Susan Sarandon endorses Stein

[Morphine Prince 109,656]

The 70-year-old actress, a fervent Bernie Sanders supporter, endorsed Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein in a letter Tuesday.

Sarandon writes that she’s been waiting for Hillary Clinton to address important issues including a $15 minimum wage, the legalization of marijuana, the labeling of GMOs and offshore drilling.

“It's clear a third party is necessary and viable at this time. And this is the first step in accomplishing this end,” Sarandon wrote.

“Fear of Donald Trump is not enough for me to support Clinton, with her record of corruption. Now that Trump is self-destructing, I feel even those in swing states have the opportunity to vote their conscience.”

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/bernie-sanders-supporter-susan-sarandon-endorses-jill-stein-article-1.2854577

 

[badgalriri 1,124]

this is embarrassing. but not as embarrassing as Jill Stein. smh Susan Sarandon

 

just vote for trump if you're going to waste your vote like that

[FATCAT 60,888]

It's true, Clinton's problems are not to be overlooked. She may be winning, and she might win by a landslide, but only as the alternate to Trump. Against any other Republican, Clinton would be losing.

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

Girl bye. At this point not supporting Hillary is like supporting Trump. 

The country isn't going to suddenly have this huge epiphany and vote for Stein within the next week. You de lu lu??

[manicholic 3,694]

Oh Susan this is so embarrassing 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

30 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

It's true, Clinton's problems are not to be overlooked. She may be winning, and she might win by a landslide, but only as the alternate to Trump. Against any other Republican, Clinton would be losing.

That's true, but I feel like that's because the Republican has their basket of deplorables who are so vulnerable that all they have to say is "EMAIL!" and "BENGHAZI!" and "OBAMA(care)!" and they rush to the polls to stop the devil that is Hillary Clinton  I think these aren't really problems, just easy votes and catchphrases that are not as significant as they appear... Other than some quite centrist policies and not most spot-free track record (which isn't irregular or anything), shes still quite a strong, competent candidate for president and highly qualified, way more than any one else who ran on the Republican party. Yes, she has problems, but her actual political differences and stances aren't what are costing her votes in this election, its vastly media obfuscation and political polarization   

(Which is why I think Susan Sarandon is full of it, but she can vote however she wants  )

Versus any other candidate, she also has name recognition and just pure accomplishment + policy generally on her side, it's impossible to say how much Right-wing (mainstream) media would have dragged her name in the mud if Donald Trump wasn't the forerunner. Like, yes, her emails are pretty much the only truly concrete thing they have on her and they even made those a bigger deal than they really are, but Donald was kind of paramount in spreading this. He relied on his strong cult-of-personality to grant him the ability to literally blatantly lie and expect people to believe him  

Could Jeb Bush or Kasich or Carson have kept that game up for this long? Kasich seemed like a more central pragmatist, Bush was well, a Bush () and Carson was black but stupid  Even with fox news and right-winged media + internet behind them, I'm not sure if they'd have been able to utilize those tools to the same effect Trump has. He's a peculiar case in those regards.

I think there are too many factors at play to say that she would outright just be losing now vs any other Republican. People have wanted Hillary to run since 2013, if not earlier, because she's always been a politically strong candidate and many people have recognized how good of a president she would be for several years. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

That's true, but I feel like that's because the Republican has their basket of deplorables who are so vulnerable that all they have to say is "EMAIL!" and "BENGHAZI!" and "OBAMA(care)!" and they rush to the polls to stop the devil that is Hillary Clinton  I think these aren't really problems, just easy votes and catchphrases that are not as significant as they appear... Other than some quite centrist policies and not most spot-free track record (which isn't irregular or anything), shes still quite a strong, competent candidate for president and highly qualified, way more than any one else who ran on the Republican party. Yes, she has problems, but her actual political differences and stances aren't what are costing her votes in this election, its vastly media obfuscation and political polarization   

(Which is why I think Susan Sarandon is full of it, but she can vote however she wants  )

Versus any other candidate, she also has name recognition and just pure accomplishment + policy generally on her side, it's impossible to say how much Right-wing (mainstream) media would have dragged her name in the mud if Donald Trump wasn't the forerunner. Like, yes, her emails are pretty much the only truly concrete thing they have on her and they even made those a bigger deal than they really are, but Donald was kind of paramount in spreading this. He relied on his strong cult-of-personality to grant him the ability to literally blatantly lie and expect people to believe him  

Could Jeb Bush or Kasich or Carson have kept that game up for this long? Kasich seemed like a more central pragmatist, Bush was well, a Bush () and Carson was black but stupid  Even with fox news and right-winged media + internet behind them, I'm not sure if they'd have been able to utilize those tools to the same effect Trump has. He's a peculiar case in those regards.

I think there are too many factors at play to say that she would outright just be losing now vs any other Republican. People have wanted Hillary to run since 2013, if not earlier, because she's always been a politically strong candidate and many people have recognized how good of a president she would be for several years. 

Since 2004 actually...  

 

[SKANK 14,288]

If you live in a state that is decidedly Clinton territory, as Susan Sarandon does, voting for a third party candidate doesn't make Clinton's chances of winning that state any less viable. In other words, a vote for Stein is not beneficial to Trump if you are voting in California.

Voting for a third party candidate will help give federal funding to that party in the next presidential election, which is vitally important considering how deeply unpopular the two major party candidates are in this election.

Susan Sarandon is voting for a candidate that most accurately represents her political beliefs. That is respectable.

The ignorance and lack of respect for other people's political beliefs is off the ****ing charts on this site.

[KleinGa 18,177]

On 11/2/2016 at 0:35 PM, DiscoHeaven23 said:

Girl bye. At this point not supporting Hillary is like supporting Trump. 

The country isn't going to suddenly have this huge epiphany and vote for Stein within the next week. You de lu lu??

 

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!

 

[AJH219 4,448]

On November 2, 2016 at 2:16 AM, SKANK said:

If you live in a state that is decidedly Clinton territory, as Susan Sarandon does, voting for a third party candidate doesn't make Clinton's chances of winning that state any less viable. In other words, a vote for Stein is not beneficial to Trump if you are voting in California.

Voting for a third party candidate will help give federal funding to that party in the next presidential election, which is vitally important considering how deeply unpopular the two major party candidates are in this election.

Susan Sarandon is voting for a candidate that most accurately represents her political beliefs. That is respectable.

The ignorance and lack of respect for other people's political beliefs is off the ****ing charts on this site.

It's a typical tactic of the extreme liberals. They throw pity parties and play the victim when their views are questioned. But they virtually get off on and see it as acceptable when they start spewing equally antagonizing comments to those who dare think differently. Not saying I haven't done the same, cause I have; but this pattern is certainly something I've noticed with this election. 

[lego 44,165]

Queen Susan.