I see her at the baccarat table, she casually places an unfiltered cigarette (cusom blended by her tobacconist) between her lips, snaps it lit with a tastefully expensive lighter and says:
“Bondi. Pam Bondi”.
Also, there is an actual choice to be made here - it’s not simply a one-way danger.
The choice should be:
You can EITHER: eat some skittles from the Olympic swimming pool full of skittles - 3.6 BILLION of them. One of these is poisoned.
OR:
Shoot these three actual refugee children in the head. Right now.
I think your statistics are off too. It’s been a tad more frequent than 1/3,600,000,000.
I did not just pull this figure out of my ass.
Complain to the authors ofthis report
That’s the Cato Institute, the hotbed of radical lefties and commies. (sarcasm off)
Everybody seems to have latched on to the ‘Skittles’ part of the meme, and ignored the most historically resonant part, being the ‘poison’, which has some pretty ugly precedents:
Stating that a group of people are carriers of a certain number among them who are ‘poisoned’, and the only way to stop the poison is to exclude the whole group, is textbook fascism.
I know you didn’t
I’m bringing it up with you because you cited it. If the Skittles in our analogy our refugees, then the author, and by extension you, are measuring the wrong thing by calculating “the odds of being killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack”. How many Skittles / refugees are poisonous / terrorists would give us the correct odds.
[So today Mr. Trump said:
](http://elections.ap.org/content/latest-fl-republican-spend-millions-backing-clinton)Wow! :eek: Worse than when they were slaves? :dubious:
No, it isn’t. The question is how dangerous it is to allow in refugees. You have to deal with the actual danger. Asking how many are terrorists is an indirect measure, since, if they make it through, the only sign they are a terrorist is that they actually kill people.
Measuring actual kills is the more direct measure.
Well yeah…
I’m SO glad you don’t run the FBI.
Proof that Donald Trump is in tune with the universe.
I disagree with almost everything HD has said about DJT and HRC, BUT…
I think he has the right of it here.
I mean how many people were killed in the Florida nightclub alone. More than 100. We don’t have 360,000,000,000 people in this country (or even in this world). Those stats sound fishy.
The way the original analogy was expressed, it sounds like he’s talking about the “bad apples” of the bunch (is that okay to say?), which sounds like it’s meant to be the terrorist-to-refugee ratio.
Moving on, it is tactless to compare people to Skittles in the way that was done. Maybe in an effort to explain statistics, with a full discussion…
Lastly, Insurance folks say:
Compare that with these much more likely deadly scenarios:
http://www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/
Apparently you are twice as likely to die by elevator plunge than be killed by a terrorist; it is 100x more likely you’ll be killed by an asteroid; and you are 200,000x more likely to die by car.
So you’re now afraid of “refugee terrorists” who actually don’t kill anyone? What, do they just sit around and think bad thoughts?
The Pulse attacker was an American, not a refugee.
America’s got the best terrorists. Other countries’ terrorists are total losers.
And he gave his speech in the town of Kenansville N.C., a town itself is named after a man whose family owned a slave plantation. Priceless.
Responding to DigitalC’s point
Good point. Same is true for the recent New York bombing (unless, sort of, he is later shown to have been a refugee).
Still, the 1:3.6 billion stat sounds dodgy- are there 3.6 billion refugees?
Also, pointing out the potential for terrorism among those already here plays into some of DJT’s more dangerous positions. You are aware he’d like to ship out the whole lot of 'em (citizens or not) and let God/Allah sort them out, aren’t you?*
*That is I think he would, from what he’s said in the past, but who can say. With him, you can take him at his word (if you’re gullible) or read the tea leaves. I’m convinced that few of his backers believe most of what he says- They believe the parts they like and figure the rest is just for show or to fool “the rest of them”.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_1_1.pdf is the actual source of these numbers. On page 8, you’ll notice Table 2, which shows that we get a terrorist refugee for every 162,625 non-terrorist refugees we let into the country. They are, actually, the most-terroristy category of immigrants studied, but because we only let ~3 million of them into the country, as opposed to 657 million tourists and 24 million students, their “kill count” is lower. Looking at these numbers, bringing in more refugees seems like an absolutely stupid idea. We’d be better off with more K-1 visa holders, and one of those recently helped murder 14 people in San Bernardino.
running coach and Fear Itself precisely describe what is wrong with the analogy.
It does two things.
[ol]
[li]It trivializes the harm done by “throwing them out”. Throwing out skittles does not somehow harm the “innocent” non-poisoned skittles, but rejecting war refugees does harm real human innocents.[/li][li]It exaggerates any perceived benefit in “throwing them out”. There is a real benefit in throwing out the skittles because the potential harm in keeping them is very real and very likely to be eliminated by their disposal. “Throwing out” refugees, on the other hand, is attempting to eliminate a theoretical danger which statistically is essentially just as likely to exist in society with or without this one particular group of people.[/li]
It’s a selfish feel good solution which causes great harm to innocents while achieving no meaningful gain in safety for society at large. In fact it could be argued that showing compassion towards refugees might reduce the danger by changing the minds of some people.
[/ol]