Van Jones went full retard last night

[Airport]

Unbelievable the take this man had. This shit he was spewing was basically cause by the hyperbolic liberal fear mongering and he decided to double down on it.

View embedded media

No idea how deep the divisions were? How is it that the GOP has had control of both houses while the President can only do exec orders? he can't pass the time of day in congress! Van Jones is a socialist liberal who has had his beliefs repudiated since Obama passed the ACA. I would tell his Muslim friends to leave and his immigrant friends to leave too because this is no place for babies like them or him.

 

[Airport]

I'm not saying that I agree with all of it, but he does make a solid point about several things. Trump acted like a bully multiple times during the nomination and election cycle. He came into the first debate seemingly unprepared. If I had a child old enough to be watching the process with me, I could see her pointing those things out when I told her not to bully or to do her homework. The white-lash thing is where I break from Van, and that's fine. He's entitled to his perspective.

I watched his exchange with Lewandowski later in the program. Lewandowski was basically needling Van about why Hillary had not conceded the win to Trump yet - constant interruptions and such - and Van had a good response about that. First, the campaign had not conceded because they were waiting on a handful more states to be called - the count was 244 to 20x at that point I believe. Second, it was 2 AM, so a concession speech would wait until the morning. The last point was where I thought he made the best point though. He said that if someone goes into work the next day and had that same exchange with someone who supported the other candidate, that we would never heal a divide in this country.

The liberals never heal they only divide and that's their game plan. When the Libs had the house, senate and the white house, what did they say? Elections have consequences, John! Referring to McCain. I would tell all those Liberals, reap what you sow and elections have consequences. We do not need to heal, we need to lay waste to all the liberal crap that has been spread around this great country by libertards like Van Jones.

 

[PriddyBoy]

If he had gotten more votes than HRC, he would have. HRC got 3.8 million more votes than BS. That is a fact. Look it up. You guys and your "rigged" system. Silly.

This must be Vast Leftwing Conspiracy BS.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.co...-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Van was spot on.

The OP is an idiot and having a mental meltdown.

Hahahahha

You mad bro.

 

[mule_eer]

The liberals never heal they only divide and that's their game plan. When the Libs had the house, senate and the white house, what did they say? Elections have consequences, John! Referring to McCain. I would tell all those Liberals, reap what you sow and elections have consequences. We do not need to heal, we need to lay waste to all the liberal crap that has been spread around this great country by libertards like Van Jones.

The guy who said elections have consequences is leaving office. It's time to stop acting like 6 year olds at the national political level. Those liberals you are griping about are Americans too.

 

[Airport]

The guy who said elections have consequences is leaving office. It's time to stop acting like 6 year olds at the national political level. Those liberals you are griping about are Americans too.

I have no problems with liberals as long as they don't call me racist,bigot or sexist because I do not believe in the role of govt that they do. I firmly believe that Trump should uphold what he said he was going to do, repeal the shit storm ACA, issue exec orders to reverse the exec orders that Obama made. Is that alright with you? I mean, erections have consequences.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

The guy who said elections have consequences is leaving office. It's time to stop acting like 6 year olds at the national political level. Those liberals you are griping about are Americans too.

Isn't that the truth! I'm hopeful that the Democrats in congress haven't vowed that their primary goal is not to govern, but to make trump a "one-term president" like McConnell did. I'm also hopeful that the Democrats in congress treat Trump with the respect that the office deserves and don't blurt out during the state of the union speech that the president is a "liar". I hope the democrats don't do to trump what the repubs did to obama.

 

[Mntneer]

Isn't that the truth! I'm hopeful that the Democrats in congress haven't vowed that their primary goal is not to govern, but to make trump a "one-term president" like McConnell did. I'm also hopeful that the Democrats in congress treat Trump with the respect that the office deserves and don't blurt out during the state of the union speech that the president is a "liar". I hope the democrats don't do to trump what the repubs did to obama.

That's all going to depend on Trump's actions with them. Will he attempt to work with the Democrats in the Senate and House? I think he will, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

That's all going to depend on Trump's actions with them. Will he attempt to work with the Democrats in the Senate and House? I think he will, but we'll have to wait and see.

