So damn true. Every liberal eventually reaches this conclusion yet not a single liberal has done anything to help shed that image. In 2020, this stereotype continues to loom like a dark cloud over all liberals. The last 4 years is a perfect example that being weak will never get anyone anywhere.
This is what happens when you get rid of the smoke filled room. You get these namby-pamby always trying to not hurt Republican feelings. I want a Democrat like Silver portrayed to fight back
It also relates to the Newsroom episode - Why is America the Greatest Country. If you liberals are so smart, how do you lose so damn often. Again, Aaron Sorkin.
@@beageler Oh shut up you nerd. I have literally never heard anything so stupid in all of my life, and I defy anybody in the world to prove me wrong! Anyway nobody cares what you think so there.
Republicans play dirty/go negative....do everything they can to supress the democratic vote. If voting for EVERY citizen was easy (just like online banking is)...then Republicans would win a lot less elections. However Republicans cut polling places in blue areas (making Black people stand in lines for 8 hours in order to vote..I dont see Red Voters waiting 8 hours to vote)....taking away the right to vote from those convicted of a felony (what happened to 'no taxation without representation'? If you cant vote, you have NO sayso in who represents you). You do your time, you're free. Unless you're convicted of a voting related crime....what does taking away someone's right to vote FOREVER have to do with punishing someone for a non-voting related offense?
The average person (people not FASCIST or dont like to look for reasons to hate someone) is willing to treat transgender people with the respect they deserve. However, when trans women push for the right to play women's sports....that one issue pushes away 'the sane' people who would otherwise be supportive of trans rights. Trans women were born with male strength...that doesnt go away because one transitions to a female. Women have had to come a long way when it comes to competing in sports....forcing them to compete against trans women..is unfair. Let me put it this way: Fl Jo has the women's world record in the 100 meter dash...at 10.49 seconds. Usian Bolt has the male world record in the 100 meter dash...at 9.58 seconds. Guess what Fl Jo's ranking would be IF she had to compete against men? 7,080th place! That means that men who you've never heard of....if they had to compete against women....would EASILY hold the women's world record in the 100 meter dash IF only a few of them 'transitioned' into women. I know that trans athletes want to compete....and that there arent a huge number of trans women athletes who compete. However it doesnt mean that biological women should be forced to compete against trans women...who CLEARLY have a bio advantage when it comes to having male genetics. I'm in no way saying that it's ok to trans bash. I'm saying that IF trans women would just be reasonable and just accept that they shouldnt be advocating for the right to compete against women in sports....then they would find that more people would be willing to support trans rights. If you was a parent who had daughters who compete in sports...how would you explain to her that she had NO CHANCE when it came to competing against trans women athletes?
@@paullentz1972’fraid you’re wrong about the whole innate biological advantages thing. That’s propaganda. HRT levels the playing field and actually makes it harder for trans women to build muscle than cis women. This mistaken idea has already hurt cisgender women in very public and embarrassing ways, and it’s also usually applied against racial minorities.
How would you feel about a transgender female (born a male, transitions to a female) getting into a UFC match with a bio female? The trans would DESTROY virtually any female in the octogen. @@kerriadereth
@@paullentz1972while I disagree with the argument, thats like the tiniest portion of what trans people are advocating for. Like the right to self identify, the right to access HRT medication, the right to not be descriminsted against. The sports issue is a small one.
@@kerriaderethYou are totally ignoring BONE DENSITIY! Men have way high bone density than women. When Lia Thomas was a man...she was getting SMOKED by the male swimmers she was competing against. However when she transition to being a female. she SMOKED her female competition. Look at her bone/muscle structure. The women she competed against have NO CHANCE.
@@edwardness7497. You know there is more than just the White house, right? I know republicans want all authority to come out of the oval office but that's not how it works. For now, trump is still saying he'll be a dictator if re-elected.
The cast of the veep would feed these sanctimonious circle jerkers through a wood chipper and use the pink slushi to lube up for smacking the crack pile from sorkins mouth in preparation for hate fuelled deep stomach-ing that lasts so long Keith Richards’s perverted zombie will finally disintegrate into its basic composure of cocaine and broken hymans.
@@mhernandez9117there's an argument between liberals and leftists, but the guy is pretty spot on about Republicans. Maybe when 80% of the Republican caucus isn't a bunch of theocratic fascist toady sycophants to a failed reality tv show host they'd be more contributive members of our politics, but until then they're terrible.
Ever actually watch "Leave it to Beaver"? Ever see what ISN"T there? People of color. LGBTs. Liberated women. Handicapped people. Immigrants. It's a conservative paradise, all right, because all those people are swept out of sight. Works great, if you are straight, white, male and middle class. Not so much for all other Americans.
This hurts so bad. Bruno encapsulates everything about where the Australian Right is heading these days: the ordinary people who were once the GOOD Right, say nothing, and meanwhile, the Left just cower in the corner, hiding. It makes me ashamed. And RIP Ron Silver.
We're having the same problem here, too. Our left is finally starting to find its voice & our right is still a few loud unreasonable voices who shouted the rest of their party into silence. Anybody who tries to say anything reasonable catches hell from the reactionaries.
@@r.c.auclair2042 there was a time too when the right encapsulated by Scalia & the left by Ruth B Ginsberg could at least talk in respectful ways but now they shout & point like children. Not that I was a fan of Scalia! & since 2020 women’s rights have gone back 45 years.
I personally think the change in religious status of many people is destabilising politics, particularly from Christian, to effectively Atheists... right are predominantly Christian, where as the left, while they used to be, are shifting with the times... the right use religious values as a strong link to conservativism and are also losing that battle over time so double down on what else they believe categorizes their party... mostly attacking the left for their view on progressiveness...
