I like more Cuban a lot but his argument about AI and the positive effects of it, and the idea that people aren’t gonna know what’s real and what isn’t and that that is gonna make people search harder for the truth because it’s all about trust… Really, Mark? We have a situation in this country that’s been going on now for 10 years with a guy named Donald Trump… You say people wanna search out and trust and that they will search harder for that when they don’t know what is real and what isn’t… Well look right in front of you at what’s been going on for 10 years we got A president who can’t be trusted at all for even one minute who lies constantly and lies blatantly now and yet he’s got a third of this country sewed up to where no one will even question him they just trust him I don’t see people searching for the truth… That’s a load of shit people are gonna search for the truth what’s gonna happen is they’re gonna be more confused than ever and they’re gonna decide with their own truth is and it’s gonna make people get further apart from each other… Sorry, Mark I think you are about as wrong as you can get. 20 years ago when the Internet first started, I thought it was gonna be a miracle thing I’m pretty convinced now that it may be is one of the most evil things man ever came up with because it allows people to become their darkest selves and to do it at home in the privacy of their bedroom, with no influence from the outside… Interconnection from the outside of from others is what keeps us being halfway sane because we got people around us going. Are you kidding me? Fuck you what’s wrong with you? Stop talking like that… AI It’s just gonna make it worse… Especially if it’s unregulated
The more a person says I, I, I, the less I like them. The more they say You, You, You the more I like them. I don't need another eccentric billionaire. I need another Obama
Tim, first of all... luv ya, I listen every day. Second, I beg to differ with you on how you view Iraq.
When people advocate for a given issue that the best plan is to do nothing, they are not considering that doing nothing can be as risky or far more risky than taking action.
In the cases Saddam and Ayatollah Khamenei, they were/are the leader of the world's terrorists. If a terrorist gets an atomic bomb, one of the risks is that they will share the atomic bombs with other terrorists. Once that happens, it's realistic to suggest that those terrorists could effectively end the human race and destroy the entire planet.
My point on Iraq is that by eliminating Saddam before he got back his atomic bombs, the U.S. eliminated the opportunity for Saddam to share atomic bombs with other terrorists, which as noted above could have lead to the end of the human race.
With these points in mind, every time I hear you say "but look at what happened in Iraq?", I'm thinking "Yes, look at what happened in Iraq. We eliminated Saddam and prevented terrorists from getting ahold of atomic bombs."
It's also worth noting that Iraq is no longer a menace to the Middle East. And from what I gather, walking around Baghdad these days is safer than most American cities.
I'm not minimizing the disastrous lack of a plan to secure Iraq after the invasion. It should have been foreseeable that Iran would begin fighting a proxy war inside Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And Obama's pulling out U.S. troops lead to the rise of ISIS.
But the outcome of the rise of ISIS was that Arab dictators realized that their true enemy was not Israel or the U.S. but rather terrorists in their own countries.
It could be that when the ayatollahs fall, the new Iran could conceivably become a civilized member of the Middle East in the way that the Saudis and Egyptians today are relatively civilized actors in that region (i.e. non-aggressive militarily).
But Saddam was nowhere close to having the bomb. He later admitted that he had been intentionally ambiguous about WMDs in order to deter Iran. The Iraq War is why we got ISIS and the Syrian refugee crisis. Any assessment of that war has to include those effects.
Actually. That's exactly what we need. We need a VP who tells the President, "Hey! That's a dumb idea!" Because, every now and then, Presidents just have dumb ideas. (And ten times a day, if it's a Trump presidency.)
Don't disagree, but that has not historically been the role of a VP. Rather, it is the Cabinet and US Congress that needs to tell a president if something is a dumb idea and to exercise their authorities in preventing said dumb ideas from coming to fruition. A VP has no such power.
It's not about power. It's about helping that person do the best job they can.
The problem with expecting this from the Cabinet is that they were all appointed by the President. They all owe their continued employment to that President, too. They may have a bit of group-think. The VP is independently elected to the job and can't be fired by the President.
I actually think that many VPs have spoken up when they thought was necessary. Behind the scenes (which is appropriate). That might have been opposition to an idea or it might have just been, "Hey, that's a BFD." Either way, an independent voice.
