Dear Susan Sarandon:

[NurseJackie]

Are you happy now? Are you fucking happy NOW?? This is what you wanted, so I'd like to know if it's everything you expected, or is it more? Any "bright side" you can find to make yourself feel better?

I hope your career goes down the toilet. You're overrated and that Oscar thing was just a fluke, you didn't deserve it. There were enough "pity votes" because Meryl Streep was the solid favorite for Bridges of Madison County... people voted for you thinking it would be a "nice" gesture, but not believing that it would rob Meryl of the Oscar she deserved. You're a total fraud, Susan.

So anyway, Susan, that's all I had to say, except ... fuck you very much! #FuckYouSusanSarandon

[NastyRiffraff]

1. My sentiments exactly!

Jackie

[forgotmylogin]

29. I gotta say she's killing it as Bette Davis.

In Feud, politics aside.

[Liberalagogo]

67. Feud

As much as I like Jessica Lange, Sarandon is doing a much better job as Davis than Lange as Crawford. Lange's Crawford is okay, but it's no Faye Dunaway.

[Eliot Rosewater]

204. Funny how I see it completely opposite.

As an actor I cant tell you which is harder, only which I would rather do were I able to have that opportunity.

[Gothmog]

135. I do not plan to watch that show in part because I cannot stand Sarandon

[calimary]

143. Same here. Won't do it.

Learned that from the post-Watergate era. "Don't buy books by crooks."

I boycott the bad guys. And in this case, bad gals, too.

[Gothmog]

280. Life is too short to intentionally raise one's blood pressure

[GWC58]

278. Same here.

When commercials ran for it my thinking was "something I won't be watching." Then again I don't really watch much entertainment tv.

[Gothmog]

281. I am not going to watch this show because of Saranadon

[Callmecrazy]

270. You act like she had some kind influence over voters...

Like she cost Clinton the Presidency.

[nikibatts]

2. Except HRC said before this attack she would take out the Syrian air bases and planes.

It's not like HRC would not respond to these incidents. Remember she wanted Obama to strike back?

[JHan]

4. and I agree with her, Assad should have been dealt with way back in 2011

[Jim Beard]

92. Oh back when we had oodles and gobs of money because it was all spent on the

last continuing wars and there would be no Obama care. Tell me, how many fighting factions in Syria.

[JHan]

102. Lay off the hyperbole

Since you're curious, I dislike glib dismissals of "intervention" by Americans who have no idea what living under a brutal regime feels like or what being the victim of sectarian violence is like. There is no perfect pacifist or militaristic solution to these conflicts. I don't know what the best course of action should be for Syria.

When it was clear the Assad regime was targeting Syrians, the international community stood by as Syria dissolved into chaos. Now Assad is in a strong position, backed by Russia. The longer the international community took to nip the problem in the bud, the worse it got. And that same international community has stood by while other conflicts brew and brim over in other places. Glib dismissals and " not our problem" attitudes are why these conflicts spiral out of control in the first place.

[Jim Beard]

112. Do you realize just how long the Assads have ruled Syria? ....

Hafez al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad have ruled Syria since 1970 and they have been torturing and mass murdering people for almost 50 years. When did they spiral out of control? They have always been brutal. Do you think the citizens will be better off if Isis and other terrorist factions win like they did in Iraq?

You should read Tom Freedmans book, "From Beriut to Jerusalem"you would learn something worth saying.

I read about Hama Rules in the book but you can now read about it on line.

Hama Rules

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/the-new-hama-rules.html

What a difference three decades make. In April 1982, I was assigned to be the Beirut correspondent for The Times. Before I arrived, word had filtered back to Lebanon about an uprising in February in the Syrian town of Hama — famed for its water wheels on the Orontes River. Rumor had it that then President Hafez al-Assad had put down a Sunni Muslim rebellion in Hama by shelling the neighborhoods where the revolt was centered, then dynamiting buildings, some with residents still inside, and then steamrolling them flat, like a parking lot. It was hard to believe and even harder to check. No one had cellphones back then, and foreign media were not allowed access.

That May I got a visa to Syria, just as Hama had been reopened. It was said that the Syrian regime was “encouraging” Syrians to drive through the town, see the crushed neighborhoods and contemplate the silence. So I just hired a cab in Damascus and went. It was, and remains, one of the most chilling things I’ve ever seen: Whole neighborhoods, the size of four football fields, looked as though a tornado had swept back and forth over them for a week — but this was not the work of Mother Nature.

This was an act of unprecedented brutality, a settling of scores between Assad’s minority Alawite regime and Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority that had dared to challenge him. If you kicked the ground in some areas that had been flattened, a tattered book, a shred of clothing, the tip of a steel reinforcing rod were easily exposed. It was a killing field. According to Amnesty International, up to 20,000 people were buried there. I contemplated the silence and gave it a name: “Hama Rules.”

[JHan]

117. uhm...

I don't need the history lesson.

They have always been brutal.

Do you think the citizens will be better off if Isis and other terrorist factions win like they did in Iraq?

If your quarrel is intervention is never justified just say so. It's easy for us to sit here and talk about regimes and how they're killing off people and best to leave them be, yes that's real easy. Specious arguments like "they're fucked anyway, they'be been fucked for years what's the point" - which, in essence, seems to be your argument when you lecture me about history I already know. Sounds real compassionate. The world is ugly and messy, there are never any easy solutions and American Foreign Policy has always been a mixed bag. But either we do what we can to alleviate suffering as a principle, or we stand back and decide to never get involved. And never getting involved will bite us in our asses, human rights violations and terror will affect us in some way and some form if we ignore them. 2011 was a critical year for leadership from the International Community where Syria is concerned. and the prevailing attitude was "fuck em", we let it fester so now we have a crisis which has impacted Europe and European politics. Human rights are everyone's problem.

[Jim Beard]

165. Has it occured to you that major intervention might be worse?

You want to pay for it? What about the people in the Philippines? Pick a country in Africa. Since you are talking about Obamas term, you should be happy he is gone since he let it fester. Lots of people who are supposed to be Democrats are sure critical of one our biggest and best Democrats.

BTW, you should be lectured to because I care about the people in this country first and another war will seriously drain our economy a for many years. Because there is no one suitable to take Assads place we will spends tons of money on many years of occupation?

Republicans love this since they want to destroy the everything established in the New Deal and The Great Society.

[JHan]

174. Since you want to lecture me, I'll respond in kind...

My comments weren't about Obama specifically but the responsibilities of leaders working collectively which is why I said "international community" repeatedly. International law means nothing unless everyone gets on board.

You want to attribute a war mongering position to me which I do not hold, in fact far from it. The War Industry disgusts me but I'm a realist and strive to not to be hypocritical in my views. Conflict is part of the human condition, avoiding it and not directly engaging in it for selfish reasons because it doesn't immediately concern us is to be callous. Finding solutions doesn't mean launching a missile necessarily. And while you know the history of Hama, seem to acknowledge that there is suffering, your outrage isn't about human rights violations, you're all about putting people of this country "first" and your concern is "money". We should be as upset over human rights violations as we are upset about a missile being fired. It's the disproportionality in outrage that has leftists of all people, supporting the Assad regime. We've become so numb to suffering we can talk academically about the history of Hama and never engage deeply in decision making that aims to ease conflict world wide, whether in the middle east or elsewhere but we sure love to talk about "peace".

And yeah the U.S., in fact, most countries are stunningly hypocritical about the battles they choose to right - but the question isn't whether intervention is bad, it is why we intervene, for what reasons, and what outcomes. War is always about choices, knowing which wars are necessary and which are not. War fought for profit and nationalistic fervor are wars to be avoided, but to suggest that intervention is never necessary is to say that there are things not worth fighting for.

And the hypocrisy is also stunning for us since we have benefited from War - how much we pay for gas, the vehicles we drive, our investments, all influenced by War. But we don't wanna dig deeper into it and assess our own culpability - because America first right?

Edit: typos

[Jim Beard]

175. I think we have been talking past each other because both of us are do want something done

in Syria.. That is the reason Hama Rules has stuck in my mind for 35 years. I guess I have read too much about the Middle East because in the back of my mind I was thinking about Great Britain after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Sure they won the war but the Palestine issue was a real problem for them to administer. They got bogged down and finally hauled ass out of there with out any lasting solution Solution to the Palestinian/Israel conflict.

I also remember Vietnam quit well. If we go in, we go into win.

[JHan]

177. Yes I think we have been.. for the record, it disgusts me all... I mean think about it..

the trillions sunk in the sands of Iraq - and what could have been done with that money instead - to achieve the same objective of peace!. It's a tough situation, it requires leadership, but it also requires tremendous political will to know when to act.

Something else I observe - why are conflicts allowed to escalate? For whom does that benefit? - the greater the conflict the greater the pay out for the arms industry. It's depressing.

[7962]

179. And nobody else in the world will ever step in and do something anyway

Look at the Balkans War; right smack in the middle of Europe and even THEN the European nations did little. Only when the US stepped in did the massacres stop.

[JHan]

181. yep +++

[bdamomma]

123. about 11 factions

I heard that on PBS Newshour last night.

[NurseJackie]

5. Are you saying that Hillary would violate UN charters and international law?

Are you saying that Hillary would act without the approval of congress? I get that you're trying to make a point, but I'm just not sure exactly what it is. Can you elaborate?

[Agschmid]

41. ... eye roll.

[nikibatts]

233. No. Both HRC and Obama wanted the Congress to approve war powers to enforce international law

against the use of chemical weapons.

[LisaM]

7. She also said she would enforce a no-fly zone

so the chemical spraying could not have occurred.

There is really no right solution to any of this, but Trump appears to have given advance notice to his cronies, than bombed a virtually empty airfield just for show.

He's also denied refugee status to the very victims he claims to have done the airstrike for.

[Docreed2003]

14. And we have a thread winner.....

Hillary would handle this like an adult....not in the childish, show of strength way Trump did. This administration has no serious Syria policy. What happened last night was smoke and mirrors.

[JHan]

53. This* x 100

[yardwork]

60. So true.

[calimary]

146. THANK YOU.

What happened Thursday night was a knee-jerk reaction from seeing some rather poignant visuals, to do the same kind of quickie-quick fix demonstration he wants across the board. Gonna "fix" "Obamacare" on Day One, for example. This is the mentality of a guy who's used to owning his privately-held company and can just dictate what happens, RIGHT NOW, on any arbitrary whim - of HIS. He's finding out the hard way that government doesn't work like that.

I've been arguing with a couple of people - a good friend AND my husband - who both initially thought that "this is the one thing I can support..." and "yeah, he did good. Just a pinpoint strike. NOTHING MORE is needed. Can't go all out, anyway - if we take Assad out, ISIS moves in..."

I disagreed then, and I still disagree now.

Okay, we bombed ONE airfield - leaving its adjacent partner intact. We gave Russia advance notice and they warned Assad and everything we were targeting was allowed to move or get out of the way or take shelter from the bomb-storm to come. The same bomb-storm to come that they knew about ahead of time. I'm still trying to understand the sense of that.

And then what happened? Wasn't this supposed to end the gas-bombing of the civilians? Make it stop? Teach 'em a lesson?

So why then do we see Assad resuming the same damn bombing all over again? (Because, after all, we left all the other airstrips in Syria intact and evidently didn't bother bombing the chemical weapons depots. They remained untouched, too.)

SO WHAT WAS THAT FOR, THEN???????


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141748823
Site of Chemical Attack Hit again
Source: CNN

(CNN)

The Syrian city of Khan Sheikhoun -- the site of Tuesday's chemical attack -- was hit by airstrikes on Friday and Saturday, according to two activists in the city and regional activist groups.
At least one woman was killed and three other people injured in Saturday's strike, two activists in Khan Sheikhoun said.
It wasn't immediately clear who conducted Friday's and Saturday's strikes.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-trump/index.html
AND

[NastyRiffraff]

147. Yes, I agree on the thread winner!

I have said it before and I'll say it again and again: If Hillary Clinton were in the White House this very likely would not happen at all. And even if Assad/Putin would have dared pissing her off, she wouldn't have warned them about the response, nor would she have left Congress out of the picture.

Of course, Sarandon would do as she always does: whine.

There's a reason Putin wanted Dump in the WH. He knew he could exert control over him, and he knew he couldn't with Hillary.

[Gothmog]

136. This was a better plan than trump's stunt

[LexVegas]

18. Ah, drawing equivalence between Clinton and Trump. Where have I seen that before...nt

[fleabiscuit]

76. If Mr. Trump gets his way, it will be like Christmas in the Kremlin. HRC

[George II]

79. But if it was Clinton, she wouldn't have told the Syrians and Russians that the attack was coming.

[NurseJackie]

121. This times a million.

[Gothmog]

3. Sarandon also supported Nader who gave us Bush

She is a real bad judge of candidates

[LisaM]

8. She certainly is!

I do think she is an exceptionally talented actress, though.

[killbotfactory]

6. She singlehandedly elected Trump.

Burn the witch.

[still_one]

16. nope, but she was given national airtime, and she used it to undermine Hillary every step

of the way.

So when Ms. Sarandon tells me and all the others who voted for Hillary to "fu*k you", I say right back at Sarandon's bullshit:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280104210

[TSIAS]

21. Trump was given millions of free airtime

Sarandon received a minuscule amount of that. I'd put way more blame on Jeff Zucker than a handful of appearances by Susan Sarandon on Chris Hayes' show.

[BlueCaliDem]

157. More like BILLIONS with a "B". According to NYT's, he got $2 billion plus FREE positive

coverage from our 'liberal' media.

Edited to add: It's almost $3 billion: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-has-gotten-nearly-3-billion-in-free-advertising-2016-05-06

[killbotfactory]

24. Hillary had a billion dollar warchest and the backing of almost every media outlet

Sarandon, and anyone else who promotes the "it will only get better if it gets worse" theory, are completely wrong. But they didn't cost Hillary the election.

[LisaM]

31. The backing of every media outlet?

The ones who shadowed Trump for 15 months, stood around waiting for his rallies to even begin, allowed him to hawk his wares on their shows, and didn't ask a single question about women's issues or the environment during the so-called debates?

THAT media?

[killbotfactory]

42. The media gave him all the airtime he wanted

They thought his antics and buffoonery would turn voters off. The Clinton campaign wanted to run against him for this reason.

No one who was going to vote for Hillary had their mind changed by Susan Sarandon

If anything, the overwhelming consensus in the media that Hillary had it in the bag depressed the vote.

[still_one]

51. The NY Times had a front page story, and it isn't kind to CNN, or for that matter the cable

news industry. It is a long article, and the link is below, but it encapsulates the thoughts of Les Moonves, the CBS head when he said:

"it may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/cnn-had-a-problem-donald-trump-solved-it.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&_r=0

As for the other points, I have encapsulated them in my other post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8906706

[Jim Beard]

94. Is this the article that tells about Jeff Zucker and his hyper

way of calling the camera shots when covering Trump and his people. All CNN cared about was its own profit but they are more favorable to Democrats now than in the past.

[still_one]

110. Yes. How everything is choreographed. CNN and the other cable news networks no longer

come into my house after November 9, but from what I have seen posted here, CNN is not particularly more favorable toward Democrats.

[StevieM]

56. James Comey depressed the Dem vote. And enhanced the GOP vote. And altered the swing vote.

Repeatedly.

This was the FBI's election, from start to finish.

[emulatorloo]

34. She encouraged folks to vote Stein. See Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania

Where the margins were very close. If some of those Stein voters had moved over to HRC, there would be no President Trump.

No, Sarandon isn't <the> reason HRC lost. But she did a great job lying about HRC. She is influential.

[brush]

35. They damn sure cost her some votes so you don't know that at all.

[bettyellen]

43. You mean "the mocking of every media outlet"? Because I didn't see any of them ask DT why

People hated him, even though his likability numbers were way lower than hers. She was graded on a reverse curve to make it look like an interesting race. The media fucked her over and refused to show her talking about the issues.

[LisaM]

46. That is the absolute truth.

I was in an airport one day during the campaign, and the airport cable actually was showing part of one of her speeches (a good one, the one where she broke down the concept of the alt-right). I couldn't place, at first, why it was so noticeable, and then I realized that it was because she was so very rarely on.

[still_one]

49. Sorry, but she did NOT have the backing of almost every media outlet. In fact just the

opposite, and they based it on intentional lies and distortions about Hillary

11 days before the election, when Comey sent the letter to the republicans in Congress, MSNBC was the first network to report as "Breaking News, the email investigation had been reopened". THAT WAS A LIE. MSNBC then proceeded to parade across their screen for over an hour every right wing politician to propagate that LIE. Soon CNN and all the other major networks joined in that LIE.

A few days later, Bret Baier, of fox news, reported that "according to his sources in the FBI, an indictment was imminent against the Clinton Foundation". THAT WAS A LIE, and other networks joined in the common refrain. Two days later Mr. Baier came back and apologized and said he was mistaken about the Clinton Foundation. That was nice of him, and even Rachael Maddow was gushing all over Mr. Baier's apology saying every one makes mistakes, and "it was so courageous for him to admit it".

Of course the damage was already done by then. Hillary was leading before "every media outlet", which you falsely characterized as "backing her", propagated these lies and distortions.

Perhaps you missed the Matt Lauer interveiw, or the other double standards that the media applied.

Those who voted for Jill Stein, knew that the only thing voting for her would do is hurt Hillary, and they also knew that especially after the Comey interference the election was close, because the polls reflected it. This wasn't rocket science. It also wasn't a mystery that the Supreme Court was at stake, along with the environment, civil rights, etc. So anyone of those self-identifed progressives who voted for Jill Stein knew they were NOT voting for those issues that they claim they hold so dearly, but hoping to propel trump into the white house.

Hillary lost Michigan by .3%. Jill Stein received 1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin, and the other critical swing states.

Perhaps Noam Chomsky said it best

Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[killbotfactory]

52. How many newspapers endorsed Trump?

Two? Including the kkk newsletter?

[still_one]

58. You and I may read Newspapers, but not a good number of people do. In fact, Cable News

Praised Trump On the Syria bombing, Because Bombing Stuff Is Presidential

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cable-news-trump-syria-war-monger_us_58e79d17e4b05413bfe238eb?p0ns&

It is the Sound bites through the idiot box that moves people, along with the social media, and their propagation of intentional false stories.

Either way, I sense we are not going to agree on this.

However, my Dad is stronger than your Dad

[Hortensis]

114. The MSM's net strongly negative coverage of H

during the 2015-16 campaign is now well documented in a number of studies.

It was also consistent and strong enough to be obvious all along. I used to check the on-line NY Times political section headlines for the number about her with a negative tone compared to neutral, and negative always won, usually by several lengths.

[still_one]

120. That is what I thought Hortensis. It was like a feeding frenzy to "go after Hillary"

During the Matt Lauer interview, to the unbelievable slamming of Hillary when she got dehydrated during the pneumonia episode, the media was a disgrace.

[still_one]

122. That is what I thought Hortensis. It was like a feeding frenzy to "go after Hillary"

During the Matt Lauer interview, to the unbelievable slamming of Hillary when she got dehydrated during the pneumonia episode, the media was a disgrace.

They know damn well what they did. Jake tapper in as much admitted that the media should have covered things differently. Hell, CNN became the daily trump channel for a year. I will not forget when CNN entertained the question, "Are Jews really people?"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a50906/are-jews-people-was-a-real/

The media was a disgrace, and they still are.

[Hortensis]

197. Truly very like the "in" groups in high school and elsewhere.

To belong you have to adopt the group personality and be loyal to the group's themes. NY and DC insider MSM are very much the same--sing the insiders' song if you want to be allowed in. Even people like Woodward and Bernstein had to harmonize so they could regularly come on cable shows to push their books.

When Katy Tur's coverage of Trump set her career on an up-spiral and she was very popular here, I thought, well, let's see how she covers H. Because I knew she'd have to make the usual choice --either continued upward spiral inside with the Andrea Mitchell sorts of crowds or principled journalism outside. Disappointed, but not at all surprised at how viciously, and competently, she attacked H once her job called for her to report on her. She chose a seat at the cool, insiders table.

[bettyellen]

59. Despite the endorsements, the media was rough on HRC he other 364 days of the year-

Had less air time than Bernie during the primaries -because they loved showing him trash Dems- and then much less than Trump. One of the debates they spent 1/3 the time on her emails, another they allowed DT to interrupt her 55 times in her 44 minutes. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the "unlikable" bullshit... reporting felt like it was more about kids in a HS cafeteria than a presidential race. And the media was afraid of attacking the old man or the bully, so they went after HRC like the cowards they are.

[JI7]

70. most people don't read newspapers.

[Cha]

93. Quit trying to cover up Susan Sarandan's Asshole part

in this.. saying "Hillary was more dangerous than trump".. she looks like a gd piece of stupid Shite..

She owns a chunk of this.. her big stupid mouth and the Liar stein.

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

138. Sarandon helped gave us trump just as she helped to give us bush

[Cha]

200. Yes, SS helped all she could to give us.. Smug, arrogant,

"liberal fucking Elite"..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

154. Endorsements from editorial boards of newspapers

are not the same thing as "media backing". BoBs and Steiners were reminded early and often to be immediately suspicious of establishment voices.

I think that the early and continual pimping of trash like Clinton Cash on the part of both the NYT and WaPo registered much more strongly with readers than editorial endorsements. And it played right into the "lesser of two evils" narrative that fossils like Sarandon dusted off and trotted out to damage Hillary the same way they damaged Gore in 2000.

Susan and her family won't suffer. She owns 5 residential properties in Manhattan and a successful ping pong franchising business. Susan has no problem with other people suffering to drive her ridiculous agenda. I wonder what Susan will have to say when she learns exactly how she was played by Putin via Dr. Jill.

[mcar]

57. Are you serious?

The media that spent 600 days covering the email non story?

[sharedvalues]

75. It is not possible to be more wrong than you. Media is THE reason Hillary lost.

"But her Emails!"

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/25/14037576/trump-won-because-of-emails

If that sounds far too boring and unimportant to have conceivably dominated the 2016 presidential campaign, then it is difficult to disagree with you. And yet the facts are what they are. Indeed, by September 2015 — more than a year before the voting — Washington Post political writer Chris Cillizza had already written at least 50 items about the email controversy.

The New York Times dedicated 100 percent of its above-the-fold space to coverage of Comey’s letter to Congress.
Throughout the campaign season, network newscasts dedicated more time to Clinton’s email server stories than to stories about all policy issues combined.

[uponit7771]

129. .... and Russia and Comey and voter suppression... Seems like the haters leave those out

[lapucelle]

153. What backing from "media outlets"?

They ignored her policy speeches and small events, covered pretty much nothing other than false scandals, ridiculous concerns, and issue with "optics", and then complained in their postmortums that she didn't talk enough about issues and policy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. Molly Ringwald cost us the Senate, House and all the state legislatures and Governorships.

[QC]

65. And don't even get me started on Ally Sheedy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

142. She's responsible for school boards and town councils.

[TransitJohn]

71. Never interfere with some good scapegoating.

DU excels at that.

[Cha]

74. You're using hyperbole to distract.. it's really touching

how you're trying to protect that smug elitist(yeah, SS is the real Elitist) while she sits on her $50 Million Bucks while trump Fucks the rest of the Planet that isn't that fortunate.

It's not working.

[Gothmog]

137. We got trump due to idiots like Sarandon

[Snackshack]

178. Apparently...

She did.

