Susan Sarandon prefers Donald Trump over 'status quo' Hillary Clinton presidency
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Fox News
Susan Sarandon might find herself voting for Donald Trump if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
The actress revealed on Monday that Trump might be a better choice than Clinton because "some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately."
“If he gets in, then things will really explode," she told MSNBC.
When pressed on whether a Trump presidency could be dangerous Sarandon said: “If you think that it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re not in touch with the status quo."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-prefers-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton/
Interesting take from outspoken Bernie supporter, Susan Sarandon, who told Christopher Hayes that if Bernie does not get the nomination, she would prefer a Trump presidency, because "then things will really explode." While this sounds a bit extreme, this line of thinking has its roots in Marxist and Leninist thinking, since they opposed liberalism and believed that liberalism's freedoms were fraudulent because it did not free labor from capitalist exploitation. Worse, liberal reforms only serve to prolong the exploitation of workers. Thus, in order to more quickly bring about revolution, it is better to expedite the growth of inequality and suffering in order to bring about the conditions necessary to bring about a true revolution and an overthrow of the status quo.
However, under this theory, you could argue that we should also oppose Bernie, who at best can push for reform and ease suffering, but which may serve to then prolong the capitalist status quo. Bernie's reforms would only serve to soothe the masses. Under Sarandon's line of thinking, a Cruz/Trump president might increase oppression of women, gays and lesbians, immigrants, and increase the likelihood of a war, and with the dramatic increase in death, suffering and oppression of workers, then a true Marxist revolution can take hold.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/714940487833153536
https://twitter.com/SusanSarandon/status/714957075940569088
======
Please self-delete this garbage.
Old Crow
(2,268 posts)... of the original poster doing the right thing and taking this down. Zero chance of that happening. All that distortion, paranoia, innuendo, and smearing in the post tells me everything I need to know about the OP's intentions.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)She did say all that garbage about Trump bringing on the "Revolution," sadly.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)The NY Daily News...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/susan-sarandon-unsure-vote-clinton-trump-article-1.2580924
The clear choice to fix a militarized police force, rescue the disappearing middle class and fight threats to women’s rights, then, is the “morally consistent” Sanders, she said.
“I really want to be on the right side of history, and this is a shot that we’re not going to have again in my lifetime,” she said. “To have a candidate that’s so morally consistent, makes decisions, whose judgment proves to be true but does it at a time when it’s not popular, when it’s not comfortable.”
The “Thelma and Louise” star seemed to hint that even the hate-spewing mogul, another Washington outsider, could disrupt the country’s current state of affairs better than Clinton.
“Some people believe Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately,” she said. “If he gets in, things will really explode.”
dogman
(6,073 posts)You must have a hell of a word expander.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)nt
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)As is his heir Susan Sarandon.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)I am not sure how you can't read Susan Sarandon's comments as being a Marxist/Lenin type, lets bring on the revolution now type argument. Both left AND right sites are interpreting it the same way.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/susan-sarandon-is-willing-to-gamble-on-a-post-president-trump-revolution-if-sanders-isnt-the-nominee/
Actress and activist Susan Sarandon popped by for a visit with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Monday night to talk about — among other topics — the presidential candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Putting it mildly: she’s a big fan of Bernie and not so much a fan of Hillary Clinton — but you probably already knew that.
* * *
Asked about her own vote, Sarandon replied, “I don’t know, I’m going to see what happens,” before she added with a smile, “You know, some people think Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately. If he gets in then things will really, you know, explode.”
Given an opportunity to concede that a Trump presidency might be “dangerous,” Sarandon instead ticked off a litany of America’s ills saying it was more dangerous for the country to continue on the way it is going — but without noting that things would be far worse in Trump America.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Here is WaPo...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/29/what-susan-sarandon-said-about-trump-was-out-of-this-world/
HAYES: I cannot believe as you’re watching the, if Donald Trump…
SARANDON: Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in then things will really, you know explode.
When Hayes asked Sarandon if she didn’t think that argument was “dangerous,” she said, “The status quo is not working, and I think it’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, with threats to women’s rights and think that you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”
Jarqui
(10,909 posts)HAYES: Right, but isn’t the question always in an election about choices, right. I mean, I think a lot of people think to themselves well if it’s Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and I think Bernie Sanders probably would think this…
SARANDON: I think Bernie probably would encourage people because he doesn’t have any ego. I think a lot of people are sorry, I can’t bring myself to do that.
HAYES: How about you personally?
SARANDON: I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.
HAYES: Really?
SARANDON: Really.
Wounded Bear
(64,328 posts)I watched the interview. She was a little soft on voting Hil, but never said she'd vote Trump.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)fyi
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/susan-sarandon-bernie-sanders/475875/
Susan Sarandon says she might prefer Donald Trump because he’d bring about revolution faster. There’s little evidence that many Democrats would join her.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)If there is any ambiguity, it is Susan Sarandon's fault. She could have said, "Of course, if it is Hillary versus Cruz/Trump, I would pick Hillary every time. I would not be happy about it, but it is an easy call."
