Support NeoGAF

[jason10mm]

Maybe in just a few areas but in a lot of ways they are the same. Solutions may differ. Go listen to Bernie in 19. I think you would be surprised.

The 2 big issues both sides are pushing they literaly have the same opinion on them both.

Agreed, I think Trump, in his actual policies when he was pres, mirrored what Bernie could ACTUALLY get done had he ever won. They both engage in extreme rhetoric forntheir base, but in policy that could get passed or executed by potus they are closer than many think.

Not with judge appointments, perhaps, but then again of a judge can be so biased that they are very predictable on any ruling, what kind of judge are they?

 

[Rentahamster]

Maybe in just a few areas but in a lot of ways they are the same. Solutions may differ. Go listen to Bernie in 19. I think you would be surprised.

The 2 big issues both sides are pushing they literaly have the same opinion on them both.

No, not even close. Broadly speaking, one could make the case that they're both populists, but Bernie has actual receipts while President Trump accomplished very little populist goals in his time in office and is more of a pretend populist than anything. Their specific policy positions differ greatly. I have listened to Bernie's speeches, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say "19". I could go on with more examples, but I won't because this isn't the time or place for detailed political discussion.

 

[12Goblins]

ofc dead silence from joe regarding the new epstein tapes

yet hunter laptop discussed every episode... make it make sense?

 

[FunkMiller]

ofc dead silence from joe regarding the new epstein tapes

yet hunter laptop discussed every episode... make it make sense?

Nope. Politics.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Elon episode is a good listen.

I don't really listen to Rogan very often but did for Trump and Musk. I would have for Harris too, had she of gone on.

I found it refreshing to have people just discuss things without filters or media or PR management etc. More of that shit please.

 

[jason10mm]

Woooow, he did it! I think we are going to see a lot of folks attribute trumps improved performance to the Rogan interview (as well as rogans push for trump in the past few months or whatever). Hopefully we see more long firm, unscripted, unreleased conversations like this because i think you can learn A LOT about a candidate in this fashion.

Obviously the Elon purchase of twitter is probably the #1 reason trump seems less crazy this cycle, he is off it a lot more and it doesn't descend into chaos nearly as much compared to 2015-2020.

 

[Sonik]

Woooow, he did it! I think we are going to see a lot of folks attribute trumps improved performance to the Rogan interview (as well as rogans push for trump in the past few months or whatever). Hopefully we see more long firm, unscripted, unreleased conversations like this because i think you can learn A LOT about a candidate in this fashion.

Obviously the Elon purchase of twitter is probably the #1 reason trump seems less crazy this cycle, he is off it a lot more and it doesn't descend into chaos nearly as much compared to 2015-2020.

I seriously doubt Trump's performance improved in a serious way because of Rogan, polls are just illegitimate and have been for many years

 

[Guileless]

I seriously doubt Trump's performance improved in a serious way because of Rogan, polls are just illegitimate and have been for many years

No way to ever really know of course, but Trump's improvement over his 2020 performance overlaps with the demographic that makes up Rogan's listeners.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

I seriously doubt Trump's performance improved in a serious way because of Rogan, polls are just illegitimate and have been for many years

Not sure I'd say polling is illegitimate, and not sure if that's actually what you're saying...

The pollster I follow had this thing called as most likely 312 EV weeks ago. And tore apart the Iowa Selzer poll before it was even released. Based on the things I've learned, I'd say the Rogan interview and endorsement probably didn't make the difference, I expect more or less the same result whether those happened or not. But I think the overall podcast strategy moved the needle some.

On the other hand... Nate Silver is a total hack, and the whole FiveThirtyEight 'high quality poll' ratings thing is a complete and utter scam. I wasn't super surprised to learn that as I had read one of Nate's books and came away... unimpressed with his intellect and supposed mastery of statistics.

Most media polls are junk, even when they get a more or less good-looking end result chances are it was happenstance, and they got there for the wrong reasons. There's a lot of circle-jerk, herding, bad methodology... and the aforementioned 'high quality' scam which punishes any pollster who produces results that are too far right even if they end up being accurate. Most importantly they're just generally underfunded. It costs a lot of money and effort to actually reach the electorate in the post landline era.

