Yeah there's been a lot of betrayal on the part of leadership concerning true Republican ideals. Just last month because of Jan.6 and the denial/excusing of it, thousands of Republicans have been leaving the party. They're tired, they're not democrats and they won't ever be, but there's only so much nonsense they can put up with in the hopes the things they support get done. Sadly, among their own party I think they're in the minority...
@@michaelheath2866 I think that, because of that backlash and the denial of the existence of COVID-19 and the vaccines, the "red wave" that was supposed to happen in the 2022 elections didn't come close to that. I think enough extremist Republicans died and were further outnumbered by Republican-turned-independent voters.
If you're talking about corporate personhood, that's a legal mechanism that's existed as long as corporations have in this country; Citizens United just brought that into sharper relief. Without it, the government could just waltz into any corporate HQ and do whatever they wanted, and that would be the end of private enterprise in America. The larger point that's been ignored here is the stressing of individual rights over group rights; if the 'woke' religion has taught us anything, it's that pushing group rights and more importantly responsibilities/blame is a BIG problem.
I agree that my life shouldn't just be about being gay, but when it IS that time, when I want to have sex or get married, the government shouldn't be telling me that it's wrong or against the law.
Someone's life doesn't have to rotate completely around their sexuality, but the Republican Party will make it so because they will absolutely focus on that fact and demonize that person, no matter what the rest of their existence is like.
If the US could have more than two party's i wonder how many people would still be dems or reps, whens its a choice between terrible choices can anyone make a good choice
I sure wouldn't. But if there's one thing those two parties agree on, it's to only stay as two parties. Splintering without a different approach in voting (i.e. NOT first past the post) just means the non-splinter party wins.
They took a very nuanced and tactful approach here. But I think if Josh had said "yes but it all starts with the individual and they are saying you as an individual are a defiant".
I'm neither gay nor conservative. But I loved this character and I love that Sorkin created him. More Americans need to realize that you should NEVER assume ANYTHING about ANYONE. Like - all homosexuals do not HAVE to be liberal. I'm really sorry this character did not visit the West Wing more often.
In today's age of social media and political commentary gays do have to be liberal, just like blacks have to be liberal. Never forget when Biden gave his State of the Union speech and the Republicans had a black senator give the response, they called him Uncle Tim. Unfortunately, if you go against your identity groups politics, you will be demonized. What further proof? Caitlyn Jenner. Is a Republican and conservative. And she is getting torched by the liberals and Democrats.... So in response to your comment, yes they HAVE to be liberal.. unfortunately
@@robertpadillosandiego2821 All of that might be factually true. But America is not going to straighten itself out (because it is a MESS, right now) so long as people politically call themselves 'this' or 'that' because they feel they have to. Also, Caitlyn Jenner is just weird - not because she 'changed genders'. But because I think he/she/it is just desperate for attention. Liberals should be thrilled she/he/it is a Rep. And anyone that pays ANY attention to a State Of The Union speech is a dinosaur - no offense. Or to anyone that calls someone 'Uncle Tim'. Just stick to you political guns and the hell with morons and fly-by-nighters who base their political beliefs on facebook and twitter. They are of no consequence.
I’m gay and liberal and this is the first time I ever was told “your life doesn’t have to be about being gay”. And I was in college. Wonderfully nuanced and I would have loved to debate him.
@@Napalmdog Some will. Some won't. Liberals used to be the bastion of free speech. Now? Many of them lead the cancel culture movement. There are no absolutes. ☮
I’m bisexual (though I hate labels) and I’m conservative/libertarian/moderate right wing. I loved this character because despite the political reflection he stands as a man not defined by his orientation and that is what I personally hate the most in the representation of LGBT people in media. Plus he highlights you don’t need to agree with your party’s entire platform to be a member. It’s a matter of the least worse option. Things aren’t as simple as that and th west wing shows this beautifully by showing democrats vs democrats. Democrats vs republicans, republicans vs republicans and even shows them helping each other out choosing honour above craven political Victories. So many comments are from conservatives and republicans saying they love this show. This is not a surprise because above all the tribal nonsense they show people who don’t agree with President Bartlett acting with decency. (Ainsley Hayes, Glenn Allen Walken, cliff calley, committee chairman in Leo’s hearing)
He says he agrees with 95 percent of his party. Too bad the other 5 percent absolutely dominates their attention. What we wish our parties to be doesn't align with their actions in current times. Imagine if all this focus on culture war and political games were instead put toward governing.
