Samuel L. Jackson: ‘I’m forever a Democrat… and I’m gonna vote for Hillary’


I’m sort of depressed about Samuel L. Jackson. By all accounts, he gives an amazing performance in The Hateful Eight, but he’s not really part of the awards-season conversation right now. Part of that is by Sam’s own design – I didn’t know this until right now, but Sam is not a “believer” in the Oscar campaign process, so he doesn’t care one way or the other if Harvey Weinstein will put any money into a possible Best Actor campaign. Still, there are signs that Sam is playing the game. A little bit. Mostly, I think he just loves Quentin Tarantino and Sam is genuinely proud of The Hateful Eight, so Sam is happy to give interviews and shill wherever he’s wanted. So he sat down with THR’s Scott Feinberg for an awards-season podcast, and the quotes are amazing! You can read the full piece here (you can also listen to the podcast), and here are some of the best quotes:

Not getting an Oscar nomination for Jungle Fever: “When the Oscar nominations came out that year, I didn’t get nominated, but there was like three people from Bugsy, so my wife and I said, ‘Well, let’s go see Bugsy.’ And we’re sitting there, and at the end of it we’re like, ‘Really? Really?’ And she actually cried about it. And I think that was the thing that kind of broke us about the whole Academy Awards milieu and whatever it is.”

Getting nominated for Pulp Fiction: “When I did get nominated, bullsh-t started immediately. All of a sudden there were these phone calls going, ‘We’re gonna [push] John [Travolta] for best actor and you for best supporting actor because we can’t have both of you in the same category. I’m like, ‘Okay, whatever that means.’ Then, all of a sudden, I start going to these things and people start telling me, ‘You were amazing in that movie and I’d really like to vote for you, but [Ed Wood's] Martin Landau’s been nominated, like, four times, and this might be the last time he has a chance.’… I was already cynical about it at that point, so the more things I went to that I didn’t win, the more I got it… I think I might be the only person that’s ever reacted honestly [at the Oscars] when my name wasn’t called. Even though you know you’re not gonna win, you’re sitting there and you’re saying to yourself, ‘Maybe they’re gonna get it right this time — just maybe they’ll get it right this time.’ And they didn’t. And I didn’t think about the camera — I just went, ‘Aw, sh-t!’ Still only 13 people have seen f–kin’ Ed Wood!”

Muslims are the new black people: “When that thing happened in France, we were sitting there going, ‘Oh, my God, these terrorists!’ And I can’t even tell you how much that day the thing that happened in San Bernardino — I was in Hawaii — how much I really wanted that to just be another, you know, crazy white dude, and not really some Muslims, because it’s like: ‘Oh, sh-t. It’s here. And it’s here in another kind of way.’ Now, okay, it happened on an Army base and it happened somewhere else. But now? It’s like they have a legitimate reason now to look at your Muslim neighbor, friend, whatever in another way. And they become the new young black men.”

He’s voting for Hillary Clinton: “I’m forever a Democrat, you know, and I’m gonna vote for Hillary. I mean, I love Bernie — Bernie’s a man of the people — but he can’t win. So I gotta cast my vote for a person that can keep those other people from winning, okay? Not to mention, you know, Hillary kinda knows the job, she can hit the ground running. She didn’t have a huge learning-curve like Barack had or some other people had. And hopefully she can open up the skeletal files of those do-nothing a–holes that go to work, like, four times a year and not vote on things and threaten them with whatever she and Bill uncovered on them years ago and make ‘em do something and we can get something done.”

[From THR]

There are two more lengthy discussions which you should just go and read in their entirety at THR. At one point, Sam is asked about police violence against civilians, specifically the African-American community, and Sam talks about Vietnam vets who became cops in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and how a new generation of soldiers/veterans are becoming cops, and how the war mentality is being brought to community policing. His point of view is really interesting and I do think there’s something there (although it’s far from the complete picture). Sam is also asked about Tarantino’s use of the N-word, because Sam always gets asked about that. Sam always has the same kind of answer too: “It’s bullsh-t. What word do they want him to use? How do you describe me in a Tarantino movie if there are rednecks?” Sam also says that Tarantino is allowed to use the N-word, in Sam’s mind, because QT has a “black consciousness,” which is an amazing way to describe Quentin Tarantino.


Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

142 Responses to “Samuel L. Jackson: ‘I’m forever a Democrat… and I’m gonna vote for Hillary’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GreenieWeenie says:

    I would vote for Hillary too, but is it true that Bernie can’t win? is the US doomed to a two-party (dominant) system forever? I feel like there are some parliamentary-style politics at work here that I’m not getting. So Bernie would split the Democrat vote, making a Republican win inevitable. But the Republican frontrunner is a blithering idiot. If that man wins the nomination, THAT will split the Republican party. He’d be a minority candidate within the party, paradoxically. Couldn’t those votes just end up being no-shows or scattered around, making a Bernie win possible?

    Or is this just….not ever happening?

    • SusanneToo says:

      I’ll be voting for Bernie in the primary, but, whoever gets the Democratic nomination gets my vote. If Kermit the Frog gets the nom, Kermie gets my vote.

      PS. Love SLJ.

    • Talie says:

      “but is it true that Bernie can’t win?”

