Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Joe Rogan presidential debate?


GROOT

Recommended Posts

4 minutes 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’d love to hear the scientists debate. Unfortunately they don’t create the content to draw a crowd like the mma game changer guy did. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2020 at 6:25 PM, The Commish said:

I don't think questions have ever really been a significant problem in debates.  It's all the non answers.  That wouldn't be different here that I can tell :shrug: 

It's 100% a problem. The political elite talking a nearly completely indecipherable dialect of English to the average voter and we wonder why debates don't move the needle much anymore.

Ask questions using simple vocabulary and in ways that elicit relatable answers. I think Joe Rogan would do a good job of this.

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

2 hours ago, hagmania said:

It's 100% a problem. The political elite talking a nearly completely indecipherable dialect of English to the average voter and we wonder why debates don't move the needle much anymore.

Ask questions using simple vocabulary and in ways that elicit relatable answers. I think Joe Rogan would do a good job of this.

The questions are pretty simple. Here is a sampling. Let us know if there any words you don't understand :)

“Beginning with you, Secretary Clinton, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American works?”

“Let me follow up with Mr. Trump, if you can. You’ve talked about creating 25 million jobs, and you’ve promised to bring back millions of jobs for Americans. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labor overseas? How, specifically, are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back?”

“Secretary Clinton, you’re calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I’d like you to further defend that. And, Mr. Trump, you’re calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I’d like you to defend that. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. Trump.”

“Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation’s first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?”

“Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question. Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters?”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hagmania said:

It's 100% a problem. The political elite talking a nearly completely indecipherable dialect of English to the average voter and we wonder why debates don't move the needle much anymore.

Ask questions using simple vocabulary and in ways that elicit relatable answers. I think Joe Rogan would do a good job of this.

I don't know...maybe I'm in the minority, but I am rarely confused by the questions.  They usually are pretty clear and to the point.  Yes, many are open ended to allow politicians to express their views, but they usually seem to be clear in what they want the politicians to talk about for the most part.  In turn, the replies usually have nothing to do with the question asked.  It's like talking to my 3 year old.

Commish:  "Hey bud, what do you want for breakfast this morning?"

Mini-Commish:  "Dad, Mickey just went up the slide backwards at his clubhouse.  He's trying to find his shoe"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hagmania said:

It's 100% a problem. The political elite talking a nearly completely indecipherable dialect of English to the average voter and we wonder why debates don't move the needle much anymore.

Ask questions using simple vocabulary and in ways that elicit relatable answers. I think Joe Rogan would do a good job of this.

This guy gets it.  Great post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't know...maybe I'm in the minority, but I am rarely confused by the questions.  They usually are pretty clear and to the point.  Yes, many are open ended to allow politicians to express their views, but they usually seem to be clear in what they want the politicians to talk about for the most part.  In turn, the replies usually have nothing to do with the question asked.  It's like talking to my 3 year old.

Commish:  "Hey bud, what do you want for breakfast this morning?"

Mini-Commish:  "Dad, Mickey just went up the slide backwards at his clubhouse.  He's trying to find his shoe"

 

Its not necessarily being confused by the questions its the direction and non answering that the candidates do on stage.  Rogan would not let them slide around like that.  He is direct when he wants to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pantherclub said:

Its not necessarily being confused by the questions its the direction and non answering that the candidates do on stage.  Rogan would not let them slide around like that.  He is direct when he wants to be.

I addressed this already....multiple times, but this isn't what hagmania was replying to.  I get that you think Rogan has some sort of magical way of making politicians actually answer questions.  I don't.  If they don't want to answer, they aren't going to and him trying to get them to just turns a "debate" into "arguing with the moderator"...another fruitless endeavor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I addressed this already....multiple times, but this isn't what hagmania was replying to.  I get that you think Rogan has some sort of magical way of making politicians actually answer questions.  I don't.  If they don't want to answer, they aren't going to and him trying to get them to just turns a "debate" into "arguing with the moderator"...another fruitless endeavor.  

Then we can agree to disagree because I think he can and has exhibited this countless times on his podcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pantherclub said:

Then we can agree to disagree because I think he can and has exhibited this countless times on his podcast.

I'm happy to see what you're talking about.  I've watched him often, but am unaware of a time where he's hosted a "debate" with national politicians.  Who were they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Joe Rogan and listen to him often, but challenging his guests is not his strong suit.