This was always an interesting point, but always felt a bit short. There are some make-or-break issues. To me, it doesn't matter if someone agrees with me on topics A, B, and C if Topic D is that I don't deserve rights and am an abomination for my sexuality. Not everything has to be about being a homosexual, sure, but maybe whether or not you have rights and protection is one of the things that sort of can be.
He is saying that if he can change minds on gay rights in the Republican party, it's akin to gun control advocates joining the NRA and overturning their vote with the number, fighting the system from the inside so to speak
A great many activists seem to do precisely that: self-define by a particular characteristic (LGBT, race or whatever) and then assert that everything anybody says or does to them is about that characteristic. This character can separate this important characteristic from his identity, but this is certainly not universal.
I appreciate the tone of your comment and agree with it in theory. But I say this with all due respect to your humanity, there is no such thing as transgender. Your biology is your sex and you can't change it based on your feelings. If I insisted that my blue eyes were green, I would either be flat out lying or delusional.
@@travisjohnson6676 Thanks, I would recommend that you study this much further. Notice that I did not say that I am a, Woman. I am, a Transgender Woman. I am often put off by some activists who try to insist that I am more than that.
@@radiodf still I reject that transgenderism is an ontological reality. It only exists in your mind. Your biological reality says what you are and it cannot be changed. It is most easily identified by genitals but a very tiny percentage of people unfortunately are ambiguous in that area. That is a sad congenital defect. But when you have a guy who looks more manly than John Wayne claiming he's a woman I call bullshit.
The thing is, he's right. Your life doesn't have to be about one thing. Except America isn't structured that way, anymore. It would be a good thing to go back to where it was, but that's never gonna happen.
I may call myself a liberal but that doesn't make me a snowflake who wants to ban the second amendment and create a communist government. One of my friends might be a conservative, but he doesn't want to criminalize abortion and gay marriage and completely remove all regulations. If we all took the time to have an honest, civil discussion with each other as equals, our national discourse would change drastically for the better.
Problem is, you and your friend aren't the one yelling at the top of the airwaves. The people who think if you're white and straight you can GFY, and the people who think if you're NOT white, straight and Christian you can GFY ARE the ones making the most noise.
Isn’t it funny when you discard the labels and just discuss issues you find a lot more common ground and better understanding. For example you felt the need to qualify your identification as a liberal (not a snow flake or communist) and your friend is a conservative but not a pro life extremist or anti gay equal rights. We always assume the worst of each other because our choice of news sources has conditioned us to be so. Labels are for simple things, humans and their opinions on various political matters aren’t simple. It’s a form of political stereotyping. That benefits the the people at the top of these movements by relying on peoples innate tendency to simplify things. My sister is a Marxist and I am a conservative with libertarian leanings, she was my best friend until she moved away to get married. We were best friends that loved arguing politics. I think the smallest voices make the loudest noises and the censors and hystericals are the loudest voices now. The uk is and always shall be a country if a silent moderate majority.
What right do you want to deny him? Also he says “I’m in favour of individual rights” not “the party is in favour….” He explains he agrees with majority or republican platform. He says this himself with sorkins wonderful words. Clearly you didn’t listen. You’re doing the same thing Josh did accept Josh listened and respected the answer.
Oh the things we are willing to compromise just because we want 2 or 3 specific issues. We might even be willing to elect an idiot into office, as long as he promises 2 or 3 big things we want.
And oh the things some people are willing to throw away, because the person that's in charge doesn't meet the dictionary definition of what some people see as a perfect leader. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater can work both ways.
@@LabTech41 the problem with 45 isn't that he's not a "perfect leader". The problem is that he's a crook. A narcissistic sociopath who only cares about himself. Other people are only important if they serve his interests somehow. That's not a president, that's a dictator.
@@cryofpaine That's an absurdly oversimplified and biased perspective. A crook in comparison to what? You think the alternatives are better? Yeah, they might trick you better into thinking they're honorable, but you don't reach that tier of power by being decent. I don't care how sleazy he is, because what he's doing is more to dismantle the corrupt system we've got than any other President in living memory. Trump's actually lost money during his time in office, and he'd donated his salary to charity; he's one of the few actually living by the ethos of public service: to do it for the cause, and not the money. He's certainly not doing it for the fame, because he was never more hated than when the Democrats realized they'd have to compete against him.
@@LabTech41 we agree on one thing - he's dismantling the system. And replacing it with an authoritarian regime dedicated to him. Yes, Biden is corrupt, no question. He's a lifelong racist conservative. But he isn't a convicted fraud. He hasn't funneled millions in taxpayer funds through his companies into his pockets. He didn't use his office to leverage personal favors from foreign countries. Trump did.
West Wing always had noble GOP characters making an argument for "Small Government keeping out of citizens' daily lives." That GOP hasn't existed since Eisenhower was POTUS.
