The good includes Bale's performance; actor-stunt weight gain mimicry aside, it's an impressive look at a truly banal evil.
The bad includes the McCay bag of meta-tricks, most of which worked well in The Big Short but which almost all seem ill-considered here, especially ...
... the far too expository, never-needed voiceover, which never justifies itself, even once the nature of its source is finally revealed.
But good to have a reminder of what soulless monsters every Bush-era crony has always been, and how destructive 2000-08 was.
My thought while watching: I don't think the received wisdom that the next Trump will be a smarter, more canny fascist is correct. I think we already had that—it was Cheney (and HW Bush and Reagan).
I think the next Trump will be dumber. That's the direction of this whole thing.
To be clear I think a dumber version of Trump is *more* likely to win than a smarter one, not less likely.
The lesson of Trump is what the lesson of Reagan and both Bushes should have been: You can do anything you can get away with.
Anything Trump doesn't face criminal charges for is something presidents can do—which is why prosecution is crucial. washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-tr…
It's meaningless to say presidents "can't" if when they do the thing they "can't" do there exist no consequences.
As of right now, Trump has not found anything that presidents "can't" do.
It is vital that we start establishing a list of such things—a long list, preferably.
In my opinion, we should prosecute presidents retroactively, going back to Nixon at least.
Let's charge them with crimes and put their convictions on the books.
Let's start investigations into Cheney/Rumsfeld.
The list of things you can't do is an empty sheet. Let's fill it.
One thing we now know to a reasonable degree of certainty is that if saying "Merry Christmas" killed the person you said it to, it would make conservative Christians want to say it more, not less.
help I am being cancelled, the worst fate imaginable
To white American conservative Christians it sure seems to be.
If the only answer to abusive people is successfully persuading them not to be abusive...
Then the abuse becomes everyone else’s fault, for not catering to the abuser sufficiently enough to persuade him.
Which is exactly the way an abusive person wants you to think.
So, don’t.
Our goal is not persuading abusive people. Our goal is stopping them.
If an abuser proved willing to be persuaded, then persuade them.
If not, abandon persuasion, and stop them some other way.
Insisting that persuasion is our goal seems like the moral position, because persuading people to do good is good.
But making it the goal is actually an immoral position. It makes persuasion a prerequisite. It cedes power to the abuser and responsibility to the abused.