>>>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?

Because I strongly dislike the demagogue tones getting stronger on all sides. I am glad that PC speech is no longer something to aim for, but am sad that the current way that is reached is via a way that might be similar to frying pan/fire pun. I would prefer to get *facts* reported, not filtered via some higher motive and/or target wordage. Campaign speeches are lousy byproduct necessary of getting a vote, but should not become modus operandi of all times.

Example of something over here: If nationality/heritage/fugitive status/religuos extremity becomes important to the public, start mentioning it in all cases. Facts are never wrong, but only partial coverage/conscious filtering can be the same as a factual lie (what was the name of that famous fat/heart attack study where only 7 countries were reported so that a nice curve could be fitted?)

I am NOT accusing DT of anything fascist, but I would like to ground him a bit: the vice list of the 24 dimensions he is supreme in is one of the examples is one of the points of rhetoric where DT creates a lot of distrust in me personally ;-)

I think trying to link DT to anti-semitic stuff is pure hogwash: more tries to get traction by pure mudslinging in the hope something sticks in the perception of a subset of voters.

Less rhetoric, more facts on both sides. Which for me would also mean less boasting on DT side, esp. for things like the sun rising again...