Of course the whole "small government" think has always been BS. It's a talking point that Republicans latch on to but most cannot explain exactly what it means or where it should apply. They move that line depending on the issue.
Am I .....? Oh and did I...? And what is my favourite colour combo? Yellow and black but I also like yellow and white. Green and white and blue and white. Better for getting that out there C J Cregg? aka Big Bird MTG Little Bird. Oh Marj will detest that. Muppet! Yes I feel better. I am a whole new man having cleared that up. Yellow? And black. Licorice Allsorts. A favourite sweet bought whilst a child and a yellow jumper given me as a child. I would Identify myself as black.
You want only individual rights, okay, as long as legislation and politics are on individual issues and individual campaigns. Single law bills, no political parties, ever. You don't get to package bigotry and budgets together.
I am an immigrant person of color with a PhD in Economics and never would I consider voting for the democratic party and Would not give up the gun rights under any circumstances. The reasoning here is simple: Republican Party has got the fundamental thing right that is individual rights are more important than a group right.
The rights of my people, the individual Black person was not singled out. As a group we were denied our rights through legislation called Segregation. The GOP opposed legislation to change that, and continue to do so. Their reasoning here IS simple, they practice a divide and conquer strategy. divide the unity of a group in deference to the struggle of a single individual vs. the group of the GOP, legislators, judges, executives, etc. This fundamental thing is wrong.
You do realize that the civil rights bill of 1964 was passed by Republican votes. The Dixicrats, Democratic member mainly from the South filibustered the bill!
@@bovnycccoperalover3579 You say that with no context whatsoever. If the Republicans of the time were so pro-Civil Rights, why did the most prominent southern Democrats switch over to the Republican right afterwards? In any case, the Republicans of today are enemies of immigrants, suppress black voters away from the polls, and oh yeah, make up ALL of the White Nationalist movement. Please stop with the nonsense that Republicans are the Party of Black Rights... it's g--damn embarrassing.
bovnyccc operalover that simply isn’t true. The 88th Congress that passed the act was majority Democrat in both chambers and Democrats controlled the presidency. It was a Democrat who introduced the House resolution that led to the adoption of the law.
I think it was in the same episode the two of them are in the canteen and Donna comes in. The way he says Hi Donna made me think the actor playing him forgot that his cahracter was supposed to be gay.
Sorry, but that's some textbook self-loathing. What Josh failed to say was, "You can still be gay and be a conservative, but to be gay and a member of a party that wants nothing to do with you is, at best, misguided; at worst, sad and pathetic.
@@luqas99 When the character says he believes in 95% of GOP policy, fine, but when that last 5% winds up dealing 100% of who he is....still a serious thing.
Uhh, no. Josh legitimately doesn’t like DOMA, the subject of the episode. He just finally realizes and conceded that he won’t be able to change his friend’s mind.
You came all the way here to say that. Effective in sea of fans. Even the poorly aged stories have legs that current series don't get it. Despite its faults WW was about works families and Trying to govern right. It inspired lawyers, doctors, teachers, and federal. Your comment was vague, and bitchy.
I love this show but it is incredibly biased. I guess it should be but that doesn't change the fact that the two best characters were Ainsley Hayes and Glen Allen Walken lol
Can you elaborate? The opposed key marriage, several unions became legal in 2000. He says in the clip why he supports the Republicans local governments small taxes individual rates rather than group rates. Why are you acting like you don’t know what he is talking about when he explained it right there, did you even listen?
@@jimmy2k4o His platform doesn't want him to exist. That's e-fucking-nough. That's like Jews for Nazis. Or blacks for the KKK. Or Irish for England back in the day. Get the point?
