we agree on one thing then
its funny how the neo cons hold him so dear to their hearts
when he was worse than many
Hillary Clinton May Go to Prison
- Thread starter Skulnik
- Start date
we agree on one thing then
its funny how the neo cons hold him so dear to their hearts
when he was worse than many
By Colin Campbell , Business Insider
August 12, 2015
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban weighed in Tuesday on 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 has an issue with the party's push for conformity.
"I would prefer to be a Republican. I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News. "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" are labeled as fake Republicans.
Related: Mark Cuban to Young Millennials: Live Cheap ? Clothes, Cars Don?t Matter
"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," he said.
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 that he would consider being Trump's vice president if asked, 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.
Related: Mark Cuban on How Obamacare Could Help Startups
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.
Related: The Startup That Turned Down $30 Million from Mark Cuban
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."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
another billionaire who thinks for himself
Trump needs him on the VP ticket.
August 12, 2015
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban weighed in Tuesday on 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 has an issue with the party's push for conformity.
"I would prefer to be a Republican. I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News. "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" are labeled as fake Republicans.
Related: Mark Cuban to Young Millennials: Live Cheap ? Clothes, Cars Don?t Matter
"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," he said.
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 that he would consider being Trump's vice president if asked, 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.
Related: Mark Cuban on How Obamacare Could Help Startups
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.
Related: The Startup That Turned Down $30 Million from Mark Cuban
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."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
another billionaire who thinks for himself
Trump needs him on the VP ticket.
WASHINGTON -- There can be nothing ?more immoral? than Congress ducking its war-making responsibilities while American soldiers are fighting and dying -- and going on vacation in the meantime doesn?t make it any better, Sen. Tim Kaine said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday.
Kaine (D-Va.) has tried repeatedly to prod Congress into exercising its constitutional powers to tell the president whether he has the authority to wage his war against the Islamic State. But the furthest he has gotten was a committee vote late in the last Congress, even though under the War Powers Act a commander in chief is only allowed 90 days to unilaterally conduct a military action.
With the one-year anniversary of the United States' strikes against the militants coming on Aug. 8, and Congress starting its monthlong recess this week, Kaine took to the floor to register his disgust that lawmakers never even debated the escalating war.
?Can there be anything -- anything -- more immoral than that? To order troops to risk their lives in support of the military mission that we're are unwilling even to discuss?? Kaine said.
He noted that seven U.S. service members have died to support the undeclared, unauthorized war, which Congress agreed to fund even without debating or voting on the war itself. More than 3,000 Americans have already served in the conflict, and their responsibilities are only expected to grow.
Yet Congress is taking the month off.
Kaine pointed out that Congress is required by law to take time off in the summer. But he also noted the 1970 legislation that mandates that break also allows lawmakers to keep working -- if there is a war declared.
?This provision makes basic sense, doesn't it? Congress shouldn't go out for a mandatory 30-day vacation when the nation's at war,? Kaine said. ?It's not right that American troops should risk their lives overseas far from home while Congress takes a month off. ?
?The Congress that passed this bill in 1970 had an expectation about how serious war was and how Congress, the institution charged with declaring war, would treat such a serious obligation,? Kaine said. ?Well, we are about to go on a one-month adjournment with the nation at war.?
He also pointed out that there is a certain sad irony in the situation.
?How can we go away and adjourn for a month in the midst of an ongoing war?? Kaine said. ?That's easy. The part of the statute that creates an exception for the mandatory August adjournment only applies if there has been, quote, a declaration of war by Congress. Because we haven't even bothered to debate or authorize this war, in the year since it started, we are still entitled by statute to take the month of August off.?
Kaine had plenty more to say about a Congress that criticizes President Barack Obama for preferring diplomacy in the case of Iran while it fails to say or do anything about the war in Syria and Iraq.
....................................................................................
how pathetic the most important institutions in America take so much time off their jobs, when the rest of us struggle for what we get.
Kaine (D-Va.) has tried repeatedly to prod Congress into exercising its constitutional powers to tell the president whether he has the authority to wage his war against the Islamic State. But the furthest he has gotten was a committee vote late in the last Congress, even though under the War Powers Act a commander in chief is only allowed 90 days to unilaterally conduct a military action.
With the one-year anniversary of the United States' strikes against the militants coming on Aug. 8, and Congress starting its monthlong recess this week, Kaine took to the floor to register his disgust that lawmakers never even debated the escalating war.
?Can there be anything -- anything -- more immoral than that? To order troops to risk their lives in support of the military mission that we're are unwilling even to discuss?? Kaine said.
He noted that seven U.S. service members have died to support the undeclared, unauthorized war, which Congress agreed to fund even without debating or voting on the war itself. More than 3,000 Americans have already served in the conflict, and their responsibilities are only expected to grow.
Yet Congress is taking the month off.
Kaine pointed out that Congress is required by law to take time off in the summer. But he also noted the 1970 legislation that mandates that break also allows lawmakers to keep working -- if there is a war declared.
?This provision makes basic sense, doesn't it? Congress shouldn't go out for a mandatory 30-day vacation when the nation's at war,? Kaine said. ?It's not right that American troops should risk their lives overseas far from home while Congress takes a month off. ?
?The Congress that passed this bill in 1970 had an expectation about how serious war was and how Congress, the institution charged with declaring war, would treat such a serious obligation,? Kaine said. ?Well, we are about to go on a one-month adjournment with the nation at war.?
He also pointed out that there is a certain sad irony in the situation.
?How can we go away and adjourn for a month in the midst of an ongoing war?? Kaine said. ?That's easy. The part of the statute that creates an exception for the mandatory August adjournment only applies if there has been, quote, a declaration of war by Congress. Because we haven't even bothered to debate or authorize this war, in the year since it started, we are still entitled by statute to take the month of August off.?
Kaine had plenty more to say about a Congress that criticizes President Barack Obama for preferring diplomacy in the case of Iran while it fails to say or do anything about the war in Syria and Iraq.
....................................................................................
how pathetic the most important institutions in America take so much time off their jobs, when the rest of us struggle for what we get.
Both of you don't have a clue, Reagan was the best President by far in this country's history. It's not even close
I think you said the same about George w Bush
Lets face it hedge
your barometer is way off when it comes to picking who capable politicians are
past and future.
Do you mean Nancy? She was the president the last term he served. He was chewing shoe laces by then. Kind of like you hedge, he was a semi functioning retard.
And you think you're a normal functioning part of society. Ha!
You're completely wrong on both points.
The only thing correct you said is it's not even close, except that it's no contest that he is one of the worst. Energy crisis, inflation, unemployment, taxes all soared.
I know it's pointless to argue with you hedge because you argue like a three year old girl so I won't. Suffice it to say that your close minded ignorance has come to bear publicly once again.
Read your history books, the ones that aren't politically biased to either side and you may actually learn. ..........what the fuck am I saying...........nevermind hedge, just keep being you. An 18 year old black kid applying for free college will cancel your vote anyway.
Republicans have not been worth a shit since Eisenhower. You are amazing, i'll give you that.
