Donald Trump: To stop ISIS recruiting, maybe we should be talking to Bill Gates about ‘closing that Internet up in some way’

“The idea actually sounds similar to Hillary Clinton’s,” Robert Hackett reports for Fortune. “The year’s top presidential contenders have begun floating their plans to combat the self-identified Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS).”

“Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is floating the idea of employing Silicon Valley’s ‘great disrupters’ to block the extremist group’s online communications and content,” Hackett reports. “At a campaign rally aboard the USS Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, S.C., Trump suggested that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, could possibly help censor parts of the online world.”

Because we’re losing a lot of the people to the Internet. And we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening; we have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say “Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech!” These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We’ve got to maybe do something with the Internet because they are recruiting by the thousands. They’re leaving our country and then, when they come back, we take them back, “Oh, come on back. Where were you?” “I was fighting for ISIS.” “Oh, come on back. Go home. Enjoy yourself.” When they leave our country and they go to fight for ISIS or any of the other groups, they [can] never come back, they never can come back. They never can come back. They can never, ever, ever, ever come back. It’s over.

How ’bout that? And now they become radicalized, they’re totally radicalized. And how about the woman? She was in Pakistan, then Saudi Arabia. She… comes in on an engagement deal [fiancee visa] and she radicalized the guy. Probably a guy couldn’t get women. I don’t know what the hell his problem [was]. Probably the first woman he’s ever… I don’t know what was going on, but he became radicalized quickly. You notice how easy it is? He becomes radicalized and them they go on a spree.

Folks, those days are over. Those days are over. We have to be tough. We have to be smart. We have to be vigilant. Yes, we have to look at mosques. And we have to respect mosques. But, yes, we have to look at mosques. We have no choice. — Donald Trump

Internet comments begin at the 23:35 mark:

Hackett writes, “For all the ambiguities that remain in the plan — and yes, there are many — Trump’s idea actually sounds rather similar to Clinton’s, though it is a bit more ridiculously presented through his sole name-checking of the tech magnate.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Holy crap! No wonder “traditional” politicians like Hillary and Jeb look like they just saw Bigfoot skimming across Loch Ness atop a pink unicorn.

Mouths agape, they must ask themselves daily, “How do we respond to that?”

We’ll give Trump one thing: He is entertaining. Judging from newsreels, so was… well, let’s stop there as we don’t want to get arrested for violating Godwin’s Law.

And now, here are our Takes repurposed from our response to Hillary Clinton’s “ideas” from yesterday as they are equally applicable to these “ideas” from Trump:

As per Trumps’s comment, “Somebody will say ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech!'”

As if predicting what somebody will say somehow obviates the point.

Freedom of speech is not a nuisance to be dispensed with when one doesn’t like or agree with the speech. Either everybody has freedom of speech or nobody does.

Adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

• Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. — Alfred Whitney Griswold, 16th President of Yale University

• If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. —Noam Chomsky

• None of us should accept that the government or a company or anybody should have access to all of our private information. This is a basic human right. We all have a right to privacy. We shouldn’t give it up. We shouldn’t give in to scare-mongering or to people who fundamentally don’t understand the details.Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 27, 2015

• Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. — U.S. President Harry S. Truman

• Terrorism is horrible and must be stopped. All of us must do everything we can do to stop this craziness… these people shouldn’t exist. They should be eliminated… You don’t want to eliminate everyone’s privacy. If you do, you not only don’t solve the terrorist issue but you also take away something that is a human right. The consequences of doing that are very significant. Apple CEO Tim Cook, February 27, 2015

• Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Visit the Apple-backed reformgovernmentsurveillance.com today.

