Trump Campaign: Don't Taste the Rainbow, It's Poison

[Devout Centrist]

Reminds me of this equally disgusting image from the left:



In both cases, the obvious flaw is that banning a refugee or abandoning sex and relationships are far more impactful than not eating a little candy, while poisoning is equally impactful to terrorism/rape.

It's a dumb analogy and both sides will use it to further their ends.

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/07/05/poisonous-mms-the-irrational-monstrosity-of-bigotry/

Again, it's a false equivalence. Who gives a s[inks]t about what "the left" does in this context? One side nominates, props up and condones the actual representatives and standard-bearers of their party to use this kind of imagery; the other doesn't. Period.

I'm not referring to Trump or his supporters; I'm referring to the willingness of people to use false equivalencies, regardless of political affiliation.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

[Bismarck]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

Basically this. Immigration and refugee policy should be adjusted based on its impact on the American people. As for the picture, I would say it's not nearly as offensive as you all are making it out to be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ironic side-note...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37421886

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

People should be able to move wherever they want. Human beings shouldn't be confined by imaginary (and often arbitrary) lines on a map.

Hopefully the United States will open it's borders up in the next few decades. It's simply the right thing to do, and the sane thing as well; just imagine how much we'd save by not wasting money on pointless agencies like the CBP.

Pretty much this. Yeah, people would be transporting drugs back and forth; they'll find a way to do it anyway, and besides, it's time for us to acknowledge that it's excessive painkiller usage that brings about heroin addiction in the first place. Apart from drugs, if anyone sees us and thinks, "Ooh! The U.S. Is such a great place to commit rape!", that's our fault, not theirs.

[rafta_rafta]

Again, it's a false equivalence. Who gives a s[inks]t about what "the left" does in this context? One side nominates, props up and condones the actual representatives and standard-bearers of their party to use this kind of imagery; the other doesn't. Period.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

A more appropriate scale is if it was 1 in about 270,000 skittles fed to a million people, some wouldn't even get a skittle.  Most would be fine.  That one? Might have an immunity, lol. 

If anything, they need to streamline the refugee system and increase scrutiny on the visa system.  Someone gonna blow up 'merica is going to take the path of least resistance.

[Young Conservative]

Liberals have used this analogy too with M&Ms and skittles. Why the outrage now. The hypocrisy is painful and the bias of this thread name is too. Why not name it: "Trump Jr. Skittles Analogy for Refugee Crisis Sparks Criticism" or another less deafeningly partisan headline.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Liberals have used this analogy too with M&Ms and skittles. Why the outrage now. The hypocrisy is painful and the bias of this thread name is too. Why not name it: "Trump Jr. Skittles Analogy for Refugee Crisis Sparks Criticism" or another less deafeningly partisan headline.

It's an endorsed campaign image ... do you not see the difference?

Jesus, I would (again asking) love for just once for the Trumpites to say "yeah, this isn't good" when it isn't, rather than going for a knee-jerk buh my libruls or buh Hillary!

[Xing]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

Seriously? So if enough Americans yelled "no black people should be allowed in the U.S.!", would prohibiting anyone of African ancestry from entering be justified? If a majority of Americans believed that no one who was not a Protestant should be allowed to enter, would that also be justified? Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of saying that we shouldn't allow any immigrants.

[Bismarck]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

Seriously? So if enough Americans yelled "no black people should be allowed in the U.S.!", would prohibiting anyone of African ancestry from entering be justified? If a majority of Americans believed that no one who was not a Protestant should be allowed to enter, would that also be justified? Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of saying that we shouldn't allow any immigrants.

I don't think he was saying that would be the best option, only that our immigration policy should be geared towards benefiting our citizens not those coming here. Your arguments are bordering on the straw man side of things. We had immigration controls for many decades and our country did just fine. There's a difference between "don't allow black people in" and "pause the resettlement of people from areas that have terrorists who subscribe to an ideology that says they should kill us". Our government has an obligation to look out for our interests over those of foreign people, regardless of whether we feel compassion for those people or not.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you believe borders are imaginary and arbitrary, why do you live in the United States?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

People should be able to move wherever they want. Human beings shouldn't be confined by imaginary (and often arbitrary) lines on a map.

Hopefully the United States will open it's borders up in the next few decades. It's simply the right thing to do, and the sane thing as well; just imagine how much we'd save by not wasting money on pointless agencies like the CBP.

