Mark Cuban Trashes GOP in Scathing Explanation for Why the Republican Party is Doomed

Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

mark-cubanI’m not going to pretend to be a Mark Cuban “expert,” but I do generally like the guy. While I don’t agree with everything he says, he’s still a very intelligent individual whose success is undeniable. He does tend to rub some people the wrong way, but most leaders with strong personalities tend to do that from time to time.


That being said, Cuban recently wrote an absolutely scathing summary of the Republican party and why it’s doomed.

“I would prefer to be a Republican. I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans,” Cuban wrote.

Now, on this, I disagree with him. I’m pretty sure all Americans want a smarter government, not just Republicans. The typical political conflict between Democrats and Republicans isn’t whether or not we want an efficient and effective government, but what role the government is ultimately supposed to serve.

And if Republicans truly wanted a smarter government, they would be on board with Democrats who are trying to get money out of politics. However, most Republicans strongly oppose overturning the Citizens United ruling which basically equates boatloads of money to “free speech.”

But then Cuban really ripped into the GOP:

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.

The Republican Party requires that all their Presidential candidates Conform to Consensus.

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.

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. (Source)

I did find it interesting how he went on to say that he “doesn’t want to be a Democrat,” yet his entire diatribe describes a Republican party he wished existed – that would ultimately act a lot like Democrats if it did. (To be fair, I’ll be the first to admit that there are indeed some on the left who are every bit as dogmatic, radical and close-minded as those they oppose on the right.)


However, I really liked how Cuban targeted the sheepish nature of Republicans. It’s like I’ve said before, if one Republican is spewing some sort of rhetoric, you can bet 99 percent will parrot the same nonsense. And if you dare step out of line, you’re quickly and aggressively attacked by many Republicans as “not being a real conservative.” Not only that, but conservatives constantly cling to the past. Heck, it’s 2015 and they’re still basically just recycling the same policies and ideas from Ronald Reagan who was first elected 35 years ago.

And while I loved what Cuban had to say about the GOP, I still couldn’t help but walk away thinking that he claims he “wants” to be a Republican – while essentially chastising practically every aspect of what it means to be a Republican.

The GOP is a party of conformity, dogma, backwards and outdated thinking on social issues and the inability to embrace change.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.
Facebooktwitterpinterestmail

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Cemetery Girl

    I think this describes politics in general. Fall in line or your career comes to an end. It’s more obvious with Republicans, but not by much.
    I think the most interesting part of this statement is the commentary on conservative sites.

  • MacDoodle

    Interesting.I have been hearing about how the Republican party is dead for years now and yet last Novembers election showed that rhetoric is just a bunch of hogwash.

    • Mr Mike

      They will not win a NATIONAL election unless they change. Last November’s election simply showed the power of gerrymandered districts. Even though Democratic candidates received nearly 2 million more votes than Republicans, they were unable to pick up many seats. Last years election was only won by Republicans because they have manipulated the system, not that a majority of Americans agree with their policies.

      • Flat Banana

        Lol nice reach. Take a state like Maryland that is heavily Democratic in part because of the gerrymandering has only had one republican governor in the last 46 years. A republican businessman won the state.

      • dave

        Not a reach. This was well publicized at the time.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        Do you want people in far-away states determining who your representatives are, Mr Mike?

    • dave

      We had the lowest level of voter participation since WWII. Only the crazy conservatives got to the polls. But if you think conservatives are a majority in this nation, you have NOT been paying attention.

      • Flat Banana

        That’s the dems fault no one else. Look at the 2012 election, over 100M people voted.

      • dave

        No arguments on that. Just pointing this out to MacDoodle.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        How does that make the Democrats look viable if they can’t get voters to the polls unless it’s a presidential election. The unvarnished truth it, mid-terms are extremely important to both parties, just like 2006 was for the Democrats.

        Just a really, really tired liberal canard you keep repeating. And for what reason, God only knows.

      • Flat Banana

        The uneducated (dem) voter believes that the Presidential election is the only one that matters. But complain constantly about what is happening in their state and in Congress.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        That’s so true. For some reason, Democratic epitaph-writers always blame it on gerrymandering and Republican voters being ‘crazy’. That makes no sense.

