Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Susan Sarandon supported Ralph Nader in 2000 with the SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT

Susan Sarandon supported Ralph Nader in 2000 with the SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT that a vote for Gore was the same as a vote for George W. Bush.

What she ended up doing was encouraging people rather intensely to vote for The wars in Iraq, more environmental decline including increased fracking and accelerated climate change, The greatest intelligence failure of any sitting president. ever. further deregulation of the financial industry resulting in a recession and more damage done to unions than in the past 75 years combined.

WELL DONE Susan. Michael Moore also whose very fine documentary about the lead up to the stupid and illegal Iraq war left out one interesting detail: He was saying the same things as Sarandon at the time and is saying them today..

How about really getting on the right side of history this time Susan? Learn fucking something from the recent past will ya?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3403/30/2016

Marry me, OP!!!

Let's not forget Michael Moore also made another excellent movie called Bowling for Columbine, which cemented him in the firmament of Iconic political filmmakers. I remind Michael on twitter every chance I get, that he is supporting Bernie Sanders, who is not only in favor of our 2nd Amendment rights, but has voted against Brady 5 times, voted to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, and voted to block funding for the CDC to study gun violence. And by the way: The guy who is out here ranting about Wall Street bankers, voted FOR Wall Street deregulation. More to OP's point, Bernie also voted FOR the Iraq War twice, giving Bush the unlimited power to prosecute the war and for the money to fund the war. We could talk about Bernie's vote against immigration reform, or his attempts to ship toxic waste to impoverished Latino communities in Texas, like Sierra Blanca, but why would anyone care about Bernie's record when he articulates our "anger" so well.

by Anonymousreply 103/30/2016

Yes, and Nader cost Gore the election by drawing votes away from Gore, and we had eight years of the monster George W. Bush as a result of it.

by Anonymousreply 203/30/2016

This is why Susan will go to her grave without a man.

Birch enabled the Rove/Cheney Era of terror.

by Anonymousreply 303/30/2016

When will the Democratic Party establishment ever learn? The party has sold out to corporate interests and moved rightward so far that it has lost the left. They mistaIf you don't care about those blocs (Nader voters, Sanders voters), and don't represent their views and values any more, then of course they will defect to a third party or just not vote, and thereby cause the Dem candidate to lose the election. I thought they had learned that lesson from the loss to Bush. Here we have it all over again: the establishment Dem candidate represents, and will do the bidding of, Wall Street and corporate America, to serve the big-money donors financing her campaign. Just as the Clintons have always done. And again the party is abandoning its traditional base, and losing voters to another candidate. It assumes they "have no place else to go" but 2000 proved they did, and enough of them did go. Now the party is setting itself up for the same scenario...

by Anonymousreply 403/30/2016

[quote] Yes, and Nader cost Gore the election by drawing votes away from Gore, and we had eight years of the monster George W. Bush as a result of it.

Absolutely correct. In two states ultimately won by Bush, Florida and New Hampshire, Nader received more votes than the margin of difference between Bush and Gore.

In FL, before they stopped the counting, Gore was trailing by 537 votes, which is less than Nader AND 7 other fringe candidates received.

I've always told my fellow Democrats, 'In the primary, you can fall in love, but in the general, you'd better fall in line'.

by Anonymousreply 503/30/2016

R4 that's very nice in theory, but don't forget that there are enough people on the other side who WILL hold their nose and vote for the Republican, so unless we all unite behind the ultimate Democratic candidate, we will have a President Trump or a President Cruz.

And you will never convince me, that Cruz or Trump would in any way be better for this country than Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 603/30/2016

This article should be read by every dumb fuck loony Sanders supporter who goes on about Clinton, Trump and Cruz being "the same".

by Anonymousreply 703/30/2016

[quote] Here we have it all over again: the establishment Dem candidate represents, and will do the bidding of, Wall Street and corporate America, to serve the big-money donors financing her campaign. Just as the Clintons have always done.

