Trump on Swedish ‘incident’ and immigration problems

Claims of immigration related crime in Sweden isn’t new online, but it does appear to be new when the US president makes claims about it that seem to have no factual basis (about another country, Donald Trump seems to lack a factual basis to many things he talks about in the US).

Reuters: Trump comment about immigration ‘problems’ baffles Sweden

U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Sweden experienced an immigration-related security incident prompted a baffled response from the Scandinavian country on Sunday as diplomats asked for an explanation and citizens responded with amusement.

Trump cited Sweden as a country that had experienced problems with immigrants in remarks at a rally on Saturday.

“You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden,” Trump said. “Sweden. Who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

That appeared to confuse the Swedish government, which asked the U.S. State Department to explain what the new president meant.

“We are trying to get clarity,” Swedish Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Catarina Axelsson said.

Swedish news sources made no mention of a recent terrorism attack or other high-profile crime in the country.

“Nothing spectacular happened in Sweden on Friday,” wrote the Local, an English-language website in Sweden.

Fox News ran a report on Friday night about alleged migrant-related crime problems in the country.

Sweden’s crime rate has fallen since 2005, official statistics show, even as the country has taken in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from war-torn countries like Syria and Iraq.

Trump has apparently ‘clarified’ where he got his information – Fox News.

The Hill: Trump clarifies remarks on Sweden: I got it from Fox News story

Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt also questioned Trump’s claims.

“Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound,” he tweeted.

This would seem to be the Fox News item: What the US could learn from Sweden’s refugee crisis

Feb. 17, 2017 – 6:15 – Sweden has taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees and rape and violence has since skyrocketed. A journalist took a close look at Sweden’s refugee crisis and at what ‘extreme vetting’ really means #Tucker

I think there is some debate about crime statistics in Sweden, especially in relation to immigration.

It also seems to be new that a US president bases commentary of foreign issues in Fox News coverage.

Previous Post

120 Comments

  1. Nelly Smickers

     /  February 20, 2017

    *Chuck* from LA retweeted….

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  February 20, 2017

      Witless & pointless even by the witless Chuck’s low standard.

      • Nelly Smickers

         /  February 20, 2017

        To be fare Kitzy, I have made a number of friends in Sweden ❗ When I tweeted that I knew someone who kept a brace of *Plastic Pukekos* in her garden, they all tweeted back, “witless & pointless even by kiwi standards”.

        At least *they* seem to get it o_O

  2. Kitty Catkin

     /  February 20, 2017

    I thought that all reporters and journalists were liars and enemies of the people, and the news completely untrustworthy, according to Trump. Why is he not dismissing this story as a lie ? It seems that Trump is the sole judge of what’s true and what’s not. It’s true if he likes it, a lie if he doesn’t.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  February 20, 2017

    So an off the cuff throwaway line “Look what’s happening last night in Sweden” referring to a TV documentary shown then is blown up into a major Fake News story by the Lefty media.

    Ho hum. What’s new?

    • Anonymous Coward

       /  February 20, 2017

      If you’re going to scream FAKE NEWS constantly from your pulpit then you need to be extra vigilant, lest ye be found to be a hypocrite.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  February 20, 2017

        Or if you misinterpret a reference you might be exposed as a fool. Any apologies yet from the MSM? No, I didn’t think so.

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  February 20, 2017

          They had to figure out what the fuck he was talking about, why should they apologise?
          That your boy can’t distinguish between reality and what he watched on TV last night should be of concern.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 20, 2017

            When you don’t bother to check with your source before your criticise based on a misinterpretation a normal decent journalist would be embarrassed and apologetic. Not very many of those around by all accounts.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              You shouldn’t have to check the source when it’s a Presidential address.

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  February 20, 2017

          I guess over time the Media, Foreign Governments and everyone will learn to look first to the TV Guide rather than police reports, or embassies when Trump make confusing statements about current events.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 20, 2017

            Or simply apply proper journalistic standards and check your assumptions before publication.

