"We stand a chance of getting a president who has probably killed more people before he gets into office than any president in the history of the United States"
About this Quote
Sarandon’s line lands like a dare: say the unsayable about American power, then watch who flinches. The phrasing is blunt, almost tabloid-simple, but it’s doing something sharper than provocation. By measuring a would-be president’s worth in bodies “before he gets into office,” she drags foreign policy out of the euphemism closet. No “collateral damage,” no “kinetic action” - just killing, counted.
The intent is less prediction than indictment. “We stand a chance” sounds like civic suspense, but it’s really an accusation aimed at voters and party elites: you might normalize this. The subtext is that the U.S. presidency isn’t merely a domestic job with international responsibilities; it’s a role that can already be exercised through influence, military advocacy, covert operations, or policies that enable violence long before Election Day. She’s collapsing the comforting timeline where accountability begins at inauguration.
Context matters because Sarandon isn’t a policy analyst; she’s a celebrity speaking into a media ecosystem that treats outrage as content. That’s part of the point. Celebrity speech is often dismissed as unserious, so she goes maximal: “probably killed more people” is deliberately un-litigable, a moral claim wearing the outfit of a statistic. It forces the listener to argue about numbers, then realize the argument is really about whether American deaths count differently than other people’s.
It works because it weaponizes the country’s own self-image. If we crown leaders as “commanders in chief,” Sarandon asks, why are we allergic to naming what command entails?
The intent is less prediction than indictment. “We stand a chance” sounds like civic suspense, but it’s really an accusation aimed at voters and party elites: you might normalize this. The subtext is that the U.S. presidency isn’t merely a domestic job with international responsibilities; it’s a role that can already be exercised through influence, military advocacy, covert operations, or policies that enable violence long before Election Day. She’s collapsing the comforting timeline where accountability begins at inauguration.
Context matters because Sarandon isn’t a policy analyst; she’s a celebrity speaking into a media ecosystem that treats outrage as content. That’s part of the point. Celebrity speech is often dismissed as unserious, so she goes maximal: “probably killed more people” is deliberately un-litigable, a moral claim wearing the outfit of a statistic. It forces the listener to argue about numbers, then realize the argument is really about whether American deaths count differently than other people’s.
It works because it weaponizes the country’s own self-image. If we crown leaders as “commanders in chief,” Sarandon asks, why are we allergic to naming what command entails?
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Susan
Add to List







