FUCK YOU SUSAN SARANDON

[mindfulNJ]

That is all.

[skylucy]

1. [phone] Amen.

[COLGATE4]

32. Yours, X another 10000000000

[Maru Kitteh]

2. FFUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCKKKK YOUUUUUU Susan Sarandon.

You maggot-gargling bucket of warm schmegma.

[skylucy]

4. +100000

[FarPoint]

3. I refused to watch her....

By this thread tone...I chose correctly.

[Maru Kitteh]

5. Oh, I didn't watch her. I never will again. Anywhere. It's an automatic channel-changer for me.

My greeting to her above is standard, and permanent.

[cynatnite]

6. My exact words as well...

It was incredulous to watch her.

[mindfulNJ]

7. I freaked out and had to turn it off.

She is the poster child for rich white privilege. Ugh.

[Doreen]

8. OK, I did not see Hayes as usual.

What did she say?

[oasis]

10. Hayes tried to get her to admit it was a mistake to equate Hillary

with Trump, but of course, Sarandon would have none of it. Deflection after deflection.

She raised the issue of Hillary not taking a strong enough stance against fracking. Hayes told Susan, "Now you have a president who will do fracking all day long".

[Maru Kitteh]

11. Who the hell was that idiot little toadie with her?

Anybody know?

[oasis]

12. Last name was Fox. He's an environmentalist, former Bernie supporter. nt

[2naSalit]

24. Didn't see it but i sounds like

it was probably Jamie-? Fox the guy who made the "Gasland" docs... if the topic was fracking, it was probably him.

[oasis]

26. Coulda been. He didn't say much, as Sarandon did most of the

talking as if SHE was the expert on all things environmental.

[2naSalit]

29. It figures...

[oasis]

45. Josh Fox. Hayes said the entire interview would be on his website.

[2naSalit]

46. Thanks but I don't have the band width to view it. nt

[Doreen]

14. What a horrible woman.

[oasis]

17. I remember how she got in the face of UFW icon, Delores Huerta

during the primaries. She started brow beating the elderly woman for supporting Hillary.

[Yavin4]

20. Yeah, Hillary lost because she didn't take a hard enough stance against Fracking

Yeah, that was it. That's why they voted for the King of Fracking, Coal, and Oil pipelines.

How fucking self-absorbed can you be? A complete lack of empathy for anyone else but yourself and your pet issue.

[wildeyed]

9. I don't even know what she said.

But I am always good for a +1 on a fuck Susan Sarandon thread!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

13. She's worse than Trump

He's an asshole and owns it and is honest about who he is. She's a sanctimonious fraud of a twit. I'm boycotting her for life.

[Blue Idaho]

15. I don't know who she thinks her audience is

But it's sure not hard working progressives living paycheck to paycheck. Her kind of claptrap may go over swimmingly with the Hollywood jet setters - but her complete lack of concern over the dark days of Trump proves only one thing. She doesn't have to worry about Trump because she has so much money - she can fly away from this shit any time it gets uncomfortable.

[bettyellen]

31. People in a bubble of privilege who want to think they're smarter and edgier than middle

And lower class people with actual problems.

[alphafemale]

16. There is nothing much worse than a person unable to admit they were wrong.

You just hand them a shovel, back up and walk away.

[nikibatts]

18. Throw Tulis and Rosarol in with her.

[mulsh]

19. Being contrarian and spewing radical sounding sound bytes isn'y that cool. I watched, I learned

Mostly I learned that she is not a person I'd seek political advice from. Which is a shame because in general I'm aligned with most of her beliefs and values. Unfortunately I'm not aligned with incoherent ramblings of unfocused artists unless they're pursuing their artistic goals. she wasn't but she was not particularly convincing or articulate. I wish Chris had been able to let her cohort speak more.

His message, brief though it was, got through to me.

[BannonsLiver]

21. She's no Meryl Streep, that's for sure. On and off screen.

[not fooled]

34. Lovely pictures of our president

Must comment that those are some nice shots of our president, Scrofulous Steve

[BannonsLiver]

43. I looked for the most unflattering shots I could find

Which WAS NOT hard.

[arthritisR_US]

22. She had this smug look on her face that made me sick!

[elmac]

23. I don't watch corporate taking heads

but if Susan was being mean to them, shame, for shame!

[world wide wally]

25. I was thinking the same thing.

Last edited Thu Feb 16, 2017, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

She is so typical of what John Fugelsang described as the voter who was upset because they didn't get a pony for their birthday.

