I'm ready for a revolution

[BainsBane]

Susan Sarandon says Donald Trump would be better for America then Clinton because Trump will make it more likely for a revolution to occur. It would seem Sarandon doesn't believe the poor currently suffer enough to suit her, and that she wants to make their lives as miserable as possible to shock them into putting her guy into power. (Because revolutions really work that way. I suppose you've spent your life reading movie scripts you might think they do).

Why wait? I say we start the revolution right now. Not the revolution of campaign slogans that are about installing one man as head of the capitalist state. No, a real social revolution that forcibly redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. I can think of no better place to start than one of Sarandon's many multi-million dollar homes.

Now, I'm not sure exactly how many she has. She has three apartments in New York City. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/open-house/Susan-Sarandon-Snatches-Up-Third-NYC-Property--138832289.html This sprawling $1.75 million estate in Pound Ridge, NY. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/susan-sarandon-tim-robbins-house/view/bing/

She has another home in Los Angeles. http://www.elledecor.com/celebrity-style/celebrity-homes/news/a6310/eva-amurri-martino-home/

There may be more, but I say the revolution should start at her $11.9 million California home here:



12 bathrooms. I think that is about the number of bathrooms on this side of my entire block. My entire lot would fit in her kitchen.

So what is a revolutionary doing with five plus homes, you might ask? Good question. How do you suppose someone in that position wishes for life to become more arduous for the most vulnerable Americans so that they do her political bidding?

Well, Susan. You say you want a revolution. I say we start at your $11.9 million dollar home and move on to the others. There is space to house hundreds of families there. That's what happens to estates in real socialist revolutions. People like you lose their wealth and are put to work doing honest labor.

So why wait for your guy Trump to start the revolution? Now is the time.

For the irony impaired, this is parody. I am not actually advocating violence. However revolution is in fact violent upheaval. The super rich like Sarandon ought to be careful what they wish for.

[virtualobserver]

1. Since Sarandon advocates raising her own taxes, your post is parody without a point

It explains why you don't "get" the revolution.

[BainsBane]

3. What is it you think I don't "get"?

I've taught college level courses on social revolution. I submit I know a hell of a lot more about it than she does. I sure as hell know a lot more than she does about what it's like to live in poverty.

This is about her support for Trump, who in fact promotes proposals that lower her taxes substantially. Her taxes would go up under Clinton, and that is the candidate she is arguing against. The poor don't need the filthy rich to wish them into ever more desperate poverty. She's a fucking imbecile, and if you want to join her in wishing increased impoverishment and a repeal of the rights of everyone but the few like her, by all means, go for it.

[virtualobserver]

7. She is not arguing for Trump...She is arguing for Bernie.....

Her point is that the revolution is coming, one way or another.

The Bernie way, which is benevolent....or in a less pleasant way if we continue down our current path.

[BainsBane]

11. That is not what she said

She asked what would happen if Clinton becomes the nominee, would she support her. She then replied that Trump would be better for the American people. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html

I don't give a shit who she and the rest of her rich Hollywood friends support for the Democratic nomination, but when she says shit like that that exposes what a self-entitled narcissist she is, when she wishes misery on the most vulnerable Americans, THAT pisses me off. Charles Blow called it right. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017346367

That and the fact she is a steaming hypocrite. That she lectures others while sitting on that kind of obscene wealth takes a phenomenal level of hypocrisy.

[virtualobserver]

20. she didn't say that Trump would be better for the American people

you are putting words in her mouth

What she is saying is that Hillary is unacceptable, therefore we need Bernie.

Chris Hayes was framing questions in a Hillary vs. Trump fashion.

Susan was re-framing her answer in support of Bernie instead of Hillary.
She wasn't accepting his frame.

We are in a primary. No one on either side had won. Only when both are decided will everyone see clearly enough to make a rational choice.

[Mojorabbit]

35. That was my take on it also. nt

[scottie55]

56. Sarandon Did Not Say She Would Vote For Trump

She just said if Trump won the revolution would be immediate.

Didn't seem to bother me.

It is amazing how many lies have been told on what Susan said in the interview.

Looks like the Clinton Crowd will use anything to attack the honest candidate.

[840high]

82. .+1

[billhicks76]

85. Did She Mean Have To Hit Rick Bottom First?

Clinton certainly only gets us an inch away from it. How people don't support Bernie is beyond me. First it was electability. Now that that excuse has been disproven it seems like it's just personal.

[pampango]

142. "She just said if Trump won the revolution would be immediate." The chaos lead to a "law-and-order"

response. History shows that chaos more often leads to repression from the right and popular support for their preference for "law-and-order" than it does to liberal reforms.

If Trump became president built his huuuuge wall, somehow forcing Mexico to pay for it, 'tore up' trade agreements, banned Muslims and did the other idiotic things he says, there would be chaos. I'll agree with Sarandon on that. The question is whether anyone (left, right, nobody?) wins from that chaos.

[riversedge]

178. Oh, she is in the #bernieorBust crowd. Not saying she

would vote for trump--it is that if Bernie is not the nominee--the Bust means they stay home. vote Green or another party or a write in. But not Hillary.

[PCPrincess]

153. You Mad?

I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself. It is apparent that you are really emotionally invested in this. At times when we are upset and emotional, we tend to lash out at those who would apparently contradict what we feel is 'right'. From the tone of your writing, it is apparent you are lashing out at Ms. Sarandon, whom, you couldn't possibly know was a 'self-entitled narcissist', having never met her.

Do you really really believe that she wishes misery on people? Really?

It is my belief that voters have done a very good job in the last couple decades of creating misery upon themselves by making poor choices on election day. These poor choices are made for many reasons; so many, in fact, that it would take a new post to discuss them.

If Hillary is elected and is a piss-poor president, we would be pretty much stuck with piss-poor for eight years due to the extreme difficulty in removing an incumbent from within the same party. If the Republicans win and a piss-poor Republican is elected, he/she CAN be removed by the OPPOSING party in four years.

I know it is hard for some people to comprehend, but, many many people don't see much difference between Hillary and Trump and, to be honest, I don't think their choices for Supreme Court Justice would vary much either.

[jack_krass]

191. "I've taught college level courses on social revolution."

Cool story, bro

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. Now,now I would not go and challenge what people say they have done in real life

I have that done here (by people like the OP incidentally) often. She has done far more than just question even easily provable things like my education. But really, if she says she is a college professor, she is... unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Now from her posts on the old DU, if I were a student and I knew off them, it would be well within my right to take a required class from somebody else in the faculty though.

[Amimnoch]

112. If that's really the case, there's tons of charities that she can support and get the same results,

what's more, she won't need to get the approval of congress to make it happen.

She want's to help the poor.. there's charities out there that could use her $$ and help the poor. What's more she COULD use her Celeb and create a foundation for others like her to make a huge difference wherever she wants to make that difference at. You know, sort of like the Clinton foundation does.

Here's a good question, what's she done this season to change the landscape of congress? Sure she supports Bernie.. quite vocally, and in her recent interview, did it extremely well imo.. but what Senators, or Representatives in Democrat primaries has she spent time or money helping get elected to get the Democrat side more liberal or progressive? What Senators or representatives in GE battleground states has she gone on to assist in winning the seat that will give the majority in either chamber to Democrats?

Bernie doesn't have the establishment behind him. That's a given since that's the very thing he's running on. So, what's the plan for changing the establishment besides just putting a POTUS that is looking more and more likely to be the least effective/ most accomplish nothing POTUS in history?

Straight from his own site, this is these are his issues and platform:

INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY
IT'S TIME TO MAKE COLLEGE TUITION FREE AND DEBT FREE
GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS AND RESTORING DEMOCRACY
CREATING DECENT PAYING JOBS
A LIVING WAGE
COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE TO SAVE THE PLANET
A FAIR AND HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY
RACIAL JUSTICE
FIGHTING FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS
WORKING TO CREATE AN AIDS AND HIV-FREE GENERATION
FIGHTING FOR LGBT EQUALITY
EMPOWERING TRIBAL NATIONS
CARING FOR OUR VETERANS
MEDICARE FOR ALL

Of all of these.. There's 3x that can be partially implemented through executive order (and even those can be defunded with a hostile congress). Everything else will 100% require a congress to make happen... a Congress that currently is NOT going to exist with the 115th. Looking very unlikely with the subsequent 116th unless this "revolution" starts branching out NOW and starts focusing on MORE than the POTUS. Hell, the ONLY battle I've seen at all in Congress is to get DWS to lose her primary, and even THAT is more about Hillary than it is actually about changing Congress.

I "Get" your revolution. Until it at least gets as smart as the tea party, and starts aggressively going after changing congress (primary Democrats running for Congress who do not measure up, and get Democrats in battleground states elected), it's a joke at best.

[virtualobserver]

131. She has already done exactly what you suggest and more

You must not know much about her life. She has a foundation, she donates to about 36 charities, and she works on behalf of many of them as well.

What you don't "get" about the revolution is that it is in its infancy. The seed was occupy Wall St. It starts with winning the nomination. Then it branches out to electing a Congress. Then it holds that Congress accountable.

[Amimnoch]

137. If it waits to elect a congress until after the nomination

It's already too late until at LEAST half way through Bernie's first term for the 116th.

Even the teabaggers were smart enough to know that it has to start with Congress, not go to Congress after there's a POTUS.

On her charity work.. I stand corrected, and accept that I was wrong:
https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/susan-sarandon

[KittyWampus]

148. Since Sanders ran as a Liberty Union candidate multiple times as an adult

And that party advocated seizing Rockefeller property. This hasn't been brought up in any debate I know of. Sanders hasn't been fully 'vetted' by the press regarding his full-on socialist past and what he's advocated for.

It's not like it was a just a passing phase for Sanders.

And no, bringing up Sanders actual history is not red-baiting.

You don't get that Sarandon has enough property and wealth that she can afford Sanders huge chunk of new taxes that he levees on EVERYONE. Not just Sarandon.

You also don't get, Bill Clinton has said numerous times, quite publicly, he's happy to pay higher taxes.

In other words, tax the rich.

Sanders taxes everyone. Heavily.

[virtualobserver]

150. All of the rich people can afford it....but some are too greedy, unlike Susan

[Hekate]

251. Fascinating about the Rockefellers

[George II]

149. Instead of just dropping one-liners, why not "revsplain" the revolution to us?

[brooklynite]

229. I advocate raising my taxes as well...but folks here still HATE all 1%ers....

[virtualobserver]

230. nobody hates you....they just wish that you had chosen a different candidate....

your candidate takes advice from and is often persuaded by people who don't have the best interests of the people in mind.

folks here hate the 1%ers who are laying waste to the world, not rich people in general.

[brooklynite]

231. I'm not talking about the election...there's been stereotyping of 1%ers here for years

We're all greedy; we all earned our money unfairly; we're all secretly conservative Republicans, etc.

[virtualobserver]

241. Well, I think that it is unfair to label you as being that "secretly".....

Seriously though, that is the heavy burden of wealth. It is hard for the average person to imagine that great wealth is amassed through generosity because it defies common sense.

When the rich make all of the profits, they get all of the glory.
but when there are losses.....they get all of the bailouts.

Generalizations can be cruel to individuals, but when I add the anecdotal evidence that I have amassed in my personal life, it indicates that all 1%ers are greedy, and that they walk over people who stand in their way. They are perfectly nice as long as you don't stand in their way, and that is true for both Democrats and Republicans.