No sane person will argue the influence of Wall Street and corporate interests hold too much power in our political process. WAY too much power and this is clearly to the detriment of the majority of Americans.

However, what all the protest candidates like Nader and Sanders & their supporters don't calculate in the equation is the OPPOSITION to reform, mostly from the Republican party and base that has to be dealt with. If we could wave a wand and have all the tea party freaks and hard core trickle downers vanish, we would fucking do that but the reality is they are here to stay and must be dealt with.

IF you were able to stage your "revolution" suspending the status quo completely, all those forces have an opportunity to move in and make even worse policies than the ones that are in place now.

Further, the idiots calling for a "revolution" don't have any real visceral understanding of what being in a true political revolt means and what the cost will be to their daily, SVU, Starbucks, daily lives. Its all just masterbation and posturing from people who are in no way prepared to make a revolution happen.

We need intelligent, progressive reform and immediate relief for people who have been suffering for a long long time. Sanders does not have the temper or the will or the experience to negotiate these gains, so he reverts to the cattle call of a "revolution" and all the sheep put down their kashi cereal bowls and blindly buy the package.

by Anonymousreply 803/30/2016

Sarandon is a fucking moron. I've never liked her, tbh.

I understand why some people want and crave 3rd party candidates, but they still just fuck everything up. Maybe if both the Dems and Repubs split up and we had 4 parties, things could be different. It will be interesting to see what the Republican party does after this cycle, as I truly think they are guaranteed to lose the White House and perhaps the House. They are in a lot of trouble.

by Anonymousreply 903/30/2016

R4, WTF makes you think Bernie is not "establishment?" Look at his fucking voting record. Aside from some showy "protest votes" his votes to deregulate Wall Street, against Gun Control, and anti Immigration Reform are pretty establishment to me, as are his votes to support the President on the Iraq war. Posing is one thing, I judge people on what they do.

e is exploiting and agitating voter frustration, but he is leading them no where. I'm glad voters have pushed Hillary to the Left by popularizing Bernie's latest pronouncements. It's the voters Hillary is listening to, not Bernie. He's been saying shit for 25 years with nothing to show for it. I have no problem with a Liberal candidate, but Bernie is not the guy.

Bernie is a fraud, and he is aided and abetted by the Republicans. Rule #1 is pick your opponent. The GOP is doing that. They are in disarray with their candidates, but they have the Koch brothers and Karl Rove's superpacs pouring money into anti Hillary activity at every level. And the level of Nixonian dirty tricks Tad Devine is perpetuating reiforce the GOP. Remember, Tad Devine ran Kerry's campaign into the ground.

by Anonymousreply 1003/30/2016

[quote] Sarandon is a fucking moron. I've never liked her, tbh.

I don't agree with her vis a vis Bernie Sanders, but I always thought she had great taste in choosing to fuck Tim Robbins.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1103/30/2016

She's a fucking pothead. This is what drugs do to your brain cells.

by Anonymousreply 1203/30/2016

Dan Savage who came on right after her interview summed her up as batshit crazy. It was hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 1303/30/2016

Susan Sarandon > Everyone whining about Susan Sarandon

by Anonymousreply 1403/30/2016

Saradon has stated that she will not vote for Hillary Clinton if HC gets the nomination. She'd rather vote for Trump as she claims a Trump presidency will hasten the revolution because the masses will rise up when Trump's policies are put into action.

Such a very dangerous and naïve position. If Bernie doesn't drop out soon and convince his followers to vote for Clinton in the general its going to be 2000 all over again.

by Anonymousreply 1503/30/2016

[quote]Such a very dangerous and naïve position. If Bernie doesn't drop out soon and convince his followers to vote for Clinton in the general its going to be 2000 all over again.

He's never going to that. Well, not unless his long list of demands are met.

by Anonymousreply 1603/30/2016

the split vote on the left allowed Bush to come up the middle and win. Voting Green takes votes away from the Dems

by Anonymousreply 1703/30/2016

Well, I wouldn't have voted for Sarandon to win any of her Oscar nominations, so...

