2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSusan Sarandon: Trump Might Be Better for America Than Hillary Clinton
As they continued to discuss the issue, Hayes pressed Sarandon to see the election as potentially a choice between Clinton and Trump, arguing that Sanders himself would “probably” urge his supporters to vote for her.
“I think Bernie would probably encourage people, because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing,” Sarandon told him. “But I think a lot of people are, ‘Sorry, I just can’t bring myself to [vote for Clinton].’”
“How about you personally?” Hayes asked.
“I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,” Sarandon said.
That bit of honesty prompted Hayes to stop in his tracks. “Really?” he asked incredulously.
“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “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, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Botany
(70,447 posts)n t
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Botany
(70,447 posts)Her comment to me @ least, shows a deep lack of understanding about the real world.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)But, it wasn't the end of the World that you said it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You should watch the full interview or better yet, read the transcript. Because either you agree with her that Trump is dangerous, not quoted by the OP, or you don't. Free huge clue, these smears will cost your party votes in November
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and will cost Bernie votes...
To imply there is a question whether Trump may or may not be bad for the nation is despicable.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Ok
As I said the full interview is online. But now you are on record that Trump is not dangerous and calling him such, to quote you, "is disgusting."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and chuckled a little bit. Because her things? Not so much. She said Donald is very dangerous. That is not in dispute.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So you either agree that trump is dangerous, or you don't. What is it? These are the kinds of smears that are tiresome at this point
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)despite the gleeful way she expressed that idea would be less dangerous than a Clinton presidency.
she has been working before. and she really put her foot in her mouth this time.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Alas I disagree with her on the revolution because Americans prefer to watch house wives of LA.
But the OP is still a lie.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)being something to smile about. She fucked him over.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)The ball is in his court because she landed it there
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/susan-sarandons-bernie-or-bust-rant-too-peculiar-even-for-hillary-clinton-campaign-to-attack/
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Christopher Hayes @chrislhayes 2h2 hours ago
"Some people think that if Trump is elected that will bring the revolution." -- @SusanSarandon #inners
She doesn't care who or how the "revolution" happens, just so long as there is one.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)brush
(53,743 posts)so her comments are not surprising — still falling for the okey doke.
My oldest son has been saying the exact same thing for several months now. He's 32 and a college graduate, making a decent living. Been around long enough to understand how corrupt our governance system is and genuinely believes it will only change if its turned over on its head. He's deeply progressive in his thinking/philosophy.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)She didn't say that she did, it was some people. I saw the interview. She was very measured in what she said.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)she made the argument that Trump would work out- in the end- better than another Democrat. Sanders has said he disagrees. people do not need to spin it much- the clip alone will alarm some people. she really should not have done this to him.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Absolutely. The DNC needs to explode- they are corporatists and are just as polluted as the Repubs. The APATHY in this nation has led us to self destruction. It will take a Revolution to remove the ticks from the skin of this country. If Trump loses, Cruz will win and I for one will not stand for an evangelical government. I have lived in many nations and their people revolt all the time which is why their kids get free college, healthcare, mandatory vacations, paid vacations, and a voice in their governments.
Hillary is a corporatist. Tho a better choice than Cruz, she makes bad decisions and will not, under any circumstance fix the wall street enabler system that keep us ignorant, dumbed down and poor. She is a globalist, a war hawk and Congress will never assist her in any way. She is as hated as Obama.
Bernie wont win- its amazing he has gotten this far, but Susan and I would rather reboot with Bernie for 4 yrs than keep circling the drain with Hill, go back to the dark ages with Cruz or play blindman's bluff with Trump.
Progressive Avenger
(1 post)Botany,
Assuming you're referring to Ms. Sarandon stating she might vote for Trump to bring the revolution earlier, like most of us she's clearly in distress over the consistency of candidates that represent the moneyed interests becoming the front-runners. Like her I don't believe the policies belching from Hillary's lips - not for a second. She's taken Bernie's sincere platform, made it her own, and it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not from someone who garnered millions from giving speeches/talks to the unfortunately unindicted bigwigs of the big banks. Two Bushes were two too many and so are two Clintons.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)This is getting to be silly season.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)status quo and the Republican establishment is not praise for Trump.
Also, the observation that Trump would be so horrible that he would destroy the status quo and the Republican establishment is almost certainly correct.
Why are you panicking about someone who tells you a truth?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)his presidency would cause the collapse of the status quo and the Republican establishment.
She's fucking well right.
Do you really disagree for a minute that a Trump presidency would be so bad that it would cause the collapse of the status quo and the Republican establishment?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Not a single republican establishment type lost a primary this year to anyone... So her entire premise is flawed.
Trump may change the nation, but I doubt he'll change much about the Republican Party.
I know... Facts be damned, that's the usual reaction.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Because that is in the interview you know.
As to the health of the GOP, it is to be questioned.
(And these smears boys and girls is what will make people stay home in November. People are getting damned tired of this shit)
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And our country, but he isn't tearing the Republican Party apart and if there is one thing they know how to do its unite behind almost anyone.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Yes, the Rs are splitting. In a less obvious ways so are the Dems. I am stocking up on popcorn
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And that's enough to win.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Ending the realignment of the D's this year.
Look on the bright side, you might be able to finally jettison the left you guys hate.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)We are right there with you on most issues. This is a primary yes, but the general is coming and trying to split the liberal/democratic party is just about the stupidest thing anyone could do.
Bernie actually realizes that, wonder when the rest of you will...
ETA: I know you might not.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You keep telling yourself she, or her followers, are left if that makes you feel better.
And I am using this thing called political science. By the way social democracy is center left. Trump is a fascist. So is Cruz. And the parties are realigning. The Dems are going back to the business friendly, right wing party they once were. But hey, you believe the Rs are not in trouble. So we both are wasting our times here
Maybe some day Americans will become a tad more sophisticated about politics in general maybe then they will realize just how fucking voting against their own interests and how manipulated they are. I hope for all our sakes it is before the planetary ecosystem finishes its collapse and while we still have some time.
It makes me smile that no matter how powerful, the sixth extinction will not care.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And extensive reading into political systems.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Now that is a novel line of attack. At least you are original 
on that one. Points for originality. You are proving though the naïveté of the American voting public.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)By questioning my education.I told you where your perceived bias came from. The US is neither democratic in the classic sense, or with anything that passes for left. There is extensive writing in this in the academic press. I am sorry that this might come as a shock, but the last gasp of the Anerican left was the New Left of the 1960s.
That my friend is a fact.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)days.
