Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:08 PM Feb 2016

The Hypocrisy of Susan Sarandon

She's one of the 1% the Sander's supporters say they despise. She's 2016 "Face of Loreal/Paris", taking millions from them.

I wish Dolores Huerta had said to Sarandon "Do you know about Loreal, and it's Global Conglomerate, Child labor Violations & Racism in Marketing?

---------------------

L’Oréal: Beauty for Everyone?

A Look Into Human Rights Issues

Mica Mining

Makeup’s glitter isn’t as shiny as it may seem. The secret behind glittery foundation, blush, and other goods in the cosmetic industry is mica. Mica is a mineral used not only in makeup but in nail polish, car paint and electronic chips (Doherty & Whyte, 2014). Sixty percent of this mineral is mined in India (Nesbitt, 2014). Many major cosmetic companies, including L’Oréal, source mica from India. The dark side of this shiny mineral is child labor. Child labor is a global issue affecting many developing countries, including India. According to Unicef, thirteen percent of children around the world (excluding children in China) aged five to fourteen are entrenched in child labor. In India, twelve percent of children aged five to fourteen are engaged in child labor (UNICEF, 2014). Since the mica industry is largely unregulated in India, tracking child labor in the mica market is difficult (Nesbitt, 2014). The lengthy and intricate supply chain that most companies go through to get their mica makes it very difficult to be sure that there is no child labor involved throughout this process.

According to DanWatch, an independent Danish watchdog media group that conducts investigative journalism on global issues, much of the world’s mica supplies are illegally mined in two states in eastern India, Jharkhand and Bihar (Lendal, Rosholm & Ulsøe, 2014). Illegal mining activities are extensive. The country reported producing 15,000 tons of mica in 2011 but exported 130,000 tons (Doherty & Whyte, 2014). The extra 115,000 tons were mined illegally (Doherty & Whyte, 2014). Much of this illegal mining is conducted by children (Lendal et al., 2014). According to Jharkhand’s state commission for the protection of children’s rights, and the children’s rights group Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA), an estimated 5,000 children work in these mines from a young age (Lendal et al., 2014). Both groups admit that there is no real way of validating this number (Lendal et al., 2014).

During its investigation DanWatch met with families whose children work in the mines and “observed children as young as 5 years [old] work for hours in the mines” (Lendal et al., 2014 p. 12). Children working in illegal mica mines in Bihar earn about 1.4 Euros a day compared to the 2.7 Euros that workers make per day in the legal mica mines (Lendal et al., 2014). Many children involved in these mines are not able to go to school because their families depend upon the money their children make mining this precious mineral for food and other necessities (Lendal et al., 2014).

Much more at http://aese.psu.edu/students/research/ced-urj/news/2015/l2019oreal-beauty-for-ev

151 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Hypocrisy of Susan Sarandon (Original Post) lunamagica Feb 2016 OP
This is only one of the reasons I take what she says with a grain of salt. leftofcool Feb 2016 #1
I have to watch my salt intake ... so it's probably best for me to just ignore her completely. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #17
Today is mercuryblues Feb 2016 #119
Welll ... maybe just one ... NurseJackie Feb 2016 #121
Don't put it mercuryblues Feb 2016 #122
Mmmm.... biscuits! NurseJackie Feb 2016 #129
LOL. n/t mercuryblues Feb 2016 #130
Here's Demi Lovato shilling for Loreal Paris--Lovato campaigned for Clinton in Iowa CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #94
I'm sorry, you are in an irony-free zone, please move along :) / FlatBaroque Feb 2016 #111
Since when do Sanders supporters HATE the 1%? Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #2
Mainly because Bernie has used the 1% meme as a cudgel to redstateblues Feb 2016 #4
Not really. If you actually listen to him he says he wants them to pay their fair share Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #12
Baloney. TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #64
so the latest hillary meme is to DEFEND the 1%? WOW! roguevalley Feb 2016 #67
I know, I would expect this from republicans, but democrats? n/t TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #70
I think that quite a few enjoy vast wealth. frylock Feb 2016 #74
If you go by the rhetoric of certain posters, the list of those JimDandy Feb 2016 #115
Those poor poor successful people? How will they go on Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #100
+1 btrflykng9 Feb 2016 #42
Because It's Simple.... LovingA2andMI Feb 2016 #71
... Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #139
Is that supposed to override my hatred for war and fracking and the Third Way and the TPP? djean111 Feb 2016 #3
+1 n/t ejbr Feb 2016 #109
We don't hate the wealthy! Sick of that lying meme. RiverLover Feb 2016 #5
So we can hold all 1%ers to that standard? Even the ones that support Hillary? Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #6
but..but... workinclasszero Feb 2016 #7
FYI Armstead Feb 2016 #36
Ai-yi-yi . . . I opening that link and . . . Petrushka Feb 2016 #116
Bwahahaha! There goes that meme! n/t ebayfool Feb 2016 #132
"That's all I got" Phlem Feb 2016 #86
Sigh. You start with a dumb false claim cali Feb 2016 #8
OK, what about the rest? The part after my "dumb claim"? lunamagica Feb 2016 #21
Interesting Kall Feb 2016 #31
I was just quoting you. But keep deflecting lunamagica Feb 2016 #38
No, you weren't Kall Feb 2016 #46
I'm addressing that right now Trajan Feb 2016 #48
Isn't this the point where I make some snide under the bus comment? Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #9
Only thing is cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #10
Oh and this: cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #142
You really don't understand what Bernie is fighting. aikoaiko Feb 2016 #11
This thread is about SS and L'oreal. Why iis everyone ignoring that? lunamagica Feb 2016 #39
Maybe because your thread title is: The Hypocrisy of Susan Sarandon aikoaiko Feb 2016 #56
See my responses below -- Clinton likes L'Oriel just fine Armstead Feb 2016 #73
This is part of the destroy all threats strategy Cheese Sandwich Feb 2016 #13
So, a 1%er is harassing a civil rights hero and being cheered for doing so. Nice. nt. NCTraveler Feb 2016 #14
But wait, there's more--she had NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!!! MADem Feb 2016 #18
Trying so hard melman Feb 2016 #41
Your confidence is misplaced. MADem Feb 2016 #47
An election held by a private corporation such as the Democratic Party is NOT JimDandy Feb 2016 #127
The Democratic Party is a political party, not a corporation. MADem Feb 2016 #146
What state is Huerta a resident of? Chakab Feb 2016 #99
So, a 1%er is harassing a civil rights hero and being cheered for doing so workinclasszero Feb 2016 #22
At what point in that conversation did Ms. Huerta attempt to break free? frylock Feb 2016 #80
Haven't you heard? Civil rights leaders are fragile eggs. Must be treated with kid gloves. Hiraeth Feb 2016 #91
How strange to call a civil discussion of issues harassment? aikoaiko Feb 2016 #57
I was wondering the same thing eom passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #128
Except neither of that ever happened. frylock Feb 2016 #76
She claims that she can't support Clinton because of her IWR vote. MADem Feb 2016 #15
Well good thing she isn't running for President. Wow such scrutiny of a surrogate! Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #19
Dolores Huerta certainly got the once-over, didn't she? As did John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, et al. MADem Feb 2016 #27
Ms. Huetra got the once over for her uhhhh misrepresentation of factual events. frylock Feb 2016 #81
Church ain't out on that yet, much as some want to close the book. MADem Feb 2016 #150
Polite. And accurate. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #20
Thanks! Funny everyone is stuck on the first sentence lunamagica Feb 2016 #24
Ha! Really you're surprised? Phlem Feb 2016 #92
The hypocritical Clinton Foundation likes L’Oréal too Armstead Feb 2016 #16
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #32
Make this an OP Lordquinton Feb 2016 #77
No limit to the slime factory from you people. CBGLuthier Feb 2016 #23
Are you saying the facts in the article are lies? lunamagica Feb 2016 #25
The Clinton Foundation likes them Armstead Feb 2016 #34
This thread is not about the Clintons. Stop deflecting, please. lunamagica Feb 2016 #35
Sauce for the goose..... Armstead Feb 2016 #37
Oh, no, luna. All of it is about the Clintons mikehiggins Feb 2016 #75
Do you know WHY they did this? jmowreader Feb 2016 #114
No, it's about Loreal Lordquinton Feb 2016 #79
This thread is about hypocrisy. frylock Feb 2016 #84
Susan Sarandon is not a hypocrite. mmonk Feb 2016 #26
Please, then, explain how she could overlook Edwards' IWR vote, but said that she couldn't MADem Feb 2016 #62
Touché Beacool Feb 2016 #113
Susan lives in a glass house yet throws stones. ha ha riversedge Feb 2016 #28
I never cared for her. NaturalHigh Feb 2016 #29
Finally ... Trajan Feb 2016 #49
wait wait EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #30
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #33
Nice deflection lunamagica Feb 2016 #40
It's not a deflection EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #43
It's not hypocrisy when Clinton does it. Dr. Strange Feb 2016 #59
Here's a deflection mikehiggins Feb 2016 #131
Oh wait -- Hillary likes L'Oreil too Armstead Feb 2016 #44
Someone who used to work for Hillary works for L'Oreal dlwickham Feb 2016 #61
As relevant as Susan Sarandon Armstead Feb 2016 #65
She actively campaigns for sanders dlwickham Feb 2016 #104
Let me say this slowly....I.....don't....care Armstead Feb 2016 #105
Why should you care dlwickham Feb 2016 #106
Yeah a real phony UglyGreed Feb 2016 #45
Lame. It's not the rich being rich. It's the rich not sharing. nt valerief Feb 2016 #50
I was very disappointed to learn she was hectoring octogenarian civil rights leaders. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #51
Yes, that was a low point in her career as a public person ismnotwasm Feb 2016 #55
I prefer to remember her as Sister Helen. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #93
she was hectoring octogenarian civil rights leaders. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #69
No, the information was BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #83
you are treading on very thin ice. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #151
Yes, Ms. Huerta must be approached upon bended knee. frylock Feb 2016 #87
Hey! No hatin' on Susan! KamaAina Feb 2016 #52
Susan Sarandon isn't running for the office of the Presidency. notadmblnd Feb 2016 #53
Yes, nobody should abuse and exploit children Trajan Feb 2016 #54
Go Susan! Fearless Feb 2016 #58
But Susan is worth it dlwickham Feb 2016 #60
yeah well mgmaggiemg Feb 2016 #63
More artful smear Wibly Feb 2016 #66
She's one of the 1% the Sander's supporters say they despise. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #68
Another GOTCHA!fail frylock Feb 2016 #72
How so? Isn't SS receiving millions from L'oreal? Doesn't L'oreal expliots children and abuses lunamagica Feb 2016 #140
Not to mention L'Oreal tests on animals. catbyte Feb 2016 #78
You might want to mention that to Hillary Clinton supporter Demi Lovato-- CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #95
I'm NOT a Bernie supporter. I'm NOT a Hillary supporter. I think it's despicable of all of them. catbyte Feb 2016 #97
No, they don't passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #133
I wish Sarandon had said to Huerta, MisterP Feb 2016 #82
Susan has a permanent pass with me Tab Feb 2016 #85
If you disagree with Hillary Clinton--here comes the Rovian hit machine! CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #88
The Stepford voters. n/t PonyUp Feb 2016 #89
All she does? She said we vote with our vaginas. Don't you find that terribly insulting? lunamagica Feb 2016 #141
Sarandon should still be in hiding for her part in "Stolen Election 2000". oasis Feb 2016 #90
more propaganda to encourage UglyGreed Feb 2016 #120
Sarandon has no business calling herself a Democrat, and therefore oasis Feb 2016 #134
Is she under the bus now? I know that seems to be the Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #96
Pretty soon, Hillary Clinton supporter Demi Lovato will be under the bus too--She shills for L'Oreal CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #102
All I know is that I look forward to a few days and about Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #103
I'm sure they'll be attacking her like wildfire! Any minute now!! (nt) CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #108
Still waiting. This is confusing. It almost feels like Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #117
WTF greiner3 Feb 2016 #98
Don't forget the Billionaires! PeterGM Feb 2016 #101
More politics of destruction. blackspade Feb 2016 #107
your people don't get to harrass our leaders with impunity bigtree Feb 2016 #112
. melman Feb 2016 #118
Harass in what way? blackspade Feb 2016 #124
Is this a religous thing ? TheFarS1de Feb 2016 #136
WHY didn't you know that, Sarandon?! bigtree Feb 2016 #110
Oh noes, they are throwing her under the bus passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #123
The entire episode is sickening. yardwork Feb 2016 #125
REC! bravenak Feb 2016 #126
Hmmm...The more you know. passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #135
Under the bus, Sarandon! Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #137
Don't miss out on your own hypocrisy: Live and Learn Feb 2016 #138
My own Hypocisy? I've never given a holier-than-thou lectures against Wall St. lunamagica Feb 2016 #144
I know. Neither has Hillary! Where are those transcripts? nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #145
Not good enough, PSU AESE! SMC22307 Feb 2016 #143
You mean the same Susan Sarandan who campaigned for Ralph Nader??? Jitter65 Feb 2016 #147
That's the one! lunamagica Feb 2016 #148
I really dislike her. What put me over the edge BreakfastClub Feb 2016 #149