[Midnight Writer]

27. Susan is in no danger of losing her healthcare, she will get big tax cut, her family

will not be torn apart, she won't lose her home because of Trump

Easy to be pure when you are golden no matter what happens.

[MontanaMama]

28. I saw it. Ridiculous.

I thought Chris Hayes did all right with her. He successfuly pointed out to her after anti fracking comment that now we have a president that will frack all day every day. Lot of good that did, Susan. Bottom line is she's an irrelevant idiot. Boycotting her ass from now on.

[liberalhistorian]

42. A president that not only considers fracking

to be practically a religion, but who is hell bent on eliminating the EPA altogether and whose hellion minions in Congress have just introduced a bill to do just that, terminate and abolish the EPA by the end of this December. I still cannot wrap my head around her thinking that "HRC will be a more dangerous president than Trump." How the HELL did she come up with that? The hell with her and her smug, privileged, myopic ignorant bullshit.

[mr_lebowski]

30. I was kinda obsessed with her body (esp. her boobies) when I was 15, in the early 80's ...

Going to Rocky Horror at midnight movies every weekend ... toucha-toucha-toucha-touch me ... yes, Janet ... yes, please!

And I think she's a good actress overall. Dead Man Walking in particular ...

She can be a bit of dumbass though when she actually opens her mouth offscreen. Sad.

She was alright on Chelsea though recently, didn't piss me off much.

[not fooled]

33. Have convictions

But also have common sense!

And, a sense of duty to your country when the relative merits of the options are clear.

How anyone could hesitate when the choice was so clear is beyond me.

[Cha]

35. Yes, I know.. FO SS.. I would REC any thread that said that.. but

can you be more specific for those without a tv?

Mahalo, mindfulNJ~

[orleans]

38. here

not sure if it is all of it or part of it
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/does-susan-sarandon-still-think-trump-could-bring-the-revolution-878254147749

on edit--
i just watched it.
UGH!

[Cha]

39. Mahalo, orleans.. I won't be watching.. it makes me sick

and I don't need that right now.

Thank youi!

[ConnorMarc]

36. I Don't Watch Chris Hayes

Why?

He's no Ed Shultz.

Eddie was a man of the people.

The instant msnbc decided to demote Eddie for Chris, was the instant Chris became a sour taste in my mouth.

At this point, Joy Reid is the only redeemable thing on msnbc.

And I'm finding myself having the urge to watch CNN.

Note: I've been an AVID and VOCAL hater of "Well, we'll have to leave it there" CNN for over 7 years.

[TomCADem]

41. Ed, Russia Today, Schultz?

He seemed to carrying water for Trump at times, plus he seems to be living large on the Russian payroll with a private plane and all.

[Doremus]

37. Care to be more specific?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/chris-hayes-to-sarandon-did-you-properly-appreciate-what-a-trump-presidency-would-look-like/

I get that you hate Sarandon for dissing Hillary. Is that the sum total of your objection or was there anything else in her remarks that you abhor? Serious question, serious answer please. Thanks.

[BainsBane]

44. I just watched that imbecile on Chris Hayes

She's the biggest fucking hypocrite on the planet. She says don't look for blame and then blames Clinton, who tried to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, while Sarandon insists the poor need to suffer to be "awake." She complains about the status quo that make her obscenely wealthy, while she continues to benefit from disgusting labor exploitation through Loreal. She has no awareness of her own role in economic inequality and global exploitation, nor does she give a fuck about doing anything but pointing fingers at those who try to make the world a better place. Trump is her president, and she is responsible for every person who loses SS, Medicare, and health insurance as a result.

A hell of a lot of people would like the status quo back, but the obscenely rich like Sarandon will continue to be rich regardless. Of course she prefers Trump. Her taxes will be lower. More people will suffer, but she finds their suffering entertaining. She like the rest of her alt right, Vichy collaborators are evil.

[JHan]

47. That's it in a nutshell..

When you're in a position of privilege you can afford to say "the poor need to suffer more so we have the revolution"

I'm getting tired of her "revolution", whatever that means. I'm fairly certain she doesn't even know what that means.

[JCanete]

49. If the biggest issue you had was her delivering the election for people like W and Trump,

then you are barking up the wrong tree. The aversion of our Democrats to seriously deal(as in call it out loudly and uniformly) with money in the media and politics is responsible for bleeding far more votes to the right than lefties who insist on us doing so. You want to make the left the boogie man, as if the Democratic party that we both belong to would look near as progressive without it ...

