Workhorse
Footballguy
I think that it would be interesting to have it as a dual-host podcast for balance. Say Bill Simmons and Rogan alternating questions back and forth. But 4 hours of that would be tedious.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Joe Rogan presidential debate? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter GROOT
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
I don't disagree he's different. I just think the result would be the same. I can't see avoiding a situation where Joe asks a simple and straight forward question, the politicians giving a non answer and Joe continually asking it over and over sprinkling in a "you aren't answering my question" here and there. For how long? Who knows...but I don't think Joe's going to have the secret to "making" them answer the questions.Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. We still disagree then. I think Joe Rogan in a four hour interview/debate would get different results from the average debate monitor.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm kind of curious to understand what it is you think Joe can do differently than anybody else who's tried.
pantherclub
Footballguy
He has done over 1500 interviews with literally all sorts of people. This alone in general should tell you something.
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
... do you think that's not true of nearly every debate host? What do you think cable TV/radio reporters do all day?
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
FWIW...I'd LOVE for him to sit each candidate down and interview them. I'd probably listen to most if not all of it, but that's not what we're talking about here.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
Chris Wallace has been interviewing people since 1975. That is just one example of many
pantherclub
Footballguy
dawgtrails
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
So I guess what people thought of when they heard "Rogan host a debate" was putting these two on the air, with Rogan and Rogan doing an interview. That'd be entertaining but it doesn't even come close to sniffing "Rogan host a debate"...those are SIGNIFICANTLY different activities. All my comments were under the assumption that it'd be an actual debate style event. Of course I'm in for the trainwreck of a dual interview. It wouldn't be informative, but it'd be entertaining.
pantherclub
Footballguy
dawgtrails
Footballguy
To some, I guess so.
Just seems weird to me. A guy has a succesful podcast, and throws out the idea of hosting a 4 hour presidential debate, even though that is not his expertise.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
https://www.mediamonitors.com/audience-demographic-variations-specific-to-genre/
dunno about race, but that is some demo info as asked earlier in the thread.
This is also interesting in comparing to the other top 10 podcasts: https://www.canadianpodcastlistener.ca/blog/joe-rogan-is-a-podcast-unicorn
The rest are all almost entirely college-educated.
pantherclub
Footballguy
It seems weird to you to have the two candidates sit down and do a long form interview? Granted its never been done before but surely you can understand why people want this and what it would accomplish right?
I will break it down for you. It would be a interview of sorts between the 2 guys with out time limits, commercials and a very seasoned moderator. A guy that is comfortable with anyone and that can talk about anything. Man if you dont get that than I just dont know what to tell you.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I still say there's a 0% chance of this happening - if Trump really wanted to do it he could do it without Biden and get all the air time. His handlers know it would be a disaster. Saying he'd do it is a calculated lie - they know Biden wouldn't do it either.
The Commish
Footballguy
Agreed.... if we're just talking about interviews, he can still do it but he won't
BladeRunner
Footballguy
First off, that wasn't the proposal by Rogan - it was for both of them.
Second, how do you have a debate with your opponent if he doesn't show up because Harris and his handlers won't let him out of the basement?
quick-hands
Footballguy
Let people talk. Not sound bites. Or after a two minute word salad say. What does that mean?
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Why?Joe Bryant said:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Like I said on Page 1: Trump knows his audience. This is basically a miniature "Lock her up"; Trump knows that it will never happen, but he likes giving his followers a comforting image to dream about.
zoonation
Footballguy
Four hours is too long. And imagine how many times Trump would lie unchecked (Rogan is an admitted Trump supporter). Listening to a serial liar who conflates truth with lies based on his own self interest is a waste of 5 minutes never mind four hours.
And the format would be a disaster for Biden. As I said before, I doubt he can stay awake for four straight hours.
The Commish
Footballguy
Right...so nothing really different (if we're talking about debates of course, not interviews). That's my point. Of course 99.99999999% of everything said during said interview will absolutely be turned into sound bites for mass consumption...rinse and repeat.
pantherclub
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Even if he is a Trump supporter, who cares? 98% of all of the POTUS debates in the last 30 years have been hosted by unabashed lefties.
