General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Enough with the scolding please. [View all]BainsBane
(53,029 posts)She supported Nader in the last several elections. She always supports independents or third party candidates. That's not going to change. She got more coverage in this last election because she was particularly successful in using her wealth and celebrity to advance her candidate and to argue against the election of Clinton.
You care about looking at numbers but claim posting a link to someone's voting record is negative. Your appeal to empiricism is touching, but it is highly selective and not the least bit convincing.
The numbers for Stein are clear. Her margin of victory in key states was higher than that of Clinton's loss.
I don't for a second believe that was all due to Sarandon. We know the Kremlin targeted "progressives" to convince them to vote for Stein and deliberately stoked divisions from the primary to get them to do so. Stein was a central part of the Kremlin propaganda efforts. What we don't know is if she was a witting participant.
I'm guessing the sweatshop reference relates to her role as a face for Loreal. She doesn't own those sweatshops; she merely contributes to their profits and proliferation by doing ads for the company. She also does commercials for Big Pharma and other industries she pretends to oppose when it suits her political goals but somehow doesn't affect her eagerness to take and earn money for them. She complained that a woman candidate shouldn't be wealthy, even as her own net worth is roughly that of Clinton's, only Hillary doesn't use hers to buy six mansions. She contributes to a charitable foundation, like a true "corporatist."
Perhaps most disgusting is Sarandon's expression of pleasure at the "energy" that has resulted from the suffering and terror imposed by the Trump administration. Treating Dolores Huerta, truly a legend in union and Latino organizing, as the help was a low point as well. She really is an imbecile and a hack.