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
94. Here's Demi Lovato shilling for Loreal Paris--Lovato campaigned for Clinton in Iowa
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:33 PM
Feb 2016

I didn't know that the Clinton camp cared so much about the blood-curdling dealings of Loreal!

So much outrage for a Sander's supporter who DARES to associate with Loreal.

Oh wait. Here's a picture of Clinton supporter, Demi Lovato--who campaigned for Hillary Clinton in Iowa City.



You Clinton supporters must be horrified!!!

When can we expect the personal attacks on Lovato and Hillary Clinton to begin???

I'm assuming that you guys will get to work real quick on that press release. Don't all trip over each other, as you run for your keyboards!!

Nanjeanne

(4,961 posts)
2. Since when do Sanders supporters HATE the 1%?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:14 PM
Feb 2016

I just hate that they have been subsidized by the middle class. I just hate that since Reaganomics the wealth has been redistributed to them at the expense of the working people. I just hate that while workers productivity has increased - their wages have not.

If the 1% agrees with that and instead of being greedy and wanting more while the rest suffer - I welcome them to the Sanders Revolution.

Why do Clinton supporters reduce everything to such simple terms - like Sanders supporters HATE the 1%.

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
4. Mainly because Bernie has used the 1% meme as a cudgel to
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:18 PM
Feb 2016

tar anyone who is super successful. I know a lot of successful people who are good people who pay a lot of taxes and give a lot to charity as well.

Nanjeanne

(4,961 posts)
12. Not really. If you actually listen to him he says he wants them to pay their fair share
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:21 PM
Feb 2016

What does being a good person or giving to charity have to do with it.

He talks about the billionaires (and Susan Sarandon is not one of them) who are buying elections. People who can give $100 million to a candidate. Corporations who pay their workers less than liveable wages while the CEOs make 450% more than the workers.

Surely you can tell the difference?

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
67. so the latest hillary meme is to DEFEND the 1%? WOW!
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:54 PM
Feb 2016

I wonder how many HRC supporters here ARE the 1%. It would explain much.

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
115. If you go by the rhetoric of certain posters, the list of those
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:13 PM
Feb 2016

who at least support the 1% is substantial.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
100. Those poor poor successful people? How will they go on
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:48 PM
Feb 2016

with people demanding they have equal voice in government inbspite of their massive wealth that we all know proves they've earned the right to disproportionate influence.

LovingA2andMI

(7,006 posts)
71. Because It's Simple....
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:07 PM
Feb 2016

And rather than dig into the issues the lowest common denominator rises to the top for some folks.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
3. Is that supposed to override my hatred for war and fracking and the Third Way and the TPP?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:16 PM
Feb 2016

Because it never will. All this stuff about endorsements, whoever, whatever, does not mean squat when it comes to the issues I care about. That's why I am voting for Bernie, I don't care who endorses what candidate. That would be pathetic, to base my vote on endorsements.
If Bernie and Hillary were exactly the same, there might be a point. But - they are not.

Oh, and Bernie's supporters do not just lump all rich people into one bucket, sorry!

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
5. We don't hate the wealthy! Sick of that lying meme.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:19 PM
Feb 2016

We hate the wealthy who currently control our govt.

Susan S is NOT trying to buy off our govt reps to work favors for her class and ag People & Planet.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
6. So we can hold all 1%ers to that standard? Even the ones that support Hillary?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:19 PM
Feb 2016

Or does Hillary need a double standard because she can't pass the one you have set for Bernie?



 

cali

(114,904 posts)
8. Sigh. You start with a dumb false claim
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:19 PM
Feb 2016

that Bernie supporters hate people with money. That is utter bullshit.

