Republicans are encouraging hispanics not to vote this fall.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have to go back to the Clinton era? Irrelevent post is irrelevent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, Bells, what they are saying to the Latinos is you don't have to vote for Angle (which they probably wouldn't do) but let the Dems know you are pissed at them by not voting for them.

You seem to think that not voting is not a constitutional right.

When indeed, it is.

Again, all you are really saying is you're pissed that this is probably going to be an effective ad.

LOL

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are a partisan hack yourself buffalo roam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But that aside, the article was and remains true no matter what you may think about about the source. And the ad, which speaks for itself, was posted in the article for all to see and hear. The ad itself, as pointed out by others, does not support your or the makers claims.

 

The ad was BRILLIANT.

Gives the Latinos an obvious way of saying to Harry and the Dems: FU

Love it.

The reason Joe et al are going bonkers is because it is so brilliant.

LOL

Arthur

 

Who is going bonkers? LOL

 

Update: The ad has been pulled and wont be aired on Univision

Hispanics are well aware of GOP ad money being funded by China, India, and Saudi business interests. Hispanic business interests are at risk here.

Telling somebody not to vote should be a hint of the 11th hour desperation ploy being displayed here. Republicans...low enough to limbo under a snakes belly.

 

One less vote for your opponent is the same as one more vote for yourself...

To show your displeasure you "vote the bum out", not voting in my mind means you have no gripe about who wins. You have said you don't care are are willing to accept the role of the dice! You are hurting yourself more then hurting the bums by not voting!

I'll bet that the sponsors are conservative! Can you imagine this ad coming from a Liberal organization? I think not!

KRR

 

I am going bonkers? LOL

Your ability for self deception greatly exceeds all expectations. Ask yourself my friend, who is on the defensive here? I count 2, yourself and mr. roam.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agreed, and thank God at least one media network has some moral backbone.

 

Agreed, but I do think European democracies have been more succesful in controlling special interest money than we in the US.

Personally, I favor preference voting...more specifically the Borda Count.

 

There's nothing moral about it.

“Univision will not be running any spots from Latinos for Reform related to voting," said a spokeswoman for the network, Monica Talan, in an email. "Univision prides itself on promoting civic engagement and our extensive national campaigns encourage Hispanics to vote.”

So in essence, Univision decided to side with the Democratic party and not run an ad that is against it based on the idea that "we encourage Hispanics to vote", as if that means diddly squat.

BUT,

Not voting IS also a statement and obviously it is your RIGHT not to, if you don't want Candidate A you don't have to vote for Candidate B.

Arthur

 

Because there is a HUGE difference between DENYING someone the right to vote and reminding someone that if they aren't happy with their party, they don't have to vote for the other party, they also have the RIGHT to NOT vote.

Univision is the one that is being undemocratic by not allowing a completely legal Ad to air on the station.
Of course they wouldn't have pulled it if it hadn't been a great AD.

They pulled it because they are scared of it.

It suggested to Latinos a palatable option to show their displeasure with the Democrats without suggesting that to do so they had to vote for Angle.

 

This and That

I think the difference you acknowledge is important. If the Nazis were a bullet to the brain, then the Tea Party would be like a cancer. Maybe colorectal, or prostate. Easily detected, annoying as hell, and with a lower fatality rate.

We're not all going to die if the Tea Party scores some gains in this election. I doubt there will be anything approaching the Kristallnacht, even if they somehow manage to muster the Congressional will to kick twelve million undocumented immigrants out of the country.

At some point, the people will respond to the Tea Party. It can only grow so strong on its apparent platform right now. Let's imagine, for a moment, that they gain enough clout in this and the next election to start deporting all the undocumented immigrants. Do we really think that everyone else will just shrug and go along with it? When they pass over a Britishman in the country without documentation long enough for him to shoot his American ex-girlfriend to death, will they seek the same political cover that we've seen people make for Seattle police? When they deport an American citizen for being mentally retarded and having an Hispanic last name, what will the Tea Partiers say? Will the people really accept that sort of thing? When they invoke East Germany to build their wall along the border, will the people really roll with it?

I might liken it to a drawn-out scene from Dragonball Z. Why do the fighters stand around while the enemy "powers up" and transforms to another shape? Why not hit him and disrupt that process? (Sure, there is some variant of a tradition of honorable fighting in there, but work with me for a moment.) The people right now are watching the "mighty" Tea Party power up, and are waiting to see exactly what they have to deal with.

