to be discussed but rationally accepting that the status of those that are here already needs to be resolved.


iow, lose their Bible humping, red state, racist, xenophobic, pro-birth, anti-LGBT, misogynist base, w/o which Repugs are nothing.

[boutons_deux]

here ya go, CC

Post Republican Debate Reality: GOP Field and Base Dominated By Right-Wing Extremists


http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/post-republican-debate-reality-gop-field-and-base-dominated-right-wing-extremists?akid=13379.187590.KeHm55&rd=1&src=newsletter1040825&t=4

same was true pre-debate, has been for decades. Started when the VRWC put Useful Idiot in the WH in 1980. All those BigCorp $Ts parked offshore? St Ronnie's 1986 tax act.


explosion of Exec compenstation, rampant short-term/quarter-ism? shifted from salary to stock, plu the perk of low tax "performance pay"

Insanely FAILED drug war? "Just Say No"

You rightwingnuts, Repugs, VRWC, 1% have been destroying the American Dream for 40 years.

[SpursforSix]

here ya go, CC

Post Republican Debate Reality: GOP Field and Base Dominated By Right-Wing Extremists


http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/post-republican-debate-reality-gop-field-and-base-dominated-right-wing-extremists?akid=13379.187590.KeHm55&rd=1&src=newsletter1040825&t=4

same was true pre-debate, has been for decades. Started when the VRWC put Useful Idiot in the WH in 1980. All those BigCorp $Ts parked offshore? St Ronnie's 1986 tax act.

Insanely FAILED drug war? "Just Say No"

You rightwingnuts, Repugs, VRWC, 1% have been destroying the American Dream for 40 years.

what's your American dream? for the general public not being able to defend themselves against BigGov and the militant gays?

[Splits]

:lmao "militant gays" good one

[Splits]

Involving the Federal Government in social issues is in direct conflict with the principles of limiting the power and intrusion of the Federal Government. It is hypocritical to try to have it both ways.

Unless we're talking about intrusion of the Federal Government into a woman's uterus. Now that is a core constitutional principal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Unless we're talking about intrusion of the Federal Government into a woman's uterus. Now that is a core constitutional principal.

Is it? I'm OK with abortion but by that standard "right to life" should be a core constitutional principle too...The fact that the supreme court didn't rule on when life actually begins doesn't mean that they ruled that life doesn't begin until natural childbirth.

[boutons_deux]

Is it? I'm OK with abortion but by that standard "right to life" should be a core constitutional principle too...The fact that the supreme court didn't rule on when life actually begins doesn't mean that they ruled that life doesn't begin until natural childbirth.

the pro-birth Taliban (they murder abortionists, violently harass women, doctors, staff, at their homes) want zygotes protected (but hypocritically ignore the zygotes destroyed by fertility clinics).

[baseline bum]

LOL border wall

8y13DzxfrjY

[ChumpDumper]

On immigration, I do agree that finally closing the border is necessary for a permanent resolution. People sneer at the concept of a wall but that might just be what it takes.http://ep.yimg.com/ay/security2020/d-handle-round-point-shovel-crime-scene-equipment-8.jpg

[spurraider21]

LOL border wall

8y13DzxfrjY
eh, is there no distinction between immigration and illegal immigration?

[ChumpDumper]

LOL border wall

8y13DzxfrjYlol "team 'under the fence' and team 'through the fence' are fast as shit!"

[baseline bum]

eh, is there no distinction between immigration and illegal immigration?

I'm not for letting every wetback in, I just think it's a waste of money to build a wall that's not going to stop anyone from coming in.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, if anyone is really serious about illegal immigration they have to go after those who hire them. And that will never happen.

[RandomGuy]

I actually agree with most of what he said and his views (though laid out quite simplistically) seem to align quite a bit with mine...



Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on Tuesday weighed in on the status of the Republican Party.

In a post on his Cyber Dust social-media app (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-cyber-dust-messaging-app-snapchat-2014-12), the outspoken billionaire investor wrote that he would prefer to join the GOP but had an issue with the party's push for conformity.

"I would prefer to be a Republican," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News (http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/mark-cuban-i-would-prefer-to-be-a-republican-but-the-party-has-one-big-problem-thatll-crush-them-in-every-presidential-election.html/). "I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans. Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues. The Republicans have a much bigger problem that will crush them in every presidential election until this changes."

Cuban lamented that those who disagree with the "consensus" were called fake Republicans.

"The Republican Party requires that all their presidential candidates conform to consensus," he said. "If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem."

The "Shark Tank" star's desire to avoid party orthodoxy could be related to his recent praise for real-estate mogul Donald Trump, whom he hailed (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-donald-trump-best-thing-2015-7) as "the best thing to happen" to politics in a long time. Indeed, Cuban even told Business Insider he would consider being Trump's vice president if asked (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-donald-trump-vice-president-2015-7), though he said he would probably decline the hypothetical offer.

