The more the media speculates, the more lefties speculate, the more their intentions and biases are framed.
The good ones, through a healthy conversation, are persuadable or can walk away acknowledging their speculation.
What's left are the zealots.
What terror attack in Sweden?
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
The more the media speculates, the more lefties speculate, the more their intentions and biases are framed.
The good ones, through a healthy conversation, are persuadable or can walk away acknowledging their speculation.
What's left are the zealots.
Are you still accusing me of claiming that he was talking about a "terror attack"?
If you want me to be absolutely honest, I think his words clearly point to him thinking that something big happened in Sweden the night before. Maybe he was discussing general Swedish issues "last night" in preparation for his speech, and that was what he was trying to say, but didn't make it clear. Maybe. But, the words that came out of his mouth suggest that a specific incident occurred in Sweden last night.
He followed up his "Sweden last night" comment with the following...
“Sweden,” he said. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. "
When you lump them in with Brussels, Nice and Paris, it sure sounds like he thinks something happened last night in Sweden that is as significant as the incidents that have happened in those 3 places.
I don't see this as a situation where the liberal media is creating something out of nothing.
But, my overall point is that we should have to play "maybe he meant" after every speech he gives.
Here is another recent example....
President Trump Was Asked About Anti-Semitism. He Responded by Talking About His Win
Ryan Teague Beckwith
Feb 15, 2017
reference on Wednesday was perhaps the most unexpected.
The scene: A joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. An Israeli reporter asked a straightforward question about "a sharp rise in anti-Semitic incidents across the United States" since his election.
Here's how Trump responded:
Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had -- 316 electoral college votes. We were not supposed to crack 220. You know that, right? There was no way to 221, but then they said there's no way to 270. And there's tremendous enthusiasm out there.
I will say that we are going to have peace in this country. We are going to stop crime in this country. We are going to do everything within our power to stop long simmering racism and every other thing that's going on. There's a lot of bad things that have been taking place over a long period of time.
I think one of the reasons I won the election is we have a very, very divided nation, very divided. And hopefully, I'll be able to do something about that. And I, you know, it was something that was very important to me.
As far as people, Jewish people, so many friends; a daughter who happens to be here right now; a son-in-law, and three beautiful grandchildren. I think that you're going to see a lot different United States of America over the next three, four or eight years. I think a lot of good things are happening.
And you're going to see a lot of love. You're going to see a lot of love.
OK? Thank you.
_________________________________________
Basically, his answer to "What do you think about the recent rise in Anti-Semitism in the US?" was "I kicked ass in the election and I have a lot of Jews in my family".
Now, I am going to give him some slack, because he probably wasn't expecting that question and didn't have time to prepare. But, how about a vanilla answer like, "I think it is a terrible thing and we will do everything in our power to put a stop to it". We are not talking about rocket science here.
The Sweden thing is more baffling to me because he had time to prepare and to decide what he wanted to talk about and what points he wanted to make.
That's one.
I see a whole lot more getting "meh", hysterical left, and I know what he meant-ed all over the place by so many people.
I saw a stat on Sweden yesterday. Muslims make up 2% of the population but are responsible for 77% of the rapes nationally. Alarming if true. Why do we want that here?
Multiculturalism! How great it is!!!!! If we had that happening in this country, the progressives and media would be labeling the perpetrators as alt-right to escape accountability.
More on this guy. Google translate was a little iffy. Sounds like he was charged/considered for hate speech, but that's been rescinded. Also looks like he's been dismissed/put on leave. Lastly, looks like some folks are rallying to his side.
https://samtiden.nu/2017/02/kristdemokraterna-stottar-nu-peter-springare/
So, we all agree that there are currently a lot of issues in Sweden, and that a lot of their crime issues involve Muslim refugees that they have admitted into their country. I'm sure we all agree that Trump is aware of this and a portion of his Florida speech was meant to communicate this information to those in attendance.
You guys keep posting the above links and suggesting the following..."See, this is what he was talking about. Obviously he was referring to these issues".
But, you are (conveniently) ignoring my point. None of us should have to go find links and do research and play "maybe he meant" after he gives a prepared speech and is not responding to an unexpected question from a reporter. He made a mistake (when he inserted "last night" into his speech). It is as simple as that. No one expects him to be perfect, but everyone should expect him to be better. How about not giving a speech that is confusing. A speech that allows liberals to jump on parts of it and say, "this guy has no idea what he is talking about". A speech that doesn't result in conservatives jumping through hoops to defend his words and explain what he was trying to say and the point he was trying to make.
If he is going to rail on the "fake news" media being the enemy of the American people, then he needs to not leave himself open to being called on making claims that are not factual.
Stop making excuses for him. Those of you that are, would not (and did not) allow Obama to do the same type of thing.
You guys keep posting the above links and suggesting the following..."See, this is what he was talking about. Obviously he was referring to these issues".
But, you are (conveniently) ignoring my point. None of us should have to go find links and do research and play "maybe he meant" after he gives a prepared speech and is not responding to an unexpected question from a reporter. He made a mistake (when he inserted "last night" into his speech). It is as simple as that. No one expects him to be perfect, but everyone should expect him to be better. How about not giving a speech that is confusing. A speech that allows liberals to jump on parts of it and say, "this guy has no idea what he is talking about". A speech that doesn't result in conservatives jumping through hoops to defend his words and explain what he was trying to say and the point he was trying to make.
