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
False equivalency. Protestants, Catholics and Jews have a variety of viewpoints and interpretations of their religions, and people disagree without fatwas being put on the dissenters. Is that true in most Islamic countries?
Wait until you get to post #89. Heh.
Oh. What I heard was that he was a candidate for chair and the video I watched showed the clown was promptly booed off stage.
Contrast that with the Republican party which nominated their clown for president.
Oh. Is that what he said? Or are you putting words in his mouth?
Fred,
You keep accusing me of that, and then you ignored me when I posted a link. Let’s try that one more time:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/highlights-libertarian-party-presidential-debate/story?id=39464103
Money Quote:
In 2016, when asked if it was wrong for the US to intervene in WWII, his whole answer was “I don’t know.”
Now, Fred, in my world, “I don’t know” means someone is not sure. Based on what we know in 2016 about WWII, not being sure we should have intervened means that someone is not sure we should have stopped Hitler, and not sure if we should have gone after the Japanese after they attacked us.
Just because he did not say the the above paragraph, does not mean it is an unfair to say. We all know that WWII meant beating Hitler. That is the great understanding of most of the world about what WWII was about. You don’t get to claim otherwise, just because you are an individual.
Your candidate is a man who is not sure we should have moved to stop Hitler. Period. Own it.
You keep doing this thing lately where you frame someone else’s position on your own rhetorically self serving terms and then demand they “Own it.”
I’m not sure help helpful it is in fostering honest discussion.
All I am doing is pointing out where someone’s position leads logically. Now, if the bitter taste of that is unpalatable to you, I am truly sorry.
You have yet to actually respond to the meat of what Johnson said, I notice. You claim I put words in the man’s mouth, and when I respond with his actual words, you resort to attacking me.
Johnson said, in a press conference in 2016, we did not know if we should have gone into WWII. Not, “well in 1940 things were not clear” or “That is a complex question, and I’d like to break things down more at another time,” or even ” Nope, he said “I don’t know”.
And you cannot admit to what that means. You won’t even address it. You just claim I am putting words in the man’s mouth.
So yeah, I am calling on you to own what your guy said. Seems only fair, since anyone with any toe in the water thinking about voting for Trump is asked to own every last thing he says.
What is the punishment under Sharia for Homosexuals again?
At this site you’re supposed to take people at their word. If this was done to you, and I know because it’s happened in the past, you would be annoyed. So stop.
I am taking him at his word. He said “I don’t know”. Fred also said he was not sure we should have engaged in WWII.
Not engaging in WWII means not fighting to stop Hitler and not fighting back against the Japanese who attacked us because if we did not go into WWII, we would not have done those things.
So, if you are not sure we should have gone into WWII, you are not sure we should have done those things.
I am not putting words into someone’s mouth, I am pointing out what they mean. And Fred, God love him, also is not sure we should have gone into WWII, so he really does need to own that, even knowing Hitler was gassing Jews en mass, that he is not sure we should have gone into WWII. Even though the Japanese attacked us in a sneak attack, he is not sure we should have gone to war.
But excuse me, you absolutely are putting words in his (and now my) mouth. Because he wasn’t asked about “engaging,” he was asked about intervening. And we most certainly intervened. Despite your casual exclusion of inconvenient facts from the discussion, US intervention in WW2 absolutely predates December 7, 1941. Your paraphrasing (whether deliberately self serving or just sloppy) changes the question.
Now, whether the US should have intervened is indeed an interesting and complex historical question with any facets and would make for an interesting discussion. Rather than discuss this on its own terms, you want to grandstand, use it do bludgeon Johnson, and then demand I “own” a position that I do not hold.
Is that an “I don’t know”?
Right, because when the person asking used “intervened”, they meant it to be parsed that finely?
You are just the same as a ProTrump person trying to thread the needle for Trumpisms.
But hey, let’s stick with your parsing intervening. It still means that in 2016, you, Fred Cole, “don’t know” if the US should have intervened in WWII to stop Hitler from Gassing Jews.
The answer, by the way, since you don’t know, is “Yes”.
I’m not parsing anything, nor threading any needles. All I’m doing is discussing the question as asked. Something that, for whatever reason, you’re unwilling or unable to do.
You may have not noticed, but I’m also not debating the question. That’s because its something that deserves its not thread, not just an awkward shoehorning into a thread about Donald Trump’s Orlando speech.
Does anyone know if there is video of this?
If he’s talking bout about the LP debate in Orlando, the full video of the debate is up on YouTube, I watched it yesterday.
The questions is around the 1:17 mark. Johnson is the fifth to respond.
What does he say?
When asked if it was wrong for the US to intervene in WW1 and WW2, he says “I don’t know.” Which I can understand, because that would be my answer too.
Nfn, but this should really be its own thread…
Having now watched it, I am deeply unimpressed. For crissakes.
https://youtu.be/EOGple27Jo0?t=4510
So do you see a substantive difference between “intervening” and “engaging”?
You stopped engaging me in the Libertarian Thread on this.
But, above you don’t know if it was wrong for the US to Intervene in WWII.
Therefore, you don’t know if it was wrong for the US to act to Stop Hitler from killing Jews.
I can help you here: No, it was not wrong.
NFN but the justification for stopping the holocaust was not used when we entered the war. 20/20 hindsight is pointless.
When asked in 2016, you get to use hindsight. The questions was not one of “at the time” it was asked in the now.