Comrade Trump Jr. compares Syrian Refugees to Skittles

[Correll]

You mean like the generalization that Syrians are terrorists?

I have never said all Syrians are terrorists. I have pointed out, though, that the Obama Terrorist Experts have warned Obama that terrorists have infiltrated the ranks of Syrian Refugees AND that Barry's 'vetting' process has not caught them

YOU, on the other hand, implied all Irish are drunks.

No one has said that all syrians are terrorists.


Liberals just lie about what conservatives say.


It is the only way they can "win" arguments.

Where in Trumps "Skittle" analogy does he make room for some Syrians not being terrorists?

My God.

The bowl is full. THREE of them will kill you/are terrorists.

HOW CAN YOU THINK HE IS CLAIMING THEY ALL WILL KILL YOU/ARE TERRORISTS?


Are you insane?


I don't see how I can explain this any simpler without you being here so I can actually help you count a bowl of skittles.

Trump is daring you to eat from the bowl of skittles because you don't know which ones are terrorists

THAT is his analogy. He is saying do not accept anyone from the bowl because they might be terrorists

He is NOT daring me to eat from the bowl.


He is saying to NOT eat from the bowl, because it is dangerous.


YOu are not making any sense.

 

[Meathead]

Very true...you can't get back people killed in car crashes. There were 32,000 of them last year vs less than 100 killed by terrorists.

Which is the more dangerous bowl of skittles?

How many unarmed blacks were killed by cops?

 

[Correll]

I face the same choice in everything I eat.

Bullshit...and bogus dodge. You are NOT told every day that some of what you are about to eat IS poisoned and some is not!

You just don't want to admit what Jr said was a great analogy. Like most rabidly partisan Libs, your ego and your partisanship won't ALLOW you to admit it.

'Nuff said...keep wallowing in your denial and distractions while making bigoted statements.

There is danger in everything we do..

Eating, driving a car, crossing the street, going out after dark....yet we still do it
We ignore the potential "bad skittles" and go on with our lives

Those who have been killed, can't get on with their lives. Because they are dead.


Do you want to increase that number?

Do you accept Terrorism as part of the new normal?

Very true...you can't get back people killed in car crashes. There were 32,000 of them last year vs less than 100 killed by terrorists.

Which is the more dangerous bowl of skittles?

Which bowl is easily avoided?

 

[Correll]

...and this needs to be said again:

If your first thought upon seeing others in desperate need or mortal danger is about your own safety, you are not brave, exceptional, or great. You are basically average. The average and unexceptional always think of themselves first. And that's fine for the average or unexceptional.

But don't try to sell me on being Great, or Exceptional, or Brave if you are just average or unexceptional. Parse it all you want, but if your response is that we shouldn't let in refugees because you're afraid, then at the end of the day you are not Great, Exceptional, or Brave. You are average at best. Dress it up in "being smart" or "being a survivor" but at the end of the day, when the chips are down, you act just like literally every average and unexceptional person does when faced with fear: You look after yourself first. And that's fine, but it means you aren't Great, Exceptional, or Brave. You're average.

Your assumption that this is about our personal safety is just that, your assumption.


I was not at the Boston Marathon. I was not at that Orlando Nightclub. I will almost certainly NOT be killed the next terrorist attack.


But some Americans will.

My concern is for THEIR safety, not my own.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

4. Nothing in your post explains why we should actively work to get more Americans horribly killed.

Are you saying we should stop making and bringing more guns into America?

Thirteen thousand Americans were horribly killed in gun homicides last year.

That's a LOT of poisoned Skittles!

Your "point" is a bumper sticker level gotcha.

It has failed. Give it up.

My point stands.



Nothing in your post explains why we should actively work to get more Americans horribly killed.

Explain the difference between gun owner Skittles and Syrian refugee Skittles.

Which Skittles have horribly killed the most Americans?

The guns are already here.......

Tell you what, let's get rid of the Syrians...today...and you can work on getting rid of the guns...tomorrow.

Can't be too safe.

 

[Correll]

So, we're now equating Islamofascist nutters to lawful gun owners?


What a bunch of loons.

It demonstrates how crappy the analogy is. And make no mistake, it is a crappy analogy.

It is an awfully callous analogy that we need to throw away the whole bowl because one or two pieces may be bad

I have often thrown away food that MIGHT be bad, rather than risk my child's health.

 

[Contumacious]

One would have to be retarded to the max to believe that after the number that uncle tom Obama has done to Syria that many of them would not want to retaliate against the US and Americans.


.

We let Vietnamese refugees into the country and many had a grudge against the us. They made good citizens

Incorrect.

In the 1950's Viet Nam was divided into two , the Communist North and the non communist South.