Kall

(615 posts)
31. Interesting
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:46 PM
Feb 2016

"Aside from the quicksand I used to build my house's foundation on, what do you think of the rest of it?"

Kall

(615 posts)
46. No, you weren't
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:05 PM
Feb 2016

because I'm not the one who originally called it a dumb claim, it was someone else. But it is, indeed, a dumb claim and the way you constructed your argument was ridiculous.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
9. Isn't this the point where I make some snide under the bus comment?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:20 PM
Feb 2016

That's what the response is when a Sanders' supporter posts something similar.

Right?

cannabis_flower

(3,764 posts)
10. Only thing is
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:21 PM
Feb 2016

Susan Sarandon gets money from L'Oréal - but she isn't going to be voting on or veto-in issues like she would if she was holding office. It only becomes an issue if you hold office.

Perhaps you say it's hypocrisy because L'Oréal uses mica mined in India, but I don't even know if Ms. Sarandon is aware of this. There isn't any mention of her in the article, so we can't be sure she's even aware of it.

aikoaiko

(34,172 posts)
11. You really don't understand what Bernie is fighting.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:21 PM
Feb 2016

Bernie is not opposed to rich people. Bernie is opposed to disproportionate wealth. Bernie is opposed to the wealthy controlling elections with money.

The wealthy will continue to get wealthier under a Bernie Sanders presidency, but at a slower rate because corporate and 2% wealth will be taxed more appropriately to support living wages and physical/human services infrastructure.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
18. But wait, there's more--she had NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!!!
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:28 PM
Feb 2016

She's not a resident, she shouldn't have been wandering around the caucus floor.

There's got to be a certain amount of hubris in her that she'd think it was OK to lecture-lie to the founder of the frigging FARM WORKERS UNION about agricultural issues in that fashion. More to the point, the video makes it quite clear that she was whitesplaining to the Little Mexican Lady. For the jury, that's deliberate, intentional and it is born out by the video evidence.

It was an ugly, ugly thing, and I'll never think of her quite the same way ever again. It's amazing how people really are when their guard is down and they don't realize they're on camera. SS acquitted herself very poorly.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
47. Your confidence is misplaced.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:10 PM
Feb 2016

The Sarandon recording proved that the moderator--cheered by Sanders supporters--violated federal election law by not providing translation. Voters were disenfranchised by that English Only order.

I think Dolores Huerta is winning the popularity contest out in the real world.

And I'm With HER, too.

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
127. An election held by a private corporation such as the Democratic Party is NOT
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:55 PM
Feb 2016

subject to federal or state election laws! If it were:

1. there would have been no campaigning or electioneering allowed in the voting area, by anyone, including Dolores Huerta;

2. we could not be forced to vote publicly in this insane caucus process--instead our vote would be private;

3. representatives of one candidate would not be the only people registering voters at each precinct, instead both candidates would be allowed to register voters;

4. none of the people voting or registering would be allowed to wear any kind of campaign paraphernalia, like what happened here;

5. no one would be allowed to vote unless they were registered, which video evidence shows not only did not occur in some precincts, but was expressly encouraged by Clinton supporters;

5. voters would be required to vote in their precinct of residence instead of being encouraged and allowed to vote at precincts caucuses held in the casinos in which they worked; and

6. and neutral translators and translated materials would be prepared ahead of time and voters could request them in private.

We thought the Iowa caucuses were awful, but the Nevada Dem caucuses were 10 times as bad.

The caucus process should not be allowed to be any part of our actual US voting process. And not just because of the embarrassment we heap upon ourselves with the use of this antiquated process, but because it disenfranchises our OWN Democratic voters!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
146. The Democratic Party is a political party, not a corporation.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 07:29 PM
Feb 2016

That said, I agree with you about the stupidity of caucusing. Complete waste of time--for candidates as well as caucus goers.

What they do, though, is bring money into the state. That's why they persist.

It's an undemocratic and disenfranchising system even when done efficiently. People who have to work, can't get child care for an extended period, etc., are screwed.

Apparently NV lets people vote, then register. That's stupid too.

Translators should have been provided, or each team should have been allowed to nominate their own if a neutral one wasn't available (and who's neutral if they are AT a caucus?). Two translators, one for each side, would have been better. The voting rights of spanish speakers WERE violated by not having the proceedings translated.

And then of course there is this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/nevada-caucus-double-voting-219504

Hiraeth

(4,805 posts)
91. Haven't you heard? Civil rights leaders are fragile eggs. Must be treated with kid gloves.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:32 PM
Feb 2016

They never participate in CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE or get arrested, or tear gassed, or you know ... nothing like that.

aikoaiko

(34,172 posts)
57. How strange to call a civil discussion of issues harassment?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:39 PM
Feb 2016

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

They talked they walked away. That's what people do.

Are we having a #BowDownSusanSarandon moment?

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
128. I was wondering the same thing eom
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:56 PM
Feb 2016

We really need to stop taking the bait. These artful smears are just going to keep on coming.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
15. She claims that she can't support Clinton because of her IWR vote.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:24 PM
Feb 2016

I find it odd that she had no problem supporting Edwards who voted the exact same way.