      • dave

        How can gerrymandering NOT have an effect? It is absolutely true that Democrats in the House received more votes, but did not win due to gerrymandering.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        It may have had an effect, but a lot more factors came into play than it all being about gerrymandering. That’s just excuse-making to make Democratic bed-wetters feel better about themselves.

      • dave

        Funny that you should talk about “Democratic bed-wetters”, when it is the Republicans who are doing all the fear-mongering.

        Besides that, the facts speak for themselves, and there is no need for Democrats to “feel better about themselves”.

      • Frank D

        Sure there is. They got eviscerated last November. Disemboweled. Depantsed and deloused.

        And then laughed at.

      • TropicDave173

        Sorry, but IMO that’s crap. Here in FL gerrymandering got so bad we passed a “fair districts” amendment to the state constitution to prevent it. And Republicans STILL didn’t abide by it. It took a lawsuit and decisions by the state supreme court to get them to redraw the districts again…and they’re STILL fighting it.

        If the Republican message is so wonderful why then does it take gerrymandering districts and restrictive voter laws to ensure they win? Shouldn’t the message succeed or fail on its own merits without the smoke and mirrors?

      • dave

        How is this different than the uneducated republican voters? And, if you are not a democrat, why do you care WHY democrats didn’t show up at the polls?

      • dave

        I’m not too worried about the Democrats looking viable, when the Republicans spend all their time working hard to disenfranchise and control others.

        Sorry, there is no “liberal canard” when it comes to facts. And facts show just how poor the turnout was.

    • Nancy B

      Add to the previous responses that the opposing party (to the administration), more often than not, gains seats in a midterm election. Regardless, this piece was about the presidential race.

    • Eric

      GOP win with low voter turnout, hence the voter suppression wave….midterm voter turnout at record low 36%….if people voted, the GOP would be no more, or they’ll change. Voter turnout is historically low during midterms, which is the only way GOP will ever win an election

      • Armando

        Very true, they know that without suppression and gerrymandering, they are toast.

      • TropicDave173

        Once we wake up to fact that we have the numbers, and GOTV in EVERY election, you’ll see the Republican influrnce decline rapidly. Of course, if we don’t do that, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Me, I vote in EVERY election.

    • Armando

      Dems normally Don’t vote on midterms, but get your seatbealts ready for next year’s election.

  • Pingback: BadGOP | Mark Cuban Explains Why the Republican Party is Doomed()

  • ordaj

    They don’t want leaders because their billionaire backers don’t want leaders, they want lapdogs that do their bidding. The real “leaders” are the billionaires in charge of them.

    • Flat Banana

      And who are the backers of Hillary Clinton?

      • ordaj

        Same deal. Only Bernie is not for sale. Or Elizabeth Warren.

      • Flat Banana

        Warren isn’t running, she wouldn’t win anyway. It is only a matter of time before Bernie takes a large sum of money. You need money to run a campaign.

      • crabjack

        You’re hoping aren’t you so you can squeeze everyone into your narrow-minded concept of… well, everyone.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        No, he’s pointing out that presidential candidates need money to win. And lots of it. They all succumb to the ends justifies the means philosophy of winning elections. Get off your high horse, crabjack.

      • noah vail

        read some of his literature and then come back and tell me how much money he’s getting from the billionaires…it seems like it’s all repukelicans sucking Kock for money

      • ordaj

        You’re what’s wrong with this country. Bernie is clearly a representative for the people and not monied interests. Anyone that disagrees is either ignorant and brainwashed or a paid shill for the monied interests. Like Rush Limbaugh, who qualifies on all counts.

        Take a good look in the mirror.

      • Flat Banana

        If he is for the people than why does he pay his interns $12/hr and not $15? He chooses to pay his interns but doesn’t give them their “fair share”.

      • noah vail

        there seems to be no bottom to your douche barrel

      • TropicDave173

        But you neglect to state most interns don’t get paid at all.

        Typical response, take one incident and neglect the ones that the conservatives do every day. But it’s OK, because they’re conservatives, right? “Do as I say, not as I do…”

      • Flat Banana

        If you are going to pay someone and you are fighting for higher minimum wage than pay them that.

      • Ted Malone

        I read that Bernie was in the back pocket of a school teacher who donated $300

    • Frank DiCuffman

      Have you looked at Hilary’s top donors, ordaj?

