Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:00 AM Mar 2016

Salon - Susan Sarandon can afford a so-called Trump “revolution” — the rest of us will be screwed

I am not sure why Susan Sarandon even suggested that she might prefer a revolution resulting from Trump, rather than vote for Hillary. That was just stupid on her part.

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 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.
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Salon - Susan Sarandon can afford a so-called Trump “revolution” — the rest of us will be screwed (Original Post) TomCADem Mar 2016 OP
She didn't suggest it, it's just spin from Hillary supporters and the media. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #1
Sadly I see few women driving Susan off the cliff too NWCorona Mar 2016 #4
I think a lot of it was them wanting to take out their rage over Hillary's loss on someone. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #6
Oh it's any ol' thing they can blow up and twist like a pretzel Armstead Mar 2016 #21
Anything to avoid discussing the issues. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #22
Is Slate a Supporter? - “After Trump, Our Turn!” TomCADem Mar 2016 #5
That blogger most certainly is, she doesn't even try to hide the fact: beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #9
CNN - Susan Sarandon: Trump more likely to bring 'revolution' than Clinton TomCADem Mar 2016 #11
And he is, that's a statement of fact not support for Trump. beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #12
Hayes Is An MSNBC SHILL For Hillary! The Whole Election Is A Setup To Put HillBill In The WH! CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #28
So, explain, how was Chris Hayes' question unfair? TomCADem Apr 2016 #29
If Trump gets in NWCorona Mar 2016 #2
Prediction does not equal agreement with. Speculative and debunked (the whole meme). nt silvershadow Mar 2016 #3
Hey! Did you hear . . . Meteor Man Mar 2016 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow Mar 2016 #13
Debunked By The Atlantic? - "Susan Sarandon says she might prefer Donald Trump" TomCADem Mar 2016 #10
No. Debunked by Sarandon herself: silvershadow Mar 2016 #20
Under That Logic, Trump Never Threatened To Punish Women for Abortion... TomCADem Mar 2016 #25
You act as if I haven't seen the segment in question. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #30
"Americans need to watch what they say" Warren DeMontague Mar 2016 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow Mar 2016 #14
Exactly. Rather than Deny, Just Acknowledge It Was Stupid... TomCADem Mar 2016 #15
It's a free country. She can say whatever the fuck she wants. Warren DeMontague Mar 2016 #16
She did not suggest it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #17
Fucking privilege.....HRC is privilege....such a stupid argument...n/t blueintelligentsia Mar 2016 #18
So can Hillary. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #19
Susan Sarandon lives in CA and she better vote for (D) Gwhittey Mar 2016 #23
You better get on telling her that RIGHT NOW! (Oh, it ain't deep purple. It isn't even lilac.) Luminous Animal Mar 2016 #27
WTF? What...is "privilege" the new buzz word for trying to shame people jmg257 Mar 2016 #24
Susan does not want a Trump revolution. Has the author checked her privilege? Luminous Animal Mar 2016 #26
Charles Blow - ‘Bernie or Bust’ Is Bonkers" TomCADem Apr 2016 #31
The interpretation from little minds. Luminous Animal Apr 2016 #34
Why are you so worked up about what a celebrity would say or do? Contrary1 Apr 2016 #32
Hillary suppoters are scared stiff of Bernie winning. Zira Apr 2016 #33

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
1. She didn't suggest it, it's just spin from Hillary supporters and the media.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:01 AM
Mar 2016

And frankly I'm sick of the witch hunt. She's been slut shamed, accused of "latching" onto men and called despicable names for something she didn't even do.

The hatred for this woman is unhinged and much of it is based on misogyny.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
6. I think a lot of it was them wanting to take out their rage over Hillary's loss on someone.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:13 AM
Mar 2016

First they tried to start a rumour that Bernie abused Jane and when that didn't work out they turned in Susan.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
21. Oh it's any ol' thing they can blow up and twist like a pretzel
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:02 PM
Mar 2016

Today it's "Bernie is not a good Democrat because he wants to use his contributions to fund his campaign."

Tomorrow it'll be something else....Bernie eats cats or something

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
5. Is Slate a Supporter? - “After Trump, Our Turn!”
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:12 AM
Mar 2016

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.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
9. That blogger most certainly is, she doesn't even try to hide the fact:
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:15 AM
Mar 2016
http://www.slate.com/authors.michelle_goldberg.html

There are a lot of "feminist" bloggers who are even more hateful towards women on the left who don't support Hillary than they are towards Republicans.

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
11. CNN - Susan Sarandon: Trump more likely to bring 'revolution' than Clinton
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:18 AM
Mar 2016

Okay, maybe Slate has an agenda. Is CNN also in on the conspiracy?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/susan-sarandon-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

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.

"Some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately, if he gets in. Then things will really, you know, explode," Sarandon said, referring to the political "revolution" Sanders preaches about on the trail.

CorporatistNation

(2,546 posts)
28. Hayes Is An MSNBC SHILL For Hillary! The Whole Election Is A Setup To Put HillBill In The WH!
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:33 PM
Mar 2016

I doubt that the complainers about this will be able to afford Hillary either when she caves into privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Think about it...

