It is a familiar right-wing tactic to attack someone for something they didn't say or do.
It is disheartening but not the least bit surprising that the Hillary campaign is attacking Susan Sarandon by claiming that Sarandon said she supported Trump, which Sarandon never said nor implied.
Sarandon said "I`m going to see what happens" in the unfortunate possibility that the race would come down to Hillary vs. Trump. Contrary to expressing support for Trump, Sarandon (quite accurately) indicated that Trump would be so bad for America that some people feel a Trump presidency would cause the government to explode.
First, if Sarandon did support Trump, that would be her own fucking business and would not warrant an attack; and if you want to attack Trump supporters, why not skip those who don't support Trump (like Sarandon) and focus on those who actually do support Trump (such as Kirstie Alley, Scott Baio, Stephen Baldwin, Azealia Banks, Gary Busey, Aaron Carter, Mike Ditka, Lou Ferrigno, Hulk Hogan, Jesse James, Loretta Lynn, Wayne Newton, Terrell Owens, Kid Rock, John Rocker, Dennis Rodman, Tila Tequila, Mike Tyson, and Jon Voight).
Second, Sarandon has said she does not support Trump. Sarandon comment "I`m going to see what happens" is a thousand times more likely to mean that Sarandon would either not vote in the presidential race, or would vote for Jill Stein, or would write in Sanders, or would -- no longer very likely -- come around to the idea of voting for a luke warm Hillary. It is absurd to infer that Sarandon would support Trump from her comment.
Remember, Hillary's campaign is not new to such tactics:
Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn't intended as a smear
Given how often Hillary and her supporters try to excuse Hillary's own untruthful comments and misjudgments by claiming all criticism grown from a vast right wing conspiracy trying to smear her pristine record and motives, you would think they would tone down the right-wing style attacks.
= new reply since forum marked as read