      Yup, it would never happen. Not just because of the socialism talk, but he also is very unprepared to discuss foreign policy. Hillary is the best shot.

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        put it in context: socialism as opposed to oligarchy. I think there’s a large audience for that.

      • Betsy says:

        @greenieweenie – but probably not yet as many as those who hear “socialism” and hear “godless Communist devil worshippers who hate America!”

      • GreenieWeenie says:

        @Betsy, true, there’s one of those hiding around every corner!

      • Jay (the Canadian one) says:

        Recent poll would have Bernie beat Trump by 13 points, Hillary by only 7. Bernie can’t win because even those who could hypothetically be on his side like SLJ are shooting his chances in the foot. Sad.

        There are those who distrust the word “socialism” but there are also those who distrust Hillary Clinton so it’s a bit of a wash there.

      • lilacflowers says:

        @GreenieWeenie, lately, they have not been hiding. They’re rather loud and proud.

      • CK says:

        @Jay I’d argue that Sanders is high as he is at the moment, because none of his potential contenders are going after him. The moment the republicans and the PACS start replaying that debate clip of him promising to raise taxes on everyone, his numbers are going to take a big dip. Not to mention the whole “he’s a socialist” campaign that’s going to be in full force if he wins the nomination.

      • Jay (the Canadian one) says:

        @CK there’s some truth to that to be sure but I think the pervasive fear of the word socialist is overstated because the people who are truly repulsed by the word were probably already going to vote republican anyway regardless.

      • CK says:

        I’m not sure. I don’t think moderates and independents have been tested nationally when it comes to voting for an actual socialist or socialist policies. Unless he veers towards the center (which I don’t see him doing), like all politicians eventually have to do after the primary, he’s going to turn off a lot of moderates. He has to build a winning coalition and battleground states are going to be tough for someone to the left of Barack Obama. National Polls don’t take the need for 270 electoral votes into account. I’m beyond sure that Bernie wouldn’t be able to get elected as a senator in my state.

      • Gandolf says:

        Unprepared to talk about foreign policy? Bernie has been in the US Congress for 25 years!

      • mimif says:

        @Gandolf yeah but he’s focused his campaign on rebuilding broken social systems in the US, whereas hello-look-at-me-I’m-the-Secretary-of-State-I-voted-to-invade- Iraq-but-I-made-a-mistake-is (cough) considered more adept at handling foreign affairs.

      • M.A.F. says:

        @Gandolf: there are many more who have been Congress just as long if not longer than him but that doesn’t mean they know foreign politics. Can you see him talking to Iran? North Korea?

      • ekaterina says:

        I’m sick of hearing of Hillary, one of the reasons is no one has done their homework. Name a reason besides the crap Samuel said that makes her better? Do your research but not through mainstream media n read what top PhDs etc..have on her,the damage she n Bill n Bushes have done is horrifying. U wanna vote Bernie than do, don’t vote cause u think he has no chance, if all people felt that way then he’d be in.
        Ad for Oscars, cry me a river, how many top rated actors have been passed by n Mr snakes on a plane is gonna cry,sorry his wife

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      To be honest I don’t think Bernie has the support, even ignoring the two-party system. His base is young, white, college-aged kids (not a bad thing) but he doesn’t seem to resonate with other groups.

      • Gandolf says:

        I am in my forties, not white, not in college and I will vote for Bernie as will many of my friends who are much like me.

      • Original T.C. says:

        Agree with Eternal Side eye,

        Bernie Sanders has a limited base that is very passionate about him but he does not appeal to many independents, same as for Donald Trump. Neither can win due to their ceiling effect. You need a broader coalition like Obama had to win. Those are just statistical facts that you can’t get passed unless you flood the nation with a billion dollar TV campaign which both Bernie and Trump haven’t been able to raise. VERY similar to the Father and son Libertarians in the GOP who always have passionate voters claiming they can win despite what statistics show.

        SLJ is just being realistic. There are many things I don’t like about either Hillary or Bernie but our country cannot survive another GW Bush which we will get with another Bush or Ted Cruz (likely GOP candidates).

        No Hillary is not exactly the same as those guys. My uterus and my military friends know there is a difference.

      • Jib says:

        I’m a 54 year old woman and I’ve sent Bernie money and will vote for him in the primaries. So it’s not just college kids.

      • M.A.F. says:

        He might have the college kids but that doesn’t mean they will vote.

      • Dangles says:

        “Bernie Sanders has a limited base that is very passionate about him but he does not appeal to many independents, same as for Donald Trump. Neither can win due to their ceiling effect.”

        If they end up going head-to-head in the presidential election one of them has to win.

    • magz says:

      Its going to happen! Just vote for what you believe in, the good will prevail!

    • Dangles says:

      When you look at the field of morons the Republicans have to choose from it’s obvious that Bernie can win. As for the foreign policy stuff, it’s about time the US had a president who focused on fixing America rather than meddling in the affairs of other countries. On the other hand if Clinton wins she’ll just be another president of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.

      • mimif says:

        +1 Hillary is just another corporate shill. I realize that in this day and age, there are a lot of folks who are all about walls, borders and fear mongering, but if we spent one nth of our military budget (that clearly isn’t working) and put it back into our own system, we’d be a much better country. Shit, it would be a much better world. How can people not see that the rise of global terrorism directly correlates to our meddling in foreign affairs?