Did she say that? No. She started talking about how a revolution brought about a Trump election might be preferable to the status quo. So, excuse most everyone who listened to that interview and interpreted it the same way whether they are liberal or right wing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3514458/Liberal-Oscar-winner-Sarandon-not-sure-Clinton-Trump.html
The actress said she was tired of the status quo and wanted a candidate who had not accepted money from the fracking industry, pharmaceutical giants or Wall Street.
She appeared to imply that Trump, a political outsider, could ultimately lead to more radical upheaval than Clinton, the 68-year-old former secretary of state bidding to make history as America's first female president.
"Some people feel Trump will bring revolution immediately," she said. "If he gets in, then things will really explode," she said.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)It's all the same, except different
FailureToCommunicate
(14,605 posts)delete something you know is junk.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)A lot of liberal sites seem to interpreting Susan Sarandon's comments the same way.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/29/susan_sarandon_is_perfect_spokeswoman_for_neverhillary.html
Let’s be grateful to Susan Sarandon for exposing just how vapid and callous the left-wing #NeverHillary argument is. Speaking to Chris Hayes on MSNBC on Monday night, Sarandon, a Bernie Sanders surrogate, said she was unsure if she could bring herself to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election. Hayes was shocked, but Sarandon posited that a Trump presidency might be preferable to a Clinton one, because it would hasten the revolution. “Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode,” she said.
It’s unclear how many people Sarandon speaks for. There are lots of posturing radicals on social media who pretend Clinton would be no better than Trump, but my guess is that they are a tiny fraction of Sanders supporters. Sanders himself certainly doesn’t encourage such political nihilism and will surely rally to Clinton’s side if she beats him in the primary. Inasmuch as #NeverHillary is a phenomenon, however, Sarandon, a rich white celebrity with nothing on the line, is a perfect spokeswoman for it.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,605 posts)all the more embarrassing.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)If you don't like Fox, which Bernie Sanders has been happy to appear on and was willing to debate Trump, then there are other outlets, which I have provided for your convenience. Is there a site that you would prefer that I should link to? What is your favorite site?
revbones
(3,660 posts)Step 1: Distort something someone said
Step 2: Feign outrage
Step 3: Call for that person's group to disavow them.
Really sad that all they have is to distort what she said.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Yup, Fox News, CNN, Slate, and the Washington Post are all conspiring against Susan Sarandon.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/susan-sarandon-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html
(CNN)Susan Sarandon, a Bernie Sanders' surrogate, says Donald Trump would be more likely to usher in "the revolution" than Hillary Clinton.
The actress told MSNBC's Chris Hayes Monday she doesn't think she could vote for Clinton in a hypothetical match-up between the two party front-runners.
"I think Bernie would probably encourage people (to support Clinton) because he doesn't have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, 'Sorry, I just can't bring myself to do that,' " Sarandon said of voting for Clinton in the general election. "I don't know. I'm going to see what happens."
An incredulous Hayes asked Sarandon if that meant she would vote for Trump.
revbones
(3,660 posts)It often does when republicans do it too. That's why they constantly use it, because it gets picked up. If it didn't work, then wouldn't they stop using it?
Doesn't make it any less sad when supposed Democrats do it.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Is there a source that you would like? CNN, Slate, WaPo, Entertainment Weekly?
http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton
Asked during an interview with Chris Hayes on Monday’s All In With Chris Hayes if Sanders supporters would cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton were she to get the nomination over their preferred candidate, Sarandon said, “I think Bernie would probably encourage people [to vote for Clinton], because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to do that.’”
Pushed to answer only for herself, Sarandon said, “I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.”
Hayes then asked Sarandon how she could say that when the alternative could possibly be Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner. “Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately. If he gets in, then things will really explode,” Sarandon said, a scenario Hayes called “dangerous.”
“If you think it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re not in touch with the status quo. The status quo is not working. It’s dangerous to think we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, with threats to women’s rights, and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around,” Sarandon said. “The country is not in good shape. If you’re in the middle class, it’s disappearing.”
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)Clinton will not get my vote, primary OR general. the status quo is killing us all.
1monster
(11,045 posts)statement to the effect that the Fox story is the opposite of what she said.
And since when is Fox a reliable source especially with regards to political stories?
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)The anti-Hillary conspiracy is nothing compared to the anti-Sarandon conspiracy given all the left leaning sites that are saying the same thing.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/susan_sarandon_can_afford_a_so_called_trump_revolution_the_rest_of_us_will_be_screwed_when_things_really_explode/
Celebrities — they’re not just like us! They’re not regular people! Even the ones who seem likable and earthy, who probably are pretty likable and earthy, still live in a totally different America than the rest of us here in the 99 percent. Case in point — imagine being well enough off to not be scared out of your mind right now about the outcome of the 2016 election.
