home

Sanders' Sarandon Problem

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 01:11:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Last night this happened:

This part really caught attention:

“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.”

To quote Sarandon herself, this is incredibly naive and egotistical. But the real question is for Bernie Sanders - he has to disavow this. If he doesn't, then we know what he is about - basically nihilism.

< Monday Night TV | Tuesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sanders' Sarandon Problem | 159 comments (159 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Defeat = victory? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    Is this Sarandon's way of saying let's lose this time so we get a better chance at a leftist candidate winning the White House 8 years from now? I'm not signing on to this nonsense. Trump's change would be merely cosmetic to the Washington establishment.

    I interpret is as (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    she's not saying wait for an election in 8 years. She's talking about the revolution starting sooner than that. Sounds more like burning the village to save it, though I'm sure she would not approve of this strategy in any other context.

    Parent
    Not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sallywally on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:49:42 PM EST
    She seems to live in stories, as an actor. She's been doing that a lot of years. I would not be surprised if she were, in her head, a big part of some fiction/fantasy about a grand revolution, and people die in revolutions.

    Parent
    It sure sounds to me ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    and many others that she's suggesting Trump's "revolution" may not be as good as Bernie's "revolution" but it will better than what Hillary does.

    Some sources have headlined this clip:

    "Susan Sarandon Suggests Donald Trump Would Make a Better President Than Hillary Clinton"

    And that's what I hear her suggesting as well. It's an element in the Bernie-or-Busters argument that's surfacing more and more each day.

    Parent

    First... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    ... I think they need to define revolution, it's being used very liberally and in most cases incorrectly from a political definition:
    an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

    An election is not in any way a revolution, it is in election.

    Parent

    I put ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    "revolution" in quotes, indicating I don't believe it's used in its dictionary sense.

    So I'm not sure the purpose your "response" serves.

    ;)

    Parent

    Let's agree that revolution is hyperbole. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    If it ever does happen most Americans will be sitting on their capacious a$$ets, watching it on TV.  The revolution will be just another reality TV show like the long running Wehrmacht MuckUp we've made of the Middle East.

    BTW, this photo of Sarandon, here is why you shouldn't waste another moment of your life arguing about what Susan Sarandon says.

    Nobody with a functional brain or self respect should be that entranced by a politician.  

    And that goes for both sides of both parties.

    Parent

    I never suggested it ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    was anything other than hyperbole.

    And I like Sarandan as a person and an actress.

    Just thought she was very, very, very wrong here.

    But this is a lot of posts on yet another, privileged Bernie supporter who will have zero effect on the outcome of this election.

    Parent

    And we already had that revolution (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 03, 2016 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    It was Occupy Wallstreet and too few stood with them. We allowed the revolution to be "infiltrated" by law enforcement, we allowed the issues to be high jacked, and we allowed that revolution to be bull dozed.

    Parent
    There is (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    no hope for people like Sarandon and I'm willing to bet Bernie will not disavow it. If she didn't learn anything from 8 years of Bush and Cheney there is no help for her. She's willing to let all the women in the country suffer under Trump or Cruz because of her own personal desires and she will be immune from the results of what happens.

    She makes no sense (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    The statue quo is not working, and I think 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, with threats to women's rights and think that you can't do something huge to turn that around.  Because the country is not in good shape if you're in the middle class.  It's disappearing.

    1. Trump supports the Death Penalty -- even for 14 year olds.  He took out a billboard urging the central park five (later found to be innocent) be charged with the death penalty

    2. She's a wealthy celebrity -- her attempt to speak for those in poverty, farmers, etc. is insulting

    3.  Trump will not end militarization of police

    Ben Carson said in some interview, well, if the country elects Trump and it turns out to be a mistake, it's only 4 years. The damage to the Supreme Court alone that Trump or any Republican would cause will last far more than 4 years.

    Like I said the other day, the people who really, really hate Hillary will vote for Trump. She's one of them. It has nothing to do with reality or Hillary's positions.

    Agree it makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    But she is not saying Trump will help anything, she is saying he will be so horrible there will be some kind of an action - best case the 'millions and millions' of people Bernie keeps talking about marching on Washington, I guess. Worst case an insurrection. As BTD says, it is a nihilistic vision.

    Parent
    She's gonna (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    watch the "revolution" from her balcony while the peons march I'm guessing.

    Parent
    OTOH... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    I do tend to subscribe to the "it has to get worse before it gets better" theory.

    Not that I'd exactly call the Obama years a giant leap to the better, but they don't happen at all without the getting worse that was the GWB years.  

    Sadly, it will take our problems, and our quality of life, worsening before the people will get off their arse to make it better.  Whether Trump would be that bad, I don't know...GWB wasn't that bad, and he was f*ckin' bad.  In some ways I don't think Trump would be as bad as Bush, but in others I do think he could be much worse than Bush.  Time may tell.

    I do agree with Ms. Sarandon in that the boiler-plate Democratic Party half-measures ain't gonna cut it much longer before the income disparity and corporate/finance crime spree situations come to a head.  The Democratic Party's solutions, as we know them, are but a Dutch boy with a finger in the dike, imo.  They delay the day of reckoning perhaps, but they don't solve anything long term...at least as far as our crackhead economy and foreign policy are concerned.

    Parent

    honest question (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    what evidence do you have that things get better after they get worse?

    It seems to me like we just spend all our time/energy cleaning up the mess.

    Also - what about people who can't afford a lost decade?  Maybe they got pregnant at 16 because they were taught abstinence only sex-ed.  Maybe they got their leg blown off in Iraq.  Maybe they lost their job and never got a new one.  Are those people just collateral damage?

    Parent

    what about (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    planet earth?

    It definitely can't afford any more years of a  U.S. president who runs the EPA and doesn't believe in science.

    Parent

    The results are always unknown... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    but nobody even tries to make things better until things are f*cked...like your environment example.  We're just starting to get serious when it's probably already too late, and we're not even getting that serious.  Let's not wait that long to get serious about wealth disparity....oops, too late! ;)

    That's what I think Susan and I are trying to say...well fed, comfortable people who feel secure are not exactly itching to become politically active.  Misery spurs political action from the masses like nothing else...look at the Great Depression/New Deal.  There is no New Deal without the Great Depression, and I think it sucks that we need a catastrophic event to get sh*t done but history seems to teach us that.

    Is it morally right to doom the next generation to another gilded age so some 16 year olds don't get pregnant in the next 4-8 years? Or to hold on to some sh&tty job?  It's not an easy question to answer...I tend to side with sacrificing some comfort now for a sustainable future as the more moral path.

    Parent

    Easy for Sarandon to spout (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    off about "the revolution". No matter what happens, she and her loved ones will be fine. Millions of other Americans? Not so much.

    Look around, kdog, look at the Arab Spring countries. How's that revolution going? Are people in those countries better off now? Or are they ruled by governments just as, if not more ,oppressive than the rulers they had before the revolution.

    Hey, where's Occupy Wall Street? Wasn't that supposed to spark the revolution? What happened there? If you are aiming for revolution you better be in it for the long haul and able to stand up to the NYPD, and other PDs, not to mention the US military.

