Hispanic Woman Cannot Join Congressional Hispanic Caucus

[StoneTheCrow]

(10-27-2022, 11:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: They're all too busy sex trafficking and eating children to be inclusive these days, from what I understand.

There are only so many hours in a day. Priorities.

[*Nately120*]

(10-27-2022, 11:08 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: There are only so many hours in a day. Priorities.

Fool, they eat children so that they gain their youthful souls which allows them to control the ebb and flow of time.  Ok, I made this one up, but I know some Q folks who believe some really insane stuff about liberals.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2022, 11:04 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: SMH where has inclusivity gone amongst the progressive contingent?

I don't think they have ever said we welcome hateful wild conspiracy theorists with open arms and would love to vote them in to positions of power and work with them to write this country's laws.

Your preconceived notion of the depths of the inclusiveness may have been off. Or maybe I'm mistaken, Obama probably said something like that.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-28-2022, 02:51 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I don't think they have ever said we welcome hateful wild conspiracy theorists with open arms and would love to vote them in to positions of power and work with them to write this country's laws.

Your preconceived notion of the depths of the inclusiveness may have been off. Or maybe I'm mistaken, Obama probably said something like that.

Who's a hateful wild conspiracy theorist? Flores? How so?

[GMDino]

Well, this thread turned quickly!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2022, 03:13 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Who's a hateful wild conspiracy theorist? Flores? How so?

You'll likely never get an answer to this.

[Dill]

(10-27-2022, 09:15 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Hispanic_Conference

https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/HAIC/Historical-Essays/Strength-Numbers/Caucus-Conference/

So the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, formed and named with Republicans in 1976, has been Democrat since the late 90s.

And the Republicans formed their own Congressional Hispanic Conference in 2003 for Republicans. 

If the "deliberate mislabeling" is a "bad look" in the Dem's case and they need to change the name,

then it seems the Repubs should should change their caucus name, or risk looking like "petty bigots" as well.

At least then newer members, like Flores, would not get confused and apply for membership to the wrong one.

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 02:51 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:
I don't think they have ever said we welcome hateful wild conspiracy theorists with open arms and would love to vote them in to positions of power and work with them to write this country's laws.

Your preconceived notion of the depths of the inclusiveness may have been off. Or maybe I'm mistaken, Obama probably said something like that.

So you ADMIT they are not "inclusive"? 

[*pally*]

(10-27-2022, 09:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, while we're being racist let me ask if you think the Hispanic trend towards the GOP is a general thing or do you think it's more of a confounding/short-term variable given Trump's level of support from groups that tend towards lessened levels of higher education?

Hispanics within the USA have the lowest level of education by ethnicity, but the GOP may have made more inroads with that demographic that go beyond Trump.

There are so many different communities among Hispanic that you really can't draw general conclusions. Cubans for example tend to be more Republican. Newer arrivals tend to be more Democratic. Catholics are often swayed by the abortion issue. Immigration is a surprisingly big divider.
Part of the problem is that Democrats have looked at them as monolithic whereas the Republicans have done a better job of targeting individual groups. Their message in Florida is "socialism". Their message to the border states "you came here the right way"

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2022, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: So the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, formed and named with Republicans in 1976, has been Democrat since the late 90s.

And the Republicans formed their own Congressional Hispanic Conference in 2003 for Republicans. 

If the "deliberate mislabeling" is a "bad look" in the Dem's case and they need to change the name,

then it seems the Repubs should should change their caucus name, or risk looking like "petty bigots" as well.

At least then newer members, like Flores, would not get confused and apply for membership to the wrong one.

Yes, they should both change their names.  See how easy it is to be consistent?

[GMDino]

(10-28-2022, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: So the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, formed and named with Republicans in 1976, has been Democrat since the late 90s.

And the Republicans formed their own Congressional Hispanic Conference in 2003 for Republicans. 

If the "deliberate mislabeling" is a "bad look" in the Dem's case and they need to change the name,

then it seems the Repubs should should change their caucus name, or risk looking like "petty bigots" as well.

At least then newer members, like Flores, would not get confused and apply for membership to the wrong one.

Yeah, the gop split off to form their own, the Democrats changed the by-laws to make theirs Democrat only years ago.

So obviously the Democrats are at fault for not letting a gop member in. 

[Belsnickel]

So, my general disdain for these internal groups aside, this issue has turned out to be much ado about nothing. Could the groups name themselves better? Sure. But that is nothing new in politics with so many groups using broader names or ones that are disingenuous to their actual intentions. I'd love to put an end to all of it, but that just isn't a reality. And since it's a common thing, this doesn't really seem all that newsworthy.

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, they should both change their names.  See how easy it is to be consistent?

Well it can't be that easy if you launched the thread complaining only that one side

was "deliberately misleading," looking like petty bigots, and otherwise signaling "racist" assumptions. 

That was the moment to be "consistent."

Not only after the ground of all that animus was cut from under you.

In any case, as already noted, not "newsworthy," 

unless there is another reason why a Republican seeking more visibility 

sought to join a caucus whose bylaws exclude Republicans. 

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 01:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, my general disdain for these internal groups aside, this issue has turned out to be much ado about nothing. Could the groups name themselves better? Sure. But that is nothing new in politics with so many groups using broader names or ones that are disingenuous to their actual intentions. I'd love to put an end to all of it, but that just isn't a reality. And since it's a common thing, this doesn't really seem all that newsworthy.

Seems to me the names of both caucuses developed organically.

No one was trying to exclude anyone. One caucus was more responsive to Republican Cubans, etc.

Neither had any notion of including all Hispanics which would then make them hypocrites if, say, 

someone who did not want to work toward caucus goals was rejected for caucus membership.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2022, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Well it can't be that easy if you launched the thread complaining only that one side

was "deliberately misleading," looking like petty bigots, and otherwise signaling "racist" assumptions. 

That was the moment to be "consistent."

Not only after the ground of all that animus was cut from under you.

In any case, as already noted, not "newsworthy," 

unless there is another reason why a Republican seeking more visibility 

sought to join a caucus whose bylaws exclude Republicans. 

Yeah, I was unaware of the GOP having an exact same group when I made the thread.  Seeing as I'm not omnipotent once I was made aware of the other caucus I correctly applied the same argument to them as well.  See, that's what adults do, they acclimate new information and apply the same standards to it that they applied to old information.  Loving that you think this is some kind of own, who here honestly knew that the GOP also had a caucus with the exact same name?  I guess with the election not going your way you'll try and eke out any small win you can.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Since it's you, I'll put in terms you'll prefer;

1. Person A makes thread about subject. Person draws conclusions from available information and makes logical argument based on said information.

2. Person B points out an unknown fact that contradicts some of the points made by person A.

3. Person A acclimates new facts and modifies their position on the thread subject in response to this new information.


That you appear to find this process an "own" is rather disturbing. See, the process above is called learning. In it we incorporate new information and apply it to our existing knowledge base, changing thoughts or opinions when applicable. You appear to find that process a subject of ridicule. Like I said, disturbing.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Well now I want to know why R Flores wanted to join the “Democrat” Hispanic thingymabobber unless she also didn’t know there was multiple ones.

Don’t know if anyone posted about it but Nancy Pelosi’s husband got violently assaulted I’m assuming recently from a random YouTube news video.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2022, 02:41 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well now I want to know why R Flores wanted to join the “Democrat” Hispanic thingymabobber unless she also didn’t know there was multiple ones.

The answer to that is rather obvious, IMO.  So the article I linked in OP would be written, and duplicated, by numerous news agencies.

Quote:Don’t know if anyone posted about it but Nancy Pelosi’s husband got violently assaulted I’m assuming recently from a random YouTube news video.

Yes, apparently by a home invader who is in custody.  Not much more is known than that.  Of course that hasn't stopped people from deciding it was a GOP induced attack.  I wonder if the same people who mocked Rand Paul, and congratulated his attacker will have the same response in this instance.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2022, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, apparently by a home invader who is in custody.  Not much more is known than that.  Of course that hasn't stopped people from deciding it was a GOP induced attack.  I wonder if the same people who mocked Rand Paul, and congratulated his attacker will have the same response in this instance.

Apples and oranges, IMO. Didn't Rand Paul's attacker come at him hands on? Using a hammer is a bit of an escalation. Since we lack any knowledge of motivation on Pelosi's attacker I can't make a comparison there. I know Rand Paul's attacker took him on because of his perception that Paul was an asshole neighbor. If there was a similar motive and no weapon was used, I would have the same response. Too many differences, though.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-28-2022, 02:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The answer to that is rather obvious, IMO.  So the article I linked in OP would be written, and duplicated, by numerous news agencies.


Yes, apparently by a home invader who is in custody.  Not much more is known than that.  Of course that hasn't stopped people from deciding it was a GOP induced attack.  I wonder if the same people who mocked Rand Paul, and congratulated his attacker will have the same response in this instance.

Oh Dino and dill trained me to not read articles. Also even my first impression is Crazy right winger induced. Although I wait for actual judgement until more info is given.