No one made that claim, but yes, it does. I bet you had a good ol' time making mountains out of molehills over Obama's alleged birthplace, no?
The birthplace of the said assailant/asshat makes a difference to your primary statement/argument:
Syntaxed said: "Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)"
EDIT: This is a clear, unambiguous claim that he was an immigrant, since you seem to not comprehend your own post.

It proves that you are speaking from a position that starts with a total ignorance of or disregard for the facts in order to support factually deficient demagoguery. The asshat in question was not one of those we are "letting into the country"
According to Wiki, in the last 6 years, only 8 out of 21 terrorist attacks in the US were committed by Muslims, but 10 were committed by anti-government non-Muslim right wingers. I guess a ban on all right wing immigrants would make MORE sense?

Your reply proves that you know you have no argument to make, as you instantly discard it when challenged to chase red herrings.

We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. For a person who wants to go out in a blaze of infamy, we are custom tailored to give them their last 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Again, we have a nebulous definition of what it takes to get on the watch list. I could be placed on it simply by stating something to the effect that "I support ISIS", even though I don't. Restricting people who manage to end up on a government list is the same as removing their right to a firearm after committing a felony offense, only you have removed every single bit of their right to a legal defense. There is no due process to being placed on a US watchlist, you get put on and fuck you if it was a mistake. Maybe they'll take you off later, who knows?

I am not going to defend a slippery slope argument on this, I don't have to. It's already happened in the years since 2001. The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights. Not only our rights, but other countries. We have violated their security, spied on their people and leaders, and we perform acts of war on their territories with impugnity. All because we lost two buildings and 2,996 people; a heinous act, but one our government exploited to put us into 2 wars with a death toll to people who may not even be our enemies that dwarf our loss. In short, we fucking have the slippery slope process down to a SCIENCE.

So, firstly, I must agree with @ChaosEngine, a commencement speech is no place for political commentary. A commencement speech's purpose is to allow one who has paved a complex path through life and come out on top, or one who has overcome something great, (and) has a important lesson for those less-learned to share their knowledge, that it may be used for good.

(God that sentence is long, let me catch my virtual breath...)

Next, why, if he is to provide political commentary during a commencement speech, as so many do nowadays, does he slam Trump?

Anybody? Is it his hair? Is it his puffy little face? Is it because he looks like a pumpkin? No? Perhaps its because he is a disaster waiting to happen, because that seems to be the general sentiment from many people who are allowed to speak their minds en-masse nowadays...

But how is Trump worse than Clinton? Hmmm? Perhaps there are buried rape cases THAT WERE MADE PUBLIC BTW, in Trump's past? No?

Perhaps making billions of dollars FROM ONE MILLION is just inherently evil? Hmmm, no?

Okay, that Hairdo, it must burn a hole in the Ozone layer wherever he walks... Or flames must flower at his feet, as lotus flowers did for the Buddha? NO?

Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)

Hmmm, maybe electing someone who actually admits there is a problem, destroying political correctness, and being damned with the "established order" which supposedly keeps you Americans safe isnt such a bad idea...

Maybe electing a Woman with a hideous blot of a record, and a long standing member of said establishment is one such bad idea...

I don't know about the rest of the world, but the UK has had our Sanders moment and our Sanders (Jeremy Corbyn) won. He's had it very tough, receiving nothing but bad coverage from a very establishment controlled, rich elite controlled press. They lie about him or things that he has said either by omission or commission and establishment politicians within his own party try each week to cook up another scandal to weaken his leadership.

Getting them elected as a candidate is only the first very small step, but at least we did that. I believe that some other European countries have recently seen a surge in popularity for left-leaning candidates and/or have just managed to defeat a right wing candidate into power.

Having said all that, i think it was a joke. But if America finds itself in a position where it has a choice between idiocy and corruption it is only because of economic policy and the power/money/greed cycle which has led us to crony capitalism and neo liberalism. America led the developed world during that time period, so of course they would see the most extreme effects.

No, we get exactly zero coverage of F3 on free to air in Australia. The most we'd expect is a replay of that type of crash on the news or on RPM.

Thanks for the link

He's a bit of a nut for sure, but I'm getting sick of this style of coverage.

He says he wouldn't raise the minimum wage [federally], then he says he thinks it's an issue that should be decided state by state. That doesn't sound like a change in position to me. That just sounds to me like he wants the minimum wage to accommodate local factors.

I don't know much about Trump. I'm not even American. If someone puts together a montage like this to undermine a political figure and the very information they present me with runs against the narrative they're selling, it's shoddy workmanship.