True. But Obama hadn't even warmed his seat before McConnell made his infamous comments. And the sad thing is, no repubs ever called him out on it-and seemingly still don't. It was deplorable the way they acted. Many see it as racism. No president has ever been treated by the opposing party from day 1 with more disrespect than Obama was.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

True. But Obama hadn't even warmed his seat before McConnell made his infamous comments. And the sad thing is, no repubs ever called him out on it-and seemingly still don't. It was deplorable the way they acted. Many see it as racism. No president has ever been treated by the opposing party from day 1 with more disrespect than Obama was.

No president ever came in and made the arrogant comments towards the opposing party that he did. It's funny, when it's all said and done, Obama's only legacy will be of killing OBL due to work completed by the Bush administration and will be known as devisive and a race baiter.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

No president ever came in and made the arrogant comments towards the opposing party that he did. It's funny, when it's all said and done, Obama's only legacy will be of killing OBL due to work completed by the Bush administration and will be known as devisive and a race baiter.

That's horseshit. Again, when did McConnell make his comments?

 

[mdeer1]

True. But Obama hadn't even warmed his seat before McConnell made his infamous comments. And the sad thing is, no repubs ever called him out on it-and seemingly still don't. It was deplorable the way they acted. Many see it as racism. No president has ever been treated by the opposing party from day 1 with more disrespect than Obama was.

Bush

 

[mneilmont]

The guy who said elections have consequences is leaving office. It's time to stop acting like 6 year olds at the national political level. Those liberals you are griping about are Americans too.

Obama was not the originator of "Elections Have Consequences". I always understood it to me that there will be some changes forthcoming. Obama offered it as total control. He put it forth to tell the Republicans that they had no say in his reign of absolute power. And he proved his point via Obamacare.

Some Republicans countered with something like "Be forewarned that the sun doesn't shine on one dog's ass all the time. Republicans have leadership in the government, beginning is January. They do not have veto proof control of Senate.

Question now becomes which: absolute without consulting Democrats, or revert to changes in the direction? Hopefully Trump will have more sense from his experience than did Obama. In our form of government, majority rules, but minority has rights. Both sides have to be involved to return to a successfully thriving country. Trump needs to rebuild some bridges between the parties. Who will he attempt to grow with on the Dem side after they have been in absolute lock step for so long. Without the strong arm of Harry Reid, I see some that will listen. Joe Manchin being at the top of the list. Schumer as a possibility. He and Trump have not been totally opposite sides on some issues.

 

[Mntneer]

That's horseshit. Again, when did McConnell make his comments?

2 years into Obama's term, and AFTER Obama's "elections has consequences" remarks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

2 years into Obama's term, and AFTER Obama's "elections has consequences" remarks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

That may have been the first time he said it to a microphone. But he told a group of fellow pubs and an Indian restaurant in DC on election night.

 

[Mntneer]

That may have been the first time he said it to a microphone. But he told a group of fellow pubs and an Indian restaurant in DC on election night.

No. He didn't. You're referring to the Draper book? 1) How do we know his accounts are accurate, and 2) You don't think Dems are making plans for 2018 and 2020 now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

No. He didn't. You're referring to the Draper book? 1) How do we know his accounts are accurate, and 2) You don't think Dems are making plans for 2018 and 2020 now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

Dems have a history of working with the winner of the opposing side in a presidential election. Tip O'Neil and Reagan being the classic example. Same with W and his agenda in his first hundred days. Repub did nothing but obstructing Obama from day 1. And you know it.

 

[mneilmont]

Isn't that the truth! I'm hopeful that the Democrats in congress haven't vowed that their primary goal is not to govern, but to make trump a "one-term president" like McConnell did. I'm also hopeful that the Democrats in congress treat Trump with the respect that the office deserves and don't blurt out during the state of the union speech that the president is a "liar". I hope the democrats don't do to trump what the repubs did to obama.

