Trump's response to Meryl Streep's speech....

[thirdcrank]

... He is the president of the US, not a village gossip.

And the worrying thing is that his target audience couldn't really care less if he were to confuse Zanzibar with Azerbaijan. One's halfway to being an anagram of the other.

[meic]

They invaded Iraq to get revenge on Osama Bin Laden, Trump hasnt gone to war on the grounds of such blatant falsehoods, yet.
By the time he does, nobody will be listening to the hostile press because they will have written them off as just being partisan hostile press and on that one point they will be correct.

[blackbike]

I can't really see the relevance of US crime statistics to President Trump's comments about Sweden.

He is of the opinion that Sweden is experiencing some problems. He is not alone in this opinion and there is evidence to suggest he is not wrong. Reuters consider the situation in Malmo worthy of comment.

Whatever the level of crime in the US it doesn't make sense to risk adding to existing problems when that can be avoided.

It would be very irresponsible indeed for the leader of a country to tell his people that as the level of crime and disorder is already high it doesn't really matter who is let in without stringent background checks, or without consideration of the impact on matters such as housing and employment which can cause social tensions.

[Psamathe]

I can't really see the relevance of US crime statistics to President Trump's comments about Sweden.

He is of the opinion that Sweden is experiencing some problems.
...

Except he explicitly stated "you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.". That is not a general concern about another country (one that has a falling murder rate) but an explicit reference to a event.

The relevance of US crime statistics is that he is criticising Sweden for it's levels of crime yet if he were genuinely concerned about the safety of US citizens he would be focusing on his domestic situation (which is a far far far greater threat to US citizens that Sweden is).

Ian

[blackbike]

The relevance of US crime statistics is that he is criticising Sweden for it's levels of crime ...

No he isn't.

He made an observation about Sweden. No criticism at all.

He was pointing out what he considers to a problem in Sweden, what he thinks is its cause, and what he thinks he needs to do to stop the US experiencing a similar problem to add to the ones it undoubtedly already has.

[PDQ Mobile]

If a politicien gets caught telling untruths then it is right and proper that a decent media will report and comment upon it.
What is the alternative?

[Psamathe]

The relevance of US crime statistics is that he is criticising Sweden for it's levels of crime ...

No he isn't.

He made an observation about Sweden. No criticism at all.

He was pointing out what he considers to a problem in Sweden, what he thinks is its cause, and what he thinks he needs to do to stop the US experiencing a similar problem to add to the ones it undoubtedly already has.

He said "You look at what's happening last night in Sweden". To me that is a reference to a specific event (i.e. what happened last night).

"“We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.”" Clear meaning that whatever it was that happened last night was that they are failing to keep their country safe so it is a criticism of Sweden - except of course nothing relevant actually happened there.

He is trying to suggest that because Sweden has welcomed refugees that they have made a massive mistake and are suffering loads of terror attacks because of that and thus his refugee ban is "keeping the US safe". Unfortunately (for Trump and US citizens) the argument is based on facilies and fiction e.g. there was nothing relevant happening when "you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden".

Making decisions based of complete fictions and untruths is hardly going to work.

Ian

[meic]

If a politicien gets caught telling untruths then it is right and proper that a decent media will report and comment upon it.
What is the alternative?

That they selectively report only on one faction's misdemeanors, in a very partisan way and often making something where there wasnt really anything to make.

They could instead concentrate on discussing the substantive issues as if they were an impartial news service, rather than a political lobbying body and propagandists.

[PDQ Mobile]

If a politicien gets caught telling untruths then it is right and proper that a decent media will report and comment upon it.
What is the alternative?

That they selectively report only on one faction's misdemeanors, in a very partisan way and often making something where there wasnt really anything to make.

They could instead concentrate on discussing the substantive issues as if they were an impartial news service, rather than a political lobbying body and propagandists.

So you agree with my quoted post?
It is not clear to me.

[meic]

I agree with your post, just not with the unstated implication that the subject matter of this thread is the right and proper actions of a decent media.

[reohn2]

He said "You look at what's happening last night in Sweden". To me that is a reference to a specific event (i.e. what happened last night).

It's nothing more than one of those 'slips of the tongue' politrickians are apt to make now and again........

[reohn2]

If a politicien gets caught telling untruths then it is right and proper that a decent media will report and comment upon it.
What is the alternative?

That they selectively report only on one faction's misdemeanors, in a very partisan way and often making something where there wasnt really anything to make.

They could instead concentrate on discussing the substantive issues as if they were an impartial news service, rather than a political lobbying body and propagandists.

Quite right and I'm of the opinion anyone reading the Daily Mail should balance up their news reading by reading The Morning Star

[meic]

Yes both will lead you to worrying about Trump's words on Sweden and have you ignore the rest of the speech and the millions starving in Sudan.
Where is the mention of Trump tearing up the USA's EPAs? A really big important matter, the world's future forgotten because of the media's personal agenda against Trump.
To them his crime is being outside of the cliche and its rules of etiquette, not his actual policies and their real effect on the world.

[Vorpal]

That they selectively report only on one faction's misdemeanors, in a very partisan way and often making something where there wasnt really anything to make.

They could instead concentrate on discussing the substantive issues as if they were an impartial news service, rather than a political lobbying body and propagandists.

Few people like discussing substantive issues. The internet is the modern equivalent of gossiping over the back fence.

For those who are interested in the facts, it is important to read from sources across the politcal spectrum. Even so, it can be difficult to understand the 'real' story, even reading between the lines. I think the easy access to so much information has led to many of these issues playing out in a similar manner...

<story> happens
'liberal' media reports it as either heartwarming proof of human [nice descriptives] or the result of the evil right
'conservative' media reports it as a consequence of conservative policy if it's good and liberal policy if it's bad
people share stupid memes on Facebook that have very little to do with <story>
'liberal' media starts calls the conservative reports racist/sexist/[whatever]ist
'conservative' media starts complaining how the liberals always call people [whatever]ist
both sides stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la la' (and unfriend people on Facebook)

edit: cross-posted with meic. also, what he said

[PDQ Mobile]

I agree with your post, just not with the unstated implication that the subject matter of this thread is the right and proper actions of a decent media.

I am still puzzled (perhaps I am slow)about your position. I am not implying anything but trying to state my position as clearly as I can.
The subject of the thread is "Trumps Reaction etc" but that has drifted a little to his utterance about Sweden.
It is my position that he used a fictitious and clearly non existent happening ("in Sweden on Friday") to try to instill in his followers a fear of immigration by a certain ethnic religious group. A rabble rousing of the worst possible type.
And especially so given the horrific figures of domestic gun crime in the USA.

That this was a complete fabrication warrants being exposed for what it is by the medias. Especially so, given the extensive attacks and high moral stance about "False news" by Trump and his spokesmen during the previous week.
If there's one thing that gets under my skin it's hypocrisy.
The "leader of the free world" is proving to be a leader in spouting outright lies.
Expose him, is ok in my book.