Susan Sarandon Explains The Positives for Progressives of President Trump

[TomCADem]

Under her logic, you would expect Susan Sarandon to advocate for more police shootings of African Americans as means of promoting community engagement in the black community and more college rapes of women to promote awareness of the exploitation of women.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-colbert-confronts-susan-sarandon-about-her-trump-statements

On Friday, the Late Show host sat down with Sarandon for a surprisingly contentious interview that saw the funnyman grill the actress on the aforementioned Trump statement.

“You said, ‘Some people feel that Trump might bring about the revolution immediately.’ A) How’s that going? What’s your assessment of how ‘the revolution’ is going?” asked Colbert. “Well, I’m so happy that you asked—not really, but OK we’ll get into it,” replied a visibly uncomfortable Sarandon. “Well, have you seen this many town hall meetings of people from all parties storming and knocking on the doors of their representatives and complaining and screaming and yelling?” “Not since 2010,” Colbert responded. “No. Not since the ‘70s, I think,” shot back Sarandon. “This is really out of control. Now there are town hall meetings everywhere. I saw one in California where they were screaming about ICE coming in and taking people. I mean, people are really awake now because ‘the cracks let the light in,’ as Leonard Cohen would say.”

The comedian didn’t let up. He continued to ask Sarandon why she feels it’s good that Trump, by being a bad president, is exposing the flaws in our political system. “Goldman Sachs has been in politics forever, and now we’re noticing because this guy is such a bozo that he’s just doing everything so badly that he’s not slick like everybody else,” said Sarandon, ignoring the fact that Hillary’s been dragged through the mud over her Goldman speeches for years—including by Trump. “All the fracking that’s been going on, the pipelines were all there before Trump got in… but now everybody’s awake, they’re energized, they’re calling their senators, they’re donating to all of these groups. You’re funnier, don’t you think? It’s doing great things for comedy.”

It’s a strange, Machiavellian—and frankly, privileged—argument: that the American public is learning a valuable lesson about the broken system by having millions of less fortunate folks suffer under a remarkably corrupt administration awash in cronyism. “Now when you say ‘revolution,’ let me ask you something, you revolutionary hippie: do you mean like revolution in the head, revolution in our hearts, revolution in political engagement?” asked Colbert. “All of the above,” replied Sarandon. “But do you mean like brick through the window, line the rich people up against the wall? Because revolutions eventually get there,” he added. “You’re watching the wrong movie—that’s not what we’re talking about,” Sarandon said. “No, I’m talking about people being engaged in the system, holding representatives responsible. We have to identify real progressives, people that are going to get us health care, college education, and infrastructure, and we’re in an oligarchy right now. And people were saying ‘we don’t want the status quo,’ ‘the status quo’s not working,’ and the only candidate, as stupid as he [was and] didn’t give any specifics, was the one that—I mean, it wasn’t Hillary Clinton. It was Trump. So people wanted a change, and now they’re getting something that they didn’t expect, but they’re writing and they’re calling and they’re young people. The millennials are on fire.”

[nolabear]

1. Sure. We're all just collateral damage if the revolution.

Except her. She's not. She's going to be just fine.

[bettyellen]

4. It's a metaphor to remember because the revolution was telling women and POC to wait too....

Same priveledged drivel.

[Scurrilous]

2. Oy!

[bettyellen]

3. She's such a privileged asshole. Good god.

[Cha]

26. "Susan Sarandon compares Debra Messing to President Trump"

snip//

The two actresses have been battling on Twitter since March 2016 when Sarandon said she wasn’t “convinced” that she should vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

snip//

She’s not very well informed and so sometimes she gets in areas that she really hasn’t thought through, maybe? She’s Trumpian a little bit like that,” Sarandon told Cohen.

“So, I don’t have anything against her personally. I just sometimes I have to say, ‘But you don’t have the information.’”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/susan-sarandon-compares-debra-messing-president-trump-article-1.3131328

She's a fucking idiot.

[NurseJackie]

46. Yes she is...

... a fucking idiot. (And all those who think as she does, and all those who defend her, and all those who vote as she did* are fucking idiots.)

-----
*Hello Alerter! Sarandon endorsed and voted for Stein.

[JHan]

5. Love your synopsis Tom. .. recommended for that (alone)

[lunamagica]

6. I can't stand that vomit-inducing imbecile

[Cha]

27. You.. Me.. Same page..

"Susan Sarandon compares Debra Messing to President Trump"

snip//

The two actresses have been battling on Twitter since March 2016 when Sarandon said she wasn’t “convinced” that she should vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

snip//

She’s not very well informed and so sometimes she gets in areas that she really hasn’t thought through, maybe? She’s Trumpian a little bit like that,” Sarandon told Cohen.

“So, I don’t have anything against her personally. I just sometimes I have to say, ‘But you don’t have the information.’”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/susan-sarandon-compares-debra-messing-president-trump-article-1.3131328

Lunamagica

[lunamagica]

79. Yes indeed Cha. Same page, as usual.

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2017, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[Cha]

88. Aloha!

[lunamagica]

97. Buenas tardes, Cha

[Wiseman32218]

170. Totally Agree

[Stallion]

7. It May Take 3 Decades to Recover From the Damage Caused by "Progressives"

....who were too idealistic to vote for Hilliary

[TomCADem]

12. Susan Sarandon Explains Why Shes Hopeful About Trump

At least she is consistent. Here she is cheering Republican efforts to repeal the ACA, because then things might be so bad, that people will then suddenly support single payer. Why not just push for an expansion of the ACA such as a public option or the Medicare buy-in that Lieberman killed? Who knows?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/12/susan-sarandon-explains-why-shes-hopeful-about-trump-video/

On Wednesday’s episode of “The View,” former Bernie supporter Susan Sarandon asserted that Trump is doing a “terrible” job, but that she was feeling hopeful about the passage of single-payer healthcare, which she advocates, because of Trump’s promise of change.

“Now, we have a chance to get single-payer [health care] through. There is actually a bill being introduced by Bernie [Sanders]. There’s a lot of other Democrats and Republicans. There are people that are Republicans that voted, they wanted change, they didn’t want the status quo. [Trump] was the only guy that was talking about change.”

Sarandon disapproved of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and voted for Jill Stein.

[NurseJackie]

63. The VANITY of "destroy to rebuild" ... she ignores the LIVES that will be lost. She's so STUPID!!

Fuck Susan Sarandon! Fuck her arrogance. Fuck her smirk. Fuck her career. FUCK EVERYTHING SHE STANDS FOR! Fuck her!

[apcalc]

176. As I like to say

" so heavenly minded they are no earthly good"

[BlueStater]

8. What a dense woman.

Jesus Christ.

[Zambero]

9. Sarandon. Sounds like a laxative product.

Except that laxatives actually serve a purpose.

[radical noodle]

10. I wonder how she thinks the newest

Supreme Court Justice will help progressives' revolution? I can't even watch her movies anymore.

[defacto7]

11. And this is the biggest Trump disaster of all...

so far....

[rpannier]

20. We saw how well that worked out between 32-38 for FDR

The Court struck down almost everything he proposed

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Was she on the Daily show again?

Oh, no, this is about that same appearance two months ago, isn't it.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. Your white privilege is showing Susan

[workinclasszero]

110. Her filthy rich white privilage

She's just loving the show Dump is putting on. It will effect her and her loved ones not one wit! She and her ilk are worse than Trump and the republicans IMO.

[betsuni]

15. She's the anti-Cassandra: wrong about everything that's going to happen in the future.

[Egnever]

16. There is truth in what she says

People are waking up and there was a lot of apathy.

It is also unmasking yet again the republicans as do nothing blowhards or worse destructive blowhards.

I would certainly never have advocated electing him to teach anyone a lesson. That said there are a lot of lessons being learned.