The US fought to liberate SOUTH VIETNAM from the tyrannical North.


In Syria, on the other hand

the US invaded that Country in order to support and defend Israel The US has invaded Syria in order to allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights and in order to make Israel the only power in the middle east. The US has financially and militarily aided ISIS and Al Nusrah , which are populated by former Baathists , Sunni, Iraqis who were displaced when Bush II invaded that Country.

So Syrians know, or should know, that the Obama administration invaded and destroyed their country PRIMARILY to comply with Israel demands.


.

The US has invaded Syria in order to allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights

Israel has easily held the Golan Heights for nearly 50 years.
They needed no help against little Assad.

in order to make Israel the only power in the middle east

They are the only military power in the middle east.

Well, your neocrazy homies didn't think so.


Neither does Obama, he is in Syria, ain't he?

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert,Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq."


,

The Syrian military can't even deal with the Syrian people....how are they a threat to the Israeli military?

Neither does Obama, he is in Syria,

Because he's a fucking moron, not because he wants to help Israel.

Well toasted, the EVIDENCE shows that your homies were concerned about Iraq and Syria.


Syria has been invaded by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Al Nusrah, ISIS, Turkey.

It has defended itself very well considering that it is a 10th rated military power.


.

 

[ptbw forever]

Here's the logic problem which has stumped Trump's Chumps:

A) If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful? That's our handgun owner problem.

B) If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful? That's our swimming pool problem.

C) If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful? That's our pet dog problem.

C) If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem.


Explain how D is flawless logic and A, B, and C are not.

LOL

There is no correlation between ABC and D.

Legal gun owners aren't the ones committing mass murder, it is the sick fucks who actually think they do that are most likely to kill with guns. Freud actually got the world reversed, it is the people who most fear guns and assign much more power to the gun than it is capable that go out and kill swaths of people with them just to prove how dangerous and awesome guns are.

Swimming pools that have cleared regular inspection have never killed anyone, so that is definitely not correlated with D.

Your last example isn't even redeemable.

The point of the analogy is that you stupid fucks are DEMANDING we eat from the bowl over and over again in the name of extreme altruism when we don't have to, and we can't do anything to remove inherent domestic problems.

I face the same choice in everything I eat.

Bullshit...and bogus dodge. You are NOT told every day that some of what you are about to eat IS poisoned and some is not!

You just don't want to admit what Jr said was a great analogy. Like most rabidly partisan Libs, your ego and your partisanship won't ALLOW you to admit it.

'Nuff said...keep wallowing in your denial and distractions while making bigoted statements.

There is danger in everything we do..

Eating, driving a car, crossing the street, going out after dark....yet we still do it
We ignore the potential "bad skittles" and go on with our lives

Those who have been killed, can't get on with their lives. Because they are dead.


Do you want to increase that number?

Do you accept Terrorism as part of the new normal?

Very true...you can't get back people killed in car crashes. There were 32,000 of them last year vs less than 100 killed by terrorists.

Which is the more dangerous bowl of skittles?

importing more people=more cars on the road=more car crashes.

 

[Correll]

Trayvon Martin and Skittles....another wink and nod to the Alt Right, the KKK of the 21st Century.

 

[Correll]

Here's something Trump's Chumps would know if they picked up a newspaper instead of getting their Tard News from propaganda mills: The largest group of the victims of terrorist attacks is...Muslims!

ISISBOOMBAH and Al Qaeda have killed more Muslims than all our Presidents and Vladimur Putin combined.

That's why the Syrian refugees are fleeing! Duh! They are trying to get AWAY from the terrorists.

To conflate the people fleeing terrorists with the terrorists is like confiscating your AK-47 because of Sandy Hook.

IT IS THE EXACT SAME TARDLOGIC™.

Your assumption that we do not know that is you being a normal closed minded lib.


And those muslims dying does not lessen the pain of Americans dying.

 

[Correll]

4. Nothing in your post explains why we should actively work to get more Americans horribly killed.

Are you saying we should stop making and bringing more guns into America?

Thirteen thousand Americans were horribly killed in gun homicides last year.

That's a LOT of poisoned Skittles!

Your "point" is a bumper sticker level gotcha.

It has failed. Give it up.

My point stands.



Nothing in your post explains why we should actively work to get more Americans horribly killed.

Explain the difference between gun owner Skittles and Syrian refugee Skittles.

Which Skittles have horribly killed the most Americans?

Immigrant terrorism is a problem easily solved by NOT importing it.


Violent shooting deaths, is not solved by NOT importing it.

Jesus, are you actually this dumb?

No, you are that blind.

