Vice | Opening Wide on Christmas | Let's call it... mixed reviews #DiViceive

[Nova]

Just because Bush didn’t tear gas children across the border doesn’t mean he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of thousands of children. What’s the difference between tearing gassing children and killing them? 

 

I dont even know what folks are trying to argue tbh when it comes to Trump vs Bush. Just because Trump is a big POS doesn’t make Bush any less of a POS. 

 

Im not a foreigner but this self centered view of how Trump is worse for the US vs Bush is prob why a lot of foreigners hate Americans. If something doesn’t directly effect Americans it’s okay. “Trump is only worse because it directly effects me. But Bush literally fucking up another country over oil/money and killing children is fine because it has nothing to do with me. So Trump is worse.” 

 

Its okay to say: both Trump and Bush are pieces of shit and are stains in United States history for different reasons though. It doesn’t have to be either or. It can be left at that. You don’t have to make it seem like one was worse than the other. 

[FantasticBeasts]

1 hour ago, ThePhasmid said:

As an American, I think Trump is infinitely worse than Bush, but I can see the argument from foreigners otherwise. Not 100 percent, but I can see their argument. Hey, this is about Cheney. Bush is merely here by proxy. Trump fully supports tear gassing babies. Choose your stance wisely here.

 

Hey, if you want to get intricate with the details. Don't blame America. Blame Texas. They want to be sovereign. What would we lose? Simple calculators?

My stance doesn't come from me being a foreigner though (after all I don't live in one of the countries directly affected by Bush Jr's shit), it wouldn't change a bit if I were an American. Not caring about the foreign policy of your country when it doesn't directly affect you is not something you should say without shame.

[The Futurist]

Soft power, look for it.

[excel1]

2 hours ago, ThePhasmid said:

As an American, I think Trump is infinitely worse than Bush, but I can see the argument from foreigners otherwise. Not 100 percent, but I can see their argument. Hey, this is about Cheney. Bush is merely here by proxy. Trump fully supports tear gassing babies. Choose your stance wisely here.

 

Hey, if you want to get intricate with the details. Don't blame America. Blame Texas. They want to be sovereign. What would we lose? Simple calculators?

Individually, Donald Trump is a less morally principled person than any Bush. 

 

As President, Bush's administration hurt more people than just about other administration in history. Hurt in many ways. Physical, economic, psychological, etc.

 

We will see what comes of the Trump administration. The best outcome of Bush's presidency was it led directly to exceptionally successful Obama administration. Think about that. Though Bush did clean up some of the national security gaps Clinton created trying to get to "balanced budget" bragging point for his wife's future campaigns. 

 

Vice is expected to shed to light on what many point to as the cause of someone as well meaning as W realizing such disastrous consequences- Cheney is all time manipulator and W was just too soft. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by excel1

[MrGlass2]

11 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Vice is expected to shed to light on what many point to as the cause of someone as well meaning as W realizing such disastrous consequences.  

No he wasn't (and neither was his father).

 

This is why Vice is needed.

[Noctis]

Trump is a pathological liar, divider, and a danger to democracy. However, he does not come close to the sheer death and destruction Bush Jr unleashed on the world.

[excel1]

13 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

No he wasn't (and neither was his father).

 

This is why Vice is needed.

 

Yes, they were. Careful what you deem intentions. The Clinton's always had less than moral intentions. Not bad, just more self-serving. 9/11 may not have ever occurred, along with the resulting wars, had Clinton not been fearful of the political fall-out after the OBL hit in 1998 or been so desperate to the balance budget to give his wife a future campaign bragging point that he created gaping holes in security. The recession may never have happened had Clinton not jammed-through the policy that pushed for 0% down, no income verification mortgages for poor people so again his wife could brag about it in the future. W inherited a crumbling, highly flawed empire. Sure, he poured gasoline into it instead of cleaning it with absurd tax cuts and middle eastern invasions, but all the same. Not his cause, 

 

 Noteworthy that Obama's are so much closer with Bush's personally than the Clinton's. 

