Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Donald Trump Delivers Blistering Speech in Response to Orlando Terror Attack
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump spoke today on the threat of Islamist terror in the aftermath of the grisly Orlando attack which left 50 dead and 52 wounded. Using a teleprompter, a rare occurrence for the campaign, Trump outlined his plan to defeat ISIS and “make America safe again.” (The speech starts at about the 10:25 mark.)
Delivered in Manchester, NH, the 35-minute speech began with a criticism of Hillary Clinton, saying “she lacks the temperament and integrity to be our President.” Trump noted that “the attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL was the worst terror strike on our soil since Sept. 11 and the worst mass shooting in our country’s history,” and asked for a moment of silence for the dead.
“Our nation stands together in solidarity with Orlando’s LGBT community,” he said. “It’s a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation. It’s an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity.”
The speech wasn’t without standard Trump lines, stating again and again that our country has big problems, emphasizing his toughness, and his opposition to political correctness. It also included incorrect claims, such as claiming that the Pulse terrorist “was born in Afghan” [sic] when he was actually born in the U.S. (After a pause, he added “of Afghan parents,” so perhaps that was an error from reading the teleprompter.)
Although he has gone back and forth on the issue, Trump reiterated his plan to ban Muslim immigration until “we’re in a position to properly and perfectly screen these people.” He added, “thousands and thousands of people, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer” are pouring into the country.
“Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-American. I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people, are targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.” He added, “We need to tell the truth about radical Islam and we need to do it now.”
“When it comes to radical Islam, ignorance is not bliss. It’s deadly,” Trump said, targeting the failures of Clinton and President Obama. “I will have an Attorney General, a Director of National Intelligence, and a Secretary of State who know how to fight the war on radical Islamic terror. And they will have the tools they need to do it right. Not like it’s being done now. It’s not right.”
In hitting Clinton, Trump went from legitimate concerns to overblown fearmongering, saying that radical Islamists are “trying to take over our children, and convince them how wonderful ISIS is” and claiming that the US has no screening system, when we do, albeit an insufficient one. But he is right to note that “the burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans. “
“Ask yourself who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community,” he said, “Donald Trump with his actions or Hillary Clinton with her words? I will tell you who the better friend is and someday I believe that will be proven out — bigly.”
Several commentators on the left and right criticized the speech for the usual Trumpian gaffes, misstatements, braggadocio, and lack of detail. But his tough talk on Islamic terror offered a dramatic and welcome contrast to the minced words and vague sentiments offered by President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Published in Islamist Terrorism
So you don’t acknowledge that Trump gave a good speech, better that any of his opposition on the subject?
I think he gave a bad speech, better than any of his opponents on the subject. This is what I mean about people convincing themselves that Trump is good when he’s actually just less bad.
I’m not having any trouble maintaining that strictly objective position. I also think that position is well supported by the topic at hand.
And constantly pointing out hoe bad Trump is, slides Into Clinton support. If you move just one voter from Trump to Clinton, congratulations, you are a Clinton supporter.
If you don’t want Trump to win, you want Clinton to win.
If you actively work to dissuade people from voting for Trump, you are working to help Clinton.
I don’t hold that against you Sal, but you sure seem to hold support for Trump against us. Anything Trump does wrong is a sign your support for Clinton is right, and anything he does right, is not real anyway.
Well, that was embarrassing, even to read. The shooter was first and foremost an unstable sociopath. Let’s ban unstable sociopaths instead.
Bryan- I don’t hold your support of Trump against you. I’ve stated repeatedly that voting for Trump because you think Clinton will be worse is a respectable position. What I am objecting to is what I perceive to be a relaxation in standards by people who are reluctantly supporting Trump. Ask yourself, if Trump gave the speech he gave today six months ago when Ted Cruz was still an alternative would you think so highly of trumps statement?
Here’s how the Clinton’s do goalpost shifting with the term Radical Islam. Pay attention and learn at the feet of the master.
Q: “You said “Radical Islam”.
H: “Radical Islam is not true Islam.”
Q: “That’s not what you said.”
H: “IF you’d let me finish and STOP interrupting me you’d know that I’ve clearly distinguished on many, many occasions as I’ve said on [insert bald faced lie referring to non existent speech] that Radical Islam is not True Islam which is, as I and the administration have always maintained, not True Islam.”
