Comrade Trump Jr. compares Syrian Refugees to Skittles

[Correll]

Incredible.

You discuss serious issues, like terrorist bombings and organized crime, while denying the possibility of any legitimate issue with immigration.



Exposing our women and children to certain random death is not bravery. lt is the act of a fool.

We have always had a "problem" with immigration. Each new group of immigrants has had it own criminal element.

The fact that Republicans are now using the same fear tactics against Muslims and Mexicans is not surprising......They are the same Know-Nothings

Your words. "they perfected terrorist bombings".

Yet you post a image dismissing the idea that they Irish "created violent cities" as "nativist".

Different eras but the same fear mongering against immigrants

Calling something "fear mongering" implies there is not real or rational fear.


"Terrorist Bombings" is a rational fear.


Your dismissal of random death as a valid issue for discussion needs to be explained.


Constant repetition is not an explanation.

It is not rational

We had less than 100 people killed by terrorists last year and you want to ban all Muslims
We had almost 9,000 killed by gun violence and you refuse to do anything

1. I have many times discussed with you my vision for how we can greatly reduce our violent crime. Your statement that I don't want to do something about it is a lie.

2. So, less than 100 died last year so the answer is to take steps to increase that number? Because increasing the population of Muslims will do that. It is choosing to "change" the number of terrorists deaths, to a bigger number. Are you aware of the issues Europe is having with it's larger Muslim population? Is that what you want?

 

[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.

Here we go:

Donald Trump Jr. inadvertently encourages America to scoop up refugees by the handful

If you do the math on the analogy you can read here:
-------------------------------------------------------
So let's figure out what the analogy is. The libertarian (and Koch brothers-backed) think tank Cato Institute published a report last week assessing the risk posed by refugees. That report stated that, each year, the risk to an American of being killed by a refugee in a terror attack is 1 in 3.64 billion, as Huffington Post's Elise Foley noted on Twitter. From the report:

From 1975 through 2015, the annual chance that an American would be murdered in a terrorist attack carried out by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709. Foreigners on the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks, whereas those on other tourist visas killed 1 in 3.9 million a year. The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year.

In other words, for every 10.92 billion years that Americans live — one Skittle, if you will — refugees will kill an American in a terror attack in three.

An actual Skittle is about 1 centimeter squared by about a half a centimeter tall (or thereabouts). Setting aside questions of stacking the oblong Skittles in this very large bowl by assuming each will occupy two-thirds of that volume, we're talking about one-and-a-half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles. Wrigley produces 200 million Skittles a day, so this is the entire production line for more than 54 days, transported to an oversized swimming pool and dumped in to the top. And in that pool: Three poison Skittles.
---------------------------------------------------------

They go on to predict the odds you will get poisoned:

---------------------------------------------------------
Well, it could be one, of course, if the poisoned ones are distributed evenly through the giant pool-and-a-half of Skittles. But the odds say something different. If there is one poisoned Skittle in 3.64 billion, that means I could extract quite a few handfuls before I was likely to pick out a poisoned one.

Specifically, about 68.7 million handfuls. Let's say it takes me one minute to grab a handful and eat them. I would hit a poisoned Skittle, on average, every 130 years. I would also be consuming the equivalent of a package of Skittles every minute, which is about 330,000 calories a day.
----------------------------------------------------------

Specifically showing that odds of being killed in a terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee are laughably small, especially when weighed against the number of people we are rejecting who could become productive members of their new home.

The flawed premise that you insist on, that I have repeatedly pointed out, is that our resistance to Muslim immigration is NOT based on fear for our PERSONAL safety, but on our fear for our Fellow Americans.


There is a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance that Muslim immigration will result in dead Americans.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

I'm calling into question the entire notion of greatness folks like you want to claim because at the end of the day, brightly colored jpeg aside, you are acting out of fear.

And that is fine. You don't want to take a risk, fine. But don't expect to ever be called great, or exceptional. Because you are not.

And that is what I reject. We are better, stronger, and braver than this. Yes indeed people will get hurt. That is going to happen. We knew folks would die when we went to fight the British in the Revolution, the British in 1812, the Spanish in the Spanish American War, the South in the Civil War, the Germans in WWI and the Germans again in WWII. We intervened despite the risks in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We took in refugee populations from all over the world and still do despite the dangers they may represent. We take in those oppressed by violence, politics, and crime and we do it because we are great, exceptional, and compassionate. And we always have been.

So yes, I am calling you, I am calling all of you who support Trump Jr.'s analogy cowards because you are and I am more than willing to call you unamerican because you are. I see the closing of the borders to those in need as a cowardly act. There is nothing brave, or exceptional, or even smart about it. Actions like these mean we are absolutely no better than the rest of the nations.

Having a fear of random death does not mean that you are unable to be great or American.


America's greatness is not based on our willingness to expose our women and children to needless danger.




You are spouting platitudes, to justify a policy position, instead of seriously and honestly discussing it.

Everyone gets scared. It's how you act when you are scared that show if those platitudes we claim to hold dear have any meaning at all. Closing out refugees is an act of cowardness and it not great, and it is not American.

And for the record, you're the one pushing a crappy analogy. I love analogies, but I only use them to bring people up to speed or introduce a concept. When talking with someone who is on an equal intellectual footing concerning a topic, I don't use analogies. They are imprecise and lead to false assumptions when the analogy is pushed too far.

There's a reason the skittles bowl analogy applied to cars, factories, gun owners, dogs, goldfish, etc, is a terrible analogy. It's the same reason it doesn't work here for the Syrian refugee problem.

 

[rightwinger]

We have always had a "problem" with immigration. Each new group of immigrants has had it own criminal element.

The fact that Republicans are now using the same fear tactics against Muslims and Mexicans is not surprising......They are the same Know-Nothings

Your words. "they perfected terrorist bombings".

Yet you post a image dismissing the idea that they Irish "created violent cities" as "nativist".

Different eras but the same fear mongering against immigrants

Calling something "fear mongering" implies there is not real or rational fear.


"Terrorist Bombings" is a rational fear.


Your dismissal of random death as a valid issue for discussion needs to be explained.


Constant repetition is not an explanation.

It is not rational

We had less than 100 people killed by terrorists last year and you want to ban all Muslims
We had almost 9,000 killed by gun violence and you refuse to do anything

1. I have many times discussed with you my vision for how we can greatly reduce our violent crime. Your statement that I don't want to do something about it is a lie.

2. So, less than 100 died last year so the answer is to take steps to increase that number? Because increasing the population of Muslims will do that. It is choosing to "change" the number of terrorists deaths, to a bigger number. Are you aware of the issues Europe is having with it's larger Muslim population? Is that what you want?

You are a coward....a Know-Nothing

Buying into hate rhetoric directed at those who are different than us
It is as old as our country and has been directed against blacks, Native Americans, Non-Christians and each immigrant group

Makes me ashamed to be an American

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

Here we go:

Donald Trump Jr. inadvertently encourages America to scoop up refugees by the handful

If you do the math on the analogy you can read here:
-------------------------------------------------------
So let's figure out what the analogy is. The libertarian (and Koch brothers-backed) think tank Cato Institute published a report last week assessing the risk posed by refugees. That report stated that, each year, the risk to an American of being killed by a refugee in a terror attack is 1 in 3.64 billion, as Huffington Post's Elise Foley noted on Twitter. From the report:

From 1975 through 2015, the annual chance that an American would be murdered in a terrorist attack carried out by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709. Foreigners on the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks, whereas those on other tourist visas killed 1 in 3.9 million a year. The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year.

In other words, for every 10.92 billion years that Americans live — one Skittle, if you will — refugees will kill an American in a terror attack in three.

An actual Skittle is about 1 centimeter squared by about a half a centimeter tall (or thereabouts). Setting aside questions of stacking the oblong Skittles in this very large bowl by assuming each will occupy two-thirds of that volume, we're talking about one-and-a-half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles. Wrigley produces 200 million Skittles a day, so this is the entire production line for more than 54 days, transported to an oversized swimming pool and dumped in to the top. And in that pool: Three poison Skittles.
---------------------------------------------------------

They go on to predict the odds you will get poisoned:

---------------------------------------------------------
Well, it could be one, of course, if the poisoned ones are distributed evenly through the giant pool-and-a-half of Skittles. But the odds say something different. If there is one poisoned Skittle in 3.64 billion, that means I could extract quite a few handfuls before I was likely to pick out a poisoned one.

Specifically, about 68.7 million handfuls. Let's say it takes me one minute to grab a handful and eat them. I would hit a poisoned Skittle, on average, every 130 years. I would also be consuming the equivalent of a package of Skittles every minute, which is about 330,000 calories a day.
----------------------------------------------------------

Specifically showing that odds of being killed in a terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee are laughably small, especially when weighed against the number of people we are rejecting who could become productive members of their new home.

The flawed premise that you insist on, that I have repeatedly pointed out, is that our resistance to Muslim immigration is NOT based on fear for our PERSONAL safety, but on our fear for our Fellow Americans.


There is a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance that Muslim immigration will result in dead Americans.

There is a 100% chance that someone will die when new medications enter the market, when new factories are built, when we go to war, when we build new cars, when we allow folks to buy guns, etc. Unless you want to go big government, lock everyone in padded rooms, and feed them 3 strictly supervised meals a day with round the clock surveillance, folks will die from the actions we as a nation take. That is an absolute certainty.

Using that as your excuse is cowardness. Pure and simple. And it isn't the action of a great nation. There is a cost in every decision. Letting in the Syrian refugees means that maybe a small number die or get injured. Maybe. Not letting them in means a lot of good people die with 100% certainty.

Do you want to us to be great? Exceptional? Then we do what we always do and take the risk.

 

[Correll]

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.

I'm calling into question the entire notion of greatness folks like you want to claim because at the end of the day, brightly colored jpeg aside, you are acting out of fear.

And that is fine. You don't want to take a risk, fine. But don't expect to ever be called great, or exceptional. Because you are not.

And that is what I reject. We are better, stronger, and braver than this. Yes indeed people will get hurt. That is going to happen. We knew folks would die when we went to fight the British in the Revolution, the British in 1812, the Spanish in the Spanish American War, the South in the Civil War, the Germans in WWI and the Germans again in WWII. We intervened despite the risks in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We took in refugee populations from all over the world and still do despite the dangers they may represent. We take in those oppressed by violence, politics, and crime and we do it because we are great, exceptional, and compassionate. And we always have been.

So yes, I am calling you, I am calling all of you who support Trump Jr.'s analogy cowards because you are and I am more than willing to call you unamerican because you are. I see the closing of the borders to those in need as a cowardly act. There is nothing brave, or exceptional, or even smart about it. Actions like these mean we are absolutely no better than the rest of the nations.

Having a fear of random death does not mean that you are unable to be great or American.


America's greatness is not based on our willingness to expose our women and children to needless danger.




You are spouting platitudes, to justify a policy position, instead of seriously and honestly discussing it.

Everyone gets scared. It's how you act when you are scared that show if those platitudes we claim to hold dear have any meaning at all. Closing out refugees is an act of cowardness and it not great, and it is not American.

And for the record, you're the one pushing a crappy analogy. I love analogies, but I only use them to bring people up to speed or introduce a concept. When talking with someone who is on an equal intellectual footing concerning a topic, I don't use analogies. They are imprecise and lead to false assumptions when the analogy is pushed too far.

There's a reason the skittles bowl analogy applied to cars, factories, gun owners, dogs, goldfish, etc, is a terrible analogy. It's the same reason it doesn't work here for the Syrian refugee problem.

Closing our refugees is protecting our fellow citizens from certain random death.

I'm comfortable with that action defining me.

 

[Correll]

Your words. "they perfected terrorist bombings".

Yet you post a image dismissing the idea that they Irish "created violent cities" as "nativist".

Different eras but the same fear mongering against immigrants

Calling something "fear mongering" implies there is not real or rational fear.


"Terrorist Bombings" is a rational fear.


Your dismissal of random death as a valid issue for discussion needs to be explained.


Constant repetition is not an explanation.

It is not rational

We had less than 100 people killed by terrorists last year and you want to ban all Muslims
We had almost 9,000 killed by gun violence and you refuse to do anything

1. I have many times discussed with you my vision for how we can greatly reduce our violent crime. Your statement that I don't want to do something about it is a lie.

2. So, less than 100 died last year so the answer is to take steps to increase that number? Because increasing the population of Muslims will do that. It is choosing to "change" the number of terrorists deaths, to a bigger number. Are you aware of the issues Europe is having with it's larger Muslim population? Is that what you want?

You are a coward....a Know-Nothing

Buying into hate rhetoric directed at those who are different than us
It is as old as our country and has been directed against blacks, Native Americans, Non-Christians and each immigrant group

Makes me ashamed to be an American

You have admitted to the violence in question.


Yet you continue to dishonestly portray my concern about that violence as illegitimate.


Your position makes no sense.


IF the danger is real, then you don't get to dismiss it.

 

[Correll]

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.

Here we go:

Donald Trump Jr. inadvertently encourages America to scoop up refugees by the handful

If you do the math on the analogy you can read here:
-------------------------------------------------------
So let's figure out what the analogy is. The libertarian (and Koch brothers-backed) think tank Cato Institute published a report last week assessing the risk posed by refugees. That report stated that, each year, the risk to an American of being killed by a refugee in a terror attack is 1 in 3.64 billion, as Huffington Post's Elise Foley noted on Twitter. From the report:

From 1975 through 2015, the annual chance that an American would be murdered in a terrorist attack carried out by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709. Foreigners on the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks, whereas those on other tourist visas killed 1 in 3.9 million a year. The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year.

In other words, for every 10.92 billion years that Americans live — one Skittle, if you will — refugees will kill an American in a terror attack in three.

An actual Skittle is about 1 centimeter squared by about a half a centimeter tall (or thereabouts). Setting aside questions of stacking the oblong Skittles in this very large bowl by assuming each will occupy two-thirds of that volume, we're talking about one-and-a-half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles. Wrigley produces 200 million Skittles a day, so this is the entire production line for more than 54 days, transported to an oversized swimming pool and dumped in to the top. And in that pool: Three poison Skittles.
---------------------------------------------------------

They go on to predict the odds you will get poisoned:

---------------------------------------------------------
Well, it could be one, of course, if the poisoned ones are distributed evenly through the giant pool-and-a-half of Skittles. But the odds say something different. If there is one poisoned Skittle in 3.64 billion, that means I could extract quite a few handfuls before I was likely to pick out a poisoned one.

Specifically, about 68.7 million handfuls. Let's say it takes me one minute to grab a handful and eat them. I would hit a poisoned Skittle, on average, every 130 years. I would also be consuming the equivalent of a package of Skittles every minute, which is about 330,000 calories a day.
----------------------------------------------------------

Specifically showing that odds of being killed in a terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee are laughably small, especially when weighed against the number of people we are rejecting who could become productive members of their new home.

The flawed premise that you insist on, that I have repeatedly pointed out, is that our resistance to Muslim immigration is NOT based on fear for our PERSONAL safety, but on our fear for our Fellow Americans.


There is a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance that Muslim immigration will result in dead Americans.

There is a 100% chance that someone will die when new medications enter the market, when new factories are built, when we go to war, when we build new cars, when we allow folks to buy guns, etc. Unless you want to go big government, lock everyone in padded rooms, and feed them 3 strictly supervised meals a day with round the clock surveillance, folks will die from the actions we as a nation take. That is an absolute certainty.

Using that as your excuse is cowardness. Pure and simple. And it isn't the action of a great nation. There is a cost in every decision. Letting in the Syrian refugees means that maybe a small number die or get injured. Maybe. Not letting them in means a lot of good people die with 100% certainty.

