Latina Republican blocked from joining Congressional Hispanic Caucus
The caucus defended its decision, citing Flores's 'extreme views' and party affiliation
Democrats who run the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) have blocked a freshman
Latina Republican lawmaker from joining the group.
Mayra Flores, who flipped a long-held Democratic House seat along the
U.S.-Mexico border earlier this year, said she was refused admission by the CHC because of her party affiliation.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/latina-...nic-caucus
It's about power, not race. Don't know how many times we need to beat that drum until the great moderate minds on this forum start to listen.
Maria Elvira Salazar wasn't invited either. It's an arm of the Democratic party. Maybe in the past it wasn't, but it is now. Its not a committee. It has no role in the House rules. If you're a member of Congress, your vote counts the same whether you're in the Hispanic Caucus or not. It's not a big deal. Let's not be silly.
Lol. You are such a hypocrite.
(10-27-2022, 07:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Maria Elvira Salazar wasn't invited either. It's an arm of the Democratic party. Maybe in the past it wasn't, but it is now. Its not a committee. It has no role in the House rules. If you're a member of Congress, your vote counts the same whether you're in the Hispanic Caucus or not. It's not a big deal. Let's not be silly.
That is true. Up to a point.
But I wish we didn't have these race based groups operating. It's hypocritical. They don't have a "white people's caucus." And the whole idea that there is a common interest that applies to Hispanics gets blown away when they exclude certain Hispanics.
I agree 100%. However, as to this particular topic, Mikey is conceding that democrats get to define what it is to be Hispanic. He would not hold the same position if Republicans did anything remotely similar. Getting tired of these linguistic games.
(10-28-2022, 11:37 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I agree 100%. However, as to this particular topic, Mikey is conceding that democrats get to define what it is to be Hispanic. He would not hold the same position if Republicans did anything remotely similar. Getting tired of these linguistic games.
No I don't. Letting them pick and choose a carefully curated and elitist group of 36 people is not the same as letting them define the ethnicity of millions of people. I wouldn't concede that and I don't.
Sure you are. You're going to have to figure out what words mean at some point. Let's not be silly.
Look dude, if Republicans made a Congressional Christian Caucus, then deny access to a Democrat, what are they saying? Either it's not for the entirety of Congress and should be renamed, or that person isn't a Christian in their eyes. It's pretty simple.
You can choose to attribute either of those motives. The first of those two is easy to solve. You just rename your group. That won't happen, though. You know why? They know they get to define terms, because people like you won't challenge it. If you knew anything about Critical Race Theory, you'd understand that race is an agent for change, and if it's not advocating for the overhaul of the system, it's complicit in the perpetuation of oppression and not worthy of the designation. This means they believe they get to define what is and isn't Hispanic. They are exercising that by rejecting her from this Caucus. It could be renamed, but that's not the issue. The issue is her beliefs.
Shame on you for letting them determine her identity.
Just rename it the Democrat Hispanic Caucus and stop pretending to be inclusive and concerned about all Hispanics and not just the ones who vote like you want them to.
(10-28-2022, 01:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look dude, if Republicans made a Congressional Christian Caucus, then deny access to a Democrat, what are they saying? Either it's not for the entirety of Congress and should be renamed, or that person isn't a Christian in their eyes. It's pretty simple.
You can choose to attribute either of those motives. The first of those two is easy to solve. You just rename your group. That won't happen, though. You know why? They know they get to define terms, because people like you won't challenge it. If you knew anything about Critical Race Theory, you'd understand that race is an agent for change, and if it's not advocating for the overhaul of the system, it's complicit in the perpetuation of oppression and not worthy of the designation. This means they believe they get to define what is and isn't Hispanic. They are exercising that by rejecting her from this Caucus. It could be renamed, but that's not the issue. The issue is her beliefs.
Shame on you for letting them determine her identity.
I know about critical race theory. Critical theory and critical race theory are concerned with questioning the foundations and original intents of our laws, typically for the purpose of "discovering" that the laws create and perpetuate an "oppressed" class. They are not looking to redefine or revoke anyone's identity, they are looking to subsume all possible identities into an "oppressed" or "oppressor" gradient. These theories have some currency on the left, but their influence in the halls of power is greatly overstated, just as the importance of the CHC is greatly overstated.
Said another way, perhaps these people do believe that their power derives from redefining words. Perhaps that's what they're trying to do here. However, power doesn't actually work that way. If a bunch of dwarfs became convinced that they would acquire world-dominating magic powers after they acquired enough emeralds, we wouldn't necessarily need to stop them from acquiring emeralds, because power doesnt work that way. Now if the dwarfs were after uranium, that would be a different story.
