Blatant Falsehoods of the Trump Administration
By Bilaal Kazi
The outcome of the US election has sent the world into an upheaval, whether you were for or against Trump.
From the very beginning, both parties accused each other of being filthy liars that couldn’t prove anything they said, having no factual evidence. However as of late, it seems the Trump administration is failing to provide the same they criticized others for lacking. After Sean Spicer falsely claimed the inauguration crowd size was the largest in history during his press briefing (link). This was proven false, however when questioned about it, Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway did not apologize, claimed that this was not a falsehood and that it was an ‘alternative fact’.
After Spicer’s multiple false claims, including a statement that said there were several versions of a national unemployment rate, I further began to question the truth behind statements from the Trump administration. Trump has been known for his anti-immigration policies right from the start, when trying to connect immigration with rising crime and terror rates. In his speech in Florida on the 18 February, 2016, Trump addressed recent attack targets by terrorists, he gave the impression that an attack had hit Sweden on the 17, “You look at what’s happened last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.” This claim was quickly proven false.
Trump’s statement, along with painting a false picture of immigrants and refugees also offended Sweden, who was proud of the large number of refugees they had given asylum to. Sweden quickly disproved the relation of rising crime and immigration in their nation by stating that only one terrorist attack had taken place in 2010, long before Sweden’s migration wave. Sweden further stated that though since the 1990s Sweden has had increasing number of immigrants, crime rates have declined. Trump and his administration’s knack for lies (or as they might call them ‘alternative facts’) raise questions in relation to being a suitable president. We need to question whether someone with his ethics should have such control over one of the world’s superpowers.