  • Jim Valley

    Cuban’s take is essentially the view that I have held for years, namely that today’s republicans bring an intensely religious perspective to every political issue.

    This leads to apocalyptic predictions of doom that never come true, along with the constant re-assertion of debunked far-right-wing dogma and ideology, creating a situation in which every issue from marriage equality to the minimum wage, from tax policy to sex education, is cast as a titanic battle of Pure Good vs. Pure Evil, with all conservatives on the side of Good and compromise out of the question.

    To say that this approach does not result in good policy or governance is a grotesque understatement. This explains why the party has become a purely destructive force in American politics, unable to actually create or build anything themselves. This also explains why today’s conservatives appear to be wrong on every single issue. It’s because they are. Their mindset guarantees it.

    Religion is killing the republican party. There will never be another republican president.

    • Frank DiCuffman

      There will never be another republican president.

      Laughable.

      • Jim Valley

        Just watch. THEN laugh.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        You can say anything you want to on the internet. If Hillary drops out, which is likely, that controversy won’t just go away. What she did didn’t happen in a vacuum or without a lot of people knowing about it. Religion isn’t going to be a deciding factor, especially when Americans’ views are changing rapidly and people aren’t as dogmatic as you’re claiming they’ll always be. Not with the economy as it is, those issue become secondary.

        If you’re wrong, where will you be, and what will you say? “Oh well, you win some, you lose some”?

        That’s why your comment is laughable. Dems won two elections with a guy who spoke well and made empty promises, and now you think the next person in line will come along and be able to do the same.

        No Democrat has won the presidency in an election following a two-term Democratic president serving both terms since Martin Van Buren in 1837. That was a long time ago, my friend. A very long time ago. Your only chance is Hillary, and those odds go down every day with each increasingly-disturbing headline about something she lied about.

      • dave

        Obama has been one of our most successful presidents. Suggesting otherwise just shows your partisan credentials.

        There is no current Republican contender who has a chance in a national election. Not a one.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        That’s simply not true. Go check liberal wunderkind Nate Silver for his opinion on that.

        You’re showing your partisan credentials. And Obama has been a disaster. African Americans and the middle class have both been bent over a barrel and he’ll always be remembered for the guy who rode in on lofty rhetoric and empty promises of hope and change and wallowed in below 50% approval ratings for the majority of his presidency.

      • Armando

        A disaster?? really?????? Do research buddy and look at the budget deficit,Obama slashed it down to over one trillion dollars already, and Republicans all they know is War War War, all in the name of oil, your arguments are lame as they can be.

      • Frank D

        That happened by Congress, which you should know went decidedly Republican in the House of Representatives two years after Obama was sworn in and made things no better. Republicans delivered.

      • EmilyBailey

        What, exactly, have republicans delivered? Name one thing.

      • noah vail

        they can’t name something that never happened…the only thing they delivered was strife and anxiety and wastes of money by shutting down the government…if the pukes really want to save money for the country they should start with their pension program

      • marysrn

        Delivered what??? Certainly not jobs, not tax reform, not help for Vets, tried to do away with the ACA, And so on and on. You KNOW they did not deliver anything except obstruction and government shutdown. You’re not as smart as you are trying to make people believe!

      • strayaway

        Obama increased the federal debt over $8T to date. That $8T federal debt is the accumulations of deficits accumulated under Obama. So you are saying that without Obama, the federal debt would be $9T instead of $8T? The president with the next largest debt is Bush with $5T of debt in eight years. Obama has a year and a half to go and the federal debt figure hasn’t been adjusted in a half year.

        Regarding your other point, Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to have bombed seven countries.

      • Ted Malone

        The debt and the deficit are two things. The debt is the accumulation of all the debt ever and the deficit is how much more we spend than we bring in. W entered office with a budget surplus and left with the largest deficit ever. Every year Obama has chipped away at Bushes Deficit. Had he not done that we would several trillion more in debt, because the deficit is an annual thing. Unemployment is down, the stock market is is up. If this were a Republican President you would be hailing him as the greatest ever, but your prejudice won’t let you admit it.

