Joakin Castro tweeted a list of Trump donors in the San Antonio area and GOP politicians have objected to this as "targeting." Meanwhile, others say this is just sharing already public info. What do you think?
Posting it like a hitlist with company names is out of line. I am sure i will get a bunch of blowback for that opinion and that is all it is...my opinion.
In addition to open secrets, you can go to fec.gov for this Here's a good how to. https://www.google.com/amp/s/splint...-donated-thousands-to-trump-in-1837027340/amp Remember, campaign donations are speech, according to Citizens United/John Roberts, so by looking up this information, you are helping your fellow citizens exercise their first amendment rights
How would you post campaign donations without "looking like a hit list"? The left doesn't have massive amounts of gear queer sapi plate carrier wearing gun nuts with delusions of grandeur in faux militias who constantly threaten politicans with armed conflict.
It is interesting . . .. . the knowledge and info is out there but organizing it and putting in an easy to consume package becomes dangerous, evil and vile. It's almost like people don't want you to know or have the knowledge but want to be able to say . . .it's out there .. It seems information, disinformation, obscuring and hiding information are the popular past time these days No one just wants to give you the straight facts Not the news Not consumer products and d*mn sure not politicians They make laws so vague and so obscure . . they could be legalesed to mean just about anything Rocket River
Well, it's public information for a reason. What's the problem? It's not the first time public information has been gathered and publicized. The press does it all the time with all different types of information. I'm sure Republicans have gathered and used public information. I've seen lists of political donors in the past, so why is this any different? If you are going to be embarrassed or ashamed for donating to Trump, then don't donate.
Although the information is public, there is something about this that does make me feel at least a little uncomfortable. So, I've been thinking about what it is-- what makes this feel different than, say, sharing a list of AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Bernie donors. My theory is this: Trump's brand is so soiled now that even his supporters knows that being linked to him subject them to a degree of shame, anger and backlash, not comparable to that of supporters of other politicians. Also, given the violent history propensity of Trump supporters, maybe they are projecting that other people will act the same way as the fellow Trump supporters like the El Paso shooter would.
I think it has a lot do do with projection. The odd thing about this right wing victim cars shtick is that many right wing Individuals especially the ones who are one issue voters(2nd amendment) proudly admit that the right is far more capable in a hypothetical armed conflict with the left. They pride themselves in being "better trained" and ready for a fight. It shows where their minds are.
What’s the point in publicizing this list, other than to socially punish them for supporting Trump? I don’t agree with private citizens being subjected to that. It doesn’t matter that the information is publicly available. He is willfully increasing awareness for who these people are in order to do them harm.
I STAND for the FLaG I KNEEL at the CROSS and if ANYONE ****s with someone I love o will NOT HESITATE to deal with it ACCORDINGLY
The information is all ready very easily available. There is nothing illegal about someone exercising their right to accumulate public information. I think that this will backfire on Castro and democrats personally. However the question I have is why are financial supporters of Donald Trump ashamed of people knowing they support an immoral, racist President? If it is THAT shameful, then maybe they need to look in the mirror and ask why they do it. Having said that, I do think it is classless by Castro. However I already have a low opinion of him.
It is a terrible move. Contributions above a threshhold are already public. But given that this particular disclosure appears to be directly in response to the tragedy in El Paso and some people are saying Trump bears responsibility, it isn't a huge leap to say that the disclosure could result in another maniac reacting and targeting one or more on the list. At a minimum, it was meant to be a public shaming. The move also displayed callous indifference to escalating the tension and is a weird response by one who is asserting that trump's word caused the shootings in El Paso. Seriously, what was the purpose in the disclosure? There was zero good intent behind it. And I don't believe this because I imagine the contributors are ashamed of their support of Trump. I believe it because a bunch of victims just got murdered and the release of the names in an already divisive time even before the tragedy was irresponsible and appears designed to either shame the contributors, chill political support or cause them some harm (and even though I don't believe the intent was to cause physical harm, I do believe he either didn't care or didn't bother to think about it.)
This is exactly the point. We live in a society where transgressions of social norms, if not legal ones, are routinely punished. Try picking your nose an in public or whatever. You'll be met with revulsion. This is the same thing. I don't buy the "just private citizens" excuse. It's pretty explicit when you donate money that your identity will not be secret, and in fact like I noted above, it's because it is not secret that the right is so heavily protected. Wear a MAGA hat, donate $2500 - you know what you're doing, you're doing it on purpose - you live with the consequence. Remember, go to FEC.gov to learn more about your neighbors.
But there really hasn't ever been a history of Trump supporters being murdered for their beliefs. I think it has plenty to do with projection. The right wing prides themselves in being militant when necessary. They make fun of "soy boys" who are not physically intimidating. They believe that firearms are solutions to problems. They proudly state that in an armed conflict the "liberal wussies" would lose epically. There are dozens of large armed right wing militias in the country waiting for jihadists to take over Bismarck North Dakota. They can't comprehend the boycott/shame angle because they project violence all the time. There is a history of ethnic and religous minorites being murdered for their appearances though.