Well Bruno is right about running in the same election as everyone else. Though the standard SHOULD be if the ad attempts to influence the outcome of the election, the rules are what they are. However what do liberal principles have to do with exploiting loopholes in campaign finance?
The loopholes were created by the conservatives for their own benefit. Principled liberals refuse to exploit them themselves, for their side's benefit. They kept their principles, but lost their elections.
It was democrats who unconstitutionally changed the election rules in 2020 in SECRET so donald trump could object against/compete for that channel of votes. So ....
Terrible caption. Actually, it shows what is great about liberals and liberalism...particular's Sam's comments about campaign soft money that show liberals have morals and a conscience.
The only thing in this clip I can agree with is the campaign advisor talking about playing by the rules that exist rather than the rules as you wish them to be. If I'd have been in his shoes (and this wasn't being written for dramatic effect for TV), I'd have told Sam Seaborn that if you don't like the rules as they are, then try to get Congress to change those rules. But for not, they'd have to play by the rules as they currently exist. I say this as a conservative, but I think that the campaign advisor was spot on with that one comment as a non-partisan philosophical matter. That said, I disagree with pretty much everything else he said on partisan issues.
Yes, you can. You simply state the truth. If I were running, I would be blunt and say soft money is overall a bad idea, but while it's there for my opponent, I'm going to use it too. I am not going to hamstring myself in a competitive election. Elect me, and I'll work to change the rules. Banning soft money is a good idea, but it will only be feasible if that ban applies to both sides.
@jimmyfly yes, you can. The campaign that has the most money to back it will tend to win, money talks. Only serious scandals can threaten someone will big money backing them. You handcuff yourself by not taking money, you wont win and you wont be in a spot to make any changes. And you can take that false equivalency out the door with you.
@jimmyfly I respectfully disagree. An election is a contest, and everyone should play by the same rules. Imagine if a football coach refused to pass because he didn't think it was how the game should be played. It's noble of him to stick to his convictions, and I will respect him for it, but he won't remain a coach for very long because he won't ever win. I don't think your abortion analogy is apt. The issue isn't doing something just because it is legal. It is attempting to win a contest in which certain things are allowed and others are not.
@jimmyflyJimmy, I disagree. I think that there's a pretty big difference between abortion and campaign finance laws. Campaigns/Elections are a contest, and refusing to play by the same rules because you're more moral or whatever than the other guy is silly. If you want to change the law you have to get elected. And if you want to get elected, you can't do it with one arm tied behind your back. Now, mind you, I kinda think that Sam Seaborn's philosophical position sounded pretty good. But you make that change in the law. You don't hobble yourself and refuse to play on an even playing field. After all, no one here's talking about outright breaking the law. They're just saying play by the same rules, the same laws, whether you like them or not. As for abortion, there's no contest involved the act of abortion itself. Oh, you can certainly put yourself in a political bind of you claim to be pro-life but then have an abortion, and still be running for office as a pro-life candidate. Also, I just don't think that you can put campaign finance laws and abortion in the same moral bucket. Abortion is very much a moral issue. I don't see campaign finance as being a moral issue, or at least not being even remotely close as a moral issue.
@@Degan1000 I agree, Jeff. I don't think that most people would rip you for stating what you said, at least as long as you did seriously work to change the rules if you did end up winning. Of course, the problem I see is that far too many pols will say one thing and do another once elected. Also, all too often any new proposals for campaign finance reform seem to be extremely partisan, with the reforms favoring one side over the other. So, in my experience, non-partisan campaign finance reform has been pretty damned rare.
Toby's reaction suggests he at least wasn't surprised and is just asking for clarification. He may not be a campaigns expert. Sam is just outraged at the recommendation, whether he knows about it already or not.
@@SeatBill lol except Republicans run up huge deficits and leave Democrats to clean up their fiscal mess. Running up tax cuts and wars on the credit card.
@@AnArchyRulzz Really? When was the last time the Democrats actually DID anything about the deficit? Or enacted plans to cut taxes, reduce entitlements, etc., in order to reduce it? Please give me specific examples! Look at the stimulus proposals Pelosi keeps trying to force President Trump into accepting; *money for Planned Parenthood, museums, and bailing out Democratic states that can't seem to control their own spending, etc.!* Why isn't she - and the rest of the lunatics in her party - trying to JUST PASS a SIMPLE stimulus package: *extend unemployment benefits, another round of checks for American citizens, and extending protection for small businesses.... while leaving the rest to later negotiation?* THAT'S where those TRILLIONS of dollars are coming from! Democrats are all about spending money for their pet projects, pet special interests, and anyone who'll give them money to stay in power; the rest of it is just gravy money to make people believe they're actually trying to DO something to help people! We spend more per pupil in education than any other country on Earth; yet, our kids STILL can't read, or do math, or get enough skills for good jobs! You know who is "helped" from that? The TEACHERS UNIONS that keep Dems in power! When parents can't take kids out of bad schools..... do you really think the Republicans are behind that? I'm not saying the GOP is without its' faults; not at all. One of its' biggest is an unwillingness to fight with Dems like Trump does; bare-knuckle brawls, if that's what it takes! Kick Democrats in the teeth enough, and they'll run away! Kneecap them, and you start to get their attention! Put your boot on the back of their necks until they start to see reason (or outside of the bubbles they all live in), and you start to get things DONE! We should be doing MORE of that, not LESS. "Running up tax cuts"?? So people can keep more of the money they earn, instead of sending it to governments, both federal and state, that have shown NO history of knowing how to spend it wisely, for everyone's benefit? And you're really naive and foolish enough to think the rich don't pay their "fair share," when even leftist think tanks know that the top 1% of earners pay around 40% of the taxes in this country???? As far as wars go - how many wars has Donald Trump started, or gotten us into, over the past 4 years? He actually wants to *bring troops home,* which angers cotton-headed Dems because that would harm their "constituents" who make money from having those troops right where they are!!!! If you actually read history and economics, instead of parroting what your leftist friends keep whispering in your ears, and think for yourself - along with doing your own research - then you'd realize how things REALLY are out here in the real world! Instead, you spend your time repeating easily-disprovable "truths," and making sure people keep in line who might venture out of your thought-bubbles; like blacks who are starting to wake up to exactly WHO'S been screwing them for DECADES in this country! Trust me - for every dumb-ass LeBron James, there are a hundred blacks actually waking up, and starting to think for themselves! Drives you nuts.... doesn't it?