 

W abandoning his party and pouring money into Africa and the economy in the latter years of his presidency was his way of admitting error for 2000-2006.

Edited December 3, 2018 by excel1

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

Just because Bush didn’t tear gas children across the border doesn’t mean he wasn’t responsible for the deaths of thousands of children. What’s the difference between tearing gassing children and killing them? 

 

I dont even know what folks are trying to argue tbh when it comes to Trump vs Bush. Just because Trump is a big POS doesn’t make Bush any less of a POS. 

 

Im not a foreigner but this self centered view of how Trump is worse for the US vs Bush is prob why a lot of foreigners hate Americans. If something doesn’t directly effect Americans it’s okay. “Trump is only worse because it directly effects me. But Bush literally fucking up another country over oil/money and killing children is fine because it has nothing to do with me. So Trump is worse.” 

 

Its okay to say: both Trump and Bush are pieces of shit and are stains in United States history for different reasons though. It doesn’t have to be either or. It can be left at that. You don’t have to make it seem like one was worse than the other. 

I literally mentioned how I didn't want my post to come across as a defense of Bush.

 

Others were taking the stance that Bush was worse than Trump, I said for the country specifically I disagreed.  Granted, Trump has not been put in a position where he has an opening to really go into a war like Bush had.

 

I also don't like that it's being inferred that by saying that I apparently don't care about Bush Jr's disaster foreign policy.  I do, it was a disaster.  It was also a disaster that got a bipartisan approval stamp.

 

I reckon if you put Trump (the person) into the same situation Bush was in, Trump would have taken the same foreign policy actions, if not worse.  If you put Bush (the person and without Cheney) in Trump's current situation, I reckon his policies would still be shit (as are Trump's) but we'd be in a better situation than with Trump.

 

That's all I'm saying when comparing the two.  I am not comparing damages, especially since we've only had 2 years of Trump so far vs 8 years of Bush.

 

And again, I was not saying Bush's foreign policy (or Bush's presidency) was fine, so don't put that into my mouth.  Especially when I literally said it was terrible.

[MrGlass2]

33 minutes ago, excel1 said:

W abandoning his party and pouring money into Africa and the economy in the latter years of his presidency was his way of admitting error for 2000-2006.

How did he "abandon his party"? Rather, the opposite happened. Bush had become so toxic that the GOP tried to run away from him and his beyond horrific record before the 2008 elections. This is probably getting too political for this thread, so I won't even reply to what you describe as "good intentions" - let's just say that wars of aggression and mass torture don't qualify.

 

And Bush Jr wasn't a moron who only succeeded because of his daddy. He was extremely privileged, but also ruthless and savvy. It was my only worry after the fantastic trailer for Vice. It seemed to present Bush as a lazy idiot used by Cheney and Rumsfeld like a puppet to really run the country. Hopefully the movie won't go in that direction.

 

It is also well-known that Cheney selected himself after leading the committee to select a VP (and hopefully the Vice trailer only showed the end of the process, because it should definitely be part of the story), but Bush and his family knew exactly who Cheney was.

[WrathOfHan]

For all this Bush talk, what about Jeb!?

[The Futurist]

The more Hollywood gets laughably political, the lower box office becomes.

Funny how that works.

 

Also, news flash to my fellow american friends :

 

you all used dozens (hundreds) of times thousands ( & thousands ...) of gallons of oil the Bush dynasty managed to retrieve back to the US of A from their foreign campaigns.

Be grateful they cared enough to allow you to move your delicate buttocks from point A to point B whenever you felt like it, amongst other uses oil can provide.

Edited December 3, 2018 by The Futurist

[Barnack]

14 hours ago, The Futurist said:

you all used dozens (hundreds) of times thousands ( & thousands ...) of gallons of oil the Bush dynasty managed to retrieve back to the US of A from their foreign campaigns.

Be grateful they cared enough to allow you to move your delicate buttocks from point A to point B whenever you felt like it, amongst other uses oil can provide.

Would like explanation for that statement ?

 

That the typical source of OIL in the US:

 

 

Just foreign source:

 

What did the Bush have to do with any relevant source of Oil ?