@@JnEricsonx what’s your evidence for them not wanting them It to exist? Is it Leviticus 18:22??? Because most Christian don’t take that stuff literally or any of the Old Testament. They follow Jesus and his teachings “Let he without sin cast the first stone” “That you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me” “Judge not lest ye be judged” And Jesus (according to history) said nothing at all about homosexuality The kkk hanged blacks The nazis gassed Jews The English let irish starve What did the republicans do to gays that comes close to that? They want to stop them getting married and having kids, and they’ve even given that up. What rights do straight people have that gays don’t? You forgive the democrats for supporting slavery and KKK in the past, but not this. Even Obama and Clinton opposed Gay marriage until 2011. “He doesn’t want him to exist” is a gross misrepresentation since he doesn’t want all sinners to exist. It’s not harder for gays it’s wishing people would stop sinning. Btw this is an atheist telling you that
@@JnEricsonx I am and I also listen to the other guy who makes a better point. A party isn’t a monolith, not all I it support the same things but they have enough in common so they work together. Like me his sexuality makes ups tiny part of his character. He shouldn’t be defined by it or have trouble being in a party where the leader says stuff he hates. Politics is about compromise not about moralising until the other side shamefully joins your side. There’s bits of lgbt conservatives and im one of them. There a few homophobs in my party but they do t run it and they don’t make a majority. But they’re are homophone in all parties. Including the progressives who think gay people need their protection as if gay people haven’t been protecting themselves and standing up for their individual identity. He supports low taxes, individual rights over group rights and a strong military. Are you saying he and other gays should ignore all that……vote purely on their orientation to what ever party panders to them the most. FYI trump supported gay marriage before Clinton or Obama
Ya. Great. "My life doesn't have to be about being homosexual." No. I suppose it doesn't. Apparently it's much more comfortable to say, instead "I am a slave to the Republican ideology, even in it's strictest, worst, most amoral ways." You are a coward at best. A slave at worst. Which makes Josh's question even more apt. Why are you with this Party? Better question. Why are you not creating a new Party? One that strives for State Rights, but also recognizes personal freedoms of love and lust?
An openly gay politician, in the US, in the 90s certainly wouldn’t be a coward. And did you not get the NRA analogy? He disagrees with the worst 10% of the Republican platform and tries to change the party from within. Kind of seems like you missed the point of this one. And how exactly does one create a new party with any success? Easier said than done my friend.
@@greeny_119 You have a point, but it’s not enough. And yes. Creating a Party is hard. That doesn’t mean you can’t or that it shouldn’t be done. Some of our most famous presidents have been from Parties other than Democrat or Republican. Politics is like business. It stagnates without competition. Without the push to change, why would they change?
The problem with his "being gay doesn't define me" line is that while its true, a person's sexuality plays a big part of who a person is. Try living in America and having the law call you a sodomite, and laws that can persecute you for "sodomy". Not to mention somewhere that literally persecutes you for liking someone of the same-sex, tracks what you see and do on the internet, won't allow you to have spousal privileges, employers won't hire you for being gay, hospitals won't treat you if you're gay or allow spousal visitations if someone you love gets sick, won't allow you to have families, and so on and so forth. So sure, while one's sexuality doesn't define who they are, there are so many facets of our individual lives that are directly connected to our sexuality. Try existing with no freedom to love, no freedom to work, no freedom to have a family, no freedom to buy anything, no freedom of privacy, and be tried and executed simply because of your sexuality.
Joe Francis wrecking California? Man, these conservatives live in their alternate reality bubble. Oh, California is basically how YOU survive. So there’s that.
Way underrated character.
Could have made a movie about this guy.
You wanna make a movie about gay conservatives they’re are Tons and tons of them.
@@jimmy2k4o There many films on Roy Cohn, the most notable gay conservative.
The final part with him telling that very person "get your hands off me" was perfect. Too bad it isn't in this clip!
Yeah. Because that told you everything you needed to know about how he genuinely felt about it and his colleagues
Reminds me of my uncle trying to stop me being a conservative by pointing out what individual me members of the Conservative Party have said .
Bradley Whitiford’s acting in this scene was phenomenal and shows you why Josh is a great character
This scene feels very different in 2023.
Yeah, its gotten WORSE.
"I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights."
Convenient that corporations have been counted as individuals since then.
Yeah there's been a lot of betrayal on the part of leadership concerning true Republican ideals. Just last month because of Jan.6 and the denial/excusing of it, thousands of Republicans have been leaving the party. They're tired, they're not democrats and they won't ever be, but there's only so much nonsense they can put up with in the hopes the things they support get done. Sadly, among their own party I think they're in the minority...
@@michaelheath2866 I think that, because of that backlash and the denial of the existence of COVID-19 and the vaccines, the "red wave" that was supposed to happen in the 2022 elections didn't come close to that. I think enough extremist Republicans died and were further outnumbered by Republican-turned-independent voters.
If you're talking about corporate personhood, that's a legal mechanism that's existed as long as corporations have in this country; Citizens United just brought that into sharper relief. Without it, the government could just waltz into any corporate HQ and do whatever they wanted, and that would be the end of private enterprise in America.
The larger point that's been ignored here is the stressing of individual rights over group rights; if the 'woke' religion has taught us anything, it's that pushing group rights and more importantly responsibilities/blame is a BIG problem.
I agree that my life shouldn't just be about being gay, but when it IS that time, when I want to have sex or get married, the government shouldn't be telling me that it's wrong or against the law.
