trump junior and his twitter fail

a reply to: stinkelbaum

So which part of this is a "fail"? I don't quite get the point of the thread.

originally posted by: EvillerBob
a reply to: stinkelbaum

So which part of this is a "fail"? I don't quite get the point of the thread.

The point is to bash Trump. The fact there is no substance and it is a very weak effort is of little consequence, it's all the anti-Trump crowd actually have these days. Getting desperate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Is it considered brilliant to pull something off of message boards that has been circulating around for years? I always thought that was just being unoriginal, but hey its politically incorrect and your hero's son said it so praise away!

Great analogies are always brilliant in their simplicity. Easy to understand. Remember Einstein said, "make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler". Brilliance does not have to be complicated, in fact it rarely is.

a reply to: UKTruth

Recycling content isn't really keeping it simple. It's just being unoriginal.

a reply to: Grambler

We have a very good refugee vetting process that already exists. If it is followed, it works very well. How many terrorist acts in this country were perpetrated by people who were born here or who went through the whole legal process to become citizens, and then became radicalized later? More than you'd want to admit I'd bet. What do we do about white Americans who convert to Islam and might possibly become radicalized? Should we now have laws that don't allow them to convert to this religion? Or do we force them out of their own country once they do convert?

A house is not a country. If you don't want to let a Muslim into your home because you are afraid he will blow you up, then you are free not to. Again, comparing it to the women's meme is disingenuous - they weren't saying to not allow men into the country.

a reply to: UKTruth

Then you agree with my gun analogy. Simple, right? Until we can figure out how to stop the bad guys with guns, no one is allowed to have guns.

a reply to: EvillerBob

So which part of this is a "fail"?

if you think its acceptable that burden lies upon your shoulders, stormfront is thataway.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: stinkelbaum

His post was great. It's a good comparison and a good question.

Thankfully my country of origin realizes this. So proud.

I completely agree. it is a perfect analogy, albeit a very simple one. It is a known fact that not all refugees are terrorists, but not all refugees are ONLY refugees, some are sleeper cells, waiting to be let in.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

We have a very good refugee vetting process that already exists. If it is followed, it works very well. How many terrorist acts in this country were perpetrated by people who were born here or who went through the whole legal process to become citizens, and then became radicalized later? More than you'd want to admit I'd bet. What do we do about white Americans who convert to Islam and might possibly become radicalized? Should we now have laws that don't allow them to convert to this religion? Or do we force them out of their own country once they do convert?

A house is not a country. If you don't want to let a Muslim into your home because you are afraid he will blow you up, then you are free not to. Again, comparing it to the women's meme is disingenuous - they weren't saying to not allow men into the country.

I enjoy your comments a lot on ATS and love our discussions, but come on.

You just assert that Trump Jr.s Tweet was suggesting we shoot syrian refugees on sight, and then just ignore it when you are called out.

As far as the vetting process, we can discuss that on another thread, but in short I would say the refugees that raped all of those women in Germany, Sweden, France and other European countries would be enough to give me pause.

Even if that vetting is great, how does that make the m&m analogy any better? Is our vetting for men in this country somehow worse than that of the Syrian refugees, that women need to constantly be wary of men?

You seem to have a problem with not allowing syrian refugees in. Great, thats a debate worth having. But to claim that the skittles comment is somehow dehumanizing by making humans look like candy, but not feeling that feminists doing the same thing to men is as bad is ridiculous.

If one is dehumanizing or stupid, they both are. I vote stupid for both.

You don't hate Trump Jr. for the skittles comment, you hate him for his immigration stance. That is perfectly legitimate.

a reply to: Grambler

I think the skittles analogy is lame as an explanation for why we should refuse all Syrian refugees sanctuary. I thought I made that pretty clear. One is using candy to justify the continued suffering/slaughter/starvation of human beings.

Is the m&m analogy lame as an explanation as to why women are pissed they have to be constantly on the lookout for the bad guys? I wouldn't use it, but it's definitely not as harmful.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

I think the skittles analogy is lame as an explanation for why we should refuse all Syrian refugees sanctuary. I thought I made that pretty clear. One is using candy to justify the continued suffering/slaughter/starvation of human beings.

Is the m&m analogy lame as an explanation as to why women are pissed they have to be constantly on the lookout for the bad guys? I wouldn't use it, but it's definitely not as harmful.

So like its is lame if I were to be racist towards black guys and treat all like violent criminals and rapists and try to avoid them because I fear them, but not as bad being fearful of Syrian immigrants and not wanting them in the country. Sounds reasonable.

a reply to: Grambler

WTF? You lost this argument. Move on.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

WTF? You lost this argument. Move on.

When? We must have missed that bit.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

I think the skittles analogy is lame as an explanation for why we should refuse all Syrian refugees sanctuary. I thought I made that pretty clear. One is using candy to justify the continued suffering/slaughter/starvation of human beings.

Is the m&m analogy lame as an explanation as to why women are pissed they have to be constantly on the lookout for the bad guys? I wouldn't use it, but it's definitely not as harmful.

The analogy is not about continued suffering of refugees or refusing them sanctuary.
It's about that lack of an ability to screen and the dangers of letting terrorists into the country.

a reply to: UKTruth

If we don't give them sanctuary, then they will have to stay in the places where they are continuing to suffer.

We have a screening process for refugees.

I love it that no one has yet answered my proposal to use the skittles analogy for gun owners. We are obviously not successful at keeping the bad guys from shooting up innocent people, so according to the skittles, we should just not let anyone have guns.

originally posted by: EvillerBob




When? We must have missed that bit.

Thanks. Took the words right out of my mouth.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth


I love it that no one has yet answered my proposal to use the skittles analogy for gun owners. We are obviously not successful at keeping the bad guys from shooting up innocent people, so according to the skittles, we should just not let anyone have guns.

I will answer it. Ready, Here Goes!!!

Um, it would be stupid to use the skittle analogy for gun owners, just like it is dumb to use it for refugees.

If you made that argument about gun owners, I would not think that you were dehumanizing gun owners, or justify shooting them in the face like you thought about Trump jr. using them for refugees.

See! Consistency!

originally posted by: Grambler



Um, it would be stupid to use the skittle analogy for gun owners, just like it is dumb to use it for refugees.

Thank you! You get it!

If you use the analogy for gun owners, then you are advocating taking away their constitutional rights (pretty important, no?)

If you use the analogy for refugees, then you are advocating refusing them life-saving sanctuary (pretty important, no?)

If you use the analogy for women who feel they have to be wary of all men, then you are hurting men's feelings (hmmm)

In any case, people aren't skittles. Skittles don't have constitutional rights, they don't have lives that suffer and they don't have feelings that hurt.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Grambler



Um, it would be stupid to use the skittle analogy for gun owners, just like it is dumb to use it for refugees.

Thank you! You get it!

If you use the analogy for gun owners, then you are advocating taking away their constitutional rights (pretty important, no?)

If you use the analogy for refugees, then you are advocating refusing them life-saving sanctuary (pretty important, no?)

If you use the analogy for women who feel they have to be wary of all men, then you are hurting men's feelings (hmmm)

Right, which is why these things are debated.
The fact an analogy is used to frame the debate simply means that more people understand it. Simple message.
It's fine to use it for gun owners or any other similar situation.

I feel like the world has gone totally mad - offended by skittles.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not offended like Grambler is offended about men being m&m's.

It's dumb to compare refugees to a bowl of candy - it's a lot more complicated than just throwing a bowl of skittles away.