Post Election Stress Disorder

[Raven]

i believe it's running rampant (even here)

[PaulS]

Well it seems like the world is falling apart. I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden. One thing that has given me comfort is that President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, cheaper and covers more people.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well it seems like the world is falling apart. I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden. One thing that has given me comfort is that President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, cheaper and covers more people.

that was pretty snarky

[PaulS]

Yes, a little bit.

We all will enjoy the 3 - 3.5% growth rate though.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Well it seems like the world is falling apart. I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9...eden-islamists
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9...migrants-costs
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7...by-immigration

Just a very few articles on the Swedish asylum situation. There are many more articles on the effects of large numbers of Muslim asylum seekers into Europe (these four are just from Sweden and there are many more of them) rather than smaller numbers who assimilate before more are let in.

The "attack" (Trumpism) has been going on for a few years. And, of course, it is understood that many or most, of the migrants are peaceful people, for now, though most don't assimilate well, if at all. .

[PaulS]

No, President Trump was specifically talking about an incident in Sweden the night before.

"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," Trump told the crowd at his campaign-like rally in Florida on Saturday, critiquing Europe's refugee policies and complaining that his travel ban had been temporarily blocked by the courts. "Sweden, who would believe this?"

[Sea Dangles]

Imagine what you want Paul. The situation in Sweden is beyond terrible because of a policy on immigration that has essentially taken away the identity of the country itself. The situation is something they did not envision when they decided to open their doors to these disgusting rapists and thieves who could care less about their hosts and especially their values. Every day is a new tragedy for the people of Sweden and their courts are not equipped to handle their guests outbursts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Imagine what you want Paul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What am I imagining? Our President made a statement that was 100% false. Isn't his statement a lie?

[JohnR]

Interesting when things are muddied enough, differing perspective people with a purpose to prove can go into the same large pie issues and find pieces to argue their points...

I have been too busy to dig in on the he said she said but I though this was funny wrt Sweden:

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What am I imagining? Our President made a statement that was 100% false. Isn't his statement a lie?

"We've got to keep our country safe. 100% true You look at what's happening in Germany 100% true, you look at what's happening.... last night in Sweden," debatable...according to his defenders this was in reference to an expose' that he saw the night before regarding Sweden...which actually follows his frequent disjointed speech manner where he has something in his head and it comes out in bits not necessarily completing the thought "Sweden, who would believe this?" 100% true

[PaulS]

The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the statement doesn't matter.

So now we have to use a President Trump Understand O Meter

1) Try to determine what President Trump actually means by decipher all the miss-statements, incorrect verbiage, bad grammar, disjointed sentences and random thoughts etc.
2) Determine if statement is an Alternative Fact or just a lie
3) Ignore what he actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the statement doesn't matter. moving the goal post...nice!! 100% doesn't actually mean 100%

So now we have to use a President Understand O Meter

1) Try to determine what the President actually means by decipher all the miss-statements, incorrect verbiage, bad grammar, disjointed sentences and random thoughts etc.
2) Determine if statement is an Alternative Fact or just a lie
3) Ignore what he actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

yes...in accordance with the Clinton(pl) and Obama years

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

yes...in accordance with the Clinton(pl) and Obama years

moving the goal post...nice!! 100% doesn't actually mean 100%

No, Pls. go back and reread my very 1st statement. I think you must have missed it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

moving the goal post...nice!! 100% doesn't actually mean 100%

No, Pls. go back and reread my very 1st statement. I think you must have missed it.

"Our President made a "statement" that was 100% false."

"The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the "statement" doesn't matter."

3) Ignore what Paul actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

you are starting to sound like Trump...or Clintons...or Obama

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

"Our President made a "statement" that was 100% false."

"The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the "statement" doesn't matter."

3) Ignore what Paul actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

you are starting to sound like Trump...or Clintons...or Obama

No, my statement in the 2nd post cleary stated an attack in Sweden and nothing else re his statement the day before. You didn't actually read it - right? Maybe you should go back and read it so you know what you are discussing.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, my statement in the 2nd post cleary stated an attack in Sweden and nothing else re his statement the day before. You didn't actually read it - right? Maybe you should go back and read it so you know what you are discussing.

there was no attack in Sweden .....did Trump use the word "attack" ?....but there was an expose on tv the night before with Tucker Carlson regarding "what's going on in Sweden" apparently...so who is making stuff up?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

there was no attack in Sweden .....did Trump us the word "attack" ?....but there was an expose on tv the night before with Tucker Carlson regarding "what's going on in Sweden" apparently...so who is making stuff up?

So now you finally read what I wrote after 16 posts. I guess you think Tucker did the broadcast from Sweden Friday night..

Obviously Trump continues to make things up (ie lie) Nothing happened the night before in Sweden.

In fact, the 2 police officers even questioned Fox's use of their statements.