Obviously, as a rational person, I realize that my experience is not universally true, but you must understand that the pattern recognition abilities in our brain are powerful and speak deeply to us, and therefore must be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. I got a meta question for you (big picture)

You are correct. Do you understand why? For the record, this is also the case in places like Mexico, India and Russia.

Think of what these three counties have in common with the US at present

[Rex]

257. Nobody says you do it in secret.

Nobody believes anyone that posts here is a billionaire. If so, introduce them to me I need to make a few quick bucks on some suckers.

[rusty quoin]

2. I expect her to issue an apology for her statement.

While the rest of us could be destroyed by a revolution, she and her friends would sit pretty.

[BainsBane]

4. Precisely. It's one thing to believe strongly in one's candidate for the Democratic nomination

and another to wish into power a far right-wing government that would generate great misery for the American people.

[rusty quoin]

8. I like your Bowie.

[BainsBane]

14. Thanks! nt

[rusty quoin]

13. There are examples of what can go wrong and it's the states which elected Republican Governors

And they worked so fast with Republican congress...Maine, North Carolina, Michigan.


They destroy in a short time.

[cui bono]

16. And yet another to lie about what someone said. n/t

[cui bono]

18. For what statement? Can you please quote it exactly?

I don't think she said what you think she said. If you're getting the info from the OP, you are misinformed.

.

[litlbilly]

63. Watch the Goddam interview before posting bullshit statements like this. You people are

getting on my last nerve.

[TexasTowelie]

80. I listened to the interview the first time it aired

and watched it again later that night when it was repeated. I find it ironically amusing to listen to someone stating that the status quo isn't good enough when they lives as luxuriously as she does. I might take her opinion more seriously if she spent some time living in a homeless shelter like I have. Otherwise, she is about as persuasive and relevant as Kim Kardashian giving advice on the poor.

[Albertoo]

5. Revolutions of the type you describe do not lead to happy outcomes

"a real social revolution that forcibly redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor"???

I much prefer peaceful, Scandinavian-type evolutionary social democracy.

[BainsBane]

6. That's not revolution

Is it? It's not socialism either. It's a capitalist system with a robust safety net.

However, the language was Sarandon's. She justified promoting Trump over Clinton because she said it would bring about a revolution in reaction. She wasn't talking about any evolutionary safety net or even the rhetorical revolution of Bernie's campaign slogan. She's talking about a political situation after Bernie's exist, when people like her support Trump in order to further misery and shock the poor into rising up.

[Albertoo]

29. Well, I prefer the Scandinavian system to a socialist revolution, I guess

As to Sarandon's riches, even in 'revolutionary and socialist' Stalin's Russia,
famous performers could lead a life of luxury.
Witness Vadim Kozin who actually lived at Moscow's topmost luxury hotel.

[BainsBane]

48. relative luxury, but not like that

The huge estates were expropriated and provided homes for many, many families. Yes, there wasn't true equality in that CP insiders had perks, but there wasn't the dramatic income inequality that characterizes capitalism.

I think your preferences are fine. I have no problem with them, but this entire controversy exposes the fallacy of Sanders' appropriating the language of revolution as a campaign slogan. His supporters clearly do not want revolution. Sarandon talks about revolution but obviously hasn't given a thought to what it actually means. I find the notion that someone as obscenely rich as her feels entitled to sit back and lecture the American public, all but a miniscule fraction of a percentage of which are infinitely less prosperous than she, about revolution is the height of hypocrisy. Clearly she has no intention of living up to what she preaches. She really ought to think more carefully about the implications of what she says.

[Albertoo]

107. a correction on facts, Sarandon aside

When you write

CP insiders had perks, but there wasn't the dramatic income inequality that characterizes capitalism.

I think it can be argued the reverse is true. I read a book giving a quantification of what I'm saying, but t=it can be shown quite intuitively: CP apparatchiks did not suffer shortages of essential goods (cheese, butter, shoes), the common people did not (queues, shortages).
CP apparatchiks and industry managers had cars, the common people did not.
There is a very real case to be made for the 'Socialist Republics' having been far more unequal than 1950-1970 America.

[BainsBane]

163. I don't think you're factoring in the entire population

when you think about 1950-1970s America. The white middle class did relative well. The rest of the country was poorer than today.
US income inequality in the 1970s was on par with India. People look back on those days as golden, since a certain segment of the population did well, but that didn't extend to all Americans. If I had more time I'd look for figures. I have to get back to work though.

The metric, however, should not be the USSR vs. American but Communist Russia vs. post-communist or Tsarist Russia.

[Albertoo]

185. Well, I studied that period of both countries in depth (Bachelor studies)

No time to go in-depth about both countries, but here, a rather convincing proof of what I mentioned about USA 1950-1970: lowest Gini indexes (inequality) since .. WW1.

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Something curious about that chart

.html

We both know what that means, we have had that discussion in the past.



Here is another one that should post

[Albertoo]

190. Your graphs and mine concur

My graph says the Gini index was at its lowest in the 50's to 70's, then increases starting with Reagan. Your graphs say the same thing, proving it by revenue groups.

[nadinbrzezinski]

192. I could not post the gini one

it would not play.

But what it does tell me is that inequality is the highest since oh 1929. The last major change election was 1932.

Of course we have talked about how this is tied to social instability.

[Albertoo]

194. I resized the pic for you. Inequality back to WW1 level, not 1929

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. True, true

thanks

[Albertoo]

196. btw, a F/U on that

It could be argued that it's a failure on the part of Clinton + Obama not to have had an effect on that Gini effect.

The only excuse I can think of is that there was competitive market pressure to keep taxes low vs countries which didn't give a damn about inequality since it meant people getting rich while others just remained poor (ironically, "Communist" China)

[nadinbrzezinski]

197. Look into FTAs and the pressures to keep wages low

there is plenty (and fast growing) academic writing on this, Stiglitz is a good source. It is ahem a side effect of FTAs and the current form globalization is taking.

[Albertoo]

198. But I disagree with that

FTA's are in principle positive. Tariffs are a systemic inefficiency. Sure, there will -reasonable- tax rate competition between countries, but that too is positive as it is an inducement on governments to keep taxes lean or productive.

The only two bugs of the system are:
- tax heavens (which could be brought into line by G7/G20 agreement)
- the US BW Bush taxes, leading the world in having tax rates too low on the rich
(taxes were too high before Reagan, about right under Reagan, too low after GW)

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. It is the form they are taking

it is not the theory. In theory they are great, but to give an example

After NAFTA many US textile companies went to Mexico, where labor was cheaper. Once China opened the markets, they literally packed and moved there. These days they are in search of even cheaper labor pools in Vietnam

One way that this could be solved would be for LABOR to organize at the very least regionally, as in NORTH AMERICA for example (this is starting), to make labor rates more consistent across borders. Also the labor and environmental protections in FTAs are risible, so externalities never go into the cost of the product, for example the cost of my Macbook should include environmental requirements.

It is not the theory, it is the form they are taking.

[Albertoo]

202. yes on cost of externalities, no on labor costs

Actually, progressives should in theory welcome low skill jobs moving overseas:
- upgrades domestic jobs
- exports industrialization to countries that need to build a middle class

The devil is in the details
- factoring in cost of externalities,
- cushioning the effect of job volatility on blue collars at home
(it's hard to retrain and find a new job after 20+ years at the same factory)

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. The upgrades to domestic jobs have been

low wage service jobs.

The labor market has few middle class jobs these days.

San Diego is a perfect example. Tourism, service jobs, are low wage. Research are high wage, there is almost nothing in the middle.

Though on the bright side it depends a lot less from the DoD jobs... so I suppose that was a good result of BRAC.

[Albertoo]

205. Graphs disagree with "The labor market has few middle class jobs these days."

I resized it for you

[nadinbrzezinski]

206. Alas my local market does not

and even the city budget mentions both HI and LOW service jobs, but little in the middle. Why? Those middle class jobs are in other parts of the Cali Baja region, that would be Tijuana and Mexicali

[Albertoo]

207. Don't worry, Trump will fix that

with a YYUUge wall

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. Not joking, this is now to the level of the Mexican cabinet

[Albertoo]

210. And 'The Economist' has ranked Trump 12 on a scale

measuring the risk to the world economy. Out of 25.

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. Fun, isn't it?

[1939]

110. Houses like hers

Just become dachas for the socialist apparatchics in a revolution. One of the problems with a revolution is that all the revolutionaries talking about torches and pitchforks think they will be nomenclatura in the aftermath.

[scottie55]

57. "She justified promoting Trump over Clinton because she said it would bring about a revolution in re

No she just stated it as a fact.

She didn't say she wanted, or supported it.

She did not say she would vote for Trump over Hillary either.

Why do the Clinton people have to lie?

[Hekate]

73. Her face said it all for her. When she said she didn't know if she could ever vote for HRC...

...that was apparently her telling the truth.

When challenged about that leading to a Trump presidency (that is if enough Bernie people do the same), she became very animated, big smile, sparkly eyes, and that's when she said that a Trump presidency would bring about the revolution immediately.

That's not a lie. That's me stating my factual observations of this woman.

What exactly is meant by "immediate revolution"? Has even one person on Sanders' campaign given a second's thought to what that means?

[JustAnotherGen]

105. I don't think they have

The Culture of Chaos will ensue.

[brer cat]

123. We know who will be at the bottom of the pile

when the system comes tumbling down.

[Amishman]

228. this, a violent revolution would not go our way

Those with the means to force the issue are predominantly not liberal progressive

military rank and file: majority leans conservative / establishment
law enforcement rank and file: majority definitely conservative / establishment
private gun owners: strong majority conservative

If a revolution would occur and the gloves come off, it would not go well for our side

Gradual reform from within is currently the only option

[DemonGoddess]

9. K&R!

[Prism]

10. Susan Sarandon is clearly an uppity woman in need of shaming

For having an opinion that wasn't as strictly in bounds as is apparently required.

So . . . good luck with all that.

[rusty quoin]

23. No, I don't think she realized the the impact of her statement while saying it.

She is media savy, but she is a human being who makes mistakes. No one wants a revolution except those who vote for Trump.

[Prism]

28. I'm tired of seeing her words distorted.

I watched her interview - twice.

What she clearly said was, people are tired of the Establishment and the status quo. If we, Democrats, nominate a status quo candidate, we are risking having those voters who are tired of the current system coalescing behind Trump.

She articulated a legitimate threat and a legitimate theme of this election.

She basically said, "Voters who are getting fucked hard by the current political system will have their revolution, one way or another. So who would you have, Bernie or Trump?"

This idea, "Sarandon wants Trump!" is a lie and a distortion.

She then went on to blame Trump for a whole host of negative shit in this campaign, and then articulated what liberals do and should stand for.

But that is completely ignored, because, hey, she said a sentence or two we can hang her with outside of the context.

Shameful.

[rusty quoin]

37. You got me. I didn't watch the whole thing.

And I'm glad Susan is normal. I'm a great fan.

[Prism]

38. You should watch after the revolution remarks

She goes on to declare what liberals stand for, and she actually bashes Trump.

She's a good egg. It's disheartening to see her raked over the coals over a sentence or two, when she very well articulates what we should all be about as liberals.

