Conventional collectivist created authority is a deception in consciousness. You are your own Authority!

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The great American Skittles flap

Immigration has been a central issue in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign from the beginning. He has maintained repeatedly that America should be exceedingly careful about admitting refugees from places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Islamic countries until they can be properly vetted so that we know who they are and why they want to come here.  

Trump wants to keep out radical jihadist Islamic terrorists – bad apples, if you will -- who want to immigrate to America in order to kill Americans. Hillary Clinton and her Democrat Party, in contrast, want to admit hundreds of thousands of such refugees, 600,000 of them, I’m told, even though there is presently no way they can be properly vetted. She’s willing to take the risk that perhaps a small percentage of them – the bad apples -- might be terrorists.

Trump’s logic is simple and straightforward enough; if 99% of such 600,000 refugees are good, innocent and well intentioned people while only 1%  are bad radical jihadist Islamic terrorists, that would mean that as many as 6,000 radical jihadist Islamic terrorists would be admitted and set loose upon the American homeland to commit their jihadist mayhem and kill Americans.

Donald Trump Jr. wanted to explain that logic in simple every day terms so he took to his Twitter account to make an analogy with a bowl of candy – skittles. He pictured a big bowl of skittles and tweeted:
“If I had a big bowl of skittles and I told you that just three would kill you, would you take a handful?
That’s our Syrian refugee problem.”
It’s a pretty good analogy, isn’t it? It makes the risks quite easy to understand, don’t you think? Perhaps that’s why Hillary and the leftists were so outraged by it. “Trump Jr. draws outrage after likening Syrian refugees to poisoned Skittles,” the headline declares.   
If Trump Jr. had pictured a bushel of apples instead of a bowl of skittles to demonstrate the risk of eating a bad apple, the leftist mob would be howling just as much about his comparing the poor Syrian refugees to bad apples.

“Oh and human beings fleeing oppression and terror aren’t skittles,” tweeted ultra-leftist celebrity, John Legend. “Man the rancid apple does not fall far from the tree.” You see, it’s OK for him to draw an analogy to the Trump family as bad apples – not people -- isn’t it?

“Disgusting,” tweeted Nick Merrill, a press secretary for Hillary Clinton.

“Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don't feel it's an appropriate analogy,” said Denise Young, VP of Corporate Affairs for Wrigley Americas, which owns Skittles. 

Well, yeah, skittles are candy and refugees are people, but what does that have to do with anything? It’s an analogy, stupid. Surely it’s nothing to be outraged about. Surely it makes no difference if it’s about poisoned candy or bad apples, which is an analogy used by people all the time to make a point about taking risks with people. You know, there are bad apples out there.  

Really, does anyone in his or her right mind believe that Trump Jr. meant to imply that Syrian refugees aren’t people? Has it come to the lowest point of the political abyss where anything the Trump campaign says is a legitimate trigger for outrage?

I guess so. And the great American skittles flap is the proof. 

7 comments:

  1. "It's a pretty good analogy, isn't it? It makes the risks quite easy to understand, don’t you think?"

    It's the trifecta winner: A terrible analogy, in service to an idiotic premise, being used to promote an evil policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you conclude that poisoned candy does not compare with radicalized Islamist's; that ISIS is not trying to infiltrate Syrian refugees with terrorist’s hell bent on immigrating to America to kill Americans; and that it is evil policy to regulate immigration to try to keep the bad guys out. Is that it? You want open borders; no borders. You don’t care if criminals are allowed in; everyone should be allowed in. You don’t believe in national sovereignty. You’re a globalist.

      OK, now I understand why you think the analogy is terrible, the premise idiotic and the policy evil.

      Delete
  2. "So you conclude that poisoned candy does not compare with radicalized Islamist's"

    As someone over at Austin Petersen's site pointed out yesterday, in order for the analogy to work the dish with three poison Skittles would have to contain 2,700 pounds of Skittles. Not 2,700 Skittles, 2,700 POUNDS of Skittles.

    "that ISIS is not trying to infiltrate Syrian refugees with terrorist’s hell bent on immigrating to America to kill Americans;"

    They very well may be. Nothing Trump has proposed would stop them from accomplishing that goal.

    "and that it is evil policy to regulate immigration to try to keep the bad guys out"

    It is evil policy to regulate immigration, full stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you keep the doors to your own home unlocked and you welcome, with open arms, anyone who walks in the door at any hour, any day?

      Delete
    2. Nope.

      But I don't own the large tax farm called "the United States of America" by the street gang that runs it.

      Neither do you.

      If you want everyone else to beg your permission to travel across it, perhaps you should be willing to take over the mortgage first. Hey, it's only $20 trillion, right?

      Delete
  3. One percent of 600,000 refugees is 6,000 potential terrorists. Isn't that a good enough analogy for you?

    Trump has proposed not letting them in legally so they would have to come in illegally and that is not likely.

    So you would let everyone in, whether they have leprosy, TB, AIDS; whether they are murderers, rapists, child molesters, whatever; you don't care who immigrates to the USA. That's a pretty extreme position, Tom

    ReplyDelete
  4. "One percent of 600,000 refugees is 6,000 potential terrorists. Isn't that a good enough analogy for you?"

    No. The actual numbers seem to be more along the lines of 1/100th of 1%, tops.

    "Trump has proposed not letting them in legally so they would have to come in illegally and that is not likely."

    Right, because only a few million a year do so.

    "So you would let everyone in ... That's a pretty extreme position"

    Actually it's the most moderate position there is: The position that until and unless someone commits a crime with a victim, where they go is none of my fucking business. Or yours.

    ReplyDelete