There are actual reasons to not be a guaranteed vote for any party. You have to make sure the party does not take your vote for granted. I disagree with Sarandon's ultimate choice...as I disagree with the choices of so many of our long-term politicians, who have in my opinion, failed us at many times in history, in many ways...but I have a capacity to disagree with somebody without hating them for it, or assuming that their intentions were the lowest and most self serving of the bunch.

Why do people need so badly to have people to hate?

[BainsBane]

50. Hillary ran on dealing on with money and politics

Those who voted for Stein and Trump voted AGAINST overturning Citizens United and cleaning up dark money. They moved to oppose POLICY tackling money in politics. They chose to stand with fascism and racism and thereby brought about the suffering people are gong through now. To claim otherwise shows no understanding of the policies advanced by the major candidates in the election. They actively worked to undermine campaign finance reform by voting against Clinton.

Jill Stein ran a scam that netted herself $4 million from the vulnerable. To pretend her self-enrichment is some principled stand is ludicrous. She may also have taken illegal contributions from the Russians. We know she took money from their propaganda arm, RT.

Voters have a responsibility to inform themselves. I will not be lectured by those who can't bother to do so. Internet memes are not policy. That some decided Hillary was responsible for a campaign finance system created to undermine her (C United) is a function of willful ignorance, misogyny and perpetration of Russian and GOP propaganda.

Why do they have to hate? You might ask that if those who so despise Hillary Clinton that they chose to stand with the KKK in promoting fascism. Their hatred for a party that refused to put the self-entitled white male bourgeoisie above the non-white male majority led them to promote the current regime of white male supremacy. Families have already been torn apart due to their actions. Many lives will be lost, as they continue to justify the fascist regime they implemented.

I am a Democrat. I do hate racism, misogyny, and fascism, as EVERY decent human being does. I value human life over privilege and ego. I will never apologize for denouncing fascism, ego-based politics, and those who enable, promote, or justify them.

The 2016 election was the equivalent of Germany in 1933. The people you defend chose to ally with fascism. That they justify it through false claims doesn't make their complicity any better. You have a moral choice to make about whether you will continue to defend the Fascist collaboration. That is your decision based on your values, on who you are. This site, however, is not the place to advance those justifications. And you certainly aren't going to convince me to justify fascist collaboration by repeating the uninformed views of self-entitled voters who actively worked to undermine the very issue they claimed to care about.

[NCTraveler]

53. I'm glad this was just bumped up.

I missed your reply here. +1

[BainsBane]

54. I just left it

Thanks.

[JCanete]

55. bull, you could say that about people in the middle of the equation too, if you wanted to use the

right lens(which is all you're doing), and there's way too damn much history to back that up depending on what metric you're using.

Democrats absolutely ran to the right during the nineties and beyond, regardless of whether they've been slowly eeking their way back, DUE TO a louder voice from the left that has been absent for far too long from the mainstream, but you are okay with that, and have no qualms about shifting all blame to hold-outs on the left.

You are okay with them having undermined protections and using language that was harmful to minorities and homosexuals, etc.


If you want to reject everyone who has been a problem for left leaning values, well I'm no fan of that, but at least then you'd be consistent.

[BainsBane]

65. You have a habit of projecting views on to the person you're arguing with

rather than asking. You have no idea what my views on the policies of the 90s are. Your very weak attempt at distraction only highlights your inability to deal with the subject at hand.

The point was not about the ideologically rudderless notion of left and right that consumes the anti-Democratic white bourgeoisie or the history of politics in the 1990s. It was about a clear choice of standing up to fascism. You claim those who ally themselves with the Klan and voted against Democratic policies hold "left values." You don't bother to say what that means, other than your already refuted point that they objected to the role of money in politics--something they against reforming. That you draw some sort of equivalency between the 90s Democratic party--with absolutely no effort to understand the historical context of the era--tells me you don't appreciate or care about the unprecedented situation that our country faces today.

I do not agree that fascism and white supremacy are leftist values. I do not believe that the privileged and wealthy sitting back and enjoying the increased suffering of the poor and vulnerable to satisfy their conception of what is political "awake" is leftism. It is instead exploitative. The problem with a notion of leftist routed entirely in propping up the white male bourgeoisie is that it is ideologically rudderless. They don't orient themselves around an ideology--like Marxism, for example, but focus entirely on self. It's not that they don't have a right to advance their own interests, but the determination that they hold some sort of monopoly on leftism is ludicrous.

