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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Well 46% of registered voters do. Which is just one of a hundred disappointing things about the electorate.
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:
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.
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.
Is the person I am replying to a Trump sycophant? They weren’t writing as if they are.
They’re writing understands how this can look. Doesn’t make them a sycophant.
They didn’t say how it CAN look, they said:
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:
The rest of the paragraph?
Replace the word “won” with “got what he wanted from”
So if I change what was literally said, it means something else. Yes, that’s usually the case.
What is your definition of won? Because that’s what it means.
The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald’s advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:
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.
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.
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.
You just don’t get it. 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.