Mark Cuban: I’m ‘Considering’ Running For President

Just days after serious reports emerged of the possibility that Oprah may make a run for the White House in 2020, Shark Tank star and owner of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban revealed in an interview that he’s ‘considering’ running as well.

Cuban was a vocal supporter of then-candidate Donald Trump but later switched his support to Hillary Clinton.

Though he’s technically an Independent, he would almost certainly run as a Democrat.

And if he does, that makes at least three television celebrities who’ve indicated interest in running on the Democrat side against President Trump.

If the trend holds, the leader of the free world after 2020 will be someone who reached stardom largely in Hollywood, regardless of the results. Weird.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban said he is “considering” running for the highest office in the land come 2020, according to audio obtained by the Free Beacon.

During an interview on former Democratic South Carolina state representative Bakari Sellers’ podcast, ViewPoint, Sellers asked Cuban if he  — an outspoken opponent of Trump’s — would run in the 2018 midterms.

“Probably not,” answered Cuban.

Sellers quickly cut to the more pressing question.

“Mark, are you considering running for president of the United States?” Sellers asked.

“Yes. Considering, yes,” Cuban said. “Ready to commit to it, no.”

Cuban said he would focus on coming up with real solutions for tax reform, and helping businesses grow, but he would not run if it meant he could just win a popularity contest.

“If it comes down to, ‘Do I think I can win because I can convince more people to vote for me?’ Then no, I won’t run,” Cuban said.



Hillary Clinton: ‘Women Must Vote For Women’

Hillary Rodham Clinton is still campaigning, er, um, on her book-excuse tour across America (and Canada) in hopes someone will begin to take seriously her many explanations and accusations for why she lost to Donald Trump.

In what is one greatest ironies, the book has its title emblazoned across the top “What Happened” below which is printed “Hillary Clinton”.

It’s the first time a question and its answer were so succinctly printed on the cover of a book.

But now Hillary is propounding her latest argument: that women sold her out.

You see, according to liberal divide-and-conquer theory, voter blocs should always vote the way their political masters tell them.

And as such, women should always vote for (liberal) women. Right.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The latest theme emanating from the left, particularly the angry, ugly feminist part of the left as epitomized by Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, is that women who decided to take a chance and vote for Donald Trump rather than for a corrupt, paranoid, megalomaniacal and incompetent Hillary Clinton somehow betrayed themselves.

The second level is when I see women — and look, it’s predominantly white women. Let’s just be clear about that. I won women. I lost white women, though I got more white women’s votes than President Obama did in 2012. So this is an ongoing challenge. But when I see women doing that, I think why are they publicly disrespecting themselves?

She also loves to quote a conversation she had with Facebook’s CEO Sheryl Sandberg who warned her that women would hate her for sleeping her way to the top her many, many accomplishments and because they do what men tell them to:

“Sheryl ended this really sobering conversation by saying that women will have no empathy for you, because they will be under tremendous pressure – and I’m talking principally about white women – they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl.’”



Podhoretz: Oprah is the Dems’ Best Chance in 2020

Seasoned political analyst John Podhoretz, not a member of the leftist fan-club, has news for the GOP.

Superstar Oprah Winfrey could take on Donald Trump in 2020, and she’s about the only person who could pull it off.

And his advice to Democrats who are serious about winning back the White House: get out of her way. His analysis is spot on.

The Donald didn’t win by setting his compass to conventional political norms; instead, he redefined them and did so in a way in which no one could quite recalibrate in time.

Oprah represents a sort of other-worldly star power that could equally upend convention and thereby go head to head with Trump like no traditional politician could.

If she chooses to, it could be a battle of the media titans.

Here’s more from NY Post…

On Sunday night’s “60 Minutes,” a panel of Michigan voters spent 20 minutes discussing their political differences on screen. It was a moving segment and a powerful one, but it wasn’t all that novel if you’ve been paying attention to the political divide over the past year. The power came not really from what the panelists were saying but who the moderator was: Oprah Winfrey.

Listening, asking, speaking without judgment, trying to find common ground — it was a superb performance by Oprah, and I use the word “performance” advisedly. She was dazzling in exactly the way that Oprah could always be dazzling, finding a tone appropriate for the moment without being heavy-handed.

If any figure in the United States bears watching over the next couple of years as our political culture continues the radical transformation that led to the election of Donald Trump, it’s Oprah. I believe she’s uniquely positioned, should she wish to commit herself, to seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Trump in 2020.