            Nah, that will never fly.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              He should be practicing what he preaches. Anyway, the stories I read had all checked with Sweden.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              Exactly. Lefties rushing off to ridicule what they assumed he meant instead of checking with his team to find out what he actually was saying.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              Says the guy who hasn’t even bothered to read the transcript, flying off half cocked again Al.
              The full passage is in a comment down below, the passages before and after this were on different subjects.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              Twaddle, AC. The transcript is irrelevant to the simple fact the Lefty media fell over themselves to misinterpret it and shout Fake News. Nothing in it changes any of that fact nor could it.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 21, 2017

              The transcript puts your isolated half sentence back into the context in which it was said. That context being Germany, Paris, Brussels and Nice – all of which are locations of Terror Attacks.
              The story in the media has at it’s root the text from an ex Swedish PM, asking WTF?
              Had you heard it live how would you interpret it? Given that you don’t know what he watched on TV, or that nothing happened in Sweden last night yet, and have no reason to believe that he isn’t making any sense because he’s the Leader of the Free World?

              If anything it’s about a public orator who can’t make his points clearly, and unambiguous. In the wake of Bowling Green and Fake News clarity should be forefront.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              When you don’t understand a reference the normal response is to ask what the speaker meant. The abnormal response is to publish a few thousand flaming opinion pieces proclaiming “Fake News” and then to defend them when it is pointed out it wasn’t.

    • There was more to it than an off the cuff throwaway line, Trump was talking about various terrorist attacks at the time.

      And even off the cuff throwaway lines should be based on facts rather than based on longstanding inaccurate and unsubstantiated Breitbart agendas.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  February 20, 2017

        Oh crap, PG. He was referencing a TV program that a lot of his audience would have seen the night before on a major network. Nothing wrong with that at all.

        • There was no terrorist attack in Sweden. Claims made in an interview in Fox are disputed. The President should have better sources – but instead he propagates propaganda.

          More on it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-in-sweden-trumps-remark-baffles-a-nation.html

          • Brown

             /  February 20, 2017

            Sweden may be fooled but Swedes appear quite clear that they have an immigration problem. Immigration doesn’t require a big bang on a bus to be a problem.

            • “but Swedes appear quite clear that they have an immigration problem”

              Some Swedes. Do you know how many?

            • Missy

               /  February 21, 2017

              Sweden like much of Europe is going through issues around immigration, and there is an increasing anti immigrant feeling as socialist Governments and the EU promote and welcome illegal immigrants from cultures that are vastly different. Crime is rising, and as it is rising in immigrant areas the anti immigrant feeling grows, Malmo is one such example.

              But perhaps the biggest indicator that the population in Sweden are increasingly viewing an immigrant problem is the growth in support for the anti immigration parties in Sweden.

              In the latest poll results I could find (Feb 9), whilst the centre right pro immigration party The Centre Party has increased their support, so has the nationalist party Sweden Democrats, meanwhile the more moderate and centre left parties have declining support. What this seems to indicate is that even though many Swedes probably still believe in liberal immigration rules, the numbers of those that are seeing immigration as a problem – and thereby turning support to an anti-immigration party – are increasing.

              http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sweden-politics-poll-idUKKBN15O1M8

          • The only people who mentioned a terror attack were commentators. At no stage did Trump mention a specific terror attack. This is all playing into Trump’s hands as he can justifiably call it ” fake news. As for the crime situation in Sweden, it’s been all over the media for the last week at least. Trump’s flair for the dramatic and his impolitic delivery is grist to the mill for his detractors. My hubby is a serious antI Trumpster, but even he couldn’t believe this has made the third item on one news.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              Taken as an isolated sentence you are dead right, but that sentence was spoken in context and the context was Terror and Refugees.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  February 21, 2017

        I don’t think you can take from what Trump said that he was referring to terrorism. On first listen he seemed to be talking about the problems of mass immigration from the middle east and the violence and integration problems besetting the countries that have allowed it.

        The media have created a straw man argument twisting what DT said and then debunking it. Once more – it does not speak highly of the quality of journalism on top of the growing list of inaccurate reporting issues such as on the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants and the travel ban being mis-named as a muslim ban to deliberately incite.

    • Gezza

       /  February 20, 2017

      I dunno, looks to me like The DOTUS has been a doofus yet again, winging it while rambling on. Been busy today. Will withold further comment until I’ve checked various comments & references posted he that might be attempting to invent reasons why he has actually brilliantly nailed something & actually hasn’t made yet another cock-up on the media circus & international relations front. 😳

      Also would be good to get Bj’s take on the situation, so hopefully he’ll pop in to this Officers Mess with some relevant scuttlebutt?

