Showing posts with label dan savage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dan savage. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Susan Sarandon Likes Trump Over Hillary

photo Thelma and Louise Car Gif.gif

Previous Related Posts:
Bernie Camp Blames Hillary for AZ Loss
Bernie Gives Hillary the Hand of Silence
Polls and Predictions for Hillary and Bernie on Super Tuesday
Hillary Landslide in South Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many supporters of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders have taken the hashtag #BernieOrBust literally and absolutely refuse to consider Hillary Clinton as a viable alternative, even if she wins the Democratic nomination. At least that is what they are vowing in numerous tweets and multiple diaries a day on Daily Kos.









Some have labeled Hillary a criminal, a warmonger, a kiss-up to Wall Street and other things too horrible to mention here. Some even attack her for being a woman, and her supporters as "Hill-bots in love with vaginas," as if women aware of their gender are not allowed in the Democratic Party anymore. We can't possibly be allowed to enjoy the idea of the first woman President, because that is putting lady-parts ahead of the Revolution.

Here are some anti-Hillary tweets from earlier this year by Bernie surrogate Susan Sarandon, actress famous for supposedly feminist cult film, "Thelma and Louise."







More on Sarandon in a minute . . . but recall that in 2000 she was also attached to the third-party campaign for Ralph Nader, who skewed the race away from Al Gore and gave George W. Bush the Presidency.

Hillary's main problems, according to Sarandon and others, are that she isn't a man and she isn't a revolutionary, and especially that she isn't a revolutionary man identical to the cranky but "pure" Bernie Sanders. And now that he seems to be losing to Hillary as the Democratic nominee, some rabid followers are dogmatically refusing to shift positions for the general election. Of course, many of those saying that are not Democrats but Independents crossing lines in open caucuses and primaries for a candidate they believe in. That is their perogative, but their goals may not be identical to that of most Dems, who wish to protect President Obama's legacy of Obamacare, social and environmental programs, and especially to insure a liberal majority on the Supreme Court into the future.

If the revolutionary Bernies reject Hillary, then who will get their votes in November? One theory was that Bernie might make a run as a 3rd Party candidate, reminiscent of Ralph Nader, but there has been no mention of that for some time, and Bernie will probably just go back to being the Senator from Vermont. Some have put forth Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, but many will surely stay home and say to hell with the country. In the worst case scenario, the Bernie-bros-and-gals will switch over and vote for Trump, perhaps hoping he will beat Hillary as some kind of revenge.

And that brings us back to Susan Sarandon. In an interview with Chris Hayes the other night on MSNBC, Sarandon stated once again that if Bernie loses the nomination, she will never ever EVER vote for Hillary, and in fact . . . well, a quote is best or you won't believe it:

CHRIS HAYES: . . . I think a lot of people think to themselves well if it’s Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and I think Bernie Sanders probably would think this…

SARANDON: I think Bernie probably would encourage people because he doesn’t have any ego. I think a lot of people are sorry, I can’t bring myself to do that.

HAYES: How about you personally?

SARANDON: I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.

HAYES: Really?

SARANDON: Really.

HAYES: I cannot believe as you’re watching the, if Donald Trump…

 SARANDON: Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in then things will really, you know explode.


HAYES: Don’t you think that’s dangerous?

SARANDON: I think that what’s going on now — if you think it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re not in touch with the status quo. The status quo is not working, and I think it’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are, with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights, and think that you can’t do something huge to turn that around, because the country is not in good shape. If you’re in the middle class, it’s disappearing.

Later on Twitter in response to fellow-actress Jamie Lee Curtis,
Sarandon tried to walk back her remarks and support for Trump.
Lots of people called her out on the flip-flop.





























~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appearing just after Sarandon on Inners, LGTB activist Dan Savage spoke for many Dems watching when he said::

Can I just say I’m for Bernie, or Hillary, or both. Come November I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is, because the lesser of two evils is less evil, and I don’t think Donald will bring the revolution,” Via Washington Blade



Let’s be grateful to Susan Sarandon for exposing just how vapid and callous the left-wing #NeverHillary argument is.
It’s unclear how many people Sarandon speaks for. There are lots of posturing radicals on social media who pretend Clinton would be no better than Trump, but my guess is that they are a tiny fraction of Sanders supporters. Sanders himself certainly doesn’t encourage such political nihilism and will surely rally to Clinton’s side if she beats him in the primary. Inasmuch as #NeverHillary is a phenomenon, however, Sarandon, a rich white celebrity with nothing on the line, is a perfect spokeswoman for it.
~ Michelle Goldberg, Slate

Sanders has already said that he would support Clinton if she won the nomination.
Now this statement from Sarandon displays a disturbing flaw that may be at the heart of the thinking of many Sanders supporters. Sanders may be campaigning as a true socialist on an egoless mission to create a better, more equitable America, but many of his supporters, including Sarandon, appear fully committed to allowing their egos to play a vital role in this election.
~ Barrett Holmes Pitner

Sarandon is a public figure with considerable influence. Therefore offering a get-out-of-jail-free card to Bernie supporters who think it’s wise to allow a Republican to become president in lieu of Hillary Clinton is, putting it mildly, irresponsible. Like her or not, Sarandon is a woman with political clout, and Bernie supporters who might be feeling the slow onset of heartbreak as Bernie’s window to the nomination closes are very likely to take her seriously and let the general election chips fall where they may.
. . . Sarandon has millions of dollars between her and poverty. She’s the one percent, and perhaps that’s why she’s not troubled by the idea of using poor and middle class workers as human shields in her plan to get to achieve a revolution.
. . . Today, allowing a Republican extremist like Trump or Cruz to win the presidency by refusing to vote or by casting a protest vote is objectively reckless. It shows a total disregard for the millions of Americans who would be literally destroyed by a GOP president. Your personal political agenda is not nearly as crucial as helping to maintain an electoral bulwark against an apocalyptic Republican victory, and the only way to achieve this is by voting for the Democratic nominee.
~ Bob Cesca on Salon.com

. . . you don’t have to go very far back to remember something akin to what Sarandon is describing in the Democratic Party—but last time around, it was in support of Clinton, not against her. The PUMAs (“People United Means Action” or, by some accounts, “Party Unity My Ass”) were such diehard Clinton supporters that they flatly refused to support the upstart Barack Obama eight years ago. So how did that turn out in 2008? Obama cruised to victory with the highest popular vote total in U.S. history, and a nearly 10 million vote lead over Senator John McCain. Sarandon is feeling the Bern, but perhaps there’s more heat than light to her claims about Sandersistas sitting 2016 out.
~ David A. Graham on The Atlantic







Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 30, 2012

Irony Lost on Dan Savage as He Bullies Christians (Now with Nearly Non-Apology Apology and More Comments)



The Bible. We’ll just talk about the Bible for a second. People often point out that they can’t help it — they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans, that being gay is wrong.

We can learn to ignore the bull**** in the Bible about gay people. The same way, the same way we have learned to ignore the bull**** in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bull**** in the Bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War and justified it. The shortest book in the New Testament is a letter from Paul to a Christian slave owner about owning his Christian slave. And Paul doesn’t say “Christians don’t own people.” Paul talks about how Christians own people.

We ignore what the Bible says about slavery, because the Bible got slavery wrong. Tim — uh, Sam Harris, in A Letter To A Christian Nation, points out that the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong. Slavery. What’re the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? One hundred percent.

The Bible says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night — if a woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night, she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone women to death on their wedding night if they’re not virgins. At least not yet. We don’t know where the GOP is going these days.

People are dying because people can’t clear this one last hurdle. They can’t get past this one last thing in the Bible about homosexuality.

Um, one other thing I wanna talk about is — [chuckles] — so, you can tell the Bible guys in the hall that they can come back now, because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a**ed some people react when you push back.

I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings. But. I have a right to defend myself. And to point out the hypocrisy of people who justify anti-gay bigotry by pointing to the Bible, and insisting we must live by the code of Leviticus on this one issue and no other.
~ Gay Activist Dan Savage, founder of "It Gets Better," speaking to a group of journalism students in Seattle. After the Bible slam, a group of Christian teenagers walked out, so he insulted them further. Quote from Care2.com.

He had the bully pulpit, if you would say so, so to speak. And, basically, this is their way to say, you know what? I’m going to take a stand. And, frankly, it took a lot of guts and these students that you see there that are walking out, I mean, it occurs to me as I see this video, is this is what we teach kids to do when they’re being bullied to walk away. That’s what they did.
~ Rick Tuttle, teacher who gave his journalism students permission to walk out on Dan Savage, quoted Here

The man is just trying for a job with MSNBC.
~ comment by Russell on The Christian Post

...We want to make our point very clear: While as a journalist it’s important to be able to listen to speech that offends you, these students and advisers had simply reached their tolerance level for what they were willing to hear.
~ National Scholastic Press Association which sponsored the conference where Savage was speaking, quoted Here













Apology from Dan Savage in The Stranger:
I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-a**ed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-a**ed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bull****.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bull****. I did say that there is bull****—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bull****… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.
~ Read More HERE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the students had been disruptive & heckling him, I can see that. But no, they were there for a student conference, the key note topic was how to cover bullying in their school papers, not debating over whether the Bible is "bull ****" or not. He wasn't being persecuted at all. In fact, since he had the stage, I'd say he was the one in control (not to mention, the adult in the room). The kids simply did the only thing they could do, vote with their feet.
~ comment by WolverineDG on Democratic Underground.

Not news: Dan Savage talks vulgar and bullies student audience.
News: Dan Savage was paid to teach against bullying.
Addressing a national conference of high-school journalists, Savage was calling the Bible bull**** repeatedly. Students started to leave. So he called them pansyasses. When the adult presenter calls 17-year-old students names isn't that bullying?
~ Ron Hebron on Sound Politics

Mr. Savage: 1) Pick on someone your own age. To rant like you did to HS kids is not acceptable. 2) It's unfortanate that people of many beliefs, Christian, Muslim, Druids, whatever, don't act in accordance to the teachings of the belief. It's the individuals issue not the belief systems. 3) You don't have sufficeint knowledge to cooment on the bible. Get some education, learn from someone who understands that teachings, not what they want to believe or have the bible say Hope things work out for you.
~ comment from Wayne Gebhardt, Eastern Washington University, from Seattle Post Intelligencer

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)