Sarandon only says that we'd be at war if Clinton was president and I challenge you to show that she is wrong. Of course you can't show that she is wrong because she is clearly right about that so yet another disgraceful hatchet job on Sarandon and 3rd party types is all you can muster.

Clinton is obviously much more to blame for losing to Trump than some actress who said that she couldn't vote for a warmonger that can't be trusted. Your claiming otherwise is as stupid as it is predictable.

normalizing unaccountable privilege

You must be talking about upper middle class pundits who systematically attempt to shove pro-Wall Street politicians down the throat of the poor and the middle class.

@2 If you think Dan is only “upper middle”...

I think my favorite part of this is Dan Savage mansplaining politics to a white woman. In fact, there were a lot of HillBros who felt the need to mansplain Hillary’s greatness to any woman who dared suggest that large sections of people in the rust belt wouldn’t vote for another Clinton (and I’m talking about long before the primary had even started).

Dan, your pro-Hillary click-bait cultishness is disturbing. Maybe your squish brain can’t get over the fact that you backed a losing horse but you have no sense of guilt or responsibility, so you’re doubling down on your 2016 invective. I feel sad for you. But, I guess you think it’s alright so long as Terry finds it hot.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million. The only reason trump is in office is because of some electoral shenanigans in the upper midwest, and the ridiculous electoral college. Everyone needs to stop acting like no one voted for her.

As for Sarandon, she's an idiot. She's been an idiot for a long time. She and Jill Stein can just totter off into the sunset as far as I'm concerned (although I'm sure the Greens will run Stein again, because they are a ridiculous organization that only surfaces to serve as a scold during the presidential elections. )

@5 "because of some electoral shenanigans in the upper midwest, and the ridiculous electoral college"

so, why do establishment Democrats and their pundits much prefer to bash Sarandon than talk about Republicans stealing elections and dismally inadequate 18th century electoral systems? These priorities are revealing of their intent: business as usual because they'd much rather lose to a republican than having Bernie Sanders in the White House.

Blaming Susan Sarandon for Clinton's embarrassing loss is like guys who blame their average dicks for not being able to please their partners.

It has nothing at all to do with it, but it allows morons to avoid looking at actual systematic problems, and instead focus their ire on some kind of representational scapegoat.

On another note, I read the NYT's article that is causing such an uproar. Were these rubes under the impression that white supremacists where androids or aliens? Were they expecting a million roaches to crawl out of his pant legs, leaving empty clothing behind?

Of course he is just an average Joe. That is the whole point. People are so resistant to any media or thought that does not coddle them like babies, and reinforce everything they want to be true.

unaccountable privilege

as in upper middle class Clintonites explaining to rural America, youth and the rust belt that everything is hunky-dorey besides a few tweaks

@6 -- "why do establishment Democrats and their pundits much prefer to bash Sarandon than talk about Republicans stealing elections"

I think the point here is that there is plenty of blame to go around for the Orange Buffoon in office. Hillary ran a horrible campaign. Jill Stien-ers like Susan Sarandon, with with just as much hubris as "Establishment Democrats", decided that Trump would never win, and took a path during the election that helped (helped, not caused) him win... and provided the coat tails that made it an all-GOP-controlled government.

My gripe with Stein and her minions is: Lack of even the slightest spark of personal responsibility, or acknowledgement that they share part of the blame.

My gripe with Hillary and her minions: Lack of even the slightest spark of personal responsibility, or acknowledgement that they share part of the blame.

Susan Sarandon is a straight, rich white woman who can afford to live in a bubble. She's not so much an idiot as she is privileged.

Doubtful that Sarandon's blatant, suicidal stupidity had more effect than the Murdoch media, Putin, and a decade of vote-suppression.

But we have to grow up and recognize that self-righteous indignation, whether fueled by Breitbart or CounterPunch, is destroying the United States. It isn't a mere coincidence that some of our most loathsome Far Right trolls got their start in the Far Left.

@9 We don't even know what effect if any Stein and Sarandon had on the election. For all we know, they may have increased voter turnout. The use of simple arithmetic isn't adequate here.