      • strayaway

        No, the federal debt is the accumulated annual federal deficits but you were correct in that the annual deficit is how much more we spend then we bring in in one year. In his first year in office, Obama retroactively added billions of dollars to Bush’s last budget. Armando, above, claimed that Obama saved $1T in deficit reductions. You are claiming he saved “several trillion more in debt”. Anyone want to raise their hand? Do I hear “Obama saved ten trillion”? Any of that is conjecture but Obama’s deficits have raised the federal debt by over $8T. The stock market is up because interest is being held low by the Fed printing money. People are taking risks to grow their capital because banks aren’t paying anything. I’m guessing we are in another government created bubble but I don’t blame Obama or even Democrats exclusively for that. Unemployment is down in large part because cheaper foreign workers have been brought in to work for less money and a higher percentage of Americans have stopped looking for work. If Obama’s job is to provide employment for foreigners, he is doing a good job. You are probably correct that if Republicans had brought about this bubble economy, they would be going around trying to take credit for the bubble just as Democrats are now.

      • Adam Smith

        LMAO

        Reagan holds the record for debt increase since WW2 and you’re comparing numbers but not context. Bush inherited a balanced budget with surpluses, no wars, and a stable economy. Obama inherited a 1.2T deficit in the middle of two wars and a global economic meltdown.

      • strayaway

        Obama contributed billion$ to Bush’s last budget deficit with his porkulus spending bill. Although our federal debt numbers have been frozen for over 150 days, the last time I checked, Reagan raised the debt more than Obama slightly if cost of living is taken into account. You are sort of correct about that. The fact remains, however, that Obama has already topped Bush’s debt by 60% with a year and a half plus those 150+ days to go. Perhaps, Obama shouldn’t have kept those wars going so long or supported their continuance as a Senator.

      • Adam Smith

        Um, no.

        The deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion. Only $200 billion of that was stimulus. The bulk of the stimulus was in 2010. No, “cost of living” doesn’t magically lower the numbers for Reagan. He tripled the debt. And the fact remains Bush inherited surpluses while Obama inherited record deficits.

      • strayaway

        U.S. Debt by President: By Dollar and Percent
        Why the Winner Is…Barack Obama

        Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009. With a year and a half to go…

        FY 2014 – $1.086 trillion.
        FY 2013 – $672 billion.
        FY 2012 – $1.276 trillion.
        FY 2011 – $1.229 trillion.
        FY 2010 – $1.652 trillion.
        FY 2009 – $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama’s contribution to the debt.)

        George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001.

        FY 2009 – $1.632 trillion. (Bush’s deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).

        FY 2008 – $1.017 trillion.
        FY 2007 – $501 billion.
        FY 2006 – $574 billion.
        FY 2005 – $554 billion.
        FY 2004 – $596 billion.
        FY 2003 – $555 billion.
        FY 2002 – $421 billion.

        I was giving you a freebee saying that if the cost of living were taken into account, Reagan’s debt was, so far, greater than Obama’s.

        Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase(bad but not “triple”) to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981.

        FY 1989 – $255 billion.
        FY 1988 – $252 billion.
        FY 1987 – $225 billion.
        FY 1986 – $297 billion.
        FY 1985 – $256 billion.
        FY 1984 – $195 billion.
        FY 1983 – $235 billion.
        FY 1982 – $144 billion.

      • Adam Smith

        Um, you list Obama at 53% increase and Reagan at 186% increase, but you still claim Obama has the record. That’s a special kind of stupid.

      • strayaway

        As a liberal, I don’t expect you to be adept with numbers. I responded to your nonsensical comment, “Reagan holds the record for debt increase since WW2″. Total debt is measured in dollars. What I wrote was ” If the cost of living were taken into account, Reagan’s debt was, so far, greater than Obama’s.” Not taking inflation into account, or comparing Obama with Bush, Obama has the largest debt of any president, He also has 14 month to go to get past Reagan’s inflation adjusted debt. Every $1T of debt that Obama racks up in todays’s dollars equals $3,125 of debt our children have to pay. Obama’s legacy to our children will include that economic ball and chain. He promised change and gave out chains.

      • Adam Smith

        You don’t seem to have the first understanding of economics or understand how percentages work. Nor do you seem to know the history of our debt. Being ignorant of facts and dismissive of others is no way to go through life. Try harder.

