Post New

Here's the Van Jones clip:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/05/18...

JAKE TAPPER, CNN: Van, I remember how emotional you were in the immediate moments after the June 27, 2024, debate because of what you saw on the stage. And with all this new reporting coming out -- and I should disclose that I gave both of you copies of the book so you would have a little bit more information. Do you feel like you were duped, Van? Like, how do you feel?

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: First, this book is extraordinary. I don't care who you are, left, right, or otherwise. Anybody who cares about this country and about just the dynamics of power, this is "the emperor's new clothes" playing itself out in real time.

Everybody knew, but everyone was afraid to say -- except for David Axelrod, for two years -- that something was wrong here.

I was shocked. I love Joe Biden. I don't like him. I love him. I got a chance to work with him when I was a part of the Obama administration and loved him more every day.

I was shocked to see his condition when he came out. And so was the world. And that wasn't the first time he was in that condition. The book makes it very, very clear. There are people who knew and said nothing. And that is a crime against this republic. And I think the Democrats are going to pay for a long time for being a part of what is now being revealed to be a massive cover-up.

LOL.

It was a cover up. They're still covering it up.

And this, https://www.cbs19news.com/entertainment/morning-jo...

It was a cover up. They're still covering it up.

Sure, just like the Republicans paid “for a long time” about covering up Reagan’s senility. Eye roll.

Got to give Republicans credit where credit is due. They put Trump’s dementia on display every single day and still throw their full blown support behind him, hypocrites that they are.

Scarborough spoke with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, van jones , Axelrod, Carville, etc spoke with Tapper, and so many others have now spoken honestly. Can anyone still claim the Dem party gave voters a compelling alternative to Trump? 🙏☮️

You lied. You told obvious, easily disprovable lies and had the media cover it up. You sold Biden as a ‘steady hand’ when he was anything but.

Can anyone still claim the Dem party gave voters a compelling alternative to Trump?

They have zero bench. Zero ideas. What they do have is plenty of snark. They’ll never run out of that.

Can anyone still claim the Dem party gave voters a compelling alternative to Trump?

Anyone/anything with a brain was a better compelling alternative than Spankee.

“ They have zero bench. Zero ideas. What they do have is plenty of snark. They’ll never run out of that.“ The hurdle for the Dem nominee to get my vote in 28 isn’t very high because I don’t want 7 conservative Supreme Court justices. At this point it’s 50-50 if the moderates can win the Dem nomination or we may get a third party that can compete.

Dope, btw, I have a long list of human waste on the ignore list. If any of the old time regulars shocks the world and concedes the Dem party dropped the ball, and failed to offer a compelling alternative to Trump, please let us know. Thank you. ☮️

Can anyone still claim the Dem party gave voters a compelling alternative to Trump?

Of course. In case you have forgotten, the compelling alternative was ultimately Kamala Harris. But MAGA is too scared of a powerful and competent black woman to actually vote for her over an incompetent, narcissist convicted felon.

Frankly, a ham sandwich would have been a compelling alternative to Trump. Even for our Jewish and Islamic friends.

--Peter

If any of the old time regulars shocks the world and concedes the Dem party dropped the ball, and failed to offer a compelling alternative to Trump, please let us know.

I'm not certain whether you've blocked me. I am pretty certain you'd think I was an old time regular. I'm not sure it will shock the world if I "concede" the above, at least up to a point.

I mean, it's pretty self-evident that the Democratic party failed to offer a compelling alternative to Trump. Harris lost. It wasn't a landslide, but it also wasn't a "by a nose" finish, either. Trump won the election, which is almost prima facie evidence that Harris wasn't a compelling alternative to him.

Did the party drop the ball? Somewhat. As we discussed ad nauseum back in the day, we're not in the pre-1968 world. The party has a lot of influence in the outcome, because it sets the rules, but it doesn't play as much of a formal role in choosing the nominee. Two things happened that the party had no real ability to "overrule": i) Biden declared he would run for re-election in early 2023; and ii) nobody significant chose to run against him.

Could the party have changed that? I'm not sure. Clearly by the end of June 2024 (the disastrous debate performance) Biden was in very bad shape - which is why he had to leave the race. Several of the more prominent anecdotes that have been talked about in advance of the book (Obama having to guide Biden off-stage, the Clooney fundraiser) happened around that time as well. But the real relevant time frame where the party could have taken action would have been only up to about the end of 2023, when someone could have been drafted into the race without having to change the rules.

There's no doubt that in late 2023, there were concerns swirling about Biden's age - after all, it's what voters identified as one of their main concerns about him. And there was enough concern that his March 2024 SOTU speech was seen as a test he had to pass, rather than a routine event. But was there enough out there that the party could have persuaded him to give up his spot on the ticket? Certainly not - and especially not after the SOTU.

Biden needed to publicly fail for the Democratic party to have had the ability to do anything that could materially affect him continuing on the ticket. And that didn't happen until after March of 2024. And by then, it was too late for anyone but Harris.

The honorable Sanders fighting the, bad Oligarchs, you know, the billionaires who aren’t all in Sander's and Aoc. https://youtu.be/4mXBfF6MlgQ

Pretty much the truth albaby.

The fact that is most current, however, is that the Democratic Party is in complete disarray, struggling for some Queensberry rule that will enable it to confront the rule free liar and brawler who currently occupies the White House. He has no rules.

The lying and brawling are his MO. None of the lying and brawling is for the benefit of America, but for himself-and it won’t stop until he is stopped.

And that’s the sad truth of it.

The Republican Party has been transformed into a mob of fascist enablers. The Democratic Party is still shell shocked into irrelevance….with a few notable exceptions

The fourth estate is either cowed into silence or chasing shiny objects (BIDEN HAS CANCER!) again with a few notable exceptions.

Meanwhile, the light of democracy is being extinguished as one supposed guardrail after another is being beaten down. The courts are still fighting, but how long will that last if Republicans get their way in the BIG Bastard of a Bill that contains wording that would prohibit the enforcement of court orders?

It’s coming down to We the People. Will we allow the dictator to brawl his way into complete domination of our country and lives?


Is freedom really so cheap that we would trade it for a ticket to Trump’s reality show?

We’re all sitting here horrified while watching the show. Meanwhile, outside the theater walls, the country and form of government are being disassembled.

The fact that is most current, however, is that the Democratic Party is in complete disarray, struggling for some Queensberry rule that will enable it to confront the rule free liar and brawler who currently occupies the White House.

They're confronting President Trump all the time. They don't need any new rules to do that. Their problem is that they have no power in the federal government right now, and Trump literally just got into office four months ago. So they can confront him all they want, and he can just ignore them. That's what happens when your party loses elections.

Will we allow the dictator to brawl his way into complete domination of our country and lives?

What do you think is the thing that he has done so far that most affects your individual freedom, personally?

“ Biden needed to publicly fail for the Democratic party to have had the ability to do anything that could materially affect him continuing on the ticket. And that didn't happen until after March of 2024. And by then, it was too late for anyone but Harris.“ Obviously you and common are two favorites. 💕☮️ In late 23 any credible journalist on msnbc, cnn, npr, the New York Times, Wash post etc could have sent the message to team Biden. Agree to do a 45 minute interview, Q and A, no questions in advance,no edits,no baby sitter, or we will refuse to endorse your re election. Simple, he agrees to not run again by new years because he couldn’t do it and the abuse ends. Whoever won the competitive Dem nomination process, wins the presidency, period. Btw, those who now claim Tapper, has no credibility, Van Jones, Axelrod, Carville, Chuck Todd, etc, all have no credibility , you still read? Why waste your time? Thanks.

In late 23 any credible journalist on msnbc, cnn, npr, the New York Times, Wash post etc could have sent the message to team Biden. Agree to do a 45 minute interview, Q and A, no questions in advance,no edits,no baby sitter, or we will refuse to endorse your re election. Simple, he agrees to not run again by new years because he couldn’t do it and the abuse ends.

They could have. I'm sure those organizations did ask for interviews all the time. He's the President of the United States, after all - major news outlets are constantly striving to land a long-form interview with the President.

But again - he's the President. None of those groups can dictate terms to the President, and this is an empty threat. News channels don't issue formal endorsements. For newspapers, the News divisions that would have conducted the interviews aren't the ones who decide whether to endorse (which is either Opinion or the publisher) - and none of those papers were really going to change whether they endorsed him or not on that basis. He wouldn't have agreed to the terms, and he wouldn't have dropped out any earlier.

Finally, whatever pressure the media could have put on him is a different question than whether the party had the ability to change the outcome.

Whoever won the competitive Dem nomination process, wins the presidency, period.

Hardly. Again, the most likely outcome of a competitive Dem nomination process that started late would be Harris winning the nomination. People tend to forget what happened the last time the Democrats had a wide-open nominating contest - the former Veep won, because in a massive multiway race with lots of candidates a former Veep tends to be a really strong contender (and often most folks' second choice). Once Biden decided to run for re-election, no one else of any significance did anything in 2023 to run against him. Which means that if he had dropped out after the primaries had started, nobody would have been in much of a position to really move into the race except for the person who did: Harris.

“ What do you think is the thing that he has done so far that most affects your individual freedom, personally?“ Since you appreciate facts I’ll share a few with you. During the Biden administration FB and Twitter were, intimidated to censer content to control the narrative. See Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress. FB deleted my shares from Doc Bhattacharya, Doc Prasad, Doc Makary, and others who doubted if the Covid vaccine had been proven safe and effective for healthy children. Anyone who questioned the origin of Covid was labeled a conspiracy nut, and FB threatened me with a 30 day suspension. I’m sure you heard of Tony Bobulinski. I spoke and texted with a very close family member of his for many hours. Not only did FB pre ent me from sharing Tony’s story, FB owns messenger and they prevented me from sending the info via messenger to friends and family prior to the 2020 election. Now that Trump won, my friends who bash Trump 24x7, and wish him terrible , accidents, haven’t had one post removed. Now that you know the facts, would you vote for 8 more years of Biden Harris? Van Jones has it right, certain Dems owe the country an apology and they have three years to stop insulting voters with their disgraceful bullshit. The facts are getting out, the independents , 5 -10 percent will decide in 28 , which party sucks less. Losing that battle to Trump in 24 should be a party wake up call bud. No more silly excuses, no more lies, the party has to man up and change. ☮️

What do you think is the thing that he has done so far that most affects your individual freedom, personally?

Albaby, I agree with you on so much, but the way you frame your question suggests that you don’t quite get it, or if you do- that you believe it’s irrelevant.

So I’m going to answer you in the only way I know how- as the longtime clergyman that I am- by quoting two other longtime clergy type folk with whom you may be acquainted.

No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends` or of thine own were.

Any man`s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

John Donne (1572 - 1631)

And-

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller
(1892-1984)


If we wait until the threat directly affects us, we will have waited too long. And we will have failed as human beings.

“ Which means that if he had dropped out after the primaries had started, nobody would have been in much of a position to really move into the race except for the person who did: Harris.” With all due respect Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Clyburn and other key Dem players have all disclosed they wanted a competitive nomination process to be respected. Do you think that process would have produced a Harris Walz ticket? Come on bud.

What do you think is the thing that he has done so far that most affects your individual freedom, personally?

Failed to give a bunch of allegedly El Salvadoran immigrants/migrants a hearing to contest their deportation (as required by the Constitution), and then ignore a court order to return those folks to US soil while they were in transit to El Salvador.

This was a blatant violation of habeas corpus. If these peoples' Constitutional rights can be trampled by the executive branch with no recourse and no repercussions to the individuals committing the violation, so can mine. I can be left without the right to a habeas corpus hearing and locked away. And so can you.

You and I (and many others here) have spoken out against the Trump administration and could easily be rounded up and locked up exactly the same way.

--Peter

Albaby, I agree with you on so much, but the way you frame your question suggests that you don’t quite get it, or if you do- that you believe it’s irrelevant.

So I’m going to answer you in the only way I know how- as the longtime clergyman that I am- by quoting two other longtime clergy type folk with whom you may be acquainted.

I appreciate the sentiment. But I would respond by saying that if you have to respond in metaphor and allusions, rather than directly, then that suggests that you might not be able to point to anything concrete that is actually affecting you in a material way.

I'm not sure what it is you think I don't quite get. Trump is doing what he's doing, and is able to do what he's doing, because he's a lame duck President who has immense power and popularity within his party without having had to form any alliances or partnerships to get it. So he's able to do tons of things that would normally be unthinkable for a President, because they have longstanding ramifications for the people that will come after him, but he doesn't have to care about it. He has no power base within the party other than himself, so he can be a free agent within the Presidency.

While that yields outcomes I find completely atrocious, he's generally exercising powers that we've given the President, and following the rules that govern what happens when there are disputes about what the limits of those powers are. Presidents have always had immense power to cause chaos in the Executive Branch - the reason they haven't done so in the past is not because causing chaos in the Executive is illegal, but because it's a very bad practice to engage in if you want the agencies to do the things they're meant to do. Having a President who doesn't care about that isn't the end of democracy - it's maladministration. That doesn't mean it's not damaging, even irreparably catastrophic - but that's different than being a dictator.

With all due respect Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Clyburn and other key Dem players have all disclosed they wanted a competitive nomination process to be respected. Do you think that process would have produced a Harris Walz ticket? Come on bud.

Ummm...because that's what happened? All of those people wanted someone other than Harris, and she ended up being the nominee anyway. The reason she ended up being the nominee is that no one else wanted to gamble their long term political future taking her on in a lopsided contest. The reason that all of those key Democratic leaders were unsuccessful in getting a competitive nomination process is because no one took them up on that offer.

You can't beat someone with no one. No one was in a position to take on Harris in a no-rules, made up on the fly "competitive" nomination process thrown together ad hoc in response to Biden dropping out. It doesn't matter if all of the people who aren't going to run want a competitive nomination process unless there's an actual candidate that's saying, "....and I'm going to compete in that process."

There was no one in July of 2024, and there wouldn't have been anyone in March of 2024 either.

Failed to give a bunch of allegedly El Salvadoran immigrants/migrants a hearing to contest their deportation (as required by the Constitution), and then ignore a court order to return those folks to US soil while they were in transit to El Salvador.

This was a blatant violation of habeas corpus.

No, it wasn't. Habeas corpus is a limitation on unjust detention - the government can't imprison you without giving you at least one opportunity to get into court and have a judge see you and hear what's going on.

Deportation is a civil matter. The government certainly denied them due process, but it wasn't a violation of habeas corpus, because it was a civil violation.

The federal government is found to have violated civil laws, even the constitution, all the time. I don't think there's been an Administration that hasn't unanimously lost a case at the SCOTUS for violating a statute or the Constitution in my lifetime. Every Administration has instances where they stretch a legal claim or statutory authority to the breaking point, and get called out for doing it. Even for denying parties due process by refusing to give them access to the courts (as happened during the Obama administration):

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/566/12...

Where the Administration did do something unprecedented and wrong was in trying to front-run the judge's order (in their reading) to create facts on the ground that couldn't be undone. But after that, they've been complying with the orders not to deport other folks under the Act while the litigation over its availability is ongoing.

They're 100% wrong in claiming they have this power....but there's a process for resolving disputes over o'erweening Executive interpretations of statutes, and it's playing out.

“ There was no one in July of 2024, and there wouldn't have been anyone in March of 2024 either.“ We aren’t communicating bud. I said he should have declined running again by new years 2023 the latest ,comprende? Several others would have competed for the nomination, imo. Too late now, 4 years of team trump it is while we wait to see if the Dem party can find a compelling alternative to Vance.

No, it wasn't. Habeas corpus is a limitation on unjust detention - the government can't imprison you without giving you at least one opportunity to get into court and have a judge see you and hear what's going on.

Probably time for Peter to learn some legal lessons. So I'm asking to learn, and not to disagree.

Were these people not detained and imprisoned before they were deported? If they weren't at least detained, how were they kept between the time they were picked up (presumably by ICE) and the time they were forced to board a plane to a destination they may or may not have known? If they weren't detained, they would be free to leave, right?

Or am I just using the wrong term?

--Peter

“ There was no one in July of 2024, and there wouldn't have been anyone in March of 2024 either.“ We aren’t communicating bud. I said he should have declined running again by new years 2023 the latest ,comprende?

Even that would have been too late. By New Years, the qualification deadline had already passed in about 28 of the 50 state primaries. If he had announced on X-mas that he was dropping out, it would have been an insane choice for anyone other than Harris to have rushed to get on the ballot in the last half of the states. She would have, of course, been a shoo-in to enter the race - but none of the other potentials would have had the time to do even the bare minimum of preparation to decide whether or not to launch a Presidential campaign on such short, unexpected notice.

No one would have entered to contest her. At least, no one that had a chance of winning. And so she'd go into the convention with all the non-Biden delegates and no one having dared to run. She wins in a walk.

Had Biden decided not to run earlier in 2023 - at least several months before the qualifying deadlines in mid-October for the early primary states - you would have seen real folks enter the race. Even then, BTW, I think several candidates would have thought twice about it, and I think Harris has a decent chance of winning the nomination against the ones who throw in.

Were these people not detained and imprisoned before they were deported? If they weren't at least detained, how were they kept between the time they were picked up (presumably by ICE) and the time they were forced to board a plane to a destination they may or may not have known? If they weren't detained, they would be free to leave, right?

Or am I just using the wrong term?

It's not the relevant term. Habeas corpus is used to challenge the legality of your detention, but there does not appear to be any dispute over whether these folks were lawfully detained. At least for Garcia Abrego, he had already been adjudicated to be in the country unlawfully. He wasn't supposed to be deported without a removal order, but he was always subject to being detained.

If you're here illegally - or even if you've lawfully applied for asylum - the government can always choose to detain you until the completion of your immigration hearings. They don't, because that would be a phenomenal waste of resources. But they could.

“ Even then, BTW, I think several candidates would have thought twice about it, and I think Harris has a decent chance of winning the nomination against the ones who throw in.“ Significant members of the Dem party disagree with you, so we can agree to disagree. Was the Dem party very cordial to Dean Philips? Did they run RFK out of the party? Musk? Was Walz a smart vp pick? Which unforced error didn’t she make and still almost won. She wouldn’t have changed a thing? Come on man. ☮️

Significant members of the Dem party disagree with you, so we can agree to disagree.

Who disagrees?

They were out there calling for an open nominating process, but none of them were promoting a candidate. No potential candidates were coming forward. None of the folks calling for there to be a contest was going to run themselves, and none of them were identifying any possibilities. I'm not saying there weren't people who were wishing there would be a vigorous contest against Harris; I'm saying that this would have been nothing but a wish, because no one was going to take that fight.

Going out and saying "Someone should run against Harris" is very different from saying "There is someone who is willing to run against Harris."

Let me put it directly to you: who's the person? Who do you think makes the choice in, say, late December of 2023 to enter the race against Harris knowing that it's too late for them to win the "conventional" way (pun intended), by getting a majority of the delegates? Which of the party's major players chooses to roll the dice in that race, against someone who both is the Veep (always a heavy favorite) and has several months headstart on you assembling a campaign and fundraising team?

Give me the name. Neither Newsom nor Beshear nor Pritzger nor Buttigieg would have entered the race on those terms. Josh Shapiro and Wes Moore were too newly elected. Ro Khanna? AOC?

If you're here illegally - or even if you've lawfully applied for asylum - the government can always choose to detain you until the completion of your immigration hearings.

Maybe that's the piece I'm misunderstanding. Did all of these people already complete their immigration hearings? If not, weren't they deported without a hearing? (Except for Abrego-Garcia. I'm pretty sure he's a slightly different case.)

And we still have the problem of the failure to follow a legal judicial order to return the planes to the US, followed by the apparent refusal to follow a USSC ruling to take steps to return those who should not have made it to a foreign country in the first place. Perhaps I should limit my complaint to that portion of my previous post. If officers of the Executive branch can ignore a judge's order without repercussion, what would keep them from doing the same to me? Or you? Or anyone else? And THAT could bring up habeas issues.

--Peter

If officers of the Executive branch can ignore a judge's order without repercussion, what would keep them from doing the same to me?

There's no indication - yet - that they can ignore a judge's order without repercussion. In all the instances where they've gotten up to no good, they've always had a fig leaf of a legal or factual argument that they asserted. They may have tried in many cases to thwart the intent of the order with the most strained arguments or interpretation - but they've always left themselves an escape hatch to at least claim they weren't just ignoring it. Because they know that they can't cross that line.

And the federal judiciary is noticing, which is one reason (IMHO) why the Administration is doing poorly in court. Partially because their arguments are weak, but also because they're generating a track record of playing way too cute with edging up to the line of deceiving/defying the judiciary. I think the Administration gets more than just two votes on the Alien Enemies Act decision in SCOTUS if they had been playing straight with lower court judges and not rushing to create irreversible facts on the ground.

“ Going out and saying "Someone should run against Harris" is very different from saying "There is someone who is willing to run against Harris.". If the heathy adults in the party wanted Joe to retire early so that there would be time for a competitive nominating process, can you connect those dots? Did Obama endorse Harris, immediately? Did Joe? Tappers book and 4 others will be out shortly, all the Trump haters are rolling over. Most have already opinined Joe withdrew too late. You don’t respect David Plouffe ?

If the heathy adults in the party wanted Joe to retire early so that there would be time for a competitive nominating process, can you connect those dots?

It doesn't matter what they wanted at that point. It's very obvious that even though they wanted there to be a competitive nominating process, they weren't able to make that happen. There's a reason they couldn't make that happen. You can't have a competitive nominating process if no one's willing to enter the process against Harris.

Again, I ask you - who is the person? Who is the potential candidate that's got enough heft within the party that they could realistically have a shot at winning a made-up, no-rules, starting from months behind race against the sitting VP....and who's willing to risk making a play for it in that crazy scenario instead of just waiting until 2028?

The reason we didn't have a competitive open primary in June 2024 is because there wasn't such a person. And that would have been just as true in January 2024 as June. If Biden had declined to run altogether, there are lots of ordinary candidates that would have run against Harris. But entering from a dead stop in December 2023 in a contest where Biden-Harris has already assembled a full campaign and fundraising team, and you've got nothing?

Who's doing that?

“ It doesn't matter what they wanted at that point. It's very obvious that even though they wanted there to be a competitive nominating process, they weren't able to make that happen. There's a reason they couldn't make that happen. You can't have a competitive nominating process if no one's willing to enter the process against Harris.“ Sorry but your time line is off, again. First they had to convince Joe not to seek another term in 2023 , then the party rallies around a competitive nominated process. Apparently the most feared Caucasian female in America insisted that Joe run again. Read the book reviews.

First they had to convince Joe not to seek another term in 2023 , then the party rallies around a competitive nominated process.

And then what? Assuming the party rallies around a different competitive nominating process (which I think never happens, but move on) - who runs against Harris?

I think she wins in a walk, because no one of any substance runs against her.

Who enters that race, rather than wait for 2028?

“ Who enters that race, rather than wait for 2028?” You are arguing that the party elders were all wasting time, why didn’t they all vigorously endorse Harris day one? Hang on , I’m about to make your day. ☮️

You are arguing that the party elders were all wasting time, why didn’t they all vigorously endorse Harris day one?

Because they wanted someone else to run. Some of them wanted a different candidate. But wanting a different candidate is not the same thing as having a different candidate who is willing to run.

Can you not provide one name? Someone you think could have beaten Harris and would have been willing to roll the dice with her having such a huge head start?

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.