[scottie55]

58. A Sentence Or Two

Taken out of context somewhat, and not asked to clarify.

Then the rest omitted, so outrage can be generated.

Yayyyy MSNBC.

At it again.

[Prism]

60. I don't believe people watched the full interview

This idea that "Sarandon is a Trump supporter!" could only be propagated by people who are either A) willfully lying or B) did not bother to experience the interview for themselves.

[BainsBane]

167. Here is the exact quote

SARANDON: I think Bernie would probably encourage people to [support Hillary if he loses] because he doesn’t have any ego in this thing. But I think a lot of people are, ‘sorry, I just can’t bring myself to [vote for Hillary].’

HAYES: How about you personally?

SARANDON: I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.

HAYES: Really?

SARANDON: Really. It’s dangerous to think we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with the death penalty and the low minimum wage and threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around. The country is not in good shape if you’re in the middle class. It’s disappearing.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/yes_susan_sarandon_is_guilty_of_blind_privilege_why_her_comments_about_trump_the_revolution_are_so_wrong/

After months of posts blatantly distorting Clinton's comments out of context, it's heartwarming to see such a valiant defense for someone of Sarandon's extreme wealth. So much for the 1-99% mantra and talk about revolution. Pretty obviously none of it was meant to be taken seriously at all. Hardly a surprise.

It's also interesting how African Americans who aren't living in desperate poverty are told to "check their privilege," but a Sanders supporter with at least six multi-million dollar homes is to be exempt from criticism. Evidently those cries about income redistribution were meant to exempt the special people who understand the singular priority is Bernie's political career. The up side is it shines a stark light on what people actually do and don't care about.

[Prism]

168. Why are you trimming the quote?

If you're actually, sincerely interested in what she said, you would display the fullness of her opinion.

But you didn't. You clipped.

Do you not value a woman's opinion?

[NanceGreggs]

27. No one is "shaming" Sarandon for having an opinion.

The opinion she expressed is being discussed.

There is a difference, you know.

[Prism]

30. Were you planning on discussing her whole opinion?

Or just a few lifted phrases out of context?

And, BTW, in the past few days I've seen Sarandon's words distorted, her physical likeness commented on, her sexuality and relationships shamed, and now her success attacked.

How feminist is all of that, exactly? In your opinion? I'd love to hear it.

[NanceGreggs]

34. Right now, I'm not planning on discussing it at all.

I was merely pointing out that discussing Sarandon's opinion is not "shaming" her for having one.

[Prism]

36. So, this OP

And the various commentaries by self-proclaimed feminists on this board about her appearance and sexuality has not a fig to do with shaming?

And you seem to be discussing it at the moment. Should probably inform your keyboard it's wandering afield without you.

[NanceGreggs]

39. But actually ...

... I am not discussing the OP. If anything, I am discussing your reaction to the OP.

Again, my only point was that discussing someone's expressed opinion is not "shaming" them for having one.

[Prism]

42. Should probably check what that expressed opinion is then

After all, wouldn't want to be an apologist for low-information reactionism in a case where a speaker's full opinion is being cropped in favor of a politically useful soundbite.

And what, exactly, is the point of the OP, in your opinion?

[NanceGreggs]

44. I am not commenting on the OP at this time.

And may never comment on it.

Yet again - I was only pointing out the fact that discussing an opinion is not the same as "shaming" someone for expressing their opinion.

I've said it several times now. I'm not sure which part of that comment you're not understanding.

[Prism]

46. You think the OP is "discussing an opinion"? Do tell.

Which part of Susan Sarandon's homes are salient to her opinion on America's political climate?

[NanceGreggs]

49. One more time, shall we?

I never commented on the OP. At all.

I replied to YOUR comment: "Susan Sarandon is clearly an uppity woman in need of shaming for having an opinion."

I repeat: Discussing someone's expressed opinion is NOT shaming them for having an opinion.

[Prism]

52. You oughtn't condescend when avoiding the topic

Seriously, Nance. I've been immune to that superior posture you adore adopting since you apologized for anti-LGBT politics. I don't know why you even bother about it. No one buys it.

That said. You again avoid the topic. Which part of Sarandon's homes is salient to her opinion on the American political state?

And I'm surprised to see you bothering about me. You actually get bashed here. The thought behind the OP is that people with no skin in the game should be outed and dismissed. Despite your New York registration, you happily live in Canada, enjoying all the privileges and rights, while not being terribly affected by what happens to the rest of us in the U.S.

So, if Sarandon is disqualified from having an opinion due to her wealth, so are you by virtue of being immune to U.S. policies because of your residency.

Which part of any of this has a logical conclusion for you?

[NanceGreggs]

59. You seem to keep avoiding the topic ...

... the topic being that I have not commented on the OP, but only on YOUR reply.

"Since you apologized for anti-LGBT politics ..."

Links? I remember when members of another now-defunct site posted endlessly about my anti-LGBT comments. But when asked for any evidence of same, they always came up empty-handed.

So here's your chance. Post the links to my anti-LGBT remarks.

Oh, and as for "So, if Sarandon is disqualified from having an opinion due to her wealth, so are you by virtue of being immune to U.S. policies because of your residency", if that made any sense whatsoever, I might respond to it. But it doesn't. So I won't.

In the meantime, I'll just wait for those links to my anti-LGBT posts/OPs.

[Prism]

66. Well, now it's a missing post. Nicely done.

I had a handy link to your post where you were chill with anti-LGBT sentiment because you dug the politician. And now it's gone!

It's ok *patpat* Humans have a weird way of remembering actual things.

You're trying to talk circles, and I think you think you're being exceedingly clever in someway. I can't recognize the actual cleverness, but I perceive the idea that you believe so!

It was here, btw: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=103850&mesg_id=103850

But now gone.

C'est la vie.

But seriously, why bother playing this game? For appearance's sake? No one who knows you and your history believes you. Disingenuous is boring.

Declaring you don't understand the obvious statement.

Wait. Which one of us is on the Franzia?

[NanceGreggs]

70. OMG!!!

And now it's gone - what an amazing coincidence!

Perhaps this is the piece you were looking for:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/450

[Prism]

72. *eyes glaze over*

No, not it.

And you illustrate my personal point. It's really easy for people to claim they're for LGBT equality and throw down platitudes, but it's another for them to go down in the trenches and fight for it.

You are personally awesome at platitudes.

When LGBT people complained about Obama, you threw a snit and complained.

You were, to use my own journal, a parlor advocate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8494260

*clapclapohwhogivesashit*

BTW, when I wrote that post, you were the type I had in mind.

[NanceGreggs]

75. Oh, THIS is really funny.

I ask you for links to MY (alleged) anti-LGBT posts, and you come up with your OWN post as some kind of proof?

Seriously?

Where are the links to MY anti-LGBT posts?

Link or slink.

[Prism]

79. Your link vanished

I had it bookmarked because it was hysterical. But now, it's, uhm, missing. It must've been pretty bad. But I did provide a, now defunct, link. (Which is weird, really. Why is that missing of all things?)

Nance. What audience are you playing to? We're all here, we all know you.

Can we just play drinking games instead? I feel like we'd actually be peers there.

Maybe.

[NanceGreggs]

81. Just vanished?

Isn't that amazing? Maybe it wandered into the Bermuda Triangle of the Internetz.

"But now, it's, uhm, missing. It must've been pretty bad." Bad in what way? Do only "bad" posts get deleted from the internet? Who decides what's "bad" - and then who deletes it?

I had no trouble at all finding the link I posted for you - even though it was from October 2008. Found it through Google.

Maybe you should try again - because my (alleged) anti-LGBT posts should be out there - ya know, if they ever existed in the first place.

Link or slink.

[Prism]

83. I did link

Here it is again!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=103850&mesg_id=103850

Missing post.

Weird, right? Unusual, too. Of all the thousands of linkable posts, that one got nuked somehow.

But, I'm sure it was totally innocent. No reason at all that was erased from the web.

C'mon. You're a known quantity. Are you pretending for your straight friends?

[NanceGreggs]

86. "that one got nuked somehow."

I had NO idea that I had the power to erase things from the web!

Imagine that - I can simply "erase" anything I want from the entire internet!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is AMAZING!!!

Now, can you (a) explain to me how I can do that, and (b) link or slink.

[Prism]

87. Can you explain

How the entire LGBT community went hostile on you out of thin air?

[NanceGreggs]

89. The entire LGBT community?

Really?

I would think that if that were the case, you'd be able to find ONE link to an anti-LGBT post from me. But obviously you can't.


Oh, well, maybe it was THIS post that did me in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101637250

Is THAT the one that turned "the entire LGBT community" against me?

[Prism]

91. Parlor advocate

*patpat*

It's fine, pufferfish. Totally fine.

[NanceGreggs]

92. Still waiting on those links. n/t

[Prism]

95. Oh balls, I found it

In the wake of massive LGBT unrest, you posted this gem:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/545

Barack Obama wasn’t elected to do the bidding of each individual who voted for him; he was elected to do what he feels is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

Don’t agree with him? Fine. Pissed off at him? You’re more than free to say so. But if you think you are owed an apology every time this president does something contrary to what you want – well, don’t hold your breath. Because you’re not. And those who support his presidency don’t owe you an apology either.

You posted that in the heat of an LGBT DOMA controversy. Everyone knew who you meant. My community certainly did. And, as you can see by the comments, we took it exactly as such.

Now, of course, all the 666 comments are missing.

But I remember that topic, I remember the context, and I remember your intent. You can claim, "Nuh uh!" but lots of gay people remember your shtick and what you apologized for and what you defended.

Nance, no one believes your shit. Again, why bother? You apologized for inequality because you are a Blue Shirt Rah Rah Rah.

We know who you are. So dumb to pretend otherwise.

[NanceGreggs]

101. You. Have. GOT. To. Be. Kidding.

I posted something about Obama - not about LGBT rights, but about Obama - in the "heat of an LGBT DOMA controversy" - which, in your mind, means I was blatantly anti-LGBT in a discussion that had nothing to do with LGBTers at all.

But, ya know, it was posted at the same time as a controversy about something else that was going on in other discussion threads - and therefore, (I mean, isn't it obvious?) my "intent" was to rail against the LGBT community by posting something about Obama in a thread that had nothing to do with the LGBT community.

It's all so clear to me now.

"And, as you can see by the comments, we took it exactly as such. Now, of course, all the 666 comments are missing."

How can I "see" by the comments that are missing? And how can you say the LGBT community "took it as such" - whatever that means - when all of the comments are missing? Are we all supposed to just rely on your photographic memory of 666 comments?

I asked you for links to my anti-LGBT posts. You can't come up with any - because they don't exist.

It's as simple as that.

Funny how I was able to use Google to come up with several of my pro-LGBT rights OPs, and you can't come up with a single anti-LGBT post of mine - not one - even though you have equal access to Google.

LINK or SLINK.

[Prism]

166. I kind of like this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x399036

Where you poo poo the poster . . . even though Obama eventually did all of those things!

No, please, explain your fierce advocacy, where a President who took a politically risky chance outflanked you on the art of the possible.

You were full of that sentiment for years. "Stop complaining, gay people, it'll never happen!"

It happened, Nance =)

Uhm, no thanks to you. At all.

Edit: Oh damn. I'm reading that thread now, and you just get more awful as it goes on. In hindsight, do you feel any shame? Even just a little?