I think she's a bit of a confabulator. To be polite about it.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
27. Dolores Huerta certainly got the once-over, didn't she? As did John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, et al.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:33 PM
Feb 2016

Sauce for that goose, and all.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
150. Church ain't out on that yet, much as some want to close the book.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 08:04 PM
Feb 2016

Snopes has been discredited as an non partisan source, and just because the moderator used the English Only phrase, it is not clear that he was the ONLY one who used it and it may have been used while all that shouting is going on.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/22/dolores_huerta_takes_on_bernies_base_nevada_caucus_flap_speaks_volumes_about_the_frustrations_of_sanders_supporters/

Dolores Huerta takes on Bernie’s base: Nevada caucus flap speaks volumes about the frustrations of Sanders supporters
Dog-piling of Huerta is evidence that Sanders supporters are frustrated over the lack of female and Latino backers



Unfortunately, Nevada showed that the inroads just weren’t enough. “He lost among women, blacks, nonwhites, and self-described Democrats,” Charles Blow of The New York Times writes. Early reports that Sanders had outperformed Clinton with Latino voters proved unlikely, as caucus results show that Clinton won the more Latino-heavy precincts. The Sanders message of economic populism is not resonating with people of color, women, or union workers— the very people you need to convince people your campaign is a serious one and not the electoral equivalent of the white guy in dreads wearing the Che shirt playing guitar in the quad.

...So it’s easy to see why Sanders supporters want to yell at Huerta. She’s an easy punching bag for those frustrated with voters they believe should vote for Sanders but stubbornly refuse to do what Sanders supporters want them to do. (It’s similar to way that older female Clinton supporters have gotten bossy with younger women who vote Sanders.) Painting Huerta as delusional, corrupt or a liar makes the loss of these voting blocs easier to swallow, because the alternative possibility, that Clinton voters know what they are doing, is too painful to contemplate.

The problem is that dog-piling Huerta is exactly the wrong way to go about appealing to women, people of color, or labor organizers. The accusations of lying are a stark reminder of how women or people of color have long been treated as more mendacious than white men, and the lack of respect for an iconic labor organizer calls into question if these self-proclaimed socialists have even a basic understanding of what socialism is, or the centrality of labor concerns to the very concept of socialism. (This isn’t helped by the fact that the Sanders campaign is far more focused on middle-class benefits and Wall Street corruption than traditional socialist concerns like labor organizing or welfare for the poor.)

The attacks on Huerta also reinforce the very image that the Sanders campaign needs to get away from, which is that it’s about a bunch of well-off white men who are more interested in pushing people around than creating a progressive coalition. Of course, the odds of Sanders actually winning now are incredibly low. The coalition didn’t form and Clinton is on the path to the nomination. That we’re seeing a shift away from trying to play nice to lashing out isn’t too surprising, under the circumstances. But it’s still disappointing to see would-be socialists attacking a scion of the labor movement in this way.







A number of people, presumably Sanders supporters, can be heard to indistinctly objecting to Huerta’s offer to translate. Their concern is, perhaps, understandable: Just two days ago, Huerta—who, with Cesar Chavez, in the late ‘60s, cofounded the National Farm Workers Associated, which would eventually become one of the most influential farm-labor unions in the country—authored a post on Medium titled “On Immigration, Bernie Sanders is Not Who He Says He Is.”

In the above footage, after some incomprehensible muttering and agitation in the crowd, the precinct’s permanent chair declares (around 55:22), “We’re going forward in English only.” This is met with cheers and applause. The precinct chair goes on to ask anyone in the room who speaks both English and Spanish to inform their neighbors who only speak Spanish of what’s going on.

Based on census data, however, Clark County (which includes Las Vegas) must conduct all elections in English, Spanish, and Filipino/Tagalog, according to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which is enforced by the Department of Justice. And, as the Washington Post points out, the Help America Vote Act provides federal funds to provide translated voting materials, language assistance, or interpretation.


http://gawker.com/did-bernie-sanders-supporters-chant-english-only-at-d-1760467084



 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
16. The hypocritical Clinton Foundation likes L’Oréal too
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:26 PM
Feb 2016
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/tag/l'oreal

Four years ago, L’Oréal, renewed a commitment to adopt a model of sustainable development that was good for the environment, good for people, and good for business. L’Oréal developed a 10-year plan to reduce its environmental impact by engaging in more eco-conscious production, reducing waste, and creating an environmentally sound and healthy work space for employees, and wanted to ensure that its efforts in sustainability had an impact both within and beyond the walls of its facilities.

In May 2009 the L’Oreal Maybelline plant in Little Rock, Arkansas, became the first industry partner to participate in the Clinton Climate Initiative’s Home Energy Affordability Loan (HEAL) program.

- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/clinton-foundation-blog.html/2013/05/02/case-study-heal-works-with-loreal-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions#sthash.QhQZ46Lu.dpuf

mikehiggins

(5,614 posts)
75. Oh, no, luna. All of it is about the Clintons
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:16 PM
Feb 2016

There would be no point in even talking about Sarendon if she hadn't endorsed Sanders who is, after all, running for the same office as HRC is. Oreal is not a poster child for humane treatment of their workers and the environment. Until very recently many makeup companies tested their products on the living eyes of animals. THe whole deal is scummy, IMHO, but that has nothing to do with your post.

Attacking Sarandon is just another in a wild series of such tactics and recognised as such.

See you in Philadelphia

jmowreader

(50,560 posts)
114. Do you know WHY they did this?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:11 PM
Feb 2016

I don't know if you've ever heard of this product:



Lash Lure was a "permanent mascara" - a dye for your lashes that was to be applied in a beauty parlor. Unfortunately for the customers, it was made out of a coal tar dye called paraphenylenediamine. I know, I know..."OMG IT HAS CHEMICALS IN IT!" In this case, your panic is justified: this is nasty-ass shit. Here's the MSDS for it:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926499

Lash Lure blinded dozens of women and killed several. When the government finally fixed the Pure Food and Drug Act to include cosmetics, the FDA's first act was to seize all the Lash Lure in the country.

