Quote:That's wrong above. The Swedish Government actually turns its cheek to these statistics like Germany and France does. That's why the people of Germany and France are fixing to be politically shifting to the right and national conservatives when their elections come up.....
That's right. The movement we've had in this country is happening all over Europe starting with Brexit, and now Merkel is hated and Le Pen has momentum. I'm sure it's because things are wonderful over there as a result of the immigration policy.
The problem, though, is that this “rape epidemic” is as fake as the Bowling Green Massacre.
Canadian reporter Doug Saunders rigorously investigated the narrative, and concluded that it “falls apart as soon as you speak to anyone knowledgeable in Sweden.” Official Swedish statistics do indeed show a high rate of rape, but that’s because Swedish law has an extremely expansive definition of what qualifies as rape under the law.
....These panics about immigration, instead, reflect a long history of sexual panics in the West about non-white immigrants. Etc.
Quote:That's not what he said. You know it as well. And don't even try to pretend he knew [BAD WORD REMOVED] he was talking about! That's why he is dangerous.
What didn't he know? He knows they are having problems with immigration and doesn't want that to happen here. That's all that matters to me. Had he been specific and made up some terrorist attack, then you might have a point. He didn't. He just spoke in generalities that are pretty much true.
I understand that liberals hate Trump. I understand why they don't think he is a good representative of the US. Trump is a terrible speaker. He is scatterbrained. He changes thoughts mid sentence. He doesn't care about "facts." In this, I mean his general point is more important to him than the actual details of the point. His worst speaking trait, by far, is that he always assumes that his audience thinks what he is thinking. He leaves out crucial information that is necessary for the audience to follow his train of thought. Personally, it drives me nuts, but it's not as big a deal to his supporters, as they assume he knows what he's talking about.
That said, I can not fathom why his opponents can't or won't genuinely attempt to understand his message, especially since his character traits listed above have been present from day one. Either they want to justify their unabashed bias, ascribing the worst possible intention to everything he says, or they are playing good ole' fashioned politics, and want to use every gaff to undermine his authority. Either way, there is no excuse for journalists to engage in either of those tactics. There should be the highest standard for truth and transparency in our media.
This is what Trump said:
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.
He specifically mentions the fact that they took in huge numbers of immigrants, which has lead to problems. In typical Trump fashion, he intermingles places where there were terror attacks with places that are having immigration issues. He drops a random "Look what's happening last night in Sweden," which was entirely disconnected from the rest of what he was saying, and he speaks in sweeping generalizations because the details aren't as important to him as the fact that Europe is having problems.
Good journalists need to get to the bottom of that kind of rambling, because it is easy to see how there might be an implication that something bad happened in Sweden "last night." However, they need to be truthful and transparent. I have no problems with articles that questioned what Trump was talking about. Where I take issue, is that there were an absurd number of articles with the accusation that Trump was spreading "fake news" about an attack that didn't happen in Sweden. Where did he say there was an attack? Using that as a headline is just bad journalism. It annoys me. It reeks of partisanship and bias.
Turns out, Trump was referring to a segment he watched on Fox, which falls perfectly in line with his penchant for assuming people know what he's talking about. A few good journalists got this pretty quickly, but a whole bunch of others ran with a click bait story. That's great for ratings, but ultimately that kind of shoddy journalism undermines the legitimacy of the mainstream press to anyone that is not a die-hard progressive. This is a non-story, but it generated 3 days of discussion for the news outlets.
Quote:The problem, though, is that this “rape epidemic” is as fake as the Bowling Green Massacre.
Canadian reporter Doug Saunders rigorously investigated the narrative, and concluded that it “falls apart as soon as you speak to anyone knowledgeable in Sweden.” Official Swedish statistics do indeed show a high rate of rape, but that’s because Swedish law has an extremely expansive definition of what qualifies as rape under the law.
....These panics about immigration, instead, reflect a long history of sexual panics in the West about non-white immigrants. Etc.
Welp, a guy in Canada said so. Better just go along with that.
By the way, whatever Swedish law deems a sex crime is just one aspect of this. We also don't want Muslims marching up and down the street saying "POLICE GO TO HELL".
And neither do many Europeans, which is why you are seeing the shift away from the Globalist EU dictating policies and the people taking back their national sovereignty. Which I guess you're against since you have been brainwashed into the Globalist mind set.
Quote:I understand that liberals hate Trump. I understand why they don't think he is a good representative of the US. Trump is a terrible speaker. He is scatterbrained. He changes thoughts mid sentence. He doesn't care about "facts." In this, I mean his general point is more important to him than the actual details of the point. His worst speaking trait, by far, is that he always assumes that his audience thinks what he is thinking. He leaves out crucial information that is necessary for the audience to follow his train of thought. Personally, it drives me nuts, but it's not as big a deal to his supporters, as they assume he knows what he's talking about.
