A 4-hour debate?
-
If I had to listen to Trump telling us how awesome he was for 4 hours, I'd open at least one vein, quite likely a few. They might not all belong to me.
-
If I had to listen to Trump telling us how awesome he was for 4 hours, I'd open at least one vein, quite likely a few. They might not all belong to me.
@Doctor-Phibes said in A 4-hour debate?:
If I had to listen to Trump telling us how awesome he was for 4
hoursyears, I'd open at least one vein, quite likely a few. They might not all belong to me.Fixed.
-
Thankfully, all my electrical devices have 'off buttons'. I'm a little surprised more people don't use them - they're freaking magical.
-
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
-
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
@Axtremus said in A 4-hour debate?:
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
Why did you get taken in by whomever told you that Rogan is a "shock jock"? That's as divorced from reality as calling him alt-right is.
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
Rogan has 'moderated' long form debates before. Maybe even for debates you might respect, such as Jack Dorsey vs Tim Poole. He does fine.
-
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
@Axtremus said in A 4-hour debate?:
Why do you get taken in by a shock jock?
"Four hours" aside, Podcasting being the medium aside, can Joe Rogan bring adequate breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, or sufficient thoughtfulness to moderate a debate concerning the American Presidency?
Get me Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria, Andrew Sullivan, Christiane Amanpour, heck get me Bill Gates to moderate the debate.
The length of time and the choice of medium are secondary. If you're going to have a moderator at all, the intellect, temperament, and impartiality of the moderator should come first.
Ever listen to Joe?
He could do it.
Trump could do it.
Biden couldn't find the building without help.
-
It is interesting that the "original" debates, such as between President Lincoln and Senator Douglas, the first person would speak for 1 hour, the second person would reply for 1.5 hours, and then the 1st person would re-reply for 0.5 hours.
Total was 3 hours.
I think that something like that would not work in todays world. Most people have the small attention span. LOL
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
Education is extremely important.
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
I remember hearing that. At the time of the speech from Lincoln, and just afterwards, he was almost forgotten. Such a short speech, the people there had no idea it would become one of the most famous speeches ever.
A couple of years ago, a historian found the only known picture of President Lincoln at Gettysburg. I thought it was an interesting story.
-
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
-
@Horace said in A 4-hour debate?:
From what I understand, historians found the long winded monologues ultra boring. Even from the perspective of a professional historian. Another example of this is the guy who spoke before Lincoln at Gettysburg. He droned for like 3 hours.
That would be me. I'd slave away (can I say that anymore?) for weeks and weeks on my 3-hour speech, and then that goof in a dopey Top-hat (cool, Abe? Really? I don't think so) scribbles something while riding on a train, and HE gets the glory and goes down in history. And who the hell even comes up with "Four score and seven years ago...?"
And, Lincoln was skinny as a rail. Ate like a horse, never gained an ounce.
Life is so unfair at so many levels.
He was just lucky. Except for that theatre thing, that was a bit of a bummer, but still.
-
On that very night and in that very theater, one of the actors broke his leg. And yet that broken bone is considered insignificant, compared to the other stuff that happened. That's where the phrase "break a leg" originated - it means that even if you break your leg, you still might be very lucky, compared to what else could have happened to you.