There. See how easy that was.
Now, if you think she will stick to the script during the debate then I’ll go fetch Monica myself.
Unstable sociopaths take to Islam like bees to honey.
Yes. I liked Trumps statements then on building a wall, too. I have liked a lot of things he has said. All that was needed to stop Trump, was for the rest of the GOP to follow suit and mean it.
And, as Frank Soto has told me, Cruz really is no more interested in immigration reform than Rubio, so Trump was way where I wanted someone to be then.
I stand suitably corrected. If you’ve been a longstanding supporter of Trump on this issue my comments don’t apply to you. I disagree strongly with you, but I won’t call you inconsistent.
Like Saudi donors to the Clinton Foundation.
The tags could use a little work on this post.
Bryan, you are exactly on point. Trump’s speech today was a good speech. I just read the text. I’d be interested to hear any specific criticism of it. After the Orlando massacre, it was just what I wanted to hear.
Prez Omega, by contrast, pivots to gun control and reminds us that other religions besides Islam hold homosexuality to be wrong. Really? This murderer worked for a security company under contract to Homeland Security. Even if guns were banned in this country, HE woulda had one. And the “other religions” remark? Let me guess–like, uh, Christianity? Actually the NT says nothing about it–and We didn’t have 50 killed here en masse during the debate over gay marriage.
But you’re right. The anti-Trump Rump will never give him credit. If he does something no Republican can reasonably quarrel with, like, I would argue,this speech, and like his SCOTUS picks, they just say he doesn’t mean what he says.
So they’d rather elect Clinton; she announces her clear intention to enact policies that are anathema to them, but they’d rather know the worst is coming, than seize the hope that it could be averted.
I do not understand.
The video was recorded from a live stream. The YouTube channel is not ours.
Not a supporter of Trump, supporter of enforcement. Been that way since, oh 1987.
Pseudo for Ricochet Official Tagger!
I Would Bomb The Hell Out Of The Washington Post seems like an obvious tag poking fun at their hyperbole
Ugh. I watched this whole thing.
What is wrong with you people? Are you seriously going to vote for this guy?
You’ve supported a ban on Muslim immigration for 29 years?
What is wrong with you? Do you seriously support opening our borders to more of these savages?
I have been a supporter of stopping Illegals from Mexico since the first Amnesty.
I have been a supporter of keeping people from key nations out since, let’s see, I’d have to say, around about September 11, 2001.
It just happens that the majority of those nations are Muslim.
I’ll tell you something else: No one who thinks Gays should be put to death should be allowed to immigrate here. Not compatible with our Western Values.
That’s the difference, I guess. I’m an individualist, not a collectivist. That means I don’t believe in judging an entire ethnic or religious group based on the actions of a few of their members. I prefer to evaluate individuals.
You clearly have a different view of things. I just don’t share in your collectivism.
It is almost universal belief in Islam that homosexuals should be killed. I think that the odds are in favor that any given Muslim from Saudia Arabia would agree. It is the law there after all.
It is possible to judge whole groups by their actions when enough of them are that way. Islamic culture, as it is practiced around the world, is not compatible with your individualist nature.
It would be splendid if we had a screening/evaluation system that would allow us to individually assess whether any given person wishing to immigrate to the U.S. was an adherent of a murderous ideology.
Until we have such a system – we can only make judgments on some fairly sketchy outward characteristics, and on “probabilities.”
Or, I suppose, not make any judgments at all?
And, as with Christians and Jews, every member of the religious group believes exactly what they’re told by the one singular religious authority that they should believe. There’s certainly no discussion or disagreement or room for diverse views, especially among individuals.
No, wait. The complete opposite of all that.
Look, sorry, I’m just not a collectivist. I don’t judge people collectively. If you want to be a collectivist, that’s fine. (Well, it’s not fine, it’s actually horrible, but its your choice.)
I want neither of them to win. I prefer Gary Johnson so your theory fails.
He was born here. So yes, I’m open to US Citizens being allowed to travel to the US.
Right. Assuming that because 90% of a group believes something, that the person of that group believes it is “horrible”.
Or just good odds.
Gentlemen, pretend his thread is the war room; no fighting.
oh brother.
Though I’m with Trump in the sentiment about calling a spade a spade.
bigly.