[JCanete]

18. exactly, not a gamble I was okay with taking myself, but I understand the logic, which is not

at all how the OP lays it out. The argument isn't would you rather have more pain and suffering versus less...the argument is that the pain and suffering is coming anyway, and those who have already been suffering it for years and decades will still be the worst hit. The question is, is it better to have it come in this tactless bull in a china shop way that makes such a clatter that it does wake people up, or in the slow and insidious ways it has already been delivered, that were going to get increasingly harder to challenge and fight against as protections like education, a quality 4th estate, etc. slowly continued to be eroded.

[still_one]

34. "Pain and suffering is coming anyway"? Excuse me, Hillary was NOT the lesser of the two evils.

That is double standard, false equivalency, bullshit.

Sarandon will always have her healthcare, luxury living accommodations, and food on the table, and she presumes to lecture those less fortunate about "learning a valuable lesson"

What an arrogant ass.

[Motownman78]

38. Pain and suffering would still

have occurred as HRC would have had to deal with a Republican House and constant Impeachment hearings.

[still_one]

44. The odds are if those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, had pulled their

collective heads out of their asses, the Democrats would have controlled the Senate.

So your hypothetical scenario doesn't hold water. President Obama got quite a lot accomplished in spite of a republican congress

[DanTex]

52. Yes, but there would be less of it. Which is the entire point.

Just one of many examples: today Trump is going to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. That will cause permanent damage to the earth. This is the kind of thing that people like Sarandon want to sacrifice for their "revolution".

[Hortensis]

117. Coincidentally, the right and far-left both "agree" with you.

We didn't lose the senate, and even the house, due to the same factors that lost us the White House. Must have been something or somebody else.

This is, interestingly, also the generic-conservative-fusion tone CNN and MSNBC use to please their advertisers and try to draw more conservatives from Fox. The giant "throwing" of this election to the Republicans did not affect any office but the presidency, and according to many versions not even that.

BS. Without the many-pronged subversion of our democratic process, we not only almost certainly would have gained a majority in the senate, and even perhaps control, but we would have gained more seats in the house and even had a chance to gain a majority there, slim but real. Plus, we would have taken more governorships, power would have shifted, or not shifted in a number of state and local governments, and we'd be filling over 100 important judicial positions that were already vacant.

And right now we'd be further improving an ACA that was already healthy and functioning amazingly well despite everything a Republican-controlled congress could do to damage it.

[Demsrule86]

138. So electing Trump was no big deal right?

Except it was...seriously...the GOP would not get tax cuts, repeal health care and threaten entitlements like social security if we have a Democratic president...LGBTQ folks would not be under the gun if we had Hillary to stop them. Our schools would not be in the process of being dismantled also...so there would have been far less pain had Hillary won...can't really believe you posted this.

[maryellen99]

45. Plus she can afford to leave the country if SHTF nt

[still_one]

64. Absolutely

[JCanete]

71. no it isn't false equivalency. I think we're headed off a cliff. The democrats often tac us...

mercifully? into the slow lane, but we aren't changing direction...we just feel a lot more at ease. They are governing. They are not crazy. But some things continue to march on. Some of those things Democrats provide a temporary defense against don't go away, nor do we fight them in a way that is so steadfast and unified that we galvanize the American people behind them. Which is why in the last 30 years, I can think of only Obamacare and Gay Rights where we've actually made a significant step, and as far as Obamacare goes, it could have been done in a way that was unassailable...but instead, we're in a position where it could be taken away. We don't use the bully pulpit right. We don't push populism the way we should. We let our weakest links drag us down. All of that continues to let big money at least hamstring if not dictate our agendas. Which is why the rich have continued to get richer, individual debt has skyrocketed, the prison industrial complex has continued to be an abuse of democracy...etc. etc.

And with or without the Presidency, that has amounted to a bloodbath for democrats at the local level of politics. I'm tired of us being the party that aims for baby steps in the brief moments that we have power, and most of the time has to play opposition party, where we tend to keep our powder dry.

[still_one]

81. gee, only two things. How sad. The Iran nuclear deal, opening relations with Cuba, preventing a

complete economic meltdown, saved the American car industry, enacted environmental protections, Appointing SC justices that do not subscribe to the corporations are people ideology, and I could go on, but I sure don't want to burst that purist bullshit bubble that gave us George Bush and trump

and yeah it is a false narrative, and Sarandon will not suffer one iota with her 50 million net asset. Another example of privilege

[JCanete]

91. Saving the american car industry isn't progress, its staving off disaster that was the result of

a shitty industry mindset that was allowed to go on for years, in the first place.

I'm not saying Obama did no good. I love Obama. Of course I prefer his Supreme Court picks, and I was pleasantly surprised, given who the FCC chairman is, that he went to bat for net neutrality. That said, I expect Democrats to put professionals...actual adults in these positions. I prefer more liberal choices and think we should push further in that direction, but at least I know they aren't going to be insane. Also, All of Obama's executive orders that I'm aware of were reliefs to me. But those aren't laws of the land. They weren't sustaining.

And I totally grant you the softening of hardline policies around the world. Those were good if only as permanent as the President in charge. Environmental protections are way way way behind, and that is also due to some Democrats historically having conflicting interests. It is good. It is necessary. But it has been a slog, again because we haven't been willing enough to pull back the curtain and make corporations the enemy of the people where they behave as such. Trying to thread that needle is slowing us down and making what we deliver less good. the money is consistently winning.

Gay rights and the ACA were major sea changes. Even in its beleaguered state, the Republicans are finding it hard to roll back the ACA. Had it been even better, it would have been a third rail for them. Gay Marriage rights are settled law. That's why I noted those two, and not the smaller incremental, and easily erasable baby steps.

We've done very little about money in politics. We've offered up faint protest. Because of that, everything else continues to be a temporary stop-gap.

[Demsrule86]

139. "had it been even better" It was what we could get at the time...

And had the autos not been saved millions of jobs would have gone with them...you have manufacture something...selling burgers to each other is not an economy that can work. I have a solution for all of this. Vote Democratic always. That is all.

[JCanete]

159. We passed the ACA on party lines. That means it wasn't better because of people in our own party.

That doesn't bother you?

I was entirely in favor of saving the auto industry, and my post wasn't to suggest otherwise. It was to suggest that that wasn't national progress, it was staving off disaster due to national regression.

[Demsrule86]

162. Yes...the Stupak amendment cost us single payer and yet Sen.Sander endorsed a guy who bragged about

voting for it...Periello in Virginia...it was what we could get at the time. We needed 60 votes...so it is what it is...and we won't get single payer anytime soon...let's save what we can.

[JCanete]

172. you really think that's what cost us single payer? nt

[Demsrule86]

174. We lost it in the House with the conservadems like Stupak. Nancy is tough.

She though she might still whip her caucus into going along with single payer, but the election of Scott Brown ended that chance. Obviously, we needed those Dems to retain the majority, but it limited our ability to get single payer. The worst part was about abortion though... the Stupak amendment even though it did not pass permanently changed how abortion was dealt with and had it gone through...abortion would not have been covered by the ACA and probably employer plans as well. We lost 55 and over Medicare due to Lieberman. This is the dance Democrats engage in... if we have moderates then we are not going to get some progressive goodies that I want and you want....if we don't have moderates, we are in the minority and get nothing and have to fight to keep what we have which is why I kind of understand why Sen. Sanders endorsed Mello and Pierrello, but while we need those candidates if we are to take back the government. I don't think party leaders (including Warren) should endorse them. It is our political reality.

[DanTex]

51. Yes, the argument is precisely that she would rather have more pain and suffering versus less.

Pain and suffering is not black and white. It's not a situation where "pain and suffering is coming anyway". There will always be some suffering, the question is how much. With Hillary in office, the amount would be much less. When Sarandon made the "things will really explode" argument, she was precisely arguing in favor of creating more pain and suffering, in order to "wake people up" and have a "revolution".