If you think that Trump can be beaten by a two-term governor of a Midwestern state with really good ideas about health care, or by a senator who really attracts young people, think again. The idea that a relatively conventional elected official will differentiate herself from Trump by dint of her seriousness or that an unconventional elected official can out-populist Trump is crazy.

If you need to set a thief to catch a thief, you need a star — a grand, outsized, fearless star whom Trump can neither intimidate nor outshine — to catch a star. We’re through the looking glass here. America is discarding old approaches in politics. Democrats will have to do the same to match the mood to the moment.


Elections, Politics

Leftmedia Buries Story Confirming Obama Wiretap of Trump

Surprise, surprise.

For months since his inauguration, President Trump has refused to back down on his claim that the Obama administration had wiretapped his campaign.

Most in the media either ignored it or suggested that it was an unhinged attempt to change the subject after the ongoing meltdown over the FBI’s Russia investigation.

But behold, now the government has revealed that it did indeed have a wiretap running on Paul Manafort, one of Obama’s top officials.

And that tapping may have likely included conversations with Trump himself.

One would think a story like that would rise to the level of Watergate proportions since it is essentially the same thing.

But not for the leftist media. Instead, it’s just a side story that might distract from the really, super important story which has been and will continue to be Russia.

Here’s more from Redstate…

For months, mainstream media reporters and anchors insisted there was no evidence for President Donald Trump’s claim that former President Barack Obama had his “wires tapped” inside Trump Tower in New York City. Now, it appears they well could have been wrong.

On Tuesday, eight months after Trump initially tweeted that Obama had his “wires tapped,” CNN published an exclusive story under the headline, “US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman,” a title that seemingly contradicted months of reporting that said just the opposite.

The latest revelations that government officials in the Obama administration listened into former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s phone calls also included one other stunning detail – the government snooping occurred during a “period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.”

According to CNN, the Obama administration had obtained a warrant pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the surveillance. The FISA court order was granted based upon evidence of Manafort’s ties to the former ruling political party in Ukraine.

The CNN story may not be the smoking gun that directly establishes a link between Obama and Trump’s phone lines inside Trump Tower, but the development certainly raises enough questions about what the media once considered an all-out falsehood that it merits further investigation, at the very least.

Did Obama know about the Manafort wiretapping? If U.S. officials did wiretap Manafort inside Trump Tower, why didn’t Clapper or Comey know about it? And, if U.S. intelligence officials had enough evidence against Manafort to surveil his phone calls, did they bother to tell Trump? If not, why not?



Trump Rejected: Roy Moore Defeats Luther Strange ‘Bigly’

President Trump’s string of near-misses came to an abrupt end last night in the Alabama primary election between state Senator Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore.

It’s an irony not lost on many insiders that Trump has managed to beat back Democrat attempts to derail his presidency but couldn’t help his man win in a GOP primary.

Roy Moore was the clear conservative favorite over establishment-backed Strange who also has a history of ethical lapses.

Strange would have added another vote to Mitch McConnell’s do-nothing Senate cadre, content with putting up no fight against Democrat big-government largesse.

Last night’s victory serves as a reminder that the populist, anti-elite sentiment is still going strong into 2018.

Here’s more from Redstate…

As a result of the dismal job approval numbers of Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress, the special election season of 2017 is proving to be a reliable indicator of the difficulties facing the GOP establishment heading into 2018. Still, that hasn’t kept Trump and his swamp-dwelling buddies from targeting “disloyal to Trump” conservatives in the special elections.

Even after “closer than they should have been” special elections in Kansas and Georgia, Trump and McConnell continued to target conservatives. During the first round of the GOP primary in Alabama last month, Trump and Company spent enormous amounts of money and political capital to defeat Representative Mo Brooks as they endorsed ethically challenged Luther Strange.


Elections, Politics

More Voters Identify as ‘Trump Supporters’ Than ‘Republicans’

In a recent NBC poll taken among Republican voters, more considered themselves ‘Trump supporters’ than ‘supporters of the Republican Party’.

A lot more, in fact.

According to the final poll numbers, 58% considered themselves Trump supporters while only 38% considered themselves party people.

What’s more interesting is that there was only 2% overlap, which means there are at least two distinct camps under the GOP tent.

And that might explain why the Republican Congress is so unpopular these days…among Republicans.

They’ve campaigned on things like repealing Obamacare, building a wall and cutting taxes and government waste but have actually done not one of them.