By 'power', of course I mean authority. I still am of the opinion that a VP also has no power, even if they are well regarded by their president. And by 'power' here, I mean likely to persuade. I have seen no evidence to date this has happened. We really have no idea, unless it is documented in some VP biography or autobiography or otherwise verifiably codified somewhere, whether or not any VP has spoken up, behind the scenes or not. I do think Cabinet appointees have more persuadable power when dealing with a normal president who recognizes that he/she is not an expert, despite having policy goals, on every complicated issue and therefore seeks input from their cabinet members. Trump does no such thing, he seeks only approval and execution of his own ideas and impulses. I do agree though that the Senate actually has power/authority to legally mitigate or stop bad presidential behaviors, while a Cabinet appointee does not.
Maybe so. But if I had a VP, I would certainly listen to that VP, just because they represented an independent point of view.
I think we will find that both President Obama and President Biden listened to their VPs when they opposed things or just had a different take. They strike me as the kinds of guys who wanted to get things right, not just exercise their egos.
Criminal Trump isn't normal, so I don't make any predictions for him or draw any conclusions from what he does.
I believe Trump is actually a man of few ideas, but yes the few he comes up with are patently dumb. The bulk of "his" ideas are really schemed up by his Project 2025 handlers and the oligarchs who bribe him.
Really? You don't think he's an veritable font of bad ideas???
You are probably right about the truly bad ideas, like the deportations thing, but I'm pretty sure his handlers are constantly on their toes fending off things too bad AND unworkable for them to have ever thought of on their own.
I'm kidding, of course. It's like picking bad apples from a barrel. After it's set around for too long. No matter which one you pick, it's going to be rotten to the core.
Nothing to do with Mark Cuban, although i agree with you. Turnout would have been higher. Anyway, no one is talking about the “replacements”. The people they are allowing in under strict guidelines. I think their thinking is to replace our poor immigrants with new ones that swear an oath to Trump. They are being vetted big time. Can you shed any light, or resources? Thanks. I think many of us realize that democrats and republicans in the SANE sense and times are a lot closer together than they think. Anyway. Thanks for your perspective. It’s super enlightening
I like more Cuban a lot but his argument about AI and the positive effects of it, and the idea that people aren’t gonna know what’s real and what isn’t and that that is gonna make people search harder for the truth because it’s all about trust… Really, Mark? We have a situation in this country that’s been going on now for 10 years with a guy named Donald Trump… You say people wanna search out and trust and that they will search harder for that when they don’t know what is real and what isn’t… Well look right in front of you at what’s been going on for 10 years we got A president who can’t be trusted at all for even one minute who lies constantly and lies blatantly now and yet he’s got a third of this country sewed up to where no one will even question him they just trust him I don’t see people searching for the truth… That’s a load of shit people are gonna search for the truth what’s gonna happen is they’re gonna be more confused than ever and they’re gonna decide with their own truth is and it’s gonna make people get further apart from each other… Sorry, Mark I think you are about as wrong as you can get. 20 years ago when the Internet first started, I thought it was gonna be a miracle thing I’m pretty convinced now that it may be is one of the most evil things man ever came up with because it allows people to become their darkest selves and to do it at home in the privacy of their bedroom, with no influence from the outside… Interconnection from the outside of from others is what keeps us being halfway sane because we got people around us going. Are you kidding me? Fuck you what’s wrong with you? Stop talking like that… AI It’s just gonna make it worse… Especially if it’s unregulated
The more a person says I, I, I, the less I like them. The more they say You, You, You the more I like them. I don't need another eccentric billionaire. I need another Obama
Mark would eat JD alive in that VP debate. There would be blood
How about professor Galloway and buttigieg?
Tim, first of all... luv ya, I listen every day. Second, I beg to differ with you on how you view Iraq.
When people advocate for a given issue that the best plan is to do nothing, they are not considering that doing nothing can be as risky or far more risky than taking action.
In the cases Saddam and Ayatollah Khamenei, they were/are the leader of the world's terrorists. If a terrorist gets an atomic bomb, one of the risks is that they will share the atomic bombs with other terrorists. Once that happens, it's realistic to suggest that those terrorists could effectively end the human race and destroy the entire planet.
My point on Iraq is that by eliminating Saddam before he got back his atomic bombs, the U.S. eliminated the opportunity for Saddam to share atomic bombs with other terrorists, which as noted above could have lead to the end of the human race.
With these points in mind, every time I hear you say "but look at what happened in Iraq?", I'm thinking "Yes, look at what happened in Iraq. We eliminated Saddam and prevented terrorists from getting ahold of atomic bombs."