[NanceGreggs]

169. You are really stretching here, aren't you?

I told a poster who said they wouldn't vote for Obama that I didn't give a damn if he did or didn't.

I've told posters here who say they won't vote for Hillary the same thing.

"You were full of that sentiment for years. "Stop complaining, gay people, it'll never happen!"

Post the LINKS to where I ever said anything remotely like that.

LINK or SLINK

[Prism]

170. Your sentiment is well known

You criticized the LGBT community and others for their complaints. I just posted a link where you dove in to make sure your sentiments were felt. "Hush, now. We need a Democrat." And people who were pushing Democrats to be better were belittled.

Except, we won. We pushed Obama to be better, and he was.

You would've never pushed him to be better. In fact, you rushed to criticize anyone who dared demand better.

And here we are again with Hillary. That "inveterate liar" of yours.

Nance, we live here. This shit affects us. Nice that you're well and shielded in Canada. But this isn't a sports team to us. It's our lives.

So take your platitudes, your bromides, and your weirdly unearned superiority complex and shove it.

You messed with the LGBT community. We, and the President, rejected your bullshit. This time, I reject your bullshit, too.

If you are ever right about anything, send me a PM. I'll wait with baited breath.

[NanceGreggs]

171. Ya know, you're just making shit up now.

That's why you can't produce any links to my saying anything remotely like what you've alleged. They just don't exist.

My comments on the thread you linked to:

"I think all kinds of people give a damn about LBGT rights - as do I, my friends, my family members. My initial comment about "giving a damn" was aimed at the OP's diatribe - NOT the issue of equal rights. And I really don't think Obama - or the world at large - gives a damn whether he is going to withhold his vote or not."

"The fact remains that withholding one's vote accomplishes absolutely nothing - except, of course, giving the Republicans a shot at being elected. And THAT is a shot - no matter how small or far-fetched in the great scheme of things - anyone who wants to see equal rights for the GBLT community knows is counter-productive in the extreme.

The fight for REAL equality for gays/lesbians has been a long struggle, and will continue to be for some time to come. I realize that many people are tired of waiting for what should be obvious under the Constitution - that ALL citizens have the right to be equally protected, and equally recognized as full citizens on every level.

However, withholding one's vote, or rallying others to consider doing so is completely bereft of the compassion of which you speak. It is rather, IMHO, a demonstration of a lack thereof - because the citizens who need and deserve the support of those willing to fight this battle are instead being left to the mercy of the very people who would diminish their rights, rather than uphold them."

Yeah, that's some real anti-LGBT stuff right there, huh?

I think we all know who the "inveterate liar" here is - it's the one claiming I said things I didn't, and then can't come up with the links to prove their allegations.

[Prism]

174. Just hush

No one cares. I didn't even bother to read your post. Nothing you have to say carries any weight with people interested in justice.

[NanceGreggs]

179. Thus far, you have claimed to be speaking ...

... on behalf of the entire LGBT community, the President - and now "people interested in justice".

Look, I understand how frustrating it is for people like you, now that you no longer have the Ol' Tree site to spew lies about DUers. I saw the posts on that site - posts encouraging others to call me a "well-known homophobe" in replies to my OPs - and they did. I saw the posts encouraging people to call Will Pitt a "deranged drunk" in replies to anything he wrote - and they did. I saw the posts encouraging people to call Mineral Man a RW-troll because he said he'd posted on FreeRepublic - and they did.

There were many others targeted in the same way - and the same posters from the Tree kept replying to their OPs with the same phrases they'd been "instructed" to use by the Tree dwellers.

But now you're here at DU, not in the safety of the Treehouse where you couldn't be challenged.

I've asked repeatedly for links proving your assertions - you can't come up with a single one. I, on the other hand, provided you with several links to some of my OPs about LGBT rights.

Whether you choose to read my replies to you or not is of no consequence. This exchange is here for all to see - and it's abundantly clear that you are simply lying. That's why you can't provide any proof of your allegations - because such "proof" doesn't exist.

I actually feel sorry for you. Maybe someday you can redirect all that energy you put into making false accusations about people and turn it into something constructive.

[Puglover]

141. I remember the exchange well.

And yes, DU´s LGBT community was hardly happy with it. Admin no longer allows access to DU2 content. Or at least part of it. That subthread was epic.

Link or slink. Christ.

And yeah we all know.

[NanceGreggs]

93. Oh, wait - wut?

I think I found one of those anti-LGBT comments I'm famous for.

Is it THIS one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024229436

Was it where I said:

"The Ten Commandments did not include “Thou Shalt Not Be Gay.” Being as God is pretty much omnipotent and all, he could have had those Commandments go all the way up to Eleven – if he’d wanted to. But He didn’t. Maybe He figured it wasn’t as big a deal as you think it is. But then maybe you think your priorities should supersede His.

There is no mention in the New Testament of Jesus ever commenting on the “sin” of homosexuality. Do you think maybe it just slipped His mind? Do you think He was crucified, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat at the right hand of God – and then did a face-palm while exclaiming, “Holy shit! I knew I forgot something while I was down there”?

Yeah, that must be the one.

[okasha]

199. And here you are,

attempting to shame Nance for having an opinion.

It's obviously fine by you to shame a woman: it just has to be the right woman.

Disgusting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

109. Yep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. And by a feminist no less

I find it not surprising anymore. It is so much like either Animal Farm or 1984

[OnyxCollie]

12. If Trump is elected, there will be a revolution.

But it won't be one led by the proletariats.

[cui bono]

15. Can you provide the exact quote where she said that?

Because she did not say that as was explained on Lawrence O'Donnell's show tonight.

And, if you don't know anything about someone, like what a great activist they have been, it's best not to try to take them down simply because they have had the good fortune to make a good life for themselves and use their good fortune to help others.

What a mean spirited and baseless post.

But since rich people are innately bad according to your post, why don't you go learn something about the person you are shilling for by writing this hit piece.

The lows Hillary supporters have hit these past two days alone is astounding and sickening.

.

[BainsBane]

43. Rich people are "innately bad according to my post"

So when Bernie is talking about the gap between rich and poor, between the 1 and 99 percent, it doesn't include the super rich who support him? This "revolution" is not really supposed to bring about any redistribution of wealth. It's just me who demonizes the wealthy. I forgot to make an exception for the rich whose fundamental concern is Bernie's career. How thoughtless of me.
Thanks for showing how completely hollow his rhetoric is and that you don't in fact have a problem with extreme income inequality.

The quote you asked for:

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.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html?via=desktop&source=facebook

You all trashed Dolores Huerta. She is an activist who bled, who has sacrificed her safety and devoted her life to migrant farm workers and people's movements. She was called a liar and a corporate shill, all because some people have decided that nothing and no one matters but Bernie's career. You defend a movie star who profits from horrendous labor exploitation by Loreal and who sits in her multimillion dollar houses wishing a Trump presidency and increased misery on the poor. Her and your reaction to it exposes exactly how empty Sanders talk about revolution is. Revolution doesn't spare some of the idle rich and target others. You all rail about corporations day in and day out, just like Sanders, and now you say that Sanders wealth isn't supposed to be an issue when she sits there talking about putting Trump in power to spawn revolution? How dare the poor question the wealthy, so clearly superior to them because she supports Bernie? The hypocrisy is astounding. All Americans are supposed to bow before Bernie, his Hollywood surrogates, and the rest of the rich and upper-middle class who insist ordinary Americans are unfit to exercise their own democratic rights.

All this time Bernie and his supporters were going on about the 1 percent, it turns out you didn't really mean it at all. So tell me, what if anything does he stand for? Clearly I was wrong to believe any of what he said about the 1-99 percent. So tell me what is left?

[highoverheadspace]

50. Your highlighted quote doesn't match what you put in your OP.

You overstated what she said in your OP. It's plain to see. Your trying real hard to tie the two of them together. That much is obvious. Why don't you show some depth of character and bring your OP down here and put it next to your quote for comparison?

[mcar]

144. ...

[Dawson Leery]

17. k/r

[sheshe2]

19. Love you Bains!

Who needs that many houses?

I advocate her wealth be redistributed as well. She supports Bernie. She gets what she wishes for.

lol~

[scottie55]

61. And She Would Wholehartedly Agree

The filthy rich should pay more.

Next point?

Go for it Susan.

[BainsBane]

215. You think so?

Then why hasn't she done something about it? She could be housing needy people in those homes right now.

[litlbilly]

21. this OP is absolute bullshit. this meme is rediculous if any of you actually listened to

the interview. Its amazing what you idiots will grab onto when you have absolutely nothing to start with.

[litlbilly]

22. And this is why I cannot stand many of the Hillary bots here.

[Bodych]

32. Agree

The OP puts a "this is parody" footnote at the bottom; it's anything BUT.

It's a failed attempt to shame somebody who earned her money the honest way, very much unlike banksters and Wall Street crooks.

[tblue]

65. If Trump won, there would be a revolution AGAINST him

Why is that so hard to understand?

People are intentionally misinterpreting what Susan said. Glad you're not.

[lunamagica]

102. Sarandon pushed that meme in 2000. That Bush and Gore were the same, and Bush in the WH

would bring "the Revolution" on

How did that work out?

And how did she suffer, what was her sacrifice for having W as president?

[billhicks76]

88. Does Anyone Care

How many 3rd world babies Hillary will blow apart? I'd like to see now who she would appoint to her cabinet if elected.

[Califonz]

24. The servants must be hiding!

[MisterP]

25. Sarandon's so rich! not like Clinton!

at least Sarandon has some damn taste, not like Streisand

[shenmue]

40. Huh?

[MFM008]

26. my apartment

is the size of her closet.

[fbc]

31. The guillotines will inevitably take some innocents

Sure, we will try to target those who serve corporations at the expense of the people, but mistakes will happen. I'm sure Susan Sarandon knows this. I applaud her for welcoming them regardless.

[NastyRiffraff]

157. What a weird post

Guillotines? "target"? Really? Oh, they'll "inevitably take some innocents." Too bad, innocents...you were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time! Sorry 'bout that!

[Jamaal510]

33. K&R

[oasis]

41. Sarandon's not worried about where her next meal is coming from.

Easy for her to kick back and watch the working poor scratch out a living for another 4 years while Trump installs 3 Scalia types to the Supreme Court.

[BainsBane]

45. Exactly.

[onehandle]

47. 'Let them eat cake.' nt

[Cassiopeia]

51. Haven't I seen you post about disparaging women in any way as being

the greatest evil among all evils?

[seekthetruth]

53. And while we argue over what Sarandon said.....

....the earth dies a little everyday from the unnatural warming we've caused, and we still have candidates who claim to be progressives while taking money from the fossil fuel industry and won't place a ban on fracking.

I couldn't care less about any celebrity endorsements of Sanders. Who gives a shit with many more real issues more worthy of our debate?

[BainsBane]

69. I agree that celebrity endorsements are neither here nor there

and I agree that global climate change is a very important issue. However, many here refuse to as much as read one of the candidate's policy positions on the subject, so how can we have a debate about any issues when they refuse to engage with actual policy positions?

This isn't, however, about Sarandon's endorsement of Sanders. It isn't even about Sanders at all. It's about her declaration that a GOP candidate, the worst of the worst, would be better for America than the likely Democratic nominee because that would prompt a "revolution." She, as an extremely wealthy person with an enormous carbon footprint, feels entitled to wish upon America the worst of the worst because she thinks it will spark the poor into rising up. Well if they rise up, it will be against people like her. She needs to be careful what she wishes for.