Susan Sarandon doesn’t seem to be sweating it. Sarandon — who three years ago declared, “I think of myself as a humanist because I think it’s less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches and because you want everyone to have equal pay, equal rights, education and healthcare,” is a Bernie Sanders supporter. But in a Monday conversation with MSNBC Chris Hayes, she went further, saying that “I think Bernie would probably encourage people to [support Hillary if he loses] because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to.'”
When pressed how she’d vote if it came down to Clinton or Trump, she admitted, “I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,” adding, “Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode… If you think it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re not in touch with the status quo. The status quo is not working.”
Well, sure, the status is not quo. But it must be super nice to be a highly-paid Oscar winner who at nearly 70 can still be a L’Oreal brand ambassador and feisty fashion role model. It must be nice to espouse liberal causes but also feel secure that you’ll be fine if everything goes entirely to the dogs. Your family wouldn’t be deported. Escalating racism? Not your problem. A misogynist in the White House setting the tone on how to talk to women? Wouldn’t affect your career or personal safety. Your health insurance wouldn’t be lost. You wouldn’t lose your job or your mortgage. You have no student loans to default on. You could, you might imagine, safety watch “things really explode” from your West Village penthouse. That’s a privilege the rest of us don’t have.
1monster
(11,045 posts)who use distortions as facts.
PSPS
(15,321 posts)modestybl
(458 posts)...and before you continue with your fake and dishonest outrage, I don't seem to recall you getting your patties in a wad over this non-support of the Democratic nominee...
"In a three-way race featuring Mr. Sanders and Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Rendell said he might back the former New York mayor..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)And many Dems remember Sarandon campaigning for Nader, which helped Dubya get elected, hence the alarm that she might do something stupid again.
CBHagman
(17,493 posts)She didn't precisely say she would vote for Trump, and of course her subsequent tweet confirmed that.
That said, I don't buy this notion that a Trump presidency would provide the impetus for a revolution. This country doesn't need more shocks, and it definitely doesn't need more incompetence.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)You Hillary fanatics sure know how to sling bullshit.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Elections have consequences.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The post I responded to said Sarandon's vote brought on w bush. Of course it didn't. Your response is almost as dumb as that post, but not quite.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Fox news is widely considered a non reputable source... said so by numerous Hillary Clinton supporters
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)Okay, how about the Hill?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274541-susan-sarandon-i-dont-know-if-id-vote-for-clinton-over
During an interview on MSNBC’s “All in with Chris Hayes,” Sarandon criticized the former secretary of State for stances that go against progressive ideals. She added that some Sanders supporters would have a hard time bringing themselves to vote for her in a general election.
“How about you personally?” Hayes asked.
“I don’t know. I’m gonna see what happens,” she responded.
“You know, some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately. If he gets in, then things will really explode.”
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Regardless... the OP cites fox news...not the hill
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)So, are you suggesting that if edit the news source, you would be okay with it? Okay. Which source do you prefer of the ones listed?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/susan-sarandon-bernie-sanders
MSNBC's Chris Hayes asked Sarandon about the contingent of Sanders supporters who say they would stay home if Clinton is the nominee.
“I think Bernie would probably encourage people [to vote for Clinton] because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing," Sarandon said. "But I think a lot of people are, 'Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to do that.'"
When Hayes about her views specifically, Sarandon said, “I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.”
Hayes said he couldn't believe that, but Sarandon replied, "Some people believe Donald Trump will bring about the revolution immediately" if he wins.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)...will be happy to change it. Also, so odd that folks who support Bernie are now attacking Fox News, when they were singing its praises for being willing to host a town hall and Bernie versus Trump debate.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)With a town format, everyone is more likely to get to speak their piece and challenge whatever usual BS a fox commentator puts out. Can't do the same with an article.
As for how to change your article, just follow the SoP, and all will be good.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Nice Hillary fanatic touch sticking in the Marxist-Leninist red bait.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Get a clue.
TomCADem
(17,837 posts)And I am hardly the only one who interpreted her comments the same way. Here is Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/29/susan_sarandon_is_perfect_spokeswoman_for_neverhillary.html
What Sarandon is voicing is the old Leninist idea of “heightening the contradictions,” which holds that social conditions need to get worse in order to inspire the revolution that will make them better. In this way of thinking, the real enemy of progress is incremental reform that would render the status quo tolerable.
Response to TomCADem (Original post)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
bullwinkle428
(20,662 posts)All we need is our own personal "Bat-Boy".
xocet
(4,442 posts)TomCADem
(17,837 posts)I think what is remarkable is the degree of unanimity among sources of different leanings regarding how to interpret Susan Sarandon's comments. But, is there a source that you prefer? I will be happy to link it. Salon? Slate? Rawstory? What is your fave?
scottie55
(1,400 posts)What is going on here?
Susan never said she would vote for Trump.
She did not say she would vote for Hillary either.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014