
Trump agrees to an extra debate moderated by Joe Rogan - aww_dang
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-agrees-joe-rogan-debate-biden-2020-9
======
SQueeeeeL
Wasn't Rogan big on supporting Sander's and legal marijuana. Seems like a
strange platform for Trump?

~~~
oarsinsync
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.

~~~
mhh__
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.

~~~
lapcatsoftware
> 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.

~~~
banmeagaindan2
I believe they were planning to lose this election from the outset. Ten
Presidents have failed to win a second term in 230 years.

------
carriganisms
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.

~~~
core-questions
> 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.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
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.

~~~
zozbot234
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.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
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.