He's much more into letting people say their peace than challenging them, in my experience. I've found myself yelling at him a few times to not just let someone off the hook after saying something incredibly stupid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Did the Biden campaign ever respond to this?  They wanted him to do an appearance on Rohan’s show at one point.  

What would Biden respond to?  Unless something more formal has developed, this is a NYPost article indicating Trump "accepted" this by responding to an MMA fighter on Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AAABatteries said:
On 9/22/2020 at 9:51 AM, pantherclub said:

Then we can agree to disagree because I think he can and has exhibited this countless times on his podcast.

You are basically explaining why it will never happen.

I'm still waiting to see the evidence of this.  I'd love to see these debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pantherclub said:

Episode 1391.  Gabbard and jocko

That isn't a debate. I only watches the first half so i guess it could have happened in ther second half,  but that was an interview/ discussion based on any reasonable definition.....i already said those would be entertaining. Debates not so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Commish said:

I'm still waiting to see the evidence of this.  I'd love to see these debates.

It’s the chicken and the egg - there’s no evidence because “real” politicians won’t go on because Joe’s format is for him to call people out and spend 30 minutes on one topic.  It was never going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Gotta love the “Biden rules” crowd not realizing that Biden reached out to the “MMA fighter” to go on his show, and got turned down.  

I did not know this. But it makes it even more puzzling why anyone expects Biden to accept when:

1. There are three other debates.

2. The likelihood of an a debate based on substantive discussion under any circumstances is low.

3. Rogan has insulted Biden's cognitive ability (correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm taking others' word for this).

4. Rogan refused to interview Biden previously.

What do you think Biden has to gain by agreeing to participate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now Spotify employees threatening to strike if they can't censor Joe's podcast. Give me a break.

https://www.mmamania.com/2020/9/24/21454543/report-employees-threaten-strike-spotify-refuses-censor-joe-rogan-mma

Spotify employees were demanding direct editorial oversight over the recently-acquired Joe Rogan Experience podcast. That would include the ability to directly edit or remove sections of upcoming interviews, or block the uploading of episodes deemed problematic.

The employees also demanded the ability to add trigger warnings, corrections, and references to fact-checked articles on topics discussed by Rogan in the course of his multi-hour discussions.

:lmao: :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Do you listen to his show? 

I've listened to countless hours of his show. The shows are so long it's pretty easy to get into the triple digits of hours of the show to be fair. While I don't agree with @mcintyre1 at all, I can absolutely see how you could away with that opinion depending on the topic of that particular show.

Rogan is a genuinely curious guy if it's a subject he cares about and he can speak eloquently for hours on topics like cannabis or CTE or the ethics of hunting etc. But in any of the shows I've listened to him talk about politics it seems pretty obvious he barely has a cursory understanding of the headlines of the day. When he has a guest like Mike Baker for instance and Baker will drop a line like "Well, Russia would be a lot more happy to have Biden win the election than most people realize" I just don't think Rogan can honestly even follow up with questions why he would hold that viewpoint. The first question after that should have been about the Trump backing out of Syria and how that helped Russia. Or simply asking about the deteriorating relationship with NATO under Trump. How could that possibly NOT help Russia? You don't have to be some sort of deep political thinker to come up with those follow-ups but I just don't think Rogan is equipped to do even that. Which is just an example of why he seems very ill equipped to moderate a debate with politicians. That isn't really a dig at him it has just never come across as an area of expertise.

Joe Rogan comes across to me as a fair minded guy. He has also described Bryan Callen as a "brother", and Callen is one of the hardest right winging entertainers I know of. Often when I hear Rogan make a point about politics it's not even like he's parroting something he has read/heard from right wing media but it seems like a thumbnail of rightwing media that he has gotten second hand. The liberals starting forest fires in Oregon is just one very small example of this. It's a one sentence soundbite that he digests and unfortunately believes and repeats. When Rogan described the "Autonomous Zone" in Seattle as it was happening it was an absolute train wreck of disinformation. 

I really like Joe Rogan and his show. I choose to focus on listening to what he has to say on certain subjects way, way more than others. When he talks about politics I tend to roll my eyes a great deal but that goes for most sources when they talk about politics. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

And now Spotify employees threatening to strike if they can't censor Joe's podcast. Give me a break.

https://www.mmamania.com/2020/9/24/21454543/report-employees-threaten-strike-spotify-refuses-censor-joe-rogan-mma

:lmao: :lmao:

I wonder who is easier to replace?