SEE ALSO:
Hillary Clinton: We need to put Silicon Valley tech firms to ‘work at disrupting ISIS’ – December 7, 2015
Tim Cook attacks Google, U.S. federal government over right to privacy abuses – June 3, 2015
Apple CEO Tim Cook advocates privacy, says terrorists should be ‘eliminated’ – February 27, 2015
Apple’s iPhone encryption is a godsend, even if government snoops and cops hate it – October 8, 2014
Short-timer U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder blasts Apple for protecting users’ privacy against government overreach – September 30, 2014
FBI blasts Apple for protective users’ privacy by locking government, police out of iPhones and iPads – September 25, 2014
Apple thinks different about privacy – September 23, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook ups privacy to new level, takes direct swipe at Google – September 18, 2014
Apple will no longer unlock most iPhones, iPads for government, police – even with search warrants – September 18, 2014
Would you trade privacy for national security? Most Americans wouldn’t – August 6, 2014
Apple begins encrypting iCloud email sent between providers – July 15, 2014
Obama administration demands master encryption keys from firms in order to conduct electronic surveillance against Internet users – July 24, 2013
U.S. NSA seeks to build quantum computer to crack most types of encryption – January 3, 2014
Apple’s iMessage encryption trips up U.S. feds’ surveillance – April 4, 2013

63 Comments

  1. Good. The sooner he’s eased out (smoothly without trying a third party run) and someone like, oh, Ted Cruz, can get to work unifying the party around conservative principles, the better!

    1. Yeah, Ted Cruzs, he’s our guy.

      He just wants to hate everything that’s not Christian.

      Conservative Principle Number 1- scoop out brain, replace with poop.

  2. Here is the perfect, respectable, right wing candidate we’ve been looking for.

    First 2014, it’s great to see that yours is the party of ideas, full of strong men with great ideas who will surely make those Democrats who speak from reason and knowledge of the situation.

    Yes, it’s a great time to be a conservative.

        1. No, he’s pointing out the perversion of the post-1960’s Democrat party. I could explain each one of those photos, but I’ll just explain the Zimmerman vs Martin case: it was portrayed as a white man shooting an innocent black man when it was actually a hispanic man shooting a black man who has a criminal record.

      1. Isn’t it just SO cute how some of the peasants clamor SO loudly for us to have even more money and even more power — all in the supposed name of the supposed benefits for peasants! I LOVE it.

  3. For some people, it’s like watching your sports team do things that you don’t agree with but you find a way to convince yourself that because, well, it’s your team, so you SHOULD support them. I would imagine that many with the same internal conflicts are trying to convince themselves to vote Republican… to grin n’ bear it if Trump becomes the candidate. They’re not saying much… but looking at the opposition instead…. picking faults, instead of picking positive qualities.

    I’ve never understood how people identify with saying “I AM a Replican, or I AM a Democrat or I AM a Libertarian.”

    Who you ticked off on a paper ballot shouldn’t have any bearing on who you ARE as a person.

    1. I believe in small, efficient government. I believe in the U.S. Constitution. I believe in strong defense for its deterrent capability and ability to stabilize the world. I believe in lawful immigration. I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in strong border control. I believe in states rights and a weak federal government. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in the free market over centralized government control. I believe in teaching a man to fish, not handing him fish in exchange for his vote.

      I AM a Republican (conservative) as I’m certainly not going to get any of the things I believe in from the Democrats, that’s for sure.

      1. See, you miss the point about the difference between choosing someone to lead and bring a groupie.

        Don’t let a party shape who YOU are. Aligning your values with a party is one thing. My Party, right or wrong… is quite another.

      2. “I believe in small, efficient government”

        The periods of biggest expansion of the US government have been under Republican administration.

        “I believe in the U.S. Consititution.”

        Trump is proposing to trample all over it.

        “I believe in strong defense for its deterrent capability and ability to stabilize the world.”

        Please tell us when that has EVER worked in practice.

        “I believe in lawful immigration.”

        Then you should not be supporting Trump.

        “I believe in the right to bear arms.”

        Why? If you’re going to quote the Second Amendment, you clearly don’t understand WHY that Admendment was actually included. It’s irrelevant today – in fact it’s been irrelevant for decades.

        “I believe in states rights and a weak federal government.”

        Why? You do realize this doesn’t match up with your third, fourth or sixth points, don’t you?

        “I believe in personal responsibility.” Fair point.

        “I believe in the free market over centralized government control.” This sounds nice in theory, but has never worked in practice.

        “I believe in teaching a man to fish, not handing him fish in exchange for his vote.”