I think both R and D probably had pretty good internal polls and neither was too surprised at the result.

I had good fun scanning the Ree threads every once in a while to see what kind of nonsense they were peddling. The funniest was some get-out-the-vote campaigner in PA who wrote (idiotic) essays about how it was 'impossible' for Trump to win there. Looks like he got banned, must have blown a gasket after the fact.

 

[EviLore]

Nate Silver is a total hack, and the whole FiveThirtyEight 'high quality poll' ratings thing is a complete and utter scam. I wasn't super surprised to learn that as I had read one of Nate's books and came away... unimpressed with his intellect and supposed mastery of statistics.

His 80,000 simulations announcement was a farce to anyone with a statistics background.

 

[Rentahamster]

No way to ever really know of course, but Trump's improvement over his 2020 performance overlaps with the demographic that makes up Rogan's listeners.

It also overlaps a lot with Bernie supporters. Because of my small discussion a few days ago with C chakadave I searched my post history for all the times I mentioned "Bernie" in 2016-2017, and a lot of the shit that I warned about came true.

 

[FunkMiller]

“He’s got to unite people. He’s got to not attack the left, not attack everybody. Let them talk their shit, but unite. Now it’s time to unite everybody,” said comedian, UFC color commenter and podcaster Joe Rogan about former President Donald Trump this week in the wake of his reelection.

 

[EviLore]

 

[Pegasus Actual]

Another big brain think piece from The Atlantic. Where do I sub?

Till the day Joe Rogan dies every presidential candidate will have to sit their ass down in Austin and prove that they can talk like something vaguely resembling a real human being for 3 hours.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I've found that no matter the person or their views, I end up liking them more after hearing them speak unfiltered at length, so long as they appear genuine. In probably 90%+ of cases.

Podcasts like Rogan's provide that platform.

Legacy media, The Atlantic included, can be butt-hurt about it, or they can eat crow and learn. If they give the guy a chance, they might learn that sincerity, human connection (even if parasocial) and openness is what people are craving, and that's not what legacy media provides.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I've found that no matter the person or their views, I end up liking them more after hearing them speak unfiltered at length, so long as they appear genuine. In probably 90%+ of cases.

Podcasts like Rogan's provide that platform.

Legacy media, The Atlantic included, can be butt-hurt about it, or they can eat crow and learn. If they give the guy a chance, they might learn that sincerity, human connection (even if parasocial) and openness is what people are craving, and that's not what legacy media provides.

Strangely, I find Hot Ones is good for this as well. Way more planed and organized than Rogan, but the combination of asking celebrities questions about their early years, lesser known work, passion projects, and personal interests helps bring out a different side of people. Then you add to that watching them go through the discomfort of the hot sauce itself, and it helps humanize famous people in a way that is very different than you see on late night television.

Nothing beats Rogan and a three hour conversation, though.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Strangely, I find Hot Ones is good for this as well. Way more planed and organized than Rogan, but the combination of asking celebrities questions about their early years, lesser known work, passion projects, and personal interests helps bring out a different side of people. Then you add to that watching them go through the discomfort of the hot sauce itself, and it helps humanize famous people in a way that is very different than you see on late night television.

Nothing beats Rogan and a three hour conversation, though.

Case in point, Conan O'Brien's Hot Ones episode. Sure, he was "performing" and playing it up by going all the way, but he also, you know, went all the way. AND he made it funny throughout, even through legit pain.

Made me respect the guy more and was actually inspiring because he set out to "conquer" Hot Ones, and he did it.

 

[FunkMiller]

There's a thread on the other forum that's all about what you're supposed to say to a Joe Rogan listener to stop them listening to him. Which is going about as well as you'd expect. Includes the OP bringing up the Jews pre WW2 as a comparison point, and someone else trying to say that we should be able to sensibly discuss conflicting viewpoints - on a forum that will instantly ban you for saying that you believe biological sex is immutable.