If Streep had to have a 3rd Oscar (2nd in lead), it should have been for Bridges of Madison County instead of The Iron Lady. Jessica Lange, Emma Thompson, and Jodie Foster definitely deserved their wins over Sarandon in 1994, 1992, and 1991. And don't even get me started on Atlantic City. I'm not crazy about Katharine Hepburn's win that year, but I would still give it to her, Streep, or especially Diane Keaton (Reds) over Sarandon.

by Anonymousreply 1803/30/2016

This is what happens when “Democrats” insist on nominating a Wall Street candidate who alienates The Left: They blame The Left rather than the party.

Ralph Nader ran because he wanted to be president of the United States. He was not obligated to get Al Gore elected; Al Gore was obligated to get Al Gore elected.

Between the two major politicial parties, they create an abusive connection with the voter which reminds one of an abusive household in which Daddy (Republicans) are violent and Mommy (Democrats) are enabled. Once the child (a voter, as viewed by Democrats) is ready to not take any more, Democrats do all they can to shame the voter into staying — “Daddy [Republicans] will ruin us.”

Why is it the only consistent, kickass strength the Democratic Party routinely has is in playing Mommy?

by Anonymousreply 1903/30/2016

I never understood why anyone would listen to Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Arnold or any other actor regarding politics. Nader did give us Bush, that is a fact. Hopefully all of Bernie's supporters (and Bernie himself) come to their senses. Yeah, Clinton is a very corporate candidate, but she is the most qualified after being a senator, Sec of State and First Lady. She has dealt with the major players/world leaders for years. She knows their strengths and weaknesses. She also knows how to handle Republican bullshit from hard experience. These young kids supporting Bernie don't remember the Clinton years. The were pretty good, most folks could find a job then. Way better than Reagan, Bush 1, Bush2 or Obama's time in office..........Though not a perfect choice, Hillary is the BEST choice in this election.

by Anonymousreply 2003/30/2016

Debra Messing ‏@DebraMessing 11h11 hours ago Susan Sarandon muses tht Trump prezcy wud b better 4 the country thn Hillary.Wonder if she'd say that if she were poor,gay,Muslim or immgrnt

by Anonymousreply 2103/30/2016

[quote] Ralph Nader ran because he wanted to be president of the United States. He was not obligated to get Al Gore elected; Al Gore was obligated to get Al Gore elected.

Ralph Nader ran for the enhancement of his own ego knowing full well that his candidacy aided and abetted only the war criminal Bush into office.

What he didn't have was the foresight to determine the extent of the damage Bush would do and lacking that insight, he disqualifies himself, proving him unfit for the Presidency.

You can run against everything wrong when deep down you know you don't have the tools, disposition or skills to make anything right. Nader knew he could never win but he could win attention and the robe of a noble martyr.

by Anonymousreply 2203/30/2016

Susan needs to do something about those droopy titties of hers. We're concerned.

by Anonymousreply 2303/30/2016

No one on this board cares about Susan's old tits!

by Anonymousreply 2403/30/2016

To be honest, she's not completely off in this case: the Repubs have so much dirt on Hillary (if you thought that they REALLY hated Obama, just wait to see what happens if she gets elected) that she will have to play the appeasement game with them every fucking time, plus it's not a secret that she loves corporate money. I mean, remove the Mormon aspect of someone like Mitt Romney and the baggage that comes with it, and you've got Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, if Trump by some miracle gets elected, he'll drop a lot of his populist rhetoric. Do you honestly believe that he himself believes in even a tenth of the shit he's been saying??

by Anonymousreply 2503/30/2016

[quote]To be honest, she's not completely off in this case: the Repubs have so much dirt on Hillary

Oh, please. If they had any dirt on her they'd have used it. They have nothing. If you meant to say that they're in the process of trying to manufacture dirt on her, then by all means.

by Anonymousreply 2603/30/2016

You know there is a school of thought, and Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Bernie Sanders, and Ralph Nader personify it, that wants "revolution," they want to tear everything down, and consider government the enemy. ( In that regard, they have a lot in common with the extreme Right. Those militia guys in Oklahoma City considered government the enemy too.)

