He's been in office 31 days. What are the 31 lies?
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/02/03/daniel-dales-d...
Of 26 checked statements, 20 were mostly false or worse.
[1] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/stateme...
Discussing his speech in Florida, they claim he referred to a terrorist attack in Sweden. He never mentioned a terrorist attack.
They said Trump's approval rating is 41% [1], cherry picking one of the lowest polls. Lower, in fact, than any recent poll listed on RCP [2].
1: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/18/...
2: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trum...
("Recent" not including one poll from 19 days ago, 17 days before the Politifact article, that reported 40% approval.)
e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/world/europe/last-night-i...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/...
And the Fox News report (which is mentioned by Politifact) Trump later referred to is about crime.
And regarding Florida:
"Look around you... Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy... look at leereeves last night, would you believe it?"
Am I referring to you as a serial killer?
I don't know where 41 came from exactly but I know that at that same time, Rasmussen was reporting 53% approval. How did Politifact choose?
As for Florida:
> They’re having problems like they never thought possible.
He said problems, not attacks.
And the Politifact article was written after (and even mentioned) Trump said he was referring to a Fox News report [1] about problems in Sweden, which isn't about terrorism.
Sure, and tomorrow it might be 20, or 60. You can only use previously existing data.
> I don't know where 41 came from exactly but I know that at that same time, Rasmussen was reporting 53% approval. How did Politifact choose?
I'm assuming the Gallup poll they link to stated 41 at the time of publication. That's the beauty of sourcing. You can always verify it. Step two is knowing if Gallup is trustworthy, that's where your RCP comes in, which puts it against other sources, most of which we recognize. Further steps would be sourcing their respective data, etc.
> He said problems, not attacks.
In the same breath as specifically cities with attacks in recent years.
But even ignoring that, let's say he wasn't inferring attacks, then:
* What problems?
* What specifically about last night?
"Problems" in the area he was talking about (unrest) usually means attack, so it's not an unreasonable assumption about what he meant.
He of course later stated he was referring to a Fox News segment. How that makes it better is beyond me though, seeing as:
* The segment was blatantly lying. [1]
* He can get briefings from 11 intelligence agencies.
* Sweden has crime statistics and is generally considered one of the least corrupt states in the west. [2]
[1] http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/nyheter/swedish-police-featured...
[2] http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_percepti...
The Gallup poll they link to isn't even about his approval.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/203834/americans-world-standing-w...
That's the problem with assuming...
The rest of my post though?
I tend to trust more often when a source publishes something that runs counter to (my perception of) its bias. Such as this article from the WaPo:
> Yet he also acknowledged that the country is reaching the limits of what it can handle, and may have no choice but to tighten its policies in the face of an influx this year that is expected to bring more than 150,000 asylum seekers to a country with a population of less than 10 million.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/behind-swedens-w...
Yes, Sweden takes in (per capita) among the most refugees. [1] This has been the case when I've looked at data for at least 4-5 years.
Yet violent crimes has gone down. [2]
> Honestly, I have no idea what's going on in Sweden. I've heard so many different stories and it's hard to know who to trust when neither the media nor the government are trustworthy.
What specifically is it that you don't trust or wish you had more information about?
I see nothing wrong in the article you link. It's interviewing a representative of the rise of "Sweden Democrats", which is a nationalistic party on the rise that has gotten ~20% of the electorate, in a multi party country, which is very significant.
It's however not relevant to any crime statistics or unrest, but merely _perceived_ unrest, much like the alt-right movement, Brexit, and similar.
A lot of Swedish statistics are mandatorily published in English, so it's not terribly difficult to get it if you try.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-c...
[2] https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statist...
https://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statist...
Those stats only go up to 2014, before the refugee crisis.
You're right in that there is a spike in 2015, but the 2014 stats are more than twice as high as 2016.
And regardless of which, it's completely relevant if we want to measure immigration as a factor on crime.
Half as many applications in 2016 as in 2013?
Those are only "asylum" applications...could they be processing people under other categories now?
What media are you referring to?
This is literally the Swedish equivalent of the USCIS. If you rather listen to your preferred outlet reporting otherwise, then bias is certainly at large.
If either of those are true, that would be a story I'd like to read.
Has anyone reported that?
I'd like to know why those numbers fell. Did Sweden stop immigration? Did refugees stop coming? Are refugees being admitted in some other way, not counting as asylum?
Edit:
I found an article in Foreign Policy from over a year ago. According to them, Sweden closed the door.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/the-death-of-the-most-ge...
Interesting that the media continues to chide Trump and laud Sweden, if they've both done the same thing.
Strawman.
Either he claims Sweden has immigration problems, which data suggests against, or he suggests Sweden has an immigration problem but they stopped immigration. So which is it?
Either one makes Trump look like an idiot.
>Conversely, 57 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the country’s standing in the world. That’s the highest that number has been in a decade, according to Gallup.[1] And Trump’s approval rating, of 41 percent, is lower at this point than any other president Gallup has tracked since Dwight Eisenhower.
the link in the politifact article is very clearly talking about americans having an unfavorable view of the country, and not approval ratings.
Why are you lying?
If you look on gallup for the day of the politifact article[2], you will see that it shows % approve is 41%.
as for why they would choose the gallup approval ratings over rasmussen, there are very many answers to that question. rasmussen is an online poll, which has been viewed by pollsters since forever as much less accurate than live phone surveys (since online polls can very easily be gamed brigading, they dont verify the identity of the respondent, etc.)
The average from all the approval ratings is 45%[3]
[1]http://www.gallup.com/poll/203834/americans-world-standing-w... [2]http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-app... [3]https://imgur.com/a/MzDa4