https://youtu.be/BW4XLBCGLH8
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.
This guy is fucked up in the head... He just keeps making up disgusting lies so heinous that people won't question him.
This is junior high levels of debate fuckery.
Lizard-man: "The facts are..." proceeds to spout inflammatory speculation based on emotions
As someone who's in Aurora a fair bit, I doubt you need me to tell you, but the right-wing stories are bullshit:
Dollars to donuts Republicans are smuggling in violent criminals themselves
Miller is not a sharp mind, he couldn’t flexibly come up with a response to a changing situation and resorted to bullying, which didn’t work either
The reporter wasn’t even that sharp or clever either, which again tells you what you need to know about Miller, he would be mid-level manager somewhere if not for his luck
The reporter wasn’t even that sharp or clever either
I disagree. Too many people get lead off the path by the MAGA bullshit fire hose. Dude just kept forcing the dipshit back to his question.. over and over.
It makes clear to viewers what Miller is doing and why he turned into a man baby as the video goes on.
I think the point was that the reporter was being no more than competent enough to insist on a reply to his question. It looked sharp only compared to milquetoast U.S. reporters who are almost universally afraid to confront anyone for fear of blacklisting.
Dollars to donuts Republicans are smuggling in violent criminals themselves
consider the industries that desperately rely on immigrant labor:
and yet... somehow, these are also some of the biggest supporters of conservative bullshit. It's almost as if they want their workforce to fear being in the goddamned country.
Huh.
God that was satisfying watching the little rat squirm and get big toddler energy when not allowed to dodge a question and move on with more bullshit lies.
Copying my comment from another thread:
The right is very good at picking a name and holding it up to "win". They do this because they can't deal with statistics.
It's also a tactic of bullshitters to say a whole bunch of stuff in series, just put something out there and quickly move on to the next thing, making it sound like they have a lot of substance but hoping the quick change doesn't give anyone much of a chance to pull on any of the threads of what they said or look close enough to realize that there is little to no substance behind any of it.
Ancient Aliens and Alex Jones both also use that.
And it's a pain in the ass to unravel because people who don't want to look more closely and just want to believe think there's a list of things that need to be disproven if you wait and let the speaker finish or don't question him about it directly because the believers don't feel like they have the expertise to rebut counterpoints (so shelve them instead of discarding) and instead just want to go down the list. Which is fair, though it would be nice if they applied that same skepticism to that list of points in the first place.
But this seems like an effective counter for that strategy. Just pick an item on the list that doesn't sound right and keep pulling on that thread with the person that said it on the first place rather than the disciples blindly following. Then they'll see it's not just their lack of expertise getting in the way of arguing back against counterpoints, it's the whole thing lacking any real substance at all.
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.
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?"
Exactly, he's getting the attention that he wants, he's in the headlines, you're talking about it. Stop giving these people headlines.
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.
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
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.
I would kill or die to see American reporters grow a fucking pair and hammer the questions home like this.
Jeremy Paxman would've made bank in the US if the politicians weren't actually scared of proper journalists
He should be asked this exact same question by other journalists, but maybe add "If you don't know the statistics, just say so."
It's beautiful. Just stays on point, doesn't let Miller's yelling distract him and keeps asking the right question.
I love how these fucks are happy to throw out numbers as long as there are no follow up questions.
I love how these fucks are happy to throw out numbers as long as there are no follow up questions.
meanwhile trump thinks he won the debate by 97 to 3.
they need a dose of reality to counter the absolute bullshit that is 100% of their 'campaign'.
Stephen Miller is a subhuman piece of garbage. He's pretty much directly responsible for every single piece of race-based Executive Action in the Trump White House. He honestly believes he's a true Svengali/Jafar/Puppeteer of people, and regularly flips out when confronted with truth and facts. His own family calls out his Jewish heritage, and he's aligned with White Nationalist groups. Insane.
Good piece on it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/02/how-stephen-miller-manipulates-donald-trump-to-further-his-immigration-obsession
THAT'S how you take down a Gish Gallop.
"I don't give a fuck what you're trying to pivot to. Do you trust Maduro's statistics?"
Exactly. This guy just put on a fucking master class on how to not get gas lit. Forming a tenable position is based on progressive and logical steps. When you're all over the fucking map like Miller, you don't have a leg sot stand on. This is doubly true when you cherry pick the facts or don't have facts to begin with.
By not moving from his position, the reporter made Miller look like the shit-bagel he is, AND pissed him the fuck off.
Amazing. Reporter of the fucking year
Miller was so far out of his depth there. It was like a mini replay of the main event.
he was so sure he had an argument winner with Maduro sending his criminals to the US, he couldn't let it go.
Backed into a corner? Don't know how to make an argument? Hey we've all been there. Just say it's about the children! That means you get to win!
Unless it's about gun control. At that point, it's a fact of life that only America has to deal with. Yay exceptionalism!
I am trusting the fact that Kamela Harris is letting illegal imigrants into this country who are raping and murdering children.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
Didn’t trump rape a child? And shut down a bill to fund ICE? It must be tough to keep straight when you’re supposed to care about child rape and border security.
Trump actual has raped multiple children and has been sued for forcing 12 and 14 year old human trafficked sex slave children to molest each other while he watched before molesting them also.
Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS
Thrown out because it didn't state a civil rights claim because it was a civil case since the statue of limitation for criminal charges was passed, if memory serves
The right is very good at picking a name and holding it up to "win". They do this because they can't deal with statistics.
I haven't seen Stephen Miller have a meltdown like that since his hairline liquefied and ran down his face
Edit: I guess only Ghouliani's hair ran down his face. Miller just dusted his head with Norelco trimmings