 

[Correll]

Your faith in immigrants being a net benefit is a matter of opinion.

No, it is a fact.

No, it is really not.


It is a subjective judgement of a vastly complex question, with no standardization of categories, or weighting of different aspects, or agreed upon methods of measurement, or ect. ect ect.


A marxist economist would consider vastly different effects and results than a neo imperialist military historian, or a arm chair PBS fan.


For you to claim that your personal opinion on this is a "Fact" was incredibly stupid.

 

[Correll]

Only blue eyed, blond, white, Aryan types who are Christians should be allowed in this country. Those of other religions, or physical characteristics should be stopped at Ellis Island and interned before being shipped back. Remember! That cute 2 month old Muslim baby will be the Osama Bin Laden of 25 years from now!

 

[Correll]

Maybe because terrorism and holy war are not embedded in the Vietnam Culture, like in Islam.

Right. It is a cultural thing. Negros are lazy, Irish are drunks, Italians are criminals, Chinese are crafty, Jews are misers, Japanese are duplicitous, and Muslims are terrorists.

If they ever remake all in the family, you could try out for the part of Archie Bunker.

Well, then Correll, here is a whole new "culture" to be afraid of. White, Anglo-Saxon bikers shoot and kill 8 other white anglo-Saxon bikers in Waco.

Nothing in your post explains why we should be actively working to get more Americans horribly murdered.

If you are worried about Americans being horribly murdered, why don't you do something about gun violence?

I would love to.


INdeed, my support of Trump's trade and immigration policies, should, if he wins, lead to improved wages and jobs for working class and middle class workers.


THis increases the possibility of men being able to fill the "provider" role and thus form and support healthy families that would thus reduce illegitimacy and thus violent crime.

 

[Correll]

I am a man. I walk upright. I fear neither guns nor dogs nor swimming pools nor refugees. I recognize flawed arguments from a mile away.

Too bad Trump's Chumps cannot say the same.

Fear is the rational response to random death.

Those moments of fear are when you find out if all those platitudes about belief are something you really hold as important, or if you were just talking crap.

There's a lot of good people dying in Syria that wouldn't be dying if we take them in. This is the moment that the world will look and see what we're made of. Are we cowards that run away as fast as we can, or are we the brave and good people that head into trouble to help?

I've lived my whole life believing that we as a country are the people that run in and help, danger be damned. We saw that on 9/11 when firefighters ran into the Towers to help people out. We saw that as people stopped and helped others down the stairs when they could have just as easily ran past. We saw that when the passengers of United 93 took down their plane rather than give in to the terrorists. I've seen that in countless mass shootings as officers rush in to save lives.

This is no different, and it is a test just as important. It is a test the world failed back in the 40's when millions of Jews found themselves trapped in Nazi Germany because the whole world turned their back on them. It is a test. And if we fail this test, then we show the world our principles aren't worth crap.

So yeah, this Skittle analogy pisses me off. And yeah, I get pissed off when I see the cowards in this thread who have decided it is better to let people die than to help. So I will say this as clearly as I can:

If you are refusing to take in the lost and desperate because you are scared, you are not an American. You are not a Christian. You do not represent the values Americans hold. You do not represent the values of the "Shining City on the Hill." You do not represent the values of an America that is Great or Exceptional. You are cowards and weak. You represent a view of America that is no better, no more exceptional, and no more special than any other nation on Earth. You are not Making America Great Again! You are making us weak, cowardly, and at best average.

Stripped of your drama, your post comes down to calling me a coward because I put my personal safety ahead of the lives of Syrians.


Except.

That I recognize that the odds of me personally being harmed is very small.

My motivation is the certainty that OTHER AMERICANS will be killed.


So, fuck off.

More "other Americans" will be killed by toddlers than Syrian refugees. Where's your concern?

IN the threads where Toddler violence is the topic.

 

[Correll]

The Irish were drunks and hoodlums....

'Generalization' - the tell-tale sign of a BIGOT.

You mean like the generalization that Syrians are terrorists?

Who said that?

Trumps Skittle analogy

Ban all Syrians in the bowl because some may be terrorists

Some does not equal all.


Are you insane?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We let Vietnamese refugees into the country and many had a grudge against the us. They made good citizens

Incorrect.

In the 1950's Viet Nam was divided into two , the Communist North and the non communist South.

The US fought to liberate SOUTH VIETNAM from the tyrannical North.


In Syria, on the other hand

the US invaded that Country in order to support and defend Israel The US has invaded Syria in order to allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights and in order to make Israel the only power in the middle east. The US has financially and militarily aided ISIS and Al Nusrah , which are populated by former Baathists , Sunni, Iraqis who were displaced when Bush II invaded that Country.