There was also a wonderful drug, Elixir of Sulfanilamide. Sulfa was an early kind of antibiotic The mothers of the South asked their druggists for sulfa in liquid form, so the Massengill company (yup, the same outfit that invented Massengill Disposable Douche) came up with one. Their head chemist, after long and tiresome research, discovered the only solvent that would dissolve sulfanilamide was diethylene glycol...so, being completely free of the requirement to conduct safety testing, the company dissolved pounds of sulfanilamide in gallons of antifreeze and shipped it out to unsuspecting druggists all across the nation. After it managed to kill a hundred people, the government did an action the teabaggers would describe as "overstepping its bounds" and seized all of it...they even went to the homes of people who bought it and collected it up. The man who invented it committed suicide.

Here is a pro-animal testing website that talks about those two incidents. I tried not to get so blatant, but it was the first non-blog/non "aficionado" website I could find, so take it with as many grains of salt as you care to.

http://www.animalresearchcures.org/testing.htm

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
79. No, it's about Loreal
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:20 PM
Feb 2016

which the Clinton foundation supports, which completely undermines any bite the OP has, not with this new information, care to continue?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
62. Please, then, explain how she could overlook Edwards' IWR vote, but said that she couldn't
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:49 PM
Feb 2016

support Clinton because of hers?

That sounds, errrrr...hypocritical to me....


EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
43. It's not a deflection
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:59 PM
Feb 2016

I'm calling out the hypocrisy of anyone that refuses to care about their own candidate taking millions from weapons contractors and authoritarian regimes that suppress women and mass-execute political opponents - while also PRETENDING to care who Sarandon takes money from.

You can't just care about one, and I KNOW Clinton supporters don't care about what Clinton does so... it's just another political game...

Pretty offensive to try and win votes with slavery.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
44. Oh wait -- Hillary likes L'Oreil too
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 01:59 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/style/this-woman-is-in-charge-of-shaping-hillary-clintons-image.html

......Positioning a public figure is not exactly the work of a Baroque master, and a trip to Target does not a work of-art make. Nevertheless, the lesson from Caravaggio was clear in Ms. Schake’s approach.

Having helped shape Mrs. Obama’s public image into that of an accessible everywoman, Ms. Schake is about to face what may be her toughest challenge yet: working to get another first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, elected president.

.....As the campaign’s presumptive deputy communications director, Ms. Schake will be behind the effort to transport the Hillary Brand beyond paid campaign television ads, policy discussions and the requisite sit-down with a nightly news anchor.

.....After a position in the West Wing fell through, Ms. Schake joined L’Oréal USA as the cosmetics company’s chief communications officer.

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)
61. Someone who used to work for Hillary works for L'Oreal
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:48 PM
Feb 2016

Someone who used to work for Hillary works for L'Oreal?

Mind blown

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)
104. She actively campaigns for sanders
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:54 PM
Feb 2016

She serves as a surrogate on the campaign trail so it is a lot different

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
105. Let me say this slowly....I.....don't....care
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:55 PM
Feb 2016

Only the shallow hypocrisy involved in the attack on Sarandon

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)
106. Why should you care
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:57 PM
Feb 2016

She could be barbecuing puppies but as long as she supports Sanders that's all that matters

ismnotwasm

(41,989 posts)
55. Yes, that was a low point in her career as a public person
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:34 PM
Feb 2016

Anyone has the right to be passionate about their candidate of choice, but that made me very sad.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
69. she was hectoring octogenarian civil rights leaders.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:04 PM
Feb 2016

"Hector" means to talk to someone in a bullying way. Is that what she was doing?

Didn't Dolores spread misinformation in order to falsely degrade Sanders' supporters? A far more disappointing moment.

BlueMTexpat

(15,369 posts)
83. No, the information was
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:24 PM
Feb 2016

not false. And yes, if you actually watched the video, Sarandon was hectoring.

OK, so Susan was an FAO Goodwill Ambassador in 2010. Good on her! But that involved lots of showcasing and photo ops basically to raise awareness. It was hardly being on the front lines risking life and limb as Dolores Huerta was with Cesar Chavez in the 50s and 60s.

If you attack a major civil rights icon like Huerta with one who hectors her and then essentially calls her a liar, you are treading on very thin ice.

But please proceed.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
151. you are treading on very thin ice.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 11:27 PM
Feb 2016

What ice? What are you talking about?

Anyway...
It was up here all over the place that "Bernie Supporters chanted "English Only"...as reported by Huerta. Then a video clearly showed that to be false. Then witnesses said that wasn't what happened. The Huerta backpedaled and said the may not have happened....

That's the way it unfolded as far as I know. Where's the attack?

Am I supposed to hate all Latinos now because I saw evidence that Dolores Huerta put out there something that didn't actually happen?

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
54. Yes, nobody should abuse and exploit children
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:31 PM
Feb 2016

And no, it isn't a matter of 'hating the rich'

It's a matter of how the 1% have rigged the game so the 99% don't get a fucking thing in return for THEIR labor according to how they contributed to that wealth ...

Now, I see a need to remove you from my feed for posting these asinine commentaries ...

Wibly

(613 posts)
66. More artful smear
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:54 PM
Feb 2016

From the Clinton camp.
They don't have a legitimate program or platform to run on, so they have to resort to this nonsense.
There is no way Sarandon can be considered a member of the 1 %.
As for the money she takes, she works for it, and does a lot better stuff with it than the Clinton's do with theirs.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
68. She's one of the 1% the Sander's supporters say they despise.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:55 PM
Feb 2016

Who says they"despise" the 1%?

Thinking they should contribute to the USA and not have undue influence in government and elections is the definition of "despise"?

And is Sarandon running for anything?