When you say "not a single republican establishment type lost a primary this year to anyone" it begs the question: you are aware Trump is not the nominee yet let alone the president yet, right? A Trump presidency would destroy the Republican establishment, but the Trump presidency actually has to happen first before we can see the consequences of his presidency.
flobee1
(870 posts)Is now that he wants blackwater as his advisors, it would destroy more than just the status quo establishment.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)A Trump presidency would cause more regressive tax policy, deep cuts to social spending, increased military spending and greater inequality. Hundreds of judicial appointments would entrench these policies longer term via institutionalization of voter suppression, restriction of abortion rights and laissez-faire interpretations toward banking and corporate hegemony.
There's no evidence that this would lead to collapse of the status quo and the republican establishment. If past history is the guide, it would lead to increased militarization of the police and further repression of dissent.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Thanks for Bush/Cheney
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)status quo and Trump is 100% change.
They could not be any more different.
Maybe you are confusing "not a dimes worth of difference" with a comparison between Hillary and Gore-Lieberman. Still, I would say that Gore-Lieberman was a stronger progressive ticket so I don't think "not a dimes worth of difference" is a fair comment.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)who helped elect Bush/Cheney. Elections have consequences.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Bernie may be closer to 100% change - meaning embracing Obama plus going much further, while Trump is 100% chaos. If one believes that chaos is a stepping stone to something better you can make a case for Trump. Historically, chaos has often led to something much worse than the status quo.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Never seen it used for Trump/ anyone.
KPN
(15,636 posts)if she is nominated have never been invested in or actually (to their thinking) represented by the Democratic Party. It's the DNCs responsibility to win them over -- and the DNC has pretty much failed miserably to do that. In their minds, they owe the Democratic Party as it currently exists absolutely nothing. GET OVER IT -- or do a better job of bringing them into the fold by actually representing their interests as opposed to being the lesser of two evils.
You can jabber all you want about political reality, but ignore this particular political reality at your own risk. As they see, it's not their risk but yours (Democratic Party's).
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Your true colors are showing.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)The only issue Trump is better than Clinton on is promoting white male supremacy. So if that is the reason why you supported Bernie, promoting Trump makes sense. If it has to do with any of the issues Bernie claims to advance during his campaign, it doesn't.
The virtue of these kinds of comments is we can see who people really are and just how much they resent the Americana citizens that they would wish to see someone in office who would strip them the rights of the majority.
So much for anger toward the 1 percent. It's been clear by who the most virulent supporters of Sanders have targeted that what they truly despise are civil rights activists like Dolores Huerta, the Mothers of the Movement, groups that fight for the poorest women in America, like Planned Parenthood, or the Mothers of the Movement. You go ahead and stand will your 1 percent allies in stripping away the rights of the many.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)just that he would bring the revolution on immediately because he sucks so much.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Her comments are actually anti-Trump.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,564 posts)I thought he just had the racist, misogynist rantings of the guy who yells, "You damned kids get off my grass!" He's against a lot of things, but other than building a fence and keeping Muslims out, what is he for, other than "winning"? (Charlie Sheen for Secretary of State)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Stupid is as stupid does........
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Now wait for the "I agree" with her posts to flood this thread.
Wait... It already happened.
RandySF
(58,493 posts)It exposes those who are not really Democrats.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Should I support them just because of the D next to their names or should I say absolutely nothing about the policies they support?
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)
shireen
(8,333 posts)So what is she saying? That she may not vote for Hillary because Trump is so dangerous?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Anything to smear someone who doesn't support Hillary.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Sure sounds like a Trump humper to me
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
RandySF
(58,493 posts)is for Trump to trash the country and prompt her imaginary revolution.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Strong opinionated women have that effect on some people.
Apparently if women don't fall in line for Hillary they're too uppity.
RandySF
(58,493 posts)“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “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, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Oh that's right, she doesn't.
Damn uppity women, always citing facts and pissing men off.
RandySF
(58,493 posts)Did she learn that from the Republicans and Fox?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But hey, it's only a strong intelligent woman who's being smeared by a witch hunt and we've been don't count as real feminsts anyway.
RandySF
(58,493 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)RandySF
(58,493 posts)And her remarks would be just as stupid if they came from a man.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)To me stupid is making up lies about people and thinking people won't know any better.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The FULL interview is online. There is also a transcript.
LAS14
(13,769 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The witch hunt for women who don't support Hillary continues.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If you don't support Hillary you're not the 'right' kind of woman/PoC/etc. You don't count.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And there is zero self awareness as to why
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)People are tired of being ignored and marginalized.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But the left...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Madeline Albright wants to send them.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What else is new?
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Sarandon's words are toxic in the extreme.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Me thinks the corporate MSM is working overtime to get the most unelectable Dem as our nominee.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)As an aside, the interview is online. She did not say what the OP implies.
angrychair
(8,679 posts)Lead surrogates of a candidate calling another Democratic candidate a "drug dealer" or a campaign sending out pictures of the other Democratic candidate in traditional Somali grab as a "not like us" meme.
Saying your not sure if a candidate is American or Christian enough.
Your right, any candidate that does that should not ever run for president
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)completely change the status quo and the identities of the parties.
We currently think of the Democrats as the party of the left and Republicans as the party of the right. Trump would try (and probably succeed if we foolishly nominate Hillary) to break that conceptual distinction between the parties and redefine the split as a populist/change vs. establishment/status quo distinction.
When Regan did this, progressives lost all power for more than two decades.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)We'll all revolt immediately. Liberals and people with common sense will all united against the Trump agenda.
But if Hillary gets in she would be a lot more effective at getting things done because she knows how to get things done.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)The republicans haven't yet, and are pretty much walking him to the nomination.
Yes liberals will be mad, but we will be mad for four years while Supreme Court nomination are made, tax/business policy is changed, and jobs are decimated.
All in the name of "revolution".
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It doesn't matter what liberals support.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)If Hillary tries to take us into the same war, liberals will nake a nap and watch the Rachel Maddow show.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)How did that go? Remind me...
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Now the whole middle east is destroyed.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)She would be much harder to stop.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You haven't thought this through. Neither has the gleeful Sarandon.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)To say half of DU will cheer is to indicate that US liberals will be divided on the issue.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The far Left is either naïve or disingenuous, I can't figure out which is it.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who think that Trump is just dandy. This is the kind of idiotic thinking that gave us 8 years of Bush.
The Left assumes that everyone thinks like they do, well no they don't. If Sanders can't even get the majority of Democrats to vote for him, what makes anyone think that once Trump is in office millions of people would revolt? We would still be stuck with the orange jerk for at least four years. Sarandon's comment was asinine.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And lord knows you made me watch the interview (online of course) and that is not precisely what she said. What she said is that if Trump is elected this will bring the revolution. I don't agree with her. But that has to do with how passive the American people are. And I agree with her, Trump will be a disaster.