And it's not a new argument. It's been made over and over. For Lenin it was "sharpen the contradictions". In Germany it was "after Hitler, our turn". And, conveniently for Susan Sarandon, it isn't her doing the suffering.

[haele]

70. She forgets history. Too much "pain and suffering", people get lined up against a wall.

Look, successful "revolutions" where people "woke up" and things got better happened when the wealthy and powerful recognized the social tipping point and didn't go over it.
When the wealthy and powerful got too arrogant to pay attention to the rest of society, pretty near all of them - didn't matter if they were "good rich" or "bad rich" - ended up in the toilet with the destructive power of the mob. And it will take decades to recover; whole generations will be lost.

Chaos is very profitable if you are strong enough to survive and have enough resources to outrun the mobs. That's the risk the Oligarchs are betting on. Susan Sarandon threw her lot in with them, along with the other "Progressive Purists" because they think that destruction is a cleansing fire, and the survivors will go all Kumbaya, and we'll all have cute, environmentally friendly housing with daisies and parkland to frolic in.

But that's not happens, and will not be what happens. Think of the Banana republics in South and Central America for a more modern example of what is going to happen.
The relatively peaceful social transitions of post WWII Western Europe was an aberration.

Haele

[lunamagica]

87. She obviously has. I'd love to tell her that with her being an actress, the firts thing that comes

to mind when she says "revolution" is Dr. Zhivago. It makes me think of when he returns home after being drafted.

His once gorgeous, luxurious and huge mansion has been overtaken by poor families. I'd tell SS "Hey, I'm sure you are in favor of that. You love that. So why don't you take the first step and offer one of your mansions to poor families looking for a home?

[JCanete]

74. I disagree with you. It is that situation. Democrats have not taken on the forces that have

continued to make our population stupider and more prone to voting for Republicans. We cozy up to the big money and the media it owns. We don't call it out for what it is...corporate propaganda. It is destroying us. It is why we have Donald Trump. It is why most of the Republican party, as looney as they are, is taken seriously. The media has played a shell game on people where it has sold the lie that it is liberal, while pedaling horrible pro-industry policy. It has shielded republicans by spinning or hiding their stupidity and trashed democrats for everything under the Sun, and we just keep smiling and coming back for more, because after all, "you can't win elections without corporate money."

If it wasn't Trump, it would have been somebody just as bad or worse next time, because we have abdicated dealing with the cause of this massive condition of ignorance.

[DanTex]

78. Pointing out Dems' flaws doesn't change the fact that Republicans are worse.

There's really no getting around that.

Sarandon's argument is based on a false apocalyptic view of the US where things are so bad, they can't really get any worse. It's the argument "would you rather die of cancer or AIDS." We heard it also from Cornel West, from Jill Stein, and from Bernie or Busters here on DU last year. And it's stupid. Even with Trump, things could still get a lot worse. We could turn into Somalia, for example, that would be worse.

And things are now worse, with Trump, then they were before. Not in some theoretical distant future, but right now, there is more suffering than there would have been if Hillary had been elected. In fact, the first day any Republican assumes office, they reinstate the global gag rule cutting off funds to women's health NGOs. Right there, things get worse. And that's just the start.

So whatever theory Susan Sarandon has in mind with her "make things explode to bring on the revolution" thing, in reality what it means is more suffering for more people. And, yeah, I'm sure in her mind she actually believes that the suffering will result in a revolution and then some kind of utopia.

But I'm also pretty sure that she would probably feel differently about it if she was the one doing the suffering, as opposed to having other people suffer for her theory.

[JCanete]

80. i don't think the view is that things are so bad they can't get worse. At least it wasn't mine when

I was debating this internally myself. The view is that oh yes it can get a lot worse, and that all we have to do is look at the trajectory to get an idea of that. It's not enough that democrats calmly tac over to the slow lane when they are in office. We're still heading off that cliff...we're just all napping instead of freaking out at the person behind the wheel. The main problem remains, money is hamstringing polic and influencing public opinion, and we aren't putting the class war on the table. We need to because we need to make the big money that is letting our planet burn the enemy to the people. They're making democrats the enemy on their networks, they're just also funding them because they like a fall guy...they like the people to have an alternative...and sometimes the masses get restless and want to throw the GOP bums out. It wouldn't do for an actual populist to take the reigns in those moments.

If we are going to actually fight the things that are killing us, we have to fight the interests behind them. Otherwise, the best we ever do is slow it all down.

[DanTex]

89. The cliff of yours is the apocalyptic vision I was talking about.

The only difference is that your apocalyptic vision takes place in the future. But it's the same idea: once we get "over the cliff" things will be so horrible that it doesn't really matter whether, for example, women's health NGOs can get funding, or whether Obamacare gets repealed, or whether we pull out of the Paris climate agreement.

But in reality, there is no cliff, there is only better and worse. Even if you believe that the Dems make things worse slowly (which I completely disagree with), that would still better than the GOP, which makes things worse quickly.

And the sad thing is that we, and Susan Sarandon in particular, lived through this whole thing once before in 2000. The rhetoric was identical. Both parties are corporate sellouts, there's no difference, if you really want change, have let W win and then that will magically wake everyone up to the revolution.

That theory failed completely. Instead of a glorious utopia, the totally predictable thing happened: things got a lot worse for a lot of people. That's what's going to happen again with Trump. And then when the Dems get power again, they are going to have to undo the damage that Trump did, rather than build on the progress Obama made.

[JCanete]

93. I think the argument of mine you are missing, is that the Democrats aren't effectively taking on big

money and the Republicans in its pocket, nor the media which is in its pocket, and that if they don't do that, the baby steps they take in the right direction are fleeting...and the power they continue to cede to these big money interests by not fighting them is the reason we keep taking a pounding, and losing elections, and losing ground.

And of course we can't fight the big money influence wholesale, because to do so would be to paint too many targets on the backs of our own team. This problem makes us talk like stereotypical politicians, and makes us seem waffling on our convictions. It makes our offerings compromising and hardly revolutionary. We focus all of our rhetoric on the issue of civil rights, because we have to...the money has determined the battle-field we're allowed to fight on, but we don't tie that all together for people. We don't show them the connection. We let the people pulling the strings stay behind the curtain and we fight a culture war that is divisive, and we avoid or ignore those issues which might be galvanizing. We help them to divide us, and don't misunderstand me here, I'm not advocating that we cede ground on any civil rights...I'm not fond of campaigning for politicians with bad records on women's choice for instance...but if we never actually go to the source, there will always be new ways to divide us, and the people the Republicans work for will continue to win, and we will continue to get crazier and crazier offerings from the GOP.

The point is, Trump isn't a cause, he's a symptom, and we have not been treating the cause. Yes, this symptom might kill us, but its also showing us we're very very sick.

[DanTex]

94. I don't see how that has anything to do with Sarandon's justification for supporting Trump.

I agree with some of what you are saying, and there are also other criticisms of the Democratic Party that I have.

But that's not relevant to what we're talking about here. We're talking about Susan Sarandon's argument that Trump is good because he will make things explode and bring about the revolution.

Even if I concede your entire case against the Dems, it doesn't make Sarandon's argument any less asinine or any less privileged.

[JCanete]

96. Fair enough. I was talking about ways in which the Democrats have not been doing the right

kind of work to halt a very bad trajectory, and that as such, Trump, this pustule of a symptom, is partly a failure of their ability or willingness to advocate loudly to the American people the need to treat the disease. Which means there will be more pustules and boils,etc. unless everybody realizes that we're sick and need a serious diagnosis. A Trump Presidency has at least pointed out to many who weren't aware, that we are sick. Whether we diagnose it right is of course an entirely different question.