  4. Sweden has a very large immigrant crime problem that they don’t want publicized. Google about crime in Malmo and you find there are police no go areas as well as AK47 and hand grenade fights

    • That’s somethinhg that’s been claimed but is disputed.

      Henrik Selin, a political scientist and deputy director of the Swedish Institute, a state agency dedicated to promoting Sweden globally, said he was puzzled by Mr. Trump’s remarks.

      “I do not have a clue what he was referring to,” he said in a telephone interview. “Obviously, this could be connected to the fact that there has been a lot of negative reporting about Sweden, since Sweden has taken in a lot of refugees.”

      The country processed 81,000 asylum seekers in 2014, 163,000 in 2015 and 29,000 last year, with another 25,000 to 45,000 expected this year, according to the Swedish Migration Agency.

      Mr. Selin completed a study recently focusing on negative news reports about Sweden’s acceptance of refugees. It found numerous exaggerations and distortions, including false reports that Shariah law was predominant in parts of the country and that some immigrant-heavy neighborhoods were considered “no-go zones” by the police.

      Breitbart News, the right-wing website once led by Stephen K. Bannon, now Mr. Trump’s senior strategist, has published numerous stories alleging that migrants have been responsible for a surge in crime and for a wave of sexual assaults. Swedish officials have said that their statistics do not justify such sweeping assertions, and that the country has a high number of sexual assault reports relative to other European countries because more victims come forward, not because there is more violence.

      Mr. Selin said the news reports “were highly exaggerated and not based in facts,” adding, “Some of the stories were very popular to spread in social media by people who have the same kind of agenda — that countries should not receive so many refugees.”

      As for the cover-up alleged by Mr. Horowitz, Mr. Selin said: “That kind of claim has been in the political debate for 15 years now. But nobody has been able to prove there is a cover-up. On the contrary, the fact is that crime rates are going down.”

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  February 20, 2017

        A story based on an unchecked misinterpretation of a presidential comment. Fake News – the genuine version – Exhibit A.

        • Misinterpretation? Do you know exactly what he said and the context in which he said it?

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  February 20, 2017

            “Here’s the bottom line. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening. 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. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. 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. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.”

            • “We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing.”

              That’s patently false.

              He has tried to spin ‘unless you accept my shoddy executive order you support zero protection against terrorists’ – he has actually tried that line against US courts.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              It’s not false. Certainly there is a vetting process and those who are identified and raise flags in known databases are screened out. But equally certainly many have been admitted without any documentation but on the basis no adverse factors could be identified.

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              @Alan

              “But equally certainly many have been admitted without any documentation but on the basis no adverse factors could be identified.”

              Apart from those slipping past the borders in Canada & Mexico, I find that very hard to believe. Do you have a credible source to back your certainty on that?

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              @ Al, sorry, never mind, I see you’ve posted a link about this elsewhere in the thread. I’ll check it out.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 20, 2017

            The sentence I quoted was all I have seen cited. Without watching the documentary the context and relevance is unknowable.

            • So why make such conclusions about misinterpretation? Some of the media presumably saw all of the context.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              The ‘sentence’ you quoted was half a sentence. Who’s taking things out of context now?

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              Has Trump seen the documentary Al?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              I presume the documentary traversed the history of immigrant terrorism and crime in Sweden and the consequent political revolt of the natives. Presumably also that was what Trump felt was relevant to his topic and point of view.

              Since the media failed even to make the connection to the documentary they certainly weren’t in a position to assess its relevance and implications.

              @AC, the text you quoted simply confirms my comments.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              Trump didn’t watch the documentary, that’s a strawman, he just watched the segment that’s embedded above.

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              I presume Trump watched only that Fox News clip item, which I thought smelt biased & quite possibly innacurate, & that that was probably the sum total of his background information.

              If he posts something sometime soon indicating he had any better briefing than that, there would no need for assumption or presumption, Al? Until he does that, I reckon my presumption is closer the mark than yours.

            • PDB

               /  February 20, 2017

              Yep – I suspect Trump flicked on Fox and just saw the interview, though I disagree that the interview was inaccurate as further research on the matter will find.

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              (From The Spectator Article: “Sweden’s minister for sixth-form education failed a breathalyser test and later resigned.” Crikey. How many Ministers do they have for Education alone, I wonder?)

              Thanks for those links Al. I don’t think The Spectator is a trashy paper, so that’s interesting. Not sure what your second link was for – seemed mainly about a young Iraqi boy recently shot dead over there & racist remarks being posted under a photo published of him.

              Do have any links to any other publications you saw possibly challenging the claims made in Spectator article?

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              Re: Your second link – World Tribune. Drudge Report & Breitbart are ‘content partners’ I see.
              http://www.worldtribune.com/about/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              Are you saying something in the article is untrue or just that you have found something irrelevant as a distraction?

      • Missy

         /  February 21, 2017

        Pete, nowhere in what you quoted does it dispute the stories regarding crime in Malmo.

        Quoting one political scientist with a vested interest in how Sweden is portrayed is hardly disputing increasing crime in Malmo – or other parts of Sweden.

        I see Chrism above has posted links to some of the stories I was going to, but there are other stories, including about the cover up by the Police of mass sexual assaults in Stockholm by immigrant men. This story was suppressed by the Police for fear of a right wing backlash.

        http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/not-germany-covers-mass-sex-attacks-migrant-men-swedens-record-shameful/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bonny-brooks/cologne-sweden-assault-populism_b_8965118.html

        Pete, you need to open your eyes and not dismiss every story of increasing crime by predominantly Muslim migrants as incorrect. Sweden has had some serious crimes committed by these migrants over the last year or two, and it isn’t being reported by many for fear of fuelling the far right and nationalists, but the irony is that it is the non-reporting by mainstream media, and people with their heads in the sand over the issues these migrants bring into western countries, that are fuelling the far right and nationalist groups – not the reporting of the issues, or the dealing with it, or the vetting of migrants.

  5. It wasn’t just on Sweden that Trump made questionable claims.

    Mr. Trump compared himself to Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, presidents who “fought with the media and called them out.”

    “We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” he said. But he then offered several misleading claims.

    Mr. Trump warned that refugees coming into the United States are not screened.

    “We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country. There was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation, there was no nothing.”

    Refugees are vetted, and it takes two years.

    Mr. Trump claimed that Americans are optimistic about the future.

    “Look at what’s happening in every poll when it comes to optimism in our country.”

    Some polls show optimism, others don’t.

    Mr. Trump extolled an increase in jobs.

    “Jobs are already starting to pour back in. They’re coming back in like you haven’t seen in a long time.”

    Data shows modest gains so far.

    Mr. Trump alluded to high crime in Chicago and the country at large.

    “Look at what’s happening in Chicago — hundreds of shootings, hundreds of deaths. I’ll tell you what’s happening in Chicago, and many other places.”

    Crime is high in Chicago, but it has generally declined.

    Trump is a recidivist bullshit artist. As soon as someone makes excuses for him more crap pops up – it’s like whack-a-crap.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  February 20, 2017

      Some security and law enforcement experts have expressed doubt that that is enough. FBI Director James Comey admitted in October that it’s currently impossible to have a record of everyone in every country.

      “We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey said at a congressional hearing, “and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but … nothing will show up, because we have no record of that person.”

      http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/how-americas-screening-of-syrian-refugees-works.html

      Trump’s comment may be true since there may simply be an absence of negative information and documentation rather than positive identification and documentation.

      • Gezza

         /  February 21, 2017

        Al, why did you focus on that small section in your linked article above and omit all the other info in it, like:

        “Those involved in the resettlement of refugees, including three senior administration officials, said the process is already intensely secure, and goes far beyond other standards for allowing admission into the country.

        “I think a lot of the questions we’re getting right now … are from members (of Congress) who are just learning about the program for the first time,” one administration official said when asked about claims that the screening process is not sufficient.

        Of the Syrian refugees who have been referred to the U.S. by the United Nations and others, about half end up accepted into the country, officials said. The American process includes security screenings from multiple agencies and extended in-person interviews with Homeland Security officers.

