This has been available on the internet since at least 2000 or so and probably in paper form since the 1970's. But other than that, yeah dangerous evil and vile.
Do we really need any further proof that there are crazy people out there who will kill others and apparently hold themselves out as acting nobly? We know this. And we should also know that this potential is not limited to republican or democrat. Any argument of "projection" is just political crap. So, why in the world would a responsible politician disclose a list of big donors to Trump at a time when a bunch of high profile candidates are laying responsibility for the murders at Trump's feet? Do you truly believe that there is zero possibility that they could come to some harm?
I've heard he's got a plan to go around putting stickers on the vehicles of Trump supporters. This is some sicko nazi germany ****. Next thing you know he'll be encouraging them to congregate in packed arenas.
How is my comment on projection political crap again? What experience do you exactly have with being engaged in a right wing bubble? Do you know how they think? Do you know what they pride in? We are speaking of an ideolgical sect that believes that the number one tool to sustain democracy is through firearms. There is only one ideolgical side that prides themselves in being militant and being well trained in firearms. There is only one side that uses terms of effeminate men who are physically weak as an insult. Their entire ideology stems from using violence for course corrections. It is 100% is projection. I can give you 30 years of data to show which ideolgical "side" performs more violent acts that lead to murder. It still won't change your mind and you still will be an enlightened centrist who thinks they are intelligent because they believe "both sides are the same".
I don't believe the capacity for murder or insanity is limited to one political bent. Listing these people and their businesses was purely done with ill intent. While I'm sure he didn't mean any physical harm, and the chance of any may be remote, he also didn't and doesn't appear to care if he puts them at even a small risk of being attacked. It is clear he intended public shaming and perhaps a harm to their business (listing restaurants, real estate agents, etc). I thought we were all better than that. People shouldn't celebrate conduct that they would despise in analagous situations where the donors were on their team. That being said, I didn't mean to direct "political crap" at you. Sorry. The act has me riled up, not your opinions.
Empirically, given the data, statistically you are just flat out wrong. I even gave you explicit reasons why other than data for why one side is more prone to violence. Can you acknowledge that one side believes that firearms are a solution to ills of the government? Do you acknowledge that the right wing prides itself in being militantly ready compared to the left? Countless times from the right wing peers I've served with have explicitly claimed how in a hypothetical civil war they would annihilate "the soy boys". Do you acknowledge the dozens of militant right wing militia groups that exist in this country?
Public political acts have consequences. I don't see any issues with publicly praising or shaming an individual. Nor do I see any problems with members of a community deciding not to patronize businesses that support politicians who actively harm the community. Freedom of speech and association means that everyone has the right to express their opinions-- including opinions on other people's political donation-- and act in accordance with such opinions as long as it is within boundaries of the law. Yes, there are individuals who may be inspired to act violently by political rhetoric on both sides. To the extent that such acts happen, we can all argue over to what degree the rhetoric is responsible for inspiring such acts. So far, I don't see any mainstream Democratic politicians calling Trump donors "invaders," "infestation," or existential threats to be removed from the country.
Washington Beacon: Two of Castro’s Own Donors Included in His Published List of Trump Supporters San Antonio man who contributed $10k to Castro now targeted by Texas congressman Brent Scher - August 7, 2019 2:20 PM Democratic Texas congressman Joaquin Castro's published list of Trump donors in his hometown of San Antonio also included at least two people who have contributed to him, a Washington Free Beacon review found. Castro on Monday published the names and employers of 44 people who've contributed to Trump, accusing them of "fueling a campaign of hate" against the Hispanic community with their contributions. Two of the named donors have in the past contributed substantial sums to Castro's political campaigns. One of them is William Greehey, a San Antonio energy executive who contributed at least $10,000 to Castro during his first two campaigns in 2011 and 2013, according to Federal Election Commission records. Greehey was targeted by Castro for contributing $5,600 to Trump this April. Also included on Castro's list was Wayne Harwell, who gave $1,000 to Castro in 2011 and has also contributed to Trump. Harwell told Fox News he has no intentions to contribute to Castro ever again. "I was also on a list of people that gave to Castro and if he dislikes me enough that he wants to put my name out there against Trump, I'm not going to give money to him," Harwell said. "Obviously Castro feels pretty strongly against me." Attempts to reach Greehey through his philanthropic foundation and NuStar Energy, where he is a top executive, were unsuccessful. Castro has kept his list of Trump supporters in San Antonio up despite calls from the Trump campaign, which described it as a "target list," to take it down. Castro went on MSNBC Wednesday morning to defend his decision to publish names of private citizens and target their businesses. "What I want is for people to think twice about supporting a guy who is fueling hate in this country," Castro said. He also attempted to distance himself from the list, saying his team wasn't responsible for creating it. "This was already circulating, I shared it, I didn't create the graphic," Castro said. The Trump campaign called it "harassment." "At the very least [Castro] is inviting harassment of these private citizens," said Tim Murtaugh, the campaign's director of communications. "At worst, he's encouraging violence." https://freebeacon.com/politics/two...ed-in-his-published-list-of-trump-supporters/ on edit: actually looks like that number is up to six: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...er-julian?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
There is a difference between someone, on their own, seeking out this information and then making a personal decision on whether to patronize their business, versus seeking out this information and then broadcasting it as widely as they can with the hopes that it will enact even more harm. The latter is an act of intimidation.
Depends on what you mean about "enact even more harm." If "harm" means other people not doing business with the individuals and establishments supporting a politician, it's fair game to me. If a consumer/client's money is contributing to a business owner's ability to support a politician that causes the customer's community harm, or act in a way repugnant to that customer (and this includes, for example, labor practice in Nike/Apple factories, or Amazon warehouses), giving the customer information is just fine to me. People do this all the time. I know that business clients of big law firms routinely ask about the diversity stats of the law firms that they hire, for example. If "harm" means illegal violent acts, then of course there is a problem. I think that part of what makes me a bit uncomfortable about this is the potential for rhetorics to inspire to act in such a way. But even Castro here does not come close to the kind of stuff Trump and his ilk have been saying--- joking about shooting immigrants at a rally, for example.
This isn't surprising. Business people contributing to politicians (especially those in office) from both major parties at the same time to get bipartisan support for their interest. I am guessing that a number of Trump donors are doing so for only a part of his agenda (tax cut, anti-abortion, etc) while not exactly excited about this immigration talk. Some of them might habe businesses that benefit from undocumented labor (like Trump's own businesses). But if you are gonna donate to Trump or anyone else, you better think through all of the implications.
I agree with you. No particularly worried about murders, but his initial tweet includes in his text the identification of 3 business owners, which is an implicit invitation to boycott those businesses. As a member of the House, I don't think its ethical for him to use economic punishments of private citizens to gain some electoral advantage. The problem here isn't doxxing, but it is a problem. Yes, Trump does the same thing. Doesn't make it okay. No sympathy for those guys. They spread their money around to buy government influence. Did you notice how they are both energy execs? He's serving as campaign chair for his brother, so he does kinda speak for him. Even so, no reason to bow out of the race (aside from the fact that he's not going to win anyway). Castro should just apologize.
putting their employers is an obvious targeting and trying to get them harassed and fired. This could create political drama at someome's job or lead to people targeting these offices. Not handled ethically. Public information is one thing but it is a clear call for harassment and a move to try and ruin people's means of earning a living in the way it was done. Very low to hit down at people.
Yeah, kind of like what the president did to instigate the murders in the first place? You do see the parallel right?
Money doesn't equal a vote. Are you making an argument that we shouldn't know how politicians obtain their campaign money?