Ultimately, however, what matters is not "values" or claims but actions. People are what they do. When people act in ways the enable the rise of authoritarian fascism in America, that is who they are. Fascism is as fascism does.

Back before the left had been purged from US civil society, the Communist Party put their support behind FDR to defeat fascism. They did so not because he was leftist. He wasn't. They did so to fight a common enemy, just as they allied with the Tories in England for the same purpose.

In Nov 2016, the people you call leftists had an opportunity to stop the rise of fascism, but they instead decided to enable it. Many of those people continue to support the Trump regime and insist their singular goal is to stop some mythical reascendency of Hillary Clinton. That has nothing to do with the policies of the 90s, which most of them voted for, but instead an abiding contempt for women. People proud to support Bill Clinton maintain utter contempt for Hillary, despite the fact she ran on decidedly more progressive platform. I categorically reject the notion that the 2016 party wasn't "left" enough for them. Rather, I continue to believe it wasn't white or male enough to suit them, hence their support for Trump.

[JCanete]

68. You are making shit up outright. I didn't claim that people who ally themselves with the clan have

leftwing values, and I have no idea who did, except for you here. That's fucking nuts.

Somebody who chooses to vote for Trump is one thing. Somebody who chooses not to vote for Clinton is entirely another, and you have to know how incredibly dishonest it is to suggest that the latter equates to fascism loving. That's disgusting.

There are no leftists who support Trump. Those are mutually exclusive. You can't be the one thing and still be the other. Sarandon does not support Trump either.

By the way, I'm not attempting to distract, I am very serious that one of the reasons our country is sooo fucked up today is that we decided we couldn't fight corporate interests....that if we couldn't beat them join them. The dumbed down state of our political races isn't simply an accident of popular tastes...it is a product of design. We let the media do it. And Democrats are not clean when it comes to the Wall Street crash or numerous other debacles.

What context about the nineties and 200's forgives this shit for you, but other things are just beyond the pale? I might forgive these politicians too, for choosing expedience, and they may have done it with the best intentions...but we are still paying for it. Trump doesn't happen in a world where we didn't let the money get out of hand.

[still_one]

51. It is because she is a LIAR, a hypocrite, and given access to public airwaves to push her bullshit

[JCanete]

57. seriously, can't be your problem. Clinton has also lied in the past, though I'm not sure which lie

you are referring to regarding Sarandon, but that doesn't make her the Devil either.

Sarandon's "bullshit" was the Dakota access Pipeline, and she made a fucking good point about what the media chooses to cover and not cover, for instance Flint.

[still_one]

62. Her LIE that Hillary is more dangerous than trump. She was wrong in 2000, and she is wrong now.

[BainsBane]

58. In regards to Sarandon

It is perhaps her sadism that I find most repugnant. She is glad to see people "awake" (something she has never been in her life) under Trump, so the election turned out well. Families are being ripped apart, hate crimes are on the rise, and people live in fear of losing basic healthcare and SS. But she enjoys the protests, so that makes it all worth it. The poor and vulnerable are suffering, but Sarandon feels good, so that's all that matters. What kind of person thinks that way? How does that make her any better than the investment bankers who share her tax bracket? And if she cares so much about progressive issues, why does she continue to make many millions as the spokeswoman of a cosmetics company known for horrendous labor exploitation? She promotes the suffering of millions to enrich herself through Loreal, while celebrating increasing misery of the poor and the country's turn to fascism because she enjoys seeing protests.

She proved herself to be embarrassingly uninformed when she was lecturing Dolores Huerta like she was her maid.
She is personally and politically reprehensible.

[JCanete]

59. She was speaking to a public figure. How was she wrong in that exchange anyway? proof would be nice.

As to the sadism, that is your interpretation and not mine, and you should at least keep that in mind. It is not sadistic to think we're headed down a path that is going to cause all of that harm anyway, and to know that its better if people see it as it happens, rather than it slowly occurring in a way that people get accustomed, or else it can continue to be "other people's problem."

The problem is you want to read it your way. You can argue with the argument I laid out, and I think that is fair, and where the energy should go. That was my own logic, so how pray tell is that sadistic? Again, lucky me, I voted for Clinton in the end, otherwise I'd be a "fascist".

As for the cosmetics...no doubt...that's shitty. I wish the people who were speaking to issues would be less problematic. Almost all of them are to some degree. The funny thing is though, that shit is totally okay with people so long as they don't have criticisms for the system, which is really odd to me.