Trump does not even acknowledge the reality of global warming. Having celebrities use their public profile to advance his candidacy and so-called progressives here supporting her in doing so certainly does nothing to address the problem of climate change. That they continue to insist Trump is better than a candidate who has a plan to wean America off fossil fuels should concern you. We have people furious that the American voters haven't done their bidding and thus want to punish the public and our country by installing Trump. If they get their wishes, that will set the world back in terms of addressing climate change.

In the meantime, you have every right to post an OP about climate change or any subject you choose. You shouldn't expect others to do it for you.

[Duppers]

74. Giving a shit about the environment.

Sarandon is only trying to support and get elected the ONLY candidate in this race who gives a shit about the environment.

If I had her ability to draw any ears, I'd be granting interviews supporting that candidate. I want him fucking elected.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

54. did Shee know after a home burning revolution begins, no one can X-it out?

coyote...

[revbones]

55. Hillary followers are using right-wing tactics

Step 1: Distort something someone said
Step 2: Feign outrage
Step 3: Call for that person's group to disavow them.

Really sad to see Democrats using these tactics.

[litlbilly]

64. the truth is, they are not true Dems, they are conservadems, big difference

[revbones]

67. Makes sense. nt

[BainsBane]

94. Because "true Dems" support Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton?

Is that your contention?

Funny how the majority of Democrats aren't "true Dems," to people like you, who are desperate to open up Democratic primaries to Republicans so they can pick the nominee.

And now, true Dems support the Sanders campaign efforts to seize the nomination with a minority of popular votes and overturning the results of elections already decided, in violation of the popular will. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html?via=desktop&source=facebook

True Dem doesn't mean membership in the party. It doesn't mean voting for a Democrat. It justifies voting for the furthest right of the GOP, and it justifies installing as the nominee someone who trails by millions in the popular vote and the earned delegate count in violation of the will of the majority of the electorate.

That's an interesting definition of "true Dem" you have, that just so happens to be entirely removed from both democracy and the Democratic Party. It turns out what it means is the rights of a few, of people like you certain you are so superior, to supplant the will of the majority of voters.

Arrogance and entitlement is not "true Dem." Ultimately that is all you have articulated here. And it's not like the arrogance is in any way justified. Your singular contribution to this thread has been to hurl insults, first calling me and the millions of Americans who support Clinton "idiots" and then insisting we aren't really "true Dems." You haven't even demonstrated an ability or inclination to construct an argument. Evidently you think your contempt for the votes and voices of those who disagree with you make you superior. You couldn't be more mistaken.

You keep on festering your anger toward the 2.5 million more Americans who have cast their votes for Clinton. It only shows how hollow your claims about true "dems" really are.

[BainsBane]

84. And Bernie supporters like you

show that you stand with the rich over the rights of ordinary citizens to vote as they see fit. There is nothing left wing about promoting Donald Trump.

I have every right to be angry about being lectured to about revolution by the super rich. I have every right to speak my mind, and your ongoing determination that citizens have no right to question the rich and powerful is not Democratic or democratic. Sarandon doesn't have a clue what it's like to be poor, but she wishes upon the poor increased misery because she thinks it will shock them into doing her bidding. I have every right to be pissed about that.

Revolution means something. You all though it was cute to appropriate it as a campaign slogan and throw it around to pretend it could be limited to installing one member of the political elite in power. That isn't how it works. Revolution means something. It has meant redistribution of wealth, something you all pretended to champion when it didn't affect your own. Now we learn that the super rich who support Bernie are to be protected at all costs and that their rights supercede those of ordinary Americans who dare to vote as they choose.

Now we see that you all in fact do not support redistribution of wealth. You don't resent the 1 percent. As has been clear for some time, the enemy is Democratic voters, people who have the audacity to exercise their own rights rather than following the orders of a self-entitled few. Add to that advocacy organizations like the Brady Campaign, environmental groups, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the Human Rights Council, unions, civil rights activists like Dolores Huerta, John Lewis, and the Mothers of the Movement, and we see very clearly exactly who and what constitutes the enemy.

Unlike Sanders supporters, I haven't called Sarandon's home, bombarded her social media accounts, or demand she vote as I insist. Unlike she did to Dolores Huerta, I didn't approach her with a collection of idiotic internet memes, a good number of which were false, and insisted that she didn't know how to vote right. I've posted my opinion on a public message board, but progressive values, according to you, require I stay silent, remain obedient to the rich and powerful, acquiesce to their inherent superiority and do as I am told. Fat chance. I exercise my right to free speech however and whenever I can, and your transparent efforts to silence dissent are not even remotely convincing.

[all american girl]

96. ...

That was pure awesomeness!!!!!!!!

[lunamagica]

103. BRAVO!!!

[obamanut2012]

140. This one paragraph NAILS it

I have every right to be angry about being lectured to about revolution by the super rich. I have every right to speak my mind, and your ongoing determination that citizens have no right to question the rich and powerful is not Democratic or democratic. Sarandon doesn't have a clue what it's like to be poor, but she wishes upon the poor increased misery because she thinks it will shock them into doing her bidding. I have every right to be pissed about that.

Your whole post is great -- I wish you'd make this another OP.

[revbones]

147. And when did I "promote" Donald Trump

It's really not worth responding to the rest of your rant when you start off with a blatant falsehood like that.

[rbrnmw]

221. Have you ever contributed anything positive in the short time you have been here?

I think you are more anti-Hillary and her supporters than you are pro-Bernie, so transparent.

[revbones]

224. I haven't seen anything positive you've contributed.

But positive is subjective isn't it?

But you believe whatever you want. Isn't up to me.

[scottie55]

62. Go For It Susan

Keep telling the truth.

They can't handle it.

Never could, and never will.

[leftofcool]

175. Yea Susan, keep up that Trump humping.

[Duppers]

71. Yes.

However, as another DUer said, it will take major suffering to awaken the sleeping Americans to the real problem, if then.

This is what SS was thinking of and she gets shit like this thread thrown at her reputation.

I think I know whom most of the folks on this thread bashing SS support. And all of them are misguided -- I'm being kind.

[BainsBane]

78. Hasn't she already moved on to Trump?

This isn't about Sanders. It's about her announcement that a Trump presidency would be better because it would generate "revolution." Well I say why wait for Trump?

[Bluenorthwest]

124. You know that is not true, but you say it anyway. You have no quote so you type characterizations

This thread isn't about Susan, it's about you. And what does it say about you that you feel you have the right to smear and bear false witness against women who don't agree with you? It says plenty, none of it good.

If you had such a quote you would use it, but you don't so you make shit up. Reflects your candidate perfectly.

[polly7]

134. That's a LIE.

You never change, do you?

It's a dog's life though, eh? ........... you might not want to try quite so hard to bring down a good woman with your lies.

[Hekate]

76. I don't think a single one of BS supporters understands what the words "immediate revolution" mean.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

77. LOL!!! I KNEW she would be slimed.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. All this anger isn't good for your soul, Bain.

Seriously, I worry!

[Fumesucker]

216. What amused me the most was when Bain Capital threw a high dollar contribution soiree for Clinton

BB was fine with that.

Such a subtly ironic name our BB chose for herself.

Me, I'm still sucking fumes and you are still a drunk monkey.

[Warren DeMontague]

217. True. There are none so blind as them what will not see, or something like that.

As for the names... yours ages better, my friend.

I may need to figure out a new one, if we ever get another name change amnesty. But honestly I'm stumped. If it was a couple years ago Archer would have had it in the bag ("Pam Poovey" has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Plus it would confuse the shit out of the people who think I'm some sort of secret mens rights activist) but sadly that show hasn't aged so well either.

Fuck, at this point i may just have to stick with DeMontague.

[Fumesucker]

219. Actually I think they do see, they couldn't so adroitly miss the point so often otherwise

It's like blindsight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see

I keep coming up with names that I think are brilliant, if I don't forget them within twenty seconds or minutes I usually think they are really dumb within a day or so.

After all, what's in a name?

[Warren DeMontague]

220. Yeah, it's like getting a tattoo.

I always wonder about the people who got stuck with something like "Edwards08"

[davidthegnome]

97. She didn't support Trump.

Not supporting Clinton is not the same thing as supporting Trump. She actually bashed him in the interview. Who ever else votes for Trump, I don't think Sarandon will be one of them.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There are people who make a great deal of money who support progressive legislation and taxation and Sarandon is one of them. Supporting Bernie really isn't her best choice if it's about money - because he will raise taxes on those who earn a lot - definitely including her. Yes, she has expensive things and homes - that's what wealthy people do. As for this bit:

"Why wait? I say we start the revolution right now. Not the revolution of campaign slogans that are about installing one man as head of the capitalist state. No, a real social revolution that forcibly redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. I can think of no better place to start than one of Sarandon's many multi-million dollar homes. "

That kind of social revolution would have much bigger fish to fry than Sarandon - Donald Trump, for example. It is also a very real eventual possibility if the puppet masters continue to ignore the needs of the many for the sake of the few. The kind of revolution that Sanders represents (he is, however, one of millions) is about the working poor, it's about taking dirty, corporate money out of politics, it's about repairing our economy and creating a system that works better for everyone, not just for the rich and super rich.

I have been working poor for years, I am one of those millions without health insurance, who has never earned a living wage. I proudly acknowledge that I want the kind of revolution Sanders is talking about - and I think it's only beginning. I also don't think it's limited to Sanders and his supporters. People who want change, who want to make this Country a better place for everyone in it... who are tired of business as usual and corporate politics, who are tired of endless war, of the over-reach of the government in regards to "National security" and the absolute ignorance in regards to how much people are struggling.

It's not about one person. It's not about a slogan. It's about healing the suffering that has been going on for many, many years - and has greatly deepened in the last few decades. It's about making the world a better place. Everyone is welcome to be a part of it.

It's way past time for people to wake up and start paying attention to the poor... before everyone else gets to be one of us. This economy is leaving millions and millions of people out in the cold - both literally and figuratively. I'm glad that Sarandon seems to get it.

[BainsBane]

104. Here's the thing

I can support all of those positions, wholeheartedly. I am more than willing to fight for all of those issues. The problem is it has become entirely about the person. I understand it isn't for you, but for many here and for Sanders himself it has become that.
He trails by 2.5 million in the popular vote and nearly 300 earned delegates. His chances of catching up are estimated by a Princeton Statistician at less than 5 percent. He is highly unlikely to be the nominee, but that doesn't mean those issues have to go away.
Bernie and high-profile supporters of his like Sarandon are in the perfect position to advance those issues, but they have to decide that the issues are what matter. Sarandon clearly has an antipathy toward Clinton entirely unrelated to her policy positions, since she denounced a range of positions that Clinton does not in fact advance.