Said yet another way, everyone is instinctually aware of the essential holding of critical theory. Legal and economic systems do place some people in charge of others, and the others don't always like it. However, nearly everyone agrees that their status in the legal system or economic system is only a small part of their identity. And in most societies, certainly in ours, there is some ability to improve yourself and gain a new status in the law or in the economy. These are the blessings of an open and pluralistic society and there is no reason to believe any large number of people is willing to do anything more than tweak that.
(10-28-2022, 01:52 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Just rename it the Democrat Hispanic Caucus and stop pretending to be inclusive and concerned about all Hispanics and not just the ones who vote like you want them to.
Bingo, cha ching
(10-28-2022, 02:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 01:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look dude, if Republicans made a Congressional Christian Caucus, then deny access to a Democrat, what are they saying? Either it's not for the entirety of Congress and should be renamed, or that person isn't a Christian in their eyes. It's pretty simple.
You can choose to attribute either of those motives. The first of those two is easy to solve. You just rename your group. That won't happen, though. You know why? They know they get to define terms, because people like you won't challenge it. If you knew anything about Critical Race Theory, you'd understand that race is an agent for change, and if it's not advocating for the overhaul of the system, it's complicit in the perpetuation of oppression and not worthy of the designation. This means they believe they get to define what is and isn't Hispanic. They are exercising that by rejecting her from this Caucus. It could be renamed, but that's not the issue. The issue is her beliefs.
Shame on you for letting them determine her identity.
I know about critical race theory. Critical theory and critical race theory are concerned with questioning the foundations and original intents of our laws, typically for the purpose of "discovering" that the laws create and perpetuate an "oppressed" class. They are not looking to redefine or revoke anyone's identity, they are looking to subsume all possible identities into an "oppressed" or "oppressor" gradient. These theories have some currency on the left, but their influence in the halls of power is greatly overstated, just as the importance of the CHC is greatly overstated.
Said another way, perhaps these people do believe that their power derives from redefining words. Perhaps that's what they're trying to do here. However, power doesn't actually work that way. If a bunch of dwarfs became convinced that they would acquire world-dominating magic powers after they acquired enough emeralds, we wouldn't necessarily need to stop them from acquiring emeralds, because power doesnt work that way. Now if the dwarfs were after uranium, that would be a different story.
Said yet another way, everyone is instinctually aware of the essential holding of critical theory. Legal and economic systems do place some people in charge of others, and the others don't always like it. However, nearly everyone agrees that their status in the legal system or economic system is only a small part of their identity. And in most societies, certainly in ours, there is some ability to improve yourself and gain a new status in the law or in the economy. These are the blessings of an open and pluralistic society and there is no reason to believe any large number of people is willing to do anything more than tweak that.
You went off track when you ventured into emerald-hoarding dwarfism. Hidden fetish, no?
(10-28-2022, 03:17 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 01:52 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Just rename it the Democrat Hispanic Caucus and stop pretending to be inclusive and concerned about all Hispanics and not just the ones who vote like you want them to.
Bingo, cha ching
(10-28-2022, 02:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I know about critical race theory. Critical theory and critical race theory are concerned with questioning the foundations and original intents of our laws, typically for the purpose of "discovering" that the laws create and perpetuate an "oppressed" class. They are not looking to redefine or revoke anyone's identity, they are looking to subsume all possible identities into an "oppressed" or "oppressor" gradient. These theories have some currency on the left, but their influence in the halls of power is greatly overstated, just as the importance of the CHC is greatly overstated.
Said another way, perhaps these people do believe that their power derives from redefining words. Perhaps that's what they're trying to do here. However, power doesn't actually work that way. If a bunch of dwarfs became convinced that they would acquire world-dominating magic powers after they acquired enough emeralds, we wouldn't necessarily need to stop them from acquiring emeralds, because power doesnt work that way. Now if the dwarfs were after uranium, that would be a different story.
Said yet another way, everyone is instinctually aware of the essential holding of critical theory. Legal and economic systems do place some people in charge of others, and the others don't always like it. However, nearly everyone agrees that their status in the legal system or economic system is only a small part of their identity. And in most societies, certainly in ours, there is some ability to improve yourself and gain a new status in the law or in the economy. These are the blessings of an open and pluralistic society and there is no reason to believe any large number of people is willing to do anything more than tweak that.
You went off track when you ventured into emerald-hoarding dwarfism. Hidden fetish, no?
When you've watched the wizard of Oz as many times as I have, it can have strange effects.