Someone's life doesn't have to rotate completely around their sexuality, but the Republican Party will make it so because they will absolutely focus on that fact and demonize that person, no matter what the rest of their existence is like.
Honestly one of the hottest takes the west wing ever had.
The words projection and patronising are new words for josh to understand
If the US could have more than two party's i wonder how many people would still be dems or reps, whens its a choice between terrible choices can anyone make a good choice
I sure wouldn't. But if there's one thing those two parties agree on, it's to only stay as two parties. Splintering without a different approach in voting (i.e. NOT first past the post) just means the non-splinter party wins.
If youve been paying attention to the news recently, you may be seeing this starting to happen,. Time will tell,, :)
They took a very nuanced and tactful approach here. But I think if Josh had said "yes but it all starts with the individual and they are saying you as an individual are a defiant".
I'm neither gay nor conservative.
But I loved this character and I love that Sorkin created him.
More Americans need to realize that you should NEVER assume ANYTHING about ANYONE.
Like - all homosexuals do not HAVE to be liberal.
I'm really sorry this character did not visit the West Wing more often.
In today's age of social media and political commentary gays do have to be liberal, just like blacks have to be liberal. Never forget when Biden gave his State of the Union speech and the Republicans had a black senator give the response, they called him Uncle Tim. Unfortunately, if you go against your identity groups politics, you will be demonized. What further proof? Caitlyn Jenner. Is a Republican and conservative. And she is getting torched by the liberals and Democrats.... So in response to your comment, yes they HAVE to be liberal.. unfortunately
@@robertpadillosandiego2821 All of that might be factually true.
But America is not going to straighten itself out (because it is a MESS, right now) so long as people politically call themselves 'this' or 'that' because they feel they have to.
Also, Caitlyn Jenner is just weird - not because she 'changed genders'. But because I think he/she/it is just desperate for attention. Liberals should be thrilled she/he/it is a Rep.
And anyone that pays ANY attention to a State Of The Union speech is a dinosaur - no offense. Or to anyone that calls someone 'Uncle Tim'.
Just stick to you political guns and the hell with morons and fly-by-nighters who base their political beliefs on facebook and twitter.
They are of no consequence.
I’m gay and liberal and this is the first time I ever was told “your life doesn’t have to be about being gay”. And I was in college. Wonderfully nuanced and I would have loved to debate him.
They don't have to be Liberal, but will the 'Party of God' let them live the life they want?
@@Napalmdog Some will. Some won't.
Liberals used to be the bastion of free speech.
Now?
Many of them lead the cancel culture movement.
There are no absolutes.
☮
I love all the people talking about the NRA thing, completely missing the point.
I’m bisexual (though I hate labels) and I’m conservative/libertarian/moderate right wing.
I loved this character because despite the political reflection he stands as a man not defined by his orientation and that is what I personally hate the most in the representation of LGBT people in media.
Plus he highlights you don’t need to agree with your party’s entire platform to be a member. It’s a matter of the least worse option. Things aren’t as simple as that and th west wing shows this beautifully by showing democrats vs democrats. Democrats vs republicans, republicans vs republicans and even shows them helping each other out choosing honour above craven political
Victories.
So many comments are from conservatives and republicans saying they love this show. This is not a surprise because above all the tribal nonsense they show people who don’t agree with President Bartlett acting with decency.
(Ainsley Hayes, Glenn Allen Walken, cliff calley, committee chairman in Leo’s hearing)
He says he agrees with 95 percent of his party. Too bad the other 5 percent absolutely dominates their attention. What we wish our parties to be doesn't align with their actions in current times. Imagine if all this focus on culture war and political games were instead put toward governing.
That’s the reason I joined the NRA. For four years every time they called me I got to tell them they were wrong. And it felt good every time I did
They took your money and used it to kill people.
Shall not be infringed is pretty clear, cupcake
@@Oxinder No.
@@Oxinder living document. It’s our duty to update it to match our current age
This was always an interesting point, but always felt a bit short. There are some make-or-break issues. To me, it doesn't matter if someone agrees with me on topics A, B, and C if Topic D is that I don't deserve rights and am an abomination for my sexuality. Not everything has to be about being a homosexual, sure, but maybe whether or not you have rights and protection is one of the things that sort of can be.
I guess after all the idealism of the early 2000s, we learned that you just cannot wait for religious fanatics to change their minds.
Hi, I didn’t understand the whole nra part . What was he trying to convey with those numbers?
He is saying that if he can change minds on gay rights in the Republican party, it's akin to gun control advocates joining the NRA and overturning their vote with the number, fighting the system from the inside so to speak
Wish it were so.
