Oh please. You think she was more influential than James Comey's letter? I used to respect your opinion, but that's gone now.
Sarandon and her ilk and their bullshit claims and Russian-generated smears were the hook...
There's a lot more in that quote besides one woman to whom I doubt most people even listen. Of course, Sarandon is female which makes her an easy target. And people on here grasp like drowning rats onto the easy answer.
The sad fact is that no matter which Democrat gets nominated to run for the presidency there will be plenty of voters who will think that nominee is just not liberal enough and therefore refrain from voting. The Senate, of course, will continue to be in GOP control for the same reason and awe will get another 150+ right wing nut judges that will stay in the courts for the next two or three decades. Don't be surprised if shooting liberals becomes legal.
Really? All it took was one disagreement with me over one point - one that I didn't actually make, but is primarily only the words you put in my mouth - for you to lose all "respect" for my opinion?
Wow. Well. Thanks. Because that's not over the top at all.
No one is claiming you can't see things your way.
You can rage all you want, but for many people, Sarandon is a bellwether. She's not the only one, she's not the sole reason, she's not the driving force, and she's not all there is, but she's at once an emblem of the divisiveness that tore at the Democrats in 2016, a representative of the kind of clueless privilege that enabled people who wouldn't be hurt by Trump to dismiss the obvious and horrific consequences of a Trump win on less-privileged people, and a symbol for those who either decry or support that divisiveness.
She knowingly used her celebrity to bring attention to some truly batshit dangerous and divisive ideas and claims, and gave that media a reason to write about her crap take on the election... and calling her on that divisiveness is neither the easy answer - since no one is saying it was all on her - nor is it misogyny. She should be held responsible for promoting ideas that were terrible when she spouted them, and have proven to be disastrous and deadly for many.
Frankly, the misogyny I saw was and is practiced by her followers and by the Berners who refused to accept that a woman beat their sainted man, by her, when she gave cover to that garbage and legitimacy to the idea that it was OK for Trump to be elected rather than vote for HRC who, apparently, had to be perfect, and by the media who trashed Hillary at every turn... it's not practiced by those who see Sarandon as a symbol of the kind of division that HELPED keep Hillary out of the White House.
Seriously. You get to have your opinion, but so do other people.
Or pass a law saying that the only judges who can hear cases are those receiving a "qualified" rating from the ABA, or some similar standard. You can keep your appointment, but you can't serve.
Serious question. Once Dems are back in power - note I'm saying When, not If - is there any reason we couldn't pass a law that requires ALL judges to be ABA qualified, including sitting ones? And if they aren't, their judgeship is subject to review if not revocation?
You seem to forget mcConnell didn't allow Obama his legitimate Supreme Court nominee to even be discussed.
Oh please. You think she was more influential than James Comey's letter? I used to respect your opinion, but that's gone now.
Sarandon and her ilk and their bullshit claims and Russian-generated smears were the hook...
There's a lot more in that quote besides one woman to whom I doubt most people even listen. Of course, Sarandon is female which makes her an easy target. And people on here grasp like drowning rats onto the easy answer.
Democrats still had control of the Senate in 13 and 14.
The sad fact is that no matter which Democrat gets nominated to run for the presidency there will be plenty of voters who will think that nominee is just not liberal enough and therefore refrain from voting. The Senate, of course, will continue to be in GOP control for the same reason and awe will get another 150+ right wing nut judges that will stay in the courts for the next two or three decades. Don't be surprised if shooting liberals becomes legal.
Really? All it took was one disagreement with me over one point - one that I didn't actually make, but is primarily only the words you put in my mouth - for you to lose all "respect" for my opinion?
Wow. Well. Thanks. Because that's not over the top at all.
No one is claiming you can't see things your way.
You can rage all you want, but for many people, Sarandon is a bellwether. She's not the only one, she's not the sole reason, she's not the driving force, and she's not all there is, but she's at once an emblem of the divisiveness that tore at the Democrats in 2016, a representative of the kind of clueless privilege that enabled people who wouldn't be hurt by Trump to dismiss the obvious and horrific consequences of a Trump win on less-privileged people, and a symbol for those who either decry or support that divisiveness.
She knowingly used her celebrity to bring attention to some truly batshit dangerous and divisive ideas and claims, and gave that media a reason to write about her crap take on the election... and calling her on that divisiveness is neither the easy answer - since no one is saying it was all on her - nor is it misogyny. She should be held responsible for promoting ideas that were terrible when she spouted them, and have proven to be disastrous and deadly for many.
Frankly, the misogyny I saw was and is practiced by her followers and by the Berners who refused to accept that a woman beat their sainted man, by her, when she gave cover to that garbage and legitimacy to the idea that it was OK for Trump to be elected rather than vote for HRC who, apparently, had to be perfect, and by the media who trashed Hillary at every turn... it's not practiced by those who see Sarandon as a symbol of the kind of division that HELPED keep Hillary out of the White House.
Seriously. You get to have your opinion, but so do other people.
Are they important?
Or pass a law saying that the only judges who can hear cases are those receiving a "qualified" rating from the ABA, or some similar standard. You can keep your appointment, but you can't serve.
Weird! I thought Repubes HATED activist judges????? Oh...right...
I'm voting for ANYONE...ANYONE but Trump.
Sadly, it doesn't appear to be political suicide just yet. That doesn't mean through that there will never come a time when it is.
Yep. It's only an "activist ruling" if it goes against you.
Only to non-Republicans.
Yeah, and Jane Fonda, not Robert McNamara was responsible for the Vietnam quagmire. Stop wasting time on an “emblem” and focus on a solution.
Serious question. Once Dems are back in power - note I'm saying When, not If - is there any reason we couldn't pass a law that requires ALL judges to be ABA qualified, including sitting ones? And if they aren't, their judgeship is subject to review if not revocation?
Oh, gee... I guess that put me in my place as someone who can't possibly do both.
Are you serious with this?
Maybe go back and reread my non-comment, and you might learn that not once was I speaking for myself.
But hey... who am I to try to harsh your righteous indignation vibe with things like facts and reason?
"Did not act with any criminal intentions..."Because it's not like he slapped a people, right, law talking guy?