I’m looking forward to this, but…
Ehhhhhhh…
When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.
That statement feels a little facile and beneath a man as obviously intelligent as Garland.
Left and right are ideological arguments about how to run a state. That’s all they are. They are not a right or wrong, or good and bad. It’s which do you think has greater efficacy? That’s it. You try one, and if that doesn’t work out, you vote it out, and you try again a different way. That’s a process. But we’ve made it into ‘good and bad.’ We made it into a moral issue, and it’s ****ing idiotic, and incredibly dangerous … I personally [blame] some of this on social media. There is a an interaction that exists human-to-human that floats away when it reaches a public forum.
A better statement would be just to say that both left and right political leaders can disappoint their supporters and oppress if you look at the history of well, everywhere. Both can act immoral, not that they are somehow 'above' being morally quantified. He seems to have a problem with that quantification which seems to me to be a position of the privileged to not to concern themselves with such things.
I’m looking forward to this, but…
Ehhhhhhh…
When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.
Yeah, as soon as I heard that California and Texas are allies in the film, I worried that it would be a middle-of-the-road, both-sides-are-the-problem, be-politically-vague kind of film. And maybe if we weren’t literally facing the end of democracy in this country and having ONE side constantly threatening a new civil war, I could find this sort of thing interesting or entertaining. But as it is, I feel like it just adds to the problem.
I’m looking forward to this, but…
Ehhhhhhh…
When the one Republican most reasonable/willing to work across the aisle is a ****ing Cheney, there’s no both-sidesing that. One side has become incredibly radicalized and the other side catches nothing but hell for merely pointing that fact out.
The Hollywood Reporter article describes a three (!)-term president who recently disbanded the FBI. And in a direct quote, Garland says: “There is a fascist president who smashed the Constitution and attacked citizens.” Three guesses who this fictional POTUS is based on. (Hint: it’s not Biden, Obama, Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr. or Reagan.) So at least in this respect, Garland’s political POV would seem to be pretty unambiguous.The "both sides" aspect of is a downer, and I'll still watch it, but it would've been gutsy to actually point out the real problems we are facing with one side of the aisle.
I mean, you guys want him to focus on things that he clearly did not intend to be the focus of the movie. Now, the marketing could be blamed for you to be expecting a movie that Garland didn't make, sure.