I just don't expect anything but smears any more. As to your comment of real democrats...that is also a smear, but that is why I am not one. I despise deep partisans. It used to just be one set of true believers. Now it is all
LAS14
(13,769 posts)“How about you personally?” Hayes asked.
“I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,” Sarandon said.
That bit of honesty prompted Hayes to stop in his tracks. “Really?” he asked incredulously.
“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump..."
That Sarandon even entertains the possibility of preferring "explosion" to a Clinton presidency marks her as no longer worth listening to in my book.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)LAS14
(13,769 posts)... an explosion is nuts! And she said that might be a good thing.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know this is hard, but context matters
For the record, I disagree it would trigger anything. The super bowl is far more important
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)A Trump presidency would be the new "We had to burn down the village in order to save it"?
mcar
(42,278 posts)
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)just the fact that trump would appoint rightist judges to the supreme court makes this comment false
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The headline is false.
The interview is online. You could, maybe, I don't know go watch it. Suffice it to say she is correct that Trump would be a disaster for the country.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)But, I guess when you're that rich, you feel safe and secure no matter who is elected.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Do you disagree trump is dangerous? There is this thing called the Google, use it to go watch the full interview.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I just think Sarandon has jumped the shark.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or you agree with her, because that is what she said. Full quotes are a wonderful thing. Full interviews are even better.
Free clue, these smears, we are getting damn tired of them
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Rough few days in my life.
I'll watch it when I have time.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know about rough days
BuddhaGirl
(3,599 posts)She would be well-protected if Trump became president.
The poor and middle class would not. Screw her.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... and, gawd knows there wasn't much left after the Nader fiasco.
You'd think she'd learn.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)The world would go to nuclear war, he stated it prior to her Chris Hayes interview. She should not be taken serious by any credible news organization.
Pisses me off to say that, I actually liked her once.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Oooof, these fucking morons never learn. Of course, Sarandon didn't get touched by the last bout of HTC nonsense - her kids didn't get their limbs blown off in Ramadi, nor did she lose her house and all her money in the crash.
Revolution? Fuck, these Naderite and Bernie or Bust imbeciles would hide in the basement at the first sight of it.
God, they're stupid.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The interview is online. You might even find yourself agreeing with her...trump is dangerous you know. I somehow don't expect you to get that out of the interview though. God knows I do not watch MSNBC. I watched it online. The OP is engaging in the type of selective outrage that has become a trademark, and it is starting to backfire.
LAS14
(13,769 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Go watch the video.
I am done wasting my time. Partisans!!!!! #%%}**#*+
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)So, his incredulity is no surprise. Neither is Sarandon's candor.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)More lies from the Hillary camp.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)claims there is no difference between the parties. Some people have to learn the same lesson every 20 years or so. And I used to think she had a brain. It wont touch her in the slightest so she doesn't give a shit. Fuck her.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The OP is lying. And these smears will cost your party votes in November. People are getting tired of this shit. It's online you know. You could, gasp, go watch it.
But I guess you disagree Trump is very dangerous because a strong woman said that. We are not missing this shit anymore.
As to Nader, when are you blaming the tens of thousands of conservadems who voted for Bush in 2000? How about the same group that voted for Reagan?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I was under the impression we were all Democrats here. Learn something new every day or did you finally feel free to let the cat out of the bag? I think donnie would be a disaster for women, for the poor, for minorities, for anyone who cares about the environment. I will vote for whoever has the D after their name. Anyone who pulls the lever for donnie is an imbecile who I will consider my enemy.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)So yes, it is your party.
And people are getting tired of these smears. To the point that it is now worthy of a news story. Between #berniemademewhite and a few others...yes, people are pissed. So yes, it will cost you votes in November
I don't expect it to stop, but the smears will cost in voter enthusiasm in November. Sow the wind and all that. These days we can check, the OP is at the very least misleading. I strike it as a lie stop it
LAS14
(13,769 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And Polly will not watch the video either
LAS14
(13,769 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I watched the fucking video
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)and cry "partisan" at every opportunity. Yet, you are quite likely one of the most partisan people I've seen posting here.
As to "your party". Does that mean that you're not a Democrat? That's my party. That's the party of those who you say "your party" to. If you're not a Democratic, you don't belong here, do you?
As to what Ms. Sarandon said, I DID watch that interview. I was appalled. It is in no way funny to think a "revolution" in response to an election is a good thing.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and by the way, I should probably point out that using the celtic cross given the antisemitic dog whistles, is a code in certain circles. You might want to check the ADL site for example.
As to what she said, I did not find it appalling, but then again I consider Trump that dangerous. Mebbe you do not consider Donald that dangerous... to each their own I suppose. Though I disagree with her that Americans would reach for their pitchforks, after all House Wives are on.
Oh and here is a huge news flash for you, The TOS does not preclude people from being independent voters and posting on DU, We just make your party work for our vote. Here is a further news flash fer ya. the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in my state, that be CALIFORNIA, have less members than the Decline to state "party" and at the pace we are going the Dems will have the same issues keeping the lights on if they continue to piss voters off.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You pack so much in here, let's see if we can unpack it a little.
Did she claim that there was no difference between the parties OR did she claim that Hillary's policies were so unacceptable (and the party apparatus' support (some have claimed rigging the game) for her so unconscionable) that it would be better for a raging lunatic to win the election? Did she actually say that, in such an event, the benefit of lesson the American people would learn (i.e., THAT ALL REBUBLICAN ARE JUST NUTS and should never be supported for ANY elected office) would be greater than the limited "benefit" of her policies?
Is your use of the term "Naderite" a way of suggesting that it was Nader's Florida voters who gave us Bush the Lesser? If it was, you might consider whether it was Nader's voters that cost us Florida, OR whether it was the craven cowardice of the DLC who sat silent while that sniveling racist Jeb Bush disenfranchised tens of thousands of disproportionately PoC by the blanket removal of convicted felons from the voter rolls because the DLC was worried about alienating suburban middle-right independents?
As for throwing rich folks who actually give a FRA about others who are not rich under the bus with that final exclamation . . . you wish.
I'll be voting for Hillary IF she gets the nomination, but your holier-than-thou establishment-splaining will have NOTHING to do with it.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Nader is the reason why Bush was elected
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)it must have been people voting their conscience. It couldn't have been the GUTLESS Democratic Leadership Council and its dedication to all things suburban middle-right. 