But now you guys are all up in arms about Rogan because he MAY be a Trump supporter? I think you guys might actually be scared that Biden would mess it up, not so much that Trump would.
But now you guys are all up in arms about Rogan because he MAY be a Trump supporter? I think you guys might actually be scared that Biden would mess it up, not so much that Trump would.
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter]
Footballguy
Republicans: The mainstream media is unabashedly liberal, and unfair to conservatives!
Also Republicans: Why, yes, of course we'll agree to these debates.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
he sounds like a lot of posters here:
Joe Rogan
@joerogan
· 1h
I ####ed up on the podcast with Douglas Murray and said that people got arrested lighting fires in Portland. That turns out to not be true. I was very irresponsible not looking into it before I repeated it. I read one story about a guy getting arrested for lighting fires...
Joe Rogan
@joerogan
· 1h
I ####ed up on the podcast with Douglas Murray and said that people got arrested lighting fires in Portland. That turns out to not be true. I was very irresponsible not looking into it before I repeated it. I read one story about a guy getting arrested for lighting fires...
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
If Phil Hartman could get brought back to life I’d watch him moderate a debate for sure.I will say, the one good thing to come from this thread - I watched a bunch of News Radio clips.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Here's the rest of his 'correction':
So, this is just garbage right here. Notice how he conveniently neglects to mention that he originally claimed that "left wing people" were arrested? Why did he omit "left wing" from his correction?
This 'correction' is so vague that it invites people to conclude that: 1) the basic premise of his claim was true, but that only one left-wing person was arrested, and/or 2) that left-wing people did start fires, but they just haven't been arrested yet.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
What this thread has shown me is much like 4 years ago, democrats have let Republican stigmas become far too accepted as if they are fact just because they are repeated as right wing talking points a lot.
We have a president that sometimes rambles on with unintelligible word salad for 30 minutes at a time and brags about passing a 3rd grade competency test. Yet people think a guy with a stutter has failing mental capacity and is incapable of debating Trump.
Biden is going to shock people in debates. He's a great speaker and debater. Still. He would do fine with Rogan moderating.
We have a president that sometimes rambles on with unintelligible word salad for 30 minutes at a time and brags about passing a 3rd grade competency test. Yet people think a guy with a stutter has failing mental capacity and is incapable of debating Trump.
Biden is going to shock people in debates. He's a great speaker and debater. Still. He would do fine with Rogan moderating.
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0zgNY_kqlI
Pretty similar situation. The outcome while not ideal was better than I expected.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Thanks for the link. This should be a good litmus test, as it’s a topic which interests me and an area I believe Rogan takes an alternative viewpoint. As a debate moderator he should be able to put his biases aside and ask insightful questions while demanding accurate portrayal of the evidence for/against both “sides”.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
This is a really good comp to use... even though I'm usually on team Vegan, I thought Wilkes came off like a bully and it was hard to listen to because he totally steamrolled Kresser (who I don't have a ton of respect for). I could see that same scenario with Trump just steamrolling over Biden if for nothing else but the fact that he talks a ton more.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I think it will be to your liking. Rogan admits his bias, but goes out of his way to let Wilkes (Vegan) speak and points out where Wilkes wins the point. Wilkes does resort to bully mode at times (like Trump would), but Rogan didn't let it derail the debate. I actually listen to it twice (once in a deer blind
) because I found it interesting and want to hear it again with my "vegan" partner. I can see where Rogan isn't to the liking of many and does produce some trash, but he does produce some outstanding and entertaining interviews. Snowden being a recent one that you might like too.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I wish rogan had pushed Wilkes harder and shut down some of the bullying. He appeared to give Wilkes a lot more leeway since he (Rogan) had an admitted bias. While it did have rough patches, I did learn a lot from both Wilkes and Kresser.
renesauz
IBL Representative
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
Yea Rogan will definitely need to tighten things up if he has a real debate.