Ugh...

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. Did you see her on Colbert the other day?

She was excited by the prospect of "energized" progressives, i.e. the trump election is a good thing.

She didnt say those exact words that I know of, I got in the middle of it, but she was excited.

Of course she doesnt have a gay marriage to protect, she is not going to get pregnant at her age I assume and so on and so on.

She infuriates the FUCK out of me!

Having said that, I am loving the "Feud" series on FX...Lange is nailing it, but so is Susan.

[R B Garr]

11. She just wants the showtime of it all.

She's ready for her closeup. The reality of it, not so much. She's set.

[NurseJackie]

25. I won't watch it.

Fuck her.

#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[Liberalagogo]

68. Your loss.

n/t

[NurseJackie]

72. How would you know?

[Cha]

104. "entertainment" bullshit.. the slimey Lying stupid oooz would

blasting through the screen.

[NurseJackie]

109. LOL! :-D

[stonecutter357]

128. decent entertainment ? like the child porn movie she did with brooke shields?

[Cha]

80. No, it's not our loss.. That smug ass elitist owns a chunk

o trump.. as she sits on her cushiony $50 Million Bucks while trump Fucks the rest of the Planet that isn't so fortunate.

She Lied her freaking a$$ off when she said Hillary was more dangerous than trump.. and with her big stupid mouth pimped for stein. Another gd Liar.

[Liberalagogo]

99. Your loss.

n/t

[Cha]

103. Susan Sarandon helped make it the Planet's gd Loss with

her big gd LYing Ass Smug mouth.. she sits on Millions of $$$$$ while those who are poor and middle class will suffer immeasurably under trump.. who she stupidly called less dangerous than Hillary.

Advocating for 3rd party.. she's too gd Stupid.

she's own a chunk of this..

Link to tweet

[cwydro]

126. There's a poster on DU who said the same.

How"excited and energized" he was with the Trump win. Because revolution or some shit.

[skylucy]

10. I cannot stand her. She is as dumb as a stump, yet thinks she is

brilliant.

[Cha]

107. SS is as dumb as sack of shit.

skylucy!

[skylucy]

148. Hi Cha!!!

[Cha]

203. Heya, skylucy!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

176. I once heard S. Helen Prejean speak

both against the death penalty and about the film Dead Man Walking and was lucky enough to meet her afterwards.

When it was announced (with great fanfare) to S. Helen who would be playing her in the movie, the name of the poseur meant absolutely nothing to the social justice activist.

If I ever meet S. Helen again, I'll be sure to tell her that it's her loss. She's depriving herself of good entertainment

[noiretextatique]

12. Wait...Susan Sarandon single-handedly elected drumpf?

How about the people who actually voted for him? Especially the registered Democrats. Maybe even the Electors who foisted ultimately foisted him on us? Susan Sarandon is very powerful, in the eyes of some.

[emulatorloo]

37. I don't think OP said that n/t

[bekkilyn]

85. It's obviously her turn to be the scapegoat for today.

I'm sure they'll find another by tomorrow and the blame game will continue.

[NurseJackie]

124. And... as long as Sarandon the traitor and accomplice continues to make media appearances...

... there will continue to be posts that call her out for the fraud that she is and which remind us of what a hypocrite she is.

Not only is Sarandon a phony-liberal, so are those who defend and support her decision to vote for Jill Stein.

85. It's obviously her turn to be the scapegoat for today. I'm sure they'll find another by tomorrow and the blame game will continue.

"They", who? Can you be more specific?

You may think it's a "game" but that would be wrong. The less influence Sarandon has and the less people take her seriously, then the better off our party will be. When people finally get a clue that the "purity vote" she advocates is one that actually helps the conservative candidate (the candidate who is FURTHEST AWAY from anything "progressive&quot the better off our entire nation will be.

As long as Sarandon keeps showing her face, there will be push-back. Sarandon is not a random "scapegoat." She's not blameless. She is complicit. When she fades away, so too will the posts that call out her bullshit, stupidity and vanity.

Sarandon's defenders and sympathizers are ignoring the reality that she DID IN FACT play a role in helping Trump to ascend. As long as Sarandon is out there publicly reminding everyone, it will never be forgotten and it will never be forgiven.

Dismiss it if you want. Defend her if you want. Support her if you want. You're free to do so. But calling her out for what she is and plainly reminding everyone of her role in this will not stop.

Every time Sarandon expresses delight at Trump's win... every time Sarandon advocates that the "burn down the party" philosophy is good, there will be push-back and resistance to her privilege, her arrogance and her sanctimony. Get used to it.

[Cha]

101. Try to keep up.. The Lying Smug "Liberal Elite" Asshole

sits on her cushiony $50 Million Bucks as she stated "Hillary was more dangerous than trump".. advocated Voting for 3rd party with her big fat mouth.. as trump fucks the rest of the Planet not as well off as ms Lying piece of shite

she owns a chunk of this..

Link to tweet

[KPN]

130. THIS

[KPN]

132. Well ... gotta have someone to blame.

[George II]

187. How about the people who voted for her preferred candidate, or the ones who may have been...

...on the fence until they saw Sarandon bashing her relentlessly every chance she got?

Maybe a big part of that group didn't vote for trump, but some wound up voting for Stein and others decided to stay home.

[melman]

13. So a lot of Oscar voters voted for her but didn't actually want her to win

That seems likely.

[liberalhistorian]

19. That's one of the stupidest things

I've heard recently, and that's saying a lot given what we've had to deal with. Academy members don't give pity votes when it comes to the Oscars, no way, no how. And I love Meryl to death, but Bridges was a cloying, treacly, overdone, stupid piece of shit that deserved nothing at all, not even any nominations.

[Ligyron]

33. That movie did suck.

A girl insisted I take her so I did.

Barf, snore...

[colorado_ufo]

47. I had heard so much about "Bridges"

and dragged my poor husband to see it. What a mistake! You never know how much to proportionately blame for the result - the acting, the directing, or the script. It belongs in the film archives with Ishtar.

[LisaM]

48. I read a review of it in the New Yorker once while working out.

Big mistake because I almost fell off the stair climber I was on, I was laughing so hard. It started out saying that the movie was, "based on the worst book in living memory", and took off from there!

[TSIAS]

15. I'm glad you love Clint Eastwood so much

I didn't like it when he went after President Obama at the 2012 RNC. I didn't particularly care for Bridges of Madison County either.

I much prefer Dead Man Walking, where a liberal activist opposes the death penalty. But that's just me.

[LexVegas]

20. You think nuns are liberal?

[TSIAS]

22. Not necessarily

But her main concern is the abolition of the death penalty. I may not like her views on abortion, but at least she didn't spend the 2012 RNC talking to a chair like #fuckclinteastwood

[LexVegas]

40. So "liberal activist" is bullshit...kinda like Sarandon. nt

[nini]

45. The ones I know are

Way more than priests and most Catholics I know.

[NastyRiffraff]

218. I went to Catholic school for 12 friggin years

I know nuns, and most of them are far from liberal. They may be less conservatives than the priests, but that's a very low bar.

[nini]

227. We obviously know different nuns

Just like a lot of things a broad brush does not apply here.

[lapucelle]

250. My experience is current and it's very different.

I do think, however, that some orders or congregations are more politically active than others. According to the terms of their charter, the congregation I work with is not under the direction of a bishop or a dioceses. They've been investigated and sanctioned for their independent and "subversive" activism more than once by the Vatican.

They marched in the front lines in Selma with MLK and proudly display the framed hate mail in their archives. They run a halfway house for recently released woman prisoners and take care of their children. In January, they traveled together by bus to D.C. for the Women's March. They are currently in the process of establishing a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants on the grounds of their mother house.

I'm currently participating in a Lenten political action with Network (aka Nuns on a Bus). My experience with them has been wonderful and very different from what I remember from my 12 years of Catholic school.

[NastyRiffraff]

251. I admire nuns like that

as I would admire anyone involved in helping others. I wish I had more like them in school. With a few exceptions, they were child abusers and proud of it.

[QC]

66. Quite a few are, actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_murders_of_U.S._missionaries_in_El_Salvador

[lapucelle]

206. I work with nuns. They're all Democrats.

Never make the mistake of confusing the women of the church with the men they buck up against.

[still_one]

23. It was referring to the acting ability of Meryl Streep verses Sarandon, but you knew that

[liberalhistorian]

17. Completely agree with you regarding her political

views and activism and it's infuriating that she, along with other privileged limousine liberals who can ride out this train wreck in relative comfort while so many others suffer, is so dense she can't see the forest for the trees. They refuse to even acknowledge that the price of the renewed and "energized progressive activism" is simply way too damn high and the country will forever change because of it. She bitches about Hilary's alleged "support" of fracking (which I'm not sure of at all) but thinks nothing of Drumpf's completely destroying the environment and the EPA and giving unchained free reign to polluters and corporations.

But I do have to disagree with you regarding her Oscar. It was more than deserved, that was a very difficult part and she was perfect in it. I love Meryl Streep, but that stupid Bridges movie was an annoying, cloying, treacly stupid piece of shit and she didn't deserve an Oscar that year. Of course, you have to separate the acting career from the political activism; they're not the same thing.

[samnsara]

26. can i still watch RHPS?

[NurseJackie]

28. That's a personal choice, I suppose. I'm not in a position to offer advice...

... all I can do is hope that her career goes into the shitter and that we never hear from her again.

#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[NurseJackie]

36. She voted for Stein. Who said anything about Bernie? (other than you)

She is one of us.

No, she voted for Stein. She's not "one of us".

You guys are so desperate to blame someone

"You guys" ... that's kinda vague. Who are you talking about?

She voted for our candidate in the general, for pity's sake.

No she didn't. She fucking ENDORSED Jill Stein "for pity's sake".

http://www.jill2016.com/sarandon

Recently, our campaign received a letter that made our day.

Susan Sarandon wrote to us, and has now officially endorsed Jill!

Because she knows what you know - that we must build a progressive social movement to counter both Donald Trump AND Hillary Clinton.

#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[George II]

159. And I will never forgive Sarandon for the way she treated (and attacked) a well respected...

....Democratic leader last year, Dolores Huerta. Although this took place during the Nevada caucus, this is NOT "re-fighting the primaries", its showing how little respect she has for Democratic leaders and the Democratic Party.

Sarandon is a nasty, disgusting person.

Incidentally, Dolores Huerta was at Bobby Kennedy's side when he won the California primary in 1968, and is a member of the National Women's Hall of Fame. This is the woman that Susan Sarandon accosted last year:

[NurseJackie]

160. That was a disgusting display from Sarandon. She should be ashamed of herself.

Has Sarandon ever apologized or expressed any regret over that?

[George II]

161. No she hasn't (PS - I added a second video about Huerta)

[NurseJackie]

162. Thanks for pointing out the additional video. I'd have overlooked it. I wonder...

... was it just an emotional and unguarded moment from Sarandon? Or was it planned and calculated. Was it a cynical show for the cameras?

I'm thinking if it was just an emotional outburst, she'd have apologized. But since she hasn't, it's looking more and more like it was scripted (or intentional).

[George II]

168. Nasty is nasty, emotional and unguarded notwithstanding.

[fleabiscuit]

234. That was one of the biggest asshole moments of the primary. grrrrrrrrrrrrr

[bettyellen]

44. Nope, she's a sucker for voting for Stein - and is excited about burning it all down.

[NurseJackie]

84. The "Sarandon love" mystifies me. Lame defenses built on lies are so fucking bizarre....

... no she's no a Democrat, no she didn't vote for our party's nominee, no she's not one of us.

What is it about the "burn it down" philosophy that excites people?

[LenaBaby61]

64. The person Sarandon voted for...

Is not one of "us." Hardly.

Pretty sure Sarandon's seen this picture.