Now, I was going to link you to Greg Palast's devastating investigative reporting on the effect of the 2000 voter purge to demonstrate your "selective" blame assessment, but, given how NON-progressive Hillary supporters are so prone to attacking the messenger, I thought it better to provide you with a source you MIGHT not attack:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jun/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-revisits-floridas-2000-and-2004-vo/
OOPS!!!
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)The voter purge was beyond the control of the parties but the stupidity and arrogance of Nader is clear and that stupidity is the reason why we have bush. Again, Rove was contributing money to Nader for a reason and that reason was not due to voter purges. Nader's stupidity elected bush. There are other factors that could have also stopped bush's election but Nader's stupidity is easy to document.
I am amused when people try to re-write history to excuse Nader's stupidity. It is sad that Nader followers are still supporting this idiot
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)The purge was INFINITELY predictable and therefore preventable. The law was passed years before the election. "Voter protection" experts KNEW that Florida's "convicted felons can't vote" laws applied ONLY to felons whose rights had not been restored (and, in fact, would have violated BOTH the 14th Amendment AND the VRA if they didn't). They KNEW that, at the time, many states (including Texas) automatically restored rights upon release. They KNEW that THOUSANDS of Florida residents with felony convictions came from those states. They KNEW that they were disproportionately PoC. They KNEW that the DTS methodology was erasing these LEGAL voters. It could have been stopped IF the DLC cared.
Mainstream "voter protection" Centri-crats, however, just didn't care because they didn't want their suburban base to be thinking "Willie Horton" just like they don't want them to be thinking "Michael Brown" now (which is why Hillary will stand with a grieving mother BUT WON'T SAY A WORD about how the Justice Department wouldn't lift a finger to prosecute the MURDERER of HER SON or the accessories after the fact who covered it up).
Sure, if Nader voters had voted against their convictions, Gore would have won, BUT if the DLC wasn't so worried about being called "soft on crime liberals," Gore would have still won AND democracy would have been served. All the Pontius Pilate hand-washing won't take that stain off of the DLC.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)So are you saying that it was against the convictions of Nader supporters to do what was best for their country?
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)So are you saying that you should vote against the candidate you consider best for the position?
See, we can play these silly games all day.
At the end of the day, however, it remains a FACT that the DLC was more worried about getting "Willie Horton'ed" in front of their suburban friends than they did about standing up for a predominantly PoC group of legal voters AND that there were more than enough legal voters in that group to change the election.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)Sarandon was a Nader supporter and now she is the poster child for the Bernie or Bust movement. Nader gave us Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act. The Bernie or Bust movement could lead to the lost of the right to privacy and the overturning of Roe v. Wade
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)I was there. I saw what the establishment did.
No one is rewriting history. They are just demanding that the DLC/Third Way stop trying to wipe the blood on their hands onto the clothes of their CO-PERPETRATORS and then try to sneak away down the alley like they had nothing to do with it.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)I was there also and I had been in contact with the Gore people about going to Florida for the statewide recount when the SCOTUS took the election away. The SCOTUS could not have acted this way but for Nader's stupidity and arrogance.
Nader's stupidity and arrogance is the reason why we have Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. The facts show that Nader took sufficient votes to give Bush the White House. You can blame other causes but in the real world, Nader's stupidity was sufficient in and of itself to cost Gore the election. While other actions might have prevented the SCOTUS ruling, the actions of Nader were by far the major cause and such actions were sufficient by themselves to give SCOTUS the opportunity to steal this election.
Again, re-writing history is sad. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)First, friend, I may not be a DNC operative, but I was a civil rights lawyer for almost three decades, lived in Florida during the 2000 election, and represented (albeit on other matters) many of the same people you and yours could have cared less about when you were "bravely" standing up for people who looked just a whole lot like your suburban voter base. If you want to turn this into a resume contest, have at it.
Second, saying "the SCOTUS could not have acted this way but for Nader's stupidity and arrogance" is just regurgitating the same "it's all liberals' fault" diversion from the DNC's (really the DLC's) simultaneous, and politically-motivated, abandonment of convicted felons. To adapt your own phrases, "you can blame other causes but in the real world, the DNC/DLC's refusal to stand up for a group which was disproportionately comprised of PoC was sufficient in and of itself to cost Gore the election" and "while other actions might have prevented the SCOTUS ruling, the actions of the DNC/DLC were sufficient by themselves to give SCOTUS the opportunity to steal this election."
The FACT is that EITHER Nader voters abandoning their conscience OR the DNC/DLC having the political courage to stand up for an "unpopular" group WOULD have stopped the SCOTUS. The only difference in OPINION is that I am honest enough to admit that FACT and you are not.
Oh, just not to waste another post replying to #205, in 2000, you had undisputed facts AND THE LAW on your side. You didn't need the presumption. You had a purging method that Florida had admitted BY DESIGN purged thousands of persons who were still eligible voters AND you had statistical evidence that those persons were disproportionately people of color. You had actual aggrieved plaintiffs, not just an anticipation of future harm. It was literally shooting fish in a barrel. You CHOSE to abandon thousands of PoC to preserve your center-right image.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)The polling and the material presented are what are called facts in the real world and Nader's stupidity was sufficient to give the SCOTUS the opportunity to steal the 2000 election. I am living in Texas with the consequences of the arrogance and stupidity of Nader and his idiot followers due to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. You claim that the Democrats could have stopped the purges in 2000 but that claim is really sad and wrong. Right now, the Texas voter id law is suppressing somewhere between 8% and 11.6% of the registered voters depending on which study you relied on. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/10/voter-id-paper/ and http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/02/3745296/major-voter-id-study/
Rice University, The Baker Institute and the University of Houston found that voter id suppressed sufficient votes to give the GOP one congressional seat https://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/e0029eb8/Politics-VoterID-Jones-080615.pdf None of this would have happened without the stupidity and arrogance of Nader.
Finally, the fact that Sanders and Nader share a favorite quote does not help you case. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html
That quote was disgusting when Nader used and is just as sad when used by Sanders.
Again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. As posted above, the polling shows that Nader gave the race to Bush This is from the article that I posted above http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
In this type of polling is considered to be facts and show that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. I am amused that you want to ignore the fact here.
mcar
(42,278 posts)I was here during the 2000 theft. F#ck Nader.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)doubt even your claim of knowing the VRA. You can cut and paste all the articles you can find about the difficulty of proving the causal connection between voter ID laws and disenfranchisement of a protected class (not to mention proving their substantial infringement upon the exercise of the right to vote) without the VRA presumption all you want. I would even agree completely with what they say. They STILL have nothing whatsoever to do with what could have been done in 2000 in Florida to stop the purge of thousands of eligible voters. In 2000 Florida ADMITTED their purging criteria would disenfranchise all felons without regard to whether their civil rights had been restored by the state in which they had been convicted. What's more, Florida admitted it BEFORE the purge. The state of conviction of every registered felon was easily discoverable and, in fact, was actually contained in the Florida database. Same for the race of these felons. There was ZERO question about the substantiality of the impact. It was total disenfranchisement. There was ZERO question about disparate impact on a protected group. It could be proven with mathematical certainty. The DNC didn't even need the presumption. It only needed the will to stand up for a group of people of color who were scary to their suburban base.