 

Look at the US import of Oil from IRAK for an example (if this is what you have in mind):

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMIZ1&f=M

 

They were higher in 2002 before the conflict than after.....

 

That would make more sense if they invaded Canada or Mexico... How does any action made by Bush provided more/better price of Oil for american citizen (specially compared to that tax dollar they spent on it ?) What retrieved even mean in that paragraph ?

 

That Irak war was for stealing oil to go in the US economy and they stole some oil narrative do need some supporting evidence considering how little oil is imported by the US from Irak and it is a good part by a state run Irak company, it sound like what teenagers said about it at the time, if that was the plan it didn't work.

 

Is this statement something you actually looked for yourself that you could explain ? Or some stuff you heard other teenagers friends at the time say you are repeating since without ever questioning it ?

Edited December 3, 2018 by Barnack

[Ozymandias]

Every time I speak of the haters and losers I do so with great love and affection. They cannot help the fact that they were born fucked up!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 29, 2014

[Maxmoser3]

This movie will perform like the adjusted total of Nixon ‘95

[Barnack]

14 hours ago, The Futurist said:

you all used dozens (hundreds) of times thousands ( & thousands ...) of gallons of oil the Bush dynasty managed to retrieve back to the US of A from their foreign campaigns.

 

13 hours ago, Barnack said:

Would like explanation for that statement ?

 

I guess we will never know like usual..... (or some statement are not literal) 

[The Futurist]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I guess we will never know like usual..... (or some statement are not literal) 

It s off topic and a looonnnng discussion, difficult to have when it's not your native tongue.

But the point remains, The Bush dynasty should be more honored than scorned so this movie is a bit tone deaf.

McKay was spot on the financial crisis tho.

As far as I am concerned, this movie categorizes as sci-fi.

Edited December 3, 2018 by The Futurist

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, The Futurist said:

It s off topic and a looonnnng discussion, difficult to have when it's not your native tongue.

But the point remains, The Bush dynasty should be more honored than scorned so this movie is a bit tone deaf.

McKay was spot on the financial crisis tho.

As far as I am concerned, this movie categorizes as sci-fi.

 

Which is ?, for which reason the Bush (for what they did when in office, there some aids campaign in Africa and other stuff outside of it) should be more honored than scorned ?

 

Maybe you have a point, could you make it ? Not so much off topic in a very political movie about the very subject and I am not sure what can be so long about it, literally US get less oil from Irak now than before 2003.

 

Why the people driving around in the US are able to do it in significant part because of W. Bush military intervention ? With the shale oil boom only 35% of the consumed crude oil in the US is foreign and come mostly from Canada, Saudi, Mexico, Venezuela and Columbia, almost nothing from Irak, if anything was done it was more for the rest of the world energy stability than the US. Without a big explanation a short resume of what you meant would do.

 

Has for the movie being sci-fi, the amount of judgement you make about movies you have not even seen is extraordinary.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Barnack

[Fantomex005]

Hmm. I didn't know this was coming out. Usually don't follow oscar bait films but I see Bale getting another oscar nod for this. Anyway, don't compare Bush to Trump. Bush was a lot worse. Trump will likely get re-elected. 

 

https://youtu.be/dUC50Fj-xac

 

 

[ThePhasmid]

19 hours ago, Noctis said:

Trump is a pathological liar, divider, and a danger to democracy. However, he does not come close to the sheer death and destruction Bush Jr unleashed on the world.

You are confusing Bush with Cheney. This film will enlighten your stance. Furthermore, Trump enables and emboldens the worst misogynistic racist society bubbling between the coasts. Don't tell me otherwise. It's evident.

Edited December 3, 2018 by ThePhasmid

[Noctis]

2 minutes ago, ThePhasmid said:

You are confusing Bush with Cheney. This film will enlighten your stance. Furthermore, Trump enables and emboldens the worst misogynistic racist society bubbling between the coasts. Don't tell me otherwise. It's evident.

I agree with you. Cheney is more of a monster than Bush for sure.