This so-called ‘populist revolution’ isn’t going away anytime soon as long as politicians keep acting like politicians.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

Welcome to the new state of American politics:

An NBC/WSJ  poll released Thursday reveals that more Republican voters consider themselves a “supporter of Donald Trump” rather than a “supporter of the Republican Party.”

A whopping 58 percent of respondents indicated they considered themselves Trump supporters, while only 38 percent indicated they considered themselves supporters of the Republican party. 2 percent see themselves as both, while 1 percent said they were neither.

After watching the Republican “majority” being held hostage by the thoroughly loathsome John McCain for the last two months this shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Despite the Republican domination at the federal and state level, the party is a bit adrift. It is nigh impossible to quickly state what the GOP stands for anymore.

Are they the small government party? No, they simply favor a slightly less bloated federal bureaucracy than do the Democrats.

Are they the party of lower taxes? As I mentioned in this video earlier, they are the party that likes to talk about lower taxes. A lot.

If pressed, most Republicans would probably just say that the Republicans are “not the Democrats” when trying to describe their own party. The Democrats are even more adrift after Barack Obama left the party’s cupboard bare, so that is enough for a lot of people.

The people voting Republican all over America these last few years have very little in common with the Republicans in Washington and the latter group is almost completely unaware of that. They better get a grip on that soon.


Elections, Politics

John Kerry Refuses to Rule Out 2020 White House Bid

Former Senator, former presidential candidate and former Secretary of State John Kerry could be yet another name tossed into the ring of contention for the Democrat nomination in 2020.

And if he does he’ll be something like the thirtieth potential contender on the Democrat side of the ledger.

It’s getting to be a mosh pit of also-rans.

One might be inclined to think Kerry’s aged out by now, given that he lost his previous bid thirteen years ago.

Yet he’s still younger than the Dems’ runner-up, Bernie Sanders, who’s still going strong.

In short order, the Dems’ favorite epithet for the GOP — the party of old white guys — won’t be so apropos anymore.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Pompous former Senator and Secretary of State John Kerry would not rule out running for the White House again in 2020 when pressed by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. Kerry said he had no plans to run at this time though.

“I don’t have any plans right now, honestly,” Kerry said on MSNBC when asked if he might make another run.

Host Joe Scarborough and others noted that wasn’t a firm denial, and pressed Kerry to talk more about whether he would entertain a run.

“You’re a troublemaker,” Kerry replied.

Can you imagine debates between Trump and Kerry? It would be like watching Rodney Dangerfield and Ted Knight in Caddyshack.

Age was part of Scarborough’s reasoning for pressing Kerry on the issue.

Scarborough noted that Kerry is younger than some of the Democrats who might run against President Trump in 2020, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The Pyramids are younger than some of the Democrats who might run against President Trump. So are the Easter Island statues to which Kerry bears a strong resemblance.

Personally I think John Kerry should just stick to what he’s good at: marrying into ketchup fortunes.



Hillary Is Still In Denial About How She Lost the Election

Poor Hillary Clinton is on the blame-game tour after the release of her latest faux autobiography ironically called What Happened.

The problem with the book and its title is that she’s offering up for just about anyone who will listen half a dozen theories to explain what she’d like us to think happened, none of which are close to the truth.

Then again, that’s par for the course.

She’s been literally all over the world peddling theories like Russia hacking to James Comey’s investigation to voter fraud to misogyny and sexism to Bernie Sanders failed promotion (did we miss anything?).

But as a recent report reveals, her own fellow Democrats in the key battleground states are telling it like it is: they just didn’t like her and what she was selling.

Need we say more?

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

The 2016 presidential election is more than 10 months old, but Hillary Clinton is still in denial about how she lost it.

In her new book, What Happened, Clinton is unsparing in her criticism of her vanquisher, Donald Trump, and blames a host of people for her historic loss, including primary foe Bernie Sanders, former FBI Director James Comey, former Vice President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and even the media.

One thing Clinton doesn’t blame is her own campaign strategy, particularly her campaign’s approach to the Midwest. “Some critics have said that everything hinged on me not campaigning enough in the Midwest,” she writes. “And I suppose it is possible that a few more trips to Saginaw or a few more ads on the air in Waukesha could have tipped a couple of thousand voters here or there.”

Clinton writes that her campaign was fully aware that winning the industrial Midwest was crucial for her, and that she in fact didn’t ignore those states.

Steve Bieda, who represents part of Macomb County in the Michigan state Senate, said that while he didn’t think Clinton ignored southern Michigan, he suspects that “more of a presence, and perhaps an earlier presence, could have made the difference” in a state Trump won by fewer than 11,000 votes. Bieda mentioned that Trump held two rallies in Macomb County within 10 days of the election; Clinton didn’t hold any there.

Clinton’s bigger problem was that she didn’t market her policy prescriptions very well, Bieda said, and that “Trump’s anti-NAFTA message resonated.” When I met with Bieda in Warren in August, he said that Clinton speeches were too wonky while Trump’s were like “a 2×4 over people’s heads.” The implication was that Trump’s straight talk worked with Macomb’s working class voters.


Elections, States

Fraudulent Votes May Have Flipped the Presidential Race in NH

The prevailing sentiment for months has been that President Trump’s near-obsession with voter fraud is just an imagined phenomenon.

But since his inauguration evidence has been mounting across the country of rampant and even organized vote fraud. In North Carolina, 37,000 people were registered to vote in 28 other states.

In over a third of Detroit precincts, there were more votes cast than the number of voters registered in those precincts.

And now a report has been certified in New Hampshire that over 5,000 non-resident voters cast ballots in the state for president.

Since that was a close race, it’s possible most of those fraudulent votes went to Hillary thus turning the state blue.

Couple these stats with the overwhelming opposition by Democrats of voter ID laws and a very clear picture gets painted of a system of election rigging that’s beyond mere conspiracy theory.

Here’s more from Redstate…

One of the things that has amazed me about the election of President Trump has been the issues upon which conservatives agreed before November 8, 2016 and were split into warring camps after that date. Perhaps no example is more stark than the issue of vote fraud. Before Trump’s election vote fraud was assumed to be real and to have an impact.  After that date, in the minds of a lot of previous believers, vote fraud was entirely a figment of Trump’s imagination. Except that it isn’t.

I’m not talking about the small scale, registering dead folks to vote scam like some progressive goober tried to pull in Virginia. I’m talking about the scale of vote fraud that elects big city mayors and members of the House of Representatives in 50-50 districts.

For instance, in 2014 the North Carolina director of election identified 765 North Carolinians who had voted in at least one other state. Another study found over 37,000 persons registered to vote in North Carolina who were also registered to vote in one of 28 other states in the only national voter database. The resources were not available to determine how many of those 37,000 did vote more than once but it is a good bet the number is above zero.

During the recounting of votes in Michigan after the 2016, 37% of all of Detroit’s precincts had more votes cast than the number of voters who showed up to vote. This is not someone shipping voters from precinct to precinct, something voter ID would stop. This is good, old fashioned ballot-box stuffing on a scale that Tammany Hall would have been embarrassed to try.

In the 2016 election, Chicago had a very similar problem:

More than 14,000 votes were cast in Chicago during the 2016 general election than there were voters to cast them, based on separate figures released by the Chicago Board of Elections, the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party has reported.

Chris Cleveland told the Chicago Wire that “on a whim,” he filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the board, which provided him with a list of 1,101,178 people who voted in the general election. An earlier post on the board’s website said that 1,115,664 votes had been cast.

None of this is news to election officials. The chief  of elections of Broward County, FL, testified under oath in a lawsuit that her office had knowingly registered ‘hundreds’ of voters that gave commercial addresses, usually rented mailboxes, instead of residential addresses. She also said that she knew that numbers of convicted felons and illegals were voting but her office didn’t stop them.

Read more…


Elections, Politics

Comey Drafted ‘Exoneration Statement’ Before Interviewing Hill

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

James Comey had already predisposed himself to giving Hillary a pass on the private server scandal even before she was interviewed — but not recorded — by the FBI (also not under oath).

Actually this isn’t much of a surprise at all.

According to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham redacted records and testimony from FBI agents demonstrate pretty clearly that Comey had already drafted his ‘exoneration statement’ before ever speaking with Hillary.

So obviously the fix was in on ensuring the server scandal wouldn’t result in an indictment of the potentially first female president.

This new revelation coupled with Loretta Lynch’s ‘coincidental’ meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac paint a fairly clear picture of how all of this was coordinated — along with the DNC’s fraudulent primary — to coronate Hillary.

Here’s more from Fox News…

Then-FBI Director James Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in the investigation into her private email use before interviewing key witnesses, including Clinton herself, two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.

“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation,” Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote in a letter this week to the FBI. “The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”

Grassley and Graham said they learned about Comey’s draft “exoneration statement” after reviewing transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides.

“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton,” the senators said.

They added, “That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”

Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, was investigated by the FBI for using a private email address and server to handle classified information while serving as secretary of state.