Sarah Silverman on why we should vote for Bernie Sanders

The comedian, who used to be supporter of Hillary Clinton, has put out a video explaining why she shifted to Sanders, and argues against much of the defeatist or fear-mongering rhetoric being used against him. (Language advisory)


  1. says

    I switched my party over to Dem so that I could vote in their primary. It looks like voting against Trump in Pennsylvania is more or less a waste of effort. As a big “FU” to the system, I’ll give Bernie a shot -- but I’m not falling for that hopey changey close gitmo again. Speaking of which, did you see where US Marines are in front line positions in Iraq? Gosh, “they” lied again.

  2. says

    Got a cite for that?

    The day after the attack, the joint task force overseeing the fight against ISIS announced it was dispatching additional Marines from the 26th MEU to Iraq to join the roughly 3,700 U.S. troops already deployed there to fight ISIS.

    Makmur, where the marines were killed, is the position that was taken up as a stopping point to keep the Iraqi army from further dissolving. Think Khe Sahn in Iraq and you have an approximate idea of what’s going on there.

    And why is it exactly a lie even if US Marines are in Iraq?

    No motherfucking “boots on the ground” is the lie.

  3. lanir says

    I have no idea why anyone would stop voting for Sanders just because they think he might not win. This is a primary. A strong second place finish pushes their policy into the conversation. I think we need a conversation about these issues. And this is our last chance to have a meaningful discussion about them. Because in November we’ll have nothing but a choice between going to Crazytown and blaming all our problems on a depressing succession of less powerful minorities (what could possibly go wrong with that?) or voting for the candidate who actually seems to be aware of the real world.

    So vote for whoever you would rather see in office. In November we get the grim and depressing task of seeing how much of the nation is completely unconcerned with the idea of handing over control of the nation to people whose approach to problem solving can generally be summed up as making bigger problems so you look truly epic while tilting at windmills against them. And don’t let Congress vote for you either. If your senators and representatives aren’t doing what you want, vote for someone to replace them. And no that last bit won’t get fixed overnight but ignoring the problem is the best way to make sure it festers. And it’s done enough damage already.

  4. StevoR says

    @3. Marcus Ranum : Okay. That’s certainly a good cite there and one which has some good info in it, thanks. I found the last paragraph particularly interesting where it noted :

    Makhmur was the site of an ISIS mustard gas attack last August by ISIS which sickened dozens of Kurdish troops. The attack was confirmed by U.S. military officials after shards of spent mortar shells tested positive for mustard gas.

    You gotta wonder where the mustard gas came from don’t you? Could it have perhaps been from one of Saddam’s old stockpiles? Was it made by Da’esh themselves? Or was it supplied by someone else and if so who and why? I think the first possibility is certainly likely and so it could well be suggestive that there were indeed WMDs when Saddam Hussein was in charge -- we do know he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians after all.

    But yes, it’s undeniable that Obama has gone back on his former “no US boots on the ground” stance. Looking at a few items on it this one seems to explain it best :

    But the White House has also said consistently that despite that pledge, its strategy would be responsive to the facts on the ground. “We have been focused on intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective,” the senior administration official said. “Let me re-affirm that our core objective of degrading and destroying ISIL has not changed.”

    & at the start of that article :

    After months of looking at new options, the White House will send in ground forces.

    So, clearly a lot of time and thought has been put into the decision made on what must have been a reasonable least bad alternative analysis.

    So has Obama changed his position on boots on the ground -- yes.

    But was that pledge a lie exactly?

    Well, consider the following analogy : Suppose you make a promise never to go into a certain park near you for whatever reason -- but then one day you are outside and someone kidnaps you and forces you to go there at gunpoint, or a friend rushes up and begs for help and takes you here, or you see a fire burning there and need to rush over there to help or whatever. Have you gone back on what you said? Yes. Does that mean you were lying when you said it? No.

    Same applies here.

    Obama didn’t lie -- circumstances just changed and meant he had to do something he’d rather not have done. When facts change people have to change things based on those facts and this time one of those things that the experts & leaders here realised needed changing was that “no US boots on the ground”pledge couldn’t be kept and needed to go.

    Big question, of course, is whether the new tactic will work or not and what else may have to happen to defeat the Jihadists. We’ll have to wait and see on that one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *