Susan Sarandon thinks Hillary Clinton would have been 'very dangerous' as president

[shockedcanadian]

A Sander surrogate I realize, but she is giving an opinion shared by many.

Susan Sarandon thinks Hillary Clinton would have been 'very dangerous' as president

Actress Susan Sarandon is having a tough time since the 2016 election as the star is now being attacked by the left for refusing to support Hillary Clinton.

Despite campaigning for Hillary in 2001, she was a supporter of Bernie Sanders in 2016. When he failed to take the Democratic nomination, the actress did not shift her star-powered support to Hillary, which got the attention of the moderates and the left in a very negative way.

“I got from Hillary people ‘I hope your crotch is grabbed,’ ‘I hope you’re raped.’ Misogynistic attacks. Recently, I said ‘I stand with Dreamers and that started another wave,” she told The Guardian in a recent interview. “From the left! ‘How dare you! You who are responsible for this!’”

Since the election, Sarandon’s career has been marred by all things politics. She couldn’t even appear on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” without the host asking her to defend her political position. However, she stands by her decision to, as a New Yorker, vote for third party candidate Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. However, it’s the assertion that fans got that she believed Hillary would be more dangerous than Trump in office that’s been hard to shake. The assertion stems from an interview she did with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on “All In With Chris Hayes” she gave prior to the Democratic National Convention. When asked if she ever made that claim outright in her latest interview, she had this to say: .

“No exactly, but I don’t mind that quote. I did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.”

While Sarandon has not publicly given her support directly to Donald Trump, she seems to be very confident in her belief that a Clinton presidency would not have people on the left as better off as they think they would be.

 

[Pogo]

However, she stands by her decision to, as a New Yorker, vote for third party candidate Jill Stein over Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

If she votes in New York she's got the same problem that most voters in most of our states have--- the Electoral College system as practiced renders her vote absolutely meaningless. New York is voting for the "blue" candy, regardless what any New Yorker wants. It's decided way before election day. Like those phantom "superdelegtes". A New Yorker can vote blue, can vote red, can vote indie, or can stay home and make cookies. All four return exactly the same result. At least with the latter you get some cookies.

So what she did was cast a protest vote against that. And it went nowhere. I've done that and it's not rewarding. With the shytstem as it's practiced it can't make any kind of splash unless you get a lot -- a LOT -- of other voters to do it with you. And even then you need a LOT. Ross Perot pulled almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992. Got zero electoral votes. Even Spotted Eagle got one in 2016.