That said, I may be relying too much on my own justification(though I did vote for Clinton, because this shit was a little too terrifying, and because it looked like the left had a positive impact on her campaign). I may be straying too far from what Sarandon said or her own reasoning. I think that what Sarandon means by revolution is important. A political revolution is a reasonably sane thing to want, even if the way of getting to it might be on the brink of insanity. An actual revolution on the other hand...I think those go bad far more often than they go good.

[DanTex]

104. I think you are too hard on the Democrats.

I agree that Trump is a symptom, but the Dems didn't cause the disease. The right-wing did that. The think-tanks, FOX News, the Christian right, Koch Bros, etc.

And part of the problem is just the reality of the American electorate. We have far more religious fundamentalism, as a nation, than any other first-world country. Ayn Rand is not a thing in any country except the US. Creationism isn't a thing in other developed nations, but here some 50% think it should be taught in schools. Climate denial is another area where the US sticks out like a sore thumb. Anti-intellectualism. I could go on. The fact is, the American electorate is significantly more to the right than in say Western Europe, and that's not the Dems' fault. I used to live in Texas, and there, step a few yards away from a big city and you run into downright frightening political views.

The reason the whole "New Dem" thing came about in the 90s is because the Dems were losing election after election. You or I may not like "New Dem" policies, but what they were doing was responding to the will of the electorate.

I think the Dems are doing reasonably well given the electorate. I think Obama did about as well as anyone could possibly hope, sure I wish he had gotten a public option, and done more for homeowners during the bailout, but overall, he was a great president, and he improved the country a lot.

And the thing is, Sarandon and other far lefties with their revolution talk are totally oblivious to these realities. I agree, she's talking about a political revolution, not a violent one, but the problem is she's living in a fantasy world. And trying to get worse and worse Republicans elected in order to burn everything down and catalyze the revolution is about the stupidest idea I can think of.

Another thing, to have movement in the leftward direction, it's got to be more than just the Democratic party. When lefty voices like Sarandon and Cornel West and Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges and the rest keep talking their stupidity about revolutions and how both parties are the same, they are hurting the cause, not helping it. These are people, who have an audience, who are well spoken, and who could be contributing to improving our political situation, but instead they are helping Republicans get elected.

[JCanete]

113. I only disagree with what you say by degrees. Its complicated and I appreciate your arguments.

I have a couple of rebuttals and clarifications to my own, but for now, I just want to
appreciate that we can have this conversation without all of the demonizing that typically comes with it. I don't think Dems are bad or the main problem. I'm frustrated with their response to the problem and I feel like in some huge ways, rather than to fight it, they have perpetuated it, perhaps unintentionally, but a case can be made on both sides of that. Its worth weighing the best arguments critically, but generously. Assuming the worst intentions of those on either side of this issue isn't helpful.

After all, if the case really can be made that it is the Stein voters, etc. who got Trump elected, then bashing them for their horrible decision isn't necessarily what we should be doing. Its not what they should be doing either. We should be appealing to each other based upon our acceptance that we basically want the same things and that we just have different ideas about what it takes to get there.

[DanTex]

118. Fair point about Stein voters.

But a few things in response.

Of course, it would be stupid for Dem politicians to bash green voters (or any other voters, really). But when I discuss politics, on DU or anywhere else, I'm not acting like a political strategist, I'm expressing my opinions and exchanging ideas. My objective is not propaganda, it's simply having an honest discussion. If I were working for a campaign, I wouldn't say some of the things that I'm saying, but since that's not my role here, I will say exactly what I think about Jill Stein or anyone else.

Another thing, there's a distinction between green voters (or Bernie-or-Bust voters), and the prominent voices on the far left that are encouraging people to vote green or BoB. It's the same distinction between Trump voters, many of whom are voting against their own interests, and the GOP propagandists that delude those people into voting against their own interests.

Personally, 2000 was my first adult election, and I toyed with the Nader thing (I ended up not voting out of apathy, which is just as bad). Whether the Stein/BoB influence tipped 2016 is difficult to say, but in 2000 there's no doubt at all, based on how close Florida was. Well, the 8 years of W were a pretty serious lesson in political pragmatism for me. Yeah, Nader's schtick had appeal to my young naive self, but let's get real. There are consequences to GOP presidencies, and they are severe.

So it's hard for me to blame naive 20-somethings for falling for far left "both parties are equally bad" rhetoric, since I used to (almost) be one of them. But it's not hard for me to blame Jill Stein, or Cornel West, or Chris Hedges, or Jimmy Dore, or Susan Sarandon, or the rest. These people are grown-ups, and they are smart enough to know what they are doing, which is putting Republicans into office.

[JCanete]

102. oh, to this point...I actually think there are a couple things that are harder to come back from. I

do believe there is a metaphorical cliff, if not precisely defined at some line.

This is all still a little sci-fi today, but given the pace of technology, it is to me a real concern.

I'm terrified of losing net neutrality(yes I realize that under Trump this is far far more at risk), and the ways that future generations will have messages tailored to them, and everything they do and say tracked easily, and the ways that people will easily be discredited, character assassinated, framed or just nailed on actual infractions with ridiculously over-the-top designations, could make it harder for people to organize...could make people less and less informed, and worse as we see from Fox, dis-informed. The media was sooooo soooo bad post 9/11. So much worse than now in some ways, but that was still just the early stages of the post-fairness doctrine world. The internet saved us from a near total blackout of some important information, and has ever since, kinda sorta, been keeping our news begrudgingly "honest."

More automation also means that policing, even in a draconian way will require less people in the mix. Less people means less issues of conscience....less issues of empathy...less witnesses, etc.

I mean, I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat to protect against the microwaves or anything. I'm not saying this is literally coming tomorrow, or that this is definitely our future. I'm just saying, if we slowly let our protections get chipped away(and big money keeps steering us that way because there's a bottom line involved) we'll have a very very hard time recovering past a certain point.

[DanTex]

108. Another thing hard to come back from is climate change.

In fact, if I had to pick one "most important of all" issue, it would be climate, precisely because it is irreversible.

I agree with you about the slow chipping away of protections. But, I have to say, if you take net neutrality and climate change as key issues, then there's no contest whatsoever between Hillary and Trump. Those are very good illustrations of why Susan Sarandon's arguments are so stupid. Net neutrality is a goner, as is the Paris agreement (yes, it wasn't nearly enough but it was much better than not having it).

And now, whoever gets elected in 2020, there will already be billions of tons more CO2 in the atmosphere, and progress on transitioning to alternative fuels will be set back. Net neutrality will be a thing of the past, and will be more difficult to reinstate. Also, there will be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the forseeable future, possibly a 6-3 or even 7-2 majority.

And that's just the beginning of the bad things that are going to happen, or have already happened, under Trump.

[Demsrule86]

59. That is a check you privlege argument and the willingness to sacrifice others is quite astounding

with these low life's...who are every bit as corrupt and despicable as the GOP who are willing to sacrifice the others (poor ET AL) for their ideology...same thing...and Susie Q gets a tax cut! Win win for Ms. care- for- nobody.

[still_one]

65. You articulated perfectly Demsrule.

[Demsrule86]

112. Thank you...I can't stand people who sacrifice others for their ideology...which is what the

so called far far left ...greens mostly do.

[JCanete]

115. what about when people sacrifice people, to the tune of 100,000 for political expedience? nt

[Demsrule86]

137. Your post makes no sense to me...who are you referring to?

[JCanete]

158. how about anybody who voted for the Iraq invasion, which killed 100,000 Iraqis.

[Demsrule86]

163. Hahah...you mean like most Democrats who were there at the time? A big who cares.

Democrats were lied to like everyone else...no one even mentioned Kerry's vote.

[JCanete]

171. no fucking way. There were plenty of people telling the truth at the time, in the know, and calling

bullshit.

How can you possibly say its a big who cares, in the context of what we're actually talking about? In the context of your own previous statements?

