Pulled, stuffed, filled, tightened, plumped, injected, stitched, stretched, scraped, lifted, tucked… she looks just as phony and fake as one of the silicone beauties at realdoll dot com. (But don't go there. NSFW. You've been warned.)

Of course they're not. Nobody said that they are and nobody is even suggesting that (except you.). The two women are not being compared. It's clear to most all reasonable observers that each woman represents a separate thing. Mr. Westrate (whose tweet is quoted here) is illustrating a cause and effect. A beginning and an end. A path-chosen and the inevitable outcome. Sarandon (a Bernie surrogate) is the face-of and personification of this idiotic "revolution". Barrett (et al) and the consequences therein (namely, allowing Texas' "heartbeat-law" to stand) is the result. These things do not happen in a vacuum.

I've often thought of that every time I hear certain individuals engaging in divisive smears and rhetoric such as: Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt"; or that Democrats are "feeble"; or that Democrats are "corrupt"; or that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure"; or that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent"; or that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite"; or that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans"; or that Democrats are "do-nothings"; or that Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change"; or characterizing the Democratic party as the "Coastal-Elite". ALL LIES!! ALL DIVISIVE!!

True, it's not ONLY Sarandon, but she is closely allied with those who seek to intentionally cause harm to the Democratic party. Not only is it part of the "divide and conquer" strategy that you spoke of. But it's clearly just one part of their overall "destroy and rebuild" philosophy. Sarandon, Turner, West, Moore, Uygur (and their close associates) are all a part of it.

They all have nothing but contempt and resentment for the Democratic party. What useful purpose does it serve? It's just another example of how people are oddly willing to do and say things that create an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness and negativity. Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

Why are these toxic individuals defended and celebrated?

Making enemies of allies is not a prudent course of action. Blaming loyal and hard-working Democrats and Democratic leadership who are ALREADY focused on these issues only creates resentment and distrust. What useful purpose does it serve? It's just another example of how some people are oddly willing to do and say things that create an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness and negativity. Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

A good rule of thumb for any progressive or liberal minded individual: ATTACK AND CHALLENGE REPUBLICANS, NOT DEMOCRATS.

I wasn't expecting Bernie Sanders to be in LAST PLACE. That's interesting.

Trump plunged the republic into hell, but they would never admit they were wrong. (His actual name should be clearly associated with his failures. His name is Trump, use it.)

Offensive as he may personally be, there are plenty of others who can deal with the reality that he was indeed elected, inaugurated, and served one full term. Ignoring facts and playing these games doesn't change history.

Besides, in order to have an intelligent conversation about him (or "current events" that involve him, or that are the result of him) you don't need to use the word "president". Just saying his legitimate name "Trump" will go a long way toward clarity in messaging and being able to exchange ideas and observations and analysis in a less confusing, less cryptic and ... frankly... an adult manner.

All I'm trying to say is that this type of behavior truly serves no good purpose. It's a fad (and one that I hope ends soon) and is no better than other juvenile name-calling. Being able to discuss issues, current-events, history without needing a cheat-sheet of the latest fad nickname/insult is much better than pretending that such antics actually make a difference, or that Trump even cares what this small community thinks or says. (Hint: he doesn't.)

How would you characterize it when someone refers to Democrats as "Coastal Elites". Is it "pushing hard" to say that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt".

Explain to me how it's being a "team player" to characterize Democrats as being "feeble"... or to say that Democrats are "corrupt".

Do you have any opinions (one way or the other) when someone says that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure"... or that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent"... or that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite".

Is it "team player" behavior to repeatedly declare that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans" ... or to say that Democrats are "do-nothings" and that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change."

No, that's wrong. That type of negativity and cynicism generates apathy. The lies and smears create a hostile and negative atmosphere of apathy that discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

It serves no good purpose. No matter how many sprinkles are added as decoration it's shitty for anyone to continually smear the Democratic party and Democratic leadership in that way.

https://twitter.com/BanquoDyar/status/1422754494060789763

Walker Bragman is the clown that wants his dog to be covered by Medicare for All.

https://twitter.com/beverlybroccoli/status/1422735820956516354