Comrade Trump Jr. compares Syrian Refugees to Skittles

[easyt65]

I have answered....you just didn't get the answer you wanted. I answered YES and told you why

Living life in fear...That is what Trump gives us

As predicted, you finally said YES to save face. You are the only idiot who would claim he would eat from a known bowl of poisoned candy.

Any reasonable person would answer they would not, that they would screen, test, and find out which ones were poisoned and which ones were not. Only a fool leaves the life or death of others - or himself - up to chance when there are steps that can be taken to take the risk out of the equation.

 

[easyt65]

There is a chance that everything I eat may be poison. Does that mean I should stop eating?

Nice dodge...let's try it again....

You are given a bowl of skittle and told not that some MAY be poisonous but that some ARE poisonous....do you still grab a handful and eat them.

AGAIN, if you are honest you would say 'NO'!

Analogies are useful, but have a limit. Rephrase the question:

You have a building on fire. One of the people who want out of the building is likely the person that set the fire. Do you keep everyone in the building for the safety of those outside, or you do you let them out of the building?

If your answer is anything other than let them out, then you are quite frankly a monster. We can debate where they go, we can debate screening, monitoring, etc, but debating whether you trap them in the burning building or not? That's monstrous.

I absolutely do not support the position we should stop taking in refugees. You want to screen them? Fine. You want to monitor them? Fine. But not let them in? No.

The UN has proven that it costs 12 times LESS to house and care for these refugees near their own country than it costs to bring them here.

If you have the option to house and care for these people somewhere else ... and without potentially jeopardizing our national security or ANY American lives...for 12 times LESS American tax payer dollars, WHY WOULDN'T YOU?

Considering this, what is Obama & Hillary's REAL reason for wanting to bring so many UN-VETTED Syrians HERE?

Is he STUPID or does he have some plan?

Which is it?

This is easy. Go visit a UN Refugee camp. They suck in all measures of the word. They often aren't that much safer than where they were as bad actors have no problem bombing such camps. Bringing them into Europe or the USA means a better quality of life and safer conditions for the people involved. When a person is in need, you help. You worry about costs later. That's the guiding principle laid out in the Good Samaritan parable in the Bible. It is how we have always handled disaster recovery in the US. It is literally how every good and decent person in the world handles the matter of helping those in need.

At 12 times LESS money to take-in and care for these refugees with zero threat to US lives, LET THE UN DO IT! We can still be 'good Samaritans' by funding the camps, providing food, clothes, medicine, etc.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

...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.

 

[easyt65]

No one is answering your challenge because it's a crappy analogy. A building is burning down. One of the people still in the building is an arsonist who likely will set another fire. Do you keep all of the people locked up in the burning building, or do you let them out?

What's your answer?

No, libs aren't answering because they don't want to answer 'No' - their ego and partisanship won't let them.

If a House is Burning down, people are inside, and I KNOW one of them is the arsonist? I allow them to come out, place them in holding, and conduct an investigation to find out exactly who committed the crime. I do not simply let them come out and release them intro the general population.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

At 12 times LESS money to take-in and care for these refugees with zero threat to US lives, LET THE UN DO IT! We can still be 'good Samaritans' by funding the camps, providing food, clothes, medicine, etc.

It's a shitty standard of life. It's literally slapping a band aid on the situation, and it is cowardly, especially as you felt the need to point out the danger.

It is just like saying "I'm not going to help this dying person because I pay taxes. Shouldn't somebody else be doing it? Isn't that why I pay taxes?"

 

[rightwinger]

I have answered....you just didn't get the answer you wanted. I answered YES and told you why

Living life in fear...That is what Trump gives us

As predicted, you finally said YES to save face. You are the only idiot who would claim he would eat from a known bowl of poisoned candy.

Any reasonable person would answer they would not, that they would screen, test, and find out which ones were poisoned and which ones were not. Only a fool leaves the life or death of others - or himself - up to chance when there are steps that can be taken to take the risk out of the equation.

I eat from that bowl of skittles every day

Every time I get in my car, there is a chance I will get a "bad Skittle"
Every time I answer my front door or walk down the street, there is a chance I may encounter a "bad skittle"

Yet, I still eat from that bowl knowing the risks

 

[easyt65]

...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.

There are those who run toward danger, those who run away from it, those who stand there and watch in sick morbid curiosity, and those sick bastards that cause the disaster.

IMO Average is helping out as long as it doesn't mean you will probably get hurt or die. Great is knowing that is a possibility and springing into action all the same.