Your point about the poor is interesting since Sanders has explicitly articulated his message as about the middle class. Then when asked to talk about racism he insisted white people didn't know what it was like to be poor. When asked to explain his remark he doubled down on it rather than saying he had misspoken, which is what I assumed he had done until I read his clarification.
His position on a $15 minimum wage is stronger for the working poor than Clinton's lower number. But on many other issues Sanders proposals are most beneficial to the upper middle class. Unlike Clinton, he has no plan to address rampant inequality in k-12 that cements generations of poverty, that would enable the children of the poor to take advantage of the free public college tuition he promises. Clinton offers a plan that provides for subsidized education for the poor but not the upper middle class. She doesn't propose single payer but that is because she knows it will never get through congress, which Sanders himself said back in 2009. Only now with a GOP majority in both houses he decides to advance it as tied to his presidential prospects, after saying it only could get 8 or 9 votes under a Democratic majority.

the economy is leaving millions out, but Sanders isn't the sole solution to that. Resting everything on him makes no sense.
Ultimately Sanders is talking about reform, not revolution. Do you really think a Trump presidency will bring about those changes for the working poor? Or do you think the violent revolution that Sarandon imagines following that presidency will unfold as you desire? Revolutions are violent, bloody, and always followed by counter revolution. If such a revolution occurred, people with far less wealth than Sarandon would be targeted. There are very few people with that much money, and social revolts target those around them. That's why shop keepers are often targeted in riots. They don't have much wealth, but they have more than others in the community.

What you describe is a reform agenda of policy positions that do not depend on the career of one man who is extremely unlikely to be the nominee, no matter how badly you want him to. Now people can decide if they care enough about issues to press them or if their anger is such that they want to exact revenge on the American public for not supporting Bernie. That ultimately depends on what they truly value, if they decide they care enough about issues to 1) even look at Clinton's policy positions, which few of her detractors have bothered doing; 2) if they want to pressure Bernie's campaign to act, behind the scenes, on their behalf; 3) if he decides he cares enough about the causes he has campaigned on to work behind the scenes to influence the direction of the party and a future Clinton administration.

But the fact is a number of Sanders supporters are not poor and some just want revenge on American voters for not doing their bidding. Most Democratic voters who earn less than $30k a year actually support Clinton over Sanders. Some oppose Clinton because she is female, and no advocacy for the working poor or middle class will change the fact that they resent women in authority. There are a range of supporters with a myriad of concerns, and then there is Bernie. Ultimately, it's up to all of them to decide how they want to proceed from here on out.

[davidthegnome]

108. You make some good points.

Single payer, college tuition funded by the public, a fifteen dollar minimum wage... those things are not likely to happen with the current government. I don't think that means that we shouldn't fight like mad for them anyway though. Even if it is a losing battle, even if it is one hell of an uphill struggle, it has to be done. I'm not very old, but I'm not in my twenties anymore either - back then I felt like I had time for things, like there was still some chance, some potential... some things I could do that might move me in the direction I wanted to go.

The years since have left me jaded in some regards. I have worked for 7.50 and 8 dollars an hour and 5 dollars an hour. I have worked full time and over time and part time. I have been to college now - a year's worth of education left me in (for me) a decade's worth (or more) of debt. I've been injured, very recently - and haven't been able to work for a few weeks, my savings are disappearing quickly and there's still no way for me to qualify for health insurance, either under the ACA or medicaid because my governor did not pass the expansion.

Ultimately, I'll probably be okay, I'll probably survive. My family has enough money to let me with live with them and feed me, so I'm not likely to end up homeless or starving to death - and I am deeply grateful for that - because I have been in worse situations than I am in now.

The thing is, I'm one of those people screwed by this economy, even left out by some fairly progressive policies that were well meaning - but warped by the right and centrist democrats to take most of the strength out of them. I don't think we can keep doing things by half, by increments. If (and it's a pretty big if) Clinton could get the minimum wage raised to 12 dollars an hour... that's still not a living wage, not even up here in Northern Maine.

I would never, not in a million years, advocate or support a violent revolution. My fear is that it is inevitable if we do not do something to dramatically alter the course this Country is on. Not immediately - but ten, twenty years down the road... with government practice and policies like we have known for the last ten or twenty? I can't even imagine how deep the suffering, anger, resentment and struggle is for those who have it much worse than me.

I can't get by on my own. The notion of financial independence... living on my own... even the idea of going back to school, all of these are so far beyond me I may as well try to reach up and pull down the moon. To say that it sucks is such a dramatic understatement... but it sucks. I have a son I can't see, that I can't afford to support - and it's not because I don't want to, it's because I can't.

I had to tell my girlfriend that any future plans for me moving (she lives in Mass) closer to her or us getting married have to be put on hold. I can't move like I used to anymore, I can't even handle being on my feet for more than an hour or two. I'm looking for some kind of work I can do until (hopefully) my back gets better... but no luck so far. I'm thirty one years old and some times I feel that my life is already over, at least in regards to upward momentum.

It's not just about me though. It's about the millions of people who are in situations like mine, or in situations worse than mine. They can't afford for things to keep going as they are... they need more than incremental change - and they needed it yesterday.

One person, who ever they are, is not the solution by themselves - but what Bernie is calling for; millions of people marching in the streets (I might end up needing a wheelchair, but I'll be there!) to support the changes he's talking about... that might have some chance of actually working. I think he is one of those people that understands, somewhat, just how desperate things have become for a lot of people in this Country.

What Sanders is talking about may be more reform than actual revolution, but there is a great deal of revolutionary thinking going on right now, I think. A revolution in political ideology and philosophy. People who would, years ago, have scoffed at the notion of a strong safety net, healthcare or higher education funded by the public... are now more open to such ideas - and even supporting them. I like Sanders as a person, I think he's honest, genuine - and decent - but that's not why I support his campaign. It's about the ideas, it's about the policies. It's my hope that, somehow, in spite of the odds against it, we can make some of the changes he is talking about - even if it takes a decade... seems like I'm not going anywhere. At least I can keep writing for this movement, for things that I believe in very deeply.

All of that having been said.... I realize that the odds of success are unlikely, but I've become a pretty desperate man, so I'm going to go with the person who I think understands that desperation. It's not so much a matter of being against Clinton anymore, not for me, but it IS a matter of magnitude. We've got to fight for everything and anything we can get, because if we don't, then what has been happening will continue to happen.

I'll vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination and try to work with others to hold her feet to the fire and push her left - but I think Sanders is already where a lot of us are in regards to what needs to happen going forward.

[BainsBane]

160. Your situation is heartbreaking

You absolutely deserve a better life, to be healthy and have the opportunity to make a living wage. You should be able to see your children and marry your partner. I agree that government should do far more to provide those opportunities for you.

While I grew up poor, on welfare, I have managed to make it into the middle class, and I have a secure job. That was possible because of the education assistance offered to poor students that started to be stripped away while I was in college. I think we can and should fight to restore them and work to implement the sorts of changes you support. Frankly, yours is the best argument for Sanders that I have seen. I can see how much the vision he advances means to someone in your position. I would also would like to see much of what Sanders advocated implemented, but my view is that he falls short on the details, on policy and how to implement the changes. My particular views, however, matter far less than the aggregate vote of the Democratic electorate across the nation, which is voting decidedly for Clinton.

I want you to know I will join you in doing everything I can to hold Clinton's feet to the fire. The good thing about her is that she listens to voters and cares about their life circumstances. I would encourage you to write her a letter. To talk about why you've supported Bernie and what you want her to understand about people like you.

I've found your posts incredibly moving and persuasive in ways that I haven't seen from other Sanders supporters. I think you have an ability to tell your personal story in an impactful way. I thank you for sharing that with me.

[Cha]

98. Gawd.. she makes sick. And, I'm not the only one.. thank you for this, BB.

Kurt Eichenwald
✔ ??@kurteichenwald
Libs like @SusanSarandon who suggest USA must be destroyed so others will afterwards adopt their policy beliefs are selfish and arrogant.
2:42 AM - 29 Mar 2016
128 128 Retweets 156 156 likes

http://theobamadiary.com/2016/03/29/president-speaks-at-the-national-rx-drug-abuse-heroin-summit/

Charles M. Blow
✔ ??@CharlesMBlow
Watch my latest video, "Susan Saradon is wrong!," and let me know what you think. https://www.facebook.com/CharlesMBlow/videos/10154630757494989/ …
8:41 AM - 29 Mar 2016
79 79 Retweets 131 131 likes

http://theobamadiary.com/2016/03/29/girl-are-you-crazy/

[mhatrw]

99. I hate a top 0.1% catfight.

It's just ugly. Why can't all the superwealthy elites just get along?

[lunamagica]

100. Excellet idea! Maybe we should send a copy of Dr. Zhivago to Sarandon, to show her how the

revolution made him share his mansion with the plebe. Being the true revolutionary that she is, I'm sure she'd jump at the idea.

Viva la revolucion!

[eridani]

106. Let's have a real revolution--support the candidate putting reproductive rights up for grabs

Hillary Clinton: I Could Compromise on Abortion If It Included Exceptions For Mother's Health

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html

Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.

[Gothmog]

111. Sarandon is also a Nader supporter

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Good job on documenting Sarandon's privilege

[polly7]

120. She earned every cent of 'her privilege'.

She also believes taxes should be raised on people such as herself.


What the fuck is a 'good job' about lying about and smearing a good human being?

[hobbit709]

113. Meanwhile, at Chelsea's humble little digs.

[malaise]

115. Well played

[hobbit709]

119. Morning Malaise

[malaise]

121. Morning Hobbit709

[Bluenorthwest]

128. 10.5 Million Dollar digs.

And the OP wants Sarandon to shut up and sing!

[DanTex]

114. Not my style, but I love the kitchen, wow!

[polly7]

116. How fucking pathetic.

Sarandon being pushed in an interview to state who she'd vote for and instead, saying 'none of your fucking business' (paraphrasing) and laughing at the possibility of it being Trump. But she was exactly right, he would bring an instant revolution - and not a good one. I'd laugh if some asshole did the same to me ........ she's not a stupid woman, she knew what he was trying to get out of her.

Just as everyone here has been slobbering over for the last few days - something to twist into 'OMG, Sarandon - Bernie 'surrogate'! is saying vote for Trump!' Which is just another sad, pathetic lie.

She also tweeted she would never vote for Trump.

Are people REALLY this dense???





Nice house - she earned it. She wants taxes raised on herself.


Your smearing of a good, decent woman is as ugly as it has been against a good decent man since the second he started running. Ugly, ugly shit.

[LiberalElite]

117. If she were

for your queen all this would be fine with you.

[polly7]

118. Oh, they'd be wanting her appointed to her cabinet!

So many lies, so much hypocrisy ... from supposed adults.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. You are shaming a woman for having an opinion and $ while your own candidate is Ultra Rich and said:

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."

Where was your passionate fury that day? Her DU supporters defended that horrific and ignorant statement. I sure as shit did not see you make an OP about it. She praised them for doing the very thing they are infamous for not doing. And you said nothing. Silent. Like Reagan. You all were. The whole of Camp Clinton.

So spare me your affected outrage.

[Puglover]

159. Our friend Prism

posted this wonderful reply in a OP the other day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1567562

Applies perfectly here as well IMO.

The feigned, selective and utterly hypocritical outrage of about 15-20 posters on this website is puke worthy.

[treestar]

125. We sure do reward entertainers under capitalism.

Like the athletes. It's strange.

[polly7]

129. Should they work for free? Have you watched any of her work?

Does she not pay taxes?

Does she want taxes increased, even on herself? She wants her good fortune to help others - what about all those who want to see the status quo maintained?

[treestar]

155. where did I say she should work for free?

I'm just amazed at how much they seem to be worth, that's all. IMO doctors and researchers are worth more to society. It was just a comment on what our society values.

