Van Jones shows a side of Charlie Kirk

In reply to BeatDball

Ditto

The battered leading the blind and the liar

They, the leftist liberal socialists hated him even more as CK was a religious Christian! Fools, will never stop.

In reply to InHindsight



He is not from the group who Kirk called low IQ marauding savages out to violate White people. Why would sensible self respecting Black people follow that lead??? Only the fcuking brain dead would!!!!!

Fcuk Van Jones, the pandering c*nt.

There you go!

Go question that!!!!

In reply to sgtdjones

Check Jahjah comments below.

These dudes are incorrigible

In reply to InHindsight

You do realise there are people on this MB who shared CK's views on Black people, right? Those who silently endorsed Ed Blum's campaign.

You found an anti-Black ally. Congrats.

It doesn't change the trajectory. Eff Charlie KKKirk, and eff Van Jones.

Next!

PS: When is EriKKKa going to get a new one. After all that single mother argument as it again pertains to Black people, from Charlie...ya know...

Kirk's "invite"was a typical Republican "weave" his aim was to get a bigger platform to spew his racist hate. Jones was just a tool er fool. RE Kirk's constant disparaging of United's minority pilot program was a direct attack on me. My close relative was among the 1st class and the media face of the program. Does she have low IQ? Sarge reread my comments, Charlie Jirk's censorship and targeting of professors threatened their lives so to Charlie and Van, do not show me what you say but what you do. The attempted sanitation of that evil man's life is as despicable as Blindsighted's lies

In reply to Brerzerk


Yes it was THAT obvious. Was van going to address the anti black statements made in the past? Debate my rass- civil my rass

In reply to Halliwell

Jones is a fool if the thought that the invite was some good faith gesture. KKKirk specialises in bad faith arguments.

Gentlemen...

Van Jones’ Surprising Praise for Charlie Kirk

In an era of political trench warfare, Van Jones’ recent praise of Charlie Kirk raised more than a few eyebrows. Jones, a progressive activist and commentator, could hardly be further from Kirk, the conservative founder of Turning Point USA. And yet, Jones credited Kirk for something increasingly rare in American life: his willingness to engage in open debate.



It was a striking moment not because Jones endorsed Kirk’s politics​; he emphatically does not, but because he acknowledged the civic value of disagreement conducted in public rather than through silencing, caricature, or hostility.

A Van Jones–Charlie Kirk conversation would be contentious.

Their worldviews are built on opposing foundations: Jones champions racial and economic justice, and Kirk defends populist conservatism.
They would not reach consensus. But that’s the point.
The act of showing up to argue, without dehumanizing, without threatening violence, strengthens the democratic muscle we’re in danger of losing.

Jones’ comment is a reminder that democracy does not require agreement. It requires dialogue.
Too often, our debates end before they begin, because to acknowledge anything of value in one’s opponent is treated as weakness or betrayal.

But the truth is simpler: societies survive not by silencing dissent, but by keeping a contested conversation alive.

That is what Kirk offers, and that is what Jones had the honesty to admit.

In a culture starved of genuine engagement, that small recognition matters. You don’t have to admire Charlie Kirk to appreciate the larger point.

If America is to remain a functioning democracy, we will need more opponents willing to step into the arena—and more voices, like Van Jones’, willing to recognize that act for what it is: a sign of civic health.

After all, democracy doesn’t die from disagreement; it dies when we stop talking altogether.

Sarge...

In reply to sgtdjones

Here's my answer
"Americans are cowards when ot comes to the subject of race" Eric Holder. Perhaps the only 100% honest American on race was Malcolm X. Many dabbled around it like a mouse nibbling cheese then scurrying away. Jones would have felt compelled to be civil while Kirk would smilingly utter the most viciously, violent racist, anti- minority hate. Would that be a debate or civil? Gullible!