      • wolfie says:

        Dangles and mimif +1000

        I will always vote the democratic platform as opposed to Republican – bottom line, Bern is spot on. One has to “believe” in order to bring it into being. (And do the work of donations and giving of voice).

      • ekaterina says:

        Exactly. Like she said, 1 st thing will be foreign policy. Enough with other countries, enough with involving ourselves where we don’t belong, look at the mess we have here.

      • kaiko says:

        Hell yeah! Fistpump to you Dangles, and to this whole thread so far! I’m not great lover of how socialism has historically been implemented, but I certainly respect Sanders for having the balls to run on his platform, and definitely think his vision is perhaps the only true alternative we have from the Corporatism/MIC (military industrial complex) that’s been in place since god knows when, ww2 maybe? Ike was right!! But will Bernie get anywhere with Congress if elected, or just get steamrolled into a corner and silenced? Strangely enough, and I know many hardline Democrats will probably disagree with me, but though they stood on opposite ends of the spectrum, Sanders had and still has A LOT in common with Ron Paul…a long standing Congressman with personal principles and an actual smidgen of common sense.

  2. Stella says:

    No, Bernie can win. The idea that he can’t win or that he’d split the vote is a tired narrative that many Clinton supporters are pushing. If enough people like him but are mislead into believing this bull, then guess what…he doesn’t win. It’s already been suggested that only Bernie would win against Trump because of his ability to overcome massive apathy like no one else. And secondly, Trump will not be the candidate. So if you’re heart belongs to Bernie, vote Bernie. If it belongs to HRC, vote HRC.

    • Greenieweenie says:

      So Bernie wouldn’t split the vote, he’d bring out new voters like Obama in 08?

      But Obama already had a large voting pool to add to.

      I’m just interested in how you would transition away from a system dominated by two parties into one that is not via viable alternatives.

      • JM says:

        Bernie is running against Hillary for the Democratic nomination. Whoever wins the primary election will be the nominee against whichever Republican is chosen from the clown car. Therefore, Bernie will not split the vote and he can win. Recent polls show he does better than Hillary against every Republican candidate, Trump by 13%. His campaign is generating far more energy and attracting Independents, moderate Republicans and citizens who have never bothered to vote before. His campaign has received over 2 million individual contributions already, faster than any other candidate in history, he is ahead in New Hampshire and within single digits in Iowa. And this is only the beginning. #FeelTheBern

      • M.A.F. says:

        One way to move away from the two party system to start allowing Independents to vote in the primaries. Right now in California (and I’m sure in other states) I can’t vote in June because they don’t allow Independents to cast their vote. Also, the media itself can start to give equal air to to the other parties.

        If only Ralph Nader would run.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Oh, I didn’t realize he was running as a Democrat. That would actually be something: one extremist to the right, and one “extremist” to the left (sorry, but Bernie socialism isn’t all that socialist in an international context). At least the race would finally resemble the American public–polarized.

        Ralph Nader was running when I was in college. Plenty of local support, not much of a blip nationally IIRC

  3. mimif says:

    His (spot on) description of the Oscars ironically mirror the reasons why he thinks Bernie can’t (or shouldn’t?) win. Love Sam, but he’s getting the side eye from me on why he’s voting for Hilary.

  4. LAK says:

    Why can’t Bernie win? Why not just vote for him regardless? It seems to me a coward’s way of voting where you assume someone can’t win, not because of policy or being the best man for the job or because you agree with him, but because the system is corrupt so you may as well go with the system. How is change supposed to happen if you don’t try????!!!

    Also, Hilary? HILARY??!!!!

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Eh, less cowardly, more logical.

      People would vote for their left shoe if they believed it could pose as a viable candidate against Trump. That means beating him in polls and the electorate.

      The political climate right now is toxic to a degree that it’s never been before with talk of reporters (not) being killed, protestors being beaten up, and women mocked for daring to pee or ask questions.

      In a less severe political climate I think Bernie would have been more of a viable choice, but this year even without Trump you’ve got 13 (I think) candidates tripping over themselves to wreak havoc on every progressive achievement we’ve managed to accomplish.

      • mimif says:

        Listen I’m not disagreeing with you but Hilary is just this side of as f-cked as the rest of them. Please tell me you saw her Happy Kwanzaa bs on Twitter the other day?! Actually you know what, the whole DNC can suck bananas because they are doing more to undermine Sanders at this point than the repubs are.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Oh I saw it and it was ridiculous, same with the Abuela nonsense.

        But in the end I can’t shake looking at this environment and seeing how it’s playing a big role in pushing someone like Trump to the forefront and making someone like Bush seem moderate.

        People tend to back ‘winners’ and familiar names when everything seems unsettled and precarious.

        I do like Bernie’s message and voting history on many topics.

      • QQ says:

        THIS^^^^ i’m sorta Tired that them and The Media keep pushing this story of “how well Hillary is doing in the debates” and acting like the nom is a foregone conclusion and it’s hers etc I HATE HATE HATE that

      • mimif says:

        Do you think the repubs pushing for Bernie are just doing so to get Hilary out and then turncoat for Trump? Honest question.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        I’m not sure if you’re asking me or QQ but I don’t mind answering.

