Voor de uiteindelijke VS presidentsverkiezingen vorig jaar, voorspelden velen dat het buitenlandbeleid onder Hillary Clinton een heel stuk agressiever zou zijn dan onder Trump, deze richtte zich tijdens de campagne juist meer op het binnenland en stelde dat de VS zich in het buitenland niet in nieuwe ‘avonturen’ zou storten en dat hij de militairen naar huis zou halen (nadat hij IS van de aardbodem zou hebben gebombardeerd..)……..

Intussen weten we dat door ongegronde klachten, als zou Trump de VS verkiezingen hebben gewonnen door Russische manipulaties, Trump een groot deel van het buitenlandbeleid overlaat aan de geheime diensten CIA en NSA….. Voorts heeft Trump het Pentagon een veel zelfstandiger rol gegeven wat betreft inzet van militairen en materieel in het buitenland (ook heeft hij dagelijks 3 topmilitairen naast zich in het Witte Huis..)… M.a.w. Trump heeft onder druk van de geheime diensten en het militair-industrieel complex bakzeil gehaald……

Tyler Durden plaatste afgelopen dinsdag op Zero Hedge een artikel over deze zaak na publicatie van een interview met Susan Sarandon, acteur, plus milieu en anti-oorlog activist, afgelopen zondag in The Guardian.

Sarandon keerde zich tegen haar voormalige vriendin Clinton* en steunde kandidaat Jill Stein van de Green Party. Volgens Durden werd Sarandon na het verlies van Clinton bedreigd door ‘linkse democraten’, zelfs met verkrachting en de dood….. Dat men in de VS niet weet wat echt ‘links’ inhoud is al lang bekend, maar het valt me van Durden wel tegen, dat hij de psychopaten die achter Clinton stonden en staan ‘links’ noemt…… Zelfs de andere democratische kandidaat, Bernie Sanders, heeft maar heel weinig met links te maken, al zou zijn beleid een stuk beter hebben uitgepakt voor de grote onderlaag in de VS, dan dat van Clinton of het twitterende beest Trump……

Sarandon zou gezegd hebben dat Clinton gevaarlijker is dan Trump, iets dat volgens Sarandon niet waar is, maar waar ze geen bezwaar tegen heeft (dus ze staat pal achter deze ‘voor haar verzonnen uitspraak’)

Lees het volgende artikel en oordeel zelf:

Susan
Sarandon: Hillary Clinton Would’ve Been “More Dangerous”
Than Trump

by Tyler
Durden

Nov
28, 2017 10:52 AM

In
an interview with the Guardian published
Sunday night, actress Susan Sarandon – a noted anti-war and climate
progressive – described her former friend Hillary Clinton as “very
dangerous” in response to an interviewer’s question about why she
supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Furthermore,
Sarandon, who has been the subject of vicious and persistent attacks
by leftists for supporting a third-party candidate that many blame,
wrongly, for throwing the election to Trump. She said she had to
change her phone number because – get this – angry Clinton
supporters left a torrent of death and rape threats on her voicemail.

Sarandon,
who fist became involved in activism as a young woman when she became
an early and vocal proponent of the anti-War movement in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even suggested that Clinton might’ve been
“more dangerous” than Trump.

Did
she really say that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump?

“Not
exactly, but I don’t mind that quote,” she says. “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.”

Though
she supported Clinton’s first bid for the senate in 2001, Sarandon
said her support for Clinton evaporated when the then-senator voted
in favor of the war in Iraq*.

It
is often overlooked that in 2001, Sarandon supported Hillary
Clinton’s run for the Senate. There are photos of them posing
chummily together, grinning. Then Clinton voted for the war in Iraq
and it all went downhill. During
the last election, Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders, then wouldn’t
support Clinton after she won the nomination, and now all the
moderates hate her, to the extent, she says, that she had to change
her phone number because people she identifies as Hillary trolls sent
her threatening messages. “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’ [children
brought illegally to the US, whose path to legal citizenship – an
Obama-era provision – Trump has threatened to revoke] and that
started another wave.”

Wait,
from the right?

In
a jab at her critics on the left, Sarandon said she isn’t worried
about the threats or the criticism from people who bizarrely blame
her for throwing the election to Trump. Instead, she’s worried that
the left’s refusal to reckon with the true nature of the problem –
that the DNC rigged an election to favor a flawed, unpopular
candidate – will harm progressive causes in the long run.

“Well,
that’s why we’re going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the
Democratic National Committee]. Because the amount of denial … I
mean it’s very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the
election. That my little voice was the deciding factor.”

Is
it upsetting to be attacked?

“It’s
upsetting to me more from the point of view of thinking they haven’t
learned. I don’t need to be vindicated.”

But
it’s upsetting that they’re still feeding the same misinformation
to people. When Obama got the nomination, 25% of [Hillary’s] people
didn’t vote for him. Only 12% of Bernie’s people didn’t vote
for her.”

But
she didn’t advocate voting for Hillary! Come on.

“Hmm?”

Didn’t
she advocate voting for Jill Stein?

“I
didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your
information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping
that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I
knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.”

Luckily,
Sarandon said her friends have stood by her, at least.

Has
she lost friends over all this? “No. My friends have a right to
their opinions. It’s
disappointing but that’s their business. It’s like in the lead-up
to Vietnam, and then later they say: ‘You were right.’ Or
strangely, some of my gay friends were like: ‘Oh, I just feel bad
for [Clinton]. And I said: ‘She’s not authentic. She’s been
terrible to gay people for the longest time. She’s an opportunist.’
And then I’m like: ‘OK, let’s not talk about it any more.’”

Still,
I think while there was vast political error on both sides, the
inability of Sarandon and her ilk to embrace the lesser of two evils
permitted the greater of the two evils to rise. And
yet I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her
inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media
enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in
toeing the line.

When
it comes to deportations, Sarandon said a hypothetical Clinton
administration probably have continued with Obama’s strategy of
“sneakily” deporting immigrants.

Given
his record on immigration and extrajudicial drone-enabled murder,
Sarandon said she was shocked that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

It
seems absurd to argue that healthcare, childcare, taxation for the
non-rich wouldn’t be better now under President Clinton, and that’s
before we get to the threat of deportation hanging over millions of
immigrants. “She
would’ve done it the way Obama did it,” says Sarandon, “which
was sneakily. He
deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the
Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to
have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff
he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t
go all the way because of big pharma.”

This
isn’t the first time Sarandon has suggested that Clinton could be a
greater national security risk than Trump. She made similar comments
in June 2016, just as Clinton was clinching the nomination. At that
time, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy pledge – which
was based on a philosophy of noninterventionism – was arguably more
dovish than his rival.

Of
course, Trump has pivoted away from that stance since taking office,
authorizing more troop deployments in Afghanistan and threatening
North Korea with nuclear annihilation, chagrining many of his early
supporters.

=============================

* Sarandon brak met Clinton toen deze zich in 2001 voor de illegale oorlog tegen Afghanistan verklaarde. Durden noemt hier Irak, echter dat moet zoals gezegd Afghanistan zijn, de illegale oorlog tegen Irak begon in 2003. (overigens ook een illegale oorlog waar Clinton voorstander van was…..)

PS: vergeet niet dat Hillary Clinton zich tijdens de campagne uitsprak voor het eerste gebruik van kernwapens bij een aanval van de VS, waarmee zij het pad verliet, waar kernwapens ‘alleen dienden als afschrikkingswapen’, iets waar ook Trump zich nu ‘positief’ over uitlaat  (uiteraard droomden het Pentagon en presidenten als Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr., Clinton en Bush jr, al jaren over een aanval door de VS met kernwapens……)