Check this article out for an answer on your tax questions. As for the pork attached to bills, the GOP does a fair bit of that, too. Lots of defense contracts in GOP districts.
@@bsb1975 oh I agree there is lots of blame to go around. My skepticism has no political stripe; it seems as i get older the idea of liberalism seems quaint.
Buckley v. Valeo was decided in 1976. The West Wing premiered in 1999. This episode aired in 2001. I learned about Buckley v. Valeo in college c. 1984. I learned about it in law school c. 1988. I was teaching it to high school students in 2003. This is the most unrealistic scene in the entire seven seasons of the West Wing. There is not a chance on earth that the two most senior communications aides in the White House would need to have Buckley explained to them in 2001, and if they did they'd have been fired on the spot. Aaron Sorkin, or whoever wrote this, either knew absolutely nothing...not one single thing...about campaign finance in 2001 or, for some reason, wanted to insult the characters of Sam and Toby.
@@mhug162 Yes. My 20 years of experience as a high school teacher have left me utterly bereft of any understanding about how much the average high school student pays attention. Thank so my for your well thought out insight.
No, it's that Republicans are way too extreme on some issues. They try to make those views look like the norm by suggesting that liberal values are excessively weak, but that's just not the case. We know that absurd prison terms do nothing to reduce the crime rate, we know that prison is ineffective at rehabilitating people, we know that giving everyone guns does not actually reduce gun related crimes, we know that "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is fucking impossible, we know that "trickle-down economics" does not work, we know that allowing the richest people to keep accumulating more and more wealth is not a boon to the economy or the people, we know that corporate tax cuts do not raise wages, we know that giving people a safety net does not discourage them from working. We look at the evidence and the research and come to conclusions based on that. Being "hard" on these issues has clearly not worked for the people but Republicans don't care. They're the ones who benefit from private prisons and sky high incarceration rates, from low taxes and corporate tax breaks, from low minimum wages and keeping people trapped in poverty. It's not that liberals are "soft" on these issues, it's that we don't think it's okay to damn millions of people to poverty or prison to line the pockets of a few.
The problem is when we do that...*cough* Basket of deplorables *cough* we end up with something worse the a weak Liberal in office... We get the modern version of PT Barnum...
@@petergould9174 We're not the party that celebrates baby murder and giving full welfare and healthcare to illegals paid for by the American tax payer.
@@jedediahmyers7495 LOL...why the FUCK do they want to live in the USA if the country is as horrible as you imply? IF THE USA IS SO BAD, YOU WOULD WANT THESE PEOPLE SENT BACK TO MEXICO. Fuck, liberals are dense.
@@FitnessByMatt I'm too marxist to be liberal. And I didn't imply the US was bad to live in, in my comment. But I'm outright stating it now. The only people who want to legally immigrate to the USA are war refugees and people who are upper middle-class or higher. Because everything else is a dumpster-fire. But it's also a source of tremendous wealth partially because it's so shitty. So people who want to feed their families come here and suffer awful conditions and circumstances to collect money and send it. Not because they like America, but because they're desperate to survive in the absolute hellscape that is the global economy during the pax Americana. Also the kids and parents who came up from the caravans were fleeing fucking drought and dying agriculture. But yeah, sure. Live in your fantasy.
I hated Bruno and it was because they didn't show enough of his prowess. I know his character must have organised the campaign without us seeing it but it seemed like he was mostly talk and made no moves. I could be wrong.
Which brought great view points in a different light. In this show both party views were used, later in 'newsroom' it became a bit preachy (but I still liked the show). Sure, better to look like Ainsley to make a Republican point.
Pro-gun is a political label, just like not being pro life/choice doesn't make you anti life/choice. Nobody in the West Wing is anti-gun. What he means are the people who oppose literally any legislation that involves regulation or safety standards involving firearms.
@patrick howard For the majority of the history of the country, the Second Amendment was not seen as guaranteeing the right for every citizen to bear arms. In 1939, the Supreme Court actually ruled on a case based on the collective rights view, the one that actually pays attention to the text "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and interprets it as meaning that Congress cannot prohibit any State from having firearms for military purposes. It was only in 2008 - seriously, less than 12 years ago now - that the Supreme Court finally reversed its decision and decided that the Constitution guarantees individual rights. For over 200 years, the Constitution was not interpreted as guaranteeing every citizen's individual right to bear arms. It was only after aggressive campaigning from Republicans, and a new radical Republican head of the NRA (literally radical, not as a pejorative) who changed its stance. So I'm not sure you really want to make the argument that *they're* "rebranding" the Constitution. It was Republicans who campaigned and convinced the Supreme Court to change their stance after more than two centuries, and the new interpretation of the Amendment has some serious flaws. Like, you know, the fact that it ignores the part that specifically mentions a *well regulated militia*.
@@Crazdor Fucking dumbass. Since A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, AKA THE AMERICAN MILITARY, YOU STUPID FUCK, needs to be armed - THE PEOPLE, AKA THE CITIZENS OF THE USA, are allowed to also be armed, in the event that the MILITIA is used against THE PEOPLE. That's why the founding fathers distinguished THE MILITIA from THE PEOPLE. God, liberals are so fucking dense.
