Savannah Guthrie vs. George Stephanopoulos

It’s very interesting to contrast the styles of the two town halls last night, and the differences between the moderators. Guthrie interrogated Trump. From what I saw, Stephanopoulos just had a friendly conversation with Biden.

14 thoughts on “Savannah Guthrie vs. George Stephanopoulos”

  1. We could compare and contrast too that the weak guy with no stamina lasted 90 minutes whereas the tough guy packed it in after 60.

    IDK, how can you compare the two “shows”? I’m sure what Trump will be caring about this morning is the ratings. Did he pull in a bigger share than Biden? If so, more “winning” right?

    But back to the comparison, it’s like when I hear someone say the cops shot some black guy but they just let the white guy surrender. Yes, true Different cops, not the same cops. Different jurisdictions, not the same jurisdiction. Different attitudes from the perps when it is time to surrender. Never is it a one to one comparison.

    I saw 5 minutes of Biden and zero of Trump. By the time I saw there was a town hall, orange bozo was already done. I saw Biden’s answer (but not original question) about the trans kid and then turned the station.

    1. All fair points. As with any of these comparisons (“they would never have treated ___ that way”) there’s no way to prove it. Also, someone might say Trump has earned more of an adversarial relationship than Biden, although both of them lie and exaggerate.

      To me, it’s the constant drip, drip, drip. The bias always seems to go in one direction. It’s like Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) saying, “I know life isn’t fair, but I wish it was unfair in my direction from time to time.”

        1. Trump is a very undisciplined speaker, which gets him in trouble with people who want to judge him by the words he uses. He doesn’t have the discipline to formulate an accurate and precise statement. You have to let him ramble on and get the overall meaning that way.

          Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the mangled mess that comes out of his mouth, and would prefer someone who was more careful and precise. Obama was very good in that regard.

          OTOH, it’s necessary to recognize what you’re dealing with and treat it in its context. You can’t expect a lawyerly Obama-esque reply from Trump. You have to understand Trump as Trump. This is one of my big criticisms of the media.

      2. Does anybody believe him when he says he doesn’t know who QAnon is or is about? (I read on twitter, didn’t see it.) He’s been asked several times to disavow, and shrugs it off feigning ignorance. He hasn’t ever said, “JAREEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD! What is QAnon?” Although he seemed to know they were against pedophiles so they must be ok. … like who isn’t against pedophiles except NAMBLA and maybe a small cadre in the RCC?

        1. That was a strange and not very believable reply.

          However, Trump does seem like the kind of guy who only pays attention to things he believes are going to help him, so from that perspective it’s conceivable that he might not have spent a second thought on it.

          1. He says he knows nothing about Q but in the very next sentence says they don’t support pedophilia. Really?

      3. QUOTE: To me, it’s the constant drip, drip, drip. The bias always seems to go in one direction. It’s like Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) saying, “I know life isn’t fair, but I wish it was unfair in my direction from time to time.”

        Guess it depends on where one is viewing. When on Fox (the nation’s most watched) and conservatives media, the bias always seems to go in one direction. The words of Republican Senator Ben Sasse seem apropos here…“The debate is not going to be, ʻBen Sasse, why were you so mean to Donald Trump? It’s going to be, ʻWhat the heck were any of us thinking, that selling a TV-obsessed, narcissistic individual to the American people was a good idea?’”

        QUOTE: Trump is a very undisciplined speaker, which gets him in trouble with people who want to judge him by the words he uses. He doesn’t have the discipline to formulate an accurate and precise statement.

        When one is the POTUS accuracy and discipline are highly significant job qualifications. When undisciplined speech is combined with constant lying and misleading statements, it can have significant repercussions for the nation and world. Given this, the standards the office shouldn’t be lowered for him or any president. If anything, he and all other government officials should be held to account for their statements as well as their actions.

        QUOTE: You have to let him ramble on and get the overall meaning that way.

        You mean like Bush? Yet, when he was unclear or caught in an error, he had the humility to correct himself, for the good of the office and nation. Trump doubles down, even when objectively demonstrated to be incorrect or lying and it keeps the news cycle and questions coming from the media and ups the exhaustion factor the nation. Even Republican Trump-supporting pundits indicated he was handed a softball question during the first presidential debate to denounce white supremacy. He wouldn’t give a simply, full-throated denouncement during the debate. The same happened last night when asked about Q-Anon.

        1. >When one is the POTUS accuracy and discipline are highly significant job qualifications.

          So you say. The voters disagreed in 2016.

            1. True, and the majority of voters don’t vote in most elections. But you know what I meant.

              While I would rather have someone who speaks like Obama, or maybe even Hillary, that particular consideration wasn’t enough to change the outcome. A lot of people didn’t consider Trump’s verbal spaghetti to be disqualifying.

              1. A LOT of people considered Trump’s verbal spaghetti and other flaws disqualifying. Trump lost the popular vote by a greater margin than any US President. Despite assuming the office by electoral college, he didn’t convince the majority of voters that his qualifications best represented them and the country.

              2. “and other flaws” being the operative word.

                When you look at Trump hate, it rarely has to do with the way he speaks.

Comments are closed.