@12 - I've seen too many of my friends basically say: "My anti-Hillary, Russian-Troll-Farm propagating social media presence had no actual effect on the election because I live in Washington where Hillary won."

That betrays a stunning lack of understanding about how things work in the Social Media age... Where every "Share" and "Like" increases the chances that those posts will get displayed for people Facebook and Twitter have determined are "Like Minded Individuals" in battle-ground states. If you have social-media-friends in battleground states it has more effect. And prominent "Opinion Makers" like Susan Sarandon have yet even *more* in such regards. Facebook and Twitter do not follow state boundaries.... And without shares and likes, troll-farm propaganda dies on the vine.

At the end of the day, every anti-hillary and pro-stein like and share contributed to Trump. That doesn't absolve Clinton, but it exposes the lie that "It wasn't my fault" by otherwise non-Trump voters.

Susan meet you at the barricades Sarandon is NLR. No longer relevant.

bgix @9 speaks for me. Sarandon can go fuck herself, and so can you, Dan.

@13 if troll farms chose to propagate what Susan Sarandon has to say, are you suggesting that we should all shut up or something? Anyhow, you haven't answered my point that you had no idea of the effect of 3rd parties on voter turnout.

Savage and Mudede are both predictable. Only one is interesting.

Phrases like "lesser evilsim" obscure the fact that people you can't ever agree with are here, and they will never be vanquished. Even if you win an election, they will still be around. You have to have some kind of idea of how you're going to govern with them around.

The system we have is supposed to allow us to compromise in a civil way. Democracy itself is lesser evilism. If you can't ever choose the lesser evil, then you're choosing totalitarianism. Either we are all going to be forced to think alike, or we are going to have to make deals with people we can't fucking stand.

That means more than asking the far left to do their best in the primaries and then fall into line and support whatever Democrat ends up running. It means if the Democrat who makes it out of the primary is anti-choice, or anti-gay, or whatever, you still have to pay attention to how the sausage is made and help them win. Any district where the only Democrat who can win is some kind of troglodyte is a district where the Republican they put up against them is a thousand times worse.

I bring this up because we still have a lot of staunch Hillary Clinton supporters who are aghast at the idea that there are still some districts where Democrats have candidates who fail the pro-choice litmus test. They say it's equivalent to asking them to vote for Nazis. It's actually equivalent to the last time Democrats were in power and did incredible good for everyone, and prevented the appalling evil that Trump and Ryan have been merrily getting away with. They forget just how Obama and Pelosi and Schumer got all that legislation passed: with a bunch of Democrats who failed a lot of tests on gay marriage, women's rights, racial equality, taxes. If we had thrown all those heretics under the bus and let their seats go to Republicans, there never would have been Democratic majorities.

If you're going to go on refusing to make these kinds of compromises to get control of Congress, or put together a winning Presidential ticket, then you're no better than Sarandon or Stein and you really have no grounds to criticize them.

Maybe Susan and Lena could do speaking tours together. Milo could be the warm up act.

This is an utter denial of the corruption of the two party system which works for wall street and has been causing poverty and war each year.

Blaming Susan for pointing out the corruption of the dems is so cowardly it is laughable.

Here are a few examples of the dems war against the people. Libya was destroyed under the auspices of Hilary Clinton, under her husband vicious trade deals were set up that hurt working class people and caused increased poverty, he militarized the police, he set up a work program that caused poor women to abandon their children to work for menial jobs that still exists today. Furthermore, this causes more trauma in poor communities and attacks working peoples' standard of living. Pulled off cooked back room deals to prevent a socialist for running for the presidency. If you do any research and look at history the people eventually get fed up and there is hell to pay. Their treacherous, neoliberal, austerity, behaviors led to this and the electoral college allowed Trump to take over even though Clinton won some 3 million more votes in this game. The game whereby poverty is increased, wall st. rule is continued and the majority of the people are the pawns.

Why have the Dems lost control over the house of representatives, the senate , the presidency and a majority of state governments over the last 8 or so years? It's Susan Sarandon of course! Let's not forget Jill Stein! [Shakes fist in air!]