You can throw out all the cut and paste about how tough it is to challenge Voter ID laws until the cows come home and it doesn't change what the DNC did in 2000.
Those, friend, are FACTS. Your desire to hide the fact that BOTH Nader voters' abandonment of Gore AND the DNC's kowtowing to their suburban base would have, independently and without any help from the other, allowed the theft of Florida's electors doesn't change them.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)Your inability to deal with the polling and the facts presented amuses me and tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the law here.
Again, ignoring the polling and the facts presented will not make these facts go away. Yes, it would have been nice if the voter purge had been stopped and it would have been nice if the butterfly ballot was not used but the facts still remain that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election according to polls. Heck, Rove funded Nader's operations for a reason.
The fact that you want to ignore the facts here is sad but funny
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)that thinking people might find it a little odd when I time and time again acknowledge that Nader voters could have changed the outcome in Florida in 2000 and you time and time again accuse me of denying that they could have changed the outcome?
Did you ever consider that people might think you were using the clearest straw man argument in history . . . after all, what's easier to knock down than a straw man that is already knocked down?
Did you ever consider that people might think you have NO DEFENSE to my point that the DNC/DLC could have ALSO changed the outcome in Florida in 2000 by simply standing up for convicted felons (a disproportionate number of whom were PoC) instead of worrying about getting "Willie Horton-ed" in front of their middle-right suburban base? When you utterly fail to dispute the FACTS I provided regarding how Florida had already admitted the factual basis for such a challenge BUT INSTEAD launch into a tirade about how you are such an expert in the VRA and paste in a bunch of articles about OTHER causes of action in OTHER states in OTHER elections, most people are going to figure out you have nothing.
You know that, right?
Tell me, is it just too hard to admit that, IF the DNC/DLC had not thrown thousands of Florida voters of color under the bus in 2000 because they were scared of offending their suburban middle-right base, Bush the Lesser would have had to ask President Gore for a tour in order to see the inside of the White House?
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)The premise of this thread is that Sarandon and the bernie or bust idiots are the same as Nader. If you like Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and other decisions from Roberts, then you will love what will happen if the GOP wins in 2016. If the GOP gets control of the SCOUTS due to the Bernie or bust idiots, then you can say goodbye to Roe v. Wade and the right of privacy.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)By the way . . . Citizens United isn't the only problem with American politics. It's also the decision underlying it, Buckley v. Valeo. Buckley was the case that said that money equals speech for 1st Amendment purposes.
From that decision forward, a millionaire had a million times more "free speech" than a single mom or dad struggling to raise their kids.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)but it remains EQUALLY TRUE that it is the DNC/DLC's complete and intentional abandonment of eligible black voters with felony convictions gave us Bush, Citizens United, and Shelby County.
BUT FOR the DNC/DLC's refusal to stand up for people who had TWICE been grievously victimized by racism (once by the racist criminal justice system and once by the racist GOPers purging Florida's voter rolls), Gore would have been our President.
Snuggling up to the right wing in 2000 cost Democrats TWICE. Let's hope that Hillary has learned something from history and won't repeat that mistake by giving the finger to the almost 1/2 of Democrat voters who are aligned behind Senator Sanders (like so many of her supporters seem to enjoy doing).
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)The polling posted shows that far more votes were lost due to Nader's arrogance and stupidity than due to voter purges or butterfly ballots. Your denial of these facts is sad but funny
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)But you, who really needs to go to law school before you start trying to play a lawyer on the web, are the one who needs to learn about proximate cause.
Here's an easy way to look at it (and I tried to get you to look it up yourself by using the phrase earlier).
If you can plug an occurrence, let's call it "X," into this sentence:
"But for "X," "Y"
and the sentence remains true, then "X" is a proximate cause.
Let's try this here.
Say "Y" is "Gore would not have lost by 600 votes"
IF you were to say that "X" was: "70,000 potential Gore voters voting for Nader instead" let's see how that works:
"But for 70,000 potential Gore voters voting for Nader instead, Gore would not have lost by 600 votes."
Because 70,000 is more than 600, the sentence is true. Therefore Nader's candidacy was ONE proximate cause of Gore's loss.
Let's try that for the DNC/DLC refusing to stop the felon purge (which, as I explained before, was simply a matter of not trying). "X" would then be: "the DNC/DLC not stopping Florida from denying thousands of eligible PoC voters with felony conviction their right to vote" Let's see how that works:
"But for the DNC/DLC not stopping Florida from denying thousands of eligible PoC voters with felony conviction their right to vote, Gore would not have lost by 600 votes."
Because thousands is more than 600, the sentence is true. Therefore the DNC/DLC's pandering to suburbanites' "Willie Horton" fears is ALSO a proximate cause of Gore's loss.
In addition, because Gore would have won REGARDLESS OF THE MARGIN, both are equally responsible for his defeat.
Now, go play with someone who doesn't know any better.
School's out here.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)and are a spoiler who only helps the candidate who is worst for the position.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)I was in Florida during the 2004 election as part of the Kerry Edwards voter protection team
Your understanding of election law is sad. Since the date of these purges the DNC has been suing to block future purges and it is not easy now that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was gutted due to Nader's stupidity and arrogance. A dozen or so counties in Florida were covered jurisdictions up until the Shelby County case.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)He was one of several contributing factors that included hostile, often dishonest, media coverage of Gore.
Unfortunately, many try to blame Nader as the sole cause. That is not fair or accurate. Conversely, Nader supporters refuse to take any responsibility and point fingers at everyone else. Both extremes are wrong.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)This is from the article that I posted above http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
In this type of polling is considered to be facts and show that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)just not the only one.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)It really does not matter that other events contributed to this event. The number of votes lost due to Nader's stupidity was sufficient to give Bush the election. Yes, some votes were lost due to the voter purge and the butterfly ballot but the sheer number of votes lost due to Nader dwarfs these events.
Under the law, there is a concept called causation. Nader's stupidity by itself was sufficient to give Bush the election
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)in and of itself to give Bush the election.
It really doesn't matter whether 1 potential Gore voter or 70,000 potential Gore voters ended up voting for Nader, the number of Gore votes lost solely because the DNC/DLC threw thousands of registered eligible black voters under the bus in order to pander to the "Willie Horton" fears of their middle-right suburban constituency was sufficient to Give Bush the election.
