10-28-2022, 06:47 PM
(10-28-2022, 06:33 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Person A reads a news article about Dems excluding a Hispanic, then fills in the blanks with assumptions about trending Hispanic votes and Dem petty bigotry.
No assumptions needed, actions speak louder than words and all.
Quote:2. Person GmdinoB researches the matter before jumping to a conclusion and informs the group there are two Hispanic caucuses based on party affiliation, and Flores tried to join the wrong one--but in a long post most probably didn't read closely.
3. Person A "acclimatizes" to the new fact, first by claiming person B "made my point for me" (????), then asserting the Dem's "feeling of entitlement to the votes of non-Whites (also racist)" and still calling the HCH "deliberately misleading" as plain conclusions.
Yes, he made my point for me that the Dems specifically exclude GOP members yet still call their caucus the CHC. Was that not the crux of my point?
Quote:Finally after Person C distills the longer article into the essential point, the learning begins. Person A invokes "adult" behavior as the standard now and his "adjustment" makes him the exemplar thereof, as he goes on to complain that the problem with journalism today is that journalists do what he just did. Cherry on top: person A ascribes to Person C a belief that merely "incorporating new information" and "changing thoughts and opinions when applicable" would be the object of ridicule here. Person A is no doubt "sad" for him.
So, not my term, but yes. A kind of "self own."
Like I said, Dill, I know you need your small victories now, so have it. Also, as I pointed out, the split came over a disagreement about Cuba, the article did not mention that the CHC is strictly for the Dems by their own bylaws.
So, I will reiterate, the caucus should not be labeled as it is based on their deliberate exclusion of non-Dem Hispanics. Do you agree this is a clear mislabeling of their caucus and that they should change their name because of it?
Also, for those who won't read the whole thread;
(10-27-2022, 07:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The title rather says it all, Mayra Flores, who is the first woman born in Mexico to serve in Congress was denied membership on the Hispanic Congressional Caucus. Not a good look for a caucus that was originally bipartisan. But, it's their choice, so fine. What should absolutely be required is that their name be changed immediately to the Democratic Hispanic Congressional Caucus. I guess the reality of Hispanics tracking GOP (something I said several years ago would happen) isn't sitting well with the Dems. As I said, it's their right to deny her membership, but damn if it doesn't make them look petty and bigoted.
https://thehill.com/latino/3707920-texas-republican-says-she-was-denied-membership-in-hispanic-caucus/
Please try and find something in that post that is wrong. Was Flores denied, yes. Was the caucus originally bipartisan, yes. Was it their choice to exclude her, yes. Should they change their name because they don't actually represent Hispanics, just Dem Hispanics, yes. Are Hispanics tracking GOP, yes. Is their decision to deny her membership both petty and bigoted? This one is the only statement up for debate, and it's clearly subjective, but my opinion based on everything that came before it is, yes.
Do you disagree with any of that? Also, please do respond to every point, not just the ones you feel you can score petty internet points on as you are wont to do. My thanks in advance and enjoy your weekend.