The Democrats need to continue with their winning strategy of alienating the left flank of their party and chasing after disaffected Mitt Romney soccer moms. (That's what the highly paid consultants say. ) Onward to 2018 and 2020!

Anytime someone cites a non-existent, counter-factual reality as proof they were right, it’s their way if signaling to the rest of us to stop asking them what they think. ‘If hillary won we’d be at war!’ Just try to prove her wrong, because as long as there are people putting a microphone in her face she certainly isn’t going to shut up. This is what we get for asking her what she thinks. We did this to ourselves.

Take the woman at her word: she is just pulling this shit out of her ass, but she is too full of herself to stop talking already.

"And thanks in part to Sarandon and other Jill Stein voters dupes, the Trump administration is ..."

The "in part" bit is essential, as many more Dems voted for Trump than voted for Stein.

The only thing SS and Tim Robbins ever did that was rebellious was to win awards and make controversial acceptance speeches. If they had been serious rebels and cared enough they would not have wanted Trump in and would have done everything in their power to keep Trump from getting in. ANY sane person would NOT want Trump in office or even taken the slightest chance of letting him in. Saying he's done some good for the country is like telling people you have literal shit for brains and you're proud to be shit brained. So fuck all 3rd party assholes and fuck anyone who thinks what's happening right now is a good thing. But especially fuck the GOP. They can take the Denis Leary Terror Train to Hell.

@16 - "Anyhow, you haven't answered my point that you had no idea of the effect of 3rd parties on voter turnout"

Neither do you, anan1256 -- Which makes claims of "It's not my fault because I voted for Jill Stein" at the very least as unprovable as saying there *is* fault there.

However, when combined with "Big Data Analysis" there is plenty of evidence that propagating negative (and often false) anti-Hillary and/or pro-Stein social media messages had the effect of depressing Hillary voting in battleground states. People who post political messages of *any* stripe do so because they imagine or hope they make a difference. It is disingenuous to claim "Not My Fault" after the fact.

18,23, yep

You guilt ridden morons, along with this idiot woman, helped elect trump. No amount of word salad is going to change that.
On Election Day, there were two choices, one an imperfect woman with some shady deals and attitudes Or
a man who hates everybody and is cruel and sadistic. He would trade his mother, his wives and his daughters, if it meant he would gain.
So cut the crap you miserable apologists and sit with the truth you helped create.
And Susan, stfu.

Susan Sarandon is a fool whose celebrity gives her a megaphone to proclaim that fact.

More amazing is that even now, months after the public has come to learn of the extent of Russia's campaign to influence the outcome of the presidential election, including creating false news stories, which it disseminated through fake Facebook and Twitter accounts, and amplified through Russian-government controlled media, the American far left still believes that their numbers reflect actual passionate supporters and not a bunch of paid Russian trolls.

More time spent arguing about Hillary? Oh hell yeah let's do this shit, I love it! Really brings out the best in people.

@1 “I challenge you to show that she is wrong. Of course you can't show that she is wrong because”

?

It’s because you suck shit at basic logic and proving negatives.

It’s not so much that she has a different point of view, it’s her view alongside her obliviousness to Trump evils - things she pretended (?) to care about at one time - that really annoys. And her smugness about it all, which I don’t understand.
I’m always shocked at the number of people that comment negatively to Dan on this subject. Why does the demographic suddenly go so skewiff?

@28 I am a conspiracy theory naysayer but at this point I would be very surprised if Russian media didn't play a big part in spreading the alarmist Hillary stories on facebook and Twitter. It also astonishes me that James Comey's last minute tactic to saddle Hillary with false scandal hasn't received more attention. Susan Sarandon is a poorly informed, mediocre actress who is obsessed with her appearance and becoming irrelevant.

@29/GermanSausage: Yeah, Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders, because even though his primary support included an army of Russian trolls, he would have defeated Trump and the Russians in the general election...

Thank you Dan Savage for, "unaccountable privilege". Very apt.

@24 It's not the way it works. If you have actual evidence you should substantiate your assertions

@31 what logic are you talking about, champ? .That we have been at war for decades and HC was unlikely to change any of it based on her actual record?

I think both Drumpf and Clinton can go fuck themselves. Pair of elitist, rich, fuckwads IMHO. And they were friends, remember? (Probably still are, secretly.) Back when Trumpy was a registered Democrat and invited Bill n' Hill to his wedding. We're living in some kind of PKD novel.... the leaders aren't real. They just keep swapping roles and pretending to be someone different on TV.

Sarandon? I'm real sure she has such sway that she might have affected the election results by like 0.00000001% or less.

Let's talk about some Real News(tm): Like, what exactly do you think the Trump/Tillerson strategy is in their depletion of the State Department? Why are they doing that? And what are the likely long term effects?

@22 are you claiming that we wouldn't be at war, that we wouldn't still be fracking and on, if HC was president? YOU are pulling shit out of your ass.

@29 - "People who are going after rare third party leaning malcontents as if they ever really mattered"

Rare 3rd party leaning Malcontents *Really Mattered* twice now in my political lifetime. Nader in 2000, and now Stein in 2016. I could forgive voting 3rd party in the face of a "lesser of two evils" election (and really... name one election that *couldn't* be described this way) if it could always be guaranteed to be "inconsequential" in the final result. In 2000, I think the election was seriously too close to call... but I do feel at least that some Naderites, with the benefit of hindsight, learned that hard lesson. In 2016, we all thought HRC was a shoe-in... until she lost. However, the Greater Evil was really horrifyingly more evil this time around. I hope this years crop of people seeking to save the planet by "Voting Green" have also learned their lesson, but history apparently repeats. So which 3rd party spoiler is running on the Green ticket in 2032? And how many self-righteous fuck-nuts will be around then to argue that a small-handed moron is less of a threat than a personal email server using harpy?

@34 "his primary support included an army of Russian trolls"

Source, please. Mind you, thinking that Hillary isn't the best person in the world doesn't automatically make you a Russian troll.

@40 Also known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which would all be very well if it only affected her. But it didn't. Her self-indulgent fit of pique, along with similar behavior by thousands, if not millions, of others has cost many, many real people a great deal. And what's more, like Roy Moore and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, just to name a few random examples, they have no intention of facing their own complicity in the destruction and will point fingers in every direction but one.

@38, what

Yes the wars that were already started would not magically vaporize upon anyone's inauguration. Is anyone arguing otherwise? Of course not because that would be a stupid thing to believe. Even if Jill Stein won we would still be at war based on that criteria, if that is the stupid fucking conversation you actually want to have right now.

What she appears to be suggesting - or at least what we can infer based on what she shat out before the election - is that hillary would have started *more* wars than the ones that are already underway, and that she would have put us on the track for nuclear war much faster than trump. This appears to be the inference everyone else is making here, except for you i guess, because this is what Susan Sarandon said would happen before the election, and here she is doubling down a year later. You can go back and watch the video if your time is as invaluable to you as you are making it seem right now.

Either way you are asking people to accept something happening in a reality that does not exist as proof that you are right, and you are spoiling hardcore for this fight for some stupid reason. I guess you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time, which is very unfortunate for you.

"In 2016, we all thought HRC was a shoe-in"

538 predicted she would have more likely lost to a generic Republican. Only the insane believed that a largely untrusted and avidly disliked candidate was a "shoe-in". I often wonder how the actual 2016 results went along with 538's initial predictions.

It's not that third parties "spoil" your candidate's election, it's that when you run someone most people dislike, they'll look elsewhere. I mean, come on, the POS, right after being nominated, pursued the Bush family for help. Hillary had absolutely no qualms about saying fuck you to the base. Anyone with half a brain knew she was a terrible candidate.

You know who won the election? Wealthy people and giant corporations. They would have won if either Clinton or Trump were elected. They always win regardless of who's running or who gets elected. But here we are, the poors fighting among ourselves over which corporate master we should worship.

And Jesus Christ, can you imagine how shitty the entire #metoo movement would've been for Democrats had Bill been the first man? Honestly, had she actually won, Democrats would have lost even more seats in 2018, obstruction would have continued, all the blame would have been thrown on her, and she'd most likely have lost to an even more bigoted, but more intelligent, candidate than Trump.

@41/Bloated Jesus is Bloated: Asking for sources is a lame and overused comment thread tactic, especially when there are so many articles you can find on your own:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/po…

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google…

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/int…

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/…

Once again the right-wingers supposedly “providers” who are actually unemployed and still live with mom are the first to flood any political comment published on the stranger, while crying intolerance. (And frankly, rightfully so. Right wing sites are famous to be inclusive and will always post opposing views.)

Crying Hillary, Bengazi, and ”I did vote for W but never for Trump so it’s not my fault” are all lame excuses.
You and your likes have created a political monstrosity, an ever uncompromising faction that has no interest in the common good. Apparently that same attitude is now being forced on Trump himself with candidates like Roy Moore.

I suspect that despite your pretend cry re the left you’re all laughing while telling your friends about those naïve ”librals” who keep publishing your crap.
I hope the friendly naïve lefties at the stranger are paying attention.

We've spent more time arguing about the 2016 election then we have left to prepare for the 2018 election.

Can we stop?

We can keep blaming each other,
or we can compromise and cooperate.

Remember:
The 2018 election is less than a year away.
Time is running out.

Oh, please! Your country was told to choose between a racist and an imperialist. It chose the imperialist, but had the racist shoved down its throat.

Therefore, Sarandon is the nation's problem?!

Wake up and smell the cappucino.

Jesus. The rabid delusional entitlement of the white Bernie Bro. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Trumps kicks millions off of their healthcare, is busy reversing nearly every piece of progressive legislation of the last twenty years, pulls the US out of the Paris climate treaty and is undoing environmental regulations left and right.... "buh...buh...buh... the democrats are worse than Trump... something... something... neoliberal... something." Listen to yourselves.

Good god. What complete entitled dumbshits.

With Trump came his incredibly bad selections for cabinet officials and White House staff. He has deliberately selected people who hate the departments they are supposed to lead are are undermining them as fast as possible. With Trump came his insistence on repealing as many of the Obama initiatives as possible. With Trump came his lies and deceit about everything, his cozing up to Putin, and his warmongering with North Korea. There is no way he is not the worst President elected since the depression!

@43 Spare us your silly attempts at parsing: as seen with Obama, perpetual war is on the establishment Democrats' agenda and 8 years of Clinton would have been more of the same, at best, since her record shows well her warmongering tendencies, and she likely would have gotten involved in other conflicts. Sarandon is correct about that too.

I'm not parsing anything you dipshit, I'm telling you to fuck off. Find someone else who has nothing better to do with their time than pretending the dumb argument you keep trying to force upon people is not completely pointless. Surely someone wants to fight with you about it but I don't. Fuck. Off.

@52 Most people actually know that being critical of Clinton is not the same as thinking Trump is OK, except for Clintonites, apparently..

The central feature of social media is that people group themselves by affinity. As a result, in-group fighting is far more prevalent than out-group fighting; if you lean left, you probably don't have many Republicans left in your feed to fight with, but you do have plenty of fellow lefties to yell at. Have you noticed Hillary supporters seizing every opportunity to throw shade on Bernie Bros, even a year after the election? How about Bernie-or-Busters like Sarandon re-litigating last year's primary and "what-ifing" about their candidate?

We know from what we've seen so far of the targeted pro-Trump Facebook election propaganda that its common theme was exacerbating existing divisions on the Left. Not just between Clinton and Sanders supporters, but along racial and other identity lines.

The impulse to attack your own side and engage in relentless purges to achieve ideological purity is almost universal in its appeal. We all love that feeling of typing the righteous zinger. Sometimes it can feel like the only power we have. But this impulse is conspicuously being exploited to divide the majority of the population that would rather not live in an oligarchy, pushing them to expend all their energy fighting each other. Encouraging us to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller affinity groups and to view all attempts to find common ground as betrayals. We know this to be the explicit strategy of this new breed of opinion manipulators.

And yet we just can't seem to stop ourselves.

@54 Nobody is forcing you to talk to anyone, but you can force others to abstain from commenting on the stupid shit you say, so good luck with that.

@57 "can't force"

great point now fuck off

@56 "The impulse to attack your own side"

New Deal Democrats and 3rd way Democrats aren't on the same side.

@47 Thank you for providing sources that there were pro Bernie ads bought by Russians. Unfortunately, none of the articles state that a large sum of Bernie's online supporters were Russian trolls. I would also point out that the Russian troll argument is being used to discredit the real support of Bernie. And, if you do that, you would have to acknowledge that these trolls also infiltrated BLM in order to stoke flames and none of us want to discredit BLM.

And, no, sources are a good thing.

@56, yes it's tedious isn't it? This will change when those, along with look at me look at me Susan, whose ego and arrogance were more important to them on the day, and voted third party, accept that they helped get trump elected.

@51 Jesus. The rabid delusional entitlement of the white Hillary hoes. Talk about cognitive dissonance. 

A damp refusal to look into the many issues Hillary produced that led to Trump into the White House. "No! Russians! Bots! Sexism! The problem isn't that we nominated one of the least popular candidates ever to run against another unpopular candidate! It's those white Bernie Bros. You know, that also include all young people independent of age and race! I don't want to hear about that!"

Look, Hillary was the candidate of middle aged white women who wanted to have someone who looks like them in office. Unfortunately, though, they're a demographic that also votes with their middle aged white husbands.

@43 " I guess you have absolutely nothing better to do with your time, which is very unfortunate for you"

a fun fact for you: you post comments 2.5 times more often than I do according to our profiles. I know that you also tend to be way more long winded, probably to look erudite, except when you tell me to fuck off, of course.

Seems to me that the article about the white nationalist/bigot/white supremacist in OH is exactly the sort of reporting the NYT should be doing. Removing the link to the store selling Nazi armbands was probably for the best, though the argument can certainly be made that it was probably included as a "Yeah, we're really not making this up" sort of note. I guess I can see the argument about "normalizing" them, but maybe it's because I have some small understanding about modern politics that I can see these guys as uninformed morons who are turning to policies and groups they think advocate for them, out of ignorance. These are the sort of folks that become white nationalists/bigots/white supremacists, and this is how it happens.

And yeah, Susan Sarandon is about 2 narrow steps higher on the list of dippy celebrities than Gwyneth Paltrow.

@61/Bloated Jesus is Bloated: Those articles, among many others that you can find and read, demonstrate that among the most vocal Bernie Sanders supporters were Russian trolls.

"I would also point out that the Russian troll argument is being used to discredit the real support of Bernie." No, it's being used to puncture the bubble of some of Sanders' most ardent supporters who need to understand that some of their most active on-line compatriots were Russian-government sponsored agents working to manipulate them, and part of that message was that the most liberal wing of the Democratic party is more numerous that it is in reality.

"And, if you do that, you would have to acknowledge that these trolls also infiltrated BLM in order to stoke flames and none of us want to discredit BLM.." No. Black Lives Matter is not a party or an organization, it is a social movement that cannot be "infiltrated." That point aside, Russian-government sponsored agents have sought to exacerbate racial tensions in the U.S., and not acknowledging that fact does not protect the BLM movement, further the cause of racial equality, or lead to greater accountability for police officers, it mere undermines our democracy by hiding from the reality in which Russia has manipulated our national dialogue.

@50: “It chose the imperialist, but had the racist shoved down its throat.”

And elected the racist imperialist.

64 - Another cool point appreciate the data analysis (though it seems like this is getting weirdly personal, susan is that you???) but i comment here for funzies and funzies for me does not involve arguing over things that could have happened but didn’t however if circling back to comments you already replied to so you can squeeze in more personal insults because we disagree over something susan sarandon said is funzies for you then you’re welcome i guess glad to be of service?

@1 "Sarandon only says that we'd be at war if Clinton was president and I challenge you to show that she is wrong. Of course you can't show that she is wrong because she is clearly right about that so yet another disgraceful hatchet job on Sarandon and 3rd party types is all you can muster."

Sarandon can't prove her point, because Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't President. So one can't disprove a hypothetical situation.

Criticizing Susan Sarandon for saying lots of Emo-Prog batshit rhetoric is not a hatchet job, it is just pointing out that some Emo-Progs are not based in reality, especially the false equivalency that Hillary Clinton=Donald Trump.

@66 "demonstrate that among the most vocal Bernie Sanders supporters were Russian trolls."

I beg to differ. We're there people posing as Bernie supporters? Yes, and you could easily tell them apart from the real people. We're his most ardent supporters Russian? Absolutely not, there was and is an avid group of people who were, in my opinion, justifiably anybody but Hillary. For example, that native dude who argued that he wouldn't vote Hillary in the electoral college. On election day I must admit that I felt kinda icky having voted for her and then hearing him speak. The fact she lost made that feeling even worse.

"puncture the bubble of some of Sanders' most ardent supporters who need to understand that some of their most active on-line compatriots were Russian-government sponsored agents working to manipulate them"

Thing is, people had reasons to dislike Clinton waaaaaaay before 2016. There was very little you could add to her deficits that she hadn't already created back in 2008 and beyond. Her campaign against Obama was enough to know how terrible a human being she could be.

But, I will agree that the Bernie crowd did very much overestimate the size of their voting block. I personally blame the Occupy movement for that arrogance.

"not acknowledging that fact does not protect the BLM movement"

I'm pointing out that your line of attack is being used against BLM. Either both can now be discredited through the same stream of logic or we change the way we approach the subject. And one could easily define Bernie's candidacy as a "movement" as well.

@69 Talking about reality: Sarandon didn't say that Clinton=Trump but this is just your old and tired strawman . Holding simultaneously 2 non-contradictory thoughts like 1) Trump is terrible and 2) Clinton would have been really bad is actually entirely possible. It is in fact easy. Give it a try.

Jill Stein was to Hillary Clinton as Ralph Nader was to Al Gore, capish? And many a disaster ensued after the radical left shot itself in the foot, uh, no, the head.

I'm still waiting for Muller to be done, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if she wasn't a Russian spoiler.

Pathologically rehashing November 2016 over and over again doesn't seem like a very productive way forward.

I don't think the NYT normalized nazis. I think the article was a chilling - reminder? slap upside the head? - that there are a lot of nazis out there and we think they are normal people.

oh, and here is one of the many many horrible things that have happened because people like Sarandon didn't vote for Hillary Clinton:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opini…

The US is not at war in Niger. It has had troops stationed there, just as US troops are stationed in 70 countries. The US is not at war with Japan because there is a base in Okinawa. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, both of those wars were started by another president and supported by Clinton and Obama. But of course, let's blame a Hollywood actress instead of Hillary and the DNC for running a shitty campaign that alienated half the country.

Nobody's blaming a stupid actress here, Xian-Qi, and let's not get too precious about American politics.
When it came down to the wire, Election Day,
there were two choices.
It was done, all that went before was fucking done. All that mattered on that day, was to vote. And to vote for somebody who wasn't a total sexist creep, racist, religious bigotry, idiot, fool, narcissist, sadist, greedy pig, destroyer of your lands, etc etc.
And that person was Hillary Clinton.

And for god's sake, please somebody, tell Bernie No. too late now.
He'll be old as by 2020. You guys need younger people to run, to turn this tide.

@81 Oh please. You’re also bitter because you backed a losing horse in the primary AND YOU DONT EVEN GO HERE! You’re not even from this country. I know you’re in need of constant validation, but whatever. Go shill your narrow view of politics somewhere else.

@ 81 was right to direct some useful advice toward himself. Lets hope he takes them seriously this time and rises above the compulsive need for constant self validation.

Urgutha Forka @45 Thank for your sane comment.

@78 I agree Hillary ran a shit campaign, and in retrospect, was a shit candidate.

But lesser of two evils is still less evil. In this case, VASTLY less evil.

I'm with Dan. Ms. Sarandon is hopelessly misguided. She isn't worth my hatred, but she's certainly earned my contempt.

So millionaire Dan Savage complains about millionaire Susan not supporting millionaire Hillary Clinton, who can't even obey fucking email rules!!! Talk about something relevant Dan. Hillary Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who basically couldn't sell her lies as good as Donald Trump, NOT because of Susan. Got it Dick?

Go back to giving butt fucking advice Dan. You were way better at it.