That said, I can not fathom why his opponents can't or won't genuinely attempt to understand his message, especially since his character traits listed above have been present from day one. Either they want to justify their unabashed bias, ascribing the worst possible intention to everything he says, or they are playing good ole' fashioned politics, and want to use every gaff to undermine his authority. Either way, there is no excuse for journalists to engage in either of those tactics. There should be the highest standard for truth and transparency in our media.
This is what Trump said:
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">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.
</span>
He specifically mentions the fact that they took in huge numbers of immigrants, which has lead to problems. In typical Trump fashion, he intermingles places where there were terror attacks with places that are having immigration issues. He drops a random "Look what's happening last night in Sweden," which was entirely disconnected from the rest of what he was saying, and he speaks in sweeping generalizations because the details aren't as important to him as the fact that Europe is having problems.
Good journalists need to get to the bottom of that kind of rambling, because it is easy to see how there might be an implication that something bad happened in Sweden "last night." However, they need to be truthful and transparent. I have no problems with articles that questioned what Trump was talking about. Where I take issue, is that there were an absurd number of articles with the accusation that Trump was spreading "fake news" about an attack that didn't happen in Sweden. Where did he say there was an attack? Using that as a headline is just bad journalism. It annoys me. It reeks of partisanship and bias.
Turns out, Trump was referring to a segment he watched on Fox, which falls perfectly in line with his penchant for assuming people know what he's talking about. A few good journalists got this pretty quickly, but a whole bunch of others ran with a click bait story. That's great for ratings, but ultimately that kind of shoddy journalism undermines the legitimacy of the mainstream press to anyone that is not a die-hard progressive. This is a non-story, but it generated 3 days of discussion for the news outlets.
Immigrants aren't why they are having problems.
Quote:Immigrants aren't why they are having problems.
Quit making fake news!!!
Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm and respected scholar has statistics and data to debunk the myth. Should read up
Quote:Quit making fake news!!!
Jerzy Sarnecki, a criminologist at Stockholm and respected scholar has statistics and data to debunk the myth. Should read up
Right, let's open up the borders for these refugees (from countries we helped destroy) because some guy said its perfectly safe. Ignore all other common sense.
Quote:Immigrants aren't why they are having problems.
Exactly, they simply dont have enough. What we need to do is bomb somebody else and import more of their refugees. that would be great. that's why I voted for Hillary. I really wanted her to overthrow another regime and create chaos so we could get more migrants.
Quote:Right, let's open up the borders for these refugees (from countries we helped destroy) because some guy said its perfectly safe. Ignore all other common sense.
Some guy who does something the rabid right refuses. Studies, collects data, and reports facts.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.55504.1321514493!/SULCISWP_2011_1.pdf'>http://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.55504.1321514493!/SULCISWP_2011_1.pdf</a>
Quote:Some guy who does something the rabid right refuses. Studies, collects data, and reports facts.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.55504.1321514493!/SULCISWP_2011_1.pdf'>http://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.55504.1321514493!/SULCISWP_2011_1.pdf</a>
Some guy. This however only requires two eyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP0XTvuRycY
In 2014, there were 6,700 rapes reported to the Swedish police—or 69 cases per 100,000 population—according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ), which is an 11 percent increase from the previous year.[5] The number of convictions has remained relatively unchanged since 2005, with approximately 190 convictions on average each year.[6][7]
There have been several international comparisons made, placing Sweden at the top end of the number of reported rapes. However, police procedures and legal definitions vary widely across countries, which makes it difficult to compare rape statistics.[8][9][10][11] For example, Sweden reformed its sex crime legislation and made the legal definition of rape much wider in 2005,[3][4][8][12] which largely explains a significant increase in the number of reported rapes in the ten-year period of 2004-2013.[13][14] The Swedish police also record each instance of sexual violence in every case separately, leading to an inflated number of cases compared to other countries.[8][11][15] Additionally, the Swedish police have improved the handling of rape cases, in an effort to increase the number of crimes reported.[8][14][16][17] Raised awareness and a shifting attitude of sexual crimes in Sweden,[note 1][18] which has been ranked as the number one country in gender equality,[19] may also explain the relatively high rates of reported rape.[8][11][20]
Quote:I understand that liberals hate Trump. I understand why they don't think he is a good representative of the US. Trump is a terrible speaker. He is scatterbrained. He changes thoughts mid sentence. He doesn't care about "facts." In this, I mean his general point is more important to him than the actual details of the point. His worst speaking trait, by far, is that he always assumes that his audience thinks what he is thinking. He leaves out crucial information that is necessary for the audience to follow his train of thought. Personally, it drives me nuts, but it's not as big a deal to his supporters, as they assume he knows what he's talking about.