        Syrian resettlement seekers undergo a further “enhanced review,” which sees specialists review biographical claims. The Department of Defense and the FBI vet the refugees’ biographic information against internal and shared databases, officials explained. The Defense Department, the FBI and Homeland Security all check fingerprints against their information holdings.

        All told, the average vetting takes 18 to 24 months — with the process continuing for many years for some.


        Some politicians have wrongly claimed that the U.S. is failing to screen refugees at all, while others allege that it is simply impossible to guarantee someone’s identity when he or she comes from a war-torn, failed state.


        One administration official admitted that a lack of records is often a problem for refugees, but “in contrast to that,” Syrians and Iraqis tend to be “a very, very heavily documented population.” Trained U.S. specialists examine their passports, family registries and military records to assess authenticity, that official said.

        ‘Refugees, including and especially those from Syria and the Middle East, are subject to the most intensive security screenings of anyone entering our country,” said Betsy Fischer, deputy policy director at the International Refugee Assistance Project. “And because there are all of those security screenings, we think that calls for ceasing Syrian resettlement fundamentally betray a crucial American value.’ ”

        And don’t you distrust Comey anyway?

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  February 21, 2017

          Because the piece I quoted sufficed to show the problem and none of the parts you cite refute it. It doesn’t matter who vets them for how long if there is no relevant documentation and no adverse info found suffices for admission.

          • Gezza

             /  February 21, 2017

            Translation: The piece you cited, from someone at the top who possibly doesn’t know exactly what happens because he doesn’t do the job, and who you actually hold in low regard, said something that contradicts what others said, but it provided a veneer of support for your view, so any port in a storm.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              RFM tries to stop the traffic again. None of that makes any kind of useful point against the simple fact that for many of these refugees there is no supporting documentation from their non-existent collapsed and half-destroyed country. Go home Gezza.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 21, 2017

              Al is right, in that they don’t have any “supporting documentation from their non-existent collapsed and half-destroyed country” but they do have UNHCR documentation, which includes biometrics and establishes a firm identity through a rigorous process . Biometrics are done multiple times during the process to eliminate imposters and fraudsters (who are a huge problem in the camps).
              By the time refugees are accepted for relocation to another country, they have bona fide “documentation” that has to be accepted by the host country before they can even be interviewed by the host country – which then has its own process and criteria.
              And so while Al is right in a sense, in the real sense he couldn’t be more wrong.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              All biometrics does is tag a refugee once s/he arrives. It doesn’t do anything to check out their history or motives. Irrelevant.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 21, 2017

              You’re focusing on one small part of the process.

            • Gezza

               /  February 21, 2017

              No you’re missing the point, I reckon, beknighted one. There is nothing to suggest that if there is “no ripple in the pond” there will anything useful or different about the enhanced assessment process. And in any case the threats from Islamic terrorists since 911 are most likely to come from people who were radicalised after legally entering the US as children, or even born there. Get back in your laundry.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              Entirely different argument, G. Bait and switch.

              But of course that defence line feeds Trump’s “No Muslims” policy.

            • Gezza

               /  February 21, 2017

              I’m only answering this in the expectation that you’re posting from the laundry Al. My overall point is that in preaching characteristically carelessly to his flock of sheep, in his inimitable style, he has managed to make the media reports about him around the world be about his telling whoppers again.

              The chances of an islamic terrorist attack inside the US from a vetted immigrant or refugee, the bogeyman he dredges up to keep winning over the hayseeds & sodbusters, is miniscule, & everybody, everywhere, but them, knows it. The US is far more thorough than anybody else in their vetting of probably even legitimate immigrant & non-immigrant visas. Hell my nephew married a Yanqui gal & the process of getting a resident and/or work visa to go there & teach took forever. He has an impeccable pedigree, work & travel history.

              The US isn’t faced with hordes of mainly single young Muslim men pouring across its borders like Europe is. And everybody knows that too.

              I was also interested to note that I think in every article posted here that I read, the problem with these young refugees seemed to be accusations of an increase in rapes & gang related violence, the latter being especially attributed to their being unemployed & unassisted to assimilate – not terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacks seemed to be from the locals attacking one or more mosques.