Damn, do you have to distort every comment you make? McConnell said that his #1 goal is to make Obama a "one term president". Every damned Democrat in Congress has the same goal toward Trump. That is normal. Always has been. Always will be.

You, being the liar you are, added a little phrase that totally distorted what McConnell said. McConnell did NOT say "PRIMARY GOAL IS NOT TO GOVERN". That is your customary bull shit. McConnell objective was to govern with equal power as Obama. Ditto the Dems in their to be current situation with Trump. They are not required to agree with him and Dems in Congress has an obligation to maintain three separate but equal in power form of government.

And, Mr. Wilson thanked me for support of his return to the House. Have to assume he is still independent enough to call a lie a lie, and Obama was telling a lie in his address to the country.

 

[WVPATX]

Don't leave out the sheer dislike of Hillary. That had to be 2-3% of the Trump vote.

Isn't that the truth! I'm hopeful that the Democrats in congress haven't vowed that their primary goal is not to govern, but to make trump a "one-term president" like McConnell did. I'm also hopeful that the Democrats in congress treat Trump with the respect that the office deserves and don't blurt out during the state of the union speech that the president is a "liar". I hope the democrats don't do to trump what the repubs did to obama.

You need to get your facts straight. Both parties try and obstruct. Dems have already promised obstruction (read Pelosi's comments). I can guarantee the Dems want to make Trump a one term President if not try to impeach him before that. You make it seem like only one party is involved in these tactics. Remember when Harry Reid, on the Senate floor, lied about Romney's taxes. He later justified that lie by claiming "he didn't win, did he." No remorse for his blatant lie. Both sides do it. Both sides are corrupt and do things to benefit their benefactors. McConnell's comments came a full two years after Obama was in office but quickly said that if the President would compromise, he would be happy to work with him. Remember, Obama told McCain that elections have consequences. He is exactly right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...9fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Dems have a history of working with the winner of the opposing side in a presidential election. Tip O'Neil and Reagan being the classic example. Same with W and his agenda in his first hundred days. Repub did nothing but obstructing Obama from day 1. And you know it.

I would call your descriptions of history being the difference between leaders and a community organizer. Really, you just solidify my argument re: Obama every time you post.

Glad we're on the same page finally. Basically, getting harder and harder to paint him as anything other than the failed experiment that he was. His signature piece of legislation is admitted by your own party as being a failure. One day, you'll wise up, or not.

 

[WVPATX]

Dems have a history of working with the winner of the opposing side in a presidential election. Tip O'Neil and Reagan being the classic example. Same with W and his agenda in his first hundred days. Repub did nothing but obstructing Obama from day 1. And you know it.

LMAO. Reagan was an extraordinarily popular President. He won in two landslides. Dems naturally wanted to make him a one term president. That is natural in politics. Yes, Tip worked with Reagan. Because Reagan offered to work with Dems and Tip was bright enough to know the direction of the political winds and the country. They compromised. Obama took the opposite tact. He had both house of Congress and a filibuster proof Senate. He said elections have consequences. He wanted no part of compromise. He had everything he needed to pass what he wanted, without compromise.

There are many great books out about Reagan. Read them. His style and his love of smoozing with other politicians to debate and build coalitions was far different from Obama's approach. Even Dems admit that Obama hated to meet with Congress and had no personal relationships.

 

[AirForceer]

If he had gotten more votes than HRC, he would have. HRC got 3.8 million more votes than BS. That is a fact. Look it up. You guys and your "rigged" system. Silly.

I don't always agree with your view points, but I agree with you 100% here. Certainly, there are those individuals/groups of individuals that try to influence things to achieve a certain political goal/agenda. However, for the system to be rigged, it would require voter participation. Sure, the political powers can/do influence donors, but that does not mean the system was rigged; that’s just politics in general. It’s done on both sides and at all levels. Hard to imagine nearly 4 million voters agreed to conspire against Bernie? JMO, but I have to agree with RPJ on this one!

 

[mneilmont]

I would call your descriptions of history being the difference between leaders and a community organizer. Really, you just solidify my argument re: Obama every time you post.