    By the way, the Great Depression did not spark a revolution. The New Deal was a vast government effort to move the country out of the Depression. A vast government effort. Not a revolution.

    A President Trump or Cruz will do serious and long lasting harm to so many people. And not one of them will be Susan Sarandon or her children or grandchildren or friends.

    The people who so casually throw around the word revolution are talking out their a$$es. Read some history, people! Revolution is serious business. It is violent. The desired results, if they come at all, are a long time coming.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:11:26 PM EST
    The American Revolution resulted in a political revolution; but, those who had money and land before, in largest measure, had it after the revolution.  

    Income inequality, of today, needs to addressed in a systemic political manner, not by taking Trump out for a spin.  I think I know who will really be taken for a ride.

    Parent

    True... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:11:12 AM EST
    Everything is easier for millionaires...but aside from a little poor white boy privelidge I'll be just as f*cked as anybody by a Trump presidency. And I still want a non-violent political revolution in this country much like Bernie describes...actually forget want, I think it's a need if we're gonna leave a prosperous nation with liberty and justice for all to the children being born today.

    The Arab Spring has been a rocky road, does that mean it was foolish for the people in those countries to even try to improve their lot?  I say no...they were right to try, and if at first you don't succeed, try try again.

    Where's Occupy?  There a big part of the reason we are even talking about Bernie.  No Occupy, there is no Bern. Bernie would be Dennis Kucinich without Occupy, a candidate polling at 2%.

    And not all revolutions are violent Casey, only a moron wants blood in the streets...revolution also means "a dramatic and wide-reaching change in the way something works or is organized or in people's ideas about it". Can't speak for Susan or anybody else, but that's what I'm talking about when I talk about revolution.

    And if the people don't wanna try it now, they may well want to give it a go after a Trump presidency.  Or not, if it's not as bad as we imagine it would be.

    Parent

    The New Deal was a vast government effort (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:06:27 PM EST
    with a lean and mean working class and labor movement holding quite a bit of fire to the feet of the Democratic Party and threatening to burst into real organized revolutionary action if things didn't change for the better sooner rather than later.

    The New Deal reforms were never a simple matter of a trusted, enlightened government seeing before anyone else what needed to be done and implementing it.

    Parent

    Sen. Huey Long was running to FDR's left ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 09:12:14 PM EST
    ... as a populist and would have likely challenged him for the 1936 Democratic nomination, had he not tried to screw over a Louisiana judge who opposed him politically -- an act of hubris which cost Long his life, when that judge's son-in-law showed up at the state capitol in Baton Rouge and fired several bullets into him.

    Beset by criticism and worse from both the left and the right, Franklin Roosevelt had to navigate a political minefield during his first term as president. Whereas FDR had promised people a "New Deal," Long was offering them a "Square Deal," and arguing that FDR wasn't doing anything to help the working class. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, Prescott Bush and his father-in-law George Walker were up to their eyeballs in a conspiracy to remove FDR by military coup because they considered him a socialist.

    It's only in historical hindsight that we've come to truly appreciate the magnitude of President Roosevelt's accomplishments, because his popularity was not nearly as broad-based as some people like to remember it as being, and his political success didn't come easy and was never assured. FDR had to earn it the old-fashioned way, and in so doing he proved himself to be one of history's great political wheeler-dealers. And that did not sit well with a lot of his political contemporaries back then.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    that's the same reasoning that Ted Cruz used to shut down the government. The only solution is to blow things up because there is no other solution.

    The only problem is that apparently a lot of people hurting won't matter. It's okay for people to die, lose their rights and everything else all in the name of "revolution". There is a reason why this kind of stuff hasn't caught on in "red" states and it's because we've seen up close and personal how all this works and it's not pretty in the least.

    Parent

    I'd rather take a small step forward than a huge (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    step backward.

    For women, Trump is much worse than Bush, in tone if not in actual policy. He has zero respect for women. Zero.

    Parent

    not just women (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    Minorities.  Say what you will about Bush, but I know some people who would be much happier if Trump "didn't care about" them.

    Parent
    Of course, yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    All of the above said, I think there is no chance he will be elected, so I say all of this just for the sake of argument.

    I am not even convinced that the GOP will actually nominate him.

    Parent

    Look (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    at Bernie's losses in the south with minorities and that should tell you who thinks they are going to be on the losing end of the "revolution".

    Parent
    not legit implication (none / 0) (#72)
    by linea on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 08:46:46 PM EST
    Bernie has 2 to 1 support over Hillary from under 30 year old Hispanics and under 30 year old African Americans. I heard that on NPR this morning. Yeah, that's FM radio if it makes a difference.

    Parent
    Who is the source (none / 0) (#94)
    by sallywally on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:43:54 AM EST
    of those figures quoted on npr?

    Parent
    Oh. (none / 0) (#132)
    by linea on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    I''m sorry. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by source. It was on NPR on the FM channel in the early morning. I remember that the source of the data was exit pols but I don't remember the organization that funded the polling. Sorry.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#134)
    by sallywally on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    Probably from caucuses.

    Parent
    But if that huge step backward... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    is followed by a giant leap forward that makes the small step forward look like nothing?

    I see y'alls point...lets just get through another 4-8 years and see where we're at, we can't afford to lose any more ground.  I just think that's too short-term thinking, and part of the reason why the middle/working class hasn't gotten a raise in 20-30 years.  We're content to tread water...but when you tread water long enough eventually you cramp up and drown.  You'd have been better off taking a chance swimming for the shore, even if there is a chance of drowning sooner.

    Parent

    8 years of damage takes 16 years to fix (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:57:33 PM EST


    Parent
    This is the point in these conversations I need (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    to use examples of specific proposals.  What is one example of the giant leap you are anticipating, and how is 8 or 4 or even 1 year of Trump going to make it more likely? People can march on Washington if Hillary is president too - and there won't be active harm being done in the meantime.

    I don't see that anyone has been complacently accepting their lot. We are trying for higher minimum wages all over the country. Lots of people have been pushing for health care improvements as well - no one thinks anything is perfect now, certainly not Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent

    Occupy Wallstreet (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    Happened when Obama was president.

    Parent
    Exactly. I don't understand this idea that (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    if Hillary Clinton is elected all dreams of political revolution die. They are more likely to die if Bernie is actually elected and absorbed into the executive borg.

    Parent
    Good ideas never die... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    To some of us, a Hillary Clinton presidency is not death to the political revolution, it's just another obstacle to overcome.  Not a Trump sized hurdle of course, but a hurdle nonetheless...and we got more hurdles than Edwin Moses already in f*ckin' Congress.  

    Parent
    Everything's going to be a hurdle, kdog, ... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    ... given that most of these so-called "revolutionaries" are advocating for their cause from the safety and comfort of their living rooms and dens. Revolutions don't happen overnight; they need to be sustained in the street.