Strike? If they genuinely can't stand working at a place that would give a voice to someone with viewpoints other than their own they should do what's right. They simply shouldn't work there anymore. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

It’s the chicken and the egg - there’s no evidence because “real” politicians won’t go on because Joe’s format is for him to call people out and spend 30 minutes on one topic.  It was never going to happen.

Several have been on his show.  He's not had any debates though which was the topic of this thread.  It's very different to interview two or three people at the same time.  It's another to have an actual debate.  Have all the interviews you want with them....debates would be miserable....worse than the junk we have on national TV IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2020 at 4:01 PM, Skoo said:

I like Joe Rogan and listen to him often, but challenging his guests is not his strong suit.

He's much more into letting people say their peace than challenging them, in my experience. I've found myself yelling at him a few times to not just let someone off the hook after saying something incredibly stupid.

I have seen him challenge guests before, but it's usually on a subject he knows fairly well. 

If someone were to make a misstatement about jiu-jistu(even if the person was a pro fighter) Rogan would absolutely challenge or at least give the guest an opportunity to clarify what he was saying. Same goes with classic cars. Or the "dangers" of drug use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Several have been on his show.  He's not had any debates though which was the topic of this thread.  It's very different to interview two or three people at the same time.  It's another to have an actual debate.  Have all the interviews you want with them....debates would be miserable....worse than the junk we have on national TV IMO.

Exactly - kind of hard to say he would do X or Y in a debate like this when he hasn’t had one.  You are asking for evidence that can’t exist.  It’s just people’s opinion of what would happen.  My opinion is nothing would happen because the debate would never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BoltBacker said:

I've listened to countless hours of his show. The shows are so long it's pretty easy to get into the triple digits of hours of the show to be fair. While I don't agree with @mcintyre1 at all, I can absolutely see how you could away with that opinion depending on the topic of that particular show.

Rogan is a genuinely curious guy if it's a subject he cares about and he can speak eloquently for hours on topics like cannabis or CTE or the ethics of hunting etc. But in any of the shows I've listened to him talk about politics it seems pretty obvious he barely has a cursory understanding of the headlines of the day. When he has a guest like Mike Baker for instance and Baker will drop a line like "Well, Russia would be a lot more happy to have Biden win the election than most people realize" I just don't think Rogan can honestly even follow up with questions why he would hold that viewpoint. The first question after that should have been about the Trump backing out of Syria and how that helped Russia. Or simply asking about the deteriorating relationship with NATO under Trump. How could that possibly NOT help Russia? You don't have to be some sort of deep political thinker to come up with those follow-ups but I just don't think Rogan is equipped to do even that. Which is just an example of why he seems very ill equipped to moderate a debate with politicians. That isn't really a dig at him it has just never come across as an area of expertise.

Joe Rogan comes across to me as a fair minded guy. He has also described Bryan Callen as a "brother", and Callen is one of the hardest right winging entertainers I know of. Often when I hear Rogan make a point about politics it's not even like he's parroting something he has read/heard from right wing media but it seems like a thumbnail of rightwing media that he has gotten second hand. The liberals starting forest fires in Oregon is just one very small example of this. It's a one sentence soundbite that he digests and unfortunately believes and repeats. When Rogan described the "Autonomous Zone" in Seattle as it was happening it was an absolute train wreck of disinformation. 

I really like Joe Rogan and his show. I choose to focus on listening to what he has to say on certain subjects way, way more than others. When he talks about politics I tend to roll my eyes a great deal but that goes for most sources when they talk about politics. 

I know science and nutrition, and it’s pretty clear Joe Rogan only has a rudimentary understanding of those topics as well. While I’m not too sophisticated politically, I can identify sensational headlines, stuff like the fire starting liberals and any number of conspiracy theories to which Rogan subscribes.

