politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The fuck after you talking about? His knowledge of mma has nothing to do with how well he can compete against other people at his age.
Your comment comes across as idiotic. Because it effectively says coaches arent worth the job they do because they are almost always people who couldnt or can no longer compete.
Such a dumb take. Theres plenty of reasons not to listen to Joe, stop making bad arguments to justify your opinions. Especially when your opinion isnt flawed ---> He respects it, and that's great to see, but IMO he's an example of the alpha male attitude that plagues combat sports.
...What the fuck are you talking about?
Coaching and analysing are two entirely separate things. Joe Rogan has coached, albeit loosely in striking, but that's got nothing to do with his role in the UFC. My point is that he is considered at a level that many others in the sport have long surpassed. There's a reason why someone like Michael Bisping can come in and do a much better job, despite having his own clear biases, and that's because he's fought at the highest level with an inclination of what modern MMA is.
My point isn't that he can't compete because he's older. It's that even in his youth he wasn't an elite-level fighter, outside of being great at TKD. While you don't need to be skilled to analyse, it's not like he's a skilled journalist or commentator either. Many in MMA don't value his opinion over journalists or skilled practitioners that have taken to analysis in retirement. He got the job through being famous and knowing about fighting before MMA was a thing, and now that it is a thing that people know a lot about, his gaps have been exposed severely.
Michael Bisping is an absolute bullshit artist when it comes to fight analysis or color commentary. Don't believe me? Go listen to him juice up Leon Edwards for five rounds while Belal Muhammad is busy beating the shit out of him, and clearly running the octagon. Every UFC analyst does it, and they are arguably getting worse as time goes on regardless of their experience level with fighting.
Eh, I didn't say that he was perfect, just that he's objectively better than Rogan is - especially when paired with Cormier (who I really like).
The Rocky comparison is a tricky one, because the man's crowning achievement is winning the title after being dominated and dragged back into the fight by his coach. I think the Belal fight surprised a lot of people, especially since Leon is no slouch on the ground. As a grappler myself I'm always going to back the wrestler, but I can see why Bisping would back Leon.
My issue with UFC above most MMA promotions is that it's becoming more and more like WWE with every passing year. I wonder sometimes if it's the commentators, or what they're being told to push by Dana and co.
We are definitely in agreement on this part.
Agree to disagree
That's fair. At least we agree that Rogan is a cunt.