Watching the entire West Wing series should be mandatory in the orientation of all elected officials from the bottom to the top. (With a test at the end)
Akihito007 I rarely agree with policy in the West Wing but I still love the show and wish more people would watch it. Not for the positions the series contains, but for the principles and convictions the characters have
@@samgonzalez8662 I've never heard of the show before today, but I don't think calling people racist and homophobic is much working anymore. That's ALL that leftists/liberals have done for about 50 years now. It worked for a long time. But it isn't working much anymore.
true tho what's that saying? "democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line" they go scorched earth for their power grubbing bs, but we can't even stand by clearly popular things with strength.
This country was founded by Liberals! That's why it's called a Liberal Democracy! F`ing conservatives have, and continue to be on the wrong side of American history. They hate democracy. Fascism is more to their taste.
Bernie Sanders is literally saying what Bruno says at the end, including the part about people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to and all of the unjustified name-calling. ...and Elizabeth Warren.
I know this was a year ago but I just saw it. In the off chance you still see this, cite your source for Sanders saying a goddamn thing about people not working if they don't want to. Cause I'm calling you a lying sack of shit.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski Because AOC says the most stupid Anti-American shit that's easily refuted then cries "sexism" whenever she's criticized. Plus she's an ACTRESS! They held an AUDITION for people to run for the House seat she has. She had less people vote for her than many small town mayors.
@@Akihito007 I liked AOC, but she is not left enough for my taste. I am disappointed by her refusal to try and get rid of private property, among other things. As an American I want a good society and not capitalist trash.
Side note: typical Aaron Sorkin scene where there’s only one woman in the room, and she’s just not as smart as the boys. She doesn’t even know the punchline of her own joke. 🙄
Buckley's quote came from a time when the left was in fact engaging with ideas that turned out not to work. Now, it's the right wing that lives in a fantasy world where tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves (they don't), where getting rid of regulations that protect the environment and workers safety will produce jobs (it won't) and where deregulating wall street and the finical industry makes a stronger capitalism (it doesn't). The widening wealth gap and the rise in the national debt both begin in the Reagan era.
Yes.... we tolerate you on the Left, don't we? Even though you say and do dumb ass things several times a day, on average - and elect buffoons, morons, and idiots on a regular basis!
Ah yes, that famous Karl Marx quote: "Schill out to corporations and pander exclusively to the middle class. But make sure to follow congressional procedure."
Hey, "beefyoso"... Go take a fucking Political Science course. You could not be any farther from the actual reality, if you tried to be. I'd bet, that without stopping to actually look it up, you couldn't accurately define "communism" if your life depended on it.
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
Ron Silver: Completely underrated and underappreciated and sorely missed. RIP.
He really NAILED this role.
I had no idea he died. Bruno was such an amazing character.
He was great in "Silent Rage."
The late Ron Silver was brilliant in this scene.
In every scene*
And everything else he was in.
@@javimiami92 Kelp (that word alone should stir some memories)
The most underrated scene of the entire show.
WOW exact problem with Democratic Party for last 40 years
Yep
Welcome to Reagan era. Needs to die.
To quote Will Rogers: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
So damn true. Every liberal eventually reaches this conclusion yet not a single liberal has done anything to help shed that image. In 2020, this stereotype continues to loom like a dark cloud over all liberals. The last 4 years is a perfect example that being weak will never get anyone anywhere.
This is what happens when you get rid of the smoke filled room. You get these namby-pamby always trying to not hurt Republican feelings. I want a Democrat like Silver portrayed to fight back
It also relates to the Newsroom episode - Why is America the Greatest Country. If you liberals are so smart, how do you lose so damn often. Again, Aaron Sorkin.
It’s always. “How come you lose so goddamn always” 😀
Because grand standing and bullying and aggressiveness and jeering and stupidity are seen as cool, while the gentle are being made fun of and ignored.
@@beageler Oh shut up you nerd. I have literally never heard anything so stupid in all of my life, and I defy anybody in the world to prove me wrong! Anyway nobody cares what you think so there.
Republicans play dirty/go negative....do everything they can to supress the democratic vote. If voting for EVERY citizen was easy (just like online banking is)...then Republicans would win a lot less elections. However Republicans cut polling places in blue areas (making Black people stand in lines for 8 hours in order to vote..I dont see Red Voters waiting 8 hours to vote)....taking away the right to vote from those convicted of a felony (what happened to 'no taxation without representation'? If you cant vote, you have NO sayso in who represents you). You do your time, you're free. Unless you're convicted of a voting related crime....what does taking away someone's right to vote FOREVER have to do with punishing someone for a non-voting related offense?
And we are still doing it.
Welcome to post Reagan. FeelsBadMan
As a Transgender woman, this so resonates w/ what Im seeing in the current political landscape,,. :)
The average person (people not FASCIST or dont like to look for reasons to hate someone) is willing to treat transgender people with the respect they deserve. However, when trans women push for the right to play women's sports....that one issue pushes away 'the sane' people who would otherwise be supportive of trans rights. Trans women were born with male strength...that doesnt go away because one transitions to a female. Women have had to come a long way when it comes to competing in sports....forcing them to compete against trans women..is unfair.
Let me put it this way: Fl Jo has the women's world record in the 100 meter dash...at 10.49 seconds. Usian Bolt has the male world record in the 100 meter dash...at 9.58 seconds. Guess what Fl Jo's ranking would be IF she had to compete against men? 7,080th place! That means that men who you've never heard of....if they had to compete against women....would EASILY hold the women's world record in the 100 meter dash IF only a few of them 'transitioned' into women.
I know that trans athletes want to compete....and that there arent a huge number of trans women athletes who compete. However it doesnt mean that biological women should be forced to compete against trans women...who CLEARLY have a bio advantage when it comes to having male genetics.