When this was just a ranting, moronic reporter from CNBC, people rolled their eyes in disgust. When it was O'Reilly and Beck, they sort of shrugged and chuckled—"Of course FOX News is in on it." When it was a fifty year-old woman on video bawling that she wants her country back, people wondered, "What the fuck are you talking about?" When it was a bunch of rude, angry people trying to quash all discussion of the health care reform, people sat back at first and said, "Let's see what they've got." When it was Sen. Brown elected to the Senate, people said, "Now let's see what he does." (And he danced the Potomac Two-Step.) And they also had Sen. Bill Owens' victory over Doug Hoffman in New York to point to.

This is the first real contest. Not that the Democrats didn't blow the Massachusetts special election; not that the Tea Party didn't blow the NY23 special election. But this is a nationwide contest, with Tea Party candidates running in diverse races across the country. We'll see certain reactions to Tea Party victories. The far left, which has never been popular, will of course be outraged. The mainstream "progresives" will say a few things, and everyone on the right wing will pitch a hissy-fit about how radically leftist the progressives are. But by and large, people will measure the scope of the Tea Party's success, and decide at least a couple of boundaries as to how much they'll put up with from that crowd. And from there, they'll assess what the Tea Party representatives say and do. It's very hard to squash the Tea Party; not only is it resilient, but it is, as I noted, amorphous. As it takes shape, and shows its functional form, people will start to figure out how to deal with it.

I mean, you see how we might point to something a Tea Partier says or does, and they all rush to either defend or disqualify that person. But the Tea Party is invested in this election; they won't be able to push away their candidate selections so easily. They won't be able to disown inflammatory or ridiculous stunts those politicians invoke.

(Real-time note: A three-hour gap occurs here in the writing of the post; I don't recall where I was going, and I am in something of a rush, as my daughter is taking off to Mexico, and I need to get her out the door.)

I'm of the opinion that the more the Tea Party realizes itself, the more it will occur to thinking people to do something about it. Right now, though, there's not much to go on. Everyone seems fascinated at the idea that this public spectacle could actually translate to public office. Once some of those TP candidates are there, people will start figuring out what to do about it.

• • •​

And yet, while the ad makes it very clear that De Posada doesn't want the Democrats to win, you have Cowboy, to the one, claiming it's a nonpartisan issue, and, to the other, De Posada himself trying to deny that it's a shill for the GOP.

And, in terms of it being a well thought out advert, well, there it's your integrity in question: How can you assert it's a well thought-out advertisement when the guy who made it has been backed into such a corner that his excuse is, essentially, that he didn't think it through?

I don't know, Arthur, is consistency too much to ask?

 

Your words not his.

"The last part of the ad, the tag line, said, 'Don't vote for those who betrayed you.' And because of timing, we decided to cut that 'for those who betrayed you,' because we thought that the message was very clear in the rest of the ad," Deposada said. He takes "full responsibility" for the editing job, he said.

So either way he's not saying to vote for Angle.

And that seems to be his position.

He's not an Angle supporter, but still finds it preferable that Reid not be in the Senate.

Which I suspect is where the light bulb came on.

If enough Latinos don't vote for Reid, and they don't vote for Angle, they ARE INDEED making a statement.

Apparently you think that Latinos shouldn't be able to make that kind of political statement.

Apparently to you, it is only valid to vote for Reid or Angle, but not voting for either is somehow wrong.

Democracy is about FREEDOM, and one of those freedoms is the freedom to cast your vote or not to do so if you find neither candidate to your liking.

Clearly, your typical Latino voter would know that by not voting for Reid, they are helping elect Angle, but by not voting for Angle they are also making the statement that they don't agree with her positions either.

Arthur

 

A black screen with the words "Don't vote" doesn't take up less time than a black screen with the words "Don't vote for those who betrayed you".

It was quite possible to follow through with the (alleged)full tagline.

 

Except he says the words that are on the screen, so it would take more time.

 

And then there is the whole issue of the rest of the ad, not just the last video image. And then there is the issue where Arthur says the ad is "brilliant".

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2636805&postcount=47

And a few posts later he is making excuses for the ad.

 

Oh horsepucky,

I wasn't making excuses for the Ad, I still think it's BRILLIANT, with either line, but the second one IS longer, so I can see why he went with the shorter, punchier line.

Indeed if it wasn't such a killer ad they wouldn't have pulled it.

Running scared it would appear.

LOL

What's funny is all you yahoos who are going on about it are supporting a TV's stations ability to limit of free political speech on the FLIMSIEST of grounds.

Apparently you think people should have NO CHOICE but to vote for Angle if they don't want to vote for Reid.

Friggin amazing.

Arthur