And what about Manchin and Gorsuch? You think its unwise to try to unseat a man who just voted to put that fucker on the court, as if that has no longstanding consequences that is going to hurt people.

The reality is that politics, no matter where you sit on the spectrum, is messy. You want to pretend that seated establishment dems haven't also chosen winners and losers, or made decisions that caused people to suffer in the interest of compromise, or whatever other reasons, and that its the cynical lefties who are the ones doing all the harm.

[Demsrule86]

175. Twenty Dem votes or so in the Senate and 193 I think in the House.

And I am proud of those Dems who took a stand, but a vote taken over a decade ago is not a reason to punish Democrats today. I do not understand why it is even brought up...Kerry ran without a peep...but Clinton was attacked relentlessly and what did we get? Trump...so I don't give a damn who voted for a war over a decade ago after we had been attacked and where Bush and Cheney lied to everyone...vote Democratic always.

[JCanete]

178. all of this was in the context of you saying you can't understand people sacrificing people for

their ideology. I asked, "what about for political expedience?" This has nothing to do with when something occurred, nor does it have to do with my own level of forgiveness, or understanding of why people might make such a decision, despite the horrendous consequences. It has to do with you being forgiving of certain people sacrificing others at the altar of politics, and not other people, who's politics you don't agree with. There is an inconsistency to it, because you are perfectly fine with Democrats letting the prison industrial complex fester for decades, and even supporting that ideology, or at least, those are people not worthy of being despised. You are perfectly okay with Iraq war votes, etc. But when people refuse to sign on to that history, you call them the monsters in their ivory towers.

[Demsrule86]

179. I still maintain the Congress was lied to just like the American people

and believe it is apples and oranges in any case and over a decade ago. It is damned hard to say no to a sitting president especially after we were attacked, and when he has evidence that is later proven untrue....and since Kerry was not haunted with this accusation, I also wonder it it is an excuse. Those who considered Trump a better presidential choice than Clinton (called themselves progressive which they are not) literally sacrificed people for their own ideology because we know what the GOP will do always. And Trump made it very clear what his agenda would be. And, I find it telling that the far far left or whatever you call them -left is not appropriate - has little compassion or empathy for the people they stabbed in the back when they helped elect Trump.... kind of like the far right if you ask me. And the result is always the same with these folks: spoiled elections and the loss of decades old progressive policies...we also lose the courts...we lost two seats in the Bush years thanks to Nader and the usual suspects which lead to United...and God knows how many seats we lose this time. It is hilarious to see these folks talk about 'corporate Democrats' (no such thing) when they ushered in all the money in 2000 when they tipped the election to Bush. This has had a devastating affect on our elections.

[JCanete]

75. no it isn't. It would be if you thought choosing a different path would be better for those who

are suffering. If you think it won't be, and that in fact they will get even worse treatment over time because of a steady attrition that is not being addressed, and that they will be joined with the former middle class to boot, then it is entirely legitimate to try to shake things up while they can still be shaken up.

You can argue that that's all a misread, but you shouldn't assume because it fits your world-view, that this must just be because she or others are okay with other people suffering. That's too damn convenient.

[Demsrule86]

111. she doesn't give a damn about others suffering...she needs a revolution so she can feel alive...

worthless excuse for a person...I disagree completely with your take...and the idea that we can crush people now because we are saving them from a worse crushing later is always advanced by those who will not be crushed now or later...She is a worthless person and a scourge on humanity. I despise her.

[JCanete]

114. That's not the idea I'm putting out there. People are being crushed, perpetually. Trump comes along

and makes it fucking obvious that that is his will. we're going to try to stop him from doing it, that's what we're going to do. We're going to fight him, not just wait for the next round and pick up the pieces in the wake of it. Your characterization of Sarandon is something you couldn't possibly know. You don't like her position, so this is your filter for her. Did you also despise her when she was one of the few voices out front saying no to the Iraq invasion? When she was on a GOP deck of public enemies? Is it possible to find any nuance?

[Demsrule86]

141. Nothing could be worse than Trump ...and if you die because you lose

your health insurance, it doesn't get worse for you. Also the environmental damage may not be fixable...when I read your posts, I get a glimpse into the 'tear it down' philosophy which in my opinion will never work...you tear it down...it stays down while people fight over scraps...this is the reality that has been seen over and over again everywhere.

[lunamagica]

82. I always think that those who hold this view are those who will not be affected, like SS

and apparently you.

Please, send this post to people who will die or lose a child when they lose they insurance. See if they agree.

It baffles me to read stuff like this on a Democratic site.

[Demsrule86]

142. The so called left of left or whatever they call themselves share the GOP's indifference towards

the well being of individuals;sick children or starving older folks leave them unmoved...and they speak of the 'greater good' and the importance of staving off suffering 'later' like the GOP. How many times have the GOP talked about the implications of a policy based on their Grand-kids? There is no such thing as the greater good. Live in the moment. It is our duty now at this moment to save as many innocents as we can...we are Democrats not evil Republicans willing to sacrifice people for our ideology. We do not advocate a 'let it all go to hell' and then we can pursue our agenda.

[lunamagica]

160. ICAM. I'm just baffled to encouner this coldness and indifference to the suffering of the most

vulnerable in our society on a Democratic forum. It's just appalling.

[Demsrule86]

161. I am too...it is shocking.

[QC]

83. Ooooooo...you're gonna get it now!

You spoke in defense of The Great Satan!

[Demonaut]

17. The Grapes of Wrath

[That Guy 888]

19. Shouldn't this have been posted two months ago... when it happened?

Was it Susan Sarandon, the Russians, Comey, or a poorly run campaign? Why go on about it now?

Is this post to distract from super-delegates appointing a pharma lobbyist who opposes a November ballot measure that would cap prescription drug prices in California as head of the Democratic Party in California?

[BlueStater]

21. Oh, thanks for pointing that out.

People do this all the time and it's obnoxious. I assume the OP saw a link to this article in another article he was reading, wasn't aware of it when it actually happened, and thought it was brand new.

[Cha]

24. I know it's older but it's still relevant.

[tonedevil]

35. Like any dead horse...

it can always be beaten if you're feeling a little blue.

[DanTex]

53. The horse isn't dead. It's in the white house.

[tonedevil]

121. Try to keep up...

the OP is about Susan Sarandon I realize you belive her to be one of the most powerful people in US politics, but I am pretty sure she isn't President of the US.

[DanTex]

124. Who said she's one of the most powerful people in US politics?

Not me. She's just one person in the Trump coalition.

[tonedevil]

125. She occupies a lot...

of your discourse on this political blog. By constantly reviewing and reacting to her political utterances you indicate to me it you think her important enough to challenge. I find her to be a political dilitant and I wonder why anyone cares what she thinks about political affairs.
Any time spent analyzing or reacting to what she has to say is time that could be spent analyzing and reacting to actual political situations that involve actual political powers. If you enjoy Tigerbeat politics I probably can't get to a point where I think you serious.

[DanTex]

126. Like I said, she's part of the Trump coalition, so it makes sense that people would talk about her.

Yeah, there are a lot of posts on DU challenging things that Trump supporters say. No kidding.

I'm not sure why you object to the Susan Sarandon posts in particular. I think all parts of the Trump coalition are worthy of being challenged.

[tonedevil]

128. It's not just Ms. Sarandon...

Dr. Stein is playing at politics as well. If you want to play politics and she occupies your political discourse you lack the seriousness to understand why we are fucked. Consider moving past the spectacle of celebrity politics and try to pay more attention to the real players. They are laughing at how easily they distract with shiny celebrities.
There is a lot more to politics than Presidential elections. In less than one year a serious election is going to be fought that gives a chance to change the political direction maybe 90 degrees in what I consider the correct direction. Are you ready to work towards the very real and do-able goal of getting back Congress? Or do you want to try to shame abstainers and third-party voters into apologizing?