That said, I can not fathom why his opponents can't or won't genuinely attempt to understand his message, especially since his character traits listed above have been present from day one. Either they want to justify their unabashed bias, ascribing the worst possible intention to everything he says, or they are playing good ole' fashioned politics, and want to use every gaff to undermine his authority. Either way, there is no excuse for journalists to engage in either of those tactics. There should be the highest standard for truth and transparency in our media.
This is what Trump said:
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.
He specifically mentions the fact that they took in huge numbers of immigrants, which has lead to problems. In typical Trump fashion, he intermingles places where there were terror attacks with places that are having immigration issues. He drops a random "Look what's happening last night in Sweden," which was entirely disconnected from the rest of what he was saying, and he speaks in sweeping generalizations because the details aren't as important to him as the fact that Europe is having problems.
Good journalists need to get to the bottom of that kind of rambling, because it is easy to see how there might be an implication that something bad happened in Sweden "last night." However, they need to be truthful and transparent. I have no problems with articles that questioned what Trump was talking about. Where I take issue, is that there were an absurd number of articles with the accusation that Trump was spreading "fake news" about an attack that didn't happen in Sweden. Where did he say there was an attack? Using that as a headline is just bad journalism. It annoys me. It reeks of partisanship and bias.
Turns out, Trump was referring to a segment he watched on Fox, which falls perfectly in line with his penchant for assuming people know what he's talking about. A few good journalists got this pretty quickly, but a whole bunch of others ran with a click bait story. That's great for ratings, but ultimately that kind of shoddy journalism undermines the legitimacy of the mainstream press to anyone that is not a die-hard progressive. This is a non-story, but it generated 3 days of discussion for the news outlets.
I agree with most of what you say. The only thing I'd like to point out is the fact that you mention "journalists" reacting to Trump's comment about Sweden. You failed to mention that this captured the attention of the Government of Sweden who also quickly responded. Just imagine if another world leader made statements that our Christian population has experienced 2x the crime rate over the past 5 years .... then only clarified it by noting they meant the city of Chicago and not really our entire nation. Key facts are critical.
Anyway, a single mistake is understandable ..... unfortunately, it's become a pattern lately.
On a lighter note, I think Sweden is happy to be in the news for things other than another Ikea is opening and their Sweedish Meatball entree can still be purchased for $4.99
Quote:^^ The point was missed only because it was not presented correctly.
While I love the fact that President Trump is so open and readily available to the public via press conferences, rallys, and tweets, I really think he'd benefit from going more "on script" based on information that is reviewed by his staff. This would eliminate most mistakes.
Yes, his lack of specificity triggered the media to jump to conclusions as always. The wolves are just waiting in the shadows for every little hiccup. "Correctly" is a term of perspective!
Quote:I agree with most of what you say. The only thing I'd like to point out is the fact that you mention "journalists" reacting to Trump's comment about Sweden. You failed to mention that this captured the attention of the Government of Sweden who also quickly responded. Just imagine if another world leader made statements that our Christian population has experienced 2x the crime rate over the past 5 years .... then only clarified it by noting they meant the city of Chicago and not really our entire nation. Key facts are critical.
Anyway, a single mistake is understandable ..... unfortunately, it's become a pattern lately.
It happens daily around the world. The focus of the media has shifted from supplying informative or comparative news to trying to undermine every move the POTUS makes. Imagine the progress if there wasn't a consistent need to paddle against the flow of a [BLEEP] river created by those sour on the left.
Quote:It happens daily around the world. The focus of the media has shifted from supplying informative or comparative news to trying to undermine every move the POTUS makes. Imagine the progress if there wasn't a consistent need to paddle against the flow of a [BAD WORD REMOVED] river created by those sour on the left.
Imagine if our President actually did his job and researched crap he plans to speak on. Currently it's laziness and speaks of getting talking points 5 minutes before he speaks.
Wow, the bar you have set for him is so low even his fat sef doesn't even have to struggle to get over!
Quote:Yes, his lack of specificity triggered the media to jump to conclusions as always. The wolves are just waiting in the shadows for every little hiccup. "Correctly" is a term of perspective!
lol ... who takes anything Trump says or tweets seriously anymore? You just wait for the next day and hear what the adults in his administration say.
Quote:lol ... who takes anything Trump says or tweets seriously anymore? You just wait for the next day and hear what the adults in his administration say.
It's pretty awesome Miss Conway took the time to register here and start posting.
Quote:Imagine if our President actually did his job and researched crap he plans to speak on. Currently it's laziness and speaks of getting talking points 5 minutes before he speaks.
Wow, the bar you have set for him is so low even his fat sef doesn't even have to struggle to get over!
And you would complain if he went silent. Seems to me you think his job is making sure the media and well, you, adores him. I'll take action over words any day! Look over the last years and see what a wordsmith gets you.