The worst thing about billionaires isn’t that they have too much money. It’s that they have so much of it that we are all forced to listen to every crackpot thing that they say. So, for example, NBA owner Mark Cuban can go on television, nominate himself for Hillary Clinton’s running mate, and then lecture her about how he won’t accept the position unless she moves to the center.
“You’ve said that you would love to be Clinton’s running mate as long as you were allowed to throw bombs at (Donald) Trump. If she really did come to you, would you listen?” NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Cuban on “Meet the Press.”
“Absolutely. But the key would be she would have to go more to center,” Cuban said in the interview, a portion of which was released on Friday. “I like the fact that Sen. Clinton has thought out proposals. That’s a good thing, because at least we get to see where she stands. But I think Sen. (Bernie) Sanders has dragged her a little bit too far to the left.”
In case you’re not familiar with him, Mark Cuban runs his mouth just as much as Donald Trump, and the list of things he’s said that would be a liability to Hillary Clinton would look as thick as a holiday edition Vanity Fair.
And his temperament isn’t really better than The Donald’s, either, as is clear from this 2006 quote by his star player, Dirk Nowitzki of the Dallas Mavericks.
“He’s got to learn how to control himself as well as the players do. We can’t lose our temper all the time on the court or off the court, and I think he’s got to learn that, too. He’s got to improve in that area and not yell at the officials the whole game. I don’t think that helps us … He sits right there by our bench. I think it’s a bit much. But we all told him this before. It’s nothing new. The game starts, and he’s already yelling at them. So he needs to know how to control himself a little.”
Half the people listen to every damn thing he says because they think they’ll learn the secret of how to become a billionaire. The rest of us listen to him because he’s on television, and he’s on television because he’s so rich that the other half will listen to any damn thing he has to say.
Chuck Todd must have thought he’d really done well when he landed a Meet the Press interview with Cuban. It was bound to “make news.” Except the guy is actually so uninteresting that he had to manufacture the news by pretending that Hillary Clinton would consider this blowhard hothead pro wrestling veteran for veep.
You’re welcome.
Cuban’s even worse than Trump. Astonishingly perhaps even more obnoxious. And at least Trump had the one good call on Manhattan real estate in the ’80s. Cuban’s entire career is based on some shitty streaming service that Yahoo, being Yahoo, was stupid enough to buy for an insane amount of money at the peak of the tech bubble.
Why doesn’t Todd book Kanye and Kardashian on MTP — they’re rich, can provide entertainment, and say lots of stupid things as well?
MTP was probably a good idea back in the day when a functioning press existed. That hasn’t been true for at least a couple of decades.
Was he the perp that ruined it, or was it awful before him, too? I don’t recall.
Russert probably made it more measurably worse than Gregory and Todd, but Todd is making it look more obviously silly.
Lots of people don’t want to believe what a tremendous wanker, and tool, Mr. Potato Head was. David Gregory, aka Fluffyhead, was the one who sunk MTP’s ratings. Have the ratings recovered under Chuck Toddler? Maybe someone here knows.
Just wait til those billionaires are financing crackpot climate change mitigation schemes thought up by grifters. Oh, wait…
The good news is that Cuban seems to accept climate change. The bad news is his “solution” to it: “”There will be a time, 25 years from now, where we’re going to try to reverse-engineer evolution and natural selection.”
http://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/mark-cuban-solution-to-climate-change.html
Like Trump, the guy’s ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance.
Glad I am an old person….
Having to listen to the ultra rich because they’re ultra rich is just Mammon worship.
Why the focus on MTP and Cuban when apparently Sanders on This Week was far weightier and more interesting?
have soft spot for him because of his unwavering support for my beloved Dirk. Nowitzki is a class act through and through and I am so grateful he has spent his career in Dallas.
Spur’s fan here, but I respect Dirk’s game and career.
I’m probably the only commenter here who actually has met Mark Cuban. This was a long time ago, before AudioNet became broadcast.com. I have some observations.
He’s completely unsuited to the demands of public office. I do not think his intent is malicious as is Trump’s, but in the end that doesn’t matter if the results are similar.
Todd who? Palin or Toddler?
