• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump tries to explain remark about Sweden amid confusion [W:17]

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
23,926
Reaction score
16,462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
US President Donald Trump has sought to explain why he referred to a security incident in Sweden on Friday which did not actually happen.

Addressing a rally on Saturday, he had said, "look at what's happening last night in Sweden", as he listed parts of Europe hit by terrorist attacks.
With no such incident reported in Sweden on Friday, the country asked the US administration for an explanation.

~


He said it had been broadcast on Fox News but did not say when. He may have been referring to a Fox News programme on Friday night, which looked at refugees and crime in Sweden. Link.
Click to expand...

Some have claime he misspoke.. dear Leader has stated the opposite.

Mr Trump tweeted on Sunday that he had been referring to a TV report.
Click to expand...

Now what will the defence be? Will the criminals involved be the same ones who committed the Bowling Green massacre?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Some have claime he misspoke.. dear Leader has stated the opposite.



Now what will the defence be? Will the criminals involved be the same ones who committed the Bowling Green massacre?
Click to expand...

It is astounding how people focus on such trivial information. It is important to understand how someone's communications should be interpreted. But we already know this about Trump's. There are much more important things to worry about and wasting time and media coverage on slips of tongue is a luxury we do not have time for all the blubber. Unless, of course, it is in pursuit of one's personal interest to try and increase confusion and spread diversity and hate.
 
joG said:
It is astounding how people focus on such trivial information. It is important to understand how someone's communications should be interpreted. But we already know this about Trump's. There are much more important things to worry about and wasting time and media coverage on slips of tongue is a luxury we do not have time for all the blubber. Unless, of course, it is in pursuit of one's personal interest to try and increase confusion and spread diversity and hate.
Click to expand...

He didn't make a slip of the tongue, his twitter feed tells you where he got his information from. Don't pretend otherwise. There is also a pattern here - from the Bowling Green massacre to his stating that he had the biggest electoral college victory since Reagan. What will you do when the really big stuff gets lied about?

Excon said:
1. Only Trump, and those he told, can tell you what he meant.
Click to expand...

Erm, he did say. A simple read of the link or his twitter feed would have told you and saved you bandwidth.

Excon said:
2. A simple search would have prevented you from starting anther topic of one already being discussed.

"Last Night in Sweden"? Trump Remarks Baffles a Nation
Click to expand...

I'm already on that thread, goodbye.
 
Its called damage control and it is pretty poor at that. Yes the faithful will believe it, but it took a long time for the White House to come out with this "clarification".
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Erm, he did say. A simple read of the link or his twitter feed would have told you and saved you bandwidth.
Click to expand...
You seem confused. I am not questioning what he said he meant, you are, and since you are questioning it, he and those he told are the only ones who can tell you what he meant.


Infinite Chaos said:
I'm already on that thread, goodbye.
Click to expand...
And yet you started another thread which covers the same thing. Lame.

Clearly the general summation by joG was correct.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Some have claime he misspoke.. dear Leader has stated the opposite.



Now what will the defence be? Will the criminals involved be the same ones who committed the Bowling Green massacre?
Click to expand...

Your BBC link also says, "He may have been referring to a Fox News programme on Friday night, which looked at refugees and crime in Sweden." You didn't mention this.
 
Excon said:
You seem confused. I am not questioning what he said he meant, you are, and since you are questioning it, he and those he told are the only ones who can tell you what he meant.
Click to expand...

I know what he meant. You're just here deflecting.

Excon said:
~ And yet you started another thread which covers the same thing. Lame.
Click to expand...

If you wanna play Mod, go right ahead and join the threads.

Excon said:
Clearly the general summation by joG was correct.
Click to expand...

LOL. Agree with one of the worst posters on the forum...

nota bene said:
Your BBC link also says, "He may have been referring to a Fox News programme on Friday night, which looked at refugees and crime in Sweden." You didn't mention this.
Click to expand...

In English please?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Some have claime he misspoke.. dear Leader has stated the opposite.



Now what will the defence be? Will the criminals involved be the same ones who committed the Bowling Green massacre?
Click to expand...

It's just the standard Trump gaff cycle.

1. Trump says something absurdly vague or outright incorrect.
2. Tweets later in attempt to clarify. Twitter turns out not to be a platform for thoughtfulness or nuance.
3. Others (social media, spokespeople etc.) eventually formulate a narrative and a proper context.
4. The people who were confused by Trumps original verbal diarrhea are blamed for taking him out of context.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I know what he meant. You're just here deflecting.
Click to expand...
iLOL If you knew what he meant you would not be questioning what he said, so the deflection is all yours.



Infinite Chaos said:
If you wanna play Mod, go right ahead and join the threads.
Click to expand...
Pointing out that a simple search would have prevented you from starting anther topic of one already being discussed is making a factual statement, not one of moderation.
Do learn the difference.



Infinite Chaos said:
LOL. Agree with one of the worst posters on the forum...
Click to expand...
What you think about anther poster is irrelevant, especially as the summation referred to is correct.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I know what he meant. You're just here deflecting.



If you wanna play Mod, go right ahead and join the threads.



LOL. Agree with one of the worst posters on the forum...



In English please?
Click to expand...

What you chose to quote in the OP is "interesting" in a cherry-picking way.
 
nota bene said:
Your BBC link also says, "He may have been referring to a Fox News programme on Friday night, which looked at refugees and crime in Sweden." You didn't mention this.
Click to expand...

Unless he edited his OP, it's at the end of the first quote box:

He may have been referring to a Fox News programme on Friday night, which looked at refugees and crime in Sweden
 
joG said:
It is astounding how people focus on such trivial information. It is important to understand how someone's communications should be interpreted. But we already know this about Trump's. There are much more important things to worry about and wasting time and media coverage on slips of tongue is a luxury we do not have time for all the blubber. Unless, of course, it is in pursuit of one's personal interest to try and increase confusion and spread diversity and hate.
Click to expand...

Given the very real and deadly implications of what a country's leader says, their communications must be crystal clear, and not hostage to "interpretation".
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The sad part is that the Fox New show Donald Trump claimed he watched had a lot of factual errors.

Trump ? last night in Sweden: All the errors in Fox report on Sweden immigration | Aftonbladet
Click to expand...

So President Trump is using a piece aired on Fox News, he talks about it at a rally, and he doesn't say "Did anyone watch Fox News last night and see the documentary piece? I did, and let me tell you my thoughts." He randomly mentions it at the most, well, random time, and says "Look what happened in Sweden last night?", This may be a slip of the tongue or a misspeak or whatever else his supporters will claim. I call it really damn ignorant. If he's going to be pitching what he sees on Fox News as a fact at the most random, weird times for the next 4 years, just say it.
 
Excon said:
2. A simple search would have prevented you from starting anther topic of one already being discussed.
Click to expand...

Excon said:
And yet you started another thread which covers the same thing. Lame.
Click to expand...

Excon said:
Pointing out that a simple search would have prevented you from starting anther topic of one already being discussed is making a factual statement, not one of moderation.
Do learn the difference.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
If you feel a post may be a problem, report it and someone from the mod team will take a look. Please do not attempt to derail the thread by attempting to play mod. You are not a moderator.

Let's all focus on the topic now please, not each other.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
He didn't make a slip of the tongue, his twitter feed tells you where he got his information from. Don't pretend otherwise. There is also a pattern here - from the Bowling Green massacre to his stating that he had the biggest electoral college victory since Reagan. What will you do when the really big stuff gets lied about?



Erm, he did say. A simple read of the link or his twitter feed would have told you and saved you bandwidth.



I'm already on that thread, goodbye.
Click to expand...

As I said, slip of tongue. That is what it is, when you draw on a piece of news instead of using robust briefing. Sure there are a lot of people in wild fluster. They are the usual malignants frying their own fish.
 
joG said:
It is astounding how people focus on such trivial information. It is important to understand how someone's communications should be interpreted. But we already know this about Trump's. There are much more important things to worry about and wasting time and media coverage on slips of tongue is a luxury we do not have time for all the blubber. Unless, of course, it is in pursuit of one's personal interest to try and increase confusion and spread diversity and hate.
Click to expand...

When virtually every time the president opens his mouth he spouts an objective lie, it's not longer a "slip of the tongue" or trivial. It's become a war of intentional disinformation.

joG said:
Often it is to intensify diversity and hate, when people harp on and on. It is in the populist toolkit.
Click to expand...

