>>If such a speech at a rally speech is intended to be streamed to the net, different standards apply to the elected politician.

But what is the purpose? Who does it help to zoom in on few seconds of Sweden comment rather than his overall message?

Perhaps you recall when Obama promised that under the ACA if you like your insurance, you can keep it? When that turned out not to be true, the White House said he "misspoke" while others called him a liar.

In the Obama example, this statement was a very important intended message of reassurance for Americans. So if it's not true- then perhaps an apology is indicated. Whereas in the Trump example, the mention of Sweden is gratuitous and can be excised completely without altering his intended message. Which is what should happen IMHO (even if you are determined to ignore his explanation) rather than taunts, insults and denials.

I see two problems here:

1) As per previous: constant anti-Trump catastrophization turns into background noise so people will take no notice one day when the sky really is falling.

2) Cruel derision followed by an inconvenient validation, such as the Swedish riot, is forming an impression that Trump is the boy who shouted out that the Emperor has no clothes. To his fans, those who attack are degenerates trying to trick everybody that there are sumptuous robes.

FWIW, from the UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4258014/Was-Trump-right-Sweden.html