Glad we're on the same page finally. Basically, getting harder and harder to paint him as anything other than the failed experiment that he was. His signature piece of legislation is admitted by your own party as being a failure. One day, you'll wise up, or not.

He is getting a little long of tooth to make that drastic a change. Ain't gonna happen unless someone steals his name, and who would want that kind of chickenshit on themselves? Keep the faith.

 

[WVPATX]

That's horseshit. Again, when did McConnell make his comments?

Read my earlier post, if you can take it. McConnell made the comment in 2010. But read the entire interview. It is pretty short. He also said that if Obama was willing to compromise, he would work with him.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't always agree with your view points, but I agree with you 100% here. Certainly, there are those individuals/groups of individuals that try to influence things to achieve a certain political goal/agenda. However, for the system to be rigged, it would require voter participation. Sure, the political powers can/do influence donors, but that does not mean the system was rigged; that’s just politics in general. It’s done on both sides and at all levels. Hard to imagine nearly 4 million voters agreed to conspire against Bernie? JMO, but I have to agree with RPJ on this one!

I have a slightly different take. I don't believe that voting booths or machines are rigged. I do believe that the media is by and large liberal and in this election as well as 2008 and 2012 put their fingers on the scale and promoted Hillary, although not as much as they promoted Obama. The negative Trump coverage was studied and the results were 91% of his main stream media coverage was negative. The media has enormous influence on the American people.

You had major media outlets that gave up hard news coverage to provide opinion as hard news. The NY Times was leading the charge. Martha Raddatz actually cried on the air when it was almost certain that Hillary lost, and she was a debate moderator.

The role of the media in their hard news is to provide facts and let the voters decide. Opinions should be left to the op ed pages or the TV analysts.

 

[AirForceer]

I have a slightly different take. I don't believe that voting booths or machines are rigged. I do believe that the media is by and large liberal and in this election as well as 2008 and 2012 put their fingers on the scale and promoted Hillary, although not as much as they promoted Obama. The negative Trump coverage was studied and the results were 91% of his main stream media coverage was negative. The media has enormous influence on the American people.

You had major media outlets that gave up hard news coverage to provide opinion as hard news. The NY Times was leading the charge. Martha Raddatz actually cried on the air when it was almost certain that Hillary lost, and she was a debate moderator.

The role of the media in their hard news is to provide facts and let the voters decide. Opinions should be left to the op ed pages or the TV analysts.

I don't disagree at all with what your saying. There is no doubt the media is hardcore liberal, FOX being the exception, and pushes the liberal agenda at every level. I was only comparing the supposed fix between HRC and Bernie. Do I believe some tried? Of course they did, but Bernie just didn't have the donor support, name recognition, or other attributes that would have given him a chance to win. Actually, all things considered, he did way better than I thought he would.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't disagree at all with what your saying. There is no doubt the media is hardcore liberal, FOX being the exception, and pushes the liberal agenda at every level. I was only comparing the supposed fix between HRC and Bernie. Do I believe some tried? Of course they did, but Bernie just didn't have the donor support, name recognition, or other attributes that would have given him a chance to win. Actually, all things considered, he did way better than I thought he would.

He did do way better. But clearly the DNC was pushing Hillary. The number of debates was limited. The nights of the debates during other huge sporting events limited viewership. Brazille giving Clinton questions in advance. I think Bernie got screwed royally.

Check out Wikileaks. The DNC was trying to use the fact he was a Jew against him in certain states. It was very interesting reading.

 

[AirForceer]

He did do way better. But clearly the DNC was pushing Hillary. The number of debates was limited. The nights of the debates during other huge sporting events limited viewership. Brazille giving Clinton questions in advance. I think Bernie got screwed royally.

By comparison, the GOP pretty much disowned Trump. There was no hiding it Romney, the Bushes, heck I can't even remember all of them. In the end the voters "We the people." made our choice. I wonder if Bernie had ran against Trump would we have gotten the same results? Good thing we won't have to find out. Indeed, this election cycle is one for history to decide.