        In a perfect world (hell even in 2008) I think Bernie would really be on fire. Let’s not count the man out, he’s got good poll numbers, a proven track record, and passion for days. But the world as it is now has me looking at all the angles.

        Establishment hates Trump, we know that, and I think with the way it is right now you’ve got a lot of yellow-bellied Republicans that are afraid to support anyone else because he publicly and aggressively calls out people and insults them. They don’t want that target on their back even as they hate the man.

        I think the repubs pushing for Bernie fall into two camps: 1. Those that see a proven politician who’s reasonable and passionate. Who’ll fight without calling anyone a loser. Someone that they might actually be able to work with and 2. Those that do think it’ll help bring down the other team. On the less conservative side we have Hillary and Bernie. There’s many differences but generally they agree on the same issues. But Hilary has the Clinton name, a name that evokes pretty much the last positive time for this country before so many crashes and tragedies. Also, right or wrong, she has her and Bill’s legacy and any shady acts lingering and many Republicans (the electorate) who would sooner cut their tongue out than vote for her. She’s a woman of extremes, the majority either hate or love her. Hard to find a middle ground.

        Of course on the opposite end you have Bernie. In spite of being in politics forever he’s a new name to many and there’s concern. Will he really be able to reach the working class? Does he have the trust and support of minorities who are unfamiliar with him? Will people pick him when it’s crunch time? It’s honestly a 50/50 shot. I think a lot of people will go the voting booth thinking in terms of: “Do I want to make America great again?” or “Do I want America to be better than this?”

        Of course that’s if Trump even gets the nomination…and that he doesn’t run independently as he keeps threatening. It is honestly just amazing this year. We might have 3 candidates or more come 2016 running on different tickets.

      • mimif says:

        I was asking you, Eternal, and thanks the detailed run down. I guess I’m just living in my little socialist bubble over here, because everyone I know (I’m in my 40′s, white, living in a very working class town that abuts a Native Res) is voting for Bernie. I see people of all kinds, active voters, who are campaigning for him, so I guess it’s disheartening to hear him called “a new name” or question whether or not he’s able to reach the working class or minorities. Then again, I don’t follow mainstream news or attitudes at all, so…I guess when it comes down to it, I’ll have to vote for Elizabeth Warren. ;)

      • lisa says:


        im not sure where this reply will land i hope you see it

        to answer your question, i have mostly always voted republican. i changed my registration to dem so i can vote for bernie in the primary (my state requires that.) not anything to do with a vote against hillary. i just really believe in bernie. if he doesnt get the nom, i will probably vote 3rd party.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        We’re all living in a bubble to a degree Mimif, lol, none of us are in Barbie’s Dream House of Perfect Percentage Minorities.

        I’m not trying to diss Bernie or say it’s impossible, tbh I like the process of learning more about him, seeing his passion, and positions. What I’ve seen so far makes me really happy. I just wanted to defend why I think it’s not quite hitting the mark to say why people may not vote for him even if they like him.

        A year ago if you’d asked me before I knew about Bernie I’d have told you Hilary because I honestly don’t believe any future Republican candidate will be able to function with a Tea Party base as rapid and soaked in misinformation and aggression. Now I am honestly happy to have more choices that aren’t blow yards or revenge seeking children…or eyes barely open drones.

        Honestly mimif…when I think of Republicans I think Bernie could win IF Trump isn’t given the nominee. But then I wonder whether the party has the guts. Trump’s their fore runner, nutcase he is, not choosing him could lead to many members of their electorate refusing to vote for anyone else as revenge. IF he doesn’t run independent, in which case they’ll vote for him then dooming their party (can you see my tears? So many tears right?)

      • Chris says:

        Sanders gets about 20 seconds of airtime for every 80 minutes Trump etc get. It’s insane. Poll after poll shows big support for Sanders, yet his coverage is virtually non-existent, and coverage unfortunately correlates with votes.

        Useful list to differentiate between Sanders and Clinton:

        1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton has not.

        2. Sanders has supported gay rights since the early ’80s. Clinton has not.

        3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton does not.

        4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton does not.

        5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton does not.

        6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton does not.

        7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton did not.

        8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not.

        9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton does not.

        10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton does not.

        11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton does not.

        12. Sanders considers climate change our nation’s biggest threat. Clinton does not.

        13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton did not.

        14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton did not.

        15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton did not.

      • Pivotal Badger says:

        Thank you Chris.

        My husband (the expat) is voting 100% Bernie. Where oh where is GNAT when we need her! We’ve held debate watch parties, have donated and are campaigning for him as we live on the border of the US in Canada.

        He most certainly can win and is polling better than Hillary against all GOP nominees. Neither of us are kids – far from it. You’d be surprised how much support there is out there. The Sanders for President subreddit is a wonderful resource, check it out. Chock full of Bernie news and links to his rallies.

        I think that American voters are quietly tuning in to Bernie’s message and a month from now some political pundits are going to be very surprised.

        All I can say is GO Bernie GO!

      • Sixer says:

        Chris, thanks. I’m finding out a great deal on this thread!

        What is the Keystone pipeline and why is it important?