I wonder where Dolores' clothes were made..... (actually, I don't. Guilt by association....or in the case of this thread, guilt by association of association....)

frylock

(34,825 posts)
72. Another GOTCHA!fail
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:11 PM
Feb 2016

Nobody is ever going to accuse conservatives of understanding nuance, that's for damn sure.

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
140. How so? Isn't SS receiving millions from L'oreal? Doesn't L'oreal expliots children and abuses
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 06:34 PM
Feb 2016

animals

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
95. You might want to mention that to Hillary Clinton supporter Demi Lovato--
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:41 PM
Feb 2016

Here's Demi Lovato, L'Oreal faceperson and marketing babe--who put on a free concert for Hillary Clinton in Iowa City:





Let the Rovian attacks against Hillary supporter Demi Lovato begin!!!

Watch out, Demi! The Hillary-Rovian attack machine is coming after you. Apparently being associated with L'Oreal is grounds for a public evisceration.




catbyte

(34,403 posts)
97. I'm NOT a Bernie supporter. I'm NOT a Hillary supporter. I think it's despicable of all of them.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:42 PM
Feb 2016

The subject was Susan Sarandon. If the subject had been Demi Lovato, I would've said the same thing. Sheesh.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
133. No, they don't
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:20 PM
Feb 2016
L’Oréal no longer tests on animals any of its products or any of its ingredients, anywhere in the world. Nor does L’Oréal delegate this task to others. The rare exception allowed is if regulatory authorities demand it for safety or regulatory purposes.


And about that 1% for safety:
That was the case in 2011 when we declared it. Since March 2013, this is no longer the case: L’Oréal no longer tests on animals any of its products or any of its ingredients. Nor does L’Oréal delegate this task to others.


http://www.loreal.com/csr-commitments/l%E2%80%99or%C3%A9al-answers/the-question-of-animal-testing/frequently-asked-questions

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
82. I wish Sarandon had said to Huerta,
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:24 PM
Feb 2016

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

"your 'candidate of the Latinos' is for border fences, deporting families, and sending kids back to their deaths. She personally ensured that a cartel-created coup went through and then stayed in, and it's murdered 200 peasants, nearly a hundred transwomen, three dozen journalists, and a dozen opposition candidates, all while Lanny Davis builds back channels"

on edit: Bernays' post "Guess who owns the lobbying firm for L'Oreal's slave labor mining company?? You'll never guess." http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511310239

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
88. If you disagree with Hillary Clinton--here comes the Rovian hit machine!
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:28 PM
Feb 2016

Seriously?

All Susan Sarandon does is support Bernie Sanders. And for that she's now a target of attacks and all kind of third-rate opposition research hacks.

Because no one can support Bernie Sanders without being bloodied up and pummeled.

Jamie Lee Curtis, Lena Dunham and Demi Lovato all supported Clinton and campaigned for her. I suppose we should crawl up their asses with a microscope and examine every company and organization that they've ever had a connection to!

The pathetic Clinton attack machine is really revving up today. And we're supposed to vote for her if she gets the nomination???

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
141. All she does? She said we vote with our vaginas. Don't you find that terribly insulting?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 06:39 PM
Feb 2016

Have Jamie Lee Curtis, Lena Dunham or Demi Lovato said something as insulting towards Sander's supporters?

No. All they do is support Hillary, in a positive way.

oasis

(49,389 posts)
90. Sarandon should still be in hiding for her part in "Stolen Election 2000".
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:31 PM
Feb 2016

As a result of her misguided allegiance to NADER as one of his most visible surrogates, Florida was in put in play for Bush. Scalia put a halt to the close vote count there, and the rest is history.

Sarandon and Scalia were equally responsible for Bush's installment into the Oval Office.

Sarandon has disqualified herself from having any say in Democratic Party politics.

UglyGreed

(7,661 posts)
120. more propaganda to encourage
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:27 PM
Feb 2016

voting for the lesser of the two evils Let's not forget what other factors were involved. I guess it is the Goebbels theory at work here..... “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

oasis

(49,389 posts)
134. Sarandon has no business calling herself a Democrat, and therefore
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:21 PM
Feb 2016

should sit herself on the sidelines and allow our party to operate without her interference.

She is disqualified. And that's no propaganda.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
102. Pretty soon, Hillary Clinton supporter Demi Lovato will be under the bus too--She shills for L'Oreal
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:49 PM
Feb 2016

Demi Lovato, a Clinton supporter who campaigned in Iowa and put on a free concert for Hillary in Iowa City--has shilled for L'Oreal too.

I assume the Clinton-Rovian attack machine will be just as outraged (outraged, I tell you!) at Demi Lovato as they are off Sarandon.





Hillary supporters will be lining up--to protest the horrors of Clinton supporter and free-concert-give Demi Lovato now.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
103. All I know is that I look forward to a few days and about
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:53 PM
Feb 2016

30 threads by Hillarily's people calling Ms. Lavato out for her hypocrisy!

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
117. Still waiting. This is confusing. It almost feels like
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:24 PM
Feb 2016

hypocrisy to not call out the lady for hypocrisy after calling out the lady in the topic of this thread for hypocrisy.

PeterGM

(71 posts)
101. Don't forget the Billionaires!
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:49 PM
Feb 2016

Ben & Jerry support Bernie too...
I find your argument really awkward:
Sanders will Tax the wealthy and help the poor.
Susan Sarandon is wealthy, therefore she must hate Sanders...

I guess if you live in a world where everyone voted purely for their own economic self interest that would be true... But a very weird world view. By that logic there should be about 15% Clinton supporters, 25% Trump supporters 60% Sanders supporters... roughly... Not really a realistic world view.

It's much more likely that these people live by the philosophy that those that have help those that haven't...