Sarandon can miss me with her vote for Stein who is seated at the table with Flynn (Who chanted "Lock her up" about Hillary, when he should be locked up), and there's putin, the guy whose running everything from helping to install a crazy, racist dumb fool as president. putin's even our foreign policy because he can blackmail tRumpuntin anytime he wants to and probably will after he's done using him.

[Cha]

108. Susan Sarandon is as "progressive" as a sack of lying shite.

she is not one of anybody I respect.

And, she's a gd Stupid Smug "liberal elite"..

As she sits on her cushiony $5O Million Bucks while she claimed "Hillary was more Dangerous than trump".. advocating voting 3rd party for another lying sack of shit, pawn for putin, stein.

stein-sarandon own a chunk of trump and this..

Link to tweet

You really need to brush up on just exactly who susansanrandon is before making your wild claims.

[NurseJackie]

127. She can afford to sit back in luxury while the world cumbles as she awaits the "great rebuilding"...

... and great revolution that the apocalypse of Trump will bring about. She'll be snug and comfortable. No wonder it's so easy for her to advocate the "burn it down" philosophy. It's EASY for her... no so easy for those innocent people who suffer.

I guess they're just "disposable", huh Susan? There's always going to be "collateral damage"... ain't that right, Susan?

No big deal, Susan, because it's for the "greater good".

Like the old saying goes: "Sometimes people have to make sacrifices" ... does that about cover it, Susan?

Fuck you, Susan Sarandon! You're a total fraud and a phony liberal.

#FuckYouSusanSarandon

[treestar]

139. How can someone so against the Establishment

be a DEM? We heard all election season how Hillary represented the "Establishment."

[Jakes Progress]

164. Stop fighting the primaries.

This thread is not about Bernie. The OP is about an asshole who said that it would be better to elect trump than the Democratic nominee. She did not vote for a Democrat. She did not support a Democrat. She is not one of us. She did not vote for Hillary. She voted for stein - the third party candidate who dies with putin and flynn.

Catch up and figure out what is going on.

[Different Drummer]

30. Your first two questions reminded me of this.

[Ilsa]

32. It's been an easy thing to do, but

I've boycotted any promotional talk shows she's on and her movies.

[BannonsLiver]

38. She's been great on Feud: Bette and Joan

But her political instincts, like a lot of those on the far left, are for shit.

[mcar]

39. I concur

[videohead5]

50. Stein was at the table with Putin and Flynn

She is a traitor.

[LakeArenal]

54. So much angst.. Here we are discussing her again .

She's so irrelevant. Why make her a target? Just let her fade away. Ga-Bye!

I think she's terrible on Feud. She's not even remotely Bette Davis.

[lunamagica]

55. Oh, she is happy, you bet she is...just as happy as when she supported Nader over Gore

and helped Bush into office. The consequences of that seem to have never bothered her.

It all good because of "revolution", or something...

[Paladin]

61. I can't stand Sarandon.

That snotty hauteur of hers, that whole I'm waiting for The Revolution in my mansion thing just turns me off completely. A few weeks ago, she imperiously asked Chris Hayes if he's a journalist; well yes, Susan dear, Chris is a journalist, and he has an Emmy to prove it. What a drag she is.

[elmac]

63. Susan Sarandons current estimated net worth stands at $50 million

if money can buy happiness I'm pretty sure she's happy now.

[pecosbob]

69. How 'bout this time

we actually nominate a candidate that worries about working people and not Colonel Sanders and Monsanto? No millionaires allowed. If you want to work with Monsanto instead of breaking them up into a thousand pieces then guess what? You're not a progressive. If you support extra-judicial killing with drones then you're not a progressive (this includes you, too Bernie). If we have to bore down to find any substantive policy differences between our candidate and theirs, then we're screwing up. When the Dems become something other than politically correct Republicans, I'll vote for them.

[lapucelle]

209. We did nominate a candidate

who worries about working people. Anyone who didn't see any substantive policy differences between our candidate and theirs needs to take the blinders off.

[Jakes Progress]

244. But, but

he read a post from somewhere in eastern Europe that said Hillary was a monster. So it must be true.

[betsuni]

246. There aren't any substantive policy differences between Democrats and Republicans?

Last edited Sun Apr 9, 2017, 10:33 AM - Edit history (2)

That Dems are politically correct Republicans? Why is this post still here?

[Gore1FL]

73. This reminds me of all those posts on Facebook I saw...

...where my GOP acquaintances are upset when "Hollywood Liberals" share views they don't like.

[QC]

118. +1

[SixString]

133. Spot on.

[oberliner]

77. Susan Sarandon is a good actress

Her politics are not relevant to that.

[Cha]

106. I don't give a shite about her acting abilities.. I couldn't

stand to watch her knowing what a slimey oozing smug ass Liar she is .. that owns a chunk of trump and this..

Link to tweet

Telling anyone who would listen that Hillary is more dangerous than trump and advocating voting 3rd Party for another Liar, stein-putinpawn, who told her brainwashed fans to not vote for Hillary even in Swing states.

stein-saradon as they sit on their million$$$$$ while those less fortunate on the Planet are FUCKED.

[treestar]

141. Boycotts happen when

someone doesn't like someone's politics, no matter what their livelihood consists of. Don't we try to do that? Boycott Trump's businesses, just for a start?

[oberliner]

144. OK with me

I just think that calling Susan Sarandon a bad actress because we don't like her politics is as silly as Trump doing the same for Meryl Streep. We ought to be able to separate the two, in my opinion.

[treestar]

241. That's true, though it is so subjective

in that field that maybe not liking their politics affects one's view of the acting. I'm not a big critic of acting so most actors are good enough for me.

[George II]

78. I'd hate to see you in a BAD mood! Sarandon seemed to have been on both ends...

...of "sympathy" votes - receiving and giving. At least the Academy Awards don't have disastrous consequences, like the votes for Stein that she urged.

Just another 1%er fraud who doesn't give a shit about anyone but herself and her wealth.

[NurseJackie]

86. Yes she is...

and no she doesn't.

You're absolutely correct. A voice inside or head is saying "I got mine, now fuck all y'all."

[Denis 11]

81. no

N J I do not agree.
Trump is exposing the republicans as the phonies they truly are.
Atlantic City with Sue in it is one of my favorite films.
[link:

|

[Cha]

97. Whatever. that Smug "Liberal Elite" sits on her

cushiony $50 Million Bucks as she stated "Hillary was more dangerous than trump".. while trump fucks the rest of the Planet.. that isn't as well off as ms Stupid Lying Piece of Shite.

SS owns a chunk of this..

Link to tweet

[Akamai]

82. You fucking betcha! Good for you, NurseJackie! Letting the good be the

enemy of the perfect. And how the hell did that work out?

Oh yeah, it worked out badly for all of us!!

[Dawson Leery]

83. Susie Q is a professional Communist.

Delusional and full of shit!

Now she can have her self pity party and enjoy her tax cuts.

[jalan48]

87. She was great in Thelma and Louise though.

[NurseJackie]

88. Which one was she?

[jalan48]

89. Louise I believe.

[delisen]

90. Sarandon is very rich and seems very male-oriented

I think of her as the old fashioned Queen Bee. Sort of a Phyllis Schlafly, although Schlafly did not always go third party.

[Cha]

91. This is what that smug "liberal Elite" SS owns a chunk of..

as she sits on her cushiony $50 Million Bucks while she claimed Hillary was more dangerous than trump. She's a stupid piece of shite.

Link to tweet

Mahalo, Jackie for Shining the Light on that cockroach..

#FOSS

[JCanete]

95. her biggest crime might have been to focus so much wasted energy here on DU to the purpose of

bashing her. Will her terrorism never cease?

[Idoru]

96. She's a complete asshole and I can't stand her

She is the definition of white privilege, gladly sacrificing the rest of us to whatever hell Trump unleashes, just to make a "point" or "if it gets bad enough for those ignorant peons, the will realize how right I was!!". While none of it effects her rich, famous ass in the least.

Karma can't come fast enough on her empty head.

I also don't understand why we are still talking about her. Is she in office, does she have a tv show or a newspaper column? Who gives a shit?

[Kath2]

98. Thank you.

Thinking the same thing about her.

[Orcrist]

111. To Hell with Her

Haven't watched anything she was in since the election and don't plan to ever again.

If there truly was any karma in the universe I'd pass her on the street sometime in the next 3 years and find her broke, starving and begging me for food. To which I'd reply, "Awww, hang in there Susan." "I'm sure the revolution will kick in any minute and while people are distracted by it maybe you can steal some scraps of bread out of someones trash can." "In the mean time perhaps you can go let Trump grab you.....you know.....somewhere and in exchange maybe he will have the whitehouse staff make you a nice sandwich." "Bye Bye now, enjoy the world you helped create."

Sound harsh? Consider the people who will die when they lose their insurance coverage under this administration she helped elect. Ask their loved ones if I am being too harsh.

[riversedge]

115. Not harsh at all.

[Jamaal510]

113. K&R

[riversedge]

116. Kurt Eichenwald‏Verified account @kurteichenwald Everywhere she goes, @SusanSarandon & other limou

I wish this would happen.==



Kurt Eichenwald?Verified account @kurteichenwald

Everywhere she goes, @SusanSarandon & other limousine liberals should be confronted with ppl who lost insurance at the altar of her purity.

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

119. So perfect. So true. And, so sad that will Sarandon never learn...

... she's so convinced of her purity and righteousness.

Thank you for sharing that, Riversedge.

[retrowire]

125. At the time she said what she said...

I as a Bernie supporter understood it as this idealistic revolution that would happen. She like others, thought Trump would happen, then the REAL revolution would occur and the whole system would change.

But realists like myself, and many others knew that no, if Trump got elected, he would fuck a lot of shit up. We had no idea how much shit, but we knew it would be bad and it wouldn't be this legendary moment where the nation had some epiphany.

[lunamagica]

155. Shr's old enough to know better

[retrowire]

156. Orrrr wisdom doesn't always come with age. Nt

[DownriverDem]

131. Not just her

No offense to anyone, but I feel the same about all left leaners who didn't vote for Hillary last November. I hope they are happy with the destruction of all we care about. And if you are young, your life is screwed.

[NurseJackie]

134. This is the big failure of Sarandon's "purity" philosophy.

I hope they are happy with the destruction of all we care about.

They probably are. It's totally twisted, isn't it?

It's a philosophy for the vain, for the wealthy, and for the naive and moody emoprogs. And in spite of where we are today, she's still giddy and advocating "burning-down" the Party.

[erpowers]

140. ON The Bright Side

Yes, Susan Sarandon can find a bright side to this action. People are more motivated and energized than they have been in years.

[NurseJackie]

145. Actually, that's not a "bright side"... that was her GOAL! She's smart enough to know...

... that Jill Stein didn't stand a snowball's chance of winning. But she also knew that by encouraging people to NOT support the Democratic nominee, she (Sarandon) could exact revenge on a party that disappointed her.

Sarandon has always advocated for some variation of the "burn-it-down-to-rebuild-it" philosophy. This is exactly what she wanted, and this is why she's so giddy in her flurry of media appearances.

It's a mistake to call this a "bright side". Calling that suggests that it's happenstance, just a happy accident. It gives the false impression that this is something resulting from the consequences of some unintended or unanticipated event. THE TRUTH IS: THIS IS WHAT SARANDON WANTED!!

The only way the emoprogs and fruitcake fringy koo-koo wacko Jill Stein voters can have any meaningful "power" or "influence" in the Democratic party is to destroy or weaken the party with the help of the GOP. It's like they've got this weird and surreal "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing going on. Sarandon and those wacky Jill Stein voters see the GOP as their strategic "friend".

