You’re right: I guess that’s why podcasts are a tiny niche that will fade away soon enough. Oh, wait:
The number of podcast listeners — defined as those who have listened to at least one podcast in the past month — surged to 78 million by the end of 2017, up from 23 million in 2013, according to the E&M Outlook. Simultaneously, the podcast universe has exploded to more than 500,000 shows, and the quality of the content and production values have gone up, as well.
And those 78 million are disproportionately younger adults. If anyone digs up this thread in 20 or 30 years, you naysayers are going to look silly. Or at least like old-fogey sticks-in-the-mud.
Nice try at goalpost moving, but from what I can see the GOP position is that global warming is not really happening, or that if it is it’s just part of natural climate cycles–that it isn’t a result of human industrial activity, and therefore there is nothing we can do to change it. I strongly disagree with all of that, and I have said so repeatedly.
k9bfriender:
Global warming not being a big deal is a GOP position, and it is yours. UHC not being able to function in the US is a GOP position, and it is yours. Racism is a GOP position, and you support that.
Can you show a single post where you have supported the democratic position on any of these matters?
crickets
Nope, no crickets here. Indeed, I can show far more than a single post. Buckle in:
Still, we pay too much and it’s wrong to have millions uninsured. I should know, because I was one of the ranks of the uninsured for well over a decade. And then I rejoiced at the passage of Obamacare
While they were in those seats, they voted for Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership, whcih makes a big difference; and they agreed to an admittedly watered-down compromise version of HCR which is still a half a loaf and still better than none. The Republicans who replaced them would not have voted for any kind of HCR, so how can you say it makes no difference? Those were as far left as those districts were ever going to go: our best case scenario.
To me, public policy as concerns race prejudice is one of the most important ways in which I judge presidents. So before LBJ, there’s really only one president who impresses me, and that’s Ulysses Grant. (Truman gets an honourable mention for desegregating the armed forces, and JFK gets an “incomplete” but I have my doubts about whether he would have gone as far as LBJ did.) And the fact that Grant was president more than a half century earlier than FDR says that the “for their time” standard is not a fair yardstick after all.
The fact still remains that some states have a history in modern times and living memory of pushing toward progress and others have a track record of resisting it. The vast majority of white Mississippians seem hellbent on fighting tooth and nail against modernity; but then they whine that they are being “stereotyped” when anyone else points this out. Can’t have it both ways, guys.
LBJ racked up a huge blowout win nationally against Goldwater, but in Mississippi he got 12 percent of the vote. Johnson also lost Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana, but he at least got over 40% in each state. Mississippi is clearly a special, special place, even within the Deep South.
Then there’s Trent Lott, who had to resign his Majority Leader position because he harkened fondly back to segregation; but Mississippians kept voting him back in.
In Virginia, a “Macaca” crack was enough to torpedo a rising star’s career. In Mississippi, Haley Barbour can say all kinds of fucked up racist shit and keep getting reelected.
And here are some other various posts showing my Democratic bonafides:
Pelosi is awesome, and I’ve long been mystified, and frustrated, that she hasn’t gotten more credit as a trailblazer (and extremely effective Speaker). We still haven’t had a woman president, and that’s not right; but we’ve had a female Speaker and now have one again, and that’s a HUGE deal.
I dispute whether 100% would result in zero revenues; but the real point on Laffer is whether there is or was any government in existence that had income rates at such a level that lowering them would result in greater revenue for the government. And it is my belief that in the real world, that has never been the case.
No. Try to imagine a much smaller number of people on a desert island like Gilligans Island or something. Can Mr. and Mrs. Howell just sit back and have everyone else feed and clothe and house them while they do nothing to feed, clothe, and house anyone else, just because they have a chest full of money that their parents gave them?
You can’t say all liberals march in lockstep on anything, but this is as solid a correlation as any.
Suburbs kill the environment; they are individualistic yet obliterate regional culture at the same time; they are traditionally less ethnically diverse (and created in many cases by “white flight”); they are not friendly to bicycling and walking; they are unsophisticated and crassly commercial in their architecture; they lack most of the cultural amenities found in a core city. What’s not to dislike?