Mark Cuban hasn't ruled out running for President this year. Thoughts?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (48 posts)

0
Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago

Mark Cuban, the infamous and often eccentric billionaire, has said in various interviews that he hasn't ruled out the possibility of running for President of the United States, even as early as this year as a possible late entry. Mark Cuban is business owner in the NBA, which happens to be the Dallas Mavericks. During the current pandemic, he was one of the first NBA owners to publicly state that he would continue to pay all his employees during the COVID-19 crisis, as he felt it was the right thing to do. And since he made this announcement, other NBA owners have stepped up and followed his example.

Some of you might know Mark Cuban from his brief stint on the reality TV shows like "The Benefactor" and "Shark Tank", or from his various other TV show appearances that include, but not limited to, having cameos in the Simpsons, Walker Texas Ranger, and many others. Heck, he's even appeared in some movies like "Talking about Sex", and many others. Plus, fun fact. He also played the President of the United States in a movie once that many of you horror buffs out there will know as "Sharknado 3: Oh hell no!" Could "Sharknado 3: Oh hell no!" be a foreshadowing of who our future President could be? Who knows? I guess time will tell.

I don't know Cuban's political leanings, nor do I care. However, he was reportedly a friend of Donald Trump. And according to various sources, Mark Cuban and Dallas Cowboys' owner, Jerry Jones, were asked to join Donald Trump's panel of financial leaders from various businesses that consist of 50 members, where each member would provide opinions and suggestions on what steps could be taken to reopen the economy.

Again, I don't know what Mark Cuban's political beliefs are, nor do I know what policies he would want to implement if he did become president, so any of you wish to share that information then feel free to do so in this forum. However, what are your thoughts? Should Mark Cuban run for president? And if so, then should it be this year, or maybe wait until the next election in 2024?

Or do you think it's a bad idea? Please discuss.
reply report
0
Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago
After I had time to think about this, I think I would LOVE to see Mark Cuban enter this year's presidential race as a late entry if for no other reason than to be entertained watching him debate President Trump on the national debate stage. That would be epic to watch. Two eccentric billionaires and former reality TV show stars debating in a presidential election? Now that would be entertaining to me.
reply report
83
emgeposted 5 years ago
Looking at the 2020 election I think it will be a good idea if Mark Cuban stands for president. If the Lord has a say and the coronavirus does something silly, it could very well catapult him into the chair. Donald Trump as President is not exactly a success and Joe Biden does not inspire confidence at 77. For a change American people may give a chance to Cuban and in my view he must stand.
reply report
1. 0
  Stevennix2001posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's a very astute point honestly. One I didn't consider. Well either way, this year's election should prove to be an interesting one as I think more will be on the line to get the right guy to get us through this pandemic crisis one way or another.
  reply report
2. 72
  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Oh now, I think you will find 45-55% of Americans would consider Trump a success.
  
  You can't go by what the MSM projects, keep in mind here in America at least CNN & MSNBC & Others are all opinion, bias and BS all the time.
  
  Fortunately the majority of America recognizes this, doubly so for the younger (under 40) generations that don't even watch Cable/Network news.
  
  For example take the bloggers (below), they get as many hits to their sites as CNN gets viewers, its much harder to sell 'Fake News' to younger Americans who never tuned in to TV News in the first place.
  
  That's why you see almost exclusively that the Americans on HubPages here that are responding to whatever falsehoods CNN and there like is pumping out are over the age of 50.
  
  Those over 50 were groomed as they were growing up to believe the News, to believe it was impartial and fair and would tell the facts. There certainly was a time when the News was more factual, reliable, and had standards and integrity that the various agencies tried to maintain... but those days are long gone, today's "news" is all about profits and propaganda.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UkkSiEV7RU
  
  When Tim puts out one of his daily vids it gets between 250-500,000 views.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhiBzM4rMgQ
  
  When Lucas puts out one of his daily vids it gets between 100-200,000 views.
  
  This is where the young people are getting their news from, they laugh at CNN for the joke that it is. This is why polls are increasingly useless, they don't capture the younger generations very well, nor do they capture the 'deplorables' or the 'forgotten Americans' at all.
  
  So next time you see a CNN poll that tells you Biden has a lead on Trump in the coming re-election, what that means is Biden is down by 20 and has no chance in hell. Because the likes of CNN have no clue how to figure out what Americans are really thinking, and even if CNN did, they would deny it and push the anti-Trump agenda, its all they know.
  reply report
82
Credence2posted 5 years ago
Bad idea, I have had my fill of politically inexperienced billionaires, considering their wealth as their sole qualifier for the office.