    And by "sustained in the street," I don't mean just attending your friendly neighborhood Bernie Sanders rally, cheering the candidate on cue, and then heading out afterward to the local pub with friends for cocktails and an accompanying gripe session about how wonderful it would be, if only everyone else could view the world through your eyes.

    Rather, I mean that you need to get out there in that neighborhood of yours personally and risk rejection, by trying to organize like-minded compatriots in order to build critical mass.

    But from my own particular vantage point, I really don't see any of that happening on a large enough scale to make any difference. Rather, what I AM seeing are a lot of people who are on the perpetual lookout for a white knight, and failing to attain one, are merely content to throw sand in the crankshaft before going home and sulking. That's not sparking a revolution. That's throwing a political temper tantrum.

    If one truly seeks change, then one must embody that change personally and become its dedicated instrument. That requires a lot of effort and sacrifice on one's part which, I'm sorry to say, a lot of Americans simply aren't willing to put forth if it at all inconveniences them.

    Now, that's not to say that revolution in this country can't eventually happen, if enough people become so desperate that they'll take to the streets out of sheer necessity. But the odds are currently way better than even that absolutely nothing of the sort is going to happen this electoral cycle, even though we're now facing a critical threat from the far right.

    And I fear that those limousine anarchists on the left who dream otherwise, such as Susan Sarandon, are increasingly hellbent on leading the masses to no small amount of collective grief, if they don't get their way. And truly the damnedest thing about all this is that the high-end Ms. Sarandon isn't the one who's going to be feeling that pain. Rather, that'll be left for you and your buddies in the 'hood to endure.

    So, were I you, kdog, I'd be awfully careful about what you wish for in seeking Mrs. Clinton's defeat, especially at this late date in the nominating process when she's already rounding the far turn and heading for home, while your own candidate is still doggedly plodding along the back stretch. Otherwise, you just might get it -- to your everlasting regret.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Kind of (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    a nihilistic statement here  
    I do tend to subscribe to the "it has to get worse before it gets better" theory.
    a cynical disavowal of the basic human ethos of trying to make things better(yes I understand there are horrible deviations from this) but to insist that we must go backward before we can move forward sounds like surrender to me.

    You seem willing to sacrifice millions of people's quality of life for the foreseeable future on the gamble that you and the rest of the Bernistas will be able to seize power the next time and make everything right again.

    This is a very dangerous fantasy. Trust me as a recovering nihilist, it's a very ugly mindset, let it go.

    Parent

    It's all (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    fun and games until the armed to the teeth tea partiers actually start killing people. You know, Bernie marched with the Sandinistas and half a million people at least were killed during that "revolution" I guess he thought it was worth it.

    Parent
    I wouldn't say nihilistic (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    I would say flat wrong. In reality, things have to stop getting worse before they get better. Otherwise they just keep getting worse. "Worse" historically means the rise of a tyrant promising better - if only you give him power. Not the same thing as "better."

    And who suffers in the meantime while things are made worse in order to get better?

    Let's not go there.

    Parent

    The worse-before-better fantasy (4.75 / 4) (#26)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    A common saying ... worse before better or "what doesn't kill you will make you stronger."  Frankly, the fantasy is only that.  What we are more likely to see is that the bottom may be death and destruction--emotionally and/or physically.  This isn't about physics and bouncing balls to see how high they can go.  This is about lives that can and will be decimated for those of modest means (and less) while those of us more fortunate are theorizing and waiting for the elusive "revolution."

    Personally, I wonder if the-revolution-is-acomin' belief isn't really akin to displacing our own responsibility onto the great beyond.  Not that I'm preaching, but it does seem more honest to seek one's spiritual redemption in a place other than the political trail ... and, for me, the likes of the Bernie converts sometimes bear an eerie resemblance to the more evangelical aspects of conservative religions.  

    I don't want to dance around my own belief any more, either:  While I accept certain theological insights about heaven/nirvana/promised land and understand the notions of a torment that might be called H#ll, to condemn people to unnecessary & immediate hurt in the here & now--e.g., to take away the strived for healthcare access that millions of real people only recently received to pursue the "perfect" or to raise taxes inordinately on the middle class to pay for the more economically fortunate to have a free 4-year college pass or to be so consumed by the image of Wall Street and the few big banks actually remaining there is a perversion of change.  It is confusing zealotry with meaningful change ... change takes back-breaking work.

    There is vision and there is fantasy. It can be hard to discern which is which ... but, what often serves as a useful guide is the personal accomplishment/work history of the proponent, among other things.  Is it all talk or are there results? Is there an accountable action plan, with costs as well as benefits as well as with a timeline of how to bring about the results in a divided country OR is it about messianic chanting and witnessing? Are we looking for feel-good or is it merely a back-of-the-hand to something else?  Moat importantly: How does the political object of one's affection govern for everyone (or most everyone) in a large and increasingly diverse country?  After all, Main Street and all its side & intersecting byways criss-cross the US with a plethora of issues and lives far from the villain Wall Street.

    Finally and speaking of depths or hitting bottoms, the Sarandon statement betrays a sad attitude of "my way or the highway" together with a disregard of any non-Bernie approach. More than sad. Stubborn adolescent-like adulation with a strong dose of ideological stance.  Similar to the authoritarian Ted Cruz.

    Parent

    Bush nearly destroyed the country (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Coral on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:52:00 PM EST
    That was 8 years which included 9/11 (arguably intelligence that could have prevented it was ignored), the invasion of Iraq (which has set off a chain reaction of collapse in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS), the invasion and war in Afghanistan, which is still going on, nearly 14 years after it was started, the skyrocketing of the deficit (which the Clinton tax reform had greatly reduced), the near-destruction of New Orleans in Katrina, and the financial implosion and mortgage crisis (much of which devastated the middle class).

    None of this has created a "revolution." All it's created is a huge mess, which Obama has struggled to clean up.

    A Trump victory could have consequences even more disastrous.

    Every revolution I've studied in history, with the exception, possibly, of the American Revolution, has led to horrific bloodshed and dictatorship.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    right. If US citizens being left to die in New Orleans didn't set off a revolution nothing will.

    Parent
    Well, to be fair (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mm on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    It did lead to the birth of the Tea Party.

    None of this has created a "revolution." All it's created is a huge mess, which Obama has struggled to clean up.


    Parent
    Agree with BTD (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 02:42:38 PM EST
    To quote Sarandon herself, this is incredibly naive and egotistical. But the real question is for Bernie Sanders - he has to disavow this. If he doesn't, then we know what he is about - basically nihilism.

    Bernie is about Bernie. Another false claim Sarandon makes is Bernie has no ego. That's absurd. Anyone who runs for President has an ego. Bernie will stay in this race to the bitter end because of ego -- so he can be more than a footnote in history -- he want's his legacy to be someone who started a "movement." He doesn't care how much damage he causes to the Democratic party to do accomplish that.

    This isn't her first rodeo against a Democratic favorite. In 2000, she supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore. (She realized her error in 2004 and didn't repeat it.)