      • strayaway

        I know that Obama’s $8-9T of debt is bigger than Bush’s $5T of debt and that every $1T if debt equals about $3,125 of debt assigned to every man, woman, and child in the US. Unlike you, I am not a fool enough to believe that this is somehow a good thing.

      • KD Bacon

        Sanders in 16

      • Ann Anderson

        Yup

      • marysrn

        And you keep busy kissing teathuglikkkans’ asses. You are funny, though!

      • strayaway

        Mary,”teathuglikkkans’ asses” That was so clever! Why don’t you get back to us when you have some factual input. Explain to us how Obama putting every American $26,000 into debt, at last count, is good for us or our children.

      • Weedbay Guy

        Wha wha, his approval rating is 5 times higher than congress. Perhaps you didn’t hear about 64 months of job gains, millions of new jobs. The stock market tripled, American business profits up 147%. 16 million now have health insurance, and gas is headed to $2/gal. Pass a minimum wage bill and this middle class will take off like a rocket.

      • strayaway

        Most “new” jobs pay less than those lost in the recession and were given to immigrants. Lower wages paid to immigrants go a long way to increasing the profits the 1% pocket. That is good for stock prices as is the quanitative easing causing interest rates to nosedive. Instead of decreasing the average family’s heath insurance premiums as Obama promised, the (un)ACA increased the average family health plan cost by $2,500. Meanwhile the median family income has decreased $1,500/year under Obama. Did you want to give Obama credit for developing fracking technology allowing lower oil prices? If Al Gore invented the internet, maybe Obama can be credited for the results of fracking.

      • GenerallyConfused

        I will ask you again, if you honestly think that fracking lowered our gas prices, then why hadn’t our prices gone down much sooner? Fracking is not a new technology; in fact a simple google search will tell you that it has been been used commercially for decades.

        So, how is it that our gas prices went up so high at all?

      • strayaway

        I think it was the first time you asked me but yes fracking greatly expanded the supply of oil and natural gas available domestically. Argentina, China, and Australia are about to similarly expand their supplies too. Like computerization, fracking technology is rapidly expanding as is related drilling technology allowing multiple drillings per hole and even sensors at the end of the drill bit to determine drilling paths. From what I just read, the first ‘massive’ hydraulic fracking of shale was done in 1997. All of this more recent technology has crushed OPEC’s ability to create an artificial scarcity of oil. Supply has outrun demand. If you want an evil oil company conspiracy to blame for high oil prices, consider that just 10% of the world’s oil and gas reserves. State-owned companies now control more than 75% of all crude oil production. That would bring us back to conspiracies like OPEC instead of Exxon since the worldwide price of oil is fungible.

      • marysrn

        My son lives in Colorado. Not far from fracking places. He has been a healthy, active, and much smarter than you, strayaway. Now, he is coughing almost continuously, and the doctors have ruled out lung diseases like COPD and cancer. They say it is because he lives close to where the fracking is taking place. They can’t just pick up and move…it would be better to try to stop the fracking.

      • strayaway

        I wasn’t either endorsing or criticizing fracking. I onlyu pointed out that Obama was trying to take credit for all the oil it produces resulting in lower fuel prices.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Actually, fracking was first patented by Haliburton and has been in use for over 50 years. A simple google search would tell you that.

        Also, this would be the second time I’ve asked you the question. You claim that fracking has lowered the cost of oil, but even by your timeline it would have gone down well before this year.

      • strayaway

        The Wright brothers flew the first airplane in 1903. There were commercial flights in the 1920’s but the masses started using planes as the cheapest means of transportation perhaps in the 60’s. If the first large scale commercial use of fracking for extracting oil from shale occurred in 1997, it and related technologies have made major advances since then, and all of this had to be deployed nationally, why should we have expected costs to come down much earlier? Nothing else works like that. I met a guy who worked on Univac computers in the 60’s but home computers like Commodore 64s weren’t selling big until sometime in the 70’s.

        My point though in the context of this thread is that it is stupid to give Obama the credit for the cost benefits of fracking and other drilling technologies that have made US oil plentiful and cheap.

      • GenerallyConfused

        I never mentioned Obama in my post at all; the first person to speak the president’s name was you. Why would I have given him credit for anything in relation to the discussion at hand?

