Most Read


READ: Susan Sarandon Claims if Hillary Had Won, 'We'd be at War'

READ: Susan Sarandon Claims if Hillary Had Won, 'We'd be at War'

Outspoken Hollywood actress Susan Sarandon is back in the news after a recent interview with The Guardian, and she isn't shying away from her controversial opinions.

During the 2016 election, Sarandon was one of Hillary Clinton's harshest critics. An avid Bernie Sanders supporter, Sarandon didn't care for the politics that led to the Democratic nomination of Clinton over Sanders. And she rattled many on the left when she threw her support behind Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

The new interview just reinforces how hung up she still seems to be about Clinton, regardless of how disastrous the Trump presidency has been thus far.

When discussing how feminism has changed since Sarandon created a name for herself in the 60s and 70s as a strident believer in equal rights, she noted that the idea of the "shrill woman" has reemerged because women are showing their anger once more, which Sarandon doesn't believe will get much accomplished. And she believes the idea of feminism has once again changed for the worse.

"It’s come back, and it’s gotten warped, especially with the election, where if you’re a woman you have to support Hillary Clinton," she claimed.

"I did think she was very, very dangerous," she said of Clinton. "We would still be fracking, we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much smoother."

She added: "Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice."

But Sarandon wasn't always an adversary for Clinton. In fact, she supported her run for the Senate in 2001. But once Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, things soured. Sarandon has been very vocally anti-war, ever since Vietnam. And the Iraq War was no exception.

And while she's disheartened and shocked by all the hate she's received from liberals who say she was partly responsible for Trump getting into the White House, she's unapologetic.

"Well, that’s why we’re going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the Democratic National Committee]," she stated. "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."

When asked if the attacks have upset her, she responded: "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.”

And while she claims she didn't advocate for people to vote for Jill Stein, she doesn't consider her vote to be a protest vote. "Well, I knew that New York was going to go [for Hillary]. It was probably the easiest place to vote for Stein," she said. "Bringing attention to working-class issues is not a luxury. People are really hurting; that’s how this guy got in. What we should be discussing is not the election, but how we got to the point where Trump was the answer."

After the interview, she asked: "Will I get a load more hatred when this article comes out?" To which the interviewer responded: "Probably."

Well, it turns out he was right:

Please SHARE this with your friends and family.

H/T: The Guardian, Salon, The Hill