[DanTex]

130. Of course it's not just Sarandon.

Stein, Cornel West, Chris Hedges, etc. There are a lot of Trump enablers on the far left. And they've managed to tip two presidential elections to the GOP in the last 16 years.

I'm not trying to shame anyone into apologizing, I'm just calling out people who helped put Trump into office.

[tonedevil]

132. Does your calling out..

have a purpose or do you just like to be the I-told-you-so on the deck of the Titanic?

[DanTex]

133. Well, this is a political message board, where people express opinions about political topics.

And, being a Democratic message board, it's not surprising that people here are calling out members of the Trump coalition. Out of curiosity, if I were calling out another Trump supporter besides Susan Sarandon (let's say Tucker Carlson), would you be objecting this strongly?

[tonedevil]

134. If you want to fight...

Tucker Carlson you are still in the kiddie pool of politics. He's put where he is as a distraction. If you want to be serious stop eating the bread and laughing at the clowns in the circuses. Find out which Senate seats are up for re-election and do the work to help turn Republican seats and retain Democratic ones. That can mean going door to door or phone banking. If you are in that position monetary contributions. Congress is way up for grabs basicly every two years. This round more than most.

[DanTex]

135. Obviously, when I'm posting on DU, I'm not knocking on doors, and neither are you.

Like I said, this is a discussion board, and I come here because I enjoy talking politics with fellow Democrats. Calling out Trump enablers like Susan Sarandon and Tucker Carlson is exactly the kind of thing that happens on progressive message boards. If you think that online political discussions are a waste of your time, you are free to stop doing it.

As for me, I don't have much difficulty both posting on message boards and also writing contribution checks. And I even find time to eat meals, go to the gym, watch a movie, and any other number of activities.

[tonedevil]

136. Call out all you like...

it is a completely impotent gesture so no-one cares if you do. I hope for serious discourse on a political blog and I am frequently disappointed. Your route is clearly the more popular. If you like chiding celebrities for their part in the state of politics perhaps you should try shaking your fist at the clouds when they block the sun.

[DanTex]

140. LOL. So my callout is "impotent" but you calling out of my callout isn't?

You think what you are doing here is "serious discourse"? Because instead of chiding right-wingers you are chiding me?

Yeah, you're doing reaaal heavy lifting, going on a Democratic message board and criticizing Democrats for criticizing Republicans. If only there were more dedicated public servants like you...

[tonedevil]

147. Do you think...

Dr. Stein will run for president next cycle? Will Susan Sarandon be critical of the Democratic candidate? Providing either or both of those things occur is there anything you think Democrats should do differently to prevail? All I hear is more of the same. Trying to convince unconvinced voters they have no choice. I should think we can see in light of donald some people took another choice despite rhetoric that they could not. LOL as you like I don't really get your humor. I would like to see Democrats win the office not just the popular vote.

[DanTex]

148. If not Stein, someone else will be on the Green ticket.

And I think that, not just Democrats, but all progressives need to continue to hold people like Stein, West, Nader, Sarandon accountable for the damage they do to progressive causes. Colbert did a good job in this clip, as did Bill Maher a few weeks ago, pointing out how asinine it was for Cornel West to now complain about Trump, a man he helped put into office.

It's precisely because they're not going away that they need to keep being called out. The Greens have been steady allies of the GOP for two decades now, so it would be very foolish for the Dems to take your advice and just forget/ignore them and move on. Because come 2020, they are going to be right there doing everything in their power to help Trump get re-elected.

Having said that, I do think they will be less effective next cycle. It's harder to push the "both sides are the same" line when there's an actual Republican president. In 2000 and 2016, after 8 years of a Democratic administration, some people are vulnerable to that kind of talk because they have forgotten just how bad the GOP is.

[Cha]

69. Nah, I bet she's still out there spreading her

evil stupid LIES.

[tonedevil]

120. You be sure to...

vote against her in the next election. She needs to be out of public office.

[Cha]

123. They don't have to run for office to be a menace

to the Planet.

[lapucelle]

29. Bauman was elected head of the CDP.

Shouldn't this have been posted 10 days ago when it happened?

[Doug the Dem]

22. Dear Susan,

Please take that sanctimonious ideological purity and {Censored by DU} it all the way up [Censored by DU}, you cloistered, comfortable {Censored by DU}.

[Cha]

23. susan sarandon is Full of Shyte.. Good on Colbert confronting her

her selfish elite privileged white ass.

Here's another older article that's still fucking relevant..

She's a fucking idiot..

"Susan Sarandon compares Debra Messing to President Trump"

snip//

The two actresses have been battling on Twitter since March 2016 when Sarandon said she wasn’t “convinced” that she should vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

snip//

She’s not very well informed and so sometimes she gets in areas that she really hasn’t thought through, maybe? She’s Trumpian a little bit like that,” Sarandon told Cohen.

“So, I don’t have anything against her personally. I just sometimes I have to say, ‘But you don’t have the information.’”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/susan-sarandon-compares-debra-messing-president-trump-article-1.3131328

[rpannier]

25. Well isn't she just the little ole Polly Anna

Much of the back and forth I've heard and been part of can be debated in good faith
But...shit like "...we’re in an oligarchy right now." Yep. And you helped create that Sarandon
"...he’s just doing everything so badly that he’s not slick like everybody else,” asinine and absurd to see that as a positive

Her argument comes straight out of the books of such men as Pyhrrus, Marlborough, William Howe, etc. The body count doesn't matter. In this case, the pikers beneath her on the economic ladder
She sounds like some of the raving lunatics of the Bolshevik, Khmer Rouge and the politicos in the split of India.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. "raving lunatics of the Bolshevik" - got any specific examples or is this just

generic, garden-variety red baiting?

[Mike Nelson]

28. This confirms my...

...suspicions about Ms. Sarandon. She always seemed to be working for Trump.... turns out, she was. Real people suffer for her aims, which may not even be as altruistic as she claims.

[Demsrule86]

32. Yeah, she gets a giant tax cut if he gets his heinous tax bill through doesn't she?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. She's an excellent actress but not very smart on politics. Nt

[tonedevil]

127. In my experience...

after actors the only celebrities less qualified to discuss politics are those who are famous by way of athletic prowess. I wish US voters were less influenced by bread and circuses.

[Demsrule86]

31. Susan Sarandan makes me sick.

She reeks of privilege and is stupid to boot...there is no revolution and the damage to our country and the loss important progressive achievements and the courts is staggering. Susan go fuck yourself...you and your pals fucked the country but good and there is literally blood on your hands.

[still_one]

33. "the American public is learning a valuable lesson". What a bunch of bullshit. How many people

are going to be hurt or die because of this?

Sarandon is an arrogant ass, and an idiot, who will always have her healthcare, luxury living accommodations, and something to eat, yet she presumes to lecture those less fortunate about "learning a valuable lesson"?

Go to HELL Sarandon

[Motownman78]

39. It took the Great Depression

to usher in the New Deal and FDR. I am sorry, but Americans are individualistic and don't generally give a damn about anything until it affects them.

[still_one]

60. That is a straw man argument. When an accident occurs, a determination is done to find its cause,

and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence. That happens at all levels.

To make a conclusion from that, that Americans don't give a damn about anything until it affects them, is a false equivalency.

There are plenty of examples where Americans have done and voted for things that did not currently benefit them, but simply because they were for greater good of society, or because they did it with the intent that it would help someone less fortunate than themselves.

Americans donate billions of dollars to charities every year, and it isn't because it benefits them.

The EPA, Civil Rights Act, food stamps, OSHA, etc. are widely supported policies, that are supported by people who are not affected by them

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is created to benefit ills in the world, not because it personally benefits Bill and Melinda Gates, and yes the same thing hold for the Clinton Foundation, UNICEF, CARE, and other charitable groups out there.