    Bernie should have run as an Independent. He's using the Democratic party. He's never run as a Dem before, he's never given big support to the party. The Dems, and particularly the super-delegates, don't owe anything to his supporters, many of whom, like Sarandon, are not supportive of the Party.  What they want is a chance at a third party -- they are just using the Dems as a stepping stone to get there. Which is why they won't hesitate to vote Republican if Bernie isn't nominated.  

    I believe we are on the same page (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:48:41 PM EST
    Concerning Bernie, you and I

    Parent
    You're better than this, Counselor. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:11:25 AM EST
    Paragraph 1: "he doesn't care about the damage"

    You have shown neither damage nor that he does not care.  Those are hypotheses pulled out of thin, hot air.

    Paragraph 2: "Which is why they won't hesitate to vote Republican if Bernie isn't nominated."

    What you have phrased as a conclusion is unsupported in any respect by your preceding statements.

    Parent

    i began to think this shortly after he (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    "If he doesn't, then we know what he is about - basically nihilism."

    announced he was running, and really, nothing he's done since then has caused me to change my mind. he's only just barely disavowed the "Bernie Bro's", and his campaign seems to have way too many loose cannons, which is a sign of a lack of discipline. add to that the fact that he has yet to really, fully articulate just exactly what "The revolution" entails, and I begin to think his candidacy was a last minute, "By god, I'm not going to let Hillary Clinton take the cake unopposed!" one, rather than a well thought out plan.

    I have always liked Sen. Sanders, but if you go back through his 40 years of (mostly) public office, and especially in Congress, he really hasn't accomplished much in a concrete fashion. why would I think, with a (probable) republican Congress, his style will allow him to get anything done from the oval office?

    Deadenders (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by AnnL on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    What I don't understand is why these people don't work harder at the grassroots level to change politics and politicians. They're always searching for the magic unicorn!

    because it's a magic unicorn silly! (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 12:50:10 AM EST
    "They're always searching for the magic unicorn!"

    it will do all that hard work for you, so you needn't strain yourself at all. that real life doesn't actually work that way won't stop them.

    Parent

    Sanders has never disavowed ... (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    the help he's received from Republican super PACs.  Especially Karl Rove's American Crossroads.

    Many feel it is their efforts that helped him close the gap in Iowa, Nevada and other states.  

    So why would we ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    ever expect him to disavow Sarandon?

    Parent
    Right around the time Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:54:41 PM EST
    disavows Kissinger.

    You have to give it Sarandon though: she never advocated dropping napalm on peasant villages or herding recalcitrant citizens into a soccer stadium with cattle prods.

    Parent

    Hillary and Bill Clinton were ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    running McGovern's Texas campaign, while Sanders was losing another election with another socialist party, and Susan Sarandon was doing guest spots on TV.

    Parent
    And now they run around (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:15:08 PM EST
    with Kissinger-Pinochet and the guy with the private pleasure island.

    I liked them better when they were all dewy and innocent.

    Parent

    Did Kissinger (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    go on TV and advocate for Hillary? She mentioned him but honestly the comparison is pathetic. Sarandon helped put Bush in office yet you're not holding her responsible for doing that are you?

    Parent
    If someone like Susan Sarandon (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:38:23 PM EST
    can really convince Democrats to vote for Bush, than this country is in big big trouble no matter who gets elected President.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sallywally on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:53:35 PM EST
    Nader.

    Parent
    Just (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    as I figured. More excuses. What she did is legitimize the lies of the Republicans which by the way is the same thing she's pretty much doing now. You know, people like her scream that they are not listened to politically but have you ever thought there was a reason? They are their own worst enemy.

    Parent
    More comspiracy theories (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:33:08 PM EST


    Parent
    What is this in ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:07:25 PM EST
    response to?

    Parent
    Jondee (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:09:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:11:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Parent (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    Is our friend

    Parent
    I typed too much and lost the race (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:15:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Is that another one ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:15:28 PM EST
    of Trump's pets?

    Parent
    The Parent Button Is Your Friend (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:14:41 PM EST


    Parent
    I finally ... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:16:47 PM EST
    have a friend!

    Hi, Parent Button, my name is Robot.

    ;)

    Parent

    Great minds (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:16:58 PM EST


    Parent
    What's the conspiracy theory, Mrs Romney? (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 02:07:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Get a new tin foil hat, jondee AKA Mr. Trump? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    Since you're just like him in making stuff up and (trying, but failing) to insult your way into making yourself seem smarter?

    Fail.

    Parent

    trolls get fed pancakes and syrup, not (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 12:53:21 AM EST
    actual responses. jondee is a troll. note the lack of legitimate citations to support the claims? that's because there aren't any.

    Parent
    A troll (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 03, 2016 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    Really?

    If I'm a troll, than you're another Oedipus who didn't want to know and didn't want see. Soon you won't want to think if the pain of assimilating new information conflicts too much with what you think you know. Which doesn't appear to be much.

    All I said was that if a relative non-entity like Susan Sarandon can be that influential on the thought processes of the electorate, than this country is in a lot of trouble as a high functioning democracy.

    Explain to me how that's a conspiracy theory, genius.

    And by the way, as always, Google is your friend.

    Parent

    Oh, please, when did (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    Hillary advocate dropping napalm?  When did she ever support the Allende overthrow?

    An overstatement of gross proportions.

    Parent

    Sorry to interrupt... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 06:40:51 AM EST
    Glenn Greenwald: Hillary Clinton Has Embraced Some of the Most Brutal Dictators in the World

    Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup

    Like I said, sorry to interrupt.  I see you're hard at work on the new statue of Saint Hillary, Patron saint of the credulous.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 07:24:39 AM EST
    Glenn Greenwald has lost some credibility since his denial of the existence of Bernie Bros (kina like a climate change denier), AND he has always had a seripus case of CDS, so maybe he isn't the best source to use right now.

    Parent
    Try addressing the issues. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:33:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Honduras--the Bernie folks (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    always go there.  It is somewhat interesting to see this interest all of sudden in Central America.

    Hillary did not support the coup.  That is a gross overstatement.  The U.S. did not plan, participate or overtly support the coup.

    After the coup occurred, Hillary is faulted for steering the complaint of the ousted government into a less friendly forum.  Hillary, however, consistently said elections should be held.

    Central America can be a very murky place, and when presented with a coup, how to respond is not all that easy--except in the pure world of Bernie.

    Parent

    GG (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:22:10 AM EST
    has devolved into one of the worst purity trolls on the planet.

    Parent
    GG's also advocating for revolution in America ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    FlJoe: "GG has devolved into one of the worst purity trolls on the planet."

    ... from the safety and comfort of his boyfriend's house in Rio de Janeiro. Given recent events in Brazil, revolution will likely sooner reach him down there, before it ever takes place up here.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Spoken like a true citizen (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    of the United States of Amnesia.

    All those atrocities and the torture and repression supported by her mentor Henry were so forty years ago.

    Let's all just try and focus on this year's shiny new and improved model.

    And if Clinton flunky Lanny Davis is putting on his best shyster in the service of the oligarchs in Honduras, who is anyone here to question it.

    Parent

    Kissinger is not her Mentor (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:44:51 PM EST
    You try to graft onto her all of Kissinger's sins.