[George II]

64. She wasn't speaking to a public figure, she was screaming AT a public figure, and...

....a public figure that has accomplished a lot more politically than Sarandon.

Regardless of a difference in opinion, there was no need for treating Huerta so disrespectfully.

In case you forgot or aren't familiar with that incident, here it is again:

Is THAT the way to treat anyone?

[JCanete]

66. you posted the video, I watched it..again...where is the screaming that you just claimed?

The best you've got is that she was up close with Dolores, which makes sense since it had to have been really hard for the both of them to hear. What are you objecting to?

Please just admit there was no screaming, and please stop propagating that lie.

[George II]

67. No, I will NOT "admit" that there was no screaming, there was. It's not a lie.

[JCanete]

69. where? not in that video unless I missed it. What minute and second? Otherwise...what the hell?

[George II]

71. Sorry, it's there. As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink it"

[JCanete]

73. George, do I need to post a definition of screaming for you? Hell, how about even yelling? nt

[George II]

75. You can do whatever you want. It was widely reported and is obvious that Sarandon....

...treated Huerta with abject disrespect, and she was vilified for it at the time.

[JCanete]

77. by you guys, yes. Not by everybody. And I don't give a shit what was reported. You just posted the

video, which should kind of speak for itself....but doesn't???

[JCanete]

48. not going with the un-nuanced hatred. It sucks. nt

[QC]

70. You must have hurt somebody's fee fees,

as this post was reported, bizarrely, as a personal attack.

[JCanete]

72. somebody is reporting all of my threads. Literally in the context of me being called a non-democrat

by another poster, my post was flagged and erased.

[QC]

74. That alert was clearly in bad faith, and I flagged it as such. n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Yep, unless she has apologized?

[Progressive dog]

56. Susan Sarandon, gleefully working to elect

Trump and still pretending to be a member of the Democratic party. Anything she has to say is not worth hearing and I sure won't listen.

[ciaobaby]

79. This hate filled post is why dems will continue to lose.

[Progressive dog]

86. That's right because rolling over

for the Sarandons and their ilk has worked so well.

[Nedsdag]

92. Susan Sarandon is not a registered Democrat

Where did you find this information?

[Progressive dog]

93. Since she campaigned for Edwards in the New Hampshire primary

and Kerry's run in 2004, I assumed that she was a Democrat. She pretends to be one often enough.
She was a delegate to the DNC in 2016. She used communications, stolen by Putin's murderous regime, to attack HRC.

[frankieallen]

60. She was a huge liberal...what the hell happened

[ciaobaby]

78. She is still a liberal - maybe something happened to you.

[Charles Bukowski]

81. She's a fucking fraud.

A true progressive would never soft support fascism the way this asshole did.

[ciaobaby]

82. and some progressives reject corportists - just saying

your know, big banks, wall street types....

[Charles Bukowski]

84. Like who? Hillary Clinton?

Does their rejection of her involvement soft-supporting a snake oil salesman like Trump? Does it involve arguing that she's the WORSE than Trump?

Not very progressive of them I must say.

[Adrahil]

94. Oh for fuck's sake!

People Sarandon cannot see the fucking forest for the trees. Fuck her and anyone like her!

[frankieallen]

61. she thinks we would of won over the unemployed white guy over fuckin Fracking???

what a dolt

[LexVegas]

63. Amen. nt

[ciaobaby]

76. Oh for god sake - stop already

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. You stop. Perhaps this isn't the thread for you?

[ciaobaby]

83. Sorry you don't get to pick what posts are for me.

But I understand you only want the opinions of those that agree with you. Just like the folks who watch Fox news.

[NurseJackie]

85. Why are you trying to censor the OP? Perhaps it's you who only wants "opinions of those who agree"

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. Well, from your postings it would seem that this thread is much too distasteful for you. Why....

punish yourself if that's the case?

[mindfulNJ]

88. Wow

Stepped out for a bit and look what happened in here!

I'm actually kind of thrilled because most of my posts sink like stones.

btw I still think Ms. Sarandon is a ridiculous person...sad because I really wanted to watch that Bette Davis vs. Joan Crawford Netflix movie.

[JCanete]

89. yeah, funny how inflammatory posts...um, catch fire. nt

[Rex]

90. Who did she vote for? nt

nt

[Nedsdag]

91. I'm pretty sure Susan returned the favor n/t