Van Jones Calls Everyone Out In Trump Being Vote Into The White House

Submitted by: bliznik 10 months ago in News & Politics
van-jones-gq

GQ just posted this interview with Van Jones, a self-professed "no-apology left-wing-of-Pluto progressive." Here's an excerpt about "Democrat elitism" from the interview:

"I think the Democrats have a level of elitism in our party that we've almost gotten comfortable with. Which is not to say that every Democrat is an elitist. It's just to say that you have a certain level of coastal cosmopolitan snobbery that feels comfortable in our party. And it turns off a lot of people. I think both political parties have problems. The Republicans have a problem, too. There's a level of bigotry that seems to have found a home in their party. That is not to say that every Republican is a bigot. Far from it. But for some reason, the bigots feel comfortable in that party. And it's hard for Republicans to see how that really turns off so many people."

I find this to be uncomfortably true everywhere -- particularly online and in the forums of I-A-B political posts. Van Jones is no exception, and comes off as an inflammatory elitist snob himself when he coins words like "white-lashing," but that doesn't invalidate the points he makes in this interview. Both political parties have become uncomfortably close-minded and insular, when really we all need to start working together to find common ground.

There are 26 comments:
Male 318
Oh and look the post went immediately to proving his point and showing how it happened. To summarize you bad person, no you bad person, etc ad nauseam.
0
Reply
Male 5,024
For the most part, people that identify as liberal seem to have more empathy than those that side with conservatives. I think this is why it appears on the surface that conservatives are bigots. There are a lot more people on that side that are vocal about their bigotry and that taints the whole bunch. There are probably just as many bigots on the liberal side they just don't vocalize it as freely and loudly. Their empathy is what helps to keep them from doing this, which in turn helps to advance equality.
1
Reply
Male 4,099
@MarkusT123: How do you see them as more empathetic? Or are you trolling?
0
Reply
Male 5,024
"How do you see them as more empathetic?" Serious? The politics of fear that Bush and Trump used to get voters worked up in frenzy is a prime example. Bush was heavy on anti-gay marriage which as a gay man was a horrible thing to go through. Trump was heavy on attacking "illegals" and Muslims. But with attacking "illegals" he ended up pissing off most Mexicans. Xenophobia on the campaign trail doesn't work with most liberals because of empathy. Trump was so good with the coded hate speech the KKK gave him a glowing endorsement. Is it all a show with liberals? I can't speak for the Latino or Muslim community but I can say liberals (with help from some conservative friends and family) have advanced gay rights greatly. It wasn't just talk.
1
Reply
Male 4,099
@MarkusT123: Both sides have used fear to drum up support. What you think it's different when the Dems say that suddenly America has been flooded with Racists and they want to take us back to Jim Crow? Yea, Bush was anti-gay marriage not because he hated gays but because he had a different definition of marriage. He wanted them to be allowed to have civil unions and was even recorded on the Wead tapes that he wasn't going to "kick gays" for political points even though he was worried that it would upset his evangelical supporters. Unfortunately, that's the kind of problems you get went you give authority to the government to determine what is a marriage and what isn't. Plus guess what Obama, Clinton, and the vast majority of liberal Democrats agreed with him at that time. Obama was saying even after Bush that gay marriage was "unnecessary" and that he felt that "marriage is between a man and a woman." Yea, Trump definitely was a hardliner when it came to illegal aliens. But he actually got bigger endorsement from the Latino community then even Romney did. Liberals have had plenty of time to fix the immigration laws if they wanted to, the reason they don't is because the constant immigration fights help them in elections. Yea the KKK endorsed Trump just as the Black Panthers endorsed Obama and his pastor. Empathy means more than advancing gay rights, it's not a one issue thing. The New York Times found that conservatives donate more blood and volunteer more but that doesn't mean conservatives have more empathy because that's not the sole decider on empathy. In my opinion, one of the lefts greatest achilles heel is that they constantly try to quantify the unquantifiables like fairness, empathy, equality, happiness, and enlightenment. Were the liberal politicians that destroyed Detroit more empathetic because they enforced policies to enhance fairness and equality and made promises they knew they could never be kept or where the conservative critics of such policies more empathetic because they knew the harm it would bring to the city and all who lived in it. Things are not so black and white.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
Bill? Hillary? Barack? Biden? A HOST of other Democrats were, at one time or another, ALL anti-gay marriage. Funny how Markus fails to feel a fleeting flying fuck about that eh? THEY are allowed to 'evolve their positions" but something Trump said decades ago? That is immutable...
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@MarkusT123 So you never said to me "You were specifically disproving Van Jones in your original response." and "Nowhere did you talk about GQ." to me? You never said that it was a 'strawman' to talk about the TOPIC (Jones). You never indirectly accused me of attacking the SOURCE (GQ) here? Or are you just pretending that never happened... and then went on to prove MY position, you expect me to take you seriously when you cannot even read nor write? >>> Nevermind your bullshit about the KKK... what 'KKK endorsed code words' specifically does Trump use? Please explain?
-1
Reply
Male 5,024
Richanddead, your reply is articulate and well thought out. 5Cats, your response sounds the ranting of an angry lunatic replying to statements that were never made,
1
Reply
Male 40,764
Apparently Markus never once saw a single Hillary ad, both from her official Campaign and from her supporters... Coded hate speech? Hillary used OVERT HATE the entire campaign. >>> Trump accepted the endorsement of the KKK? Fuck you. Coded hate speech my ass. Did he use the number 18?? DID HE!! (that means Hitler don't you know) THAT PROVES IT!!! o_O
-1
Reply
Male 1,743
@richanddead Umm, this article and the show is a perfect example. Van Jones tries to talk to, and understand, people who disagree with him. Trevor Noah tried to talk to, and understand, people who disagree with him. Obama tried to work with Republicans for years, even modifying Obamacare to encompass Republican values. When have conservatives done the same? I've seen conservatives invite liberals on their shows and then proceed to ridicule them and tell them that they're retarded and tell them to shut up. But I haven't seen conservatives invite liberals on their shows and LISTEN. I'm not saying it's effective or even that they're all that empathetic. But I see way more examples of liberals TRYING than I see examples of conservatives trying.
1
Reply
Male 4,099
@bliznik: Van Jones sometimes wants to listen and sometimes wants to preach, he wasn't to empathetic to conservatives when Trump won or when Bush was president. I don't watch the Daily Show so I can't really comment on Trevor Noah. You'll also have to agree for everyone of them there is a Bill Maher or a Harry Reid. Look at some of the Twitter posts about the wild fires that were in Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge; "Laughing at all the Trump supporters in #Gatlinburg, as their homes burn to the ground tonight. Too bad it's not the whole state burning." There are plenty of conservatives who do the same thing, but also many who try to listen as well. Obama try to work with Republicans until only after the Dems lost unified government and he required the republicans to pass his legislation. Back in 2009 he was saying "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won." Even his own Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood goes into detail about how Obama was telling him to stop making calls to lobby Republican colleagues in Congress during the Stimulus because he didn't want to hear "the constant complaints." He also didn't try to modifying Obamacare to encompass Republican values. The healthcare negotiations were held in secret with no republicans and no cameras, even C-span called the Dems out for it and made public calls for the meetings to be opened up. I too have seen conservatives invite liberals on their shows and then proceed to ridicule them but I've also seen liberals invite conservatives on their shows and then proceed to ridicule them as well. That's how the media operates in general, do I need to link a bunch of videos from Bill Maher and MSNBC to show you this? If you haven't seen any conservatives invite liberals on their shows and listen or visa versa, then i would suggest you should expand your viewing or define what you mean by listen. I've seen Bill O'relly, Neil Cavuto, John Stossel, Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer, Shepard Smith, and Megan Kelly have some great debates that were very civil. On the liberal side I've good civil debates with Joe Scarborough, Alex Wagner (although he quit), Chris Matthews, Thomas Roberts, Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers. Such debates are admittedly usually rare, again going back to the media in general, but if your a news-hound you'll definitely see them happen. I would recommend you watch C-SPAN if you want a higher frequency of seeing such debates. C-SPAN has had tons of civil debates between economists, legislators, activists, and even the general public, also if they find a great debate on another network, they'll record the main parts and arguments and play them for their audience. But if by "LISTEN" you mean not discussing the issues but simply all of sudden they have all their disagreements answered, change their views, and become liberal too, then no, that is unrealistic. IMHO I think the reason you see way more examples of liberals trying than you see examples of conservatives trying, is because to some extent we are all partisan and have some observer bias. Being human, these have an effect when we look for patterns around us and we end up over generalizing different groups of people. The media certainly doesn't help this with their evil liberals and evil conservatives mantra.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
He's trolling, or high on kool-aide... The liberal-left 'seems to have more empathy' this is true. They 'seem to' because they always shout about how they FEEL about everything. They feel so bad, they feel so outraged & etc. They don't actually DO anything, of course. And if they should actually DO something? It's either useless or actively harmful. Remember 'going hungry' to help the latest starvation in Africa? Useless, but look how much empathy they have!! Meanwhile 'conservative groups' like the MCC (Mennonites) actually DID things like send food, work with governments and farmers to improve the situation. All without a single 'pop song' or celebrity endorsement... or shouting about their virtues...
-1
Reply
Male 40,764
HAW HAW HAW no.
-1
Reply
Male 40,764
Van Jones is a 'Truther' who believes 9/11 was done by Bush. He's also an Apologist for Isxlamic Terrorism and generally an idiot. No wonder he was in Obama's Cabinet! >>> It is so rare for Democrats to engage in ANY form of self-examination, it makes the news :-p And this is really just a thinly veiled attack on Repubs. Why is he even mentioning them if he's talking about Democrats? He's trying to falsely-equate the two parties, a standard liberal-leftist tactic, straight out of Alinsky.
-1
Reply
Male 1,743
*sigh* @5Cats, here we go. How many times do I need to debunk you? (1) Van Jones is not a "Truther." His name was used in a Truther movement, and when he learned about it, he got his name removed. He didn't sign anything. He wasn't quoted as saying anything. When people like YOU kept trying to perpetuate the lie, he resigned to prevent people like YOU from continuing to create a false, artificial spotlight by concocting stories. (2) Van Jones argues that when you publicize your hate for people, they will hate you back. When you publicize your hate for people who have a small subset of violent members, more of those people will join that small subset of violent members. This is true no matter if those people are Muslims, Americans, Christians, or Black Minorities. This is just how life is. That's not apologist, that's explaining cause and effect. (3) I agree that this is a false equivalence. The Republicans in office are display WAY more public bigotry than the Democrats in office display elitism.
1
Reply
Male 5,024
Says the guy that uses Alex Jones as a source for facts. Your hypocrisy is ginormous.
1
Reply
Male 40,764
Oh snap! That totally refutes my argument on the topic! Oh, the topic is what now? The SOURCE for facts HERE would be GQ, ok fuckwit? Gentleman's Quarterly. Hardly a paragon of journalism and highly, openly anti-Trump. The TOPIC would be Van Jones and his comments, which I address directly... and you ignore. You cannot even fucking get that right? And I'm supposed to take you seriously? Man! No wonder the trolls encourage you.
0
Reply
Male 5,024
You were specifically disproving Van Jones in your original response. Nowhere did you talk about GQ. Nice strawmsn dodge. Typical 5Cats.
1
Reply
Male 40,764
Um? THAT is MY point you stupid fucktard. I address the TOPIC not the SOURCE you fucking idiot. Prove me wrong! Show me how Van Jones it the source and that GQ is the topic... fucking idiot... I did NOT address the source as you have accused me, you admit this and yet continue to attack? Honestly now...
-1
Reply
Male 3,410
oh snap
0
Reply
Male 1,511
There are PLENTY of bigots and elitist snobs in both parties.
0
Reply
Male 8,550
Yes, there are plenty of bigots, and plenty of intolerance, in both parties. It's just that the 'elitist' party does not see their intolerance as being intolerant. After all, they are 'enlightened'. Us peons do not understand and can be ignored, as they know better than us. To paraphrase Animal Farm: "No one believes more firmly than liberals that all people are equal. They would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” And that is the stance of liberals with the 2016 election. The population 'made the wrong decision', and they must correct that decision and will not let little things like laws get in their way.
0
Reply
Male 1,511
I have actually been told (by someone 20 years younger than me) that I am too intolerant of others and that the intolerant shouldn't be tolerated and should have their voting rights taken away until they learn to get along with others. After staring at her for a full 30 seconds, the only response I could think of was "Do you actually listen what you say?" I guess the combination of social media, public schools and then entertainment/news industry is effective in their brainwashing.
0
Reply
Male 8,550
Reminds me of a quote from a very bad movie almost 40 years ago. "The One and Only", about a wrestler (Henry Winkler) and they states about his wrestler persona "The Lover"..."He hates violence. He came close to killing five men because he hates violence. He's a lover of all human beings. He kills you with love."
0
Reply
Male 3,410
but but.. wait for it. my team does this cause your team did this but no your team is un murican. no your team is facist. no wait rabble rabble rabble  
1
Reply
Male 3,410
but global warming! no my guy is a science guy and your guy is bought and sold by the earth #coal car #benghazi truth 2017
1
Reply