    Kissinger had more of a record than just Cambodia and Allende.  He engineered Nixon's visit to China and détente with Brezhnev--a huge crack in the Cold War.  And he brokered peace in the Middle East, during a hot war.  This was all well known at one time.

    Hillary was not endorsing all of Kissinger's policies.  This penchant for oversimplification and exaggeration is true Bernie.   But it ignores the real world and its complexities.  Being a rigid ideologue, even in if in sincere belief in the righteousness of one's cause, can be debilitating in its own right.

    Parent

    Please don't confuse jondee with facts (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    He so does love his memes.

    Parent
    Kissinger's sins just don't bother her (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 03, 2016 at 01:13:33 PM EST
    or you, yet another one of his veritable battalion of apologists, all that much..

    I hate to sound like a hippie by quoting Bob Dylan, but this country will be judged -- and all the tap dancing and pettifoggery won't change that one iota.

    Parent

    jondee: That sounds more like (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 03, 2016 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    Cotton Mather or relative ... Bob Dylan would be much better.  Maybe Dylan's reminder about how countries/people try to get God to take sides because how can you a fighting machine lose when "God's on our side."  

    Looking again at your comment about being "judged," I don't think any of us humans can pretend to such omniscience.  Even Senator Senators exhorting us at his self-righteous best.  Yep, that pose of political purity by the Senator is the least attractive feature of the campaign to me.  

    What I do like about your comment here is the reference to Dylan--ever since he first showed up on the Steve Allen Tonight show & this junior high student was staying up too late, I've liked that one-of-a-kind, crazily perceptive, enchantingly off-key troubadour.  My sister & her good friend & I once sat in Hefty garbage bags against the rain in Ft. Collins during a concert eventually dubbed the "Hard Rain's Gonna' Fall" concert.  One of many Bob Dylan concerts.

    Back from my Dylan diversion .... Who knows? Maybe the world is falling apart at the seams.  To hear Sanders tell it, tho, is enough to make one "abandon all hope" merely from listening to the repetitive drone that his message seems to have become.  But then, I should watch out, lest my attitude of the BS preachy pose causes me to be secularly condemned as corrupt.  After all, I recall once addressing an audience of energy interests; I must have forgotten it is evil/impure/immoral to speak with anyone or any group other than the choir because it might lead to doing more than shouting the problem statement ... maybe a resolution process even.  

    Parent

    This Trump=revolution thing (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    Is sort a meme that's been going around.  I've seen it on FB and other silly places.

    The infuriating thing (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:02:23 PM EST
    Is it seems like the people making those comments are the ones who will be just fine under a Trump presidency.

    I almost never post political comments of any nature on Facebook.  I'm weirdly private in some ways.  But this season I'm finding it harder and harder to sit back and watch privileged people rage against the machine and talk about tearing everything down.

    Also, I have three nephews now, all under the age of 5.  Two of them are little muslim boys and one is a little black boy.  It hasn't changed my politics, but it has made it a lot harder to keep my mouth shut.  What kind of country are they gonna grow up in?  The kind that openly hates them?

    Parent

    A lot of Bernie fans ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    like Trump.

    It make no sense if you have an ideological bone in your body.

    But if you support candidates for emotional reasons, as many do, it makes all kinds of sense.

    They're both old angry white guys shouting about white guy stuff.  And that appeals to angry white guys ... young and old.

    Parent

    How can this be true? (none / 0) (#75)
    by linea on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 09:13:46 PM EST
    I cant make sense of this. I know lots of Bernie supporters. They dont "like Trump." Your assertion that Bernie supporters are (irrationally) emotional rather than honestly supporting Bernie's positions on specific policies isnt my experience.

    I also cant see how you can assertt that Bernie supporters are "old angry white guys" whem clearly Bernie has massive popular support from young women.

    I mean, if you want to criticize Bernie supporters you can say they arent realistic or arent practical or are too idealistic or something.  I just cant reconcile your post with all the people I know who support Bernie.

    But maybe the Bernie supports I know arent typical? Im open to anyone posting a poll where Trump is the second choice of Bernie supporters. I havent seen it.

    Parent

    it's really not most (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:23:12 AM EST
    At least not in polls or in my anecdotal experience.  But it is the loud ones.  And it is some of the more higher profile surrogates - which is concerning.

    Parent
    Indeed, any data we have ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    ... says Trump is uniquely, deeply reviled by younger voters.

    Sanders voters whose second choice is Trump exist, but there don't seem to be too many. I think younger voters have their heads on mostly straight. I always did & I don't see much evidence they don't.

    Now this Sanders thing otoh ... ;)

    Parent

    yes... (none / 0) (#133)
    by linea on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:56:57 PM EST
    Thank you!!

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    there are a lot of people like you and I that are horrified yet don't post stuff continually. It seems Trump and Bernie have a very vocal minority supporting them and the press pushes this minority. I have to wonder how many people Sarandon actually ran away from Bernie. Surely those kinds of statements would hurt him in a state like NY where there are a lot of immigrants from war torn countries where the last thing they want to hear about is another "revolution". They probably came here to get away from the "revolution".

    Parent
    That's some interesting BG on you (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing that.

    As for the other, I think it varies.  I know people like you describe and I also know people who will be screwed just as much as we will be who are supporting the Donald.

    The revolution thing as far as I can tell seems to be a sort of rationalization.  At least when I have seen it from my fringy friends.   Like, it's ok if we screw this up because then Donakd will be elected and there will be a revolution and everything will be great.   Where the hell does one even begin to process that let alone respond to it?

    If I didn't know better I would think someone has been spiking the drinking water.   This election has become a rabbit hole and I don't want to see how deep it goes

    Parent

    It seems like the leftie version of The Rapture (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:40:53 AM EST
    Corresponding to those that want the big showdown in the Middle East, because then Jesus will come.

    Parent
    I don't really mean (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    Tried and true Trump supporters.  I'm thinking more of the "Bern it down" folks.  People who say they want socialism but if they can't have that they want nothing at all.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    The thing that really bugs me is that Sarandon and all these rich Hollywood types who are all in for Sanders won't pay with the rest of us if they muck this up.  
    They are free free free to shoot the moon and if they don't find their Sparkle Pony there, well they already had two Sparkle Ponies.  No harm done.

    Disagree, in emphasis: (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    "Saradon is naive or egotistical. the real question is for Bernie Sanders, he has to disavow this."

    I feel the real issue is the danger of the attitude expressed by Miss Saradon and the award and conferral of credulity she may bring to young and naive supporters of Sanders who will have been disappointed and disillusioned by the fact that primaries have winners and losers.

     In 2004,apparently having learned something from her support for Nader in 2000, urged Nader to get out of the race out of fear that he would help deliver Bush a second term.  Her learning curve seems to have taken a dive.

     Now she is equivocal and posits the notion that a "revolution" will come with an election of Trump, doing what could not be done before with the revolution to elect, let alone nominate, Sanders.