(10-28-2022, 11:37 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I agree 100%. However, as to this particular topic, Mikey is conceding that democrats get to define what it is to be Hispanic. He would not hold the same position if Republicans did anything remotely similar. Getting tired of these linguistic games.
You could stop engaging him. Or you can reply and ignore any counter he offers that way you get a word in without having to wade through the word salads.
(10-28-2022, 04:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 03:17 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]Bingo, cha ching
You went off track when you ventured into emerald-hoarding dwarfism. Hidden fetish, no?
When you've watched the wizard of Oz as many times as I have, it can have strange effects.
LOL, true.
(10-28-2022, 02:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 01:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look dude, if Republicans made a Congressional Christian Caucus, then deny access to a Democrat, what are they saying? Either it's not for the entirety of Congress and should be renamed, or that person isn't a Christian in their eyes. It's pretty simple.
You can choose to attribute either of those motives. The first of those two is easy to solve. You just rename your group. That won't happen, though. You know why? They know they get to define terms, because people like you won't challenge it. If you knew anything about Critical Race Theory, you'd understand that race is an agent for change, and if it's not advocating for the overhaul of the system, it's complicit in the perpetuation of oppression and not worthy of the designation. This means they believe they get to define what is and isn't Hispanic. They are exercising that by rejecting her from this Caucus. It could be renamed, but that's not the issue. The issue is her beliefs.
Shame on you for letting them determine her identity.
I know about critical race theory. Critical theory and critical race theory are concerned with questioning the foundations and original intents of our laws, typically for the purpose of "discovering" that the laws create and perpetuate an "oppressed" class. They are not looking to redefine or revoke anyone's identity, they are looking to subsume all possible identities into an "oppressed" or "oppressor" gradient. These theories have some currency on the left, but their influence in the halls of power is greatly overstated, just as the importance of the CHC is greatly overstated.
Said another way, perhaps these people do believe that their power derives from redefining words. Perhaps that's what they're trying to do here. However, power doesn't actually work that way. If a bunch of dwarfs became convinced that they would acquire world-dominating magic powers after they acquired enough emeralds, we wouldn't necessarily need to stop them from acquiring emeralds, because power doesnt work that way. Now if the dwarfs were after uranium, that would be a different story.
Said yet another way, everyone is instinctually aware of the essential holding of critical theory. Legal and economic systems do place some people in charge of others, and the others don't always like it. However, nearly everyone agrees that their status in the legal system or economic system is only a small part of their identity. And in most societies, certainly in ours, there is some ability to improve yourself and gain a new status in the law or in the economy. These are the blessings of an open and pluralistic society and there is no reason to believe any large number of people is willing to do anything more than tweak that.
Once again, you only understand the talking points of critical theory. You don't understand the depth of the subject. It's why you are so easily manipulated.
Once again, you are wrong about linguistic fluidity. There is power in manipulating language. That's why they do it. It's why you are so easily manipulated.
Once again, you live in the world of naivete. The world has changed TREMENDOUSLY over the last 10 years. It's because people like you are so easily manipulated.
(10-28-2022, 04:16 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 11:37 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I agree 100%. However, as to this particular topic, Mikey is conceding that democrats get to define what it is to be Hispanic. He would not hold the same position if Republicans did anything remotely similar. Getting tired of these linguistic games.
You could stop engaging him. Or you can reply and ignore any counter he offers that way you get a word in without having to wade through the word salads.
I don't really argue with Mikey. He's a parrot. I argue against those who are carefully crafting the narrative he blindly follows.
(10-28-2022, 04:40 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 04:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When you've watched the wizard of Oz as many times as I have, it can have strange effects.
LOL, true.
Maybe I should have went with gnomes hoarding underpants instead. Trying to be relatable.
(10-28-2022, 07:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 04:40 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]LOL, true.
Maybe I should have went with gnomes hoarding underpants instead. Trying to be relatable.
You’ve got a cool underside despite your attempt be be the biggest troll on the board. +1 to you!
![[Image: 2213.png]](https://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2014/May/2213.png)
Ps, The Wizard of Oz is the best.
(10-28-2022, 07:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2022, 04:40 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]LOL, true.
Maybe I should have went with gnomes hoarding underpants instead. Trying to be relatable.
Nah, dwarfs are good. Gnomes are creepy. I dont trust them. I was at WalMart the other night, and thought i saw a dwarf in the furniture section. Turned out to just be an unusually short employee. You know how it goes at WalMart after 11PM, you're likely to encounter pretty much anything.
I never knew that Republicans were part of any of the racist caucuses. You know the Black caucus, the Latino Caucus, the Democrat Party, etc.