Trump advisor LOSES HIS MIND when confronted by foreign journalist
Trump advisor LOSES HIS MIND when confronted by foreign journalist
Stephen Miller, Trump advisor, absolutely loses his mind when journalist José María Del Pino asks him where he gets his information about Venezuela's supposed low crimes rates.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump's guy won this exchange. It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.
The journalist asked him a very simple yes or no question and he screamed while refusing to answer it. How did he win the exchange? He acted like a baby. He even kept insisting that the journalist answer a yes or no question repeatedly.
This is not what a winner looks like in a discussion with a journalist:
You're making the mistake of thinking facts and good journalism are at all what Trump sycophants care about. To you and I it looks like the journalist did a good job and won the exchange, but all 'they' see is a white man yelling at an uppity immigrant about mocking violent crime in the US.
Nobody cares what Trump sycophants think. They are already voting for Trump and nothing is going to change that.
To a reasonable person who is unmotivated to vote (the REAL demographic that needs to be courted), this makes the Trump team look absolutely deranged.
I mean, we're talking about people that still, to this day despite all the evidence, are unsure about who they should vote for. If you're trying to convince me that the undecideds are mental giants looking for the perfect rational argument to sway them one way or the other then you're fighting an uphill battle.
Is the person I am replying to a Trump sycophant? They weren't writing as if they are.
Their writing understands how this can look. Doesn't make them a sycophant.
edit: their
They didn't say how it CAN look, they said:
I don’t know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump’s guy won this exchange.
What it looks like solely to Trump supporters was an addition of yours that they did not even imply.
It's because you're not reading the entire thing and stopped paying attention when they used the word "won." Go back and reread the entire paragraph.
Okay, here is the entire paragraph. Please point out what I am missing:
I don’t know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump’s guy won this exchange. It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.
The rest of the paragraph?
It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.
Replace the word "won" with "got what he wanted from"
I don’t know what you guys are seeing, but it is quite clear that Trump’s guy
wongot what he wanted from this exchange. It was probably the best result he could expect. And that is before the interview became viral and millions upon millions got to hear his whole speech delivered. The journalist is well intentioned, but the result is catastrophic.So if I change what was literally said, it means something else. Yes, that's usually the case.
The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald's advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:
the best result he could expect.
Not 'only valid', not 'we'. It is not absolute proof, but, if you consider yourself a rational arguer then it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.
Or "the best result" being that he is the "clear" winner.
it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.
Does that include statements like "they're eating the dogs in Springfield" and "schools are forcing children to have gender reassignment surgery?"
How about "she became black?"
Technically yes, you should evaluate those statements in the best light possible with the intention of rebutting with a valid counter-argument that results in a rational conclusion. Absurd declarations are typically the easiest to do so.
In your examples even the moderators evaluated it in their best light. They didn't jump to declaring donald "the dumbest person alive" and/or "pro-immigrant executions" (although I would have found it hilariously entertaining). They simply said "here is our evidence disproving that claim", and that is more than enough.
Back to the point of this discussion, you're jumping to Ad Hominems instead of evaluating their good argument: That the 'still(?!) undecideds' will probably not agree with the interpretation that the journalist won because they're idiots.
What ad hominems did I make to the OP? Please quote me.
Also, I'm sorry, the "best possible light" interpretation of "she became black" is that it isn't racist. It's racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.
You've edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.
Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.
This is an ad hominem though, as you're attacking the arguer's morals instead of employing a proper argument.
As for the example "she became black", in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian or Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can't be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: "she's blatantly pandering". An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me).
That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don't blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of "Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)" is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.
Edit: Indian and Black -> Indian or Black
You just don't get it, do ya? The bald guy was louder.
Exactly, he's getting the attention that he wants, he's in the headlines, you're talking about it. Stop giving these people headlines.
How am I giving anyone headlines? Do you think journalists read what I write?
Journalists will do whatever gets engagement to show numbers to advertisers and this kind of crap gets engagement as seen here. Whenever you engage with this type of content you are giving these people a platform to spout nonsense and lies.
Which journalists in specific pay attention to c/Videos on Lemmy?
Did you watch the video on YouTube?
Yes? I'm not a journalist.
So you engaged with the content, the ultimate reason why it was created in the first place. He's not going to go through the trouble if it doesn't make money. Might as well just scream into the void if nobody watches it.
Exactly what influence do you think me watching it has on anything? You're giving me far more power than I have. And you are not going to stop me from watching videos that sound interesting to me by trying to shame me out of it. On top of that, the video has 1.2k views. Big fucking deal. Videos with people getting hit in the balls have exponentially more views. He went through the trouble of earning himself a buck fifty.
He doesn't care about the journalist. He is talking to the audience and the ones that are not already repelled by him have just heard 3 minutes of concern about the evil immigrants sent by dictators that are raping children. He got everything he could have asked about the exchange, including making the reporter seem insensitive and uncaring. Remember, he is not talking to you, he has no chance to win you over, it's about the rest of the audience.
Why do I always need to explain to people that Trump needs a lot more than just the MAGA faithful to win? It doesn't matter what the loyalists think.
Yeah, but he also is not trying to win the other side over, just the ones that still somehow think that both sides are rational. The polls are tied because these kind of messages go through. This is how he wins over people beyond MAGAs.
I really don't think this message is going through. Yesterday, it had all of 1.2k views. I doubt it's into the millions by now.
What are you talking about? The only possible scenario your interpretation makes sense is of you are one of those people who think yelling louder wins the argument
Well 46% of registered voters do. Which is just one of a hundred disappointing things about the electorate.
He is not talking to us, he doesn't give a fuck about us. To the ones he is talking to, though, he has delivered a whole message where he is very concerned about a lot of very important issues and the journalist is focusing on a small irrelevant point. He got his discourse out, all of it. The people he is talking to don't give a fuck about the journalist's point. 1/3 of the voters won't ever vote for them. 1/3 of the voters will always vote for them. This video just let him deliver a message to the remaining 1/3 saying "won't somebody think about the children" and "dictators are sending their criminals here and you worry about crime data in another country.". Yes, he got what he wanted out of that exchange. This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaHRN7UhRo explains exactly the point.
By that low bar then, there is nothing special in the video either. It's not like journalists own the only cameras and access to the internet and accidentally let Miller spew vitriol
Maga mouths can always do that freely, openly and unchallenged on their own. The fact that a simple question made Miller lose his shit and throw a tantrum may not disuade the morons but it definitely is not a win either
You're out of your mind.
Why? He got through his whole discourse and the people he is talking to don't give a fuck about the specific question. He got the air time he wants and the video going viral amplified it times 100.