    It is risky and irresponsible, but arguable, that allowing despots to achieve power, demonstrate by their deeds how despicable they are and that the havoc they bring may cradle needed change. And, all may ultimately turn out well,albeit with the disaster for generations along the way. WW II offers cogent examples. So, it is my view, that Miss Saradon suggests a rocky horror, but it would not be a picture show.

    Senator Sanders may disavow the thinking of Miss Saradon, but during competitive primaries in process, it would not have the required effect on his young supporters, impacting only mildly the passions of the Bernie or Bust crowd. It is the argument of Miss Saradon that must be disavowed, by taking it apart.    

    So you are saying she's a loon? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    I'm with ya.

    Parent
    not everyone in a primary gets a trophy. (4.00 / 2) (#81)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 01:01:30 AM EST
    "I feel the real issue is the danger of the attitude expressed by Miss Saradon and the award and conferral of credulity she may bring to young and naive supporters of Sanders who will have been disappointed and disillusioned by the fact that primaries have winners and losers."

    these would be part of the "everyone gets a trophy for participating" generation, so you might have something there.

    Parent

    Trump and Bernie both (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ragebot on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    have the same message about NAFTA and TPP, things that Hillary is wobbly on at best.  So folks who have a problem with those trade agreements are attracted to one or both of them.

    Lots of economic news has been bad for a very long time.  There are probably structural issues making it unlikely manufacturing jobs will return to previous job and pay levels.  But folks who want to believe those jobs can come back will like what Trump and Bernie are saying.

    Same goes for gripes about Hillary getting paid big bucks by Wall Street.  Not saying there is wrong with that, just that when someone gets paid more than you are making in a year for an hours work it is easy to understand how that would raise issues in folks mind.

    Sure there are differences between the two but if you think you could only get your old well paying job back by voting for one of these two and no one else the choice is easy.

    "'I have a problem with trade agreements' ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    yeah, that's what I'll say, sounds much better than saying I'm racist, sexist white dude and that's why I support those guys."

    ^How euphemisms are born.

    Parent

    "You're wi' us or you're agin' us" (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 07:05:49 AM EST
    In Robot's Rules of Order, any middle ground is excluded.

    Parent
    Your namesake ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    puts it well.

    Parent
    How much (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 07:28:42 AM EST
    Do those Trump and Danders supporters for whom NAFTA and TPO are big deals really understand them, or are they just float8ngbthe hippest talking points?

    And do these people have a problem with professional athletes getting paid more for a few hours of playing a child's game than the average Joe makes all year?

    Parent

    Not sure how much (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    Dander supporters understand anything.

    Same goes for Trump and Sanders supporters.  Same goes for supporters of any other candidate.

    But when polls ask questions about what is important in respondents opinion things like economics and immigration are often given lots of weight.

    If the truth be known lots of pols are selling micro economics ideas and very few pols (and economists for that matter) understand macro economics.  At a micro level it is clear to Trump/Sanders guys that if a company they worked for making $US16 and hour moves to Mexico and pays $US16 dollars a day NAFTA is responsible.  On the other hand at a more macro level the lower costs of goods helps more folks who are part of the economy.  But at an even larger macro level the destruction of buying power in the economy may be a bad thing.

    The bottom line is a huge disconnect between folks trying to sell U1 at being around 5% and ignoring U6 at being closer to 10%.  Same goes for real wages, hours worked per week, work force participation, and part time jobs replacing full time jobs all going in the wrong direction.  The economy has been getting worse since probably the mid 1970s, and  the down turn has been worse in recent years.

    Until the economy starts improving guys like Sanders and Trump will have success trying to sell hope.

    Parent

    Revolution (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Coral on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:26:35 PM EST
    is an over-rated concept. I used to yearn for revolution before I began to see what the idea drove people I respected to do.

    The ones I admire now are hard-working people struggling to make incremental change possible and to protect advances recently won.

    Obamacare isn't perfect. But it's better than the nothing that existed before. If we can get a Democrat elected with a Democratic Senate, maybe we can get a Supreme Court that makes 5-4 decisions protecting things like voting rights, abortion access, and, hey, Medicaid expansion in all 50 states.

    Lots of people's lives would be incrementally, some even revolutionarily, improved.

    Revolutions lead to guillotines and gulags. Not my cup of tea.

    The best way to deal with Susan Sarandon ... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 08:36:57 PM EST
    ... is to not pay any attention to her. Her interview with Chris Hayes was an appallingly silly exercise in substance-free cable TV news. What was he thinking, having her on his show as a guest? I turned it off when she came on, and only watched it later because everyone was so appalled at what she said.

    Ms. Sarandon may be a great actress but politically, she's 100% pure, unadulterated twit. She's representative of the in-your-face flamethrowing that presently passes for modern political discourse over the airwaves, and I think lots of people across the board are pretty sick and tired of it. I sure am.

    Aloha.

    This whole thing reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 09:18:28 PM EST
    of right track/wrong track polls.  While many things need improving, most Dems believe that after 8 years of Obama we are on the right track.  Sarandon wants us to believe that progressives are more angry and ready to revolt now than after 4 years of Bush.  

    If there wasn't a revolution then...well, I don't see it in our future.  

    There's a certain kind of leftie (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 11:18:31 PM EST
    who seems to miss the 8 years of being outraged and yelling at George W. Bush. I admit, I sort of missing making homemade signs and holding them up along Bush's route to places where he was speaking during college and high school. But guess what, that sign didn't do jack and the GOP scared the country into a second term. So, no thanks to that.

    BTW, I'm a huge fan of Susan Sarandan's ... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:22:31 AM EST
    work as an actress.

    The Great Waldo Pepper, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Atlantic City, The Hunger, The Witches of Eastwick, Bull Durham, Thelma and Louise, Light Sleeper and Cradle Will Rock.

    All films (and I'm sure I'm missing some) I've enjoyed watching numerous times. And will enjoy watching again. She was a highlight in the lot of 'em.

    I often agree with her politically too. But not this time.

    I always thought (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    Susan Abigail Tomalin's best movie was The Client.  Of course by the time she made that movie she had married and divorced Chris, but kept Sarandan as her state name.

    Parent
    Good addition ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    as I said, I was sure I was missing some.

    THE CLIENT also featured the screen debut of Brad Renfro. Such a talented guy. Left us too soon.

    Parent

    Tommy Lee Jones (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ragebot on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 11:01:40 AM EST
    was a fantastic bad guy in The Client.  I have always thought not only were actors playing bad guys not given enough credit but that for an actor to be a really effective good guy there had to be a really good actor playing a bad guy opposite.

    Parent
    Jones is one of ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 11:22:29 AM EST
    those few actors who's equally good playing good guys and bad guys.

    Parent
    "Atlantic City" is ... (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    ... one of the great (and probably under-appreciated) films of the 1980s, directed by the late Louis Malle. Ms. Sarandon and co-star Burt Lancaster were awesome as a couple of small-time schmucks who were inadvertently thrown together by a sudden cascade of circumstances brought about by her ne'er-do-well husband, and who were quickly compelled to make common cause in order to survive the moment.