      • strayaway

        Go up a few posts and note that Weedbay Guy gave Obama credit for gas heading to $2. I replied to his post. I am not responsible for you entering this thread and being unaware of the ongoing conversation you wish to take participate in.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Just as I am not responsible for you assuming that I completely agree with his statement, nor am I responsible for anything but my own words.

        I was responding to you in a certain part of your reply, which does not indicate agreement or corroboration with his statement.

        Cheers.

      • marysrn

        Tell us, oh wise one…What jobs plan does the republican party have? And why do Boner and McConnell do nothing but bluster and block? You’ve had over 6 years to do some really good work, yet all the Congresses under PRESIDENT Obama(elected twice) does is try to block him and hold hearings on Benghazi and how to repeal the ACA which has made it possible for millions who didn’t have it before, have it now…health insurance!

      • strayaway

        I’m not a Republican. As far as I’m concerned most Republicans violate the Constitution too. Maybe not as badly, on average, as Democrats but I’m not a fan of Boehner and McConnell. I wish Republicans would offer the small prudent government they promised. They failed. You fail, as do many Republicans, to understand that Benghazi was just blowback for Obama’s executive war on Libya. It was the unconstitutional overthrow of Khaddafi that was a much bigger issue than Benghazi, Benghazi was just one of the manifestations of bad policy, and not the worst. Many Republicans supported Obama’s war on Libya so the best they can do is try to bring up Benghazi and pretend they had nothing to do with it.

        The (un)ACA did not cut the cost of the average American family’s health care plan $1,500/year as Obama promised. Medical plan costs have instead increased $2,500/year for the average American family. Considering that the median US family income has declined $1.500 since Obama took office, this is a major hit on the average US family. Obama didn’t skin the 1% to pay for his societally unaffordable program, he took it out of the hides of the middle class.

      • Armando

        Wishful thinking bengahzi fan.

      • Frank D

        Dude, If Hillary’s server was “blank,” why was it kept at a data center in New Jersey?

        Can you formulate any kind of a cogent answer to that one?

      • Weedbay Guy

        When all the emails are delivered and read you will still have nothing, as indicated by the republican report from the 8th investigation. There was nothing she did, or could have done to prevent Benghazi.

      • strayaway

        Yes there is. Hillary and Obama could have left Libya alone. Benghazi, the Islamist takeover of northern Mali, and IS training facilities in Libya would never have happened had Khaddafi been left alone. Benghazi is just one of the fruits of Obama’s executive war on Libya.

      • marysrn

        But, hey, don’t forget….BUSH could have prevented 9/11. They had intel, and his ass was in Sarasota reading little books to the kiddies on 9/11….convenient, huh? And Cheney watched it all on TV sitting on his ass counting up how much Haliburton would make when they got that war started! Oh, and on 9/11, WELL over 3,000 died that day. 4 died at Benghazi…sad, but huge difference Dude!

      • noah vail

        maybe because she wanted to keep it there

      • Frank DiCuffman

        The FBI’s best forensics experts are combing through it as we speak retrieving the data she tried to scrub from existence.

        It’s the blender test, noah. Do I trust you with a blender in my home to not stick your hand in there and get it all gnarled up?

        If you believe that Hillary Clinton’s only account did not receive and send classified material in high volumes, then you should not be allowed within five feet of a blender.

      • DownriverDem

        Did you care when the repubs (W, Powell, Rice, Chaney) did the same thing with their emails? You are clueless about what is a scandal.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        They didn’t “do the same thing”.

        Dolt.

      • dave

        Do you live in San Antonio?

      • Jim Valley

        I know it’s impossible for you to see this, but these “scandals” and serial outrages that the right indulges in are a LOT more important to people on the far right than to other Americans.

        Your 2016 prediction based on election results dating back to 1837 is foolish, be cause it assumes that the parties are the same now as they were in earlier years. I have news. The republican party is substantially further to the right than it was in 2012, and in 2012 it was substantially further to the right than it was in 2008. This is not george w bush’s republican party.

        With each lurch rightward, and with each Trump and Bachmann and Cruz and Palin, the party drifts further and further out of step with the American public, who side with the liberal position on every major issue.

