No, you didn't. You keep asking "how can I tell an illegal from a legal (alien)". That isn't at all what I asked. I asked that you show the advertisements that group Hispanics all together as criminals. You have yet to do so.
Another new low for Democrats
- Thread starter harami
- Start date
No, you didn't. You keep asking "how can I tell an illegal from a legal (alien)". That isn't at all what I asked. I asked that you show the advertisements that group Hispanics all together as criminals. You have yet to do so.
I don't know where you live but here in the south I don't encounter very many people who respond with an Asian dialect or say "eh" at the end of a sentence.
Yo no hablo espanol.
Well now I have to question whether or not you are able to keep up with the discussion.
I will try my best re-explain my position. The republicans have aired ads that show Hispanics as criminals, I posted the links in post #21. That is a stereotype. There is no way distinguish between a person in America legally or not. Arizona ran into this problem 4 years ago, or so, when they were pulling people over and checking their status based on profiling.
Now democrats are airing ads that portray Trump voters as criminals, see post #1.
None of it is right. We shouldn’t use pictures of gang members with tattoos on their face as the representation of people being protected by sanctuary cities, as discussed many people here illegally are not from Mexico or South America, and we shouldn’t use confederate flag waving white men as the representation of a Trump voter.
The irony is both ads are effective and now some Trump supporters have a taste of what it is like to be stereotyped.
Now there is a brutal truth to the confederate flag ad, you are missing. There was a Trump supporter at the Charlottesville “blood and soil” demonstrations that used his car to murder people. This ad is a play on that incident.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Thank you for showing me where the link was to your claims. That was all I was asking for.
Regarding the first ad from the Washington Post: This ad targets MS 13. It says nothing of Hispanics. After the mention of MS13 three times, it then goes, word for word: "Ralph Norton voted in favor of Sanctuary Cities that let dangerous illegal immigrants back on the streets". Watch it again if you don't believe me. I cannot embed the video, but it was your link, so I'm sure you can find it.
Not once in that video is anyone, at any time, calling Hispanics criminals. All it does is call gang members and illegal aliens criminals, which they are.
Let's take a look at the second link.
The entire video talks about the illegal alien Jose Carranza who raped a child, and murdered 3 (shot 4) students in NJ. The ad then shows how, when asked about sanctuary cities and the illegal aliens there, Phil Murray said "I would have their back" and then further went on to state how the entire state of NJ would be a sanctuary to illegal aliens.
Not one time were Hispanics generalized or even mentioned. Not once.
With the noted exception that people who voted for Trump committed no illegal act or violation of any law whatsoever, and were exercising their constitutional right as citizens, and those who enter and stay in the country are in violation of the law, not to mention those that actually commit heinous crimes (which is what is called out in those two links you provided). To even claim these are the same thing is beyond nutcase.
Who was it again that was stereotyped? Criminals? People who have broken the law? Because there isn't one mention of anyone else in any of those videos.
If the ad had mentioned that particular incident (it didn't) or if that act had specifically targeted immigrant children, you might have had some ground to stand on. But the circumstances behind that event were cloudy at best based on the official investigations, and the person certainly was not targeting immigrant children.
Now, the muslim who just ran over people in NYC, well that's different.
You are completely without any leg to stand on in this argument. Zippo. Nada. I'm sure that won't prevent you from continuing to try, however.
Thanks for telling me I have no ground to stand on, but I stand behind my statement. It really doesn’t matter if you refuse to acknowledge the stereotyping in the sanctuary city ads because it does exist. And the Truck ad does the same thing.
You are trying to split the difference but they are both cut from the same cloth, the only problem is you take a side and are not being objective.
Is it your argument that we should start showing MS13 gang members as white folks or that it is not an allowable campaign issue, or that it is allowable but no visuals are allowed?
My argument is both ads are effective for the wrong reasons.
I am being as objective as the law allows. There is absolutely no stereotyping at all in the ad unless you imagine it. Anyone can clearly watch those ads and see for themselves, even if you refuse to accept it.
The difference is that I am willing to admit I am wrong or made a mistake if you can show where. You cannot, but stubbornly hold to the same original perspective. And somehow it is me who cannot be objective. What a laugh!
Do Sanctuary Cities exist to protect illegal or legal immigrants? Simple question.
Your attempted rationalizations are nonsense. But that is ok. I encourage democrats to keep running ads like this. You guys take the side of illegals, gang members, drug dealers, etc. We will take the American side. Let's see how that works out.