Do you want to us to be great? Exceptional? Then we do what we always do and take the risk.

Grandiose rhetoric is not a supporting argument. And does not impress me.


So, you admit the danger. Good first step.


Now, tell me what benefit there is that out weights the cost in American lives.

 

[rightwinger]

Different eras but the same fear mongering against immigrants

Calling something "fear mongering" implies there is not real or rational fear.


"Terrorist Bombings" is a rational fear.


Your dismissal of random death as a valid issue for discussion needs to be explained.


Constant repetition is not an explanation.

It is not rational

We had less than 100 people killed by terrorists last year and you want to ban all Muslims
We had almost 9,000 killed by gun violence and you refuse to do anything

1. I have many times discussed with you my vision for how we can greatly reduce our violent crime. Your statement that I don't want to do something about it is a lie.

2. So, less than 100 died last year so the answer is to take steps to increase that number? Because increasing the population of Muslims will do that. It is choosing to "change" the number of terrorists deaths, to a bigger number. Are you aware of the issues Europe is having with it's larger Muslim population? Is that what you want?

You are a coward....a Know-Nothing

Buying into hate rhetoric directed at those who are different than us
It is as old as our country and has been directed against blacks, Native Americans, Non-Christians and each immigrant group

Makes me ashamed to be an American

You have admitted to the violence in question.


Yet you continue to dishonestly portray my concern about that violence as illegitimate.


Your position makes no sense.


IF the danger is real, then you don't get to dismiss it.

I have posted with you for some time. We have had some good discussions

I do not think you are a bigot, but I do believe you are a coward who is buying into hate rhetoric in some false sense of security. It is as American as apple pie....mistrusting those who are different...invoking harsh measures under the pretext of "being safe"

 

[rdean]

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

Here we go:

Donald Trump Jr. inadvertently encourages America to scoop up refugees by the handful

If you do the math on the analogy you can read here:
-------------------------------------------------------
So let's figure out what the analogy is. The libertarian (and Koch brothers-backed) think tank Cato Institute published a report last week assessing the risk posed by refugees. That report stated that, each year, the risk to an American of being killed by a refugee in a terror attack is 1 in 3.64 billion, as Huffington Post's Elise Foley noted on Twitter. From the report:

From 1975 through 2015, the annual chance that an American would be murdered in a terrorist attack carried out by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709. Foreigners on the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks, whereas those on other tourist visas killed 1 in 3.9 million a year. The chance that an American would be killed in a terrorist attack committed by a refugee was 1 in 3.64 billion a year.

In other words, for every 10.92 billion years that Americans live — one Skittle, if you will — refugees will kill an American in a terror attack in three.

An actual Skittle is about 1 centimeter squared by about a half a centimeter tall (or thereabouts). Setting aside questions of stacking the oblong Skittles in this very large bowl by assuming each will occupy two-thirds of that volume, we're talking about one-and-a-half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles. Wrigley produces 200 million Skittles a day, so this is the entire production line for more than 54 days, transported to an oversized swimming pool and dumped in to the top. And in that pool: Three poison Skittles.
---------------------------------------------------------

They go on to predict the odds you will get poisoned:

---------------------------------------------------------
Well, it could be one, of course, if the poisoned ones are distributed evenly through the giant pool-and-a-half of Skittles. But the odds say something different. If there is one poisoned Skittle in 3.64 billion, that means I could extract quite a few handfuls before I was likely to pick out a poisoned one.

Specifically, about 68.7 million handfuls. Let's say it takes me one minute to grab a handful and eat them. I would hit a poisoned Skittle, on average, every 130 years. I would also be consuming the equivalent of a package of Skittles every minute, which is about 330,000 calories a day.
----------------------------------------------------------

Specifically showing that odds of being killed in a terrorist attack by a Syrian refugee are laughably small, especially when weighed against the number of people we are rejecting who could become productive members of their new home.