I'm in no way saying that it's ok to trans bash. I'm saying that IF trans women would just be reasonable and just accept that they shouldnt be advocating for the right to compete against women in sports....then they would find that more people would be willing to support trans rights.
If you was a parent who had daughters who compete in sports...how would you explain to her that she had NO CHANCE when it came to competing against trans women athletes?
@@paullentz1972’fraid you’re wrong about the whole innate biological advantages thing. That’s propaganda. HRT levels the playing field and actually makes it harder for trans women to build muscle than cis women.
This mistaken idea has already hurt cisgender women in very public and embarrassing ways, and it’s also usually applied against racial minorities.
How would you feel about a transgender female (born a male, transitions to a female) getting into a UFC match with a bio female? The trans would DESTROY virtually any female in the octogen. @@kerriadereth
@@paullentz1972while I disagree with the argument, thats like the tiniest portion of what trans people are advocating for. Like the right to self identify, the right to access HRT medication, the right to not be descriminsted against. The sports issue is a small one.
@@kerriaderethYou are totally ignoring BONE DENSITIY! Men have way high bone density than women. When Lia Thomas was a man...she was getting SMOKED by the male swimmers she was competing against. However when she transition to being a female. she SMOKED her female competition. Look at her bone/muscle structure. The women she competed against have NO CHANCE.
If sam wants to change the rules he has to win the game. It's that simple.
they're already in power, haven't they already won the game, guess they want to win it again...
@@edwardness7497. You know there is more than just the White house, right? I know republicans want all authority to come out of the oval office but that's not how it works. For now, trump is still saying he'll be a dictator if re-elected.
The repeat was classic - just to be clear indeed!
A masterpiece in writing and acting.
I'd love to see Sam or Josh debate Roger Furlong or Jonah Ryan. In fact I want a rumble between Veep and The West Wing.
The cast of the veep would feed these sanctimonious circle jerkers through a wood chipper and use the pink slushi to lube up for smacking the crack pile from sorkins mouth in preparation for hate fuelled deep stomach-ing that lasts so long Keith Richards’s perverted zombie will finally disintegrate into its basic composure of cocaine and broken hymans.
Damn the line is so pertinent today
The entire series is so pertinent today.
This is still what the leftist do I’m America. Label everyone & accuse republicans of all the wrong while they claim they are the only righteous ones.
@@mhernandez9117there's an argument between liberals and leftists, but the guy is pretty spot on about Republicans. Maybe when 80% of the Republican caucus isn't a bunch of theocratic fascist toady sycophants to a failed reality tv show host they'd be more contributive members of our politics, but until then they're terrible.
@@mhernandez9117well right now republicans are absolutely ruining this country. It’s indefensible. But bless your little heart
"Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s." -- Holy Fucking Hell. That's incredibly spot on.
That’s such a cliché straw man about conservatives.
It like when conservatives call democrats, “socialists”
It’s stupid talk.
@@jimmy2k4o Isn't that exactly what the 'again' in 'Make America Great Again' is playing on though?
@@MrRevertis correct
@@jimmy2k4o you mad bro lol 😂
Ever actually watch "Leave it to Beaver"? Ever see what ISN"T there? People of color. LGBTs. Liberated women. Handicapped people. Immigrants. It's a conservative paradise, all right, because all those people are swept out of sight. Works great, if you are straight, white, male and middle class. Not so much for all other Americans.
Chris Traeger!
You want proof this is still relevant, watch bill mahers monologues for like the last 3 years. Fuckin brilliant
This hurts so bad. Bruno encapsulates everything about where the Australian Right is heading these days: the ordinary people who were once the GOOD Right, say nothing, and meanwhile, the Left just cower in the corner, hiding.
It makes me ashamed. And RIP Ron Silver.
We're having the same problem here, too. Our left is finally starting to find its voice & our right is still a few loud unreasonable voices who shouted the rest of their party into silence. Anybody who tries to say anything reasonable catches hell from the reactionaries.
@@r.c.auclair2042 there was a time too when the right encapsulated by Scalia & the left by Ruth B Ginsberg could at least talk in respectful ways but now they shout & point like children. Not that I was a fan of Scalia! & since 2020 women’s rights have gone back 45 years.
I personally think the change in religious status of many people is destabilising politics, particularly from Christian, to effectively Atheists... right are predominantly Christian, where as the left, while they used to be, are shifting with the times... the right use religious values as a strong link to conservativism and are also losing that battle over time so double down on what else they believe categorizes their party... mostly attacking the left for their view on progressiveness...
Connie was a rocket though
Connie could get it is all I’m saying.
Well Bruno is right about running in the same election as everyone else. Though the standard SHOULD be if the ad attempts to influence the outcome of the election, the rules are what they are.
However what do liberal principles have to do with exploiting loopholes in campaign finance?
The loopholes were created by the conservatives for their own benefit. Principled liberals refuse to exploit them themselves, for their side's benefit. They kept their principles, but lost their elections.
It was democrats who unconstitutionally changed the election rules in 2020 in SECRET so donald trump could object against/compete for that channel of votes. So ....
Terrible caption. Actually, it shows what is great about liberals and liberalism...particular's Sam's comments about campaign soft money that show liberals have morals and a conscience.
The only thing in this clip I can agree with is the campaign advisor talking about playing by the rules that exist rather than the rules as you wish them to be. If I'd have been in his shoes (and this wasn't being written for dramatic effect for TV), I'd have told Sam Seaborn that if you don't like the rules as they are, then try to get Congress to change those rules. But for not, they'd have to play by the rules as they currently exist.
I say this as a conservative, but I think that the campaign advisor was spot on with that one comment as a non-partisan philosophical matter. That said, I disagree with pretty much everything else he said on partisan issues.