Those disputing Horowitz’s conclusions include two Stockholm-based police officers who were featured in Horowitz's film talking about crime and the accessibility of weapons.

"I don't understand why we are part of the segment,” one of the police officers, Anders Göranzon, told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Monday. “The interview was about something completely different to what Fox News and Horowitz were talking about. It was supposed to be about crime in high-risk areas. Areas with high crime rates. There wasn't any focus on migration or immigration."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The subject is what he said about Sweden so the rest of the statement doesn't matter.

No, the subject of the thread is "post election stress disorder." Now, unless you mean to say that Trump misspoke because of post election stress disorder, in which case that would be perfectly understandable and forgivable, unless you mean that, you changed the subject (moved the goalpost?) in order to give a jab at the President. Of course, you may believe, as the thousands "protesting" across the country do, that he is not your President. Then again, that may all be due to post election stress disorder, therefor quite understandable.

So now we have to use a President Trump Understand O Meter

1) Try to determine what President Trump actually means by decipher all the miss-statements, incorrect verbiage, bad grammar, disjointed sentences and random thoughts etc.
2) Determine if statement is an Alternative Fact or just a lie
3) Ignore what he actually said and try to understand what is in his heart.

A simple grammatical parsing of the President's words should have given you the clue that yes, your numbers 1) and 3) must be applied to what he said: "you look at what's happening . . . last night in Sweden,"--there is an obvious mixing of present and past tense. The time confusion creates an obvious indeterminacy. To what time does his "what's" actually refer? " What IS (what's) happening is speaking in the present progressive tense--what is happening NOW. But "last night" refers to the past. So how definite, what is the actual span, of the present in his statement? And, so, co-relative to that stretching of time, what is the time span of last "night"?

There appears to be a Trumpistic stretching of time to span the past and present together--"last night" could stretch back into a past-present "what's" and all can refer to "what has been happening." That's why I put "attack" in quotes and labeled it a (Trumpism). Simply applying your 1) and 3) solves the anomaly and makes clear, sort of, what he means, meant, or is going to mean.

And, anyway, putting nonsense aside, the subject of my reply to your post is not what the President said. The substance of my reply was a fleshing out and expansion of your "I heard of a devastating attack in Sweden." Oh, wait, Scott pointed out that Trump did not actually say attack. Oh well. Fake news. Anyway, avoiding what was said in those articles--(just a sample of many such by Swedish and European, on the ground observers of what is happening in Sweden and Europe instead of the politically correct cover up so as not to disturb the Euro-Zone edict that the asylum seekers must be accepted by all Euro-Zone countries regardless of cost, inconvenience, or danger.)--avoiding what was said in those articles and, instead, focusing on Trump's bumble mouth, brain farts, mistakes or "lies" is submitting to the greater danger in order to delegitimize who you don't like or don't agree with.

Criticize Trump for policies gone astray (and they haven't had time yet to do that), but the hysteria now occurring is uncalled for. And it could lead to the danger of not paying attention to real threats in order to score points, or get rid of, Trump.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, wait, Scott pointed out that Trump did not actually say attack. Oh well. Fake news.

right....pointing out that he was wrong...if fact..makes him right in his mind...somehow....very Trumpian

I think Trump does this purposefully knowing the panties will get immediately bunched they are so tightly strung....

his next bit of brilliance should be to offhandedly refer to a male appendage and/or the adjacent orifice so that we can be treated to millions of offended libs streaming to Washington in Greyhound busses wearing penis and butthole hats anxious to protest the offensive remarks......

[detbuch]

With apologies to Raven--hope this video falls into the category of post election stress disorder.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What am I imagining? Our President made a statement that was 100% false. Isn't his statement a lie?

So you are saying that there were no attacks in Sweden? Regardless, I would personally like to thank you for being part of the solution. Your efforts are to be recognized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

It wasn't an attack, it was a major theft of staggering proportions! If you like Swedish meatballs you better hit BJ's soon, as most were stollen and subsequently eating by refuges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

right....pointing out that he was wrong...if fact..makes him right in his mind...somehow....very Trumpian
....

No I wasn't wrong. The problem is there is a lack of critical thinking. Just because he didn't use the word attack doesn't mean that's what he was referencing. Cuz that's clearly what he was referencing. It's like searching for the word ban in his previous executive order and not finding it and claiming it's not a ban. It is hilarious watching people try to come up with various alternatives to what he means and says.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

So you are saying that there were no attacks in Sweden? Regardless, I would personally like to thank you for being part of the solution. Your efforts are to be recognized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On Friday night apparently there were no attacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No I wasn't wrong. The problem is there is a lack of critical thinking. Just because he didn't use the word attack doesn't mean that's what he was referencing. Cuz that's clearly what he was referencing. It's like searching for the word ban in his previous executive order and not finding it and claiming it's not a ban.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sigh . . . you're obviously never going to understand Trump if you're going to focus on one of his words (and its definition???--this is Trump were talking about, not Merriam Webster) rather than his context . . . Come to think of it, even his context can be jumbled a bit . . . or so. Try applying one or more of the 3 bullet points you provided a few posts ago.