Don't for one second pretend Trump is on the side of love and all his detractors are on the side of hate. That's nonsense.

nota bene said:
Your BBC link also says, "He may have been referring to a Fox News programme on Friday night, which looked at refugees and crime in Sweden." You didn't mention this.
Click to expand...

When you say "You look at what happened last night in Sweden" as a reason to ban refugees, it's not because you were referring to a Fox news program. What you're referring to is an (alleged) increase of crime over a long period of time, not a specific incident as he was obviously trying to refer to. Mental gymnastics abound.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Given the very real and deadly implications of what a country's leader says, their communications must be crystal clear, and not hostage to "interpretation".
Click to expand...

Though, I fully agree in general, we find that for years there has been no crystal clarity in the communications of politicians.the US had been relatively good in this respect, but had declined with respect to veracity of political arguments over the last nine or ten years.
But the main thing to think about seems to me to be precise in wording laws and contracts, while fuzziness is okay and possibly better in general speaking.

BTW I watched the Sweden video and think that whoever got excited about it was cooking their own soup and just trying to create deeper divisiveness.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
When virtually every time the president opens his mouth he spouts an objective lie, it's not longer a "slip of the tongue" or trivial. It's become a war of intentional disinformation.



Don't for one second pretend Trump is on the side of love and all his detractors are on the side of hate. That's nonsense.



When you say "You look at what happened last night in Sweden" as a reason to ban refugees, it's not because you were referring to a Fox news program. What you're referring to is an (alleged) increase of crime over a long period of time, not a specific incident as he was obviously trying to refer to. Mental gymnastics abound.
Click to expand...

So speaks someone that wants divisiveness in order to stoke a fire instead of getting to real issues. All that kind of talk shows is that the person can think of nothing important to say. That is really sad, as there are some vital issues to be worked out and jammering within one's own emotional inability to deal with the marginal noise is only pathetic.
 
joG said:
So speaks someone that wants divisiveness in order to stoke a fire instead of getting to real issues. All that kind of talk shows is that the person can think of nothing important to say. That is really sad, as there are some vital issues to be worked out and jammering within one's own emotional inability to deal with the marginal noise is only pathetic.
Click to expand...

So in your universe Trump is the all-inclusive one and everyone else is just being divisive? I'm sure it was the exact other way around when Obama was in office, right?

reinoe said:
Where have I ever endorsed conservatives indoctrinating children to hate? Am I a conservative? Where did I ever excuse conservatives doing the same thing? Did you actually know the meaning of the word hypocrisy before you shamelessly threw out that phrase? You know I used to respect you Rabid, but it looks like you've succumbed to reflexive partisan hackery.
Click to expand...


LOL. You compared the entire left to terrorists for doing something you agree both sides do. Then you can seriously sit there and say I'm the one who's succumbed to reflexive partisan hackery? :lamo
 
joG said:
As I said, slip of tongue. That is what it is, when you draw on a piece of news instead of using robust briefing.
Click to expand...

Please find a definition of "a slip of the tongue" and post it here, with a link to where I can find it.

nota bene said:
What you chose to quote in the OP is "interesting" in a cherry-picking way.
Click to expand...

I'm still not following you. There is a fair rule guide which prevents me copying and pasting the whole article - so I quoted what was relevant. I am still at a loss at what you claim I did or didn't say. I have not edited my post since I made it, can you elaborate exactly what I haven't done please?

Please read the two quote boxes I used as reference from the BBC article.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So in your universe Trump is the all-inclusive one and everyone else is just being divisive? I'm sure it was the exact other way around when Obama was in office, right?

LOL. You compared the entire left to terrorists for doing something you agree both sides do. Then you can seriously sit there and say I'm the one who's succumbed to reflexive partisan hackery? :lamo
Click to expand...

Nope. I resent the fact Trump was elected. But I despise the populist BS that the anti-brigade is spewing.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Please find a definition of "a slip of the tongue" and post it here, with a link to where I can find it.



I'm still not following you. There is a fair rule guide which prevents me copying and pasting the whole article - so I quoted what was relevant. I am still at a loss at what you claim I did or didn't say. I have not edited my post since I made it, can you elaborate exactly what I haven't done please?

Please read the two quote boxes I used as reference from the BBC article.
Click to expand...

People that want to spew only negative BS for personal reasons, or because they have nothing better to say are quickly boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom