MARK CUBAN: I want to be a Republican, but the party has one big problem

[Dafinch]

I disagree that they only have one problem, but, as problems go, it's pretty big, lol...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-want-republican-party-144345793.html

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on Tuesday weighed in on the status of the Republican Party.In a Tuesday post on his Cyber Dust social-media app, 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. "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 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, though he said he would probably decline the hypothetical offer.
>

View gallery​

.

(Steve Jennings/Getty Images)
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."

• MARK CUBAN: I would consider being Donald Trump's V

 

[GasMan]

A RINO is not what he describes....completely unaccurate article.

Terrible source, left wing rag, taken out of context.
But considering the numb nuts who posted it why am I not surprised?

 

[PatsFan1283]

A RINO is not what he describes....completely unaccurate article.

Terrible source, left wing rag, taken out of context.
But considering the numb nuts who posted it why am I not surprised?

Source of scorn on fox news is just rhetoric but you don't agree with the rest of what Cuban says?

Guys like Romney have to move far-right on social issues to win primaries but then it turns voters off in the general. I think it is a legitimate problem. I think in a way it's good for them the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage because then they don't have to focus on the issue as much and can just move on and appeal to a wider audience.

Romney, Rubio, Jeb establishment types are called RINOs for not being conservative enough.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Cuban is right, Democrats totally embrace people who stray from the consensus. If you are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-market, anti-Radical Islam etc., they welcome you with open arms.

Why can't the GOP be this tolerant?

face)(*^%

 

[PatsFan1283]

No, Dems aren't tolerant. They've moved to the left as well. Our politics are more polarized than ever because of this.

However, if GOP cameout with a more tolerant stance on some social issues it would be game over. I know so many people who describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal who would just check the box for GOP every time. I'm not even saying go heavy pro-choice, gay marriage but like just lie about it or not talk about it as much or something.

I know some of y'all don't like it but Kasich's "I was at a gay wedding, I loved it bro!" was actually a really good response.

 

[TomGshotput]

"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."

I can actually look past their foolishness on social issues, accepting that they haven't had much success at all in the past 30 years. The problem I have is with their actual results when it comes to smaller, more efficient government. On the national level in my lifetime the Democrats have always looked for more taxes to fund government spending. No matter what they say about small government, the Republicans are always borrowing far too much money to fund government spending.

On the local and state level the Rs generally do much better (as do the Ds), but there is a huge variance among all the states and cities in the US

 

[Acebb]

Funny, but it would never occur to the author of this thread that Cuban would not consider being a Democrat and that is any sort of problem.

I can actually look past their foolishness on social issues, accepting that they haven't had much success at all in the past 30 years.

Well, if you set aside the fact that after Roe v. Wade it would have been unthinkable that the current abortion restrictions would have been put in place and 48% of Americans consider themselves "pro-life"

Further, 30 states banned gay marriage.

"no success at all" is utterly preposterous.

 

[PatsFan1283]

@TomGShotPut

The big difference isn't necessarily the spending. Both parties need to get way better at that.

It is more about the Dems moving far, far left to glorified socialism with the minimum wage crap which will backfire, redistributing wealth by trying to tax the 1% (who aren't even really fat cats, just highly paid workers/small biz owners), trying to subsidize the shit out of health care and education just causing skyrocketing costs, initiatives in homeownership which causes malinvestment leading to stupid boom/bust cycles etc.

In a way I blame both parties for the above as well. Crony-capitalism/Big gov't relationship (although this is a state issue too, easier for a business located in a state to influence that states politics) has gotten so bad that wealth/mobility disparity has become a huge problem. Then the Dems cameup with solutions to these problems, the wrong ones.

 

[Acebb]

The left has completely lost this issue too. In 1985 it would have been unthinkable that 12 million people would have had concealed carry permits (the dogma then was that guns controls worked)

The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
– 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
– Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population with concealed handgun permits.
– In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing so much faster than the number of permits.
– Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.

 

[PatsFan1283]

Yeah we're at a time period in America right now where the GOP is just >> DNC on a lot of issues. The "hard policy" as I tried to explain to the commufascist islamo-sympathizer baby killing fetishist VTard.

Their problem is more about message, tone, positivity, inclusiveness, branding.

Cuban kinda points that out, he just doesn't state it articulately enough because he is an overrated businessman that got lucky Yahoo went on a buying spree and bought a completely worthless platform for 5B 1 year before the tech bubble burst.

 

[TomGshotput]

PatsFan,

What is the current federal minimum wage? What should it be? What are the current tax rates for those earning over $400,000? What should it be?

(also, all taxes are forms of wealth redistribution. Do you really believe all taxes are glorified socialism?)

 

[PatsFan1283]

PatsFan,

What is the current federal minimum wage? What should it be? What are the current tax rates for those earning over $400,000? What should it be?

(also, all taxes are forms of wealth redistribution. Do you really believe all taxes are glorified socialism?)

You act as if what the current conditions are represent what large factions of the party advocate for them being. You know there is another party that works to prevent these things right? A counterbalance.

I don't mind raising the federal minimum wage at all. Not to $15 like the state of NY is doing for fast food workers or $15 like in Seattle and SF. It's just not the correct solution and if overdone is going to lead to market distortion/job loss.

Well you've got 43% after the ACA surcharge for federal then state, property, FICA. What should it be? That depends what you do with other federal spending but in general I think most people think that is too high. Also, much like minimum wage, what it is and what it would be if that party had its way are too vastly different things. They want the raise at 250k. 250 in Boston/NY/SF/LA is upper middle class.

And no I don't think all taxes are "glorified socialism" it's an expression. Nice gotcha question.

 

[PigskinArmor]

If he became republican, the party would have two big problems.

 

[Sekrah]

Both parties have problems. You never see someone come out and say, "I'd be a Democrat, but geez, some of these socialists are totally nuts!"

I'm a libertarian (probably like most people here). I have a few socially liberally positions but I tend to vote Republican because my personal wealth and being able to financially support my family is more important to me than most social issues. I have no problem with gay marriage being legalized, but I'd rather see a gay marriage ban than have the country saddled with trillions of debt, high taxes, absurd levels of regulation, increased entitlement benefits, and expansion of the welfare state. These are issues that are actually IMPORTANT to the future of this nation. Not whether two people have a piece of paper they can frame and hang up on the wall.

 

[CHOPTALK]

I just went to my address bar and typed in www.broadcast.com

Lol yahoo spent 5bill on a redirect link.

 

[PatsFan1283]

I just went to my address bar and typed in www.broadcast.com

Lol yahoo spent 5bill on a redirect link.

Hahaha...Obviously "overrated" is a bit of hyperbole but it is true that he certainly ran about as good as any self-made non-gene pool billionaire ever.

 

[CHOPTALK]

I bet Cuban types that in his address bar every morning and just smiles to himself

 

[PatsFan1283]

I bet Cuban types that in his address bar every morning and just smiles to himself

Atleast he did until they started putting Jenner on the main page everyday.

Then he just went to wikipedia and typed broadcast.com in

 

[TomGshotput]

You act as if what the current conditions are represent what large factions of the party advocate for them being. You know there is another party that works to prevent these things right? A counterbalance.

That's how most people view politicians: That what they say is all that matters. I take the other view and think that what they say is pretty meaningless, it's what they do that matters. National level Democrats just haven't done very much to raise the federal minimum wage past the current $7.25. All Obama has done is ask the states to do it on their own and most aren't bothering to do too much about it.

Well you've got 43% after the ACA surcharge for federal then state, property, FICA

That is only for every dollar earned in the highest tax bracket, which is significantly lower than what they actually pay in taxes. State and property has nothing to do with federal tax rates. "Top 1 percent of income earners have an average tax rate of 23.5 percent" http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/05/who_are_the_1_percent_irs_data.html

 

[PatsFan1283]

Which party wants higher minimum wage? Which party realizes that isn't as effective as the other is stating? You can't just look at what legislation has been passed, a lot goes into that because agreements have to be made.

I know what marginal rates are man. How else am I supposed to answer the question when your asking me what the rates should be? Obviously the exact rate is different for everyone so I was just using the highest # of 43% to answer your question it is very high and Dems wanted it at 250k at that # (not the 400 that was compromised) Then I stated this is upper-middle class in many coastal locales.

If the president, house and senate were all Dem and they were all Republican which party do you think would have significantly higher federal taxes?

And yes, I know state and property tax have nothing to do with federal tax. I was stating these are expensive as well when added to the federal tax.

Do you just semantics the fuck out of everyone?