Post Election Stress Disorder

[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......

[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

[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?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

Just out of curiosity, are you defending Trump's statements here or just picking apart Paul's?

Because I'll let you guys duke it out if we can all agree that he is an idiot and shouldn't have lumped in a Fox News story while talking about refugee related violence.

Otherwise, I think we need to stop giving this clown a break for being ambiguous on such serious topics.

On one hand, politicians are famous for being general in their responses and full of crap, but typically they skillfully dodge questions or just give remarks that neither incriminate or say anything (see Devos's confirmation hearings.)

What Trump is doing is combining a lingering distrust of the media with lies and inciting false fear.

Let's be clear: his statement which included the reference to Sweden was covering violence and attacks by immigrants, he wasn't mincing words. To say that he innocently injected an op-ed from a Fox News story mentioning the fact that Sweden has a bunch of refugees is preposterous...

He either:
a) Knew what he was doing and was following the pattern of false references to attacks by his cabinet. (Which by the way is only working because the public has gotten so used to attacks now that when someone say "Sweden, can you believe it) half of us just assume someone attacked Sweden. A point the Trump administration is simultaneously using to their advantage and berating the media for...)

Or b) He didn't know that the Fox News story wasn't about an attack, and was only half paying attention... and as a citizen of this country I hope to effing god it was the former, because if this one is true, it means that not only does he not prepare for anything, but he also draws his own quick assumptions on topics he is ill informed about in a very power hungry way. And that's not a guy I want orchestrating American foreign policy.

He's already the laughing stock of the world... "From this point forward, it will be only America first"

"We stand behind Japan 100%"

"NATO, you have our 100% commitment"

World leaders know he doesn't know what he's doing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device