I hate politics. It's slimy. Any job where people pander for
I hate politics. It's slimy. Any job where people pander for votes, I don't like. The country has gotten so partisan that if you're not on my side, you're the enemy. The only thing I ever try to support is a third party, like Unity08. We need more parties and more choice.
The words of Mark Cuban — “I hate politics. It’s slimy. Any job where people pander for votes, I don’t like. The country has gotten so partisan that if you’re not on my side, you’re the enemy. The only thing I ever try to support is a third party, like Unity08. We need more parties and more choice.” — burn with both frustration and longing. He names the sickness of politics in its present form: a realm where flattery replaces truth, where loyalty to party overshadows loyalty to the people, and where partisanship transforms neighbors into enemies. His cry is not against governance itself, but against the corruption of its purpose.
The meaning of his words lies in the yearning for renewal. Cuban rejects the slimy pandering of those who seek power by telling the crowd only what it wishes to hear. He despises the narrowing of democracy into bitter factions, where compromise is weakness and division is celebrated. His hope rests in the vision of more parties and more choice, believing that freedom withers when people are forced to choose between only two rigid banners. By supporting movements like Unity08, he calls for a politics that is broader, freer, and less poisoned by partisanship.
History offers us clear lessons in this struggle. In ancient Rome, the republic collapsed under the weight of factions, where senators no longer sought the common good but only the triumph of their own party. Civil war followed, and the republic gave way to empire. Likewise, in the young American republic, the rise of Federalists and Anti-Federalists was at first healthy debate, but over time, rigid partisanship stifled new voices. Cuban’s words echo these histories, warning that when a nation divides itself too sharply, it risks destroying the very freedom it was built upon.
The origin of his declaration lies in his role not as a politician, but as an entrepreneur and observer of society. Free from the chains of party loyalty, he speaks as one who values innovation and choice. Just as markets flourish through competition, he believes democracy flourishes through diversity of voices. His disdain for politics is not apathy but disappointment — disappointment that a system meant to empower has become a theater of division.
Therefore, O seekers of wisdom, heed this teaching: democracy dies when choices are narrowed and voices are silenced. To tolerate only two warring sides is to live in a cage, but to open the door to more parties and more choice is to let freedom breathe again. As Cuban reminds us, the true danger is not disagreement, but enmity — when one side sees the other not as fellow citizens but as foes. Let his words stir courage: to demand honesty from leaders, to welcome many voices, and to rebuild a politics where the people, not the parties, hold the power.
NLNgoc Le
Cuban’s statement on the toxic nature of partisanship is something I think a lot of people can relate to. The political system seems more focused on defeating the ‘enemy’ than finding common ground. But does supporting a third party really solve the issue of partisanship, or does it simply create more divisions? What would it take to change the current political culture so that collaboration and compromise are prioritized?
GDGold D.dragon
Mark Cuban’s criticism of politics as ‘slimy’ and his support for a third party brings up an important question about the nature of democracy. Can we truly fix the system by simply adding more parties, or do we need a complete overhaul of how politics operates in the U.S.? How much of the partisan divide is due to the way political power is structured, rather than the number of political parties?
YNNguyen Thi Yen Nhu
I agree with Cuban’s assessment of the political climate—partisanship is incredibly damaging, and the ‘us vs. them’ mentality seems to be poisoning the system. But are third parties truly the solution, or could they just further fragment an already divided political landscape? How do we move past polarization and create a system where cooperation is valued over conflict? Are we ready for real political change?
TV39.Tran Nguyen Thao Vy
Cuban’s perspective about politics being ‘slimy’ and driven by pandering for votes resonates with the disillusionment many people feel today. How much of this sentiment is valid, and how much is due to media portrayal? While third parties like Unity08 sound appealing, how realistic is it to shift the political landscape when two major parties dominate so strongly? What structural changes would need to occur for third parties to succeed?
TT40.Nguyen Thi Thanh Truc
Mark Cuban’s frustration with the current state of politics is clear, and I can relate to his sentiment. It’s hard to ignore the growing division in politics, where compromise and discussion seem to be overshadowed by partisan loyalty. But does the call for a third party truly address the deeper problems, or is it just a band-aid? Can more political parties really bring us the unity and cooperation we need?