The flawed premise that you insist on, that I have repeatedly pointed out, is that our resistance to Muslim immigration is NOT based on fear for our PERSONAL safety, but on our fear for our Fellow Americans.


There is a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT chance that Muslim immigration will result in dead Americans.

There is a 100% chance that someone will die when new medications enter the market, when new factories are built, when we go to war, when we build new cars, when we allow folks to buy guns, etc. Unless you want to go big government, lock everyone in padded rooms, and feed them 3 strictly supervised meals a day with round the clock surveillance, folks will die from the actions we as a nation take. That is an absolute certainty.

Using that as your excuse is cowardness. Pure and simple. And it isn't the action of a great nation. There is a cost in every decision. Letting in the Syrian refugees means that maybe a small number die or get injured. Maybe. Not letting them in means a lot of good people die with 100% certainty.

Do you want to us to be great? Exceptional? Then we do what we always do and take the risk.

Grandiose rhetoric is not a supporting argument. And does not impress me.


So, you admit the danger. Good first step.


Now, tell me what benefit there is that out weights the cost in American lives.

That's easy. It shows our compassion, it shows our greatness in our actions to those that need help. It demonstrates that we are that "Shinning city on a hill" that Reagan wisely called us to be. It shows that we act despite our fears and that we do not let our fears define us.

This also satisfies one our highest callings as a Christian nation: It saves lives and helps those in need.

In tangible benefit to our nation, it brings in new people to our country that will be very thankful that they have a place to be safe. I've known a lot of immigrants over the course of my life. Those first and second generation immigrants are among the hardest working, most patriotic people I've ever met in my life. They blow us WASPs that have been here for multiple generations out of the water when it comes to love of country. They have lived under bad circumstances and when they look around they actually appreciate how amazingly wonderful we have it here and how amazing and special this place is.

The downside? A vanishingly small number may turn out to be terrorists. And they may try to stage an attack. A large number of those will be caught in the vetting process, swept up by FBI sting operations, reported on by their neighbors, or just turn out to be incompetent. You may get one or two out of literally millions that is actually skilled and competent enough to suceed, and even then unless they get an assault rifle they're more likely to injure folks than kill. Keep in mind, no one was killed in the New York bomb blast nor in the Minnesota knife attack (other than the attacker, and screw him).

And again, as you're citing terrorism as a justification, remember that statistically more than 9 times as many Americans died in one year in automobile accidents than Americans world wide from terrorism over a 10 year period that included 9/11 (1994-2015). So there's danger, but statistically its a far lower danger than death by automobile, or gun violence, or a whole host of things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some does not equal all.


Are you insane?

He is talking about banning ALL

Are you daft?

You are the one who is confused here.


3 skittles are deadly. So don't eat ANY of them.

NOt all of them are deadly. But you don't chance it.


THe goal is to avoid being dead. NOt to be fair to the skittles, at the risk of being dead.

Life is a bowl of skittles. There are always deadly skittles out there

When you drive your car
When you eat food
When you walk outside after dark

Avoiding any situation where there may be bad skittles is no way to lead your life

EVERY immigrant group had bad skittles in it

Exposing your fellow citizens, including your women and children to needless danger is the act of a fool.


EVERY immigration group is not the same. Every time period is not the same.


You, a liberal, who is supposedly so flexible and adaptable and not afraid of change, is arguing that we should keep the same immigration policy we had in the late 1700s, today.

EVERY immigrant group has been feared and defiled by those who mistrust people who are "not like us"
The Irish were our original terrorists. They perfected terrorist bombing
The Italians brought the Mafia to our cities and terrorized their neighborhoods
As every Trump supporter knows, Mexico sends its murderers and rapists

Closing our borders to immigration and building walls is not the answer...it is the response of cowards and racists

EVERY immigrant group has been feared and defiled by those who mistrust people who are "not like us"

Radical Muslims like to kill people who are not like them.