Half the people listen to every damn thing he says because they think they’ll learn the secret of how to become a billionaire. The rest of us listen to him because he’s on television, and he’s on television because he’s so rich that the other half will listen to any damn thing he has to say.
As you noted previous to this, he’s an NBA owner. An NBA that loves the limelight. So that means plenty of people listen to him. He’s no different from George Steinbrenner, when he was alive.
I believe the real Wanker of the Day is Norah O’Donnell for her 60 minutes interview tonight of Valerie Jarrett. Must be watched to get an appreciation of the lack of journalistic objectivity of O’Donnell.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-white-house-aid-valerie-jarrett-obama/
This is hilarious. Why? Because the corporate media isn’t the Democrats friend. Never has been.
I was listening to a podcast a couple of weeks ago where the guest was Chris Sacca, another billionaire (but one who actually seems quite intelligent). He knows Cuban fairly well, and is convinced that he’s going to make a run for the Presidency as a moderate Republican in one of the next couple of election cycles.
I could definitely see it, I’m sure that Cuban has to be watching this Trump phenomenon and thinking he can take advantage of a lot of the same angles. And as other commenters have already noted, he certainly has the requisite ego for it.
Here’s the thing….Trump won because he wasn’t a moderate. Because he spoke to the racist, hateful ID of the GOP Voting Mass.
Oh for sure – but I think in the future there will be an avenue for a “moderate” Republican to take the party reins again. There is a significant portion of the conservative populace who grant credibility based on wealth. All other things being equal I don’t think Trump’s candidacy would have taken hold were he not rich.
I agree with you about the rich part.
But, take away what Trump said that got the votes for him…
and, you have Jim Gilmore.
The GOP doesn’t want a moderate.
There wasn’t a MODERATE in the entire field.
there wasn’t a dime’s bit of difference – policy-wise between the last 10 standing.
it was all how Trump spoke – and, it was NOT in dogwhistles.
you’ll have to show me how Cuban being a moderate Republican – can win anything in THIS GOP.
I was listening to a podcast a couple of weeks ago where the guest was Chris Sacca, …
The same Chris Sacca who was busted this weekend for being a WATB? He tried to get into Hamilton with phony tickets he purchased on StubHub.
Haha I hadn’t seen that, but just googled it. Yep, that is the guy.
I’m not sure if there’s anything funnier than a billionaire yelling “Don’t you know who I am?”. Definitely shows some pretty hardcore insecurity.
I find it hilarious that a billionaire had to buy his tickets(that he got scammed on .. Haha!!) on StubHub. You’re telling me he didn’t use his connections? I’m sure there are better ways for a billionaire to get tickets to an event with out getting scammed.
So, in public, he’s all ‘ No, they shouldn’t be let into the country.’
But now, he’s talking to them on the side?
Yeah, ok with that.
…………………..
Trump camp quietly courts Muslims
Jonathan Easley
Donald Trump’s top foreign policy adviser has quietly opened backchannels within Muslim and Middle Eastern communities in the U.S. in an attempt to win over a small but increasingly important voting bloc.
Walid Phares, a top national security adviser for Trump, has been courting prominent Muslim Republicans and conservative Middle Eastern activists in the U.S.
Some Muslim Republicans and conservative Middle Eastern activists have also engaged with other top campaign officials about furthering Trump’s outreach to those communities.
In a Friday phone interview with The Hill, Phares said Trump campaign officials had not directed him to engage with the groups. Rather, he described the talks as a natural extension of the relationships he’s built over decades of policy work on Middle Eastern affairs.
Phares said that he initiated contact with several individuals and groups to ask them to organize for Trump or to sell them on Trump’s positions in hopes that they’d at some point support the likely GOP nominee.
But the bulk of the discussions, Phares said, were initiated by curious Muslim Republicans or Middle Eastern conservatives seeking additional information on Trump’s views or hoping to influence his policies – particularly as they pertain to the temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.
“Most of those who reached out said they want to support Mr. Trump, but they’re not clear about some of the statements he’s made,” Phares said.
What is this bullshyt about him PHONING IN to programs?
I don’t think Hillary PHONES IN to programs, does she?