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
124. Harass in what way?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:44 PM
Feb 2016

And "our leaders"? WTF does that even mean?
Are 'leaders' not to be spoken to? Is there a protocol for engaging with them?


TheFarS1de

(1,017 posts)
136. Is this a religous thing ?
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 06:19 PM
Feb 2016

Sounds fairly bloody dogmatic and zealous to me . I don't talk with brainwashed zealots ... enjoy your doublespeak .

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
123. Oh noes, they are throwing her under the bus
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:36 PM
Feb 2016

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

What vile and disgusting treatment of an American Her...erm Legend and superstar, who fights for progressive issues.

The San...erm Hillary campaign needs to tell the Bernie Br...erm Hillary camp(no I won't go there ) to knock it off.

that just another mark of many against B...erm HRC supporters

the heckler's verbiage to Ms. Huerta was despicable (oh wait, it never happened)


Now Hillary camp is throwing her under the bus because she told the truth about Huerta.

Oh, and about that mica thing...
Many major cosmetic companies, including L’Oréal, source mica from India


I suspect most cosmetic companies source their mica from the cheapest source available...probably India. It's not just a L'Oreal. Does that make it right? No, of course not, but how many of you Hillary supporters use L'Oreal or any other major brand of makeup?

Does Susan know about this? Maybe and maybe not. But this I do know...in spite of her previous support, they are throwing her under the bus:

Some of the more recognizable candidates that have received money from Sarandon (snip), Hillary Clinton (both Senate and presidential campaigns), (snip), of course, Obama.


Oh wait...maybe this is why they are throwing her under the bus:

Her passion and nuanced view has caused her to question even the fundamentals of the American political system. She says, since she knows “how it works,” she’d rather lend her time and energy to grassroots organizations that have more power to affect immediate change.

she’s been a critic of Obama, saying:

Sure, [I’m disappointed with Obama]… I think there are different people that could have been hired.


Perhaps her pet issue is money in politics, which she sees as the biggest roadblock to positive reforms.

http://hollowverse.com/susan-sarandon/

Susan, baby, you screwed up. You were supposed to be faithful to the party. Shame on you.

edited to add this list of liberal spokeswomen for L'Oreal:

Julianne Moore, liberal who backs Obama and gun control

Kirsten Dunst liberal, supports Obama, pro-life (oh oh...the pro-life means she's for Hillary)

Wendy Williams, liberal, huge supporter of the gay community and same-sex marriage, women, gun control

Michelle Pfeiffer, liberal, money out of politics, gay marriage

Jane Fonda, of course liberal, anti war, (ooops...just had disqualify her. )

Well four out of five ain't bad...and there are a lot more...I can't list them all. Are you going to throw all these women under the bus for being L'Oreal spokeswomen?

Seriously? I didn't think so. Desperation is an ugly emotion.

yardwork

(61,650 posts)
125. The entire episode is sickening.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 04:50 PM
Feb 2016

Bernie may have just lost the entire Latino vote. People are justifiably outraged.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
135. Hmmm...The more you know.
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:51 PM
Feb 2016

Your link says:

As previously mentioned, due to the nature of the supply chain, it is difficult to determine if child labor is involved in the mica that L’Oréal buys.


And the guardian and L'Oreal say:

Many companies rely on assurances from their distributors to ensure their mica supply chains are free from child labour. However these guarantees are difficult to assess, since they are often not subject to external evaluation.

One solution is social auditing. Through consistent checks undertaken by external parties, suppliers of mica can provide evidence to prove they do not use forced labour. Recently, L'Oreal's mica supplier in India, Merck, has undertaken such steps. Since 2007 it has employed human resource consultants Environmental Resource Management to carry out monthly assessments of its mines.


http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/india-child-labour-mica-mineral-cosmetics

As a signatory of the United Nations Global Compact, L'Oréal expects its suppliers to adhere to the basic conventions of the International Labor Organization and to local legislation, especially in matters concerning minimum wage, work time and occupational health and safety. Social audits are carried out by independent external companies on the suppliers' premises, thus making close monitoring of their adherence possible. Audits are also systematically carried out on subcontractors, wherever in the world they may be based, as well as for suppliers of raw materials, packaging and POS*/advertising in sensitive countries. Social and safety/health audits are frequently conducted along the entire logistics chain, with the aim of validating the selection of new suppliers and contributing to the development of good business practices among existing suppliers.

http://www.loreal.com/suppliers/our-sustainable-procurement-policy/socially-responsible-purchasing

To be fair, according to the Guardian article, they say it's impossible to know if spot audits are working and many of them probably are not. But to be fair to Sarandon and all the other lovely ladies who have been spokespersons of L'Oreal, they may not be able to tell except by what is written and L'Oreal says they audit to prevent things like this. So...how does anyone really know?

The guardian says:

Aidan McQuade. "However, the way we could start fixing this problem is if the UK government included compulsory reporting of forced labour as part of its anti-slavery legislation. That way, it could also make companies responsible for labour abuses in their supply chains in the same way they have through similar reforms to corporate bribery."


We need some laws/rules to prevent these kinds of practices. Not just leaving it up to individuals to suss this all out on their own before they can be hired to work for a company. How would they ever be able to tell the truth?

BreakfastClub

(765 posts)
149. I really dislike her. What put me over the edge
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 07:45 PM
Feb 2016

was when she said she doesn't vote with her vagina. Well that's wonderful, but men have been voting with their penises since the beginning of democracy. That's why men have most of the power. What a stupid person she is. You're damn right I vote with my vagina, my uterus and my breasts. It's MY vote, my life and my decision, and there's not a damn thing wrong with voting for MY interests. So take that, Susan Sarandon!!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Hypocrisy of Susan Sa...