414
‘Morally indefensible’ – but George W Bush will not come out against Trump
(www.theguardian.com)
I mean, Bush and Trump are in direct competition for worst presidents in living memory.
...and they both kinda jimmy with elections. They have a lot in common really so it makes sense he'll be averse to calling out someone whose not that dissimilar to himself.
Also Bush has a generational bonding to the GOP, so there's probably some level of moral compromise in that.
I had Bush ahead of Trump for a long time, but now I have to give it to Donnie.
It's one thing to lie about a war, and a whole differnet level to plan to kill citizens with Covid.
Both were awful. At least you don't fall for the rehabilitation so many in our media have been doing of Bush
Both are incredibly incompetent. However, I think if Bush had not become president he would have been seen as somebody who is a bit stupid, and easy to influence, but otherwise a pleasant personality. Trump on the other hand was a criminal long before he saw the Oval Office.
Bush was terrible, for sure. But it was at least believable that he was doing what he thought was best for the country (Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld, not so much). But there is no way you'll ever convince me that Trump cares about anyone or anything other than himself.
But look, he paints! Just like Bob Ross, so that means we can just forget about all that other stuff, right?
I had Bush ahead of Trump for a long time
Presidents in the rear view mirror rarely carry the emotional weight of ones at the forefront.
I'd argue Reagan was worse than both of them. We had all the nightmarish bellicose foreign policy of the Bush Administration, the disastrous neglect of health care leading to multiple epidemics from the Trump Era, and dogshit fiscal policy that gave us massive recessions and enormous new debts to accompany our contracting quality of life at the end of his last term.
But who still remembers Iran-Contra or the '87 bank collapse or our deplorable environmental and civil rights policies or the then-extremely-lethal AIDS epidemic?
Buchanan and Andrew Johnson are still largely considered the two worst historical presidents. Truman and Nixon are routinely cited as 20th century flops. But its very difficult to remember how shit America was before most of the folks doing the rankings were even alive. Harder still to have enough of a historical baseline to make an objective measure.
As soon as Trump is done, we're going to be on one about how DeSantis or Cruz or Matt Gaetz is the actual worst person to run for President in our lifetimes.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Depends on what "recent" memory is for you. I've got Reagan and Trump neck-and-neck. While Bush should be tried for war crimes, he's nowhere close to as bad as Trump. I'd put Bush and Clinton in the cage match.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Hilarious to me that all the media spent time rehabbing Bush's image and he can't even manage to match Dick fucking Cheney?
Cheney is pissed at his daughter losing her family-guaranteed sinecure in Wyoming to a Trumpie, because he's invested in his family's political legacy.
Bush has no real beef with the Trumps and isn't trying to give his daughters a leg up into the next administration.
Totally different set of political incentives to endorse.
Second worst president ever.
He's considered a war criminal in most countries outside of North America and Europe.
Still waiting to see W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz convicted of war crimes for all the torture they oversaw at those cia black sites, among other things. Absolutely villainous.
Bush and Cheney basically fabricated the entire Iraq War and the only people to come out on top were Exxon Fucking Mobil who took majority control of the Iraqi oilfields, and then the executive in charge of the operation, Rex Tillerson, got appointed to the Trump admin.
Thousands dead for greed. America's hands stained in blood and grease for generations.
Still only second worst tho, no disagreement on that.
Bush and Cheney basically fabricated the entire Iraq War and the only people to come out on top were Exxon Fucking Mobil
Be fair. Halliburton did pretty well for themselves as well.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I mean, who's surprised by this? Dubya was always a dumbass, and essentially the beta version of Trump.
W was always a tool, a blank slate for his owners to use. The guy has no thoughts of his own so I'm not surprised.
He may not have been a genius mastermind but he's smart enough not to be absolved of the evils he committed. Blank slate is a juuuuust a bit too far for me
Just saying
load more comments
(12 replies)
Why did anyone ever think he was any good? The folksy paintings? The aw-shucks friendship with Michelle Obama?
This dipshit has the blood of millions on his hands. He gave us Alito. He destroyed as much of the administrative state as he could. His CIA daddy stole his election.
Can you imagine our world today if Gore had gotten in?
Fuck Cheney too, he only cares because Trump was mean to his shithead daughter.
Can you imagine our world today if Gore had gotten in?
It's not very well-remembered today that Clinton's administration ended with a budget surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars or that Gore was by far the most prominent voice in the world sounding the alarm about global warming. With a Gore victory we could have been debt-free as a nation by now and actually taking significant steps towards ending our dependency on fossil fuels; instead the debt is $35 fucking trillion dollars (which is so enormous it sounds like a joke) and the only reason this isn't a bigger problem is that we're cooking ourselves off the planet anyway and no amount of debt is going to matter.
Somewhat tangential, but "global warming" was always a weak formulation of the problem and "climate change" even more so. I prefer "anthropogenic runaway global heating" which more accurately frames the actual problem and has the handy acronym ARGH.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Bushes are morally bankrupt anyways. Two war criminals and one of them, Laura, killed her friend in a car accident where she ran a stop sign.
I wonder if this is because W benefitted from the same ratfuckery that Trump uses (Roger Stone, Brooks Bros Riot, etc.)
Choose a side you fucking coward, Bush.
I've never seen a Bush miss an opportunity to be on the wrong side of history.
He wants Republicans policies but not Trump. He's stuck like a lot of other people. Unfortunately, most of those people will hold their noses and vote for Trump and hope for the best. That's the two-party system for ya.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Trump is the only chance gwb has of someone else having more war crimes than him; making him look less evil.
These are Republicans, they only ever serve their own best interests.
Now watch that drive
Oh, now everyone is surprised when he acts like a piece of shit? My good friend growing up died in Iraq in 2008. For what?
Its Bush, that war criminal can go to hell
He's a war criminal at large who is running from the Hague, he's obviously going to be on the bad guys side.
Centrists are so disappointed that senpai didn't notice them.
Didn’t he start the stacking the supreme court? Could have been his dad. Jr was just stupider.
load more comments
(1 replies)
To Bush, being morally indefensible is a plus.
That would be his chance to do something decent for once.
Reminds me of when Pink wrote a song for him Dear Mr. President and we thought he is the worst that can happen...
"How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?"
Morally indefensible but thank the Lord we don’t have any morals to worry about
Former presidents dont typically get involved in presidential politics(especially of their own party ) after they leave.
They'll typically stump for candidates in their own party if they were a popular former president.
You could argue that his lack of involvement with Trump's campaign is pretty telling.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
414 points (97.9% liked)
politics
26083 readers
670 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS