That’s probably because you’re an ignorant fantasist with no understanding of either the requirements of the Constitution nor the motivations of supporters of the Democratic party.
Remember, the Dems ran a Kenyan-born socialist (and he won), so adjusting AOC’s birth certificate shouldn’t be a problem.
Like you said, doorhinge does not keep in mind that he is fucking stupid. 
Doorhinge, what is your vision for the future of this country? Not your gripes and jibes about AOC or Democrats more broadly, but your positive vision for how the government and society should develop over the next generation or two? Just curious.
I have been hearing jibes from the right today about this plan actually specifically taking aim at bovine flatulence (cow farts), and making steak $90 a pound on the way to banning it altogether, to be replaced by “processed meat”. I haven’t read the resolution, so I really hope this is all being made up by the right and isn’t actually in there. Right? Please?
One point I also heard from Reihan Salaam that is an interesting one that Democrats will need to counter (at least if Republicans can effectively marshal it as a talking point, which is no sure thing) is that we have “an enormous amount of wealth under the ground, more than Saudi Arabia”, and that following this blueprint would entail just leaving it there untapped. I understand the environmental reasons for doing so, but I do think there are swing voters who will need to hear a good rationale for why this isn’t just throwing away a huge advantage that we have over other countries. I know that on the left, there is distaste for this kind of thinking—that we should think in terms of what’s best for the world as a whole, and not about how to get a leg up on other nation-states—and I’m sympathetic to the left’s impulses there. But in practical political terms, that’s not necessarily how most people think.
If you give me that ten minutes (or less) that I asked for (and I will take you at your word that you have listened to it), I will respond specifically and substantively to your question. I would first say in general terms, though, that I think it’s related to why businesses and governmental bureaucracies still value in-person or at least Skype/FaceTime type meetings even though they could theoretically just email each other all day long. There’s a fluid, dialectical dynamic inherent to spoken conversation (something we’ve been doing for many millennia longer than we’ve been reading and writing) that is sui generis. (That said, I’m sure a transcript of the discussion would be quite illuminating as well, and I would support making transcripts more widely available, especially for heavyweight pods like this one.)
But I suppose you can safely ignore my thesis—because after all, I’m just trolling, right? :rolleyes:
Is there some reason you can’t answer my question without my having listened to the entire ten-minute segment that you refer to? Do you not know exactly which statements you want to discuss, or can’t you remember exactly where they are in the podcast conversation? Can you at least provide precise timestamps for the particular statements you’re referring to?
This is one example of why podcasts are intrinsically less efficient than reading written text as a means of accessing information for the purposes of careful discussion and analysis in a written-text medium such as an online messageboard. If you had the particular statements you want to discuss in electronic written form, you could just cut and paste them into a post and we could all read them in a matter of seconds.
But that’s not really relevant in the (almost) exclusively written-text medium of this online messageboard.
It’s useful for people to talk to each other in person, sure. But if other people who did not participate in their conversation just want to know what it was the speakers said, it’s more efficient to read their remarks in written form than to listen to a static canned recording of the speakers talking to each other in person.
Especially if we non-participants aren’t even talking to each other in person, but instead just communicating by reading and writing electronic text.
It’s not about individual sentences. It’s the overall effect of the give and take. But like the old saying about leading a horse to water…
Yeah, we know already what happened to you when being led to podcasts of anthropologists, historians of science and genetics in past discussions about intelligence, or here in this thread regarding videos from a science writer about how unreliable Lomborg is and how powerful interests corrupt the discussion.
crickets (about the the main issue, but a loud reply defending ignorance.)
That sounds like you’re saying that the content of the speakers’ remarks is relatively unimportant compared to their conversational dynamic.
Nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But what I’m interested in discussing, when it comes to talking about political arguments on a written-text-format messageboard, is the substantive content of the arguments. If the content isn’t sufficiently interesting or meaningful to be worth discussing without the conversational dynamic, what’s the point?
For someone who doesn’t want podcasts to be called “infotainment”, SlackerInc, you’re making a fairly strong case for regarding them primarily in light of a performance, where the interest lies more in the personality and dialogue of the speaker(s) than in the substance of the positions they’re advocating.
Can you two please take this hijack elsewhere?
Kenyan-born socialist Muslim. There are still idiots harping about that (and believing it, sadly).
Kenyan-born, crony capitalist, socialist, Muslim, atheist.
CMC fnord!
Hedley Lamarr: “I want Kenyan-borns, crony capitalists, socialists, Muslims, atheists, and Methodists!” 
Reported.
While your post may be factually useful, we do have good-spirited stupid people here at SDMB. Even they will not appreciate being compared to doorhinge.
Wow! I saw a similar confused comment in another recent thread — or was that also you?
Will you stipulate that some communication media are more efficient than others? I generally avoid .ppt’s, .doc’s, and .xls’s as well. Would you read a webpage in illegible scrawls? An audio of Morse code? Smoke signals? No? So you are familiar with the concept that some media are more efficient than others; do we have to hold you by the hand and explain why podcasts are inefficient?
NPR podcasts generally have transcripts IIRC; I do read those sometimes. One time when podcasts might be efficient is when I’m driving down the road with eyes on the road but ears available. Do I also need to explain why this is not my podcast-listening time?
“It’s 2019: get with the times.” This is ironically funny. I’d work on it a little though if I were you, before submitting it to The Onion or trying it at your stand-up comic gig.
Dennis Niller is on food stamps, and this guy wants to muscle in on his territory.
We’ve tried that. Doesn’t seem to have worked.
To Slacker, podcasts are the online equivalent of uncircumsized sexual pleasure.
Something he heard about once and decided would make him feel cool if he claimed to have experienced?
You are now claiming I’m lying about being uncut? Jesus. :smack:
Where did I say that? I have no reason to disbelieve you. I was making reference to your lengthy testimonials about uncircumsized lovemaking. You didn’t already forget about that, have you?