It's also worth noting that Iraq is no longer a menace to the Middle East. And from what I gather, walking around Baghdad these days is safer than most American cities.
I'm not minimizing the disastrous lack of a plan to secure Iraq after the invasion. It should have been foreseeable that Iran would begin fighting a proxy war inside Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And Obama's pulling out U.S. troops lead to the rise of ISIS.
But the outcome of the rise of ISIS was that Arab dictators realized that their true enemy was not Israel or the U.S. but rather terrorists in their own countries.
It could be that when the ayatollahs fall, the new Iran could conceivably become a civilized member of the Middle East in the way that the Saudis and Egyptians today are relatively civilized actors in that region (i.e. non-aggressive militarily).
But Saddam was nowhere close to having the bomb. He later admitted that he had been intentionally ambiguous about WMDs in order to deter Iran. The Iraq War is why we got ISIS and the Syrian refugee crisis. Any assessment of that war has to include those effects.
Mark is one of a handful Of gladly support but we need the Senate and Congress to do their damn jobs.
Actually. That's exactly what we need. We need a VP who tells the President, "Hey! That's a dumb idea!" Because, every now and then, Presidents just have dumb ideas. (And ten times a day, if it's a Trump presidency.)
Don't disagree, but that has not historically been the role of a VP. Rather, it is the Cabinet and US Congress that needs to tell a president if something is a dumb idea and to exercise their authorities in preventing said dumb ideas from coming to fruition. A VP has no such power.
It's not about power. It's about helping that person do the best job they can.
The problem with expecting this from the Cabinet is that they were all appointed by the President. They all owe their continued employment to that President, too. They may have a bit of group-think. The VP is independently elected to the job and can't be fired by the President.
I actually think that many VPs have spoken up when they thought was necessary. Behind the scenes (which is appropriate). That might have been opposition to an idea or it might have just been, "Hey, that's a BFD." Either way, an independent voice.
Thanks.
I think it's possible that Obama solicited opinions of Biden. Don't know.
By 'power', of course I mean authority. I still am of the opinion that a VP also has no power, even if they are well regarded by their president. And by 'power' here, I mean likely to persuade. I have seen no evidence to date this has happened. We really have no idea, unless it is documented in some VP biography or autobiography or otherwise verifiably codified somewhere, whether or not any VP has spoken up, behind the scenes or not. I do think Cabinet appointees have more persuadable power when dealing with a normal president who recognizes that he/she is not an expert, despite having policy goals, on every complicated issue and therefore seeks input from their cabinet members. Trump does no such thing, he seeks only approval and execution of his own ideas and impulses. I do agree though that the Senate actually has power/authority to legally mitigate or stop bad presidential behaviors, while a Cabinet appointee does not.
Maybe so. But if I had a VP, I would certainly listen to that VP, just because they represented an independent point of view.
I think we will find that both President Obama and President Biden listened to their VPs when they opposed things or just had a different take. They strike me as the kinds of guys who wanted to get things right, not just exercise their egos.
Criminal Trump isn't normal, so I don't make any predictions for him or draw any conclusions from what he does.
I believe Trump is actually a man of few ideas, but yes the few he comes up with are patently dumb. The bulk of "his" ideas are really schemed up by his Project 2025 handlers and the oligarchs who bribe him.
Really? You don't think he's an veritable font of bad ideas???
You are probably right about the truly bad ideas, like the deportations thing, but I'm pretty sure his handlers are constantly on their toes fending off things too bad AND unworkable for them to have ever thought of on their own.
I'm kidding, of course. It's like picking bad apples from a barrel. After it's set around for too long. No matter which one you pick, it's going to be rotten to the core.
I’m so ready for this
Fascinating. And also….no, still. Fascinating. I think this demonstrates how well Tim Miller knows his audience. :)
What a tease
Please dear god, Mark, run for the Senate in TX!! I’d be your campaign manager for free!!
Tim.
Nothing to do with Mark Cuban, although i agree with you. Turnout would have been higher. Anyway, no one is talking about the “replacements”. The people they are allowing in under strict guidelines. I think their thinking is to replace our poor immigrants with new ones that swear an oath to Trump. They are being vetted big time. Can you shed any light, or resources? Thanks. I think many of us realize that democrats and republicans in the SANE sense and times are a lot closer together than they think. Anyway. Thanks for your perspective. It’s super enlightening
Woah!
Rather short.
Tomorrow's show, Tim just couldn't sit on that particular admission.
Oh...how's that for a teaser?! 👀