[Fumesucker]

218. I am the entertainer and I know just where I stand

Another serenader
And another longhair band
Today I am your champion
I may have won your hearts
But I know the game, you'll forget my name
And I won't be here in another year
If I don't stay on the charts

-Billy Joel

[treestar]

255. well OK the top ones then

that guy needs a lawyer.

[noretreatnosurrender]

126. LOL

The Clinton campaign can't find anything dirty about Bernie so once again they try to campaign against his supporters. This is so desperate. I've never seen a campaign that routinely campaigns against their opponents supporters. And to top it off they get into a snit when those same supporters they have been whacking over the head won't give them a loyalty oath. What are these people thinking? It's like they are their own worst enemy. I've seen political tone deafness before but this just takes the cake. It's like they are working overtime to defeat their own candidate.

[Starry Messenger]

127. Anyone who wants me to suffer more to revolt isn't my ally.

I've said this for years, long before this election. Being for socialism in my world means you fight to defend your gains.

[polly7]

130. She laughed when he was trying to push her into saying she'd vote for Trump.

She is right that a Trump presidency would bring about instant revolution - do you believe she thinks that would be a good thing?

[Starry Messenger]

132. No, she isn't right. It's a fucking stupid opinion, not based on anything historical.

And yes, she came across as gleeful at the prospect. That's why her stupid opinion is getting major news coverage.

[polly7]

133. No, she wasn't 'gleeful' at the prospect. She fucking laughed at trying to be corralled

into saying she'd vote Trump. I'd laugh, too. She WAS correct in saying his election would bring about instant revolution - it would turn politics, as Americans know it, on its head.

She tweeted she'd never vote Trump, and laughed at the idiocy of it when she tweeted that, too. Some people find these kind of accusations so unbelievable they are seriously amused at them. 'Gleeful' at the prospect of a Trump presidency!!! - you're trying waaay too hard.

[Starry Messenger]

135. *bawwwwwk*

[polly7]

136. Oh, my ......

childish personal insults for disagreeing with you? I don't need to 'parrot' anyone. Some women have minds of their own.

[B Calm]

138. Is there a point so low that even Hillary supporters won't go?

[BainsBane]

162. Low?

After months of hearing Sanders and his supporters go on about the 1-99 percent, about "revolution," it's "low" to criticize a super rich person who lectures the poor and middle class about "revolution." No. I disagree. I do not believe Hollywood movie stars more important than the rest of the citizenry and I do not believe they should be immune from criticism. I believe when people talk about revolution, they should think about what it really means and that pointing out hypocrisy is entirely justified.

Low was attacking the mother of Trayvon Martin for refusing to endorse a man who has repeatedly voted against gun control. Low was calling a civil rights icon, Dolores Huerta, a liar. Low was aligning with pro-life groups in trying to strip Planned Parenthood of funding and deprive the poorest women in America of access to reproductive healthcare all because they failed to endorse a politician. Low is pretending to stand for corporate accountability while justifying blanket immunity for gun corporations. Low is claiming not to have super pacs when the fact is exactly the opposite, and supporters showing absolutely no concern that they've been deceived for months on end. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ Low is supporting a campaign strategy that focuses on overturning the results of elections by flipping earned delegates and installing someone in power over the democratic will of the people. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452

Criticizing a campaign surrogate for her hypocrisy is not low. I do not share the view articulated by too many that some Americans are more equal and therefore should be immune from criticism.

[leftofcool]

176. Low? Because we don't support Trump and Susan?

[obamanut2012]

139. Preach it, sister

You are right on the button, which is why everyone is reacting a certain way to your OP.

It also shows Sarandon's creative texts about Nevada and her bullying of Dolores Huerta weren't anomalies.

[Paladin]

143. Well done, BB.

Nice payback for Sarandon's vapid, privilege-bolstered blather about a Trump-instigated "revolution."

[workinclasszero]

145. You see why some 1%er hypocrites like Sarandon

long for a President Trump to inflict massive pain and misery on working class stiffs like me and my family?

It wont affect her filthy rich ass in any way, shape or form! Let the peasants eat fucking cake eh Susan?

[Laser102]

146. Of course Sarandon has no idea how a revolution would affect the poor.

When you live in mansions you just assume these poor people will have safety nets during the revolution you are calling for. Talk about being divorced from reality.

[cosmicone]

151. Sarandon has always been a misguided fool

First she gave us GWB by supporting Nader...

Now she wants to give us Trump by supporting Bernie

[liberal N proud]

152. The thing about Revolutions is that you don't know what is going to happen on the other side

And for someone who has it so easy as Susan Sarandon to call for such actions is unconscionable.

[PCPrincess]

154. The Rationalizations Continue

Wow. Just wow. The continued rationalizations required for Hillary supporters to continue to pretend that Hillary remains a 'better' candidate are just insane.

Reminder: Bernie Sanders is Hillary's opponent. The people who strongly support him are not running for President of the United States. You guys/gals are really looking silly in these types of opinion posts.

All written works are at the core, an attempt to persuade people. However, written works like this will never persuade those who aren't already knee deep in self-rationalizations and immunity from truths.

[BainsBane]

161. He has appointed Sarandon a surrogate for his campaign

She represents him in the media.

I find it ironic that we have heard for ages now about the 1 vs. 99 percent, yet when it comes to the rich who support Sanders, we are accused of being "silly" and engaging in "rationalizations" for objecting to the rich lecturing to those far less fortunate than them about "revolution." It's astounding how willing Sanders supporters are to discard or ignore every single position their candidate has campaigned on when it suits them.

[B Calm]

156. Is their hatred for Susan because she's a woman supporting Bernie?

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. Yup, the same reason they hate some PoC, who they would prefer if they were good

PoC and just staid quiet. What I think of this cannot be expressed without risking a hide though

[BainsBane]

180. What?

Who has been here arguing that people of color suffer from stockholm syndrome for failing to support Bernie? Who has argued that votes in the "confederacy" and the "bible belt" are worth less than those in states Bernie carried?
You have some incredibly selective outrage, particularly considering the misogyny you have justified when directed toward Clinton. You posted an OP insisting that women had no right to object to being insulted with sexist slurs, and now you insist Sarandon should not be criticized simply because she is female. Just what principle do you think you are standing up for?

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Should I remind you what some of the HRC fans have been saying about

oh Professor Cornell West? Or do you prefer to hear about Killer Mike? Did I mention what happens every time a person of color (who does not support HRC) is quoted here? Spare me. What you are doing to Sarandon is precisely what you have done to those folks, It is called shaming, and it is shameful.

It is the HRC campaign that has run the same model they did in 2008, a racist, divisive campaign. I don't expect you to stop it. But at this time, it is not shocking anymore. If a woman or a PoC does not agree with your political choice, you would prefer if they shut up and became invisible. It's even now a source of news commentary. Live it with, or not, I don't give two shits about it.

I expect even more ugly stuff by the way. Can't wait for it.

[rbrnmw]

222. FYI a lot of us have been upset with Cornel well before this election cycle

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11871655

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1187417

[nadinbrzezinski]

233. You are annoyed with people who you would prefer to

Silence. We get it and that is the impression I get.

[rbrnmw]

234. I am not annoyed at all I was just letting you know that Cornel has been

persona non grata since he started his mess with President Obama. I think it's good you stick up for PoC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

236. I think it is best as a PoC I do not try to silence

Those PoC who's opinion I might not agree with. I prefer that people have self agency and defend that free agency. You just went ahead and confirmed what I wrote. You would rather a person of color you do not agree never have that agency and stay quiet

Well guess what? Shocking I know, but even the AA community no longer has a unified front. Even more shocking, gasp I know. Some AA do not like President Obama. Myself, I know we will really not know his true legacy for at least ten years. Truth be told, like every other President, a generation. Why just now we are seeing the full effects of neoliberal policies first adopted by Bill. It ain't pretty and we should start seeing the first works on things like oh FTAs and their effects. In fact that has started.

But you carry on and have an excellent day thinking some people should be silenced.

[rbrnmw]

237. Cornel is welcome to say what he wants I just don't have to agree with it

You have a right as well. We all have the right to speak out as we see fit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

239. Well in that we agree

[rbrnmw]

223. like Sanders supporters who dismissed southern AA?

or said BLM was funded by Soros? That black people who vote for Hillary have Stockholm Syndrome?

[zappaman]

226. Exactly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

232. Try to defend what has been going on M'kay

At this point I am just seeing a backlash. Many of those folks will not come out in November. And that is going to be all kinds of "fun". There is this thing about winds.

[rbrnmw]

238. I don't defend racism no matter where it comes from

[nadinbrzezinski]

240. Well kids are tired of being erased

By campaign staff. Nor is diversity only a black white issue.

[rbrnmw]

243. I agree diversity isn't just black and white

[MelissaB]

181. Jury results

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a thinly veiled and entirely unfounded accusation of racism. Nadin's assumption that if people don't worship her every word means they "hate people of color" is a bizarrely broad brushed attack. She is not people of color writ large.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 30, 2016, 06:33 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Eeeew, what a nasty post. This does not belong on a Democratic board, discussing fellow Democrats.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: what! is this even worthy of being alerted, too sensitive
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's fine.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Is this saying BainsBain hates people of color? What? Where did that come from?

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Well I see some in the jury

saw what I saw.

[leftofcool]

177. She isn't supporting Bernie, she is supporting Trump

[frylock]

244. Conservatives simply do not understand nuance..

as is evidenced by the pile-on and hatred being directed at someone for saying something they never even said.

[BainsBane]

182. Yes, that's it exactly

My hatred for women is so great that I am determined one never seek the presidency, that they understand their sole responsibility is to promote the political and economic ascendency of men.

I find it ironic that the people who are most contemptuous of feminists turn around and adopt essentialist views that exempt a few chosen women from any criticism.

The reactions to this thread have shown that the incessant mantra about the 1-99 percent is entirely hollow. Clearly you uphold the rights of the rich to lecture the poor and middle class about what they need to do, as long as they promote one man's career. One politician, however, is not a cause or a principle. I can't help wonder if there is any cause or principle that isn't infinitely malleable in order to promote Bernie? Corporate accountability extends only to one sector of the economy, coincidentally located in NY City. Gun corporations are not only exempted, they are guaranteed unfettered profits, with no-called "progressives" echoing NRA arguments about an immunity law that privileges corporate merchants of death over the rights and lives of American citizens. Concerns about economic equality have been thrown aside. Women's rights are irrelevant unless "women" can be invoked as a self-serving trope to enforce absolute obedience to one man's political ambitions. Not a word against the men who denounce women voters who fail to vote exclusive for men as "vagaina voters," but daring to criticize someone advocating for a Trump presidency is twisted to insist I am criticizing her simply because she is woman, while people who argue that women are "insecure" in wanting candidates to address their basic civil rights as a campaign issue face no criticism whatsoever. That is what is called blatant hypocrisy, and it is evident on one issue after another. There has been no criticism whatsoever from Sanders supporters about the revelation that--despite announcing on national television for months on end that he doesn't have a super pac--he in fact does. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ I have no idea what is is people think they are standing up for.
Income inequality, super pacs, campaign finance law--none of that matters in face of the far more important goal of Bernie's career. Every single issue has been tossed aside to promote him. As much as some Sanders supporters may think advancing the rights and wealth of themselves over the majority constitutes a principle, it does not. It is in fact the absence thereof.