Under the law, there is a concept called causation. DNC/DLC pandering to the racist fears of middle-right suburbanites instead of standing up for the victims of racism BY ITSELF was sufficient to give Bush the election.
"But for" the DNC/DLC's decision to abandon PoC who were in desperate need of their help, Gore would have won.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)EVEN AS TO NADER VOTERS . . . so long as, among those "several contributing factors," you are willing to include the mainstream Democrat abandonment of convicted felons.
I lived in Florida and I didn't vote for Nader. I voted for Gore. I did so NOT because I placed winning above everything else, but because (a) Nader was (and I know this comes as a shock to those drinking the conventional wisdom Kool-Aid) not truly a liberal; and, (b) Nader was, in my two personal encounters with him, unspeakably arrogant.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LAS14
(13,769 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)
Amaril
(1,267 posts)On Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Susan Sarandon: Trump Might Be Better for America Than Hillary Clinton
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511600592
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This headline is misleading, Sarandon never said what she's quoted as saying in the headline.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:35 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: They quoted her directly. This is one of the most ridiculous alerts I've ever seen.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: not the poster's headline
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I almost never hide things, but if the alerter is correct here: "Sarandon never said what she's quoted as saying in the headline." then i dont like untruths or lies. i hope the alerter is correct!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It wasn't intended to quote Sarandon -- it was the headline for the article on The Daily Beast.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
B2G
(9,766 posts)On Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:27 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Susan Sarandon: Trump Might Be Better for America Than Hillary Clinton
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511600592
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This headline is misleading, Sarandon never said what she's quoted as saying in the headline.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:35 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: They quoted her directly. This is one of the most ridiculous alerts I've ever seen.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: not the poster's headline
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I almost never hide things, but if the alerter is correct here: "Sarandon never said what she's quoted as saying in the headline." then i dont like untruths or lies. i hope the alerter is correct!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It wasn't intended to quote Sarandon -- it was the headline for the article on The Daily Beast.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Jarqui
(10,122 posts)I'm worlds apart from the GOP on nearly every issue. So that isn't an option I would give a second of consideration.
But I'd be lying if I didn't admit I've wondered about what Sarandon said before she said it or something like it. I do not care for Hillary's dishonesty and what she represents to me and I'm going to have a very hard time with this. To me, she's a dishonest Republican lite and I have no idea what we're going to get except that I'm sure it will not be founded on progressive principles. It will be founded on a weathervane funded by big corporate dollars. I've contemplated closing my eyes and holding my nose. I've contemplated sitting out or 3rd party protest - focusing on battleground senate or congressional contests.
I've wondered if the email thing blew up and they replaced her with Biden or Warren - I could easily get behind that if we couldn't get Bernie. But it seems wrong to even think of such a thing. I'm "supposed" to hope for the best for the Democrats! Not that.
I have never had this problem in 50+ years of supporting Democrats and progressive policies. I've always supported the Democrat. Win or lose - always. I don't know what I'm going to do. It's not a good feeling.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Apparently the OP does not agree that Trump is dangerous...or this is a dishonest OP. Mileage will vary. I am getting tired of having to call OPs for obvious smears.
Jarqui
(10,122 posts)I agree that the op is misleading.
I also agree that there have been a few obvious similar ops of late.
It seems to be an extension of what her campaign floats in the media.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Gothmog
(144,920 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)The DLC is as responsible as anyone for giving us Bush the Lesser. See #109
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)See post 149
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Funny how the Naderites can never own the consequences of their vote for the narcissist Nader
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Then apologize
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Who crossed in 2000 had nothing to do with it by voting for Dubya? One learns something new every day. Of course the USSC had none to do either.
Prediction time. If Hillary loses Sanders voters will be responsible.
Gothmog
(144,920 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Or gosh darn it, the candidate. Just the voters. It is kind of adorable.
By the way, I can't wait for the day the dems have the same issues paying the electric bill as the Rs in Calufornia. They are doing a bang up job of driving members away. That is also sanders and Nader's fault I suppose.
LexVegas
(6,031 posts)LAS14
(13,769 posts)group of Sanders supporters. I think this is what's fueling a lot of Trump supporters as well.
“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.”
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)she is not a campaign surrogate. she speaks for herself.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Trump is a complete lunatic. No one in their right mind should even consider for a second that vile, vulgar, sexist, megalomaniac.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's a complete and dirty lie.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Fucked him hard, the idiot.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You're angry.
I thought she gave a sensible interview that echoes what people here have been saying for months. People that feel alienated from both parties are going to have a lot of thinking to do when it comes time to vote. She laid out all the issues they're struggling with and was very personable and knowledgeable.
Sooo angry.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)He should be. He does not agree with her at all on the "things will really explode" and the revolution will come crap.
We are not discussing the "sensible" parts of her interview- you seem confused about which of her remarks are being discussed here. It's the ones that Bernie does not agree with. She fucked him over.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I think Sanders would disagree, Sarandon came across very well. She's a treasure with a mind of her own - like most people I've seen here searching for what they don't see in the status quo candidates.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Bernie has already disavowed this scorched earth nonsense- he is supporting Hillary in Nov if he doesn't get the nod.
The "burn it down" folks may not like it, but he and Warren will support the nominee. That much is clear.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
It's a shame to smear and lie about a good woman and the candidate she supports.
(Btw ....... what time was this meme sent out? Is it hourly, or daily - just curious.)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The opposite of what Bernie wants for this country. You have no comment on the actual issue of her going off the reservation and promoting scorched earth fantasies. You have completed avoided acknowledging it, probably because it is so deeply embarrassing.
What a shitty surrogate she is, with this Bernie or Bust nonsense. Sanders does not want that. But some do not respect Sanders enough to follow his lead.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You interpret what she said the way you want - in this case, just another 'shitty' attack.
But when you can't defend the issues ........ I guess scraping the bottom of the barrel is all you've got? Hope you wear a re-breather, it's probably toxic down there.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)No, he has already said he will support Hillary- on the record. I know it hurts to hear it, but he and Warren will support the nominee. Sarandon went out on a limb, and it snapped.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Why are you making stuff up? Never mind, it's obvious ......
Sarandon spoke the truth - apparently it burns. 
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Can't make that shit up. What a fucking idiot she is.
polly7
(20,582 posts)and good for her!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)They are totally at odds on this issue. Bernie will vote for Hillary. Sarandon might just burn it down with a smile and a chuckle. Fuck that.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Especially when you have to ignore context and cherry pick to get it on with.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I don't hate. I am despised by many here because I won't join their little hate fest.
polly7
(20,582 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I am sure I will hear about it later- but thanks!
polly7
(20,582 posts)I just like listening to him.
