2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Susan Sarandon: Trump Might Be Better for America Than Hillary Clinton [View all]Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)You pack so much in here, let's see if we can unpack it a little.
Did she claim that there was no difference between the parties OR did she claim that Hillary's policies were so unacceptable (and the party apparatus' support (some have claimed rigging the game) for her so unconscionable) that it would be better for a raging lunatic to win the election? Did she actually say that, in such an event, the benefit of lesson the American people would learn (i.e., THAT ALL REBUBLICAN ARE JUST NUTS and should never be supported for ANY elected office) would be greater than the limited "benefit" of her policies?
Is your use of the term "Naderite" a way of suggesting that it was Nader's Florida voters who gave us Bush the Lesser? If it was, you might consider whether it was Nader's voters that cost us Florida, OR whether it was the craven cowardice of the DLC who sat silent while that sniveling racist Jeb Bush disenfranchised tens of thousands of disproportionately PoC by the blanket removal of convicted felons from the voter rolls because the DLC was worried about alienating suburban middle-right independents?
As for throwing rich folks who actually give a FRA about others who are not rich under the bus with that final exclamation . . . you wish.
I'll be voting for Hillary IF she gets the nomination, but your holier-than-thou establishment-splaining will have NOTHING to do with it.