I say NO.
reply report
1. 85
  gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Credence2, the RICH rules the world. You can't change this no matter how much ye protest. The wealthy have ruled the world since the world has become civilized. Rich people are the sociocultural, socioeconomic, & sociopolitical A students. Remember in school that A students are highly considered & the elite. If one wants to rule, one has to gain wealth & with that comes power. If one isn't socioeconomically wealthy or rich, h/she CAN'T rule, pure & simple. These are …..THE RULES of THE GAME...…
  
  If you are solidly middle & upper middle class, you are sociocultural, socioeconomic, & sociopolitical B students, the lower middle class are deemed sociocultural, socioeconomic, & sociopolitical C students, working class are the D students in this case while the lower to underclass are the F students as they are deemed powerless failures. In our society, what level of wealth one has determines what power h/she has & what type of respect one gets. People at the lower socioeconomic rung I.e. lower, working, & lower middle get the LEAST respect- they are considered non-persons while the upper middle & upper classes the MOST respect. The solidly middle class, well, they are somewhat acknowledged.....no more, no less.... The point is that the wealthy & rich will ALWAYS GET THE MOST RESPECT- you can't change this....
  reply report
  0
  Stevennix2001posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  So I'm guessing you're endorsing Mark Cuban possibly running for President of the United States this year as a late entry?
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  NOT IN THE LEAST..
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I may not be able to change it, but I will be damned if I don't try.
  
  I will NOt be enslaved politically, economically and socially by a hand ful of people just because they have large sums of money.
  
  WAR will be declared.....
  reply report
  68
  Eastwardposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm with you on that sentiment, Credence. The rich have ruled the world throughout history but average people have made a difference when they stood up. We look back on a lot of practices that seem incomprehensible today, but they changed because people were willing to make a stand.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  The French Revolution was one such case, boy I did get off on reading about all those heads rolling.
  reply report
  72
  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  An interesting way of breaking it down. And I would say accurate for the American system, and one of the reasons why our system is still one of the best out there... and those few that are better are allowed to be so largely because America has given them safe haven and carried the brunt of keeping their world safe for them.
  
  But we could be living in a far worse system... IE - Venezuela or Cuba or Egypt, etc. where there is the Ruling Class... and then there is everyone else ranging in the not-too-poor (think medical, military and police) to very-poor classes.
  
  And then there is China... where every citizen is just an expendable tool to be used by the State for whatever purposes the CCP deems best.
  
  I'm not sure China's system isn't better... for individual freedoms and liberties it is worse for sure... but for overall productivity, purpose, and ability to accomplish new and better achievements it is proving far better than our own currently, as it has gone from backwater nation, to surpassing America on all fronts (save military might) in just a quarter century.
  reply report
2. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I'm with you. We don't need another billionaire egotistically thinking he is the best person for the job.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You're right.
  
  Instead, we need career politicians, beholden to corporations, billionaires and party leaders for their job, and willing to perform as those entities wish rather than thinking of the country. We need people interested primarily in padding their wallets rather than the needs of the people or country. We need people in lockstep with the party that paid for their election. We need more of the what we have, and what got a billionaire elected in other words.
  
  (Sarcasm, if you didn't catch it)
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  We need a genuine populist, not a fake con man.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely. Being popular is so much more important than actually understanding what is needed. One must, for instance, be well groomed, have nice hair and statesman like speech patterns in order to be popular; understanding the needs of the country pale beside such things.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, sure, that's exactly what I meant.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  What else could it be? You've complained incessantly that your president isn't another politician of the same mold, you continually promote politicians that are the same, and forever cry about the president's speech habits, while claiming no one likes him. He isn't popular (to you and your group) and you don't like that.
  
  From Mirriam Webster:
  Definition of populist (Entry 1 of 2)
  1: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people
  
  That fits Trump to a "T" (as it does every politician on the Hill), but I don't think that's what you meant.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You really think Elizabeth Warren, my first choice, is in the same mold as a typical politician? Or Bernie, my second choice? I know you like to falsely characterize my positions to make it easier on yourself, but I support candidates who didn't take corporate money. That, in my book, makes them populist.
  