Yes, you can. You simply state the truth. If I were running, I would be blunt and say soft money is overall a bad idea, but while it's there for my opponent, I'm going to use it too. I am not going to hamstring myself in a competitive election. Elect me, and I'll work to change the rules. Banning soft money is a good idea, but it will only be feasible if that ban applies to both sides.
@jimmyfly yes, you can. The campaign that has the most money to back it will tend to win, money talks. Only serious scandals can threaten someone will big money backing them. You handcuff yourself by not taking money, you wont win and you wont be in a spot to make any changes. And you can take that false equivalency out the door with you.
@jimmyfly I respectfully disagree. An election is a contest, and everyone should play by the same rules. Imagine if a football coach refused to pass because he didn't think it was how the game should be played. It's noble of him to stick to his convictions, and I will respect him for it, but he won't remain a coach for very long because he won't ever win.
I don't think your abortion analogy is apt. The issue isn't doing something just because it is legal. It is attempting to win a contest in which certain things are allowed and others are not.
@jimmyflyJimmy, I disagree. I think that there's a pretty big difference between abortion and campaign finance laws. Campaigns/Elections are a contest, and refusing to play by the same rules because you're more moral or whatever than the other guy is silly. If you want to change the law you have to get elected. And if you want to get elected, you can't do it with one arm tied behind your back.
Now, mind you, I kinda think that Sam Seaborn's philosophical position sounded pretty good. But you make that change in the law. You don't hobble yourself and refuse to play on an even playing field. After all, no one here's talking about outright breaking the law. They're just saying play by the same rules, the same laws, whether you like them or not.
As for abortion, there's no contest involved the act of abortion itself. Oh, you can certainly put yourself in a political bind of you claim to be pro-life but then have an abortion, and still be running for office as a pro-life candidate. Also, I just don't think that you can put campaign finance laws and abortion in the same moral bucket. Abortion is very much a moral issue. I don't see campaign finance as being a moral issue, or at least not being even remotely close as a moral issue.
@@Degan1000 I agree, Jeff. I don't think that most people would rip you for stating what you said, at least as long as you did seriously work to change the rules if you did end up winning. Of course, the problem I see is that far too many pols will say one thing and do another once elected. Also, all too often any new proposals for campaign finance reform seem to be extremely partisan, with the reforms favoring one side over the other. So, in my experience, non-partisan campaign finance reform has been pretty damned rare.
RIP Ron Silver
Buckley in Buckley v Valeo, is William F Buckley Jrs brother.
Is it only me or he looked kinda like Al Pacino
That the clip faded out at the point it was faded out itself is an interesting point or non-point, to say the least, I think.
I like the part where he goes back in time to steal gold for his campaign
Well, the Dims sure paid attention to THIS speech!!!
(Petrifies Kelp) - Kelp and Sailing Boats
Rest In Peace. Ron Silver.
If Democrats ever go hard like the Republicans, this country will improve tremendously.
Fuck. Yes. What happened to the party of Harry "Come On Motherfuckers, Try Me!" Truman??
why is this so relevant now?
Good point. But other people doing wrong is no reason to do wrong oneself. Stand up, yes. Don't betray your ideals
Expository dialogue for the audience. No way the Communications Director doesn't know this already.
Toby's reaction suggests he at least wasn't surprised and is just asking for clarification. He may not be a campaigns expert. Sam is just outraged at the recommendation, whether he knows about it already or not.
0:42 she’s savant-like because she read a footnote?
Liberals dream with hopefulness for a Utopia that can't exist.
Conservatives pine with nostalgia for one that never did.
Its an _illusion!_
well...he got the 1st part right..but the "no more"...yeh...missed by say a few miles
huh? you remarking that the timing is wrong for a surprise spoken word cover of the night at the roxbury theme?
Progress has been uh, wonderful?
Real progress happens when Democrats aren't in power!
@@SeatBill lol except Republicans run up huge deficits and leave Democrats to clean up their fiscal mess. Running up tax cuts and wars on the credit card.
@@AnArchyRulzz Really? When was the last time the Democrats actually DID anything about the deficit? Or enacted plans to cut taxes, reduce entitlements, etc., in order to reduce it? Please give me specific examples! Look at the stimulus proposals Pelosi keeps trying to force President Trump into accepting; *money for Planned Parenthood, museums, and bailing out Democratic states that can't seem to control their own spending, etc.!* Why isn't she - and the rest of the lunatics in her party - trying to JUST PASS a SIMPLE stimulus package: *extend unemployment benefits, another round of checks for American citizens, and extending protection for small businesses.... while leaving the rest to later negotiation?* THAT'S where those TRILLIONS of dollars are coming from! Democrats are all about spending money for their pet projects, pet special interests, and anyone who'll give them money to stay in power; the rest of it is just gravy money to make people believe they're actually trying to DO something to help people! We spend more per pupil in education than any other country on Earth; yet, our kids STILL can't read, or do math, or get enough skills for good jobs! You know who is "helped" from that? The TEACHERS UNIONS that keep Dems in power! When parents can't take kids out of bad schools..... do you really think the Republicans are behind that?
I'm not saying the GOP is without its' faults; not at all. One of its' biggest is an unwillingness to fight with Dems like Trump does; bare-knuckle brawls, if that's what it takes! Kick Democrats in the teeth enough, and they'll run away! Kneecap them, and you start to get their attention! Put your boot on the back of their necks until they start to see reason (or outside of the bubbles they all live in), and you start to get things DONE! We should be doing MORE of that, not LESS.
"Running up tax cuts"?? So people can keep more of the money they earn, instead of sending it to governments, both federal and state, that have shown NO history of knowing how to spend it wisely, for everyone's benefit? And you're really naive and foolish enough to think the rich don't pay their "fair share," when even leftist think tanks know that the top 1% of earners pay around 40% of the taxes in this country???? As far as wars go - how many wars has Donald Trump started, or gotten us into, over the past 4 years? He actually wants to *bring troops home,* which angers cotton-headed Dems because that would harm their "constituents" who make money from having those troops right where they are!!!!