              A wiser narcissist would just get on with issuing the new Executive Order that this time will be legally ‘safe’ & valid. And shut up. It’s the never shutting up that causes his media probs now. He doesn’t beat them by tweeting & bleating, he feeds them. Then they beat him.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 21, 2017

              US Terrorism news, incidents, prosecutions:

              https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/news

              Doesn’t look miniscule to me.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 21, 2017

            You focused on it, not me. The process is irrelevant if there is no data. Data Processing 101. Give it up.

          • Conspiratoor

             /  February 21, 2017

            G, make a note for scoreboard day. Bonus points for anyone who is able to master the art of filibustering about gerrymandering

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  February 20, 2017

      You mean as soon as an accusation against Trump is shown to be false, you switch to a new one.

      • No, that was all from the same speech. Are you saying you think he was correct with all of them?

        And I don’t think that accusation has has been shown to be false. Trump has a growing record of repeating false claims and false information. Some accusations will be false or over the top, but there are far too many with substance to keep dismissing.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  February 20, 2017

          The accusation has been shown to be completely false having been based on a total misinterpretation. You have your head in the sand if you are still trying to deny that.

          The rest of your accusations are just Lefty talking points. I’ve already dealt with the vetting. Crime has risen in Chicago recently and is high. Jobs have risen as have markets in expectation of good economic times.

          • “The accusation has been shown to be completely false having been based on a total misinterpretation.”

            Has it? Can you show where that has been done?

            You said you hadn’t even seen the whole context when you claimed misinterpretation.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              The accusation was that Trump had made a false claim there was a terrorist event in Sweden the previous night.

              In fact he had referred to a TV program about Sweden shown the previous night.

              I don’t need to know any context to know that that accusation was completely false. How are you going to pretend otherwise?

            • I think there was a clear implication he was referring to terrorism in Sweden as a result of their immigration policies.

              If he didn’t mean that then he shouldn’t give garbled sensationalist messages.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              You are just trying to shift the goal posts. The media was screaming that Trump falsely implied there was a terrorist attack in Sweden last night.

              He didn’t. End of story.

        • duperez

           /  February 20, 2017

          Correct? True? False? There are some people who believe every single thing which Trump says is the truth. No doubt there are some who think that everything he says is false.

          Trump wants everyone to believe that what they see and hear in ‘the media’ is false unless it is something he (or his supporters) has said. There was discussion here the other day about “brainless sheep.” Many politicians want as many as possible to be brainless sheep. Brainless sheep believe every single thing in ‘the media’ is false.

          Trump not giving garbled sensationalist messages, so that sinister interpretations can’t be made? Is it sophistication, subtlety, naivety or just flying off the handle, shooting from the lip, playing to the crowd? Sometime ago it occurred to me that Trump is Chauncey Gardiner. Trouble is this ain’t the movies.

  6. Conspiratoor

     /  February 20, 2017

    MILO Crushes Question On Scandinavian Countries and praises American democracy

    “the reason sweden has got itself into so much crap is the stultifying political correctness that takes place in socialist countries”

    • Praises American democracy? Who can take anyone seriously who does that?

      • Conspiratoor

         /  February 20, 2017

        He was asked to compare American with Scandinavian democracy. I think he pretty much nailed it, don’t you?

        • US democracy is badly compromised and getting worse. Do you think Sweden is even worse?

          • Conspiratoor

             /  February 20, 2017

            You can argue Trump will stuff America in time. Time will tell. But Sweden is out of time. It is basically rooted. So yes I do

            • What specifically are the problems with Swedish democracy?

            • Democracy Index 2016

              The US has been downgraded from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there.

              Sweden was ranked 3 (score 9.39), New Zealand 4 (score 9.26), the US was 21st with a score of 7.98

            • “You can argue Trump will stuff America in time.”

              Hasn’t Trump argued that the US democracy is already stuffed?

            • Conspiratoor

               /  February 20, 2017

              This is articulated very well in the video. Suggest you have a listen if you haven’t already. But in a nutshell the fear of being labelled “politically incorrect” keeps Sweden’s main political parties from engaging in an honest debate about immigration

            • What you seem to mean is that you agree with Trump’s approach on immigration and you disagree with the Swedish government’s (or governments’) approach.

              That sounds like Trump – democracy/media he agrees with: good
              democracy/media he disagrees with: bad

            • PDB

               /  February 20, 2017

              To be fair I think we have seen recently (like elsewhere) the Swedish people starting to rebel against their immigration policy as it isn’t working/ hasn’t worked. Even the US under Obama didn’t have anywhere near the type of open immigration that Sweden has had for some years.