He reminds me of what I've read of Tommy Douglas up here (my grandpa knew him slightly when he lived in Weyburn and said what a good man he was). Sorry ........ off on a bit of a tangent, but I really enjoy people who've never strayed from their principles and have worked hard for the right things for others all their lives. It's inspiring. (Reminds me of my Dad's life, too, actually.)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I don't think most Sanders supporters are this nihilist. But damn. They should tell her to STFU.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)It does provide a diversion from the issues so there's that I guess.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And she is promoting ideas he does not like.
LyndaG
(683 posts)Revolution? There wasn't any when Bush/Cheney invaded two countries. Doubt there would be one if Trump were elected (God forbid).
Susan is entitled to her opinion, but the fact is, she has the luxury of voting/not voting for whoever. For people like me, the differences between the Republicans and Democrats on issues like the Supreme Court and healthcare are very important and could be devastating and life-changing.
HughLefty1
(231 posts)I'm a CA voter and solely focused on Bernie right now. Based on all the bumper stickers for Bernie and the fact I haven't spoken to one person who has fervor to vote for Clinton, I really believe Bernie has a good chance to win CA.
I would never vote for a candidate who doesn't share my values with the sole purpose of revolution(although it might be a little fun to watch elites on both sides of the aisle pee their pants if Trump actually is elected). I will say that Trump is at least on the correct side of TPP and has the better chance of bringing jobs back to America than HRC. Unlike HRC who is backed by all the corporations and banks, Trump to this point has been self funding (although how he amassed his fortune to self fund in the first place is probably another story). Sorry I don't trust Clinton to not backpeddle on issues like TPP once she is coronated.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I predict he will say he disagrees with her, and she will stick a sock in it or disappear. It will only hurt him.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)anything at all. My feeling is he will be silent on it--unless some reporter really digs at him and he has to respond. just my feeling.
Also--a way to look at is this: It serves his purpose to have this group out there --?? how large it actually really is????--but it exists and is vocal in social media (and Susan S gave it a public voice last night (the #bernieorbust). What purpose?? Sanders is taking this to the convention. He will be short (if projections fan out as predicted). He can say---or use this group as leverage to --whatever? grand speaking spot?? --put items on the platform --or bargain for ? whatever he wants. . Just saying. --it is an ace card for him at this point. Granted--things can change.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Do you not see how divisive and polarizing your candidate is? Do you not see that the support she would need to win the general election will not be materializing? Why are you risking everything in order to insist on this person?
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)would be better for America. She is saying that if Clinton wins - the Third Way DLC establishment Beltway part of the Democratic Party will feel that middle-of-the road, incremental, safe, Republican-lite is the right road to victory. It will be 8 years of Clinton and very very difficult for real progressive candidate to boldly challenge her. I don't know when another strong progressive with bold ideas will be in the right place to challenge an even more entrenched establishment.
If Trump is elected - real progressives will be able to point to Clinton's loss as the reason to reject those Third Way DLC policies and more progressives in the Senate and House - and new ones looking to run - will possibly be emboldened to embrace the Bernie Sanders policies that were so popular. I think with a Trump win - the progressive part of the Democratic party will have a much stronger chance of seriously challenging the establishment part. I think Progressives have a much better chance of winning 4 years after a Trump presidency than they do after 8 years of a Clinton one.
Now . . . that doesn't mean I would ever vote for Trump. But I am still debating whether I could actually vote for Clinton since some things are very important to me that she doesn't support. But I don't live in a swing state so I think I may, this time, be able to stick to my principles and vote Democrat for any down ticket that is on my ballot. I don't know if I would have that luxury in Ohio or Florida. But I know I like the idea of not having to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils in this coming election.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)But after this interview I lost all respect for her. What kind of idiot thinks that it would be a good thing to elect Trump because it would accelerate "the revolution". A revolution that I doubt will ever happen anyway.
Dimwit comment........
senz
(11,945 posts)Haven't seen him in about a year, just watched the video, and it's like, wow: zombie time. He's hard now, elements of bully in his reaction to Susan Sarandon's honest humanity. That boy's soul is past-tense.
Sheesh! Is this what financial success does to "promising" young people? Chris Hayes done sold his soul? How did MSNBC do that? It's scary.
So is this what happened to the folks who saw through Hillary in 2008 and are now lined up like automatons behind her, can't even see her anymore, ready to practically die for one of the most artificial, unreal, unhealthy politicians to ever push itself up this far in the phony MSM-created public consciousness?
Something nasty's going on in this country. Some of us haven't drunk the new lethal Kool Aid yet, and looking at totally sold-out Hillary supporters is, yes, like watching a zombie flick.
Good lord. What on earth do we do now? 
What the hell is happening.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)She never in her words said that Trump would be better than Hillary.
What she does say is that she does not know if she could bring herself to vote for Hillary come November. Completely different from saying Trump would be better than Hillary.
She also mentions that people are hungry for comprehensive change beyond what we currently have. Then she adds that it is dangerous to follow the status quo, as the status quo would be "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, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around".
Both Sanders and Trump represent a so called "revolution" or "movement" beyond the norm. I think most on the left or have some sanity consider Trump to be dangerous, while acknowledging that the way we are going now is unsustainable and has its own perils.
I can not condone not voting however, as I think everyone should vote. However, that is me, and I understand how some people just don't feel like they would be able to vote for Hillary as she represents the regular way of doing things which many dislike as is and don't trust.
I have always voted for the lesser of two evils, it is rare for me to feel that I am actually voting for the right person at least in the Presidential level(I can feel really good about local races though). So in the primaries, now that I can vote for the primaries, I can actually vote for how I want. It feels kinda nice. I am sure I will vote for the Presidential election as well, no matter who wins the primaries, but enthusiasm may be down... I do try to defend both candidates from unfair attacks, but it is hard sometimes.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)compared to her hatred of the democratic will of the majority of Americans for failing to remember that she and those like her own the rest of us.
Sarandon is a fucking idiot who doesn't give a shit about issues. She's spent the entire campaign babbling on like an imbecile showing absolutely no familiarity with the policies of the candidate she claims to hate so much. So now that it's clear that Sanders can't win, she moves on to humping for Donald Trump in order to promote the White Male Supremacy that is the only thing people like her have ever cared about.
When she endorsed Sanders, she couldn't simply say she prefered him for x, y, and z. Instead, she had to insult women in the process by referring to us as "vagina voters" if we dared to vote for a woman. Now I'm supposed to be lectured to by her, someone who insists Trump is better for women's rights? She hasn't even bothered to look at Clinton's policy proposals. She is the one who insulted Dolores Huerta, came at her with a bunch of idiotic internet memes, as though Huerta was some halfwit with no experience with people's movements or policy.