As for Sarandon's views, she can take her 50 million dollar net worth, and go to hell.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[Motownman78]

164. Let me modify that

People who are part of the "ME" culture don't give a damn until it affects them.

[still_one]

165. ok

[NurseJackie]

67. LOL (Nice try.)

[Demsrule86]

144. Ah...we came damn close to losing our Republic during the great depression.

And I doubt we could withstand another...you know by most estimates five million people died in the early days of the great depression right? I don't see how any self respecting progressive could wish that upon anyone. I would think folks who are very privileged like Sarandon might see that as a good plan...However, the rest of us not so much...I have little desire to see my family and friends starve.

[JHB]

36. Eff Off, rich lady who will never face medical bankruptcy...

...who doesn't stand to have her family torn apart, who won't be poisoned by unrestrained polluters, ...

...who won't take anything on the chin except some harsh language.

Who sees other peoples' pain and thinks it's a good thing.

[Buckeyeblue]

37. The premise of her argument was wrong

Under her premise the status quo under Obama was not good. I would argue the opposite. Not only had Obama pulled the country from near economic collapse, the economy had recovered. We were getting to a place that Clinton could have used the economic momentum to leverage some of the progressive policies that are just distant hopes now.

Her argument is vacuous. You can have change, positive change, continued change, without having to burn it all down first.

Reading this just pissed me off. Sarandon revealed herself as intellectually lacking.

[OilemFirchen]

40. I'm so glad my house burned down.

I always hated the colors the previous owners had picked.

[KingCharlemagne]

41. White, upper-middle-class privilege - nt

[DanTex]

42. Many on the far left prefer to complain than to make progress.

With a Dem in office, people's lives get better, but there is less to complain about. With Trump in office, people suffer, but the "upside" is that there is more complaining and protesting.

You logic is spot on. The "awareness" is the end goal of these people, not improving people's lives.

[NCTraveler]

47. She is a right wing enabler.

An enemy to progressives.

[Initech]

48. If you support Trump or his policies, you are not a progressive.

Period. End of debate.

[themaguffin]

49. I'm ok with not hearing her very privileged opinion.

[Abu Pepe]

50. gee thanks rich lady

And I thought losing my insurance was gonna be bad.

[mhw]

54. Yippee..isn't chaos funnn! weee..

Sarandon speaks for all the voices in her head.

[JTFrog]

55. No, democracy is on fire you fucking idiot. But hey, go make some of those champagne popsicles.

Better the millennials get shit on and have to suck it up than bricks through the windows and rich people lined up against the wall, right? Because that's why you were really afraid of Hillary isn't it? She might have taken some of your precious money and fed, housed, clothed, protected, educated, or in any other way help those less fortunate.

Your privilege is showing. Again.

[Goodheart]

56. Setting the house on fire in order to avoid an explosion

doesn't sound like a rational strategy to me.

[Volaris]

57. She's stuck on the maxim 'never let a good crisis go to waste'.

The gift of good government and the politics and policies that elect it, is that you don't have to HAVE THE crisis before you can solve real problems.

She's advocating open heart surgery for an arrhythmia, when the correct medication will do the job just fine.
What she's advocating for is dumb and fucking dangerous, as well as unnecessary.
Fuck her.

[Orrex]

58. Dammit, Janet.

And yes, I will use that joke until they pry it from my cold, dead funnybone.

[Gothmog]

61. Susan Sarandon is an idiot

I do not care about her lame excuses

[NurseJackie]

62. Ahhh... the voice of PRIVELEGE. So glad she can AFFORD the LUXURY of "destroy to rebuild".

You know what? FUCK YOU, Susan Sarandon!! Yeah, that's right... FUCK... YOU and that smug know-it-all grin!! It must be nice that you can afford to sacrifice OTHER people's lives (literally) in your quest for political purity... you VAIN ARROGANT EMPTY HEADED Stein-voting Nader-voting third-party self-serving GASBAG!

[still_one]

66. no mincing of words there Jackie. Her 50 million dollar net worth privelege that

she will experience very little suffering

[WinkyDink]

68. She was more intelligent in "Rocky Horror."

[Madam45for2923]

72. Am glad she is amused & entertained. Good luck to everyone else.

[mcar]

73. And then her limo took her back to her mansion

[LOL Lib]

76. Some people just like to hear their own voice.

This shithead needs to stop bumping her gums. She isn't helping the resistance in the least. She is actually demoralizing me.

[DinahMoeHum]

77. Planet. Schmanet. Janet.

Shaddup, ya fuckin' moron.

[Blue_true]

84. She is a nut. She isn't the Cornell West stretchy eyes type of nut, but a nut none the less. nt

[Goodheart]

85. Hope you're happy about today's speech, Sarandon

Can women be called "jackasses" around here?

[ismnotwasm]

86. Fuck you Susan Sarandon

[Paladin]

90. +1000. Fuck you, Susan Sarandon. Please go away. (nt)

[6000eliot]

92. Do not care what she has to say, unless it is "I'm profoundly sorry for my stupidity."

Fuck her. I will never watch another film or TV show that features her either.

[okieinpain]

95. im going to go out on the limb and agree with

ms. sarandon. i think all of her points are spot on and we're lucky that trump is such an imbecile that the differences are easy to point out. yes i realize this is very dangerous times but there needs to be something to get peoples attention.

[lunamagica]

98. Do you, or a child of yours (if you have any) depend on the ACA to stay alive?

[okieinpain]

99. i know people that do and i will inform you

that some of them told me to my face that there was no difference between hillary or trump and that it would make no difference in their lives as to whom would become president.

[lunamagica]

100. Obviously they are ignorant, and they will pay for it. Many will pay for it with ther lives

But I know many, many who voted for Hillary and now live in fear of losing their Obamacare. SS and those who agree with her are those who won't be personally affected by it. I hope that you or anyone you love doesn't get a catastrophic illness which you can't treat because you are not insured. Or perhaps you are like SS with unlimited funds to get the best care, so it's all the same to you.

[okieinpain]

101. nope i live day to day like a lot of folks. but after listening

to some of the things she is saying i have to be honest and agree with her.

before the election i basically got told to shut the fuck up on the politics and what's truly funny is some of those same people still are paying attention. but there are a few of them that have come around and said i was right and they should have been paying attention, one of them was a republican.

so like it or not ms. sarandon has a point.

[lunamagica]

103. Just as I figured you (hopefully) like SS will not be personally affected by this

How is that she's got a point when those people you talk people are not being swayed by "the revolution"

Don't you see that she was making the same points she was making in 2000 when she supported Nader? And what did that bring us?

A war, with thousands upon thousands of casualties. But she wasn't affected. So, lets do it again!

Please.

[TomCADem]

119. Sort of Like Burning Down The House When You Want To Add a Bedroom...

...you then end up having to start from scratch.

[okieinpain]

150. nope, people keep saying there is no difference

between the parties or nothing will change. well if nothing else they can't say that now.

[TomCADem]

122. But Aren't We Now Starting From A New RW Baseline? The New Normal?

Susan Sarandon celebrated the increased activism from progressives who were outraged at Trump's assaults on reproductive and immigrant rights, as well as the roll back of environmental regulations. Susan Sarandon also cheered efforts to repeal the ACA arguing that such a repeal would set the stage for single payer.

I think the fundamental flaw of Sarandon's thinking, as well as similarly minded progressives, is that it supposes that if progressives manage to win control of Congress and the Presidency, that we will begin from baseline that was left when President Obama left office. This is incorrect. We will still have a Republican controlled Supreme Court, which many people forget weakened the ACA by making Medicaid expansion optional, and it is unlikely that we will have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, let alone a solid progressive majority given that at least some Democrats will be from traditionally red states.