  Trump is nothing but a lying con man grifter using the government to enrich himself and his family,
  
  But, whatever. You'll believe otherwise no matter what.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  LOL Not taking corporate donations to election campaigns is your personal definition of "populist"? No wonder I didn't understand the comment!
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Sigh...you know better than that but you're not actually trying to honestly communicate. That is clear. Not accepting corporate money or massive donations from the uber wealthy is a sign you want to represent the common people, don't you think?
  
  But, it's clear you're not really trying to have an honest conversation.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Not accepting corporate money or massive donations from the uber wealthy is a sign you want to represent the common people".
  
  Well, I concur, Panther, seems as clear as crystal to me.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That's because you didn't follow the thread.
  
  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/347 … ost4133686
  
  PP wants a "populist" president. I commented that being popular was not a good reason to be president, and she took exception to that, sarcastically indicating that wasn't what she meant. Now she says she meant someone that doesn't take corporate money, that that's what "populist" means.
  
  Of course it doesn't, by any definition except her own...but it's me that isn't trying to actually communicate. Because, you know, making up new definitions for old words is how best to communicate what you mean.
  reply report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Why did you assume that "populist" meant "popular"? It doesn't yet you claim that's what I meant. Hence, my conclusion that you are not communicating honestly.
  
  Also, I did not define "populist" as someone who does not take corporate money. I said not taking corporate money is an indication of wanting to represent the common man, which is what a populist claims to do.
  
  Yep, this is similar to that stupid WMD thing, more of your petty games.
  report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Why did you assume that "populist" meant "popular"?
  
  It fits with the definition; candidates try to appeal to the common people, meaning they are popular there. And it was all I could think of that you might mean.
  
  "...I support candidates who didn't take corporate money. That, in my book, makes them populist."
  
  Your statement. Is there any other way to interpret that than "populist" means not taking corporate money? Surely you aren't trying to say that to be populist means you must support them?
  
  PP, you played games when you made a statement and then didn't like what you said, trying to claim you meant something else. Now you're trying to backtrack on even that, claiming again that you didn't say what you did.
  Not I.
  
  But it is a fruitless discussion at this point. You didn't mean what you said, I took it to mean what the words meant. A failure in communication, then, and no reason to pursue it further.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "...I support candidates who didn't take corporate money. That, in my book, makes them populist."
  
  Your statement. Is there any other way to interpret that than "populist" means not taking corporate money?
  
  Logical fallacy.
  
  And I'm now stepping out of your game.
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Not taking corporate donations to election campaigns is your personal definition of "populist"?
  
  As part of the definition it is a damned good start.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  From Mirriam Webster:
  Definition of populist (Entry 1 of 2)
  1: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people
  
  Do you see anything about taking corporate money there? Or in any dictionary definition you care to present?
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
  
  That is the definition I get from Websters for populist
  
  I think that both Sanders or Warren can fit into that category. It would follow that such a candidate would walk the talk by not taking money from the established elite groups as a way of showing their independence from such groups and their agendas.
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Not taking corporate donations to election campaigns is your personal definition of "populist"?
  
  I can't find any portion of that definition that concerns corporate donations.
  
  I also pointed out that every politician, ever, fits into the definition you gave (#2 on the MW site, as I recall). Warren, Bernie, Biden and yes, even Trump. They ALL try to be what the "disenfranchised" want them to be. Along with being what the rest of the electorate wants as well.
  
  No, it does NOT follow that they would "walk the talk" of a very small minority, throwing their chance of election away. We both know, as do the candidates, that vast amounts of money are necessary in this insane world to be elected President of the US.
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Striving" has to mean more than just "talk", it has to be backed up with a track record and current action.
  
  The only common person Trump is interested in is Trump and as my late aunt would say, he is quite "common"
  
  Wilderness, among the democratic candidates running, they all said the "right things" about the "common people" and such, but who was willing to put their own skin in the game but not taking Establishment donations and being subject to threats from Wall Street and the Corporate class regarding their candidacy and yet still were defiant? Those are candidates that are the real McCoy and have my support.
  
  As Panther says, populist is more than just any word, it is an all encompassing position and attitude and those not true to that are quickly identified, like Donald j. Trump.
  report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  This is getting foolish. Show me, then, where the MW definition says a candidate must perform actions, acceptable to you, in order to claim they are appealing to the common people.
  
  President Trump fits the definition exactly. Exactly! He claims to represent the "American People" (just as every candidate does) and that is the MW definition (go back and look at the #1 in their list of two).
  