So Syrians know, or should know, that the Obama administration invaded and destroyed their country PRIMARILY to comply with Israel demands.


.

The US has invaded Syria in order to allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights

Israel has easily held the Golan Heights for nearly 50 years.
They needed no help against little Assad.

in order to make Israel the only power in the middle east

They are the only military power in the middle east.

Well, your neocrazy homies didn't think so.


Neither does Obama, he is in Syria, ain't he?

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert,Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq."


,

The Syrian military can't even deal with the Syrian people....how are they a threat to the Israeli military?

Neither does Obama, he is in Syria,

Because he's a fucking moron, not because he wants to help Israel.

Well toasted, the EVIDENCE shows that your homies were concerned about Iraq and Syria.


Syria has been invaded by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Al Nusrah, ISIS, Turkey.

It has defended itself very well considering that it is a 10th rated military power.


.

Your source didn't list any of my homies.
Little Assad posed zero threat to the Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights.
Obama hates Israel.

Any other stupid claims you want to make?

It has defended itself very well considering that it is a 10th rated military power.

You bet. They defended their nuclear reactor like a 1st rate military power. DERP!

 

[Contumacious]

Incorrect.

In the 1950's Viet Nam was divided into two , the Communist North and the non communist South.

The US fought to liberate SOUTH VIETNAM from the tyrannical North.


In Syria, on the other hand

the US invaded that Country in order to support and defend Israel The US has invaded Syria in order to allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights and in order to make Israel the only power in the middle east. The US has financially and militarily aided ISIS and Al Nusrah , which are populated by former Baathists , Sunni, Iraqis who were displaced when Bush II invaded that Country.

So Syrians know, or should know, that the Obama administration invaded and destroyed their country PRIMARILY to comply with Israel demands.


.

The US has invaded Syria in order to allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights

Israel has easily held the Golan Heights for nearly 50 years.
They needed no help against little Assad.

in order to make Israel the only power in the middle east

They are the only military power in the middle east.

Well, your neocrazy homies didn't think so.


Neither does Obama, he is in Syria, ain't he?

This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush administration. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S. military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert,Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser, portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:

"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq."


,

The Syrian military can't even deal with the Syrian people....how are they a threat to the Israeli military?

Neither does Obama, he is in Syria,

Because he's a fucking moron, not because he wants to help Israel.

Well toasted, the EVIDENCE shows that your homies were concerned about Iraq and Syria.


Syria has been invaded by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Al Nusrah, ISIS, Turkey.

It has defended itself very well considering that it is a 10th rated military power.


.

Your source didn't list any of my homies.
Little Assad posed zero threat to the Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights.
Obama hates Israel.

Any other stupid claims you want to make?

It has defended itself very well considering that it is a 10th rated military power.

You bet. They defended their nuclear reactor like a 1st rate military power. DERP!

You are a lying motherfucker.


All those who suggested that the US eliminate Iraq and Syria are friends of , ot affiliated with , Bush II and Cheney.



Obama is an uncle Tom who is more than happy when he is used by the AIPAC and Bibi.


.
.

 

[rightwinger]

I have never said all Syrians are terrorists. I have pointed out, though, that the Obama Terrorist Experts have warned Obama that terrorists have infiltrated the ranks of Syrian Refugees AND that Barry's 'vetting' process has not caught them

YOU, on the other hand, implied all Irish are drunks.

No one has said that all syrians are terrorists.


Liberals just lie about what conservatives say.


It is the only way they can "win" arguments.

Where in Trumps "Skittle" analogy does he make room for some Syrians not being terrorists?

My God.

The bowl is full. THREE of them will kill you/are terrorists.

HOW CAN YOU THINK HE IS CLAIMING THEY ALL WILL KILL YOU/ARE TERRORISTS?


Are you insane?


I don't see how I can explain this any simpler without you being here so I can actually help you count a bowl of skittles.

Trump is daring you to eat from the bowl of skittles because you don't know which ones are terrorists

THAT is his analogy. He is saying do not accept anyone from the bowl because they might be terrorists

He is NOT daring me to eat from the bowl.


He is saying to NOT eat from the bowl, because it is dangerous.


YOu are not making any sense.

Exactly...Do not accept ANY Syrian refugees because a small number may be bad

 

[rightwinger]

The Irish were drunks and hoodlums....

'Generalization' - the tell-tale sign of a BIGOT.

You mean like the generalization that Syrians are terrorists?

Who said that?

Trumps Skittle analogy

Ban all Syrians in the bowl because some may be terrorists

Some does not equal all.


Are you insane?

He is talking about banning ALL

Are you daft?