Trump agrees to an extra debate moderated by Joe Rogan | Hacker News Reader

Trump agrees to an extra debate moderated by Joe Rogan

businessinsider.com

22 pointsaww_dang16 comments

Wasn't Rogan big on supporting Sander's and legal marijuana. Seems like a strange platform for Trump?

From the start of the article:

> Rogan has previously said he would vote for Trump over Biden and has speculated that Biden is suffering from some sort of cognitive decline.

The amount of doublethink required to look at Biden and think cognitive decline when faced with Trump is so bizarre to me.

Biden has done long form podcasts and speeches, I've listened to them - he's not as sharp as he was but he's fine. He's a terrible public speaker, but he's fine.

Trump is also not a gibbering wreck, but - even ignoring the bleach comment - he cannot remember pertinent details from his briefings (Swan interview), he gives away extremely damaging information about himself on the phone to a reporter who he knows despises him (Woodward). He seems to have little to no control over his own actions. I could be more aggressive and cite the Daily Show's compilation of trump looking lost "Where's Rudy" and confused.

The whole reason why they are pushing the sleepy Joe line is because everything the Donald is accused of, they fling back mirrored against the opponent. Donald Trump, ever since his Nuclear speech, has been accused of being mentally deficient so that's their play.

Edit:

Downvote all you like but please counterargue.

> He's a terrible public speaker

Yes, this is the problem, it's always been the problem. Biden is a human gaffe machine, and this derailed his previous Presidential runs. Not sure why Democrats thought he was the "safe" choice. In the past, Biden would have been considered a loose cannon, but of course he seems rather tame compared to Trump. As does anyone compared to Trump.

He's the safe choice in that this election is going to come down to Trump/Not Trump. So all he has to do is literally not be Donald Trump.

It's not that the party thinks he's their best bet to win the election, it's that they think it's their best chance to get him elected.

I believe they were planning to lose this election from the outset. Ten Presidents have failed to win a second term in 230 years.

As long as we have culture of refusing to hear viewpoints or watch videos from the other side of the table, that's what you'll get.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWbSU2vDvc

I personally don't listen to the debates, find them mostly a waste of time. But as someone who occasionally listens to Rogan, I would probably listen to this debate...Might be a good way to get more people to take an interest in this election.

If it happens, I am interested in the long-form conversation Rogan is known for. The soundbite-gotcha format is exhausting.

I'd be looking for the long form as well. Not a timed debate where we just get canned answers. I'd actually rather him do 2 separate interviews, each an hour or two long. No debate, just each candidate shooting the shit for an hour or two separately. Something a little more humanizing than the debates and polished political media machine we are overwhelmed with. Of course, no sane campaign manager would allow this.

Considering how the Woodward interviews turned out, I think I'd also like to hear this.

> find them mostly a waste of time

They are, and it's specifically because the format never allows (or, perhaps more importantly, never _requires_) the participants to get into real detail about anything ever. It's all just talking points. The opposition never has the chance to actually ask questions that might potentially lead to a situation where someone has to say, "gee, I hadn't thought about that, that's a good point, it will take some careful consideration".

Given the format the only game-theoretical move that makes sense is to employ Arthur Finkelstein style tactics and simply attack the other person, get people scared of them and the world they'll perhaps create, and/or demoralize people that might have voted for them and get them to stay home instead.

This needs to change. Why can't the debate be a day-long event, where they sit down and have serious conversations, not rhetoric but a real dialectic with one another?

I suspect it would reveal a tremendous lack of depth and understanding on _both_ sides. Any cognitive decline, any lack of awareness about world issues, etc. would be exposed immediately. That would pop the bubble, for sure.

They're also terrified of losing access by really challenging them.

Remember the 2016 debates, Trump's strategy is to basically spew as much shit as possible until something sticks - the press will not challenge that except in a few cases (The recent two disaster interviews).

"No puppet, No puppet, You're the puppet" would've been eviscerated in a British election debate (and ours are awful)

The purpose of the very public political debates is not to discuss issues and learn from one another. It's an opportunity for two political opponents to convince other people why they should be elected and not the other person.

There may be a place for actual political discussion between the two sides, but expecting two warring politicians to do so publicly just before an election is not going to happen.

Sure but by the same token, the point of discussing issues is that if you can do it passably, it can be a bit more convincing towards the audience than the usual soundbites and lazy negative claims about The Other Guy. But perhaps it's not exactly fair to expect that sort of semi-real discussion from either Biden or Trump.

It sounds more convincing to what demographic? It may convince people of above average intelligence, but half of all people have below average intelligence. For those people, emotional appeals will probably be more convincing than boring, logical arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com