People like Susan Sarandon make more sense when you understand their real motives.

[JCanete]

50. But I just listened to the interview. She didn't ignore the differences between Trump and Clinton.

She said that Trump was oafish, clumsy and overreaching. If there's anything we won, it was a buffoon who is going to fuck up the kinds of things that have been done subtly and via attrition, for decades.

You have to acknowledge that she saw this horrible condition as inevitable if you want to have a genuine conversation about this. Yes, Trump is harmful. She wouldn't dispute that. Yes, he is affecting people's lives in real-time. But yes, people are actually resisting in big numbers. What you should be focusing on is whether her assessment of our trajectory was right, not on whether Trump is worse in the moment than Clinton. It is fair to make a case that we weren't on a very bleak road, though I disagree, and its that very road that has set the stage for the Palins and Bachman's and Turmps to get into power. If she is right about the trajectory, the question is, is it better to be slowly roasted, or to step onto an open flame, and then jump the hell off it?

By the way, at the end of the day I chose differently than Sarandon. I chose Clinton because I think the left was able to push on her and the DNC, and in the end, I was too damn terrified of what kind of damage a man like Trump could do. Although, to be frank, I'm far more afraid of regular republicans than Trump, because he IS such a buffoon, whereas some of them are less so, and more dangerous because of it.

But I very much understand the fear of a two party system that together does not challenge the actual power-base. There is a reason why democrats have attrited seats for the last 30 years at all levels of government, and that is because the money has willed it, and at the same time, we haven't fought back against that money. Instead, we've courted it and offered ourselves up as an acceptable plan B for when the populace wants to "throw the bums out."