 

[edthecynic]

 

[Crixus]

Skittles Issues Terse Response to Trump Jr. Refugee Tweet

Just another spoiled rich kid. I am sure dad is very proud of Comrade Junior for such a sick analogy,,,

Both Jr Trumps are spoiled rich kids I'n my opinion and typically I ignore them at every opportunity, but I have to say that was a superb to paint a picture of what he was describing. Hats of to the guy far as Im concerned.

 

[rightwinger]

I think that clip is from Village of the Damned...good flick

 

[rightwinger]

He is talking about banning ALL

Are you daft?

You are the one who is confused here.


3 skittles are deadly. So don't eat ANY of them.

NOt all of them are deadly. But you don't chance it.


THe goal is to avoid being dead. NOt to be fair to the skittles, at the risk of being dead.

Life is a bowl of skittles. There are always deadly skittles out there

When you drive your car
When you eat food
When you walk outside after dark

Avoiding any situation where there may be bad skittles is no way to lead your life

EVERY immigrant group had bad skittles in it

Exposing your fellow citizens, including your women and children to needless danger is the act of a fool.


EVERY immigration group is not the same. Every time period is not the same.


You, a liberal, who is supposedly so flexible and adaptable and not afraid of change, is arguing that we should keep the same immigration policy we had in the late 1700s, today.

EVERY immigrant group has been feared and defiled by those who mistrust people who are "not like us"
The Irish were our original terrorists. They perfected terrorist bombing
The Italians brought the Mafia to our cities and terrorized their neighborhoods
As every Trump supporter knows, Mexico sends its murderers and rapists

Closing our borders to immigration and building walls is not the answer...it is the response of cowards and racists

EVERY immigrant group has been feared and defiled by those who mistrust people who are "not like us"

Radical Muslims like to kill people who are not like them.

How about we repeat some of the hate rhetoric against blacks, Native Americans, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Catholics.....it all sounds the same after a while

 

[Correll]

Calling something "fear mongering" implies there is not real or rational fear.


"Terrorist Bombings" is a rational fear.


Your dismissal of random death as a valid issue for discussion needs to be explained.


Constant repetition is not an explanation.

It is not rational

We had less than 100 people killed by terrorists last year and you want to ban all Muslims
We had almost 9,000 killed by gun violence and you refuse to do anything

1. I have many times discussed with you my vision for how we can greatly reduce our violent crime. Your statement that I don't want to do something about it is a lie.

2. So, less than 100 died last year so the answer is to take steps to increase that number? Because increasing the population of Muslims will do that. It is choosing to "change" the number of terrorists deaths, to a bigger number. Are you aware of the issues Europe is having with it's larger Muslim population? Is that what you want?

You are a coward....a Know-Nothing

Buying into hate rhetoric directed at those who are different than us
It is as old as our country and has been directed against blacks, Native Americans, Non-Christians and each immigrant group

Makes me ashamed to be an American

You have admitted to the violence in question.


Yet you continue to dishonestly portray my concern about that violence as illegitimate.


Your position makes no sense.


IF the danger is real, then you don't get to dismiss it.

I have posted with you for some time. We have had some good discussions

I do not think you are a bigot, but I do believe you are a coward who is buying into hate rhetoric in some false sense of security. It is as American as apple pie....mistrusting those who are different...invoking harsh measures under the pretext of "being safe"

When a nation is faced with a policy choice, the costs, risks and RESULTS of that policy should be discussed seriously and honestly BEFORE HAND.


We have not done that about Immigration in general, and certainly NOT about Muslim Immigration.


I have been hearing liberals discussing Terrorism as part of the new normal.


That is a result that I do not want. DO you want that?


Because we have only to look at the issues we have NOW with a very small muslim population, to imaging what will happen if it grows.


Europe also gives US a look at what it could mean.


This is not "hate rhetoric".

This is a real and valid point that your side should be called on to address.


Instead, we get dismissals and accusations of cowardice and racism.


There is a very good chance that your side will win this debate with those tactics. And terrorism will become part of the new normal.


And a generation from now, people will be wondering how to deal with it, and people like you will be arguing that it is too late to change it, that we have to live with it.


We can stop it now. Or at least take steps to reduce it to a point where terrorism is still the outlier, and not normal.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not rational

We had less than 100 people killed by terrorists last year and you want to ban all Muslims
We had almost 9,000 killed by gun violence and you refuse to do anything

1. I have many times discussed with you my vision for how we can greatly reduce our violent crime. Your statement that I don't want to do something about it is a lie.

2. So, less than 100 died last year so the answer is to take steps to increase that number? Because increasing the population of Muslims will do that. It is choosing to "change" the number of terrorists deaths, to a bigger number. Are you aware of the issues Europe is having with it's larger Muslim population? Is that what you want?

You are a coward....a Know-Nothing

Buying into hate rhetoric directed at those who are different than us
It is as old as our country and has been directed against blacks, Native Americans, Non-Christians and each immigrant group

Makes me ashamed to be an American

You have admitted to the violence in question.


Yet you continue to dishonestly portray my concern about that violence as illegitimate.


Your position makes no sense.


IF the danger is real, then you don't get to dismiss it.

I have posted with you for some time. We have had some good discussions

I do not think you are a bigot, but I do believe you are a coward who is buying into hate rhetoric in some false sense of security. It is as American as apple pie....mistrusting those who are different...invoking harsh measures under the pretext of "being safe"

When a nation is faced with a policy choice, the costs, risks and RESULTS of that policy should be discussed seriously and honestly BEFORE HAND.


We have not done that about Immigration in general, and certainly NOT about Muslim Immigration.


I have been hearing liberals discussing Terrorism as part of the new normal.


That is a result that I do not want. DO you want that?


Because we have only to look at the issues we have NOW with a very small muslim population, to imaging what will happen if it grows.


Europe also gives US a look at what it could mean.


This is not "hate rhetoric".

This is a real and valid point that your side should be called on to address.


Instead, we get dismissals and accusations of cowardice and racism.


There is a very good chance that your side will win this debate with those tactics. And terrorism will become part of the new normal.


And a generation from now, people will be wondering how to deal with it, and people like you will be arguing that it is too late to change it, that we have to live with it.


We can stop it now. Or at least take steps to reduce it to a point where terrorism is still the outlier, and not normal.

What is with you Trump supporters?
A level of hate I have not seen since George Wallace

The guy starts his campaign with a vicious attack on Mexican immigrants and follows up with a ban on Muslims until "he feels safe"

Hillary is correct about alt-right
You guys scare me more than the terrorists

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I have been hearing liberals discussing Terrorism as part of the new normal.

https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf

This covers the number of terrorist attacks since 1994. We've been on the decline in number of attacks since the 90's.

Terrorism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This covers terrorist attacks over the course of US history. Notice we have had attacks that could be defined as Terrorism since the 1800's.

You're trying to paint terrorism as some new thing, but it really isn't. If you're concerned it's part of the new normal, well then I'm sorry but that's been the normal since near the birth of the nation. We've always had terrorism and we always will. Banning a group from immigrating isn't going to stop terrorism.

tl;dr version: Terrorism has always existed. There is no new normal. Just the same normal we've had for centuries.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I used to be a republican, but I just could not keep up with the program. I was raised to hate the communists and blacks. I was taught that the only good commie was one that we had nuked. For the most part, that meant Russians and North Koreans. Later, they added the Chinese and Cubans. About the time I got with that program, they told me to hate the North Vietnamese, even more. Meantime, they started telling me that feminists were evil, because they wanted an equal rights amendment. There was a period when I was supposed to distrust the Egyptians, and, of course, the Libyans. But I really started to lose track when it came to Latin America. I could not keep it straight as to who we hated the most. Now, it is a little simpler, because I am supposed to hate pretty much anyone who lives in this country who speaks Spanish, and anyone from the Middle East who wears arab head gear. As a sideline, I am supposed to hate anyone who is gay, or transgender. I had to give up and become a democrat. I just could not keep track. They would do well to publish a weekly program as to who our enemies are, and their relative hate and distrust scale, perhaps color coded.