  For that matter, if you want actions: Trump tried to take on China to stop intellectual theft (help the common man here, including you and I). He tried to slow illegal border crossings, helping every citizen in the country. He did everything he could (successfully) to provide jobs...for the common man. If actions are what you want to use, rather than the words, then Trump is absolutely "populist". He even gave us all a tax break, based on how much we were paying - a more fair way to get us ALL something could not be found.
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, from your perspective Trump qualifies, but not for me.
  
  Our heroes and patriots/ villains are ALWAYS going to differ in my perspectives verses your own. It is just a fact of life.
  report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Of course he doesn't qualify to you, for you refuse to acknowledge any good that he has done. In addition you are re-writing the definition (as PP did) to suit your own needs - needs which are primarily to demonize Trump regardless of his positive accomplishments.
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Don't mean to demonize the man, but it is as you once said about Obama,"he never did anything right".
  report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Really? You're stretching things pretty badly, for I'm sure I never said any such thing. On the contrary, Obama DID do some things right, just as Trump has. Not many, IMO, just as your opinion is that Trump has done little right (you deny that the others happen or that he was responsible for them as far as I can see).
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "he never did anything right"
  
  You did say it, I was careful to make a note of it at the time.
  
  Again, what constitutes doing things right depends on your point of view.
  report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it depends on viewpoint. For those, for example, desiring a nanny state operating under socialist principles of govt. ownership of all wealth, Obama did right with the biggest giveaway in the history of the world. For those that value and desire individual responsibility and ownership, it was a flat out flop. And for those actually looking at the results it was also a flop, for virtually no one was helped, but costs were enormous for everyone.
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  That OK, that is how you define it. I and others say otherwise...
  
  I don't like oligarchs and plutocrats, but I have explained my position as a Democrat and progressive before, I cannot expect you to neither to understand or appreciate my position. Just be aware that I am not the only one holding to such views....
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Right on.
  report
  72
  Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  And the problem, you fail to see what the Democrats (the ones in power in DC) actually represent...
  
  Ultimately, what the Democrats (even more than the Republicans) represent TODAY (as opposed to 30 years ago) is Globalism, Corporatism, and subservience to China (the CCP).
  
  The Republicans, have shifted since Trump's election (hence why so many Republicans did not run for re-election, including the House Speaker at the time) to being more of a Libertarian, Nationalism, to hell with China and the UN party.
  
  All the other issues are really immaterial save for when it comes time to drum up support and votes, such as Abortion, Reparations, 2nd Amendment... these are all real issues, I'm not saying that they are not... what I am saying is that the people holding real power could care less about them, the bigger goals are the dissolution of people's rights, dissolution of national power (in favor of International bodies like the WB, IMF, UN, etc.), and the removal of the Dollar as the World's reserve for one that the CCP can control.
  
  You will have what you want Credence, it is inevitable, but it will not be the way you want it, it will not be the way you picture it.
  
  "minorities" will not be elevated in America, they will not ever be more equal, or ever have more opportunity than they do today... none of us will.
  
  The Elites will remain the elites, and those who are not will be equal in our lessening of opportunity, lessening of our liberties. All you have to do is look to what is going on in China, in France, in England to see our future.
  
  A version of China's Social Credit System is upon us, that will make us all equal Credence, all equally controlled, all equally restricted, this is the future being held at bay for another year? A few more years?
  
  Hard to tell really, it does appear that Trump is standing in the way of America's acquiescing to this Global totalitarian existence, as would be evidenced in his speech to the UN (a year or so back) and his efforts to thwart China from ever more invasive moves into our society (ie Huawei) and our security.
  
  But Trump will only be around for so long, and then this dystopian future will fast come into reality for all America.
  report
  0
  PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Is this going to be like the definition of WMD? A colossal waste of time.
  
  Anyone can claim to represent the common man. One must watch what they do to judge their authenticity. Bernie and Warren beat Dishonest Don hands down in that regard.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  No $#!t! Donny would be the last person to represent the common people.....except many of the common people never realized this fact when they voted for him.
  report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  "Trump is nothing but a lying con man grifter using the government to enrich himself and his family"
  
  I second that....
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Do you actually think that Trump REALLY understands the needs of the country?
  reply report
  78
  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  Better than Obama did, and certainly better than Biden or particularly Bernie does.
  reply report
  82
  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this
  You have a right to your opinion, unfortunately, I and millions of others do not share it.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Mark Cuban hasn't ruled out running for President this year. Thoughts?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Mark Cuban hasn't ruled out running for President this year. Thoughts?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies