This recent CNN interview with Texas State Rep. Jolanda Jones took an alarming turn, showcasing a dramatic shift in political rhetoric that some may find shocking. During her appearance on “OutFront” with Eric Burnett, Jones explicitly rejected the infamous phrase popularized by Michelle Obama—”when they go low, we go high.” Instead, she boldly declared her intent to “wipe out” Republicans, suggesting that Democrats must engage in a more aggressive and brutal form of political combat.
Jones began her segment by tracing her roots back to “the hood,” implying a fierce, take-no-prisoners attitude toward political competition. She stated, “I’m from the hood. Okay, so when a bully comes like, if there are no rules, you literally have to figure it out.” This acknowledgment of a lawless environment framed her argument. She contended that Donald Trump’s influence has transformed the political landscape, making traditional approaches obsolete. “So Donald Trump has changed things,” she said, adding that Democrats must abandon their old tactics in favor of a more confrontational stance if they want to maintain support among black voters and those in poverty. “Poor people, all they want is for us to fight,” she insisted. This claim underscores a strategy that prioritizes aggression over diplomacy.
Her rhetoric escalated quickly, culminating in a grim throat-cutting gesture. “If you hit me in my face, I’m not going to punch you back in your face. I’m going to go across your neck,” she proclaimed. This striking imagery—used in the context of political rivalry—reveals a growing embrace of hostility in political discourse. Jones argues that to win, Democrats must strike with sufficient force to ensure their adversaries do not retaliate, a philosophy she believes is necessary to reclaim lost support.
Jones didn’t stop there. She extended her combative stance to suggest that Democrats should aim to “wipe out” Republicans not just in Texas, but in states like New York, California, and Illinois as well. “If they’re going to try to wipe us out in Texas, we need to wipe out every Republican,” she stated, sending a clear shot across the political bow. This statement resonates particularly with those in her district who are seeking strong leadership capable of confronting the perceived threats posed by Republican policies.
She stands firm in her assertion that her aggressive posture is not only necessary but justified. “No one can make me feel bad about fighting for the people that I represent,” she said, framing her approach as an essential service to her constituents. In her view, the stakes are high enough to warrant a ruthless approach.
Predictably, her comments sparked outrage among conservative commentators and politicians. Andrew Kolvet, a spokesman for Turning Point USA, echoed the alarm, stating that such rhetoric is troubling, especially against the backdrop of recent violence. He commented on social media, “This is the exact type of rhetoric that got Charlie murdered BY A SHOT TO THE NECK!!” His response illustrates the repercussions that aggressive political rhetoric can produce and serves as a reminder of the tensions that exist within today’s political climate.
Jones’s statements raise significant questions about the future of political dialogue in America. Her willingness to abandon previously held principles in favor of a more combative approach reflects a growing sentiment among some politicians. It underscores a belief that in order to fight fire, one must engage with a stronger flame, even at the risk of inciting violence. As Jones aligns herself with a more radical approach, it remains to be seen how this will affect her constituents and the broader political landscape.
The implications of her statements could reverberate beyond Texas, potentially influencing the strategies of Democrats nationwide as they confront a divided electorate. In a time where political animosity seems rampant, interviews like this spotlight the lengths to which some leaders are willing to go to galvanize their base. The real question is whether this approach will resonate with the wider electorate, or if it will ultimately lead to further polarization.
"*" indicates required fields