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
29. So, explain, how was Chris Hayes' question unfair?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:07 AM
Apr 2016

I actually thought it was a bit of a soft ball, but Susan Sarandon decided to get cute and suggest that a revolution resulting from Trump might be preferable to the status quo.

Meteor Man

(385 posts)
8. Hey! Did you hear . . .
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:14 AM
Mar 2016

What Susan said about the election?

OMG!

Rinse, lather, repeat every hour of every day.

Response to Meteor Man (Reply #8)

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
10. Debunked By The Atlantic? - "Susan Sarandon says she might prefer Donald Trump"
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:16 AM
Mar 2016

I understand that Sarandon has backtracked, but most cites, liberal, right and mainstream all interpreted her original comments the same way.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/susan-sarandon-bernie-sanders/475875/

“I think Bernie would probably encourage people [to vote Clinton], because he doesn’t have a lot of ego in this,” she said. “But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to do that.’” As for herself, “I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.”

“Really?” an incredulous Hayes asked.

“Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately,” she replied.

Hayes accused her of adopting “the Leninist model of ‘heighten the contradictions,’” and she happily agreed. Isn’t that dangerous, he wondered?

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
25. Under That Logic, Trump Never Threatened To Punish Women for Abortion...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:26 PM
Mar 2016

...by "clarifying" that he did not actually mean punish women, but meant that women were the victims of abortion. Does that mean that he debunked claims that he threatened to punish women?

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/donald-trump-recants-abortion-remarks-view-reacts-38064463

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
7. "Americans need to watch what they say"
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:14 AM
Mar 2016



Er, She expressed an opinion. HOW DARE SHE!

People really need to get a fucking grip.

But, of course, le outrage du jour and spinning up all sort of hyperbolic bullshit around "zomg racist, sexist berniebros did this" and "someone had the nerve to say that to this other person" has been the filler replacing any actual issues-based discussion - you know, that which team Hillary would like to avoid at all costs - since the campaign started.

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
15. Exactly. Rather than Deny, Just Acknowledge It Was Stupid...
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:23 AM
Mar 2016

...for Susan Sarandon to say what she said. Heck, she realizes it, and retracted it in response to the outrage, but her later retraction does not mean she did not try to be cute and suggest that Trump might somehow usher in a revolution.

Plus, her views are not exactly isolated. Look on this board, and there are folks who have insisted they would not vote for another candidate if their candidate lost. A lot of Hillary supporters did it during the 2008 race. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, since Bernie is coming from behind. If Bernie wins, I am sure we will hear Hillary supporters once again suggest that they would not vote for Bernie.

My point is that it is a stupid argument to make, and folks should not say it, as Susan Sarandon found out.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
16. It's a free country. She can say whatever the fuck she wants.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:33 AM
Mar 2016

Beyond that, personally I'm not "folks" and I'm not a team, I'm just me. I know what I'm doing come November, hell or high water, regardless of who the nominee is.

But the time to worry about "support the nominee" is once we have a nominee. If this was another Ralph Nader situation, then perhaps some smidge of the over-the-top outrage being thrown at SS here might be justified. But we don't, yet- and furthermore it's not.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
17. She did not suggest it
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:35 AM
Mar 2016

but whatever

Oh and here is the fucking extended interview, NOT SALON, NOT CNN, NOT BLUE NATION

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/extended-interview-with-susan-sarandon-653901891895

Damn it I am so tired of the laziness of people

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
19. So can Hillary.
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:35 AM
Mar 2016

Hell, as palsy as she is with Trump, she might get invited to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom after the cocktails.

 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
23. Susan Sarandon lives in CA and she better vote for (D)
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:06 PM
Mar 2016

Because I hear CA might go (R) this election because it is deep purple.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
24. WTF? What...is "privilege" the new buzz word for trying to shame people
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:13 PM
Mar 2016

who may be successful at their career??

The poutrage is ridiculous, and in this case plain BS.




Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
26. Susan does not want a Trump revolution. Has the author checked her privilege?
Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:42 PM
Mar 2016

So, a lot of words wasted on nothing.

A lot of white pundits posting these past few days challenging Sarandon and the "Bernie or Bust" folks on their privilege with no evidence that they have checked their own.

These tweets from Adam Johnson (of alternet and fairmediawatch) are brilliant.

"That our pundit class is wielding "privilege" to defend the interests of the most privileged isnt an accident. It's a deliberate PR strategy"


"War is Peace. Invasions are mistakes. Objecting to bombing Muslims is Bro. Critiquing Wall Street is privilege. Up is down, black is white."

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/with_replies

TomCADem

(17,378 posts)
31. Charles Blow - ‘Bernie or Bust’ Is Bonkers"
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:13 AM
Apr 2016
"A lot of white pundits posting these past few days challenging Sarandon and the "Bernie or Bust" folks on their privilege with no evidence that they have checked their own."


I don't think it is just white folks who interpreted Sarandon's comments in that manner. Here is black columnist, Charles Blow:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-or-bust-is-bonkers.html?_r=0

blockquote]But I don’t doubt that she has met “some people” with a Bernie-or-bust, scorched-earth electoral portentousness. As The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, “A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.”

Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.

This position is dangerous, shortsighted and self-immolating.

If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally round him. Conversely, if Clinton does, they should rally round her
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Salon - Susan Sarandon ca...