    Parent
    An underrated, in my opinion... (none / 0) (#136)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 10:22:56 AM EST
    ...movie of hers was Sweet Hearts Dance, with a very not his Miami Vice character Don Johnson playing opposite her, and Jeff Daniels and Elizabeth Perkins in supporting roles.

    A nice little movie.

    Parent

    Compare (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 01, 2016 at 06:17:35 AM EST
    and contrast:
    Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats

    and

    Former President Bill Clinton, husband to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, suggested Thursday that he'd use his superdelegate vote to support Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) if he won the Democratic nomination.

    Which one sounds like a team player, which one sounds like a prima donna? Please show your work.

    He has to disavow it??? (2.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    Cuz some movie star flapped her yapper? Will Hillary disavow the murderous stupidity she used to get thousands of people murdered in Libya? Cuz you and I both know that is what it was. She is a thoroughly corrupt pol. She was on the board of WAL-MART for crap's sake, one of the world's leading scumbag companies, is she going to disavow that and talk about how much damage that company did to peoples' lives, and how much she regrets it?

    Call me when she evidences an ounce of that kind of courage. I'll be waiting until I'm pushing up daisies.

    Who CARES what Susan Sarandon said? Should I judge Hillary on a TV interview she made shilling for her book when she actually CHUCKLED about the "difficulty" of decisions that got thousands of people killed?

    I love you, Tent, but, come on, be serious. CDS is becoming your default copout. You were very confused by her Libya stance, it initiated a bloodbath. She is silent on it. But THAT is somehow on par with Sarandon?

    What planet do we live on?

    You (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    need to disavow this slander  
    the murderous stupidity she used to get thousands of people murdered in Libya?
    FYI: We were joined in this "travesty" by the likes of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the UK, not exactly a pack of homicidal fools

    My understanding is that the major impetus for intervention came from the French and the British who then pressured the US to get on board. There was widespread international and domestic support for no fly zones(Bernie voted in support of it!). There seemed to be a consensus among the Nato and some of the Arab countries that Gaddafi was about to go on a murderous rampage(at least that's what they told us).

    IMO It was not Hillary's gig in the first place, but when some of our closest allies came calling we joined in no small part out of loyalty and diplomacy and no large part out pure hawkery from her.

    It's unseemly to distort history out of hatred...it's so right wingish.


    Parent

    Tad Devine (think it was him) was just on CNN (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cashmere on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    and was asked about this.  He said he, personally, will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but that Susan Sarandan is very passionate about Bernie and has the right to make up her own mind about how she will vote.  Hen mentioned that Sarandan has been on the campaign trail with Sanders and gave an introduction to Berniw (somewhere in the midwest I think) that nearly brought Devine to tears.  There was no effort by his campaign to disavow what she said.

    The Sanders campaign ... (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    really doesn't deserve the soft treatment they've been getting from the Clinton campaign.

    I don't go with those who feel you treat Dem opponents with kid gloves because you need their supporters in the fall.

    My view is your opponent, whether in a primary or general, can never be low enough in the polls.

    Parent

    he has to disavow (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:08:38 PM EST

    It is unrealistic to expect any politician to disavow every utterance of every nut job supporter.  If they had to, there would be no campaigns, no debates, nothing but 24/7 disavowals.

    She's (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    a first line surrogate not just any supporter. She's introduced Bernie at rallies etc.

    Parent
    Bubba and Gore ramming Free Trade fundamentalism (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    NAFTA and Wall St deregulation down our throats proved they understood sustainable economies about has well as Father Geoghan understood healthy sexual developement..

    I think what we have to concerned about is not so much whether "the Democratic Party" has learned anything in the last decade-plus, as whether the inevitable this season's Greenspans, Rubins, and Summers have deeply learned anything new and of value for the country.

    I've posted something similar before (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    but it bears repeating in light of the trend toward ignoring the true reasons for  manufacturing's decline in the US and the subsequent impact on the middle class.

    The integration of production across countries with complementary labor forces -- cheaper workers in Mexico to perform many basic tasks, with more highly paid and productive engineers and workers in the United States -- turned out to play a central role in reviving the auto industry in North America.

    Nafta May Have Saved Many Autoworkers' Jobs

    Parent

    Same writer, two weeks earlier, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    On Trade, Angry Voters Have a Point

    The late Intel CEO Andy Grove on the larger picture, which isn't about cars.

    NY Times: Andy Grove's Warning to Silicon Valley

    MIT Review: The former leader of Intel wants to see more manufacturing jobs in the United States--by any means necessary.

    Parent

    Articles make good points, including: (none / 0) (#115)
    by vicndabx on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    Trade with other parts of the world has not been as disruptive. For all the criticism of Nafta, most economists assess  its impact on American workers as modest. Trade flows with Mexico were smaller and more balanced than those with China. American manufacturing employment remained fairly stable in the years after Nafta came into force in 1994, plummeting only after China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001 and gained consistent access to markets in the United States.

    Point being the impact of China on trade and manufacturing losses.

    and this...

    Mr. Grove acknowledged that it was cheaper and thus more profitable for companies to hire workers and build factories in Asia than in the United States. But in his view, those lower Asian costs masked the high price of offshoring as measured by lost jobs and lost expertise. Silicon Valley misjudged the severity of those losses, he wrote, because of a "misplaced faith in the power of start-ups to create U.S. jobs."

    will get no argument from me.

    Both articles make the same arguments IMO, knee-jerk populist rhetoric does not make good policy.  We need to be prepared to pay a little more for things we consume.

    Parent

    That theory has become (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    almost Gospel.

    But, I would point out that the Clinton/Rubin/Summers economy allowed the tech boom to occur.

    And, the chronic problems with stagnating wages have a lot to do with globalization--making it easier to export jobs and industries....But being against Big Banks and Wall Street is so much easier and fun.

    Parent

    I wouldn't call what happened in (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    2007-2008 a lot of fun..

    Maybe it was for lawyers. Someone had to be working overtime to keep any of those grifters from going to jail.

    Parent

    Speak of the devil... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    Someone like Eric Holder?

    He is back at his old firm Covington & Burling ya know, whose clients include the likes of JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, & Wells Fargo.

    But that Bernie guy is the dangerous one...nothing to see here.

    Parent

    Big law firms now too (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 05:05:27 PM EST
    I'd like to see Armando opine on that.

    Parent
    Not the firm so much... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    even a no good dirty criminal enterprise like Citibank deserves representation in a court of law...it's the corporate service posing as public service I object too. Holder is just one recent example.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    One shouldn't let one's natural inclination to kiss up and kick down blind one to the fact that the tech boom had much more to do with the hard work of thousands of creative tecnicians, inventors, and entrepreurs on the ground than it ever did with those "deregulate Wall St or bust" clowns, Summers, Rubin, and Greenspan.

    Parent
    While (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    your inclinations are to assign all bad solely upon the Clintons and all good to somebody else.

    Face it there is good, bad and ugly in all administrations, but like most Democratic Presidents there was no underlying ugliness with the Clintons.

    Parent

    The anti-Big Bank (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    view is simplistic.

