Donald Trump Jr. tries, fails, to understand socialism through Halloween candy

By Reid McCarter  |  November 1, 2017 | 5:20pm
Aux Features great job internet

Political scholar Donald Trump Jr. understands that every holiday is a teachable moment. This Halloween being no exception, the oldest son of our current American president and professional rich bastard uses the candy haul of his already wealthy child to illustrate the dangers of socialism.

The expression on young Chloe’s face is meant, most likely, to convey the unjust pain of having half of her candy ripped away from her, but better illustrates a sort of disbelief that her father is such a complete fucking moron.

Trump Jr. seems to misunderstand quite a bit about how socialism actually functions in a democratic society while also glossing over the fact that his child has received a bucketful of free candy. He also ignores that Halloween is a holiday where people just sort of … put money toward a larger social good without expecting anything in return but the knowledge of contributing to something we collectively value.

Twitter, of course, has plenty of good comments on the alternative economic framework that has served the Trumps so well, particularly the ways in which the combover-in-waiting behind the original tweet has benefited from its practice.

More appropriate than the pained allegory Trump Jr. is grasping toward might be the more direct analogy of a member of the Trump family using his authority to reach right into the candy bowl and take from the vulnerable what he can already afford to buy on his own.

Or, we may want to stop trying to engage the Adult Son’s political metaphor altogether. We could, instead, focus on the response to his tweet, which illustrates an aspect of Halloween more relevant here than candy distribution: The fact that the shittiest people in the neighborhood have eggs and toilet paper thrown at their house and wake up on November 1st to the undeniable knowledge that their community hates their guts.

[via Uproxx]

 
Join the discussion...