Fuck you, Sarandon. You ruined one of my favorite movies, Thelma and Louise, because I won't be able to watch it without knowing how determined you are to strip the majority of Americans of their basic rights. Your contempt for democracy and equal rights couldn't be more obvious.
This from someone who pulls MANY millions shilling for Loreal and their cancer-inducing products and disgusting labor exploitation that keeps her in perpetual luxury. The word hypocrisy in the dictionary needs her picture next to it. She is a despicable human being. If a real revolution ever came, she and the rest of the filthy rich would be the first up against the wall. How fucking stupid can a person be.
At least the Tea Party is honest about what they stand for. Sarandon is promoting Trump, a candidate backed by neo-nazis, which makes her no better than them.
senz
(11,945 posts)Something doesn't add up, honey.
BainsBane
(53,012 posts)yourself with the policy positions of Clinton and Trump, I'm not interested in your condescension.
I can't do anything about fake "leftists" who stand with the billionaire candidate backed by neo-nazis. I can and will, however, speak my mind about their steaming hypocrisy.
I fully expect people who have systematically targeted leftist organizations and civil rights activists to stand with Trump. They have made perfectly clear through their actions that their enemy is not the wealthy or banks but the rights of ordinary Americans they will stop at nothing to strip away.
Nanjeanne
(4,915 posts)explaining why a Democratic progressive movement might be activated by a Trump presidency more than a Clinton one.
And. for the rest, oh my - yes Sarandon is an enemy to poor people, working poor, middle class Americans - and is absolutely looking to strip away citizen's rights.
That's Susan Sarandon to a "t". She who doesn't just post on a message board or write a letter to an editor - she who actively opposed the Iraq War, is actively against capital punishment, has been a UNICEF ambassador since the 1990s, works for organizations in support of LGBT community, served on the advisory committee for Racism Watch, marched with Code Pink, worked with FAO Goodwill to draw attention to the world's problems of hunger and poverty, is an HIV/AIDS advocate and a spokeperson for Heifer International, an organization that works to eradicate poverty and hunger through sustainable, values-based holistic community development and launched a campaign to fundraise for funds to finance the documentary Deep Run about a transgendered young man growing up in NC.
Yup - she's a loser - one of those bilionaire do-nothings!
Oh . . . and since so many people like to bring up Nader-loving . . . yes she supported Nader in 2000. But in the 2004 election she withheld her support from Nader and encouraged his supporters to join in supporting John Kerry in his election bid.
yardwork
(61,539 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)But she is a very good person.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)RandySF
(58,493 posts)I don't have a ping pong club to retreat to if Trump or Cruz become President.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its one persons opinion. the real problem for hillary is the reality that trump is to her left on several important issues, and can appeal to a ge electorate on both her right and her left.
she is toast in a ge. sarandon just gave a more public voice to that reality.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)She never said Trump might be better for America than HRC.
FloridaBlues
(4,004 posts)
joshcryer
(62,266 posts)Lots of people don't know what the Bush years were like, apparently. DU was founded against a psycho president, and here we have people agreeing with a rich privileged person who wouldn't be affected.
Planned Parenthood defunded day one. ACA repealed day one (that includes Medicaid expansion which helps millions of people). Those things won't help Susan. And the poor people it will affect are stocking shelves, flipping burgers, they're not going to go start a revolution.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)RandySF
(58,493 posts)She said she's going to sit in her ping pong nightclub and let Trump or Cruz get elected rather than voting for Clinton.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and voted for war.
Do people really think this thing will be won on Twitter? Spreading lies on blogs and FB?
I doubt that.
She said “I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens,”
I thought it was pretty obvious what that means ... if she can get away without voting for Hillary (3rd party candidate if there's no chance of Trump/Cruz.)
The interview consisted of questions, which had "CONTEXT" ... meaning they were asked either about others, or sometimes about her personally ... she answered those questions in the CONTEXT they were asked. She made it pretty clear which context she was answering in, but somehow Hillary supports get all confused when they have to consider CONTEXT ... which come to think of it, explains why they are Hillary fans in the first place.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)It would be hard to know which would be worse. I can count on Trump to be terrible, Hillary is blank slate of who knows what she stands for.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)The idea that allowing the fascist candidate win in order to "bring the revolution" is revolting on its face, and should be verboten among ANYONE considering themselves on the left, no matter who you support.
Again this is the mindset that allowed Hitler to take power in Germany - the Communists refused to throw their support behind the Social Democrats because they felt the Social Democrats were sellouts (which was true, the SPD were sellouts to capital, but they weren't fascists).
The idea that it would be preferable to have Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz) for that matter as President over Hillary Clinton is absolutely unacceptable. If you oppose Hillary, I understand, I'm not voting for her in the primary either. But saying there's no difference between her and Trump (like the KPD thought there was no difference between the SPD and the Nazis, at least until the Nazis started throwing the Communists in concentration camps) is ridiculous.
Absolutely indefensible comment.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And here we are again....people who are supposedly liberal/leftist, willing another Hitlerlike figure into power because their candidate is not winning the primary!
I have pretty much zero faith that humanity will ever rise up out of the mud when I see a rich mindless nihilist like Sarandon defended and held up as righteous on "Democratic" Underground by some people.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)and how history is being repeated:
http://socialistreview.org.uk/378/lessons-of-defeat
At the very time when the crisis of capitalism was destroying the lives of millions and Hitler's Nazis were making huge electoral gains (rising from 2.6 percent of the vote in 1928 to 37.4 percent in 1932) the KPD concentrated its attention on attacking another part of the left. It made preposterous accusations against the socialists, accusing them of being "social fascists" and "1,000 times worse than an open fascist dictatorship" (emphasis mine).
This article will not dwell on the theory of the Third Period itself. The notion that either the leaders, or the mass of workers who made up the base of the Socialist Party were "1,000 times worse" than Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels or Göring, was preposterous. That approach is so thoroughly discredited that no sensible person would draw a direct comparison between the Labour Party and the BNP or conclude that the former was more of a fascist threat. However, the nature of the mistake itself is worth discussing. (emphasis mine)
Vote your preferred candidate in the primary, support either of them against Trump or Cruz. Period. There is NO other ethical standpoint.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I'm voting democratic in the GE, Hillary or Bernie because the idea for a pig like Trump or a nutcase religious fanatic like Cruz in the white house is scary as hell and unforgivable for anyone calling them self a progressive or liberal to sit home and allow.