        Even if the party were NOT systematically alienating every identifiable voting bloc in the nation outside of its own wretched “base” of angry older straight evangelical Christian white men living in the countryside, including women (the largest) and Latinos (the fastest growing), the presidency would still be a VERY heavy lift given the realities of the Electoral College.

        The relevant equation is 270 – 242 = 28.

      • Frank DiCuffman

        1937. Remember that.

        24 million people watched the Republican primary. Hillary would wet her Depends to have to go in front of even the friendliest of debate moderators and be asked why it was she deleted 31,000 ‘strictly personal’ emails from her private server, when that works out to over 21 personal emails on average each and every day over her entire term, something which defies credulity. If she told the truth about that, she’s an incompetent screw-off and doesn’t deserve to be president. If she’s lying about it, and she undoubtedly did, then she committed a felony, and doesn’t deserve to be president. That right now is what you are basing your wild-ass prediction that the Republicans have zero chance. You’re just talking smack and being an a-hole.

      • dave

        You seem to get offended by people here telling you what we all understand, that the Republicans do not have a chance at the White House in 2016. You can focus on Hillary Clinton and her emails, but what the adults in the room see is that not a single Republican hopeful has a chance in the general election.

      • The Reader

        Frank, do you not know Colin Powell had his emails on his personal computer when he was SOS, and no one (including Democrats) said a word. Your problem is a woman being president. It requires people like you to hammer away on non-existent problems and the suggestion that a couple of emails should have been high secret. This decision was made by one auditor who will probably turn out to be a Republican paid to say whatever might damage Clinton’s image. If Hillary Clinton is such a “screw-off”, we are really in trouble because there is no other candidate in the race on either side who has her qualifications and ability to compete with both international and national issues as well as take on the current congress. Count your blessings that Hillary is running, Franko.

      • Weedbay Guy

        Check your so-called facts ie; FDR & Truman. Polls say different then what you indicate, is that you MR. Rove?

      • Four Chin Chutney

        Truman became president upon FDR’s passing, he wasn’t elected into the office.

      • Ted Malone

        That’s a bit of a semantic thing because Truman won after FDR served three full terms and a bit of the fourth.

      • noah vail

        but the dems kept the WH for 20 years straight and those were almost all progressive years even with the wars going on…as soon as the republicans got back in they gave us …ready for it? THE MCCARTHY HEARINGS…remember those where the republicans ruined the lives and careers of lots of people based on nothing but inuendo and fear mongering…seems their strategies haven’t changed much since then except now it’s immigrants instead of communists…they NEED someone to hate for their party to work

      • The Reader

        I love that “what she did” which is what? You are so bamboozled by the garbage you allow into your head that you don’t have a clue as to what she did or didn’t do. Get over it. Flush the sewage out of your head so you can join a group of intelligent people and carry on a respectable conversation. You can take the Republican side if you want; the trick is finding one that is truly Republican and not cancer.

      • TropicDave173

        Nor do they take outrage at the MILLIONS of emails deleted by Rove and W (well, by their flunkies, but I digress)…but let a Democrat do it and it’s the end of the world. Kind of like how they don’t want to think about how the Republican-controlled House cut embassy staffing before the Benghazi attack…because they’d be partially culpable.

        The GOP – party of “do what I say, not waht I do…”

      • Flat Banana

        If you really and truly think Hillary has a chance, then you haven’t been living on this planet. When is the last time she spoke to the media on non-scripted terms? The only thing she is after is $$$. Hillary and her “husband” are nothing like any middle class American family.

      • Jim Valley

        You are looking at the trees and missing the forest. My prediction is based on electoral math, not the non-scandal du jour that has the rabble all roused at any given moment.

        270 – 242 = 28

      • EmilyBailey

        And it’s Romney in a landslide, huh, FlatFruity

      • dave

        Which one of the current Republican contenders has a chance of winning in a general election?

      • Frank DiCuffman

        I think all the top contenders beat whoever takes over when Hillary drops out. Trump, Bush, Rubio and Walker all would have excellent chances against likely Biden.

      • Weedbay Guy

        Not what the polls indicate. Try Trump down 25% to Bernie. Huge landslide for dems 2016.

      • here is tìps on how to fill-up your bank-account with addítional funds each week. check for more info ín my profíle

      • The Reader

        In your dreams, man.

