2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSalon - 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 theyre not just like us! Theyre 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 doesnt seem to be sweating it. Sarandon who three years ago declared, I think of myself as a humanist because I think its 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 doesnt have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, Sorry, I just cant bring myself to.'
When pressed how shed vote if it came down to Clinton or Trump, she admitted, I dont know. Im 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 its pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then youre 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 LOreal brand ambassador and feisty fashion role model. It must be nice to espouse liberal causes but also feel secure that youll be fine if everything goes entirely to the dogs. Your family wouldnt be deported. Escalating racism? Not your problem. A misogynist in the White House setting the tone on how to talk to women? Wouldnt affect your career or personal safety. Your health insurance wouldnt be lost. You wouldnt 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. Thats a privilege the rest of us dont have.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm with you on this.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)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
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)TomCADem
(17,378 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
Lets 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.
Its 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 doesnt encourage such political nihilism and will surely rally to Clintons 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)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)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.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)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)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.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)One of the last things I'm worried about is the economy.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)What Susan said about the election?
OMG!
Rinse, lather, repeat every hour of every day.
Response to Meteor Man (Reply #8)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)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 doesnt have a lot of ego in this, she said. But I think a lot of people are, Sorry, I just cant bring myself to do that. As for herself, I dont know. Im 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. Isnt that dangerous, he wondered?
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)TomCADem
(17,378 posts)...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
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)...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)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)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
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)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)Because I hear CA might go (R) this election because it is deep purple.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)who may be successful at their career??
The poutrage is ridiculous, and in this case plain BS.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)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)"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 dont 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
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Contrary1
(12,629 posts)It's one vote.