      • mimif says:

        WORD! This is what I’m talmbout! Bernie has so much potential; he’s the real deal AND he’s leading despite being undermined by mainstream media and the DNC. I’m all hyped now…FEELING THE BERN!!

        @Sixer The Keystone Pipeline is really complicated, I can’t even think of a Britisherly equivalent. It’s in different phases (ongoing and proposed), with some major environmental impact and of course, controversy. Too long to go into here, Google and get back to us!

      • Sixer says:

        Mimif – I googled! If I were to say that we are currently experiencing floods (again) and that those flood areas correspond almost exactly with the proposed fracking sites, it would be kinda the Britisher equivalent – lunatics and asylums, right?!

    • Sixer says:

      I hate “best of a bad lot but the good guy can’t win” voting. Not good for a genuinely representative democracy. We have enough of that (plus first past the sodding post) this side of the Pond, don’t we, LAK?

      I don’t like Hillary. She’s one of those stand for the left, act for the right politicians and they are my particular bugbear. We have plenty of those on this side of the Pond, too, and they are also bad for a genuinely representative democracy.

      Also, Sam, if you’re worried about Islamophobia, why would you want to vote for a foreign policy hawk? Cos that won’t fix it. At all.

      But then, like 99.9% of non-Americans, I see US politics mostly in terms of foreign policy, since that’s what affects me and my country. For all I know, Hillary has a brilliant set of domestic policies and I just haven’t noticed them cos they won’t affect me.

      • Betsy says:

        I like Hillary. And if liberal voters in the US want a more liberal government (as I do) that is arguably better representative of the citizens, they are going to have to be good little soldiers and vote more than every four years. They cannot vote solely in presidential elections and hope for the best the rest of the time.

      • CK says:

        @Betsy I totally agree. I’m a progressive from NC, but I’m always dumbfounded at the idea that progressives think the democratic party should represent and agree with every issue they have. There are tons of centrist democrats that can reach voters that aren’t in liberal bastions. Ideological purity is killing the Republican party and has left them unable to govern.

      • Sixer says:

        Ah, they do that stateside too, do they, voters? Turn out for the big ones en masse, but barely bother the rest of the time? Who is it that has mandatory voting? Is it Australia? I must look into that. Not sure about compulsion, but participating is certainly vital.

        Like I say, I don’t really know much about the difference between the Sanders and Clinton domestic proposals. Happy to be schooled though! Honestly: US politics in the rest of the world is really only viewed through the prism of foreign policy. And it kind of makes us think that’s all you guys are bothered about too, when clearly that’s not the case.

        For example, I’ve just come back from visiting family for Christmas and one of my (proudly socialist) uncles was saying he’d rather an isolationist Republican was your next president than a liberal interventionist Democrat like Hillary. (We’ll be dragged into wasting *our* money on fewer fruitless wars was his rationale for that). I said, “Yeah, but you’re not worried about your healthcare, are you?”

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I want credit for living up to my new year’s resolution not to rant about Hillary. That is all.

      • lilacflowers says:

        @Sixer, most Americans do not vote. Ever. According to the US census, 69% of the REGISTERED population voted in the last federal election in 2014 but that accounts for only 38% of the total population eligible to vote. The apathy is mind-numbing. Presidential elections do get a higher turnout than the off-year elections but even those results tend to be pathetic.

        And I am extremely frightened about my access to health care, especially as every single one of the Republican candidates has vowed (and several have voted) to block my access to health care as a cancer patient and have also vowed or voted to block my access to women’s health services.

      • Sixer says:

        But GNAT, I love it when you rant!

        Lilac – so, in terms of voter apathy, are Trump and Sanders two sides of a coin? In that both are seen as non-establishment/non-KStreet, so they wake up the apathetic on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide? If so, that is mirrored here by Jeremy Corbyn and the UKIP party. And am I wrong, but do I recall Hillary trying some universal healthcare thing or other when she was First Lady and it didn’t get through?

        ETA: the turnout in our general election this year was 66% of eligible voters, so better than you but still not exactly impressive.

      • mimif says:

        @GNAT, as long as you don’t give up the Cate Blanchett bashing.

        @Sixer, if Trump wins I’m moving in. You can call me Mimiflet. :D

      • Dangles says:

        At least you have Jeremy Corbyn now. He looks like the real deal.

      • Crumpet says:

        It’s not the new year yet GNAT! Let’s hear it! Honestly, I can’t think of anything more appalling than Hilary being elected president.

      • lilacflowers says:

        @Sixer, I think Trump and Carson are waking up the hateful bigots who have found people who voice their views as well as waking up some on the other side who fear them. Clinton did develop a national health plan proposal, which Newt Gingrich’s House torpedoed, mostly with scary rhetoric about “wait lists” and socialized medicine and how dare a First Lady actually do anything. They never even analyzed the thing.

      • Sixer says:

        Mimif – and all you chaps – can come and live with me any time you like. I gotsta tell you, though, it would be pretty much out of the frying pan and into the fire at the moment. Especially if you think public services are a good idea.

      • Kath says:

        Hey Sixer, I can answer that question for you. Yes, Australia has compulsory voting. If you have a genuine reason for not voting (e.g. if you are sick, overseas or a Jehovah’s Witness), then it’s OK. But otherwise you have to drag your arse off the couch and vote – end of story. But we also vote on a weekend (unlike the US) and it takes about 5 minutes – no queuing.