        Empty platitude. Who is going to do the teaching? Can’t be the government because you believe in small government. Not going to be the ‘free market’ because there’s no profit to be made in teaching everybody – only in teaching those who can afford to pay.

        1. Ding, ding, ding… We have a WINNER!!

          Many on the right no longer care a bit about FACTS. Hence, the popularity of ‘The Donald’ and other far right clowns who are often outed by non-partisan fact-checkers. If you take a look at many of the claims made by conservative media and politicians over the past 8 years (‘Obama is a Muslim commie dictator who wants to destroy America’, ‘Obama not born in U.S.’, ‘Death Panels in the ACA’, ‘the economy will tank and gas prices will skyrocket’, etc), you’ll find they were wildly off base. Did they believe this nonsense or were they purposely misinforming the American public?? Likely the latter, but either way, it makes no sense to trust their judgement or ability to lead a nation.

        2. “Why? If you’re going to quote the Second Amendment, you clearly don’t understand WHY that Admendment was actually included. It’s irrelevant today – in fact it’s been irrelevant for decades.”

          Forget anything else you’ve said, you show right here you have no clue and are doing nothing more than spewing liberal talking points from the DNC.

          http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/2nd-amendment.html

          “When the Revolutionary War ended and the Americans were making their new Constitution, they were very aware of the need for self-defense. They still needed protection from Indians and they wanted to be able to defend themselves from any external enemies that might arise. They were also very aware that the new government they were creating could turn corrupt and they wanted to defend themselves from it if necessary.

          After all, Thomas Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence that if a government failed to protect its citizens and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it! So one reason the citizens wanted to be armed was not just for defense against external enemies. They wanted protection from their own government!

          Noah Webster believed that having an armed public would prevent the government from becoming corrupted because the people would have more power than the government itself. He wrote:

          “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

          Wonder if you can find one reason in there why the left wants firearms banned…

          Usually stay out of these threads because of the BS on both sides being thrown out.

          This was just from the first link I found, there are MANY others that you or others can read to understand the 2nd Amendment, historically accurate and not from the lefts more recent point of view.

          When you interpret the Constitution by using current words and their meaning…. you are 100% wrong. you MUST read the words with their historical meanings AT THAT TIME, and also WHERE they were to be originally inserted in the Constitution. (THAT makes a huge difference)

  4. Donald Trump is so clueless he’s certainly an appropriate leader for the USUS organization.

    I love what he said: “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,”

    Right Donald Trump, it has nothing to do with USUS disregarding other sovereign nations, the torture platter you serve to innocent people, bombing of a hospital, your industrial spying and sabotage. No you are stupid enough to believe it is the internet and you want to censor away and remove freedom of speech. It’s a good trip back to the fear cave that’s for sure.

    He’ll make a fine president for USUS, that is if he makes it.

  5. Trump enjoys his lead in the polls of those who adhere to a conservative belief system because he knows that playing to fear will always work (it always has). He won’t be elected because historically we as a people have never voted in someone who uses extremist language. Nixon’s advice was accurate.. “Run as hard as you can to the right to win the nomination then run back to the center to win the election” BUT this implies for Trump that he has some measure of verbal control. He’s never shown that he has. So it’s far more likely that Rubio will rise since he’s the most reasonable alternative and is the most electable, largely thanks to hispanic support. But his campaign will suffer from less financial backing. Bernie Sanders has some very good ideas (some are clearly WAY out of whack) and he’s ideologically consistent. He’s a good man in many ways but too old. Hillary is untrustworthy.. has been shown to be liar, and whips with the wind for political purposes.. nonetheless, her campaign is very well organized, well financed and for many women (certainly not all) she is just that… a woman with experience and talent (hard to deny that) as political animal. She’s very very smart. She will most likely be our next president since Trump won’t command the necessary support for an electoral college win. If you look across the nation.. unemployment is very low, even with the hidden numbers who have given up, and while we now have a struggling middle class, there are ways to bring them back as we reform the economy. No political party has lock on the hearts and minds of the entire nation. They never have. But this time around.. Trump is too over the top, Rubio has no money, and Hillary will take anyone to the mat in a debate because she’s GOOD at it and a man can’t be seen as being pushy with a woman. Sorry but that’s a real factor here.

    1. “… Trump enjoys his lead in the polls of those who adhere to a conservative belief system because he knows that playing to fear will always work (it always has)….”

      Yes and no. I believe that the Trump factor has largely grown out of good people be so constantly abused by the extreme hypocrisy and absurdity of the left, that Trump allows them to hit back with equally absurd messages.

      You keep calling me a racist and a homophobe etc. etc., well fine. You get your way. Here’s my batshit crazy candidate to prove you right. Ha ha.

      When just expressing concern about unchecked illegal immigration gets you labeled as all sorts of hateful thing, then hell, why not just go with it?

      If you say, “All lives matter, not just black lives,” you’re a racist.

      If you say, “This is America, we all enjoy equal protection under the law, and we do not adhere to sharira law, ” you’re an Islamaphobe.

      When branding you as a hateful human being is the primary policy of the other party, it gets old. Eventually the frustration is going to emerge in an equally absurd backlash and that is what Trump is. Pure blowback.

      If you want to see the real creators of the trump phenomenon, look no further than the left. The right is throwing your own poo right back-atcha.

      1. The way to demonstrate that a conservative is not a racist, homophobic, anti-immigration nut is to support candidates that are not racist, homophobic, anti-immigration nuts.

        And who cares what people call “conservatives”. “Conservatives” are constantly calling “liberals” names too.

        Be independent.

        Don’t label yourself “conservative” or “liberal” as those words been so co-opted by politicians and the media to mean “Republican” and “Democrat” instead of anything rational or constructively debatable.

      2. Trumps campaign runs on fear, ignorance, racism, and media manipulation. Since ALL media feeds on whatever produces the most adrenaline, he simply leverages that fact to his advantage. But poll numbers, and media coverage are not votes. It’s not a matter of him saying something in response to hypocrisy or absurdity. That’s a shallow observation. He’s just doing what Huey P. Long, Hitler, Juan Peron, Castro and others have done throughout history. Play on fears by being the “strongman”… it’s the same tactic employed by all dictators who rise to power largely through their rhetoric. He’s not going be President. America isn’t that stupid.

      3. Does ANYONE really still stupidly believe that “Black Lives Matter” means “ONLY Black Lives Matter” – seriously? That’s a dumb way to interpret something that clearly means “ALSO!”

        So, when people say “All Lives Matter” in response, they are basically lying. The Black Lives Matter movement is asserting something that other people’s actions were denying.

        But, just in case anyone really is innocent/ignorant of why saying “All Lives Matter” as a _response_ to “Black Lives Matter” is wrong, just go read this: https://www.reddit.com/comments/3du1qm/

        No more excuses for that head-in-the-sand attitude.

    2. On of the things I enjoy about USUS elections is that they take so long and during that time their beat up the world activities get a pause while they fight amongst themselves. It’s sure is a boon to global security.

      I’m just waiting for a candidate to come out and say that the USUS will return to civilized behavior, like adhering to their constitution as MDN often points out, closing Guatanamo Bay and any other torture resorts USUS has, and maybe just maybe respecting people’s privacy, other sovereign nations, you get the point, civilized behavior. I don’t see such a candidate, it’s more business as usual, and war is USUS business, after all they were born in war, and with 80% of their history has been at war they are exemplary war mongers threatening global security.

      I know it’s wishful thinking to expect a candidate to have enough morals and ethics to bring G.W.Bush and company to the Hague to answer for war crimes and crimes against humanity but I’m not too worried, cause the karma coming towards USUS will really clear the air.

  6. Here’s a novel approach to the problem: Get out of their backyard and quit selling them weapons.

    Maybe if we didn’t overthrow the leaders who keep the nutjobs in check and maybe if we quit bombing their wedding parties and maybe if we quit selling all sides weapons, the nutjobs would tend to leave us alone and devote their energies to killing each other.

    Just a wild thought.

    1. What’s novel about that? It’s been tried that way, too. 9/11 still happened. Obama’s been apologizing and bowing to shieks for 7+ years now and San Bernardino still happened. As always, brutal barbarians only understand one thing: Force.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.