I find it interesting that they're so destructive and so negative while taking for granted the very government that defends and protects their right to dissent, among other things. A woman I used to work with was Tea Party do or die. She had asthma, and couldn't wait until her Medicare kicked in so she could afford her prescription inhaler.

This country gives us a lot. Yes, we have a shit ton of problems, and we are flawwed, and we can get ugly with one another. I know that. But we are aware of our short comings and we fight for change. All change is incremental. We are continuously contesting and pushing to be better, fairer, etc. I want my government to be better. I don't want to "tear it down.

I don't want these faux Trotskyite anarchists to pander to stupid young people who don't even realize what they have. Bernie has repeatedly said he wanted to tear down the Democratic Party. And now Susan with her bullshit. For decades we were force fed the notion that our democracy was threatened from the Left. But it is the Right that threatens our Democracy and they use the naive Lefties to do it.

Bernie proposes things that are unoriginal and unworkable. He does nothing to insure he will have support in Congress. Nothing. And it wouldn't even matter, bcz he'd be at odds with any Congress, he is such a purist. He has never worked well with his colleagues. Susan and Michael propose no solutions. They 're just gleefully destructive and seem attracted to anyone who appears to satisfy their need for reducing things to rubble. They're fools with enormous egos who think they have a platform to convince millions to follow them over the cliff. Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, and Bernie Sanders are all wealthy enough and famous enough to weather the storm of destruction they embrace for the rest of us. Fuck them.

by Anonymousreply 2703/30/2016

[quote]Susan and Michael propose no solutions. They 're just gleefully destructive and seem attracted to anyone who appears to satisfy their need for reducing things to rubble.

So what you're saying is that they're all career antagonists.

by Anonymousreply 2803/30/2016

Sarandon was a twat on Jimmy Fallon's show last night.

by Anonymousreply 2903/30/2016

Hilary "Blacks Kids Are Super Predators" Clinton will NEVER be President.

by Anonymousreply 3003/30/2016

R10, addressing R4, writes,

[quote]WTF makes you think Bernie is not "establishment?" Look at his fucking voting record. Aside from some showy "protest votes" his votes to deregulate Wall Street, against Gun Control, and anti Immigration Reform are pretty establishment to me, as are his votes to support the President on the Iraq war. Posing is one thing, I judge people on what they do.

Refer to the link, R10.

And stop lying about the rest.

[quote]Bernie is a fraud, and he is aided and abetted by the Republicans. Rule #1 is pick your opponent. The GOP is doing that. They are in disarray with their candidates, but they have the Koch brothers and Karl Rove's superpacs pouring money into anti Hillary activity at every level. And the level of Nixonian dirty tricks Tad Devine is perpetuating reiforce the GOP. Remember, Tad Devine ran Kerry's campaign into the ground.

You're a fraud, R10.

Go become a Republican officially and get the fuck out of the Democratic Party! You're a supreme example of its contamination. You're pond scum.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3103/30/2016

I forgot the link.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3203/30/2016

Susan Sarandon is an ok actress but no one is going to vote or not vote for Trump because Silly Susan told them what to do. Who cares what she said. On the other hand why is a so called news organization asking her for a political opinion?

by Anonymousreply 3303/30/2016

[quote] I mean, remove the Mormon aspect of someone like Mitt Romney and the baggage that comes with it, and you've got Hillary Clinton.

Right. Because Hillary has repeatedly promised, as Mittens did, to 'replace and repeal Obamacare'

And Romney's position on marriage equality is exactly the same as Clinton's.

Not to mention a woman's right to choose, immigration reform (remember 'self-deportation'?), climate change, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc, etc, etc.

Do you really think we're that stupid?

by Anonymousreply 3403/30/2016
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!