It makes sense that Sarandon and her defenders say things like "Hillary is more dangerous than Trump"... promoting that false narrative only furthered their ultimate goal of weakening the Democratic Party so that the fruitcakes can try to take over. Frankly, I think ALL attacks and smears on the Democratic Party (from all quarters) are designed to divide and weaken the party and further their objective.

I hope you don't also support Sarandon's "burn it down" philosophy... do you?

[erpowers]

226. Sarcastic

I was using some of Susan Sarandon's own words to be sarcastic. I should have used the sarcasm emoji.

A few weeks ago Sarandon was interviewed and she said something to the effect that she was happy that so many people had been energized by the election and actions of Donald Trump.

No, I do not agree with Sarandon's burn-it-down policy. I gladly and proudly voted for Hillary Clinton in the election. I never bought into the idea that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton were the same and the Republican Party and Donald Trump. I also rejected the idea the Hillary Clinton was more dangerous than Donald Trump. I saw the people to whom Trump aligned himself. Those people were opposed to policies I supported. I knew that if Trump was elected the policies I supported would be harmed. I also wanted older women to be able to see Hillary Clinton become President. The fact that she was a woman was not the only reason I voted for Hillary Clinton, but the chance for women who were once denied the right to vote to be able to see a woman become President was a bonus.

So, in the end I was mocking Susan Sarandon's happiness that people are more involved in politics due to the election of Donald Trump. I do realize this is just what Sarandon wanted. My post was meant to make fun of the fact that Sarandon seems to be finding a bright side to everything that is happening during the Trump Administration.

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

230. I myself am sarcasm-challenged (depending on the hour of the day)...

... thanks for checking in and setting me straight.

[erpowers]

232. You're Welcome

I should have been more clear that I was being sarcastic.

[jodymarie aimee]

150. Fair Winds is correct

how does this win us back the 1,000+ seats we have lost in the last 6 years...the Rs would love to read this childish post. Dems fighting against each other.

[Jakes Progress]

166. Again. susan sarandon did not vote Democratic.

The campaigned against the Democratic nominee.

It is childish to post with such a lack of awareness.

[jodymarie aimee]

170. OK, prove who she voted for then..post a link for proof

The campaigned...who is this The? It is not childish for me to want Progressives to stick together. We need to beat the Rs, not each other. I watched the Colbert segment and she was great...and got applause for just about everything she said. She spoke like Bernie, who is our hero.

And you have got to come to grips with the fact that our candidate lost the Presidency twice now. We move on. More progressive, less corporate.

[NurseJackie]

171. Here you go. It's reasonable to assume that Sarandon also voted for the candidate she ENDORSED...

... unless you think that Sarandon would say-one-thing and then do-another-thing.

http://www.jill2016.com/sarandon

Recently, our campaign received a letter that made our day.

Susan Sarandon wrote to us, and has now officially endorsed Jill!

Because she knows what you know - that we must build a progressive
social movement to counter both Donald Trump AND Hillary Clinton.

I'm sorry, but endorsing and voting for Jill Stein doesn't seem to be very "heroic" to me.

[jodymarie aimee]

172. She voted for Hillary

you know what I did last week....beat the incumbent alder for my district in a landslide...72% to 28%....I am 65 and disabled. How about you go and do something worthwhile besides bashing an actress who has more smarts and talent in one toe than....you finish the sentence. Be productive.

[NurseJackie]

173. No, Sarandon endorsed Jill Stein and voted for Jill Stein.

How about you go and do something worthwhile besides bashing an actress who has more smarts and talent in one toe than....you finish the sentence.

LOL!

[Cha]

190. Hell NO SS didn't vote for Hillary. Maybe you should

get your FACTS straight before you make wild claims about the arrogant smug Liberal Elite Asshole who voted 3rd Party and did Stupidly Claim "Hillary was more Dangerous than trump"

SS bashed her Stupid self.. she's her own damn worst enemy.. with her Lies and arrogance as she sits on her cushiony $50 Million BUCKS while the rest of the Planet that is less Fortunate gets FUCKED by trump.

[NurseJackie]

196. I certainly don't begrudge her success... there's nothing wrong with being rich. However...

... her wealth certainly helps to explain why it's so easy for this so-called progressive (Sarandon) to be able to do things, and say things, and actively pursue political outcomes that negatively affect others... but for which she'll have absolutely NO personal inconvenience. She makes being "progressive" look so easy and effortless.

[Cha]

202. They are those with Success who Help others .. Not do

every Stupid thing in their power to make sure the Planet get Fucked by the Fascist trump.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Again, Thanks for Shining the Light on this Cockroach

[NurseJackie]

213. I wish it wasn't necessary.

[Cha]

217. Me too, we might very possibly NOT

be in HELL right now.

But as Kurt Eichenwald Tweets.. it's necessary.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

211. She's certainly not one of the 99%, nor are any that she advocates for.

[Cha]

214. Precisely!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

216. Sarandon, and she has a penchant for supporting non-99%ers in elections, too.

[George II]

212. She claimed she was supporting Jill Stein. So we have two "options" to consider:

1. She didn't vote for Clinton, or if she did...
2. She's a hypocrite.

I wonder which is true?

BTW, know what I've been doing? Serving my local Democratic Party as an officer for the last 12 years and serving my community as a Commissioner, also for 12 years. I've served on three different Boards/Commissions (not at the same time) And, I've been a treasurer for 10 campaigns.

I do it willingly, and very few times have I cared to point it out to people here or other sites.

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

239. Thank you, George II

for your years of hard work and educated point of view!

[Jakes Progress]

245. I hope you learn to represent your district

with truth rather than star-struck hope. sarandon supported and voted for stein. She campaigned against the Democratic Party candidate. Please try to keep up with what is going on if you hope to serve your district well.

You be productive. Learn to not speak until you know your facts. And when you do foul up, admit it and apologize to those you tried to teach false facts to. That would be worthwhile and show some leadership qualities. Don't lecture people who know more about the issue than you. All of us have screwed up and done something like that. The best who do that, admit and apologize.

(I'm older than you and have served many times. I try to keep learning from those who are better informed.)

[synergie]

193. She championed Stein and Trump, while attacking HRC and the Democratic party

with right wing talking points that she was apparently unable to learn were basically BS.

She's not sticking with progressives, she's literally helping the R's by promoting their talking points and pushing their divisiveness.

Bernie may be your hero, but he's irritating many by the things he's saying, so he's not "our" hero, he's the guy who's trying to excuse the racism of Trump voters, that's not heroic in my book.

She's not a hero either, and applause is not really a measure of anything other than carefully selected studio audience, it's also how Trump operates and not really what we need in our political discussions.

I think folks need to come to grips with the fact that our Candidate, the one who was the 1st woman on the ticket for a major party, and who got the majority of the vote by MILLIONS, despite all that stacked against her and so-called progressives actively working to elect Trump when they didn't get their way. We're not "moving on", we're fighting, we're resisting, and we're really tired of these meaningless words parroted by people who literally have no clue about anything, being touted as progressive activism. Yelling "establishment" and "corporate" is how people were conned, it's how we got Trump.

We are fighting on, not moving on, and we're not letting people who don't understand basic words or civics and who have trouble with facts preach to us what progressive means.

Less divisiveness, more actual Resistance, join us in the fight and be Indivisible with us, leave actresses who have terrible track records and whose sole aim is to divide, behind. Let them figure out that their hero lost and figure out how to put that behind them and move on with the progressives who have no time for this ridiculousness. Enough with the not-so-friendly fire already, we've got work to do.

[betsuni]

199. +1

[NurseJackie]

152. Oh, I don't know about that. This seems like a fairly tame thread to me. I know...

... in the past I've seen much worse threads with dozens of "post removed" placeholders. So, it looks like people are on their best behavior today.

[Jakes Progress]

167. The people who think it is okay to campaign against Democrats

need to be attacked, lack a sense of civil rights, and are themselves obscene.

It is not good for the Party or DU to support anti-Democratic actions.

Those who do need a good long time-out.

[FairWinds]

189. Respectfully Mr. Jake . .

the people flailing away on this thread are "campaigning against democrats"

with their nasty attacks on SS, C. West, Tavis and others.

What will they gain by purging progressives? Some sort of weird satisfaction?

Not much else I can assure you.

[Jakes Progress]

247. Fairly disrespectful there.

Because you are wrong. This is not a "campaign". susan sarandon did not vote for the democratic candidate. If she were a poster on DU her campaign pronouncements would have gotten her tombstoned.

If you want to start another forum where it is okay to campaign against Democrats, you are welcome to do so. That is not allowed here on DU. If you did not vote for Hillary, you are in the same boat as ss - you helped trump. If you voted for Hillary, I don't understand why you would support someone who did everything she could to see that Hillary wasn't elected. What will you gain by embracing clueless but harmful celebrities? Some sort of weird feeling of fandom satisfaction?

Not much else I can assure you.

[Cha]

191. Kurt Eichenwald

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[fleabiscuit]

231. Cha! You always got the best doll.

I'm getting to old, and been through to much for a lot BS anymore. I'm into a habit of trying to simplifying things for myself. Must be why I took a liking to twitter.

For me it's simple...
If anyone considers not voting, or considers voting off party... Please don’t call yourself a Democrat. Stop pretending. Stop polluting Democratic boards with your BS.

Democrats always vote, and always vote for the Democrat, EVERY FREAKING TIME!
Screw you, and screw the horse you rode in on if you don’t. And stop calling yourself a Democrat. FU

Too much?

[Cha]

235. Mahalo for your kind words, flea!

Back@cha!

I know what you mean.. I'm going to be on twitter one of these days.. I see a lot of block parties in my future.

One thing I hate as much trump are those who LIED their damn heads off and helped get him in.. "Purity" pushers lke steinsarandon who so brainwashed their fans that they own a chunk of trump and horror shows like this...

Link to tweet

Not too much, imho

[nycbos]

151. Why give her the dignity of our attention?

She is only important if we make her important by wasting ink on her.

[NurseJackie]

158. Ridiculing her is not elevating her. Pointing out her hypocrisy...

... and her dishonorable motivation help to keep her words in perspective as she continues her media appearances. I'm not making her important. I'm pointing out that she's no heroine of the left. Even with my (and other's) efforts, we still see how some still rally to her defense and cheer her on.

Oddly enough, many of those ill-informed defenders still believe that Sarandon ended up being a full-on supporter of our party and our party's nominee, when nothing could be further from the truth. Some still haven't a clue that Sarandon's "white-privilege" (for lack of a better term) makes it painless for her to make demands and sacrifices of others without having to suffer herself... and why she can so effortlessly take such delight in seeing the Democratic party fractured and weakened.

Thank you, I do take the point you're making, your meaning and intent are clear... and I don't fault you for it. But honestly... I'm just not all that inclined to remain silent while she continues to spew lies and spin tales of how a fractured Democratic party is actually a "good thing" or a "blessing in disguise". It's NOT.

[Jakes Progress]

163. I posted a similar thread this week and was locked.

I was told that I was "still fighting the primaries" and a jury locked my thread for breaking the primary fighting rule.

Nowhere did I mention the primaries, but I got alerted on and had my post deleted. I protested but have not heard of any reconsideration.

Before locking, the thread was full of support the the idea that susan is a jerk. It is nice to know that DU members for the most part agree on susan's general shittiness. I just don't understand why complaining about a simpering fool campaigning against the Democratic nominee would get me locked.

Anyway. Cheers for the excellent OP.

[cab67]

180. I will watch her films again

when she has apologized for her grotesque lack of foresight. I don't think she necessarily tossed the election, but she didn't help.

[NurseJackie]

201. You're correct. It's not she and she alone... but her words and actions then, as well as her

... words and actions now, continue to give cover and justification for those who think it's perfectly okay and worthwhile to support that traitorous, Russian loving, anti-vax fruitcake named Jill Stein.