  • Frank DiCuffman

    My wife and I both went to college with Mark Cuban and graduated the same year. He’s a smart and shrewd businessman, but as a political prognosticator or pundit, he’s just like anyone else. His opinions are no better, no worse, or no more prescient or correct because of his business successes.

    • Creed

      I completely believe you, and the fact that you went to college with him means a lot toward your knowledge and opinion. That is sarcasm since you’re slow and probably couldnt tell.

      • Frank D

        What don’t you believe? I didn’t know him in college, but he had been in the news a few times. His bust for having an underage women compete in a wet t-shirt contest is still talked about to this day. My wife knew him. He moved to Texas without coming out of IU’s B-School without a solid offer and ended up sleeping on the floor of an apartment with five other guys, 3 of them IU guys. His big move was figuring out a way to get IU Hoosiers basketball broadcasts via the internet. Pretty ingenious as all my friends in St. Louis where we ended up after graduation would just go out to our cars to listen to games if we could get them on radio.

    • Fred Macarthur

      When the republicans loose and they will you can get back to me and i will educate you, but here is a tidbit of info. You will not win the Presidency when you dont run on a true platform as in the midterms the first thing repugs said they would do is create jobs they have not done shit, that wont work again i know several republicans who are now supporting bernie sanders because he supports the people, the repugs support big business that will not fly and you will never see a republican president under the current republican agenda, facts are facts and all your conspiracy theries and trying to send this countries polocies back to the 50s is lame, here is another fact you can look up if you have the stones democrats normally dont turn out to vote in midterms but in the presidentual elections they come out in droves to mae sure the con artists ( Republicans ) dont win. Its ok look it up been that way for 30 years, so go ahead and spread your ignorance and uneducated suposed truth. but when you loose and you will Frank D if that is your real name wich i dought i think your just a plant sent here to argue aginst common sence i want you to come back on here and appologise to all these people for your ignorance

      • Four Chin Chutney

        You have trouble spelling comon sense.

      • kathy_lowen

        I also like Sanders, but IMHO we Dems still need to get our heads out of our collective keisters and recognize that the underclass on the Right actually has some legitimate grievances, however “misdirected” their anger may be. And that a demagogue like Trump can so easily win their loyalty doesn’t speak well for the efforts of either party nowadays.

      • TropicDave173

        Fred, if we went back to the ’50’s, we should go back to the 90+% top tax rate and 35% union membership as well. It gave us the interstates and (in the next decade) the space program…could do without the social problems and the McCarthyism, though…and people STILL got obscenely rich.

  • Armando

    Hillary still beating most Republicans in the polls, even with the scandolus emails Republicans created, http://WWW.REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM

  • kathy_lowen

    Cuban is a good example of what was once known as a “Rockefeller Republican”… basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal (only nowadays they’re lumped in with the “RINOS”).

    And the whole “lock step”, “conform to consensus”, etc. thang, is just another way of describing the real problem, which that the GOP and conservatism have finally ‘devolved’ into primitive “Tribalism”. It’s been brewing for awhile and is finally totally unleashed,but only after after years of pandering to every xenophobic prejudice, religious extremism, and crypto-fascist “patriotism”….beginning with the Southern Strategy and Reagan’s embrace of States Rights, to Dubya openly declaring he was “born again”, on up to today’s “new media”, where any wacko, no matter how extreme, can always find someone who will “tell them whatever they wanna hear”.

    Trib·al·ism: the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group. ex. “a society motivated by cultural tribalism”

  • DeeDee2Die4

    The easiest way for Repugnicans to become irrelevant is to:
    Register & VOTE!
    The vast majority are for gun legislation/sanity, women’s right, 420 legality, higher taxes/less loopholes for the rich, tariffs/not free trade, on and on …

  • JRWaite

    Obama rescued the US from complete and utter incompetence. To suggest anything else shows your disregard for the truth. But then….that’s something the republicans seems to be extremely loose on! Most likely Hillary will get it….and should be a fantastic President as well. Keep supporting your failed policies. It helps the Dems immeasurable….just like Cuban said!!

  • Pingback: Texas Billionaire Mark Cuban Trashes Ted Cruz - Forward Progressives()

  • Pingback: Mark Cuban Hilariously Trashes Donald Trump, Mocks His Business Competence (Video)()