If you actually read history and economics, instead of parroting what your leftist friends keep whispering in your ears, and think for yourself - along with doing your own research - then you'd realize how things REALLY are out here in the real world! Instead, you spend your time repeating easily-disprovable "truths," and making sure people keep in line who might venture out of your thought-bubbles; like blacks who are starting to wake up to exactly WHO'S been screwing them for DECADES in this country! Trust me - for every dumb-ass LeBron James, there are a hundred blacks actually waking up, and starting to think for themselves!
Drives you nuts.... doesn't it?
Check this article out for an answer on your tax questions. As for the pork attached to bills, the GOP does a fair bit of that, too. Lots of defense contracts in GOP districts.
@@bsb1975 oh I agree there is lots of blame to go around. My skepticism has no political stripe; it seems as i get older the idea of liberalism seems quaint.
Yeah, yeah what about corporate power? workers rights, MC4A?
What about it? It's either capitalism, or socialism; choose carefully, and wisely!
True in 2020, too.
As a liberal: THIS.
Brilliant
Love the end!
God Connie Briton is terrible here. She seemed to think she was on a sitcom still.
Buckley v. Valeo was decided in 1976. The West Wing premiered in 1999. This episode aired in 2001. I learned about Buckley v. Valeo in college c. 1984. I learned about it in law school c. 1988. I was teaching it to high school students in 2003. This is the most unrealistic scene in the entire seven seasons of the West Wing. There is not a chance on earth that the two most senior communications aides in the White House would need to have Buckley explained to them in 2001, and if they did they'd have been fired on the spot. Aaron Sorkin, or whoever wrote this, either knew absolutely nothing...not one single thing...about campaign finance in 2001 or, for some reason, wanted to insult the characters of Sam and Toby.
You massively overestimate how much the average high school student pays attention to laws
@@mhug162 Yes. My 20 years of experience as a high school teacher have left me utterly bereft of any understanding about how much the average high school student pays attention. Thank so my for your well thought out insight.
Lol thats the only lib I'd respect. And i never see them anymore.
Say it loud and proud, and say it often. This really ought to be Biden's campaign slogan.
Maybe it isnt because he doesnt believe his own party's bullshit that its trying to flim flam america with.
Brilliant!! and exactly on point!!
If you like being flim flammed.
esecially the "soft on crime and soft on drugs"
Sounds like Brandon...please don't hurt me!
They were snow flakes even back then
But liberals are mostly soft on all these things.
Not all, I grant you that, but the ones that make the calls and form opinions are
No, it's that Republicans are way too extreme on some issues. They try to make those views look like the norm by suggesting that liberal values are excessively weak, but that's just not the case. We know that absurd prison terms do nothing to reduce the crime rate, we know that prison is ineffective at rehabilitating people, we know that giving everyone guns does not actually reduce gun related crimes, we know that "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is fucking impossible, we know that "trickle-down economics" does not work, we know that allowing the richest people to keep accumulating more and more wealth is not a boon to the economy or the people, we know that corporate tax cuts do not raise wages, we know that giving people a safety net does not discourage them from working.
We look at the evidence and the research and come to conclusions based on that. Being "hard" on these issues has clearly not worked for the people but Republicans don't care. They're the ones who benefit from private prisons and sky high incarceration rates, from low taxes and corporate tax breaks, from low minimum wages and keeping people trapped in poverty.
It's not that liberals are "soft" on these issues, it's that we don't think it's okay to damn millions of people to poverty or prison to line the pockets of a few.
The problem is when we do that...*cough* Basket of deplorables *cough* we end up with something worse the a weak Liberal in office... We get the modern version of PT Barnum...
Trump as pt barnam
That does make me laugh.
He also reminds me of Maurie from goodfellas.
Now they are reactionary and moralistic.
Democrates always had their reactionary element. However thanks to trump the world now knows that the Republicans have no morals.
@@petergould9174 We're not the party that celebrates baby murder and giving full welfare and healthcare to illegals paid for by the American tax payer.
@@Akihito007 Just letting kids die in border prisons. But of course, we only care about kids who aren't illegals.
@@jedediahmyers7495 LOL...why the FUCK do they want to live in the USA if the country is as horrible as you imply? IF THE USA IS SO BAD, YOU WOULD WANT THESE PEOPLE SENT BACK TO MEXICO.
Fuck, liberals are dense.
@@FitnessByMatt I'm too marxist to be liberal. And I didn't imply the US was bad to live in, in my comment. But I'm outright stating it now. The only people who want to legally immigrate to the USA are war refugees and people who are upper middle-class or higher. Because everything else is a dumpster-fire. But it's also a source of tremendous wealth partially because it's so shitty. So people who want to feed their families come here and suffer awful conditions and circumstances to collect money and send it. Not because they like America, but because they're desperate to survive in the absolute hellscape that is the global economy during the pax Americana. Also the kids and parents who came up from the caravans were fleeing fucking drought and dying agriculture. But yeah, sure. Live in your fantasy.
"Soft on Communism, soft on Defense" Let's recap how Dark Brandon is dealing with military spending.
The defense industry is boing Brrrrrr...
Not the only problems
I hated Bruno and it was because they didn't show enough of his prowess. I know his character must have organised the campaign without us seeing it but it seemed like he was mostly talk and made no moves. I could be wrong.
No more.
And then Bruno went republican in the last season
Which brought great view points in a different light. In this show both party views were used, later in 'newsroom' it became a bit preachy (but I still liked the show). Sure, better to look like Ainsley to make a Republican point.
He was still a democrat just helping a republican
preach on Bruno !!
What a bunch of bovine fecal matter.