If he is going to rail on the "fake news" media being the enemy of the American people, then he needs to not leave himself open to being called on making claims that are not factual.
Stop making excuses for him. Those of you that are, would not (and did not) allow Obama to do the same type of thing.
He can ramble like a senile old drunk and say what he wants to be true, and his acolytes love it and pointing out some stuff that might sort of make it true if you just blur his statements some and indulge him for being a little loose lipped. Rinse and repeat for the next 4 and maybe 8 years.
His supporters do. not. care. about what's truthful or accurate. They want a worldview to control this country and it has nothing to do with truthfulness or accuracy. Period.
His supporters do. not. care. about what's truthful or accurate. They want a worldview to control this country and it has nothing to do with truthfulness or accuracy. Period.
Hold on. Watch this:
DONALD TRUMP IS FREQUENTLY INARTICULATE.
Is that what you're really looking for here?
1. Severe understatement.
2. I don't think he's inarticulate -- he definitely gets his point across. He just isn't tethered by objective facts. I'm telling you, he's a narcissist and his psyche is based on constructing ideations of grandeur and the truth is the first casualty.
I'm just going to shut up about it and go back to my hate Biff thread. I'm even boring myself and the sorry POS wins with every second I think about him. I just can't get over how many people see his crazy shit with their own eyes and they still follow the flute. We'll be lucky if we're not all living some post-apocalyptic Cormac McCarthy novel before he's done. I'm done NOW.
It actually looks like the conversation has shifted to the problems in Sweden.
My point and your point are not mutually exclusive. One is actually a function of the other.
GW Bush was frequently inarticulate. The guy never said the word "nuclear" in his life. Only said "nuculer". Big deal.
I'm looking for the POTUS, who is constantly railing on "fake news", to do a better job of speaking facts and making clear, concise, pertinent points. If he is only capable of using a limited vocabulary to do that, that is OK. If he uses poor grammar, I think that is OK. If he pauses a lot, repeats himself, or uses the word "umm" a lot, I think that is OK.
I don't think that is too much to ask. Especially when we are talking about a pre-prepared speech.
You're the one still talking Trump. The links folks are posting are simply discussing what happens when you open your doors to Muslim migrants. I haven't seen any reference to Trump in the latest posts outside of yours.
OK. So, Trump said look at what's happening in Sweden "last night" and people did and realized, holy crap, several things happened there and not only "last night." Folks now realize that it's bad in Sweden due to muslim immigration there. Still at a loss as to why the left thought there was a terrorist attack or why they are hung up on whether there was a specific incident.
Uhhh....because his choice of words was very confusing and open for interpretation. He clearly stated that something specific, and very bad, happened in Sweden on Friday night. Either he didn't mean to say that, or he had his facts confused. Shortly after he said the words "Sweden, last night", he compared Sweden to Brussels, Nice and Paris...all sites of prominent terrorist attacks. I see 2 possible explanations.
1). He was made aware of Swedish issues related to Muslim immigration and wanted to incorporate that into his discussion and tie it to other terrorist attacks, in Europe, to point out that the same thing could happen in Sweden. He inadvertently inserted "last night" into his sentence, or meant to say that he learned about the Swedish issues "last night" but left part of his sentence out.
2). He really thought that some awful event had happened in Sweden on Friday night. Maybe he was given false information. Maybe he dreamed it happened. Maybe he confused a movie he was watching with reality. Maybe he was making a sandwich while watching a FOX show, and wasn't paying close attention and got his facts confused.
Yes, it must be horrible to live in a country with a violent crime rate about 1/5th of the US and one in which the crime rate has been falling for the last decade or so.
Really? Nice distortion. He said: "Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible." Then he moved on to mention places with terrorist events. That does not reflect any specific event in Sweden but actually refers to multiple "problems" and clearly distinguishing Sweden from the other places mentioned.
Yes, so let's increase it with Muslim refugees because it's been too low and the Swedish people deserve worse...
Reagan did not have today's corrupt media to deal with so today is radically different.
Today's media is indeed a danger to this country they have a job to do and have failed at it for a long time now. They are supposed to challenge ALL who are in office and the government in general.
In today's wirld the media now only challenges conservatives and the progressives are allowed to do what ever they like. That is the danger to ask of us and will indeed lead to a society that is total control of the individual by the state.
Today's media is indeed a danger to this country they have a job to do and have failed at it for a long time now. They are supposed to challenge ALL who are in office and the government in general.
In today's wirld the media now only challenges conservatives and the progressives are allowed to do what ever they like. That is the danger to ask of us and will indeed lead to a society that is total control of the individual by the state.
The drop in their crime rate has continued AFTER they began experiencing significant immigration from primarily muslim countries back in 2000. That's the point, it has NOT gone up as a result of taking in refugees.
Again 1/5th of the violent crime on a per capita basis of the US. Obviously a country that doesn't know what they're doing (blue). I think any of us would take a reduction in crime to the levels of Sweden and be damned happy to do so.
Reported rapes up 13 percent in 2016. Reported sexual moleststiins up 20% in 2016.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/more-evidence-that-trump-was-right-about-sweden.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/more-evidence-that-trump-was-right-about-sweden.php
Not a bogeyman, not everywhere- just a buffoon in the White House - that's all - relax man!
Similar threads