Pretty much this. Yeah, people would be transporting drugs back and forth; they'll find a way to do it anyway, and besides, it's time for us to acknowledge that it's excessive painkiller usage that brings about heroin addiction in the first place. Apart from drugs, if anyone sees us and thinks, "Ooh! The U.S. Is such a great place to commit rape!", that's our fault, not theirs.

It's America's fault for wearing that revealing dress.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Donald Trump is a bigot and a truly evil man. God help this nation if we make a mistake in Nov.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

People should be able to move wherever they want. Human beings shouldn't be confined by imaginary (and often arbitrary) lines on a map.

Hopefully the United States will open it's borders up in the next few decades. It's simply the right thing to do, and the sane thing as well; just imagine how much we'd save by not wasting money on pointless agencies like the CBP.

Pretty much this. Yeah, people would be transporting drugs back and forth; they'll find a way to do it anyway, and besides, it's time for us to acknowledge that it's excessive painkiller usage that brings about heroin addiction in the first place. Apart from drugs, if anyone sees us and thinks, "Ooh! The U.S. Is such a great place to commit rape!", that's our fault, not theirs.

It's America's fault for wearing that revealing dress.

Shhhh... that statue is an immigrant.

[JA]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

Humans, regardless of the superficial differences attributable to the random chance of where one was born, to what race one belongs, or to what deity (or lack thereof) one prays, come first. Period. When America, a land of relative wealth and stability, has the capacity to aid and assist our fellow man in need, but refuses, then the moral judgment of all civilized people should be that of condemnation. Any objection or protestation to the contrary betrays the moral foundations of our modern society, to which maybe you do not wish to belong, but many, if not most, of us do. Petty nationalism, such as that demonstrated in your post, is abhorrent and, thankfully, being gradually tossed aside by an emergent group of Americans who view all humans as interconnected, interdependent, and ethically bound to help one another without regard to something as arbitrary as imaginary lines on a map.

[DIXIECRAT]

The American polity has no right to decide who enters this country, because that would be against the moral foundations of the West.

or

A taco truck on every corner sounds delicious.

Which one do you think's better suited for a Republican ad?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If I had a bowl full of Trump job offers and I told you thirty of them would end up with you being stiffed on what was promised, would you accept one?

[ProudModerate2]

When you grow up as a privileged silver-spoon-in-your-mouth snob, it is easy to refer to others who are "underneath" you, as candy and not human beings.
Disgusting !
The entire trump family is a disgrace to this nation.
I hope their family name will be forever known in history books, in similar fashion to the last name "Hitler."

[Devout Centrist]

The American polity has no right to decide who enters this country, because that would be against the moral foundations of the West.

or

A taco truck on every corner sounds delicious.

Which one do you think's better suited for a Republican ad?

We have the right to decide who comes in, but that doesn't mean we should prevent refugees from entering because of a few incidents. America is far better at cultural integration than Europe. Just ask Bassam Tibi.

[Ebowed]

[DIXIECRAT]

The American polity has no right to decide who enters this country, because that would be against the moral foundations of the West.

or

A taco truck on every corner sounds delicious.

Which one do you think's better suited for a Republican ad?

We have the right to decide who comes in, but that doesn't mean we should prevent refugees from entering because of a few incidents. America is far better at cultural integration than Europe. Just ask Bassam Tibi.

I don't think we're having any refugee problem for the foreseeable future. Neither Obama nor Hillary will fill our younger cohorts with Muslims. 

[Blue3]

Good response:

[JA]

The American polity has no right to decide who enters this country, because that would be against the moral foundations of the West.

or

A taco truck on every corner sounds delicious.

Which one do you think's better suited for a Republican ad?

We have the right to decide who comes in, but that doesn't mean we should prevent refugees from entering because of a few incidents. America is far better at cultural integration than Europe. Just ask Bassam Tibi.

I don't think we're having any refugee problem for the foreseeable future. Neither Obama nor Hillary will fill our younger cohorts with Muslims. 

Exhibit A why Trumpers are outright deplorable

[rafta_rafta]

No one has the RIGHT to enter the US.  If the American People, as a whole, say "No Syrian Refugees", then that's what public policy ought to be, unless there is some super-compelling reason that is in the best interest of the American People (citizens) to take them in.

We don't have to allow ANY immigrants.  What's good for immigrants may not be good for the American Citizenry.  And the American Citizenry is SUPPOSED to come first.

Well hello there, my native American friend.