Anyway, Rogan is clearly Satan, and a massive right wing nut job who only ever features super right wing, ultra conservative, Christian maniacs on his show, like this guy:

 

[T-0800]

You'll get banned for saying Hogwarts Legacy.

 

[Guileless]

Speaking of which, The Financial Times reported Kamala didn't appear on Rogan because her staff told her it would cause a progressive backlash.

 

[TheAtomicPile]

I've found that no matter the person or their views, I end up liking them more after hearing them speak unfiltered at length, so long as they appear genuine. In probably 90%+ of cases.

Podcasts like Rogan's provide that platform.

Legacy media, The Atlantic included, can be butt-hurt about it, or they can eat crow and learn. If they give the guy a chance, they might learn that sincerity, human connection (even if parasocial) and openness is what people are craving, and that's not what legacy media provides.

I think you're on to something and on the left I think one of the few offering something similar is Bill Maher. The core theme of his show and how he approaches his guests is that "reasonable, intelligent people can come to different conclusions and disagree."

The hard left has demonized him for a while for this approach, but I'll admit it was refreshing over the past few months to hear different perspectives from folks like Shapiro and Megyn Kelly without interrupting and shrieking at/about them like a John Oliver type might.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Speaking of which, The Financial Times reported Kamala didn't appear on Rogan because her staff told her it would cause a progressive backlash.

sorry, found this recently and thought I'd leave this here:



habeck of course being the german secretary of commerce

 

[Rentahamster]

Speaking of which, The Financial Times reported Kamala didn't appear on Rogan because her staff told her it would cause a progressive backlash.

I saw that too, and if true, that's a dumb reason. Same thing with Bernie's appearance. They're sacrificing outreach and messaging for some kind of internal purity test that's shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[FunkMiller]

Speaking of which, The Financial Times reported Kamala didn't appear on Rogan because her staff told her it would cause a progressive backlash.

Rogan is a sponge for information, and very easily has his opinions changed by his guests. He was a staunch democrat/liberal until recently.

Every chance if Harris had gone on there, she could have influenced his opinions and who he endorsed.

Spectacular failure with heavy consequences that came about due to the illiberalism of the left.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Speaking of which, The Financial Times reported Kamala didn't appear on Rogan because her staff told her it would cause a progressive backlash.

Huh? I'd read that she was going to do the podcast, but didn't because she set terms where Joe would have to fly out to her along with a one-hour limit, and Joe didn't agree to it.

Maybe it was one of those "We'll set unagreeable terms so we can say we tried" things, but wouldn't she get progressive backlash for even entertaining it?

 

[Rentahamster]

Huh? I'd read that she was going to do the podcast, but didn't because she set terms where Joe would have to fly out to her along with a one-hour limit, and Joe didn't agree to it.

Maybe it was one of those "We'll set unagreeable terms so we can say we tried" things, but wouldn't she get progressive backlash for even entertaining it?

I think both of those reports can be true at the same time. The hypothetical you give is one such example.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I think you're on to something and on the left I think one of the few offering something similar is Bill Maher. The core theme of his show and how he approaches his guests is that "reasonable, intelligent people can come to different conclusions and disagree."

The hard left has demonized him for a while for this approach, but I'll admit it was refreshing over the past few months to hear different perspectives from folks like Shapiro and Megyn Kelly without interrupting and shrieking at/about them like a John Oliver type might.

I remember hearing a while back that Maher and Rogan were at the top of the list in a poll asking people who they trust most, and that sort of thing is exactly why. I'm done watching media where people are interrupting or shouting over each other. Legacy media can choose to either adapt or fade into irrelevance.

 

[FunkMiller]

I think you're on to something and on the left I think one of the few offering something similar is Bill Maher. The core theme of his show and how he approaches his guests is that "reasonable, intelligent people can come to different conclusions and disagree."

The hard left has demonized him for a while for this approach, but I'll admit it was refreshing over the past few months to hear different perspectives from folks like Shapiro and Megyn Kelly without interrupting and shrieking at/about them like a John Oliver type might.

Ha. They'll never accept Maher. He's far too sensible and centrist.

 

[Hrk69]

The legend