      • Pivotal Badger says:

        Pretty please GNAT do not give up your rants. I LURV them.

        I want to nominate you as a national treasure. Right after I finish this bowl of Hagen-daz. Nothing gets in the way of the bean!

        You are a beacon of light. A ray of hope. You dare to say what others think.

        If I EVER find my way to your neck of the woods, I’m going to buy you a gabillion flaming mimosas and serve them to you in beigest bootie shorts.

      • Sixer says:

        Thanks, Kath. I thought it was you guys! What’s the voting age? 18? How do you prepare da kidz to be ready to vote if there is compulsion? (Any preparation by schools would be better than the atrocious civics education we have here in the UK. Anyone would think TPTB *wanted* the peasants to be ill-informed. ;) )

  5. doofus says:

    this man has deserved Oscars for a lot of roles he played.

    just watched him in Jackie Brown (again) and, though the movie isn’t one of Tarantino’s best (IMO, it’s because it’s not “his” subject matter but Elmore Leonard’s), Jackson was AMAZING in his role. And don’t even get me started on Pam Grier…that woman is awesome.

  6. cat says:

    He is just the worst. I hope people don’t think all black people think alike. I simply cringe, because of this cringe worthy man.

  7. Lama Bean says:

    His point about veterans becoming policemen is so insightful. I had never thought of that.

  8. CK says:

    Bernie can’t win. America’s not progressive enough to elect an admitted socialist that’s going to raise everyone’s taxes to pay for his socialist programs. When it comes to picking up moderates needed to win the election, Bernie is his own worst enemy. He practically writes the GOP campaign adds for them. “He’s an admitted socialist that’s going to raise your taxes to pay for his socialist programs.” That’s the ad that’s going to run, there’s footage of him admitting as much at debates, and he’s not going to deny it. People at the center are not going to vote for this guy unless the alternative is scary.
    I like Bernie and I’m a progressive, but at the end of the day, I do find his campaign to be foolhardy. Nothing he’s proposed will get republican votes and conservative or centrist democrats will immediately push back. Most of his policies are dead in the water in the current legislative climate and it’s just not a “movement” year for the democrats, something that’s needed to usher in monumental changes.

  9. lilacflowers says:

    More Samuel L. Jackson please!

    He always promotes his films and he has been promoting these two by flying back and forth to Hawaii where he is filming Kong: Skull Island. Next week, he heads off to Vietnam and then Australia so not sure how much Oscar campaigning he could do from this point on. Same for Brie Larson.

  10. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    I really like his points and the fact he approaches the discussion with such a frank and no fcks given manner. I really am just loving interviews by mature actors and actresses. Sit Viola Davis and Samuel L. in a room just to talk and I’d pull up with popcorn.

    His acceptance of the standards of Hollywood are so reflective of life. It’s amazing how you come to accept the unfairness of a situation once it’s all you’ve seen and experienced. Certainly makes me look at things like the Tamir Rice case and the affluenza teen.

    I also have to agree with his “Muslims are the new blacks” idea. Lately it’s between ‘Mexicans’ and Muslims for who to make the biggest target.

    • FingerBinger says:

      If Muslims and Mexicans are the biggest target why are blacks still being killed at an alarming rate? I realize this isn’t a competition but I read about more blacks being harassed ,assaulted and killed than Muslims or Mexicans.

      • lilacflowers says:

        There are dozens of hate crimes committed against Muslims and Sikhs (because idiots in this country think they are the same) daily. They just don’t make the news media unless someone is killed. I attended a training on civil rights and discrimination two years ago at which Eric Holder spoke and the numbers from the DOJ on hate crimes were staggering. Also attacks against Asians are on the rise too.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        I think when someone says the phrase “So and so are the new blacks” it doesn’t mean blacks aren’t still suffering. It’s horrifying out there what’s happening, but to be clear you can’t go on TV and insult black people like you can a Mexican (and I say Mexican to literally account for everyone because so long as they’re not white no one cares if they’re Cuban, Latino, or etc. they’re MEXICAN).

        You beat up a black man or woman for their skin tone (so long as you’re not a cop, if you are then it’s okay, carry on officer) and it will make the papers. Do it to a Muslim individual, even a child, and it’s a blip on the radar.

        As lilac said the statistics for how rapidly attacks have been increasing against Muslim/Indian community is stunning.

  11. PinaColada says:

    I find him grating and unoriginal in his persoectives. The returning vets becoming police concept is not new or his. Also, it’s a small percentage of overall police. I’d like to see a study on what percent of officer-involved fatalities involve a former vet- I don’t think it would be much, tbh, of the overall number. Also… one is offended by his “crazy white guy” comment? I rolled my eyes. People like to put out straw man arguments but the obvious answer is look at the demographics of a place. If a population has a near-zero % makeup of X but a ton of Y, of course it would make sense that there was more Y crime etc. and if X increases, so would X-related events and so on. If there is a flip of that, then it merits a firm look into it. Also, blindly voting for a party is super common but I think part of the problem. I wish we could remove affiliations and just have the candidate cite their views. I wonder how much that would change who wins and who has a chance vs establishment people.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Offended? How many white people are being assaulted and accused of getting ready to shoot up a school while walking home or riding the bus? How many of them have been spit on and had their clothes ripped from their body?

