Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Joe Rogan presidential debate?


GROOT

Recommended Posts

On 9/15/2020 at 10:09 AM, Joe Bryant said:

Personally, I love it as a concept.

As someone who wants Joe Biden to win, I hate the idea.

Another thought for Biden supporters.

If the Rogan show were to be hypothetically a 2008 Barack Obama vs 2020 Donald Trump, would you still say don't do the show?

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

That's where we disagree then. I think Joe Rogan is far from the average debate moderator. 

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 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. 

I'm kind of curious to understand what it is you think Joe can do differently than anybody else who's tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

He has done over 1500 interviews with literally all sorts of people.  This alone in general should tell you something. 

... do you think that's not true of nearly every debate host? What do you think cable TV/radio reporters do all day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

According to our survey respondent demos, Joe’s listenership is 71% male and evenly split between high school and post-secondary graduates. Fifty seven percent of his audience reports earning over $50k per year, with 19% making over $100k. The average age of his listeners was 24. The most likely additional podcast responses from his listeners were “Serial,” “The Daily,” “This American Life,” and “This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von.”

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

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.

Agreed.... if we're just talking about interviews,  he can still do it but he won't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

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.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pantherclub said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, quick-hands said:

Let people talk.  Not sound bites.    Or after a two minute word salad say.   What does that mean?

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zoonation said:

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. 

Admitted trump supporter?   Dude you are crazy wrong here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

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...

Here's the rest of his 'correction':

...turned out to be true, but the other #### I read about people getting arrested for lighting fires in Portland was not true. I repeated it without looking into it and it was a really ####### stupid mistake that won’t happen again. I’m sorry.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2020 at 4:39 AM, Terminalxylem said:

Not my cup of tea, as it glorifies conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific thought. And I don’t like MMA.

But I realize it’s popular.

 

On 9/16/2020 at 10:30 PM, Terminalxylem said:

Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0zgNY_kqlI

Pretty similar situation.  The outcome while not ideal was better than I expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0zgNY_kqlI

Pretty similar situation.  The outcome while not ideal was better than I expected.

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”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0zgNY_kqlI

Pretty similar situation.  The outcome while not ideal was better than I expected.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Terminalxylem said:

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”.

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 :scared:) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2020 at 7:02 AM, The Commish said:

Based on every single thing I've ever watched of him from Snowden to Tulsi to a myriad of other political beings, I can't help but think he's trolling Trump here.  Am I the only one seeing this?  It would be a complete 180 to actually come out as a Trump "supporter" for him.

ETA:  That said, I don't think ANY debates are beneficial for either of these two.  Complete waists of time.

Biden is actually pretty fit for his age

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

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

Was there a thread on it here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 11:00 AM, BassNBrew said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0zgNY_kqlI

Pretty similar situation.  The outcome while not ideal was better than I expected.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BassNBrew said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Terminalxylem said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

 

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.

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.

Edited by Terminalxylem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...