Hispanic Woman Cannot Join Congressional Hispanic Caucus

[Dill]

(10-28-2022, 06:47 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.

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.

No one disagrees that Dems "denied" Flores membership in a Dem caucus or that the caucus was "originally bipartisan."  

So "finding something wrong" starts with questions like--why choose to connect another minor GOP stunt to Hispanics "tracking GOP" and Dems "feel[ing] entitled to the votes of non-white people (also racist)"? How does leaving the caucus name the same for 46 years amount to "deliberate mislabeling" which makes Dems "petty and bigoted" for not opening a Dem caucus to a disruptive Republican?  (Was Flores tricked?) 
 
It doesn't. A hypothesis: You projected your highly partisan vision of Dems onto a few bare facts and spun them into an angry condemnation of Dem "racism" and "petty bigotry.”  When you recognized that new evidence exposed the one-sidedness of the Dem focus, damage control took the form of "easy" non-partisan "consistency": Repubs should change their name as well as the bigoted Dems.   
 
What speaks for this hypothesis? First, the constant juxtaposition of bare facts ("denied membership" and "Hispanic) with unrelated claims about "tracking" and "racism." Second, Once the bare facts fit the Repubs just as well as Dems, then it’s all damage control for the guy who regularly accuses others of partisan vision: The article should have told you more; though you spun this thread out of anti-Dem anger, you want credit for "consistency" because now you apply your naming demands to “both sides”--while continuing to affirm your “subjective opinion” Dems are petty and bigoted; and finally, there is dill's "disturbing" behavior, criticizing poor you, not for trying to gaslight your partisan pre-judgment away, but for your adult “learning” behavior. 


What speaks against that hypothesis?