Her continued attacks on the Democratic Party only serve to divide and weaken us. Her giddiness at the success of the GOP's ability to cause irreparable damage (or damage that will last for generations) is beyond comprehension. So much suffering awaits those who can least afford it from the "burn-it-down" philosophy that she supports.

[LiberalLovinLug]

182. OMG HOW DARE A WOMAN BE TOO LIBERAL!!!!

And have the audacity to criticize the Democratic party!!! I mean they are doing so well! Its not as if they've lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the SCOTUS, majority of Governorships, and local elections across the country.............oh wait.

I admire Susan. She has to take it from all sides and remains a strong woman who doesn't back down from her egalitarian principles. She's just a "limousine liberal"? Really? Some are using that RW meme? So how much money is deemed too much to have a say? I guess she shouldn't have been such a talent and success as an actress, then I guess she'd get more respect for her political views? Gee, I sure hope Hillary and Bill aren't too rich to fall into that category.

Laughable how much anger is spent on one woman, who altered the vote away from Hillary almost zero. This phony insinuation that somehow there were many many voters that were all gung ho to vote Hillary, including ex-Sanders supporters, but then heard Susan say something critical about the direction of the party being too cozy with the corporate class..and viola! they all did a 180. It wasn't Comey's email announcement, it wasn't Russian trolls working with Trump, it wasn't the MSM unfair coverage in that when it came to Hillary all they talked about were her emails and ignored her platform, and it wasn't their perpetual tongue bathing of everything Trump said or did.

It wasn't even the over 50% other white women that voted for Trump, it was the one female Hollywood actress that dared to stand up for her own principles. Do I wish she would have relented and held her nose if she had to, and voted for Hillary and told everybody that? (As Sarah Silverman did) Sure. But surely the party can tolerate a bit of constructive criticism from this one person, and still survive. It might even be....gasp.....beneficial to NOT do what the GOP do and actually be open to the possibility that the party could do a few things better.

If Hillary would have run a more progressive campaign from the start. If she would have been brave enough to embrace issues like Bernie did, example a $15 minimum wage, and had much the same platform as Bernie ran on, he probably wouldn't even have challenged her. And Susan would be behind her all the way, and no doubt she'd be lauded in here as a great Democrat, and a fine actress by the same ones that hate her now. Hillary chose to run as a DLC establishment candidate in an election when establishment was a bad word. But lets blame some actress that had a problem with that instead.

[bekkilyn]

183. I'd never even heard of SS until after the election

But somehow she's solely managed to destroy the entire party simply by having and voicing an opinion.

People can vote for whoever they want (even women) and it's a candidate's job to *earn* their votes and not blame people for not voting the way you want them to vote. Give them a reason to vote for your candidates based on what is important to *them* and not what is important to you. Hint: Completely ignoring large areas of the country does not win electoral votes.

And if you don't care to win the votes of people in SS's demographic(s) and decide to write them off, that's your choice, but then it's pointless to complain when they don't automatically vote for you for...reasons.

(Using general you here in case it wasn't obvious.)

[LiberalLovinLug]

186. Exactly

Thank-you for that.
If one little Hollywood actress can do sooooooo much damage by a little criticism...uh..maybe one should take a look in the mirror first. And she had only one vote herself, and hardly changed anyones mind that wasn't already voting against, or not for, Hillary. I just find it funny (not a ha ha funny) that Trump voters that didn't vote for Hillary because of being brainwashed and filled with hate about her 'criminal' record are almost accepted as inevitable, but how dare someone base their non-vote for her based on thought-out well-spoken criticisms from a left-of-center view. In fact one can't even get them to say what exactly they disagree with her on...its enough that she dares to be a road bump.

[synergie]

192. Well, she had a huge platform, and she used it to push RW talking points

that were not well thought out and which came literally from the right wing. She was caught on video doing this, as she got in Dolores Huerta's face, saying things that were patently untrue but being pushed by far right outlets.

Actually, the posts are pretty clear about what they disagree with her on. Her right wing talking points, her championing of Jill Stein, her statements that Trump would be good for the country, since he didn't endanger HER at all, given that she's a wealthy elite White lady.

It's that she dared to be road bump for liberals, while paving the way for Trump, who she spoke better of than the actual progressive on the ticket, and her disgusting references to people voting with their genitals, which is offensive on many levels.

It's weird how all the stuff that people disagree with her on are well stated and well thought out, but somehow seem to escape the view of folks who prefer not allow facts into any discussion.

[LiberalLovinLug]

252. what RW talking points?

Just because you hear that bit of propaganda repeated doesn't make it true. Where is the RW criticism of Hillary's ties to Wall Street? No one in the GOP who take the most advantage from deregulation have a problem with government/Wall street coziness. Sure Trump spoke of it, but that was obviously fake concern. It is pretty well known that anti-corporatism comes from a left of center community.

Some on here conflate criticism based on facts from the left, with fake news crap from the right. SS did not promote falsehoods like Hillary runs a child prostitution ring etc...

And there we go again with the "wealthy elite White lady" Who is using using RW talking points?

She spoke without a PC filter. That's what I like about her. And yes, some people did vote with their genitals - on both sides.

"It's weird how all the stuff that people disagree with her on are well stated and well thought out, but somehow seem to escape the view of folks who prefer not allow facts into any discussion."

Its weird how opposition to her is NOT well stated or well thought out.

Its just funny how we criticize the GOP for all walking in lock step (although perhaps we are seeing cracks) yet we call ourselves more liberal and can't even handle one lone woman critic from a left of center point of view.
And especially at at time when Democrats have been in a free fall losing skid.

[WomenRising2017]

255. Sarandon repeatedly used the right wing talking point that

Hillary Clinton would be indicted over her emails, among many others.

She also repeatedly said that "it doesn't matter whether Clinton or Trump is elected."

She was and is a Trump enabler. Why would you defend that?

[LiberalLovinLug]

256. Its her point of view

And lets be clear, she spoke all of this with the assurance that we all had that Hillary was inevitably going to be the next President. It was done as a shot across the bow to let her understand that many of us would be holding her feet to the fire and to come through on her "most progressive platform ever". Especially since much of that progressiveness only was added after her camp realized how popular Bernie's progressive platform was received. Many of us that were pleased with many of Obama's domestic initiatives, felt he did not push hard enough or use his gift of oratory on the bully pulpit enough, and capitulated too soon against a GOP that gladly accepted that and took it as weakness.

That is why when we saw there was a choice for Bernie and his revolutionary ideas, we jumped on board. As Sarah Silverman said, she was was very excited about supporting Hillary, and the first female president, but someone better came along. Sarah was forgiven because she followed Bernie's example and switched her allegiance back to Hillary. Susan couldn't bring herself to do that so she is being punished for sticking to her beliefs. I didn't agree with her, as Trump was a unique threat with his populism amongst the deplorable classes and his arrogance and stupidity. But I can still respect her beliefs because it is coming from a place of genuine concern. That yes, Democrats are different than Republicans in a lot of ways, but she was focusing on the ways they are the same..and one that 'trumps' everything else and that is their relying on big corporate money. That it was only when too much pressure is applied that these corporate Dems reverse their positions on things like the TPP, or the Dakota pipeline approval, or fracking, or even gay marriage. Merrick Garland, Obama's choice for SCOTUS voted for Citizens United and the ability for unlimited dark money donations to super pacs.

Just the fact that Bernie did so well without using any superpac dark money, and on small donations was revolutionary in and of itself. That alone should be celebrated as an amazing historical event and give confidence going forward.

So while I do not agree with NOT voting for Hillary last election, I can empathize why she, along with others, have felt betrayed by the establishment Democrat wing and I also admire that she at least is not afraid to speak her mind about it.

I just think way too much ink is being spilled hand-wringing and hating on her.

[WomenRising2017]

257. There are never assurances in any election.

The fact that she willingly ignored the racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc., is not excusable. There is nothing liberal, progressive or left, about that. She also bought into and repeated right wing conspiracy theories.

If you want to empathize with her, that's your prerogative. But you certainly shouldn't expect others to be as forgiving. She, and others like her, have betrayed millions of people, exposing them to the dangerous and cruel policies of Donald Trump.

[NurseJackie]

258. She should be deeply ashamed... yet she gloats. Sarandon's behavior disgusts me.

That was a great post! And ... WELCOME to Democratic Underground!

[LiberalLovinLug]

267. You can hate her if thats what you think will help

But don't mischaracterize her.
1. She did not willingly ignore the racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia. She was a Bernie supporter. She is a progressive. Even Jill Stein I'm sure is against all of those. Now you can have an opinion that because she didn't swallow all of her personal principles and follow the crowd and vote Hillary, because she believed there had to be deeper changes that she felt the Democratic party seemed unwilling to waver on, and her one little biddy vote for Stein resulted in Trump winning....fine, I can't tell you not to feel that way, even though I find it quite irrational.

2. She did not repeat RW conspiracy theories. Ties to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street are not RW talking points. Neither is getting money out of politics or single payer healthcare. The email server problem was not a RW conspiracy as Hillary admitted to it and apologized. So what RW talking points? Did she use Benghazi? Did she say the Clintons are murderers?, Did she say their foundation was crooked? Did she say Clinton was too unhealthy to govern? Did she accuse her of laughing at a rape victim? Did she accuse her of attacking the women that accused her husband of sexual abuse? Did she accuse her of running a child prostitution ring? What? Please list them for me.

3. Yes, I do empathize with her. I do not agree with her not voting Democrat but I understand her frustrations. And I don't expect others to be as forgiving. But she did not betray millions of people and expose them to Trumpland, she was just a lone woman, a brave woman, that spoke truth to power, even if some of that power resides at the top of the Democratic establishment as well. And her exact words were “I believe in a way she's more dangerous (than Trump)" She parsed that statement with "in a way" because of her belief that the Democratic party was going the wrong way towards permanently attaching itself to a growing oligarchy. Only they were doing it much more slowly like frogs in a pot, so in a way, that seemed more dangerous than the bumbling fools in the GOP that are rash and stupid and transparent about it. She was making a point.

There was/is a frustration with those on the left in the party (the ones that are usually correct when the dust settles) that they have been used to win elections, but then are marginalized once the party wins. Even though there hasn't been much winning lately. That Obama had such a great opportunity when he came in to do so much more, and then the second blow when Bernie didn't win, someone who represented real change, and even harder to take that loss when realizing that the MSM, and the DNC were working against him. For some it reached a boiling point and they jumped out of the pot. I don't agree but yes, I empathize. And this demonizing of anyone who dares be that critical is counterproductive IMO. Why are we not strong enough to listen to criticism? Obviously there are others that feel as she does. Making all those on the fringes of the party the enemy, holding these grudges is childish and doesn't move us forward. IMO.

[WomenRising2017]

271. If she believes she's a liberal, she did neglect all of her principles.

She completely ignored the sexism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc. coming from Trump when she threw her vote away, and as such voted for Trump.

There is nothing liberal, progressive or left about that.

Saying that Hillary would be indicted over her emails is a right wing conspiracy theory. Anyone who is honest knows that this was a ridiculous right wing witch hunt, but she willfully played along. But worse, she excused Trump. She painted Hillary as worse than Trump. That is inexcusable. She sunk to Trey Gowdy levels there.

Empathize with her all you want, but don't you dare consider yourself anywhere near left if you do. She does not deserve to be coddled, just because she was too stupid, and bought into decades of right wing smears, while completely dismissing the danger of Trump. Her point was ignorant. Her point was asinine. Her point has consequences that are hurting millions of people.

As far as your last paragraph, if that's your belief, you are doing much more harm than good. You think you're frustrated now? FFS you just handed the keys to all three branches of Government to fucking Donald Trump.

I am not going to empathize with you, or Susan Sarandon. Too much immediate and long term harm has been, and will be caused, on our country's most vulnerable.