 

[easyt65]

I eat from that bowl of skittles every day

A 'KNOWN, guaranteed poisonous bowl? Bullshit. Dodge. Keep embarrassing yourself, RW. If you can't man up on this one that's your issue. Lie, deny, & justify. I'm out on this one.

 

[g5000]

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.

LMAO GunoPuss to the rescue

I take it you are among the tards I stumped with my question.

Not surprising.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

No one is answering your challenge because it's a crappy analogy. A building is burning down. One of the people still in the building is an arsonist who likely will set another fire. Do you keep all of the people locked up in the burning building, or do you let them out?

What's your answer?

No, libs aren't answering because they don't want to answer 'No' - their ego and partisanship won't let them.

If a House is Burning down, people are inside, and I KNOW one of them is the arsonist? I allow them to come out, place them in holding, and conduct an investigation to find out exactly who committed the crime. I do not simply let them come out and release them intro the general population.

Then that's our starting point. Let them come over, house them, screen them, and then release them. Follow up if you need to.

Forcing them to stay in a situation likely to result in their death because of cost or fear is being cheap and cowardly.

And no, no one is answering because the Skittles analogy is a crappy analogy and doesn't deserve an answer. A good rule of thumb is to not play into crappy analogy. It just encourages fools.

 

[g5000]

I'll ask again.

Go ahead, pants shitters. Explain how Junior's Skittle comment doesn't apply to handgun owners but does apply to Muslims.

Or you can continue to scream and howl and not answer the question and tell yourselves how clever you are for dodging the question.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll ask again.

Go ahead, tards. Explain how Junior's Skittle comment doesn't apply to handgun owners but does apply to Muslims.

Or you can continue to scream and howl and not answer the question and tell yourselves how clever you are for dodging the question.

They'd have to admit it's a crappy analogy. They don't want to because of the colorful picture of a bowl of skittles. Bright colors are very nice.

 

[easyt65]

It's a shitty standard of life. It's literally slapping a band aid on the situation, and it is cowardly, especially as you felt the need to point out the danger.

It's saving these people's lives, which is what this is all about. AGAIN, why would you spend 12 times MORE to help people. Based on the number of refugees Obama has paid for to bring her he could have saved 1 MILLION more people for that same cost by allowing the UN to house, feed, and care for the refugees.

...and Only a FOOL of a President does NOT weigh the danger to his own citizens.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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


What a bunch of loons.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It's a shitty standard of life. It's literally slapping a band aid on the situation, and it is cowardly, especially as you felt the need to point out the danger.

It's saving these people's lives, which is what this is all about. AGAIN, why would you spend 12 times MORE to help people. Based on the number of refugees Obama has paid for to bring her he could have saved 1 MILLION more people for that same cost by allowing the UN to house, feed, and care for the refugees.

...and Only a FOOL of a President does NOT weigh the danger to his own citizens.

Only a weak man weighs the costs of saving lives in dollars or becomes timid when faced with danger. Are you weak? Are you cowardly? Are you average? Or do you want America to be Great Again. Because it won't be if we show the world we will stand off on the side and allow people to die when we could have saved them. That isn't Greatness.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

I eat from that bowl of skittles every day

A 'KNOWN, guaranteed poisonous bowl? Bullshit. Dodge. Keep embarrassing yourself, RW. If you can't man up on this one that's your issue. Lie, deny, & justify. I'm out on this one.

Yes, a known poisonous bowl

32,000 auto fatalities a year vs less than 100 killed by terrorists.

My skittle bowl for driving is a lot more dangerous than your terrorist skittle bowl

 

[ptbw forever]

This is the new "binders full of women" statement that only Democrats are stupid enough to be offended by, isn't it?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

It's a shitty standard of life. It's literally slapping a band aid on the situation, and it is cowardly, especially as you felt the need to point out the danger.

It's saving these people's lives, which is what this is all about. AGAIN, why would you spend 12 times MORE to help people. Based on the number of refugees Obama has paid for to bring her he could have saved 1 MILLION more people for that same cost by allowing the UN to house, feed, and care for the refugees.

...and Only a FOOL of a President does NOT weigh the danger to his own citizens.

Only a weak man weighs the costs of saving lives in dollars or becomes timid when faced with danger. Are you weak? Are you cowardly? Are you average? Or do you want America to be Great Again. Because it won't be if we show the world we will stand off on the side and allow people to die when we could have saved them. That isn't Greatness.

Put your money where your mouth is.......if you want to consider yourself one of the brave & exceptional, then hand over your house key to the next influx of refugees, That only a handful have been 'cleared' for entry

 

[rightwinger]

This is the new "binders full of women" statement that only Democrats are stupid enough to be offended by, isn't it?

The company that makes Skittles was offended by it