Best part was the but they cut off. If you’re going to make an issue ad actually make it about the issues.
Wait ... is "pro-gun" supposed to be a _bad_ thing in that sentence?
Pro-gun is a political label, just like not being pro life/choice doesn't make you anti life/choice. Nobody in the West Wing is anti-gun. What he means are the people who oppose literally any legislation that involves regulation or safety standards involving firearms.
patrick howard nah
@patrick howard For the majority of the history of the country, the Second Amendment was not seen as guaranteeing the right for every citizen to bear arms. In 1939, the Supreme Court actually ruled on a case based on the collective rights view, the one that actually pays attention to the text "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and interprets it as meaning that Congress cannot prohibit any State from having firearms for military purposes.
It was only in 2008 - seriously, less than 12 years ago now - that the Supreme Court finally reversed its decision and decided that the Constitution guarantees individual rights.
For over 200 years, the Constitution was not interpreted as guaranteeing every citizen's individual right to bear arms. It was only after aggressive campaigning from Republicans, and a new radical Republican head of the NRA (literally radical, not as a pejorative) who changed its stance.
So I'm not sure you really want to make the argument that *they're* "rebranding" the Constitution. It was Republicans who campaigned and convinced the Supreme Court to change their stance after more than two centuries, and the new interpretation of the Amendment has some serious flaws. Like, you know, the fact that it ignores the part that specifically mentions a *well regulated militia*.
@@Crazdor Fucking dumbass. Since A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, AKA THE AMERICAN MILITARY, YOU STUPID FUCK, needs to be armed - THE PEOPLE, AKA THE CITIZENS OF THE USA, are allowed to also be armed, in the event that the MILITIA is used against THE PEOPLE.
That's why the founding fathers distinguished THE MILITIA from THE PEOPLE.
God, liberals are so fucking dense.
Pro gun means pussy
Watching the entire West Wing series should be mandatory in the orientation of all elected officials from the bottom to the top. (With a test at the end)
human being oh wow that’s a good idea
Leftist propaganda should be mandatory??
Akihito007 I rarely agree with policy in the West Wing but I still love the show and wish more people would watch it. Not for the positions the series contains, but for the principles and convictions the characters have
@@samgonzalez8662 I've never heard of the show before today, but I don't think calling people racist and homophobic is much working anymore. That's ALL that leftists/liberals have done for about 50 years now.
It worked for a long time. But it isn't working much anymore.
@@FitnessByMatt, nothing works anymore. Defining people with absolute labels on either side is really just.. lazy.
He is spot on when it comes to the liberrats
Fucking A, man
Rom Silver made great acting ou of lawyers and intelligent man behind the power great...
Oh boy this aged poorly.
true tho what's that saying? "democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line"
they go scorched earth for their power grubbing bs, but we can't even stand by clearly popular things with strength.
This country was founded by Liberals! That's why it's called a Liberal Democracy! F`ing conservatives have, and continue to be on the wrong side of American history. They hate democracy. Fascism is more to their taste.
Bernie Sanders is literally saying what Bruno says at the end, including the part about people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to and all of the unjustified name-calling. ...and Elizabeth Warren.
bernie sanders isn't a liberal, he's a socialist
I know this was a year ago but I just saw it. In the off chance you still see this, cite your source for Sanders saying a goddamn thing about people not working if they don't want to. Cause I'm calling you a lying sack of shit.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski Because AOC says the most stupid Anti-American shit that's easily refuted then cries "sexism" whenever she's criticized. Plus she's an ACTRESS! They held an AUDITION for people to run for the House seat she has. She had less people vote for her than many small town mayors.
@@Akihito007 I liked AOC, but she is not left enough for my taste. I am disappointed by her refusal to try and get rid of private property, among other things. As an American I want a good society and not capitalist trash.
Side note: typical Aaron Sorkin scene where there’s only one woman in the room, and she’s just not as smart as the boys. She doesn’t even know the punchline of her own joke. 🙄
What are you even talking about. Sorkin wrote many intelligent females. Stop talking out of your ass!
We get it, if you can't win cheat.
Because name calling and generalizing are only Republican attributes. *eyeroll*
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so." -- President Ronald Reagan
The trouble with our Conservative friends, is not that they are ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.
So...what's next, I call you a copy cat & you recite the famous poem about rubber and glue?
Arthur Name, why are you mad?
Who's mad? I was just curious if you had anything other than copying Buckley's quote and changing "liberal" to "conservative".
Buckley's quote came from a time when the left was in fact engaging with ideas that turned out not to work. Now, it's the right wing that lives in a fantasy world where tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves (they don't), where getting rid of regulations that protect the environment and workers safety will produce jobs (it won't) and where deregulating wall street and the finical industry makes a stronger capitalism (it doesn't). The widening wealth gap and the rise in the national debt both begin in the Reagan era.
The only problem with his rant is it's based on a false narrative about conservatives and conservatism.
...yeah, the truth is even worse..
Republicans are human?
Yes.... we tolerate you on the Left, don't we? Even though you say and do dumb ass things several times a day, on average - and elect buffoons, morons, and idiots on a regular basis!
he said liberal means soft on communism, but today liberalism IS communism.
Kindly define communism and then tell me a single Democratic politician who believes in those principles.
Moron.
Ah yes, that famous Karl Marx quote: "Schill out to corporations and pander exclusively to the middle class. But make sure to follow congressional procedure."
@@casmatt99 artful use of logic as always. leftists are so fun
Hey, "beefyoso"... Go take a fucking Political Science course. You could not be any farther from the actual reality, if you tried to be. I'd bet, that without stopping to actually look it up, you couldn't accurately define "communism" if your life depended on it.
You cower if front of the schoolyard bully when they start throwing up the flag the Bible and children
Here's a dollar for your mother, she stopped by.