Perhaps you can do us a public service by providing a list of all the rich people whose assets should be protected at all costs vs. the ones who are bad? Then you create another list of which women are too important to be criticized and which are evil personified? Or does it simply come down to anyone who supports Bernie should be above criticism while the 2.5 million more Democrats who have so far voted are inherently inferior?

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. Actually we are annoyed with SITUATIONAL FEMINISM

and I have broken barriers myself, so stuff it

[Marr]

187. I think that's a big factor, frankly. /nt

[Rex]

158. I'm ready for an economic revolution. That means a lot has to change in this country.

Reganomics has to die and go away forever.

[Dont call me Shirley]

164. This OP belongs in GDPee

[B Calm]

165. I agree! I'll just trash the thread

until the mods get back.

[Marr]

186. Hillary's fans have earned their bad reputation.

They regularly post empty smear jobs based on nothing but deceitful misrepresentations, or flat out lies, then slap each other on the back and repeat them with a sort of 'wink'-- like they're actually enjoying it more because they know it's bullshit.

[BainsBane]

214. The projection around here is phenomenal.

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:37 AM - Edit history (1)

When I post something negative about Sanders, I provide evidence, something Clinton's detractors rarely if ever do (internet memes and opinion pieces are not evidence), principally because they haven't shown enough interest in policy to even bother informing themselves on what she actually proposes. Sanders supporters use juries to hide that evidence, whether it is links to Sanders voting record, articles about his support for Lockheed Martin and big sugar, or they call people Nazis (as was done to me) for daring to post about his record on guns.

We haven't seen any concern from Sanders supporters about the disclosures that he has not been truthful about not having Super pacs http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
About the FEC citation of $23 million in excess campaign contributions http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/
(whether you like the above source is irrelevant. It links to the actual letters from the FEC and from Sanders Campaign Treasurer in response).

Or his campaign manager's announcement of a strategy for him to seize control of the nomination against the popular will of the electorate. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452

Yesterday someone actually got a hide for criticizing Tad Devine. Apparently a political operative making huge amounts of money off campaign contributions is sacrosanct and that a lowly citizen has no right to criticize him without facing censure. The rich are to be protected at all costs, as long as they are affiliated with Bernie. The poor and working Americans must be punished if they fail to prostrate themselves before Bernie and the "progressives" convinced of their inherent superiority.

There aren't scores of articles about Clinton supporters bullying civil rights activists, super delegates, ordinary voters or progressive politicians. That is the reputation of another candidate whose run is coming to a close.

That said, this OP isn't about the awful reputation of Clinton supporters. It's about a rich person talking about putting a horrendous right-wing billionaire in office in order to spawn a "revolution." The responses in defense of Sarandon demonstrate that the rhetoric about the 99-1 percent we have heard for months and months now isn't meant to be taken seriously, and that rich people who support Bernie's career are just too important to be criticized. In other words, they expose hypocrisy of epic dimensions.

You choose to condemn Democratic voters, those who support the candidate will be the nominee. Not the neonazis, Islamophobes and homohobes who support Trump, but Democrats. That is who you despise, that is who some responding to this thread resent. Strip away the rights of the majority, no problem. Stump for a billionaire, no problem. But vote for a a Democrat, that is unforgivable.


I finally read a post in this thread that was actually persuasive in advocating for Sanders. Rather than insulting Democrats for disagreeing with him, he talked about his own life experiences and why Bernie's campaign meant so much to him. If more people had been doing that since the beginning of his campaign, they might have succeeded in attracting supporters. Instead, too many have spent the entire time insulting other Democrats, insisting they were inferior for caring about issues like equal rights, reproductive rights and voting rights. They have assailed one progressive public figure, advocacy organization, union, and civil rights activist after another for daring to endorse or speak favorably of Clinton. None of that has worked, yet they've continued to engage in it relentlessly, now taking their efforts to superdelegates to try to intimidate them into supporting someone who trails by 2.5 million in the popular vote. Yet never have they tried anything approaching positive persuasion. That is why they, and not Clinton supporters, have been the subject of scores of articles expressing alarm at their tactics. The reputation is theirs, and your post is oddly detached from that reality.

[Marr]

225. I was going to say the same about you, specifically.

I've rarely seen such projection. 'Sanders fans aren't interested in policy?' From a Hillary fan?

You post deceiful smears, by the way-- not 'evidence'. And after they're debunked, Hillary supporters just post them again anyway. Perhaps people are just tired of wasting time on the HRC fans' 'who, me?' phony obtuse act. I know I am.

[BainsBane]

250. What has been debunked?

Be specific. Provide evidence that contradicts any of the sources I linked to in my previous post. Did the FEC not issue letters demanding the campaign account for excess contributions? Did Sanders' campaign treasurer not respond by indicating they would refund some of those contributions? Did he not have staff who immediately went to work at a super pac after leaving his campaign, which is fact a violation of federal law? What specifically has been debunked?

All you have shown is that you in fact do not care about evidence. That you assert something doesn't make it so.

I don't give even half a shit what you think of me. Facts are facts, and claiming they have been "debunked" isn't evidence that any of them are false, particularly when they are FEC documents proving them.

[snooper2]

245. book goes in GD-P

[lastone]

201. Stupid hack job

Please stop, your embarrassing yourself for fucks sake.

[Ed Suspicious]

204. This could be one of the more dickish posts I've had the misfortune

of seeing.

Take a bow.

[redruddyred]

209. i know this is political, but,

i don't begrudge susan's living well. i wish that everyone could live so well. furthermore, her house is tastefully decorated and generally aethetically pleasing: bonus. does she "deserve" this much wealth when others have so little? probably not. but, on the other hand, she could spend her acting retirement shilling for the cheap bastards in the republican party, and she doesn't. so i'll give her that much.

while we're on the topic, anyone wanna talk abt how rich hillary and bill are? here's a pic of their house (caption not provided by myself):


like susan, hillary could be shilling for the other team, and she's not, so i'm willing to give her a little credit on that count as well.

[Deadshot]

212. Hillary will make sure the rich stay rich and us peons will stay peons.

I'm ready for a revolution and Bernie is providing us with one.

[BainsBane]

213. Not according to your fellow Bernie supporters here

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

They have insisted it's just awful, "low" of me to "demonize the rich." It turns out that rich people aren't bad at all, and that income inequality isn't really a problem, as long as the people who hold the wealth are dedicated to promoting Bernie's career. It turns out all Bernie's rhetoric about the 99 vs. the 1 percent wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. The only division is about those who support Bernie and those who don't. Sarandon's millions, no problem. The enemies are not the wealthy or banks but those who have the audacity to to exercise their votes as they see fit rather than following the command of self entitled "progressives" certain that they are superior to the majority of the electorate, 2.5 million more of which have voted for Clinton. For those who have already cast their votes in primaries or their preferences in caucuses, the choice now is between Clinton and Trump. Sarandon make her choice clear. The question is whether you too want to see the lives of ordinary Americans get worse in hope that a "revolution" will arise in order to satisfy the political fantasies of nitwits like Sarandon, someone who imagines she can sit in her 6 multimillion dollar homes and call for a revolution that will leave her unscathed.

The political elite does not "provide you with a revolution." A revolution is a social movement in which the people rise up and forcibly change the social order. It is violent and bloody, something people do when they have no other option. It isn't a cheap campaign slogan. Bernie's career, his effort to be installed as head of the capitalist state, is not a "revolution." It's a political campaign. Nothing more.

The fact is Clinton raises taxes on the wealthy and upper-middle class. Trump--whom Sarandon has decided she prefers to Clinton-- and what this thread is about, lowers them substantially. It's getting to the point where this tendency of people like you have to completely make up what you decide Clinton stands for without making even a small effort to inform yourselves on her actual proposals can no longer be excused as anything but a willful effort to promote the GOP. You and countless others make one allegation after another without any effort to provide evidence (eg. policy positions) to substantiate your claims because the fact is you don't care what the truth is. That you despise Clinton is enough, so you feel entirely justified in inventing one false claim after another in order to demonize her.

These are her actual positions. It wouldn't take more than 15 minutes to familiarize yourself with her actual proposals. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ Or you could try this and enter in various incomes. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016
Or if you really want to do something radical, consult an independent source that seeks to inform rather than deliberately mislead the public into doing the bidding of the GOP. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/comparison-presidential-tax-plans-and-their-economic-effects

Whatever you decide to do is your problem. You get no passes for being mistaken. You have had months and months to inform yourself. At this point the misrepresentation is deliberate and in perpetuating it you serve the GOP and the very corporations and 1 percent you pretend to oppose.

Save your bumper sticker slogans for someone gullible enough to believe them. That sure as hell isn't me. I couldn't lose enough brain cells to buy that crap.

[Marr]

227. See? That's the deceitful garbage I'm talking about.

They're saying it's unfair to demonize someone simply for having money. But you twist it into something else, claiming they've said it's 'low to demonize the rich'. It isn't low to demonize the rich who are pushing for the rich to get more, at the expense of the poor. That's implied, and unless you're not just *playing* obtuse, you know that.

But go ahead and post another page full of bullshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

235. And this garbage is creating a back lash

[BainsBane]

248. Let's be honest

The rich who support Sanders must be protected at all costs. There is no concern whatsoever for equality.
Sanders has spent the campaign demonizing the rich, and you all celebrate it. But anyone who dares to question one of his many extremely wealthy supporters, and that is unacceptable. The hypocrisy is off the charts. It's become increasingly clear that there is no issue that won't be thrown aside to promote one politician's career.

I'm not the honest being dishonest. I'm calling out the bullshit.

[Marr]

253. "The rich who support Sanders..."

I stopped reading there. I tried, but I just can't take you seriously, or even summon the will to care about what you think and say.

Have a nice day.

[BainsBane]

254. And you aren't even going to address the supposed debunking

of illegal campaign contributions and super pacs.

Entirely expected because that would require looking at evidence and confronting your own willfully contempt for the facts at issue.

[Deadshot]

247. I don't care about Hillary Clinton's new positions.

She can't manage to keep any of them for more than 15 minutes anyways before she changes her mind.

[BainsBane]

249. Again, more false claims

Her policies have been on her website for months, since she launched the campaign. The fact is you haven't at any point in this election cared enough about policy to even look.

Bernie has changed positions on some issues multiple times during this campaign alone: liability for gun makers is one. He's gone back and forth depending on how many gun owners voters he wants to get, and that's in a course of just a few months. He's repeatedly declared to the public he doesn't have super pacs, but the fact is he does. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

You don't have to care about policy. You are within your rights to vote based on personality or whatever else, but when you make deliberately false claims about Clinton making the wealthy richer, you display fundamental dishonesty. What you don't care about is policy.

[clarice]

246. This post made my whole YEAR.....HATE hypocrites. nt

[Hekate]

252. When the Committee breaks that palace up into apts for the deserving poor, I want that Library room.

I'm sure Susan would understand.

[Rex]

256. You say

[R B Garr]

258. I wonder how much she pays her staff. No way

she keeps that up by herself. Let's see her wages for her New York company, too.

And who manages her $50 Million wealth. No way she manages that on her own. Oligarchs!

[killbotfactory]

259. Yep. It's successful actors who are keeping the poor down.

It's totally not the corrupt capitalist warlord oligarchs.