So the New York Times has finally got around to chronicling a week's worth of Trump's falsehoods.
Perhaps they can follow the example of Steve Benen, who in 2012 posted a list of Romney's lies every week, and make "A Week of Whoppers From Donald Trump" a continuing feature.
Update.
I see Politico has chronicled a week's worth of falsehoods from each candidate, and come to this conclusion: "Trump’s mishandling of facts and propensity for exaggeration so greatly exceed Clinton’s as to make the comparison almost ludicrous." (They calculate that Trump averaged one falsehood every 3 minutes 15 seconds in the five hours they examined.)
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Playing Skittles
Here's the tweet from Donald Trump, Jr. that has stirred up some controversy:
Let's unpack what it says.
"If.. I told you just three would kill you"
The meaning: I have certain knowledge that three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you.
I'm guessing there are about 100 Skittles in the bowl, though Mr. Trump has used the figure 1,000
So in his scenario, 0.3% of the Skittles are known to be deadly.
To apply the analogy to Syrian refugees, Mr. Trump would need to have certain knowledge that 0.3% of them are known to be deadly terrorists.
Does he have that certain knowledge?
And has our pusillanimous press even thought to ask him that?
But to continue unpacking:
"Would you take" - I assume he means "eat" - "a handful?"
Presumably analogous to the US taking at random some proportion of Syrian refugees.
And if 0.3% of Syrian refugees were deadly, as Mr. Trump appears to claim, that would indeed be a concern.
But we do not take Syrian refugees at random. There is a long drawn out screening process.
So to continue Mr. Trump's analogy, we should add:
"And if I told you we had screened out the Skittles that would kill you, would you take a handful?"
If I enjoyed eating Skittles, well yes, I would.
And if common humanity impelled me to give refuge to
" your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Let's unpack what it says.
"If.. I told you just three would kill you"
The meaning: I have certain knowledge that three of the Skittles in the bowl will kill you.
I'm guessing there are about 100 Skittles in the bowl, though Mr. Trump has used the figure 1,000
So in his scenario, 0.3% of the Skittles are known to be deadly.
To apply the analogy to Syrian refugees, Mr. Trump would need to have certain knowledge that 0.3% of them are known to be deadly terrorists.
Does he have that certain knowledge?
And has our pusillanimous press even thought to ask him that?
But to continue unpacking:
"Would you take" - I assume he means "eat" - "a handful?"
Presumably analogous to the US taking at random some proportion of Syrian refugees.
And if 0.3% of Syrian refugees were deadly, as Mr. Trump appears to claim, that would indeed be a concern.
But we do not take Syrian refugees at random. There is a long drawn out screening process.
So to continue Mr. Trump's analogy, we should add:
"And if I told you we had screened out the Skittles that would kill you, would you take a handful?"
If I enjoyed eating Skittles, well yes, I would.
And if common humanity impelled me to give refuge to
" your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