Basically, his podcast can be counted on for entertainment value, but it certainly isn’t rigorously fact checked, nor is it free from bias. Being a good listener isn’t nearly enough to moderate a presidential debate IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The Commish said:

That isn't a debate. I only watches the first half so i guess it could have happened in ther second half,  but that was an interview/ discussion based on any reasonable definition.....i already said those would be entertaining. Debates not so much

That is literally the definition of debate.  It was two people with differing opinions talking with Joe moderating/guiding the discussion.  Not sure what more you could possibly want.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

debate

noun

de·bate | \ di-ˈbāt

, dē- \

Definition of debate

 (Entry 1 of 2)

: a contention by words or arguments Our polite chat about politics became a heated debate. The case sparked a raging public debate on property rights. : such as

a : a regulated discussion of a proposition (see proposition entry 1 sense 1b) between two matched sides the last presidential debate before the election the debate's moderator

b law and government : the formal discussion of a motion (see motion entry 1 sense 3a) before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

Exactly - kind of hard to say he would do X or Y in a debate like this when he hasn’t had one.  You are asking for evidence that can’t exist.  It’s just people’s opinion of what would happen.  My opinion is nothing would happen because the debate would never happen.

I agree it would never happen and my guess is, if it did, it'd simply turn into the host arguing with the candidates and/or long word salads of incoherent babble.  It's bizarre that people think Rogan, of all people, would have the secret to breaking the rule of "garbage in, garbage out".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I agree it would never happen and my guess is, if it did, it'd simply turn into the host arguing with the candidates and/or long word salads of incoherent babble.  It's bizarre that people think Rogan, of all people, would have the secret to breaking the rule of "garbage in, garbage out".  

Well, I do think IF it happened that both candidates would look poorly.  He has no secret but in his long format he does frequently hammer on points for extended periods of time.  Almost every politician has hypocritical stances and things they cannot explain away - which is why they would avoid this altogether.  There’s basically no upside for either of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I agree it would never happen and my guess is, if it did, it'd simply turn into the host arguing with the candidates and/or long word salads of incoherent babble.  It's bizarre that people think Rogan, of all people, would have the secret to breaking the rule of "garbage in, garbage out".  

Tell you what.  Since we found episodes of him moderating 2 opposing viewpoints successfully why dont you find us one where the interview/discussion goes completely off the rails as you are suggesting it would happen.  There are 1500 for you to peruse including some nuts like Alex jones, bob lazar, eddie bravo and jessie ventura

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pantherclub said:

Tell you what.  Since we found episodes of him moderating 2 opposing viewpoints successfully why dont you find us one where the interview/discussion goes completely off the rails as you are suggesting it would happen.  There are 1500 for you to peruse including some nuts like Alex jones, bob lazar, eddie bravo and jessie ventura

Again...there are no actual debates to be found in his podcasts...none.  We all know we are talking about presidential debates and the formats that are associated with them.  So how would I find an example of something he doesn't do?  I'll say again, want to do the interview style?  Go for it...it would be entertaining for an hour or so.  If you want something that would really work on his show, have him interview the individuals, separate from each other.  That MIGHT produce some positive results.  He can't change how the candidates respond to the questions and he'll either let the non-answers go or get frustrated by them.  Those are the two possible outcomes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thunderlips said:

Isn't this the guy who used to be on TV eating deer wangers and bugs and stuff?

as i recall he hosted others debasing themselves by eating that stuff, so he might be perfect to host a presidential debate.

edited: i see shamrock beat me to it

Edited by song
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2020 at 4:40 PM, 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.

@Terminalxylem Is nutrition in your wheelhouse?  If so, was wondering if this guy Salatin is legit http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/joel-salatin-2 or if this is filled with mis-information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

@Terminalxylem Is nutrition in your wheelhouse?  If so, was wondering if this guy Salatin is legit http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/joel-salatin-2 or if this is filled with mis-information?

My degree is in biochemistry, but I’ve taken nutrition classes and kept up reasonably well with the clinical literature. One of my close friends runs an academic weight management center/bariatric clinic and a regular climbing buddy is a nutritionist, so it’s a frequent topic of discussion. FWIW, both of those guys are vegan, and neither grew up that way. 

My gestalt of the available data sides with the healthfulness of a plant-based diet, though I’m not sure strict veganism is better than near vegetarism, especially pescatarianism. I think people get too caught up with rapid weight loss and counting something towards their goals, be it calories, fat or more recently, carbohydrate intake. I believe functional longevity is the most relevant goal of any diet, and pretty much all long lived populations consume plant-based, minimally processed diets. Although unprocessed is good, I don’t think there’s a lot on mainstream scientific support for primitive meaty diets like those condoned by Rogan and some of his guests.

I’m familiar with Salatin through reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma - great book, btw. I know and appreciate his general philosophy of farming, but will check out the podcast and report back later. But realize my bias is fairly anti-meat from the get-go. 

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...