All because Bernie didn't win? Fuck that.

[LiberalLovinLug]

272. okay I see it is no use reasoning with you

Either that or you didn't read my last response.
I'm not going to repeat myself on insinuations and straw man arguments that you insist on repeating even after I've addressed them. She didn't use RW smears.

And I have no doubt that Hillary would probably have been either indicted or at least had impeachment hearings started by a Republican House if she had been elected. Don't you? I have no doubt that the GOP would be even more relentless on Hillary than they were on Obama and would milk the email "scandal" as long as they could while in her first term.

Why do you and others continue to give SS so much amazing power and influence? lol IMO she is being used as a lightening rod to excuse a lot of losing. One woman, celebrity though she is, didn't even register against the power of hate radio and faux news that built a fake criminal profile of Hillary over decades. Plus the Russian hacks, the FB fake news, Comey, and of course the orange king himself with blustering lies every day about her. Add to that the Dems false confidence in their votes in the rust belt states and Hillary's perceived close ties to Wall Street and her hawkish foreign policy.

But if you have any constructive criticism of the party you most closely align with because they keep losing, even though the majority actually agrees with them on most issues and are at all frustrated with that, you are breaking some kind of loyalty law? If you see no problem with that or see no room for improvement and we should all be lock step with the status quo, which is one big reason WHY they lost the support in many regions, then I'd question just who is ok with "hand(ing) the keys to all three branches of Government to fucking Donald Trump" going forward.

Yes while we were all content with reaching for the moon, she mistakenly or naively thought of reaching for the stars. I will never disparage someone for that. Or blame one individual for the loss in November.

We will agree to disagree. We all want the same thing in the end, or close to it. You, me, Hillary, Bernie, Obama, Sarandon all want an end to sexism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc. and a fairer and healthy society for all.

cheers

[WomenRising2017]

273. Woah! You say you have no doubt that Hillary would be indicted?

You can't be serious. That is a clear cut right wing talking point. I stopped reading right there.

[LiberalLovinLug]

275. I said at least impeached

and maybe indicted if Comey was cowed into it.

You have a more admiral view of the GOP House than I do I guess.

[WomenRising2017]

277. There is no reason for her to be indicted or impeached

That's the point.

The fact that you believe either of those scenarios are realistic, is troubling.

[LiberalLovinLug]

279. Of course there is no reason

We are going in circles

cheers

[bekkilyn]

263. +1 (nt)

[synergie]

259. Agreed, repeating RW talking points does not make them true, but the person

repeating it does out themselves as someone who does not think, does not do her homework and does not bother to actually speak truth or facts. Sarandon lets herself be brainwashed into repeating things that are blatantly untrue, has been caught doing so on many media appearances. Pretending that she was just some rich old white lady knitting socks at home is a not only disingenuous, it's downright dishonest.

Repeating lies doesn't make them true, but there's that "ties to Wall Street" thing used as an attack line, because apparently the Senator that represented NY would not have people who work on Wall Street supporting her.

It's pretty well known that "coporatism" and other made up words come from people who literally have no clue what they're talking about while they rail about "establishment" but somehow excuse the actual establishment from their rants.

It's cute how the man who voted to deregulate Wall Street, who received money from the same group of people who donated to Hillary, is somehow not tainted with the consequences of his own votes or his own FEC filings.

Some on here literally do a terrible job with identifying facts and either deliberately or through ignorance cannot understand that fake news was delivered and hungrily lapped up by those who claim to the purest of the left. That's nice that Susan didn't hop on the Pizzagate train, she did hop on the many other RW idiocies that anyone who was actually on the left, progressive, liberal or bothered to do their homework realized was pure BS.

Deflection, distraction, denial, division, these are the 4Ds that were pushed by outside forces and which people like Susan engaged in wholeheartedly, in the media, on camera and in various places her celebrity gave her access to.

Calling a wealthy white lady that is somehow using RW talking points? Guess someone should tell all those people whose only concern is the WHITE working class, that they're using RW talking points.

Ah, yes that other RW favorite, the fondness for attacking "PC" speech. Gee, I wonder who is using RW talking points yet again. That wasn't about PC, it was utterly stupid, and rational people don't vote with their genitals, and stating that the people who were doing their homework to support the MOST qualified candidate whose lifetime resume was the BEST of all the folks running, and compares well in history as well, is just inane. Employing "bothesiderism" to somehow make this misogynistic comment seem somehow less idiotic is ... astoundingly bad argument.

I agree, Sarandon's opposition isn't well thought out or well stated, and those defending her do as poor a job, usually by engaging in numerous fallacies. There is no defense of Sarandon, and those trying to do so by employing RW tactics and arguments kind of make that case. She was wrong, she had a platform and chose to use it to convince people who shared her ignorance to not vote or vote 3rd party, AGAIN. She should own up to what she did as should those trying badly to defend the indefensible.

I agree, it is funny how we criticize the GOP for lock steping together, while elements on the supposed left do the same thing to anyone who DARES criticize their heroes for the words that come out of their mouths, which are on record, in audio and video. It makes one wonder at those that can't seem to handle criticism of their heroes, while they take potshots at literally every actual Democrat, and anyone defending them, or pointing out that their worshipful stance is perhaps a bit hypocritical.

Sarandon is not center left, and if she'd perhaps do her homework and stop parroting RW idiocies, she might start to overcome her extremist history of being oh so very wrong all the time.

A woman who was enabling and cheering on Trump is not anything "left" and Democrats have not been in a free fall losing skid, despite her very best efforts and those of her cohorts who seem to be so busy attacking Democrats that they forget the enemy is Trump and the GOP. These same people are also brainwashing young people into thinking their votes don't matter, that the parties are somehow the same, and other utterly stupid things, it's almost like their goal is to destroy the very people they pretend to be "leading".

It's just funny how some people utterly lack any self awareness of what they're doing and how they rail against anyone who explains to them clearly what the actual problems are with what they're saying, where they're saying it and the actual effect of what's being said.

[NurseJackie]

261. Wow. Perfect.

[betsuni]

262. Love this!

[Amimnoch]

264. Perfectly stated.

Echo's my own sentiments completely.

[LiberalLovinLug]

268. But she didn't use RW talking points

She used LW talking points. And it seems those are much more difficult to accept from some.

I addressed much of this already just now before I read your reponse in another post in this thread, here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8915001

I also disagree that she was such an influential being that she almost single-handedly lost the election for Hillary. Her views aligned with Bernie's who is not an extreme leftist. The things he proposed are normal policy in every other western democracy, even when those countries go through conservative governments. She and Bernie would be called at most, "center left" in the rest of the world. And it is disturbing to hear so many Democrats think these policies are "far left". So she wasn't willing to take a step back, once again, and settle for the moderate middle. But that is hardly "enabling and cheering on Trump". And as far as I can see she has owned up for everything. I just find all this vitriol against one hollywood actress that, yes, may be too stubborn for her own good, somewhat silly.

[synergie]

269. I actually thought this post was about Tulsi Gabbard, given that the content and the

earnestness is literally the same in the defense of the courtiers of Bernie.

She actually used literal RW talking points, anything that the RW created and fed to fake news sites that were pretending to be Left, this woman believed and parroted.

Monsanto! Speeches! Why Hillary was responsible for every evil thing, did you know? She got into Dolores Huerta's face to spewed a lot of RW hate. That's not LW, it's not left, no matter what Albanian or Macedonian site told people too gullible to know any better.

It's pretty disturbing for Democrats to be pretending that this perennial abuser of the Democrats, who helped deliver us Bush and now Trump, who uses her media platform to sow ignorance, division and discord is something that's other than what she is.

Literally no one in the world thinks that she is "Center" left, she literally illustrates the horseshoe, that the most Left are most like the most Right and neither has much of foothold in reality.

So much vitriol, all because a year ago, the candidate she backed lost, and the one she chose to steer people to has some unseemly connections to foreign interference and that they both brought us Trump.

It's pretty silly to be spending this much time refighting the primaries all because someone mentioned an actress they did not care for and the role she played in visiting upon us the man she thought we all deserved and who does not harm her privileged self at all.

As she cackles on about how Trump is so great, the rest of us are literally living in fear. We're not white, we're not millionaires, and we don't wish to embrace the racist misogynists that she and her cohorts wish to raise to supremacy in the attention of the Democrats. We're too busy not getting shot, not getting deported, and actually fighting for what the center right truly is, all over the world, and what she and her dear leaders do not embody.

I'm not going to bother reading screeds that don't seem to interested in facts and which deny them on their face.

It's odd that so much time is spent on defending actresses with a history of attacking Democrats, and that so much vitriol is directed against Democrats, and it's silly to think no one sees what this is.

[LiberalLovinLug]

274. I didn't post the OP. But once up, one shouldn't expect everyone to agree with it.

I was unfamiliar with that Sarandon Dolores Huerta 'confrontation'. So I looked it up on YouTube. She did not get "into Dolores Huerta's face to spew a lot of RW hate" She was only louder than usual, like most other people in the room, because it was very loud. That is obvious. It was a polite confrontation if you want to call it that. She was reminding Huerta that Hillary accepted donations from Monsanto. Its not "every evil thing" but it is concerning don't you agree? It seemed like this was news to Huerta. Obviously SS was advocating for Bernie who did not accept Monsanto donations and she wanted Huerta to know that. That my friend is not RW anything. She is left wing. If she was critical it was from a left point of view. At least admit that your problem is that she is too radical left for you. I can respect that.


"It's pretty silly to be spending this much time refighting the primaries all because someone mentioned an actress they did not care for and the role she played in visiting upon us the man she thought we all deserved and who does not harm her privileged self at all."

Yes it is silly. I never made the OP. And I wish they would stop these pointless exercises. Its nothing but flame bait.

But I take umbrage with your implication that someone of a certain income, through hard work and talent, should just stay silent on those issues about whom a more equal and fair society would benefit most. The fact that she herself would have to probably pay higher taxes under a more progressive government yet still she fights for it should be seen as admirable you'd think. Hmm maybe Bill and Hillary are to "privileged" now to participate in politics too?

She "cackles on about how Trump is so great"? Oh dear. I can't take this anymore. see ya.

[NastyRiffraff]

219. A ROAD BUMP?

Are you serious? Is that what we're going through now...a ROAD BUMP?? She's a fucking 10-foot pile of manure dumped in the middle of the road and we're the ones who have to clean up her shit.

She's a multi-millionaire; nothing wrong with that on its face, but she's smug and self-righteous while OTHER PEOPLE suffer from her stupidity.

A road bump. Ye gods.

[JI7]

184. Susan sarandon is a white woman and she supported john edwards so she isn't that liberal

[Cha]

194. How Dare A Woman LIE about Hillary and Stupidly claim

"Hillary is more dangerous than trump"..

As she sits high on her MF horse and her cushiony $5O Million Bucks while trump Fucks those less fortunate.. advocating voting 3rd party for another lying sack of shit, pawn for putin, stein.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

198. So, you bring up Sanders pushing for a $15 minimum wage - do you realize that he didn't even...

...pay some of his own interns $15 an hour?

[melman]

205. lol

Sanders was the only presidential candidate who paid his interns at all.

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-unpaid-interns/

[George II]

207. "lol". The campaign is over. It's not his campaign interns, its his Senate interns.

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-interns-minimum-wage/

"It’s true Sanders pays his interns $12 an hour, as noted by a page on the candidate’s own Senate web site that clearly states that “interns are paid $12 per hour.”"

further......

"It should also be noted that these $12 per hour internships are for positions working as aides to Sanders in the U.S. Senate, not for positions on his 2016 presidential campaign staff."

[melman]

228. Sure

That's why you said 'didn't' instead of 'doesn't'. You were talking about the campaign and you know it.




btw, two thirds of all senators don't pay their interns at all. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-the-senate-exploits-unpaid-interns/279111/


Keep trying. Keep failing.