By that time, Trump and Republican Congress may have:
1. Withdraw from the Paris Agreement (done).
2. Withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (pending).
3. Repeal the ACA resulting in the loss of healthcare by millions of people (pending).
4. Cut taxes to the rich and greatly increased spending, thus causing the deficit to explode (pending).
5. Rolled back financial regulations and abolished the Consumer Protection Agency (pending).
6. Cut back funding of Planned Parenthood resulting in the closure of clinics (ongoing).
7. Expelled millions of law-abiding immigrants and their families.
8. Etc.

Now, you can see the outrage that is being generated by Trump's actions and Trump's agenda has been slowed by the incredible activism of Democrats, environmentalists, immigrant activisits, and other progressives. However, after four years of Trump, a Republican congress, and a Republican Supreme Court, they will have achieved many of their aims, thus establishing a new right-wing baseline.

As a result, even if we are successful in electing a Democratically controlled Congress and President by 2020, the best we will likely achieve is a partial return to where things were under President Obama as was the case in his first term. In addition, if Democrats do not control both Congress and the Presidency, then in all likelihood, the new Trump status quo will remain the norm, though at least the bleeding might slow.

Finally, this ignores the possibility of a huge catastrophe under President Trump. Would he threaten to default on the U.S. debt by vetoing debt ceiling legislation if Democrats regain Congress in 2018? Would Trump start a war if he feels seriously threatened by impeachment? What if Trump decides to aggressively interfere with elections in 2018 and 2020?

Put another way, it will take great progress to merely erase the rollbacks under Republican rule, let alone to try to build upon the progress made under President Obama. Indeed, you can easily argue that President Obama was hampered in pursuing his agenda, because he was busy trying to prevent the U.S. from sinking into a Great Depression due to the damage cause by George W. Bush. Likewise, even a progressive Congress and President in 2020 might be preoccupied with damage control following four years of Republican control.

[okieinpain]

153. the problem with your point is you are not

addressing how we got in this mess. take all of the stuff that happen, the russians, hillary clinton's dumb idea to get a private server, podesta falling for a stupid phishing hack, the dnc not protecting their servers, the voter suppression. take all of that mess and hillary still should have won, the number one reason she didn't is voter apathy, i saw it with my own eyes and i'm pretty sure you know people that didn't care or didn't think voting matters.

if those people don't get involved then this mess with trump will be the new norm because it's obvious that the people supporting him are never going to admit they are wrong.

hell when the campaigns kicked off I checked into DU for the first time in years and this place was going crazy with the bernie vs. hillary stuff. how many of those people didn't vote because they were mad.

so yeah susan sarandon has a good point.

[TomCADem]

156. Good Point That Misery Upsets People?

While it is true that Trump's RW agenda motivates progressives, I don't think this is a good reason to support a RW agenda.

[okieinpain]

157. nope wrong. nobody said they SUPPORT rw agenda

just now maybe, maybe people will stop saying shit and apples are the same thing. I hate the stuff that's happening now but damn man i've actually been told to my face to shut the fuck up about politics now that same person avoids me.

[Demsrule86]

145. Really? There is nothing to say to a post that thinks Trump is a good thing.

[RhodeIslandOne]

105. I'm glad she came down from her tower to explain to the peons why "It's a good thing!"

[thucythucy]

106. I have a suggestion for Ms. Sarandon

and all those who think "more pain" will bring about the glorious revolution.

Add YOUR pain to that equation.

So, for instance, if the ACA is repealed, Ms. Sarandon, announce publicly that you will go without health care until single payer is passed. No checkups, no pap smears, no breast exams, no antibiotics if you get an infection, no setting broken bones, no stitches if cut, no evaluation for suspected problems...nothing.

Gandhi was willing to add his OWN pain to the equation by starving himself nearly to death to protest British imperialism and political violence. Perhaps, Ms. Sarandon, if you die due to a lack of proper health care, perhaps your sacrifice will wake up the unwashed masses and inspire them to get out there and work work work for the revolution.

Add YOUR pain to the equation, and let's see what happens.

Just a thought.

[tonedevil]

131. Did you really compare...

Ghandi to Susan Sarandon? Has Ghandi stared in big box office movies or do you think Ms. Sarandon is heading a serious political movement that will change the way the world thinks about politics?

[thucythucy]

154. I simply pointed out that Gandhi was willing to risk his life for the movement.

Sarandon is saying, essentially, the more pain people feel, the better for "the revolution."

If she really believes that, then she ought to add her own public pain to the equation. It's easy to be a "revolutionary" when you're putting other people's lives on the line, as Sarandon appears so happy to do.

[Warren DeMontague]

107. And this was two months ago! Just imagine what would happen if Colbert had her on again, now!

Then we could have threads about it all the way into August, or beyond!

[Scurrilous]

109. Dropping in again to say $#!& Susan Sarandon.

[VOX]

116. I'm fucking 67 years old, I don't need to be "purity-splaned"...

I've seen enough shit in this life, and I do NOT need this Jill Stein-purity-bot to teach me anything. No sensible, freedom-loving Democrat does.

Sarandon's pull-date on her alt-leftism is way past date.

[Foamfollower]

129. Susan Sarandon is a purely EVIL person.

[ehrnst]

143. Privilege defined. (nt)

[Paladin]

152. +1000. Sarandon just DRIPS with privilege, doesn't she?

She makes me want to puke.

[Orsino]

146. It's even true, as far as it goes, which isn't very far.

It fails as an excuse for trying to take down the Democratic challenger to the farce/disaster that is the Trump Administration, and carefully avoids responsibility for the misery and death that are resulting.

It's also a two-month-old story. I imagine her rationalizations would be a little harder to recite today with a straight face.

[TomCADem]

155. More Recently She Has Spoke Favorably of ACA Repeal...

...arguing that it should clear the way for single payer. The more misery, the better.

[NastyRiffraff]

149. She's willing to sacrifice...

everybody else. All for her wacko idea of a "revolution."

Then there's this:

(Begin quote)"You Say You Want a Revolution..." The Beatles Told Us Why Not

The massive segmentation between rich and poor is profound, poverty and utter immiseration are the lot of the many, the government is utterly corrupt and massively weak, and no one is able to contain or control the upheaval.

Social movements, however, do not and cannot create revolution. The causes of social revolution are structural and ultimately inevitable or the system adjusts and survives. Think the New Deal and the Great Depression. Adjustment and massive reform saved democracy and the nation. And thus revolutions that are seeking a massive alteration in wealth and class are not frequent because most nation states which are not inherently totally dysfunctional are capable of those reforms.

What ought to capture our attention is not just the causes, however, but the consequences. Social revolutions are always writ in the name of “the people”. They never once in human history have accomplished this task of improving the lot of the ordinary person. Not once. Not ever.
(end quote)

via The People's View

[atreides1]

151. Talk about clueless

“But do you mean like brick through the window, line the rich people up against the wall? Because revolutions eventually get there,” he added. “You’re watching the wrong movie—that’s not what we’re talking about,” Sarandon said.

She's the one watching the wrong movie!

[McCamy Taylor]

166. I need a wall so I can bang my head in it.

We should stop encouraging her. The right wing loves every word out of her mouth, because they can say "See? Liberal elites do not care if you starve or die."

[Warren DeMontague]

167. the Colbert appearance was 2 months ago, when she was doing promos for her Bette Davis thing

As such, I find it a bit odd that people are still going on about it, but whatever.

[TomCADem]

168. Was it previously discussed? This is not LBN Forum

Also, more recently, she cheered possible repeal of ACA on grounds that ensuing suffering may be a catalyst for single payer.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Oh yeah, there were a flood of threads about it at the time.

[smirkymonkey]

173. Susan Sarandon really needs to STFU and go away.

For a long time. Nobody is listening to her crap.

[leftyladyfrommo]

177. Why does anyone listen to her? Nt