!
I really don't think 50 ft from what looks to be at least an F3 is "safe distance", but that's just, like, my opinion, man. ;-)
I really hope the rental car insurance doesn't cover driving into a tornado. In Iceland, rental car companies offer a separate coverage for wind damage (hail, sand, debris, etc) but it's NOT covered with just the basic insurance normally offered.

People talk about how much dollar value media exposure he got for free, but I think it's more the lack of criticism by networks afraid of losing access to him. That and being afraid of alienating the viewers who support him.

Instead you get the usual news equivocation of opposing views as equally valid and the treating of his policy ideas as serious proposals no matter how loony.

Similar to the Daily Show under Stewart, polit-satire shows like Colbert are able to get away with more direct criticism because it's under the umbrella of 'it's comedy, so everything is fair game' so I wouldn't equate him with more general TV news coverage.

Plenty of written coverage has been very good (Economist, Vox, hell even Fox had some good criticism):

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/03/any-republican-who-thinks-its-better-to-elect-trump-than-hillary-needs-their-head-examined.html

But obviously that has a much narrower reach or effect on publicity.

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

"I covered this entire planet once."

I didn't know that and doubted it, so I googled. Link says that before around 1 billion years ago, water (ocean) covered 95% of the surface of the earth, and then continents erupted relatively quickly, geologically speaking.

However, I think that 95% coverage figure (and possibly more earlier on?) would mostly be owed to the crust and mantle being relatively flat and smooth after cooling down from being a largely molten ball very early on. Now that the earth has cooled enough to allow plate tectonics to push stuff around and create subduction zones and mountain ranges, there are too many high-elevation points (and low elevation chasms for the ocean to fill in) for the ocean to ever cover the entire earth again. Even if all of the ice on the earth melted, apparently sea level would only rise by about 70 meters / 230 feet.

So the "and I can always cover it again" bit at the end is a bit overstated. We'd almost certainly be dead as a species if conditions were extreme enough to melt all of the ice around the world, but not because of being drowned off of dry land to live on.

I think that's just because people found it quite suspicious that close associates of Putin were on the list. Isn't it the point that his name wouldn't be found?

Our local coverage is more interested in Wilson Security (one of the companies employed to staff our Gulags) and the Kwok brothers, but Putin and Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson have been mentioned too (and Lionel Messi).

He compares 13 minutes to 6 hours as some sort of huge difference in training. They are almost exactly identical in substance and meaning at those numbers.

Cheaper, more convenient, better coverage in our city, cleaner vehicles, more friendly drives, the list goes on and on. If the taxi cab companies could offer something similar then I might think of using them again. But they got beat to the punch and now they are going to lose their shirts. Too little, too late.

The Air Force is quite silly when it comes to close ground support. They never learn that the 'we'll be in and out before they can touch us' doesn't work well.

To give you an idea of what they are planning to return us to with this idea and plane, I refer you to the Vietnam War. The F4 was capable of fast fly-by's, but the problem was that in the foliage it was hard to hit targets at speed. Therefore the F4's had to start reducing speed and take higher attack angles, which caused an issue with the engines. Flameouts and stalls were rampant because the plane was designed for fast fly-by's, not the type of combat it was seeing. Additionally, the slow speed and high AoA EXPOSED the plane to severe enemy return fire. The F-4, by 1 January 1972, ranked second to the F-105 in SEA combat losses-362 (all models), most of them downed by the enemy. Later, in F-4Es alone, the Air Force lost eight in 2 months of intensive combat.

The Air Force found that relying extensively on Helicopters such as the Cobra was ineffective as well. They could deliver good anti-personnel coverage, but not hard targets. They were also slower to arrive to the combat arena. Finally, no helicopter we have ever put in combat, prior to the Apache, has been heavily armored. We don't use Hinds like Russia. The Apache is armored with Kevlar areas and reinforced armor around the cockpit, and has proven effective in open land combat, but has not been extensively tested in areas of high cover during actual combat.

Ironically, the painful lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of another aircraft, The A-10. Sadly, we are going to waste a ton of money and probably quite a few pilots before we learn this lesson again.

Probably received more coverage than at any single point of his campaign.

That's funny, didn't you just say I believe the lies people tell? ;-)
Bernie is AHEAD of Clinton in newer national polls, and beats her in EVERY POSSIBLE situation...against Trump, Cruz, or Kucinich, while Clinton barely wins against Trump and Cruz, and looses to Kucinich.
"Better solutions" is an opinion. In my opinion, his solutions are FAR better than any others offered by other candidates, and are supported by more people than any other candidates ideas.

You've been had by the media who wants a Clinton VS Trump race. Please note, many of Clinton's biggest donors are media corporations...and it shows in their coverage.