As someone who is, Transgender, I find this to be highly relatable; Being Trans does NOT entirely define who I am. Nor does it define my politics.
A great many activists seem to do precisely that: self-define by a particular characteristic (LGBT, race or whatever) and then assert that everything anybody says or does to them is about that characteristic. This character can separate this important characteristic from his identity, but this is certainly not universal.
Republican then? So long as you can wrap your mind across the fact that so many "conservatives" in your GOP hate you to their very core.
I appreciate the tone of your comment and agree with it in theory.
But I say this with all due respect to your humanity, there is no such thing as transgender.
Your biology is your sex and you can't change it based on your feelings.
If I insisted that my blue eyes were green, I would either be flat out lying or delusional.
@@travisjohnson6676 Thanks, I would recommend that you study this much further. Notice that I did not say that I am a, Woman. I am, a Transgender Woman. I am often put off by some activists who try to insist that I am more than that.
@@radiodf still I reject that transgenderism is an ontological reality.
It only exists in your mind.
Your biological reality says what you are and it cannot be changed.
It is most easily identified by genitals but a very tiny percentage of people unfortunately are ambiguous in that area. That is a sad congenital defect.
But when you have a guy who looks more manly than John Wayne claiming he's a woman I call bullshit.
Cool.
The thing is, he's right. Your life doesn't have to be about one thing. Except America isn't structured that way, anymore. It would be a good thing to go back to where it was, but that's never gonna happen.
Written by a straight guy I'm sure.
I may call myself a liberal but that doesn't make me a snowflake who wants to ban the second amendment and create a communist government. One of my friends might be a conservative, but he doesn't want to criminalize abortion and gay marriage and completely remove all regulations. If we all took the time to have an honest, civil discussion with each other as equals, our national discourse would change drastically for the better.
Problem is, you and your friend aren't the one yelling at the top of the airwaves. The people who think if you're white and straight you can GFY, and the people who think if you're NOT white, straight and Christian you can GFY ARE the ones making the most noise.
Isn’t it funny when you discard the labels and just discuss issues you find a lot more common ground and better understanding.
For example you felt the need to qualify your identification as a liberal (not a snow flake or communist) and your friend is a conservative but not a pro life extremist or anti gay equal rights.
We always assume the worst of each other because our choice of news sources has conditioned us to be so.
Labels are for simple things, humans and their opinions on various political matters aren’t simple.
It’s a form of political stereotyping. That benefits the the people at the top of these movements by relying on peoples innate tendency to simplify things.
My sister is a Marxist and I am a conservative with libertarian leanings, she was my best friend until she moved away to get married. We were best friends that loved arguing politics.
I think the smallest voices make the loudest noises and the censors and hystericals are the loudest voices now.
The uk is and always shall be a country if a silent moderate majority.
"I'm in favour of individual rights..."
He says, as a member of a party that wants to deny his individual right to exist.
What right do you want to deny him?
Also he says “I’m in favour of individual rights” not “the party is in favour….”
He explains he agrees with majority or republican platform.
He says this himself with sorkins wonderful words. Clearly you didn’t listen.
You’re doing the same thing Josh did accept Josh listened and respected the answer.
Oh the things we are willing to compromise just because we want 2 or 3 specific issues. We might even be willing to elect an idiot into office, as long as he promises 2 or 3 big things we want.
And oh the things some people are willing to throw away, because the person that's in charge doesn't meet the dictionary definition of what some people see as a perfect leader. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater can work both ways.
@@LabTech41 the problem with 45 isn't that he's not a "perfect leader". The problem is that he's a crook. A narcissistic sociopath who only cares about himself. Other people are only important if they serve his interests somehow. That's not a president, that's a dictator.
@@cryofpaine That's an absurdly oversimplified and biased perspective. A crook in comparison to what? You think the alternatives are better? Yeah, they might trick you better into thinking they're honorable, but you don't reach that tier of power by being decent.
I don't care how sleazy he is, because what he's doing is more to dismantle the corrupt system we've got than any other President in living memory.
Trump's actually lost money during his time in office, and he'd donated his salary to charity; he's one of the few actually living by the ethos of public service: to do it for the cause, and not the money. He's certainly not doing it for the fame, because he was never more hated than when the Democrats realized they'd have to compete against him.
@@LabTech41 we agree on one thing - he's dismantling the system. And replacing it with an authoritarian regime dedicated to him.
Yes, Biden is corrupt, no question. He's a lifelong racist conservative. But he isn't a convicted fraud. He hasn't funneled millions in taxpayer funds through his companies into his pockets. He didn't use his office to leverage personal favors from foreign countries. Trump did.
So u only vote for yourself then, how many elections have u won.
West Wing always had noble GOP characters making an argument for "Small Government keeping out of citizens' daily lives." That GOP hasn't existed since Eisenhower was POTUS.
Ainsley Hayes uwu
Of course the whole "small government" think has always been BS. It's a talking point that Republicans latch on to but most cannot explain exactly what it means or where it should apply. They move that line depending on the issue.
Lmao. Imagine saying something so dumb.
And that’s what wrong with the alphabet people today? Their whole life is about that lifestyle
Am I .....? Oh and did I...? And what is my favourite colour combo? Yellow and black but I also like yellow and white. Green and white and blue and white.
Better for getting that out there C J Cregg? aka Big Bird MTG Little Bird. Oh Marj will detest that. Muppet!
Yes I feel better.
I am a whole new man having cleared that up. Yellow? And black. Licorice Allsorts. A favourite sweet bought whilst a child and a yellow jumper given me as a child. I would Identify myself as black.
You want only individual rights, okay, as long as legislation and politics are on individual issues and individual campaigns. Single law bills, no political parties, ever. You don't get to package bigotry and budgets together.
Yes, I was putting stamps on lettets in 68 , 72, and 76, in 1980 I was head of the Republcian Party at ASU in Boone N.C. Im Gay
I am an immigrant person of color with a PhD in Economics and never would I consider voting for the democratic party and Would not give up the gun rights under any circumstances. The reasoning here is simple: Republican Party has got the fundamental thing right that is individual rights are more important than a group right.
The rights of my people, the individual Black person was not singled out. As a group we were denied our rights through legislation called Segregation. The GOP opposed legislation to change that, and continue to do so. Their reasoning here IS simple, they practice a divide and conquer strategy. divide the unity of a group in deference to the struggle of a single individual vs. the group of the GOP, legislators, judges, executives, etc. This fundamental thing is wrong.
You do realize that the civil rights bill of 1964 was passed by Republican votes. The Dixicrats, Democratic member mainly from the South filibustered the bill!
Opposing discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics (race gender etc.) is not advocating for a “group right.”
@@bovnycccoperalover3579 You say that with no context whatsoever. If the Republicans of the time were so pro-Civil Rights, why did the most prominent southern Democrats switch over to the Republican right afterwards? In any case, the Republicans of today are enemies of immigrants, suppress black voters away from the polls, and oh yeah, make up ALL of the White Nationalist movement. Please stop with the nonsense that Republicans are the Party of Black Rights... it's g--damn embarrassing.
bovnyccc operalover that simply isn’t true. The 88th Congress that passed the act was majority Democrat in both chambers and Democrats controlled the presidency. It was a Democrat who introduced the House resolution that led to the adoption of the law.
What a lame-ass conclusion...Josh doesn't have a comeback? What, he suddenly gets stupid?
I think it was in the same episode the two of them are in the canteen and Donna comes in. The way he says Hi Donna made me think the actor playing him forgot that his cahracter was supposed to be gay.
Gay people are able to interact with the opposite gender.
I've seen gay men get VERY flirty with women, if jokingly so.
Sorry, but that's some textbook self-loathing. What Josh failed to say was, "You can still be gay and be a conservative, but to be gay and a member of a party that wants nothing to do with you is, at best, misguided; at worst, sad and pathetic.
That's true, but he had a point: working with them to try and minimise the damage they can do is a sound strategy.
I heard that in my head as Josh's voice.
@@luqas99 20 years ago when this show was around, maybe. Today.....not so much.
@@JnEricsonx I agree.
@@luqas99 When the character says he believes in 95% of GOP policy, fine, but when that last 5% winds up dealing 100% of who he is....still a serious thing.
And Josh just pushes him away because he wont convert to Josh's side. Josh shows his shallowness right here.
Uhh, no. Josh legitimately doesn’t like DOMA, the subject of the episode. He just finally realizes and conceded that he won’t be able to change his friend’s mind.
You wanna know what is wrong with America - Just go back and see this show.
You came all the way here to say that. Effective in sea of fans. Even the poorly aged stories have legs that current series don't get it. Despite its faults WW was about works families and Trying to govern right. It inspired lawyers, doctors, teachers, and federal.
Your comment was vague, and bitchy.
Matt Hunter Much like the show your comment is elitist, malignant and asinine. Please go back and get the customers coffee.
I love this show but it is incredibly biased. I guess it should be but that doesn't change the fact that the two best characters were Ainsley Hayes and Glen Allen Walken lol
But but but
You agree with 95% of their platform. They despise 100% of you. WTF
Can you elaborate? The opposed key marriage, several unions became legal in 2000.
He says in the clip why he supports the Republicans local governments small taxes individual rates rather than group rates.
Why are you acting like you don’t know what he is talking about when he explained it right there, did you even listen?
@@jimmy2k4o His platform doesn't want him to exist. That's e-fucking-nough. That's like Jews for Nazis. Or blacks for the KKK. Or Irish for England back in the day. Get the point?
@@JnEricsonx what’s your evidence for them not wanting them It to exist?
Is it Leviticus 18:22??? Because most Christian don’t take that stuff literally or any of the Old Testament.
They follow Jesus and his teachings
“Let he without sin cast the first stone”
“That you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me”
“Judge not lest ye be judged”
And Jesus (according to history) said nothing at all about homosexuality
The kkk hanged blacks
The nazis gassed Jews
The English let irish starve
What did the republicans do to gays that comes close to that? They want to stop them getting married and having kids, and they’ve even given that up.
What rights do straight people have that gays don’t?
You forgive the democrats for supporting slavery and KKK in the past, but not this. Even Obama and Clinton opposed Gay marriage until 2011.
“He doesn’t want him to exist” is a gross misrepresentation since he doesn’t want all sinners to exist. It’s not harder for gays it’s wishing people would stop sinning.
Btw this is an atheist telling you that
@@jimmy2k4o Im a atheist too. And ffs, don't listen to me, listen to JOSH in the clip.
@@JnEricsonx I am and I also listen to the other guy who makes a better point.
A party isn’t a monolith, not all I it support the same things but they have enough in common so they work together.
Like me his sexuality makes ups tiny part of his character.
He shouldn’t be defined by it or have trouble being in a party where the leader says stuff he hates.
Politics is about compromise not about moralising until the other side shamefully joins your side.
There’s bits of lgbt conservatives and im one of them. There a few homophobs in my party but they do t run it and they don’t make a majority.
But they’re are homophone in all parties. Including the progressives who think gay people need their protection as if gay people haven’t been protecting themselves and standing up for their individual identity.
He supports low taxes, individual rights over group rights and a strong military.
Are you saying he and other gays should ignore all that……vote purely on their orientation to what ever party panders to them the most.
FYI trump supported gay marriage before Clinton or Obama
Ya. Great. "My life doesn't have to be about being homosexual." No. I suppose it doesn't. Apparently it's much more comfortable to say, instead "I am a slave to the Republican ideology, even in it's strictest, worst, most amoral ways."
You are a coward at best. A slave at worst. Which makes Josh's question even more apt. Why are you with this Party? Better question. Why are you not creating a new Party? One that strives for State Rights, but also recognizes personal freedoms of love and lust?
An openly gay politician, in the US, in the 90s certainly wouldn’t be a coward.
And did you not get the NRA analogy? He disagrees with the worst 10% of the Republican platform and tries to change the party from within. Kind of seems like you missed the point of this one.
And how exactly does one create a new party with any success? Easier said than done my friend.
@@greeny_119 Well that 10% increased horribly in number imho.
@@greeny_119 You have a point, but it’s not enough.
And yes. Creating a Party is hard. That doesn’t mean you can’t or that it shouldn’t be done. Some of our most famous presidents have been from Parties other than Democrat or Republican.
Politics is like business. It stagnates without competition. Without the push to change, why would they change?
The problem with his "being gay doesn't define me" line is that while its true, a person's sexuality plays a big part of who a person is.
Try living in America and having the law call you a sodomite, and laws that can persecute you for "sodomy". Not to mention somewhere that literally persecutes you for liking someone of the same-sex, tracks what you see and do on the internet, won't allow you to have spousal privileges, employers won't hire you for being gay, hospitals won't treat you if you're gay or allow spousal visitations if someone you love gets sick, won't allow you to have families, and so on and so forth.
So sure, while one's sexuality doesn't define who they are, there are so many facets of our individual lives that are directly connected to our sexuality. Try existing with no freedom to love, no freedom to work, no freedom to have a family, no freedom to buy anything, no freedom of privacy, and be tried and executed simply because of your sexuality.
That NRA thing is actually a good idea.
Naw, it would require commitment. Lefties don't do that. It's why all the hippies moved to Oregon after they'd wrecked California.
Khal Drogo Thanks for letting us know you're here. Do you have a bell you ring, as well?
Joe Francis wrecking California? Man, these conservatives live in their alternate reality bubble. Oh, California is basically how YOU survive. So there’s that.
It really isn't. You pay a fascist organization dues and they won't listen to you.
@@Dabhach1 I think he doesn't know where his caps key is......He He He