      When he says, “Man I was hoping it was a white guy.” it’s because according to our system said white guy will be peacefully apprehended, maybe even get a cheeseburger, brought to trial and there’ll be no larger discussion about ‘those whites’.

      Now if a Muslim Extremist does the same? Well, everyone down to small children will be harassed and violently accosted with many blaming them for being attacked.

    • mimif says:

      Re: the SB shootings, the assailants were originally reported as white, and there has been zillions of documented crazy white guy shootings in 2015, yet because you know, there’s a war on Islam, it’s the Muslims who get the press. So I understood where he was coming from.

    • Pandy says:

      No, I said the same thing about the San Bernardino shooting – I hope it’s a homegrown “crazy” and not a Muslim. Crazy and radical are two entirely different animals. He’s the opposite of offensive and he’s right.

  12. kimbers says:

    Im not voting Hilary. Im voting bernie. Scare tactics are for the silly. I voted Hilary over obama in 2008 whe. She would have been a good leader. So I thought. I liked bernie since before I new his name when vermont got gmo labeling passed. I said like that guy after hearing what he stood for(basic rights and pumping up families thru things that used to support our country), so I’m not gonnalet gossip dictate my vote. I’m not fair weather I’m a voter. Foreign policy is important , but Hilary doesnt support the country we live in.

  13. Jess says:

    I love Sam so much! And he’s right about the many, many levels of BS at the Oscars. He should have won best actor for Pulp Fiction. Period.

  14. maggie says:

    Bernie is the best guy for the job in my opinion but alas he is too old. Hilary is so rehearsed and comes off as rather arrogant but I think she’ll win. I actually like Trump. He has balls and says what everyone is really thinking but doesn’t want to admit. Plus he wants to get out of the Middle East. It’s time the US did just that!! They have displaced millions of people with their meddling and greed. The world needs to focus on renewable resources and try to lesson its dependency on oil. OPEC would be screwed then. Leave the Middle East alone.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      “He has balls and says what everyone is really thinking but doesn’t want to admit”

      Everytime someone says this I wanna check their closet to see if there’s a hood.

      • maggie says:

        Well I’m living in Canada and fully support helping the immigrants so I don’t wear a pointed white hat. Nice try though! Trump has said he wants out of Middle East he was against the war in Iraq. George Bush is to blame for displacing all of those people. So yes, there is a lot of support for Trump just on those points alone. Why is he leading in the polls if no one agrees with him?

      • Alyce says:

        @Side Eye I agree with every comment you’ve made on this topic. And that hood comment made me choke on my soda laughing.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:


        Trump has said many more destructive things than simply getting out of the Middle East, if that’s the only topic you’ve listened to him you’ve blocked out 99% of the essence of his political positions. He speaks in general terms to appease those who don’t really have much understanding of the issues. I’m not saying this to insult you but to explain why it’s so easy to support Trump.

        Has he explained how he’ll achieve this action? What steps? What resources? No, it’s always “Wait till next year” and “I make a lot of money.”


        Thank you!

      • maggie says:

        TESE, I agree with you. It’s obvious he’s very weak on policy among other things. I’ve watched a number of debates but admittedly I’m not as knowledgable or invested in US politics as I am in Canadian. But he’s preaching divisive politics and unfortunately the polls support that conclusion. At least that’s how I view it.

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:


        Polls show he’s the most popular Republican candidate among Republicans. That means more or less half the population of the U.S. supports him, which sounds impressive/intimidating but –

        He’s not looking at 100% among Republicans, not even 50%. He’s polling at 30 something %. That means about half of the Republican Party likes him enough to vote for him (or claims to) which leaves the other half of the Republican Party, The Democratic Party and Independents.

        Ttump’s entire schtick is making himself sound more impressive than he really is.

    • lilacflowers says:

      No, everyone is NOT thinking what Trump is saying. Also, building pipelines does not reduce dependence on foreign oil so long as oil corporations are allowed to control the oil that comes out of US ground.

      • maggie says:

        Pipelines are the safest way of transporting oil. Until we find another way to replace it pipelines will exist. It’s unfortunate but reality. Until then trump is correct. I think he’s an asshole but he is correct on many issues.

      • maggie says:

        Lilac why is he ahead in the Polls then?

      • lilacflowers says:

        Maggie, nobody has polled me. Have they polled you? Why is he ahead in the polls? Because there are lots and lots and lots of bigots in this country. Sadly.

        And pipelines being a safe way to transport oil is a completely different topic than the claim that building pipelines will bring independence from foreign oil. Richard Nixon even named his pipeline Project Independence and pushed it through using that argument. But it didn’t bring independence because the oil corporations are multinational and we let them take our oil and sell it elsewhere. Until oil is nationalized, building pipelines will have no effect on energy independence. Trump is NOT correct on this issue at all.

        And, Maggie, here you’re calling him names but above, you state you like him. A bit contradictory.

      • maggie says:

        lilacflowers I would never vote for Trump despite agreeing with some of what he says. What he says resonates with a lot of people. His statement regarding Muslims was outrageous but there are other things he’s said that I do agree with. One is getting out of the Middle East. I agree with you regarding the pipelines/oil as well. But until we are no longer dependant on oil pipelines are the safest way of transporting it.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Again with the safety of pipelines response? That is NOT the issue. Oil corporations want to use my tax dollars to build pipelines to sell my countries resources elsewhere to make a profit – and they get tax breaks. I want my tax dollars spent on helping our citizens through health care and education and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. None of that is part of Trump’s agenda

      • maggie says:

        Lilacflowers I watched a debate where Trump said he wants to focus on the problems in the US. He also said he wants to help people with better education,healthcare etc. I wish for the same things as you. Change doesn’t happen overnight. I would just like to see a beginning.

    • SusanneToo says:

      Well, thankfully for us, you don’t get to vote here.

    • wolfie says:

      Trumps “balls”, rather the majority of his supporters, are younger males, with no college education.

    • Sixer says:

      In defence of Maggie a bit – perhaps she hasn’t put it as well as she could, but really – it’s not much different to what my uncle said about his preferring an isolationist Republican to an interventionist Democrat (see my comment above). A great many of the leftists in the UK are saying similar things (not the third way progressives a la Tony Blair, but the old-style leftists). They don’t want Hillary. The rationale is that if the actual superpower in the western alliances stopped foreign interventions, the rest of us would follow along behind, to the benefit and improved security of all our populations.

      The unfortunate flaw in this analysis is that it completely ignores 350 million US citizens, many of whom may well want to vote for a reduction in domestic inequality, better race relations, protecting women’s reproductive rights, fewer guns, universal healthcare, and all the other aspirations of progressive/liberal/leftist voters, whatever a candidate’s foreign policy position is.

      Like I say, if you’re not American, you forget all about US domestic issues. It’s partly ignorance and partly a total disaffection with war and intervention on our part.

      • SusanneToo says:

        I never comment on other countries’ politics because, not living there, I simply don’t know all the ins and outs and nuances. I do understand that we’re fair game though, because we’ve got our fingers in so many pies that affect so much of the world. I don’t know what the answer is. I wish we could be good guys offering help where needed without militarism, but that may be too Pollyannaish. However, after eight years of misrule, incompetance and erosion of rights under BushCheney, the thought of any Republican in the WH makes me psycho.

      • wolfie says:

        Sixer – In the US, there is no such thing as an “Isolationist” Republican. The Republicans are considered the most “hawkish”, and likely to engage in war. Obama is a perfect example of the peaceful aspect of the Democratic party. War is a greater economic burden than any domestic policy the Bern has in mind. I believe that your UK Republicans are what we would consider left in the US, and closer to our Democratic platform. The terms do not seem to translate, even though we are both using English.

      • Sixer says:


        Thanks! I was under the impression some of the libertarian wing of the GOP was anti-intervention? People like Ron Paul? Or are they just fringe voices and don’t really count? This is all interesting stuff to a political nerd like me. Obama is not at all popular with the anti-war crowd this side of the Pond, I’m afraid. He gets called Obomber. Mostly due to the drone program. But the mainstream loves him. I tend to think he’s done the best he can with a great deal stacked against him – but like I say, my understanding is obviously limited.

        And now, I’m off to see if my village has been cut off by floods at the bottom of the hill overnight. I rather fear it has. SIGH.

      • wolfie says:

        The Libertarian party has never won a seat in Congress. In the 30 states where voters register by party the combined total is 330,811 voters. A Libertarian Republican is a Republican party member who has advocated libertarian policy – to lower taxes, allow people to opt out of Social Security, and abolish welfare – and is considered a political faction of the Republican Party. They are small in number, as noted.

        I appreciate President Obama because he has held back the very strong fear mongering voices that have called for war with boots on the ground – including the voice of his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

        I believe that the dreams and intentions of our oversea friends should be considered with great deliberation. I always like to know world opinion on the candidates, and use your voice to encourage other voters. It can be confusing when the Republican/Democrat denotation mean such different things in governments elsewhere.

      • Sixer says:

        Thanks again, wolfie.

        “I appreciate President Obama because he has held back the very strong fearmongering voices that have called for war with boots on the ground – including the voice of his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.”

        This is something that has occurred to me. Perhaps Obama’s biggest successes are things he has managed NOT to do rather than the things he has done.

    • Jib says:

      I’ve never agreed with anything you’ve written, but this takes the cake. NO, everyone is NOT thinking that Mexicans are all rapists and that we should put Muslims in camps and punish their families, including children, for their crimes. Only racists and bigots agree with him. Hardly everyone.

  15. Dangles says:

    I guess they pushed Travolta for best actor and SLJ for best supporting actor because Travolta was in more individual scenes than SLJ. All of SLJ’s scenes were with Travolta but Travolta had those dance and OD scenes with Uma Thurman. He also had those two small scenes with Bruce Willis. So it made more sense to push him for best actor and SLJ for best supporting actor.

  16. JRenee says:

    Imo, Sam turned in Oscar winning performances in several movies :
    A Time To Kill, Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, Jungle Fever. He’s a fave of mine.

  17. Tallia says:

    Voting Bernie.
    HC and DT scare the HECK out of me. Can we just throw out all of them and start fresh? I would love to have my choices for the Presidential election be between two quality candidates instead of dumb and dumber or the lesser of two evils.