Now that I think about it a bit more I forgot he had kresser on a full episode prior so maybe that's why he allowed it but still. Side note - Game Changers is a really interesting movie
BassNBrew
Footballguy
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
I looked a while back when it first came out (in theaters) but I didn't see any then, not sure since then.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Whew, that was a little painful, especially the first hour or so. No way could I sit through a similar style “debate” with Biden and Trump.
Rogan showed his bias pretty consistently, but was polite and added some valid points intermixed with questionable pop-science nutrition. He definitely didn’t reign in the more aggressive participant (Game Changer guy), whose case was stronger but came across as an ##### much of the time. You can guess who would fill that role in the presidential debate.
Anyhoo, I learned a bit and appreciate the link. Still not a fan of Rogan, and can’t imagine any incentive for Biden to participate in that format.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Cool, thanks for sharing your opinion. Yeah, that first hour was awkward at best. Rogan should have shut that down, but I do think he was erring on the side of giving Wilkes more leeway. I don't mind someone showing their bias if they admit it and give the other side time to fully explain their viewpoint. I guess the important thing is that I did learn a good bit from that debate and that wouldn't have happened without the long form format.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Kresser actually behaved much more professionally, though the substance of his counterarguments was lacking. Although Wilkes repeated attacks were mostly unwarranted, I can imagine he was pretty pissed off that a "health detective" trained in acupuncture was given a platform to blast his well researched movie. Then again, mixed martial artists don't necessarily have a lot of scientific credibility, either.
That's one of my major gripes with Rogan: he gives way too much credence to non-mainstream/alternative "experts" and conspiracy theorists. While we certainly shouldn't close our minds to ideas outside of conventional wisdom, at some point you need to call BS and stop legitimizing nonsense. It's pretty embarrassing Kresser has been on his podcast multiple times under the guise of nutrition expertise, yet he wasn't even able to identify one on the most basic ways data is reported in meta analyses, the forest plot.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I've watched the first hour and learned very little - Wilks hasn't proven anything he claims but rather is just being an ### to Kressler. Kressler, Wilks and Rogan aren't experts.
Term - you are right that Rogan does give too much credence to alternative experts and conspiracy theorists but I think putting that claim on Kressler is misguided. I've heard him numerous times and I wouldn't classify him as that. He may not be an expert but he's not out espousing crackpot theories. In fact, of the two I'd say his philosophy of "some" animal protein being ok for some/most people has more evidence than the claims Wilks made of meat and dairy conclusively being bad for you.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Yeah, the first hour was terrible. It gets better after that. The B12 and protein segments are much more informative, and a little less inflammatory.
You and I have had some back-and-forth wrt low carbohydrate, animal protein/fat containing diets, so I think you know my stance. In the podcast, Kresser came across very accepting of plant-based diets, but kinda underplayed what he’s promoting on his website. His basic premise seems to be diets containing high quality animal protein in addition to plants are healthiest, but there’s really no data to support that assertion. Essentially, he is a low carbohydrate proponent, but creates his own thresholds for what constitutes low, below what major dietary guidelines define. The end result is a little misleading IMO, as the diet he advocates is effectively very low carbohydrate, prioritizing animal fats and proteins, with some plants also included, in part to modulate the oxidative stress created by the animal products. Wilks was arguing (and I agree) that the preponderance of nutrition literature suggests a diet where plants are central and animal products are minimized, if not eliminated entirely (though admittedly, evidence for complete veganism is limited). FWIW, those diets tend to be high carbohydrate, nowhere near the macronutrient content suggested by Kresser. And although both guys speak out against “nutritionism”, from what I can tell, Kresser mentions fats, proteins and carbohydrates frequently on his website.
But fundamentally, no one can completely refute the idea that “some” animal protein is OK. OK doesn’t equate to healthiest, however. Moreover, individual differences in genetics and the gut microbiome make a one-size fits all approach foolish - both guys acknowledge this. That being said, some general patterns are consistent in long-lived populations, and they ain’t paleo by any stretch of the imagination.
Full disclosure: knowing Kresser is to some extent anti-vaccine and summarily discounts the role saturated fats have in atherogenesis + utility of HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (“statins”) detracts from his credibility in my eyes. And ignorance of forest plots seriously calls his ability to interpret the literature into question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
