What is the substance in your remarks? That "He insinuated SOMETHING related to immigrants and terrorism happened in Sweden?"
What he insinuated IS the matter of the debate here. The whole issue has little substance but the OP posted it and I was bored. Funny thing is I usually don't even care about funny "mistakes" or bad speeches as they are not part of what is important, policy, but this thread got me clicking and now I notice a weird, needless pattern with Donald.
Trump's paragraph in question.
"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."
yeah.....I played the speech, read the speech, used the common definition of the words and figured out what Trump meant.
Isn't that what you do when people talk or you read something?
To repeat myself from earlier, for SOME REASON Trump fixated on Sweden and strung it together with mention of the attacks in Brussels, Nice and Paris.
Funny thing is I don't think Donald needed to mention Sweden at all to make a case for Islamic terrorists being dangerous. Its just like he found trouble because he misread the speech, jumbled some sentences, or read a poorly written speech.
So:
-He mentioned Berlin (The December 2016 attack, stabbing, wine bar suicide bombing or the police stabbing?)
-He mentioned Sweden (?)
-Brussels (the bombings)
-Nice (had to be the Bastille Day attack not mentioning a good place to vacation)
-Paris (I guess the November 2015 attack)
So, in my opinion what happened was Donald as usual liberally used the English language to make his case seem strong than it is. And he got called out on it.
What do you think that reference to Sweden in the paragraph above meant?