Anyway, as explained by Trumpers, the context of his "what's" and "last night" was not about AN attack but the violence that the Horowitz fellow talked about on Fox "last night."

But that's OK. Keep up the good work on pointing out Trump's imprecise use of a word. And don't bother with the larger picture--that might be too disturbing. We need more humor here, especially with our post election stress disorder.

ban ban ban ban attack attack attack

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No I wasn't wrong. The problem is there is a lack of critical thinking. Just because he didn't use the word attack doesn't mean that's what he was referencing. Cuz that's clearly what he was referencing. It's like searching for the word ban in his previous executive order and not finding it and claiming it's not a ban. It is hilarious watching people try to come up with various alternatives to what he means and says.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so "critical thinking" as you describe it, I guess means putting words into the mouth of another in order to then attack that person for saying something they never said...I get it

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

so "critical thinking" as you describe it, I guess means putting words into the mouth of another in order to then attack that person for saying something they never said...I get it

No it is trying to determine exactly what someone means when they say something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No it is trying to determine exactly what someone means when they say something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, if you don't accept someone's explanation of exactly what he meant, how do you have confidence that he meant anything else . . . or anything at all? Oh . . . that's right . . . Trump is a liar . . . so his explanation must be a lie. But, then, in that case, how can you have confidence that he even meant exactly what he said in the first place when he said what he said?

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

On Friday night apparently there were no attacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Source?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So now you finally read what I wrote after 16 posts. I guess you think Tucker did the broadcast from Sweden Friday night..

Obviously Trump continues to make things up (ie lie) Nothing happened the night before in Sweden.

Wait, you said that he said an "attack" occurred the night before. He didn't use the word "attack" but you said he meant that word. You claim that he "clearly" meant an attack occurred in Sweden the previous night.

Actually, his entire statement was not precisely clear. That's sort of a hallmark of his . . . haven't you noticed? There have been many times when one has had to connect the dots of the words coming out of his mouth to some reality to which he was trying to refer. And if you honestly examined what he said in light of his later explanation of what he said, it made sense. But then you would have to believe him. If you don't believe him, then a lot of what he says is not clear and cannot be made clear, therefor, for you, it is a "lie." That's why I put "lie" in quotes when he is accused of it.

And I believe that most times those who want to claim he "lied" can see the logic of his explanation, but don't want to believe it because it harms the narrative that he lied. I think that is the case here. You will have none of his explanation. It is very plausible, considering how he speaks, that he indeed was referring to the Carlson report the previous night which was about what was happening in Sweden not the night before, but for some time since they were being flooded with immigrants.

But since he didn't, in the stream of conscious way that he usually spouts phrases which often leave out significant details (to be explained later), in his mind he was referring to the Fox interview but left out that clarifying verbal "trifle". That makes sense. Otherwise, what the heck did he mean by "last night"? Making up something so non-existent as an attack in Sweden the previous night makes no sense whatsoever. And he didn't even use the word attack. To say that he clearly meant to say an attack had occurred in Sweden the previous night when that can so easily be discredited is, to me, confirmation bias in support of your narrative rather than creating clarity.


In fact, the 2 police officers even questioned Fox's use of their statements.

If they hadn't, they could have been in serious trouble for inciting racial hatred.

Those disputing Horowitz’s conclusions include two Stockholm-based police officers who were featured in Horowitz's film talking about crime and the accessibility of weapons.

"I don't understand why we are part of the segment,” one of the police officers, Anders Göranzon, told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper on Monday. “The interview was about something completely different to what Fox News and Horowitz were talking about. It was supposed to be about crime in high-risk areas. Areas with high crime rates. There wasn't any focus on migration or immigration."

That was very likely a CYA response. It is Swedish policy not to mention the race or religion of perps. They are very careful not to offend others, or to in any way possibly stir up anti-immigrant resentment among the Swedish people. It is strict and enforced policy not to say anything, including race or religion that could make Sweden appear racist. The Swedes have even stopped recording race or religion in reports or records of committed crimes. If ethnicity is referred to at all, the perps will be referred to as Swedish. Everyone is to be Swedish, not Somali, or Iraqi, or Muslim, etc. Referring to "high risk areas" is often code for refugee enclaves.

Here is an article about a current reaction against that policy by a Swedish policeman tired of it which has started a "Swedish Spring" type of reaction in the populace who have the courage to support him. Tired (actually the Swedish translation was something like "effen tired")of the politically correct policy which hides the truth, the policeman cited on facebook the actual ethnicities of the accused perps in his last and several arrests, and all but one were from the Middle East or Somalia. Because of that, he "is under investigation for the criminal charge of inciting racial hatred."

https://bluelivesmatter.blue/officer...migrant-crime/