            • “the Swedish people”?

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              Yeah, yeah, Trump’s made yet another hyperbolic exaggerated assertion based on dubious reporting by Fox News that supplies yet more ammo for those who argue he is fundamentally a rich tool – in two sesnes of the word.

              Trump chose the strategy, the media are just following his. Tabloid TV, Tabloid News, Overblown False Advertising, Reality TV. Trump set the agenda. This what they both now give us. It’s like Fantasyland, or Mony Python. Trump’s crew have a hard road ahead. Because Trump.

            • Gezza

               /  February 20, 2017

              Damn
              * senses. At least Trump proof-reads tweets better than me. 😡

            • PDB

               /  February 20, 2017

              PG: More specifically ‘Swedish taxpayers’.

              http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/768996/Sweden-European-Migrant-Crisis

            • So you mean some Swedish taxpayers?

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              It’s alright guys, catastrophe diverted.

          • PDB

             /  February 20, 2017

            The unrest is only growing over there PG…….wait till their taxes get hiked to pay for more immigrants to sit around all day and be very well looked after by the state.

        • I disagree with Obama then. From what I see US democracy is overly complex and riven with problems like gerrymandering, filibustering and overly influenced by money.

          That the two main contestants in the presidential election last year were so flawed is a sign of a seriously failing democracy.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 20, 2017

            They weren’t chosen to please you, PG, they were chosen to please the American people. When democracy produces a result you don’t like it doesn’t follow that it is flawed. Hard to argue that it is overly influenced by money when Clinton had hugely more than Trump but still lost. Neither is there any obvious gerrymandering once you accept that the Federation is a creature of the States and not vice versa. That is the reason for the States electing the President rather than the public directly.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  February 20, 2017

              What do you define Gerrymandering as Al?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              The same as everyone else. Creating electorate boundaries to maximise party representation.

            • And it has long been a problem in the US.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

              Gerrymandering and last year’s election:
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/?utm_term=.67d87d004e64

              Princeton Election Consortium – A New Project on Partisan Gerrymandering
              http://election.princeton.edu/2017/01/17/a-new-project-on-partisan-gerrymandering/

              Etc etc – gerrymandering has been a major issue in the US for a long time.

            • Trump’s campaign cost hundreds of millions of dollars. That level of financing rules out just about everyone for a start.

              “The United States is alone among major countries in that self-interested politicians govern the redistricting process.” Gerrymandering has long been a problem.

              Political appointments and elections of people in the judiciary are problematic, and also in law enforcement.

              “When democracy produces a result you don’t like it doesn’t follow that it is flawed. ”

              Except that I have been saying it is severely flawed long before the result, so this is a ridiculous statement.

              If Clinton had been elected my views on US democracy wouldn’t have been different, except perhaps to say that she was worse for democracy than Trump – the latter is likely to make a mess murkier and messier, but at least there’s a greater chance of reform to repair what he leaves behind and the long history of self interested over-moneyed politics in the US.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              Here is the background to the Presidential electoral system. It was not a gerrymander but a carefully thought out and hard-debated system:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

              FPP systems are always a gerrymander relative to a PR system. They tend to over-reward the winner and penalise the loser. Again the Constitution has some checks and balances as the House is elected by public electorate and the Senate by State.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              Much of the cost is borne by the parties rather than the candidates. The size of the country mandates much of the cost. It also tends to make the ordinary voter feel powerless. I guess it’s a better system than other countries of similar size, eg India, China, Russia …. ?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 20, 2017

              When democracy produces a result you don’t like it doesn’t follow that it is flawed. ”

              Except that I have been saying it is severely flawed long before the result, so this is a ridiculous statement.

              No it isn’t. You didn’t like the candidates who were selected and complained on that basis.

            • No. I have been critical of US democracy going back way before both candidates were selected, like back to the election of GW Bush in 2000, and to the Bill Clinton terms prior to that.

              Nixon was another indication that all was not well in the US political system.

              Trump and Clinton becoming presidential candidates was a symptom of a deeply flawed democracy.

      • There are many things wrong with an essentially two party FPP democracy. However, apart from the vast amount of money needed, the Presidential VOA couldn’t be more transparent. Candidates are ruthlessly tasked and investigated during the primaries and all dirty washing gets a thorough airing.

        Donald Trump is the very legitimate and duly electoral college mandated POTUS. Thinking the system undemocratic is one thing, but it is only the citizens of the USA only who can dilute his/her power through constitutional amendment ( good luck with that!) or impeachment. Clinton lied through his teeth and escaped that ignominy of the latter, because 2/3rd Senate majority is needed to advance. That majority wasn’t reached and he escaped punishment for his lies. In essence, impeachment hardly likely to advance beyond Senate and the constitution unlikely to change in the short term.

  7. I have not commented in this stream of semi-consciousness mainly because I see no profit in
    it as a general observation. I understand why the MSM in NZ is apparently obsessed by the day to day activities of the elected US President Trump, and that is a question of being nice to their major shareholders and adhering to the liberal-progressive socialist line they have identified with since their first jaunt into the Journalism Schools either in NZ or the UK and US. That aside, we are but mere observers of a big game being played out in other places, despite Gezza’s claims to the contrary, we are but observers and not participants in the giant struggle being waged for the hearts and minds of the American people. I suggest that it is still too soon to back winners and losers in this big game, so I will continue to observe and not be sucked in to participating on one side or the other. Ask me what I believe in August, when the heat really will be on in the US.

    • MaureenW

       /  February 21, 2017

      @BJ Is there something happening in the US in August that you’re referring to, or is this just a nominal point in time?

      • Anonymous Coward

         /  February 21, 2017

        100 days

      • Midsummer madness and 6 months of the Trump administration and a real test of the endurance of the protestors who will be heading for the beaches. Also a good time to think rationally in the count down to our election and who we want to handle our economic and fiscal problems.

        • Gezza

           /  February 21, 2017

          Wise words, Bj, wise words. Personally I don’t think our media is so much adhering to a liberal-socialist line so much as simply gleefully participating in the unresearched sensationalist tabloid & gossip mag-style journalism & Entertainment Tonite/Reality TV-type tv news reporting which we all agree it has become, which is now de rigueur everywhere in West, & which Mr T is continually stimulating to produce more fun & games. Whether he is doing it deliberately & to a plan, or is just reacting with egotistical umbrage to their doing the same thing back to him is what interests me & what I am following his adventures in Wonderland for.

  8. Islamic terrorism is a red herring – just an organ-grinder’s screeching monkey. Its role is not to kill but to divert attention from the activities of its Muslim organ-grinder, who is steadily infiltrating high places in the governments of both Europe and America.

    At the same time the Muslim migrants are out-breeding Western locals to the point where very soon, as we recently saw in London, their bloc vote will ‘democratically’ put Muslims in control of those Western countries. Shariah Law – with its attendant hatred, violence, intolerance and vengeance – will follow and a great Western Civilisation will vanish; along with its liberal, humanitarian principles, ironically destroyed by the naive stupidity of the very people who most aggressively promote them.

    One does not have to be a soothsayer to see this. Even Donald Trump grasps it, albeit somewhat incoherently. But we would be most unwise to dismiss what he says, simply because he says it rather inelegantly. Some vapid pop singer recently damned him on the grounds that he was not as eloquent as Obama. We will not survive the 21st Century with reasoning that shallow.

    My researches clearly indicate that anyone who believes Sweden is NOT struggling with horrendous Muslim migrant problems needs a white stick and a dog.

    • “At the same time the Muslim migrants are out-breeding Western locals to the point where very soon, as we recently saw in London, their bloc vote will ‘democratically’ put Muslims in control of those Western countries.”

      Do you have evidence of ‘out-breeding’?

      Where in the Western world is the Muslim vote (which won’t necessarily be bloc vote) come anywhere near close to a majority necessary to completely change the legal system of a country?

      Sweden, like many European countries, has some issues with immigration but the degree of the problems looks like being overstated, grossly in many cases. Extreme claims are strongly disputed.

      Your ‘researches’ looks like a cut and paste, I’ve seen general unsubstantiated claims like this many times before.

  1. Trump on Swedish ‘incident’ and immigration problems – NZ Conservative Coalition