Sarandon: Hillary more dangerous than Trump

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Didymus said:

I just replied to you offering counter-arguments and then you ****ing had to jump at me saying I have a victim complex

Well yes I was referring to how you assumed that I was twisting your words to make a point. I don't do that. I was making a joke regarding what I had said regarding relevance. Those were MY words, not yours.

Just now, Didymus said:

And then I'm a hypocrite too for some lucrious reason you patched up, completely without accurate reference to the conversation.

You mean ludicrous?

Well no you were being hypocritical by telling me to not characterize you based on what I read off the forums, while characterizing me based on what you read about what others say on the forums. You don't see it?

Just now, Didymus said:

So no, that's not "all there is to it". If that's what was up, then you would've written completely different stuff. This act of yours is getting very tiresome. Don't ****ing bring up my off-topic personal views to diss me, don't twist my posts to be able to pretend you're "winning", 

Who's trying to win?

Can't people have a conversation without a winner?

And how is mentioning your anarchist beliefs regarding a potential Trump presidency irrelevant? It very much ties into what Sarandon is saying in that Trump has an unpredictable presidency. 

I'm sorry but context is context irrespective of the thread. You're accountable for what you say and I will bring it up if I find it appropriate. I may not know you, but I know what you write.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well yes I was referring to how you assumed that I was twisting your words to make a point. I don't do that. I was making a joke regarding what I had said regarding relevance. Those were MY words, not yours.

I already said I didn't and couldn't know that was just a joke.

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well no you were being hypocritical by telling me to not characterize you based on what I read off the forums, while characterizing me based on what you read about what others say on the forums. You don't see it?

I don't see it because you made a direct false statement about me when I didn't. In my experience (my OWN experience) you do twist things (and I've told you this multiple times) and today I saw that other people call you out for the same. So thats' not an unwarranted accusation, clearly, especially when it just happened

Besides, I ****ing told you an hour ago I didn't identify as an anarchist and I've told you before, so that "you've admitted" bs is just ****ing idiotic.

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Who's trying to win?

Can't people have a conversation without a winner?

Don't slam that back at me, I'm not trying to win here, I'm just trying to defend myself after you called me ****ing names and pretended I was doing something wrong when I was just explaining why Susan's opinion is not irrelevant. It's not more relevant than others, but it's logical for threads to be made when she says something about politics, she's had important things to say in the past.

If you don't agree, then tackle her arguments, don't slam her for being irrelevant, stupid and blind without properly argumenting why.

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

And how is mentioning your anarchist beliefs regarding a potential Trump presidency irrelevant? It very much ties into what Sarandon is saying in that Trump has an unpredictable presidency. 

I'm sorry but context is context irrespective of the thread. You're accountable for what you say and I will bring it up if I find it appropriate. I may not know you, but I know what you write.

So I can't say you're twisting things based on the claim that I know what you write, but you can call me naive for knowing what I write. What was that about hypocrisy again?

It was irrelevant because I had made no statement about her being right or not. I was just happy her opinion was being posted because it's very fruitful for discussions and I personally adore her. That link between unpredictable presidency and anarchy is ridiculous, I hope you know that. Esp. when you then admit that context is irrelevant anyway. I never claimed to support "anarchy" whatever the **** that's supposed to be in your imagination, it's not like it exists in one form, so you slamming me for supporting whatever hell you went through is just completely out of line.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

I respect her opinion, and many of the reasons she's not for Hillary are the reasons I was very much pro-Sanders over Hillary till that Ship sank  

But I don't think she is as dangerous as Trump, because even if Trump is a flip-flopper with no real policy or agenda (  ) He's running as a Republican, and that means he will have the Republican party up his ass and eventually adopt their agenda. He might fight it some, but he will have to compromise on some things if he wants to get things done, (though currently it looks like the party is acquiescing to him because hes the nominee ) and that's more dangerous in my mind. 

Just my two cents

[Redstreak 6,653]

20 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Re-read the damn convo, man. I just replied to you offering counter-arguments and then you ****ing had to jump at me saying I have a victim complex simply for calling you out on twisting the convo just so you can make one of your stupid "silly statements" again. And oh that's not enough, I'm also naive for personal views that have NOTHING to do with this thread or my posts in it. And then I'm a hypocrite too for some ludicrous reason you patched up, completely without accurate reference to the conversation.

So no, that's not "all there is to it". If that's what was up, then you would've written completely different stuff. This act of yours is getting very tiresome. Don't ****ing bring up my off-topic personal views to diss me, don't twist my posts to be able to pretend you're "winning", don't call me a hypocrite when you don't have anything to base it on, don't act like you're not attacking people when you're dragging personal stuff into it when it's not necessary.

Pretentious and infuriating, isn't it?

[FATCAT 60,973]

1 hour ago, ZacharyMark said:

Does anyone one how likely she will get indicted or not? If so, then why would we want her as a candidate? I'm just asking. 