…………………………………………………
Stage set for historic 2016 showdown over guns
05/23/16 08:00 AM
By Steve Benen
Over the last generation or so, presidential elections have generally followed a predictable trajectory when it comes to guns: Republicans have partnered with the NRA, warning voters that Democrats are going to pursue dramatic changes to gun laws, while Democrats, feeling defensive, have insisted that little, if anything, will change.
Indeed, about a year ago, the Washington Post explained, “For at least the past several decades, Democrats seeking national office have often been timid on the issue of guns for fear of alienating firearms owners.” It was an observation rooted in fact: guns have served as a powerful wedge issue, drawing lines Dems were afraid to cross.
This year is poised to be very different.
On the Republican ticket, Donald Trump has abandoned some of his previous positions and sworn fealty to a right-wing vision on gun policy. Late Friday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee spoke at the National Rifle Association’s annual gathering and condemned, of all things, gun-free school zones. Yesterday, Trump went just a little further.
Hmm. So the GOP’s 2016 candidate doesn’t want guns in the classrooms, except for all the guns brought into classrooms by teachers.
Not surprisingly, Trump has also spent a fair amount of time condemning Hillary Clinton for advocating progressive gun reforms, but instead of getting into a defense crouch and pretending to love the status quo, Clinton has largely responded by bragging about her support for progressive gun reforms.
Uh huh
Uh huh
Donald Trump’s `shady’ support for veterans
05/23/16 09:20 AM
By Steve Benen
When Democrats make the case that Donald Trump has a controversial background when it comes to veterans’ issues, it’s not just wishful thinking. The presumptive Republican nominee, for example, has drawn criticism for supporting a privatization plan for veterans’ care. His associations with the sketchy Veterans for a Strong America exacerbated the problem.
And it certainly didn’t help matters when Trump, who avoided military service during the Vietnam War, said he “felt” like he’d served in the military because his parents sent him to a military-themed boarding school as a teenager. The Republican went so far as to boast that his expensive prep school gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”
Making matters much worse are new questions about Trump and veterans-related fundraising.
In January, the New York Republican skipped a debate in Iowa to instead hold a fundraiser for veterans. Trump repeatedly boasted at the time that, thanks to his bold leadership, he’s raised $6 million for vets. Trump added that he’d contributed $1 million out of his own pocket.
Whatever happened to all of that money? The Washington Post took a closer look.
The number of questions, which the campaign does not want to answer, represents a real problem. Exactly how much did Trump raise for veterans? His campaign doesn’t know. How much of it has been allocated? His campaign doesn’t know that, either. Who were the beneficiaries of Trump’s $1 million contribution? The campaign doesn’t want to talk about it.
This is BIG.
Under a Clinton plan, nearly 13 million Americans ages 50 to 64 could buy into an expanded Medicare program
— Kaiser Health News (@KHNews) May 23, 2016
OT: GOP loses at Supreme Court over Virginia Redistricting Map.
Obama admin adds to counter-terrorism record, kills Taliban chief
05/23/16 10:40 AM
By Steve Benen
Among Republicans, it’s simply assumed that President Obama and his administration are passive and indifferent when it comes to counter-terrorism. In recent months, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), for example, has said the White House’s approach to defeating terrorists is simply “rhetorical,” and barely exists in practice. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) added in November, “I recognize that Barack Obama does not wish to defend this country.”
And yet, reality keeps getting in the way of ridiculous conservative talking points.
How many justices would a President Trump add to the high court?
05/23/16 11:20 AM
By Steve Benen
A couple of weeks ago, Donald Trump said he expects to name “as many as five” justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming years, each of whom would oppose reproductive rights. In remarks to the NRA on Friday, the presumptive Republican nominee used a similar figure.
The GOP candidate caused quite a stir last week when he released the names of 11 specific, far-right jurists, explaining that they represent the kind of people – if not literally the exact people – he’d consider for Supreme Court vacancies. Reviewing the list satisfied conservatives and gave chills to liberals, which was probably the intended goal.
But is Trump right about his expectations? If elected, should Americans expect him to nominate a literal court majority by himself?