In his Tuesday Cyber Dust post, Cuban also reflected on the meaning of leadership:

Leaders don't conform to the consensus. They create consensus to their vision and goals.

Leaders don't change their positions mid debate. They welcome scorn from the masses because it creates the opportunity for dialogue.

Leaders don't look backwards to condemn what has already been done, they look forward to create a better future.

Leaders are not dogmatic. They are principled and know that change is never easy, but when it's necessary, they must lead.

The Republican Party does everything possible to discourage leadership.

They want dogma.

They want conformity.

They want to conserve their romanticized past.

That's a shame. I wish they wanted to conserve the best of what America is today and find a leader that can take us to new places that make our future better.
I realize that's not the way politics work in this day and age. And that just proves the point.


"And btw, I know a lot of the same can be said about the Democrats, but I don't want to be a Democrat," he concluded. "Until things change, I'll sit in the middle and think for myself. Unlike the Republicans."



http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-republican-party-big-problem-2015-8

Pretty much agree.

I tend to see a bit more hope for the Democrats since Dems, by and large, tend to be a bit more tolerant of differing ideas. It is what makes the party a bit messy to watch, but there is an actual debate that is missing on the GOP side.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, if anyone is really serious about illegal immigration they have to go after those who hire them. And that will never happen.

Nope. Until then it is funny to watch those who prattle on about "illegals" have their racism conflict with their dislike of government regulation. Oh the drama, LOL.

[Splits]

Yeah, if anyone is really serious about illegal immigration they have to go after those who hire them. And that will never happen.

Nobody on the team xenophobe wants to "fix" the border or illegal immigration. It is the perfect red-meat issue to rile up their mouth-breathing knuckledragger base.

[Cry Havoc]

I realize that social issues have to be addressed but I would prefer that this be done totally at the state level. That would produce a more united federal government concentrating on economic and defense issues while the States govern on the details. With our mobile society one could then choose the state that best fits ones personal desires and beliefs.

If bouton's wants to marry a guy he could move to Massachusetts.

If Boutons wanted to marry his sister he could move to Arkansas.

If boutons wanted to dress in drag and identify as a woman he could move to San Francisco.

THATS freedom.

Spending thousands of dollars to avoid discrimination is freedom to you? So if a state decided to abolish any Christian or Jewish practices, and to detain those that attempted to do so, you'd have no problem with it?

[Splits]

Spending thousands of dollars to avoid discrimination is freedom to you? So if a state decided to abolish any Christian or Jewish practices, and to detain those that attempted to do so, you'd have no problem with it?

Of course he'd have a problem with it. Now, if it were Muslims....

[boutons_deux]

a border wall? TX has a huge coast line for accepting boat people.

and rightwingnut BigCorp fellators forget that BigCorp's NAFTA destroyed Ms of sustenance farms in MX with cheap, subsidized US corn, etc, causing those farmers to flee north for jobs to support their families.

[spurraider21]

Pretty much agree.

I tend to see a bit more hope for the Democrats since Dems, by and large, tend to be a bit more tolerant of differing ideas. It is what makes the party a bit messy to watch, but there is an actual debate that is missing on the GOP side.
agreed

[spurraider21]

I'm not for letting every wetback in, I just think it's a waste of money to build a wall that's not going to stop anyone from coming in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTT2fNyKgUE

[ElNono]

IIRC, over 50% of illegal immigrants came legally through tourist visas, then overstay. A wall on the border doesn't really address illegal immigration, but illegal smuggling (which is a different, but certainly important issue on it's own).

[Splits]

IIRC, over 50% of illegal immigrants came legally through tourist visas, then overstay. A wall on the border doesn't really address illegal immigration, but illegal smuggling (which is a different, but certainly important issue on it's own).

The wall just makes illegal smuggling more expensive and more dangerous. Al'Jazeera did a really good documentary series called "Borderland" on this topic a couple years ago.

[boutons_deux]

the border wall is as simplistic as the people who support it

[ElNono]

The wall just makes illegal smuggling more expensive and more dangerous. Al'Jazeera did a really good documentary series called "Borderland" on this topic a couple years ago.

I think I've seen a couple episodes of it. I used to watch some AJ a while back. Good programming overall. Just have little time now for TV.

[FromWayDowntown]

Spending thousands of dollars to avoid discrimination is freedom to you? So if a state decided to abolish any Christian or Jewish practices, and to detain those that attempted to do so, you'd have no problem with it?

Of course.

We could have avoided a lot of post-Civil War problems if the negroes had just moved to New England.