No one knows. It's all speculation. But considering the IG report, the immunity for the server admin, his pleading of the 5th in other cases, and general drips from the case, it seems likely that they've got something. Whether it's an indictment or not, we'll never know until they release the recommendation. I wouldn't be surprised.

[Morphine Prince 109,997]

She's clearly delusional but she isn't irrelevant

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

33 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

She's clearly delusional but she isn't irrelevant

 

Queen Debra Messing spoke out against her before.

Her spelling though

Then Queen Jamie Lee Curtis came in

Then irrelevant Sarandon said this

Then Messing was like

 

Celebrity drama  

Too bad they're all irrelevant  

[TiphEret 1,320]

I think she is a bit emotionnal in her response but calling her irrelevant... I mean, then everyone is irrelevant, literally everyone's opinion. This is a lame tactic to dismiss someone's opinion without actually basing it on content.

I think Trump is dangerous because he is appealing to a public that will get worse and worse in their hatred and that's quite an issue... what will come after him if he is elected. I mean after his presidency? 

I don't like Hillary because I feel she is fake but I don't know if she is more dangerous than Trump though.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

20 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

I think she is a bit emotionnal in her response but calling her irrelevant... I mean, then everyone is irrelevant, literally everyone's opinion. This is a lame tactic to dismiss someone's opinion without actually basing it on content.

Well I know this is directed at me, but the funny bit is that I never actually cared her irrelevant to begin with. but readers here tend to lack reading comprehension so I went along with it for a bit of fun   That post before yours makes it all the more clear I was not being serious.  

My original relevant post: "Should I start posting opinions about irrelevant people on the street now?"

If people want to assume that I'm implying she's irrelevant, well then that's their problem  I merely stated that because her opinion is not formed from any more wisdom than anyone else's. It is not worth a thread when she has no standing in the campaigns and is not a credible media specialist. She's just a celebrity and celebrities have no more legitimate opinions than random people on the street. Yes we are irrelevant. We don't get our own threads in World News.

Yes she has some political background, but I'd hardly call it unbiased or an actual cause for legitimacy in argumentation. 

You don't see threads popping up every time a celebrity endorses someone. Well... at least not Clinton ones. Gaga is clearly the exception. This is her forum after all 

In any case, the actual argument I presented was that she has stated herself that she does not care to understand what Trump stands for because she assumes that he won't be taken seriously.

What she completely forgets is that the president has far more relevance than policy implementation. Trump will nominate a Supreme Court justice (and potentially many more) for lifetime appointments. Appointments that will transcend more than a few presidencies. Appointments that will shape the path the USA takes in its liberal progress. Something that any liberal should actively work against, not for.

With the currently Republican-dominated congress, any advancements made through Obama can very, very easily be reversed. All advancements will be significantly more harder to attain, from transgender rights and anti-discrimination to immigration and internal affairs.

The interesting issue that she ignores is that Trump is not flip flopping on his stances for the benefit of any liberal. He started out with supposed liberal to moderate ideologies with few conservative ones and has now flip flopped to completely conservative ones. There is no indication that he will ever revert to liberal ones in a display of flip flop. He will remain as a Republican, will act independently or as a puppet to Republican interests, and will undermine liberal ideologies every step of the way.

On top of that, you have foreign affairs which can be VERY HARD to repair once the damage is done. A Trump presidency would all but guarantee the alienation of many heads of state and governments, from Mexico to Germany. This can NOT be taken lightly.

Furthermore, she completely undermines anything Clinton does by employing extreme hyperbole typically reserved for Bernie bots.

For all these reasons, her opinion is null and void, and is as irrelevant as they come. It is based on misinformation, missing context, and extreme bias.

 

 

[TiphEret 1,320]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well I know this is directed at me, but the funny bit is that I never actually cared her irrelevant to begin with. but readers here tend to lack reading comprehension so I went along with it for a bit of fun   That post before yours makes it all the more clear I was not being serious.  

My original relevant post: "Should I start posting opinions about irrelevant people on the street now?"

If people want to assume that I'm implying she's irrelevant, well then that's their problem  I merely stated that because her opinion is not formed from any more wisdom than anyone else's. It is not worth a thread when she has no standing in the campaigns and is not a credible media specialist. She's just a celebrity and celebrities have no more legitimate opinions than random people on the street. Yes we are irrelevant. We don't get our own threads in World News.

Yes she has some political background, but I'd hardly call it unbiased or an actual cause for legitimacy in argumentation. 

You don't see threads popping up every time a celebrity endorses someone. Well... at least not Clinton ones. Gaga is clearly the exception. This is her forum after all 

In any case, the actual argument I presented was that she has stated herself that she does not care to understand what Trump stands for because she assumes that he won't be taken seriously.

What she completely forgets is that the president has far more relevance than policy implementation. Trump will nominate a Supreme Court justice (and potentially many more) for lifetime appointments. Appointments that will transcend more than a few presidencies. Appointments that will shape the path the USA takes in its liberal progress. Something that any liberal should actively work against, not for.

With the currently Republican-dominated congress, any advancements made through Obama can very, very easily be reversed. All advancements will be significantly more harder to attain, from transgender rights and anti-discrimination to immigration and internal affairs.

The interesting issue that she ignores is that Trump is not flip flopping on his stances for the benefit of any liberal. He started out with supposed liberal to moderate ideologies with few conservative ones and has now flip flopped to completely conservative ones. There is no indication that he will ever revert to liberal ones in a display of flip flop. He will remain as a Republican, will act independently or as a puppet to Republican interests, and will undermine liberal ideologies every step of the way.

On top of that, you have foreign affairs which can be VERY HARD to repair once the damage is done. A Trump presidency would all but guarantee the alienation of many heads of state and governments, from Mexico to Germany. This can NOT be taken lightly.

Furthermore, she completely undermines anything Clinton does by employing extreme hyperbole typically reserved for Bernie bots.

For all these reasons, her opinion is null and void, and is as irrelevant as they come. It is based on misinformation, missing context, and extreme bias.

 

 

I don't understand why she isn't worth a thread, I mean look at the world section, nothing is worth a thread if we follow your logic. You can find her opinion ridiculous, but relevance is a gray area here and you know it! You do make some interesting point regarding point. But about foreign affairs what do you think regarding Sarandon allegation about Hilary and Iran? I mean we know she is not their friend for sure and the way USA has dealt with Iran has been quite a mess since... nearly forever so I don't see how she would do anything remotely good in that case, so Sarandon might be correct about that. You are quite positive regarding her interventionism but this is very debatable actually! It's not entirely the US fault anyways, they just took over from France and Britain that made a great mess before them anyways.

Also my post was not a personal attack to you  more a "you can do better than using such argument" thing

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

I don't understand why she isn't worth a thread, I mean look at the world section, nothing is worth a thread if we follow your logic. You can find her opinion ridiculous, but relevance is a gray area here and you know it! You do make some interesting point regarding point. But about foreign affairs what do you think regarding Sarandon allegation about Hilary and Iran? I mean we know she is not their friend for sure and the way USA has dealt with Iran has been quite a mess since... nearly forever so I don't see how she would do anything remotely good in that case, so Sarandon might be correct about that. You are quite positive regarding her interventionism but this is very debatable actually! It's not entirely the US fault anyways, they just took over from France and Britain that made a great mess before them anyways.

Dealing with the Middle East is always a mess, because our countries are messes. Nothing you can do with them is reliable because the countries in that region are determined to **** themselves over in the name of religious and political ideologies.

And no, American intervention in the area is the only reason there is still any semblance of stability in the region. Sure, Bush started the domino effect but the USA is the only thing keeping it from falling apart. Without the USA, Iran and Saudi relations would immediately sour and boil, Syria will never regain its identity, Lebanese Christians would be greatly threatened by Hezbollah, among other things. ALL OF THESE tie in with dealings with Iran.

So in short, American intervention ignited SOME of the problems that were already smoldering, but is now one of the few things keeping the firestorm in check, ones that countries like Iran are all too willing to abuse to further their own agendas at the expense of everyone else's.

----

Regarding thread-worthiness, most of the posts in World News are facts, statements from the campaigns, or opinions of established and credible media personnel.

It's my opinion upon reading her views and previous statements that Susan Sarandon has no idea what she's talking about and is entirely dismissive of the facts due to her obsession with Sanders that borders on the mentally unhinged.

[Goosey 3,017]

 

Academy Award-winning actor and ardent Bernie Sanders campaigner Susan Sarandon spoke out against Hillary Clinton, saying that her presidency could prove “more dangerous” than Donald Trump’s. In an appearance on The Young Turks, Sarandon criticised Ms Clinton on her foreign policy positions. She also conveyed that she does not take seriously Mr Trump’s sensational promises to build a wall along the southern border and bar Muslim immigration into the US.

“I believe in a way she is more dangerous,” Sarandon suggested, responding to questions about the Clinton campaign calling her Republican rival “dangerous”. 

“She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things … and very callously. I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

She continued: “I’m not worried about a wall being built. He is not going to get rid of every Muslim in this country. ...  I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from, and I do know that she is not transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it.” 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/susan-sarandon-hillary-clinton-more-dangerous-donald-trump-a7064826.html

[SISTERV 3,887]

Yaaaaaaaaaas call Crooked Hillary out! Told y'all there would be Bernie supporters that would never cross over for her. They even like Trump more. 

[bionic 50,111]

AP

 

[Goosey 3,017]

8 minutes ago, bionic said:

AP

These threads are posted at record pace, I can't keep up