    The idea of breaking up the banks is a feel good response that will in reality not accomplish much.  And, the idea once was we did not want our puny banks going up against the likes of Cathay Bank, Sumitomo and Credit Suisse.

    Anti-trust actions have collapsed because we no longer live in a national economy but a global one.  You can't just can't wall off the outside world and use the data here as the only relevant data.

    Parent

    I agree that Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    did not create the tech boom.  

    But a good idea, without an ability to market and sell it, goes nowhere.  So you need the fertile ground of a good economy, else all those good ideas fall on fallow ground.

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 06:46:24 PM EST
    Even Saloon.com is not happy with Suzie


    Susan Sarandon can afford a so-called Trump "revolution" -- the rest of us will be screwed when "things really explode"

    LINK

    when Saloon calls you a Leftie nut you might be a Leftie nut

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 29, 2016 at 07:17:33 PM EST
    but I can't even believe they said that.

    Parent
    To the assembled rabble (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:16:33 AM EST
    Wiki's recap of Clinton's 2008 primary season.

    You will notice that she remained in the race until the bitter end, June 3, 2008, the date of the Montana and South Dakota primaries.  She suspended her campaign on June 7.

    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:22:11 AM EST
    see anybody advocating for Bernie to quit like they did Hillary. I only see annoyance at the condescending supporters of Bernie and Bernie using GOP talking points.

    Parent
    2008 vs 2016 (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 08:34:04 AM EST
    Sanders is further behind today than Clinton ever was throughout all of 2008.

    Parent
    And let's not forget ... (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 30, 2016 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    the Michigan and Florida delegations which would have put her in the lead if they'd been seated.  And she ended up with more of the popular vote.

    Sanders is behind by hundreds of pledged delegates and millions of votes.

    Parent

    And forget the Q poll. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by AX10 on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    Hillary will win NY by at least 15 if not up to 25.

    She will take the nomination by at least 400 delegates.

    Parent

    Just curious (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anc260 on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    What makes you say that?

    I could see New York being close,

    Parent

    She won it last time. (none / 0) (#152)
    by AX10 on Fri Apr 01, 2016 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    NYC is going heavily for her.  Much of the Democratic party is in the city and she has the backing of the machinery.

    Parent
    LOL! Debra Messing trolls Susan Sarandon! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    It actually started when Jamie Lee Curtis took to Twitter to voice her objections to Sarandon's nihilism, and then Messing decided to chime in and go for the jugular.

    (If you want to wade through Sarandon's Twitter feed, be my guest. The vitriol on display only reaffirms my own decision to not join Twitter and wade into that cesspool.)

    Aloha.

    Hypothetical question: (none / 0) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 08:33:36 PM EST
    If, for whatever reason, candidate Hillary Clinton decides to leave the campaign, what happens then?

    Does Bernie get it by default? Would another Democrat step up and give it a shot? Are there any possible candidates who come to mind?

    The reason I'm asking this is not that I believe an indictment from the FBI is a realistic possibility. But, the animosity felt by them towards her is real, and, I'm pretty certain a "whispering" campaign against her will follow the official closing of this case. That could be quite damaging to her, and, if her poll numbers suffer a lot she might just figure, "enough is enough, who needs this crap?" and go find more pleasurable things to do with her life.

    Like they say, "just asking."

    Baloney, NYS, baloney (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 09:00:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Just guessing (none / 0) (#144)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    But Sanders would still need the delegates necessary to win the nomination.
    Where would the Super D's go, Would Hillary hold her delegates , at least for the 1st round, then releasing them.
    Basically, you are asking can the Establishment Dem's then choose another candidate to their liking

    Parent
    Speculation (none / 0) (#145)
    by ragebot on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 08:56:25 PM EST
    I have seen in the MSM is Biden would be Obama's choice.  Sanders being a socialist might not play well.  Not saying a lot of federal programs are not what lots of folks would call socialism, just there seems to be a problem with voters admitting it when voting.

    Time has had a few interesting articles lately.  Many of us have seen claims of 100, 150, or 170  agents. Time is saying the real number is 20-30.  Looks like a lot of FUD so far and I bet there will be more.

    Parent

    Mike Duffy of Time Magazine (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 11:55:04 PM EST
    said yesterday the investigation is almost over and suggested they were going to clear Hillary.

    That would end it.

    Parent

    Makes sense. (none / 0) (#147)
    by linea on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 09:27:10 PM EST
    I thought it would be Biden/Warren this year. But then Biden had the tramstic loss in his family. Sad.

    Parent
    Ultimately the number of agents (none / 0) (#148)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 31, 2016 at 11:18:13 PM EST
    is around 12.

    Parent
    Looks like Chris Cillizza (none / 0) (#153)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 01, 2016 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    and the Washington Post got played. It is mathematically true that 12 is fewer than 50, and that fewer than 50 is less than 147. Still, it would seem only right for Cillizza to do more than serve up a dish of arithmetic---a follow-up on that "lawmaker" who was briefed by FBI Director Comey, and, who in turn, briefed Cillizza for his article, would do a lot to remove the egg on him and his newspaper's face.

     All bets should be off on keeping anonymity of source, if the source provided bad information, or had nefarious intent. (cf. Judith Miller, former NYTimes reporter/Cheney stooge). Of course, Cillizza could be making stuff up to please his editors.

    Parent

    GOP (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 01, 2016 at 02:29:31 PM EST
    arithmetic= 1 + 4 + 7 equals 147 instead of 12.

    Parent
    Wait and See (none / 0) (#150)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Apr 01, 2016 at 06:06:31 AM EST
    The 22 e mails are the most troublesome. Especially for the aides that sent them. Where did they get the information from? If , from classified source documents, will they then fall on the sword. And there was 1 Sid Blumenthal e mail that the NSA was very worked up about. Have no idea what the FBI will recommend , but the Obama administration has been the most aggressive administration in pursuing criminal cases involving classified information


    It has been two months since the State Department announced that it was withholding in full 22 Hillary Clinton emails that contained "Top Secret" information, but one crucial question remains: was the information in those emails classified when they were originally written?

    A State Department official tells The Daily Caller that the agency is still not prepared to provide an answer to that question. It's unclear if the State Department has made the determination and is waiting to announce it or if the matter is still being reviewed.

    On Jan. 29, State Department spokesman John Kirby announced the State Department was concurring with the intelligence community's inspector general that the 22 emails -- which spanned 37 pages -- contained "Top Secret" information. Some of the information involved extremely sensitive "special access programs."



    Parent
    Another Source-less Quote... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2016 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    ... from some conspiracy theory website.

    I was wrong, it's actually a tabloid.

    If only the right would 'wait and see' instead screaming Benghazi and Emails before they even understand what is going on.

    They burned everyone out, and unless there is gold in them hills, real gold, not the pyrite they have trying to pass off, HRC will be the next President.

    You are the right is real upheaval, you believe anything they toss you and then get made when HRC isn't taken out in chains and hung out back.


    Parent

    Sanders' Sarandon Problem | 159 comments (159 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment