Susan Sarandon speaks at “Millions March for Palestine” in Washington Square Park pic.twitter.com/jH0ka2OfyO

— katie smith (@probablyreadit) March 2, 2024

Susan’s all in.

She needs to just start giving speeches in front of a giant swastika.

At some point, these leftists are going to have to go all the way, and admit Hitler was right.

They’re getting closer.

New York Post:

Oscar-winning actress Susan Sarandon addressed the crowd at an anti-Israel protest in Washington Square Park Saturday afternoon – where she urged attendees to disrupt “the narrative of the powerful.”

“Our enemy is greed, and our enemy is silence,” the 77-year-old actress told the hundreds of protestors who braved the rain and the wind for the Millions March for Palestine, according to a video shared by independent journalist Katie Smith.

“The silence of those who look away when you see crushed children, starving babies, wailing mothers, fathers digging through the rubble to try to find their families…this is unacceptable!” she continued.

Sarandon has been a regular at anti-Israel events in New York City since the start of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023.

In late November, the “Dead Man Walking” star was dropped from a top Hollywood talent agency after telling one rally that Jews in the United States are “getting a taste of how it feels to be Muslim in America” in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attack.

She later apologized for the comment, which she called a “terrible mistake.”

The star was back on the podium in a black raincoat and red patterned scarf Saturday, where she reminded that cheering crowd that “disrupting the narrative of the powerful, fighting for justice, can be lonely work.”

“It can be exhausting,” she said.

Yeah, no shit.

Can confirm.

“But nothing compared to what is going on in Gaza, in Rafah, for the Palestinian people that have been going through this for 75 years!”

“Speaking inconvenient truths can lose you your livelihood,” Sarandon added, perhaps referring to her own career hiccup late last year.

Yeah, I dunno.

I might rather be running around in tunnels with an RPG than getting censored when I should be the most famous journalist in the world.

But bless these people for standing up.

All my love to Susan.

Elvis Dunderhoff contributed to this article. 

It’s a little bit surprising that more middle-aged and post-menopausal women weren’t scared to death of Hillary Clinton.

Typically, women can sense things about women, and typically, bloodthirsty careerist women scare normal women, because they have an ability to understand just how ruthless and amoral they are capable of being n order to promote their personal agendas.

No woman believes the “exactly the same except with bob and vagene” argument that soyboy males have bought into.

Fox News:

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!’”

Yeah, leftists say that “I hope you get raped” thing to any woman who they view as going against the collective female agenda.

They will say absolutely anything that they feign moral outrage over when rightists say it. They are almost cartoonish without any type of principle whatsoever.

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.

DANGEROUS???

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.

…

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.

RT:

Asked if Clinton was more dangerous than Trump, Sarandon explained, “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 [Barack] Obama that we didn’t notice.”

Clinton has a long record of supporting US interventions. Her vote for the Iraq war, the zeal with which she pushed to take down Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, down to her giddy celebration at his death, are just some of the reasons pacifists chose not to vote for her.

While Trump has failed to end US interventionism since coming to power, Clinton had advocated for a no-fly-zone over Syria, which would have likely led to war between the US, and Syria and Russia. Clinton admitted a no-fly-zone would “kill a lot of Syrians,” in a 2013 speech leaked by WikiLeaks before the election. She also maintains a hawkish stance on Iran, and promised in 2008, “If I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Sarandon voted for Stein in New York, which, she explains “was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein,” as Trump was not going to win that state. “Bringing attention to working-class issues is not a luxury,” she said of her decision. “People are really hurting; that’s how this guy got in.”

Well. We would certainly have a lot more wars if Hillary had won.

She was not just talking about escalating wars in secret speeches leaked by Wikileaks – she was campaigning on shooting down Russian jets over Syria to protect ISIS, which would have literally meant WWIII. She was giving PUBLIC, televised speeches about it. She also originally campaigned on support for insane international trade deals before Trump’s positions on the issue caused her to walk that back.

So I’d basically support everything Sarandon is saying here. Strange bedfellows and all that. The fracking thing is meh, but if we had his type of leftist leadership, there would be common ground and we could at least have real discussions about real issues.

Instead the left is just promoting insane, nonsensical stuff. Though to be fair, the Jewish controlled neo-con establishment is doing the same. Just abject lunacy on both sides – even while there are so many obvious, rational discussions we could be having.

Leftists used to be anti-war, anti-globalism and pro-working class – that was the case up until Bill Clinton, and through most of his term – and now they’re just about tranny bathrooms and exterminating white people. Older leftists (Sarandon is 71) must generally feel some cognitive dissidence with regards to this sea change in the direction of the ideology.

How dare she?

Daily Beast:

One of the biggest question marks for Democrats heading into a 2016 general election that should be a cakewalk with a candidate like Donald Trump on the other side is what happens to Bernie Sanders’ supporters if he loses the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

Some will inevitably fall in line and find a way to get excited about the likelihood of America’s first woman president. But many others may end up feeling just as alienated from the political process as they did before Sanders entered the race and just decide to stay home.

For instance, there’s Susan Sarandon.

The actress and activist has been a powerful surrogate for Sanders on the campaign trail over the past few months, and during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Monday night, she said she doesn’t know if she can bring herself to vote for Clinton if it comes down to it.

“I think, in certain quarters, there’s growing concern that the folks that are into Bernie Sanders have come to despise Hillary Clinton or reject Hillary Clinton and that should she be the nominee which is as yet undetermined, they will walk away,” Hayes said.

“Tha’’s a legitimate concern,” Sarandon replied, “because they’re very passionate and principled.”

“But isn’t that crazy?” the host asked. “If you believe in what he believes in?”

“Yeah but she doesn’t,” Sarandon shot back. “She accepted money for all of those people. She doesn’t even want to fight for a $15 minimum wage, so these are people that have not come out before, so why would we think they’re going to come out now for her, you know?”

Well, that seems like some integrity right there. Regardless of the fact I obviously dislike Bernie, he’s at least a real candidate. And I think he does represent the Democrat base in the way Trump represents the Republican base. Logically, these two should automatically be each party’s nominees.

Hillary, however, has organized the brown folk. The majority of White Democrats do support Bernie. It just doesn’t matter anymore. Don’t expect White Democrats to notice this though.

Here’s the interview where Sarandon made the comments.

She had previously attacked Trump.