[George II]

229. Didn't, doesn't, who cares - the fact is he pays his interns only $12 per hour.

[still_one]

222. Sarandon isn't being put down because she is critisizing the Democratic party, she is being

criticized because she is distorting and lying about things. She is being put down because she refused to vote for Hillary in the most critical election of our time. "Hillary is NOT worse than trump". That is a LIE. When Ralph Nader said there was no difference between republicans and Democrats, that was a LIE.

All one needs to do is look at the Supreme Court justices appointed by republicans verses those appointed by Democrats, to know how over the top that is.

Hillary did run a progressive campaign, but she wasn't pure enough for some

Tim Robbins expressed it this way:

"In a time of insanity, I’m voting for Hillary,” Robbins writes. “Aside from the despicable racism and sexism of the reality show star, aside from his tax evasion and lying and bankruptcies, Trump denies climate change. Trump wants to be a ‘law and order’ president in a time when crime is at all time lows. Trump has shown an alarming disrespect for women and teenage girls.”

By contrast, Robbins highlights that Clinton supports the Paris Accord and alternative energy. “Hillary has promised to continue reforming the broken and racist criminal justice system,” he continued. “Hillary promises to be a president in advocacy of women and children.”

Robbins argues that there will never be a place for progressives at the table in a Trump administration. In a Clinton White House, progressives have someone who can’t ignore them.

“Those of us that work for change in various causes have found a place at the table in the recent Democratic administration,” he wrote. “It took a while, but our voices were heard and a mutual belief and shared mission led to real change. A pipeline was stopped, rehabilitative programs restored, sentencing for non-violent crimes reduced, funding for arts education increased, gay marriage became legal, millions of people that couldn’t afford insurance now are covered.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/tim-robbins-parts-ways-with-his-ex-susan-sarandon-in-a-time-of-insanity-im-voting-for-hillary/

Susan Sarandon isn't going to have to worry about healthcare, where her next meal is coming from, or if a planned parenthood clinic closed down. She sure as hell isn't going to have to worry about about discrimination because of the color of her skin.

Susan Sarandon is a celebrity, and has every right to make whatever public comments she wants, others also have a right to criticize her false equivalencies.

Noam Chomsky said it best. "Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’
......

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[betsuni]

224. +1

[WomenRising2017]

238. I believe you are misunderstanding what it is to be liberal

And have the audacity to criticize the Democratic party!!! I mean they are doing so well! Its not as if they've lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the SCOTUS, majority of Governorships, and local elections across the country.............oh wait.

The constant criticism of the Democratic Party, most of it led by the Republicans, and believed by the naive, is what led to a Trump Presidency.

I admire Susan. She has to take it from all sides and remains a strong woman who doesn't back down from her egalitarian principles. She's just a "limousine liberal"? Really? Some are using that RW meme? So how much money is deemed too much to have a say? I guess she shouldn't have been such a talent and success as an actress, then I guess she'd get more respect for her political views? Gee, I sure hope Hillary and Bill aren't too rich to fall into that category.

I for one do not admire a woman who attacks women. Her aggressive attack on Delores Huerta was revolting. Hillary Clinton is a much stronger woman, who has not only taken it from all sides, but has never been one to take it to the gutter, like Sarandon. Hillary as been a true fighter for women, all women, regardless of their status or beliefs.

Laughable how much anger is spent on one woman, who altered the vote away from Hillary almost zero. This phony insinuation that somehow there were many many voters that were all gung ho to vote Hillary, including ex-Sanders supporters, but then heard Susan say something critical about the direction of the party being too cozy with the corporate class..and viola! they all did a 180. It wasn't Comey's email announcement, it wasn't Russian trolls working with Trump, it wasn't the MSM unfair coverage in that when it came to Hillary all they talked about were her emails and ignored her platform, and it wasn't their perpetual tongue bathing of everything Trump said or did.

It's laughable to say this when there has never been more anger spent on one woman, than there been has on Hillary Clinton. That hatred includes Comey's announcement, Russian trolls, unfair MSM coverage, and more. Susan Sarandon helped perpetuate the hatred.

It wasn't even the over 50% other white women that voted for Trump, it was the one female Hollywood actress that dared to stand up for her own principles. Do I wish she would have relented and held her nose if she had to, and voted for Hillary and told everybody that? (As Sarah Silverman did) Sure. But surely the party can tolerate a bit of constructive criticism from this one person, and still survive. It might even be....gasp.....beneficial to NOT do what the GOP do and actually be open to the possibility that the party could do a few things better.

Just because other clueless white women voted for Trump, it does not exempt Sarandon from doing the same. I question her principals. Nearly everyone knew how awful Trump was, except Sarandon.

And as awful as Trump is, Sarandon still opted to throw her vote away and vote for Jill Stein. That shows she is lacking in principals and judgement.

If Hillary would have run a more progressive campaign from the start. If she would have been brave enough to embrace issues like Bernie did, example a $15 minimum wage, and had much the same platform as Bernie ran on, he probably wouldn't even have challenged her. And Susan would be behind her all the way, and no doubt she'd be lauded in here as a great Democrat, and a fine actress by the same ones that hate her now. Hillary chose to run as a DLC establishment candidate in an election when establishment was a bad word. But lets blame some actress that had a problem with that instead.

No one has run a more progressive campaign, than Hillary Clinton. You must remember that Sarandon also backed Nader? She's still disliked for that, alone.

[betsuni]

240. +1

[betsuni]

188. She had the chance when she was on Colbert's show to at least acknowledge that

Hillary wouldn't have been worse than Trump at this point. A toddler knows this. Dogs and cats know this. Potted plants do. But no. No lessons learned, same old buzzwords.

Some people really believe that the Democratic nominee in the last election didn't run on a progressive platform, that the media was fair to that nominee, that 3rd party voters don't affect elections, that people who repeatedly called Hillary worse than Trump and a warmonger and all the rest were just "criticizing policy" and actually voted for her once in the voting booth. Flabbergasting.

[still_one]

210. That is my problem with folks like Sarandon, Jill Stein, and those self-identified progressives

who refused to vote for Hillary.

Their arrogance, pride, ego, or just plain ignorance prevents them from admitting that they screwed up and made a mistake, and their failure to recognize that Hillary was so far better than ANY republican would have been.

They are phony assholes, who profess to care about the environment, civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights etc., but their actions instead helped to undo 60 years progress, and as far as I am concerned, they can go to hell

[Nedsdag]

208. Why are you still talking about Susan Sarandon today?

She's not the president.

Also, Viggo Mortensen was also a supporter of Jill Stein. I don't see a #FuckYouViggoMortensen hash tag.

#Itsstillmisogyny!

[Cha]

221. #FOAllIdiot3rdPartyVoters..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[still_one]

223. No, she isn't the president, but Susan Sarandon has made enough public apperances

saying she would not vote for Hillary, and made false and distorted public statements saying Hillary would be worse than trump.

Trump has occupied the WH for about three months. Within that time, 90% of the people he has appointed to various departments are individuals who want to destroy those agencies. From the EPA to Healthcare.

The environment, civil rights, women's rights, and all the progress made in the last 60 years are not at risk because of a trump presidency.

Why are people "still talking about Susan Sarandon"? Because they are angry that Sarandon, who considers herself a liberal, refused to vote for Hillary in the most important election of our time.

[tonedevil]

220. Susan Sarandon's happiness...

aside, the question is are you happy now that you have shaken your fist at the clouds and yelled?

[still_one]

225. Susan Sarandon refused to vote for Hillary. That is her right. Susan Sarandon publically

stated that Hillary was worse than trump. That was a LIE, but she has every right to say it.

Susan Sarandon has no regrets that she didn't vote for Hillary, and every chance she gets, she lets people know that. Does that make Sarandon happy to keep bringing that up?

A lot of people are upset with those constant reminders from Ms. Sarandon, that she refused to vote for Hillary, especially in the context of seeing what trump is doing. Those reminders need an outlet, and serve the purpose that we should not be duped by false equivalencies from celebrities

[Cha]

237. I can't speak for the OP but I'm glad she called out the Lying Smug

"liberal elite" Stupid SS, on her gd hawking for a 3rd party as she LIED "Hillary is more dangerous than trump" while she sits on her cushiony $50 Millions Bucks while trump Fucks the rest the Planet who isn't so well off.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

steinsarandon own a chunk of trump and this horror show..

Link to tweet

[KG]

242. I lulz'd

[betsuni]

243. Susan Sarandon is happy that Trump is president.

The rest of us are not happy and shake our fists and yell. How about you? You happy?

[NurseJackie]

248. She's not just happy, she's giddy and gloating. Telling and retelling a false narrative...

... smearing Democrats and the Democratic Party. She's dividing Democrats and weakening the party. (This is a common tactic among those who hate Democrats and the Democratic Party, therefore it's getting to be easier to spot.) I'm no fool! I can see what's going on.

[betsuni]

249. Yes, smug and pompous and wrong.

An over-inflated balloon. Lots of those balloons around.

[Mrs. Overall]

253. I can't stand Sarandon's politics, but she is killing it as Bette Davis

in the series The Feud.

Jessica Lange is doing well as Joan Crawford, but Sarandon is outstanding as Bette Davis.

[NurseJackie]

254. Her acting skills cannot hide her disgusting politics and ...

... hypocrisy and vanity and her contempt for Democrats. Nothing she's ever done or will ever do can undo her treachery and lies. She's damaged goods. She'll likely continue to have a "cult" following but as a mainstream actress her career is over. She's "box office poison."

[Midwestern Democrat]

260. I'm too big a film fan to create blacklists of actors and actresses whose politics I disagree with.

The only thing I care about when it comes to actors and actresses is their talent. I don't care if they are nice people in real life or what their politics are - all I care about is what's on the screen.

[LanternWaste]

265. I'm glad I separate the art from the artist, or I'd miss a lot of great art.

I'm glad I separate the art from the artist, or I'd miss a lot of great art.

It's horrible that people canvass and work for politicians we oppose, but I'm glad don't place all blame for an election result at the feet of one celebrity.

This sounds far too parallel to Trump's tantrums about Meryl Streep; and I've read more than enough of your posts to know you are a MUCH better and rational person that you're allowing yourself at the moment.

[NurseJackie]

266. That's oversimplifying things.

I'm glad I separate the art from the artist, or I'd miss a lot of great art.

That's nice.

It's horrible that people canvass and work for politicians we oppose, but I'm glad don't place all blame for an election result at the feet of one celebrity.

Oh, please! Of course it's not entirely Sarandon's doing. She's no liberal. She's no progressive. She played an important role. Her treachery cannot be ignored, her lies and the RW smears she repeated cannot be ignored, her hypocrisy cannot be ignored, her continued GLOATING cannot be ignored.

To remain silent validates her lies and smears. To remain silent normalizes her gloating. Saying nothing is to be accepting of her. Well, I don't approve of it, and I don't accept it. I do not consent to giving her permission to continue with the lies and smears. Doing anything else just, remaining silent, hoping she'll just "go-away" doesn't work and it actually encourages more of the same.

This sounds far too parallel to Trump's tantrums about Meryl Streep;

Oh sure, right... yes, of course. It's exactly the same, because Streep is a conservative who selfishly betrayed and sabotaged her party. Of course Trump would be angry with her. How could I have possibly thought otherwise? Silly me.

I've read more than enough of your posts to know you are a MUCH better and rational person that you're allowing yourself at the moment.

No matter how someone rewords and rephrases it... the old "you're better than this" is still a put-down. So... thanks for the compliment/insult?

Or maybe I'm just not nice or as "rational" a person as previously thought.

[radical noodle]

276. IF she is really a progressive

and IF she had a brain in her head, she would have understood that allowing Trump to name Supreme Court Justices would be detrimental to her "revolution."