He
inferred that there had been an attack. Anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension can see that. Thankfully logic still exists outside your efforts to bend it to Trump's increasingly routine lapses of reality. Here is the math.
Here is the definition:
inference
[in-fer-uh ns, -fruh ns]
noun
1.
the act or process of inferring.
2.
something that is inferred:
to make rash inferences.
3.
Logic.
- the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
- the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is notlogically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
- a proposition reached by a process of inference.
Now what he said:
“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.”
Germany suffered a major terror attack recently. So did Brussels, Paris and Nice.
Therefore:
His supposition of something happening in Sweden last night, is supported by four examples of a terror attack. Due to a lack of further explanation, as well as the context of the remarks, the only logical conclusion is that he inferred that a terror attack had occurred in Sweden. That is how the English language works.
So you are factually incorrect.
Now I accept Trump's explanation that he once again used a Fox News report as a talking point, but this only reinforces the fact that Trump has a tenuous grasp of the English language.
As for your second point: Most of my posts have a basis for criticism and, unlike a few, I actually go through great pains to explain my reasoning rather than taking the Lazy Right's* increasing reliance on trying to win a debate via loud declarative statement followed by dissembling and rejection of reality.
*The Lazy Right is defined as a group of Conservatives who make statements or try to debate without knowing any facts or doing research into the topic at hand. Rather, they attempt to "Shut Down," "Destroy" or "Nuke" a debate through unsupported declarative statements and rejection of inconvenient facts by outright denial or laughable attempts at spin. Their counterpart is the Lazy Left that frames every argument through a social justice lens even when it doesn't apply.
