joaquin castro calls out San Antonians who donated the max amount to trump campaign

[ElNono]

What did I lie about? Be specific.


He's just informing his electorate that these people are supporting white nationalism and racism. No incitement though. :tu


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9Oubxw1gA

[Pavlov]

I have no idea. He could've posted his list a year ago. Why did he post it days after a mass shooting?I have no idea.

Why do you think, Darrin?

[Chris]

Look at post #1 in this thread, sparky. Maybe your Stormfront RSS feed got you confused.

My quote was more recent and Castro was specifically talking about that tweet. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9Oubxw1gA

I was using your words. :lol You really have trouble keeping up don't you? :lol

[Chris]

Why does Mitch McConnnell look like a turtle and Trump like a oversized slovenly oompah loompah?

And both look like wimps.

Making fun of Mitch's bouts with polio. Stay classy there bud.

[ElNono]

My quote was more recent and Castro was specifically talking about that tweet. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Except that your quote has nothing to do with the list of voters. It’s a crutch you brought in because the was no ‘incitement’ of anything. You then took your quote with the list of voters and made some shit up.

You still need to point out how Castro is ‘inciting’ anything, preferably without deflecting.

[Pavlov]

Making fun of Mitch's bouts with polio. Stay classy there bud.How id polio make him look like a turtle?

[Chris]

Here you go bud (lmk if you need your binky too):



Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) on Wednesday was pressed by MSNBC's Willie Geist after he used his Twitter account earlier in the week to identify a number of people who had made the maximum allowable donations to President Trump's campaign.

Geist said that the Trump donors “are undoubtedly already being harassed online or perhaps face-to-face in some cases" because of Castro's actions.

Castro, the brother of 2020 Democratic hopeful Julián Castro and chairman of his campaign, faced pushback on Tuesday from a number of conservatives for sharing the list of names. He said he published the names because he hopes that people “will think twice about contributing to [Trump's] campaign.”


“What I hope is that this has started a conversation about what exactly Donald Trump is doing with these people's money," Joaquin Castro explained. "And I hope donors in San Antonio and donors throughout the country, unless you support the white nationalism and the racism that Donald Trump is paying for and fueling, then I hope that you, as a person of good conscience, will think twice about contributing to his campaign.”

“Morning Joe” co-host Geist tried several times to get Castro to explain his position further.

“Congressman, as you look at this list — and you even put their addresses out there. It's easy to find them,” Geist said. “These people are undoubtedly already being harassed online or perhaps face to face in some cases, they could be.”

“What do you say to those people this morning when you say, 'I made a campaign donation and now I'm going to be harassed? I'm going to have people protesting outside my business or perhaps even my home?' What do you say to them? Do you want them to repent for their support of President Trump or what do you want from them?”

Castro said he does not want anyone “harassed or targeted” over the donations, but Geist quickly said “they will be because you put their names in public.”

“That was not my intention,” Castro replied. “These things are public. No, what I want is for people to think twice about supporting a guy who is fueling hate in this country.”

“It's public information," co-host Mika Brzezisnki attempted to interject.

Geist pushed back again later, pointing to Castro's comments that President Trump's rhetoric has led to violence.

“If you agree rhetoric can lead to incitement, even if it triggers one person to do something terrible, does it give you any pause to put these names out in public?" Geist asked.

"Well, Willie, they're already public, they're already out there," Castro responded.

"There are 11 retirees and one homemaker who are not public," Geist noted.

"And this was already circulating. I shared it, so I didn't create the graphic," Castro replied.

"Morning Joe" co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Brzezinski defended Castro earlier in the interview, with the latter arguing that Castro was only "reframing" public information.

"If you're proud of funding President Trump, you need to understand that that will be public information. And all you're doing is trying to explain what it is in terms of the policies or the morals that you are funding," Brzezinski said.

Geist is also the anchor "Sunday Today with Willie Geist."

Trump travels to Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, today after mass shootings in those cities rocked the nation last weekend.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/456537-msnbcs-geist-presses-castro-on-sharing-trump-donors-names-these-people-are

You're welcome.

[Chris]

Except that your quote has nothing to do with the list of voters. It’s a crutch you brought in because the was no ‘incitement’ of anything. You then took your quote with the list of voters and made some shit up.

You still need to point out how Castro is ‘inciting’ anything, preferably without deflecting.

Looks like my Thomas Paine quote was on point. You should stick to your copy pasta blockhead.

[Pavlov]

Here you go bud (lmk if you need your binky too):




You're welcome.You realize you just illustrated how Trump caused the El Paso massacre.

Whatever you say, Chris.....:tu

[Chris]

I'm not going anywhere Chris... the whole trying to make it about me instead of the topic at hand deflection is just not going to work. Ask Dale.

I'm just looking out for your well being.

[ElNono]

I was using your words. :lol You really have trouble keeping up don't you? :lol

:lol except I never said that. It was your terrible attempt at humor by conflating a quote with what I said. Lying to boot.

[ElNono]

Looks like my Thomas Paine quote was on point. You should stick to your copy pasta blockhead.

:lmao did you read what you posted?

“What I hope is that this has started a conversation about what exactly Donald Trump is doing with these people's money," Joaquin Castro explained. "And I hope donors in San Antonio and donors throughout the country, unless you support the white nationalism and the racism that Donald Trump is paying for and fueling, then I hope that you, as a person of good conscience, will think twice about contributing to his campaign.”

Nothing to do with the list of voters in the OP. Your tiny brain just took a long sentence and parsed it for Twitter, obviously conflating everything in the process.

[ElNono]

Looks like my Thomas Paine quote was on point. You should stick to your copy pasta blockhead.

That's telling me. Now, back to the point at hand, how's that inciting? Are you going to defend your viewpoint?

[ElNono]

I'm just looking out for your well being.

Unlike you, I'm fine. Never been better.

[ElNono]

Are you going to defend this, Chris?


He's just informing his electorate that these people are supporting white nationalism and racism. No incitement though. :tu


Or it's back to Ryan S:lol:lolvedra?

[pgardn]

Thank you for your service :tu


Making fun of Mitch's bouts with polio. Stay classy there bud.

I did not even know he had polio.
He does not look like turtle because he has bouts of polio.
And Trump does look orange because he colors himself orange.
Should I go into the classy Christian hater ya hypocritical heathen?

[Winehole23]

CALLING OUT FASCIST DEMAGOGUERY INCITES WAR!

THE CALL OUT IS THE REAL AND OBVIOUS THREAT TO PUBLIC ORDER!

[DMC]

Nothing wrong with publishing names that are public record. The problem is why he did it, what he's hoping to achieve, what message he's sending.

[midnightpulp]

I can't endorse this. I would be pissed if any politician broadcasted on twitter the name of family and friends of mine who donated the max to Trump. Yes, it's "public information," but Castro knows full well what he's doing and should be cogent enough that it's probably not the wisest idea to advertise Trump supporters when nerves and anger are at all time highs in the country, when it's very possible at this moment, someone on "our" side is planning something terrible as "revenge" for El Paso.

I get Castro's logic might be, "Know who has donated the max to Trump in your city. If they're business owners, boycott their establishments to send a message." I don't have a problem with that, and Castro could've sent such a message without naming names. What he did was shitty and "flame fanning."

[ElNono]

I can't endorse this. I would be pissed if any politician broadcasted on twitter the name of family and friends of mine who donated the max to Trump. Yes, it's "public information," but Castro knows full well what he's doing and should be cogent enough that it's probably not the wisest idea to advertise Trump supporters when nerves and anger are at all time highs in the country, when it's very possible at this moment, someone on "our" side is planning something terrible as "revenge" for El Paso.

I get Castro's logic might be, "Know who has donated the max to Trump in your city. If they're business owners, boycott their establishments to send a message." I don't have a problem with that, and Castro could've sent such a message without naming names. What he did was shitty and "flame fanning."

I just can't agree with this position, mid. It's not a matter of naivette, it's a matter of what we're normalizing. It shouldn't really matter who donates to who, how much, and ultimately, if somebody does care, it should take quite a stretch to escalate to harassment or even violence. That can't be the new normal.

If somebody does think that's an opportunity for harassment or violence, then we have a much bigger problem. And the issue is with those individuals, or ourselves as a society that allow that, not the availability of public info (or even arguing for abolishing public disclosure).

And Castro or somebody else should post a list of Democratic donors. It's in the best interest of the population to know whose money is flowing where.

[Pavlov]

I think it was stupid given the timing. You can bet the other side will be doing this as soon as their faux outrage wears off.

[midnightpulp]

I just can't agree with this position, mid. It's not a matter of naivette, it's a matter of what we're normalizing. It shouldn't really matter who donates to who, how much, and ultimately, if somebody does care, it should take quite a stretch to escalate to harassment or even violence. That can't be the new normal.

If somebody does think that's an opportunity for harassment or violence, then we have a much bigger problem. And the issue is with those individuals, or ourselves as a society that allow that, not the availability of public info (or even arguing for abolishing public disclosure).

And Castro or somebody else should post a list of Democratic donors. It's in the best interest of the population to know whose money is flowing where.

So would you be comfortable if a Republican politician posted a family member's name of yours who donated to a left wing ideologue. Let's say this ideologue was president. He made a speech about how CEOs are greedy sociopaths who've ruined the country. He yammers on about CEOs and capitalists with the same rhetoric as Trump does with immigrants. This may or may not have inspired a mass shooter to kill a dozen people at some business conference. The Republican posted the list saying, contra Castro, "these are the people funding hate."

I don't think you'd be on board with that. And yes, people should know where the money is flowing, but they can freely find out themselves. Castro could've tweeted, "I encourage all voters to look up campaign donor lists, both republicans and democrats." But he didn't frame it like that, and we know why.

[TheGreatYacht]

I get both sides. But Trump has set the new barometer for political correctnes. Just watch his rallies and he's spewing nothing but hatred and strawmans towards immigrants and the left in general. Trump killed political correctness, now we got these brave women in Congress who are not politically afraid to go on the attack as well. Without Trump, there would not be "The Squad" or "Justice Democrats."

This is what years of neoliberalism and years of brainwashing by the media has gotten us - The divided States of America. Trump is a symptom, not the problem. He's the perfect scapegoat for Democrats to blame everything on. To me this is all distraction and political drama, I'll be honest I giggle at times wathing both sides go at it :lol. But to the normies on both sides, these are chaotic times.

[Blake]

I think if you put your name on a political donation check, you need to be prepared for stuff like this. If you don't like it, make an anonymous donation.

That said, it's poor taste for Castro to call out private donors like that. It's sort of similar to me the way some asshole coaches call out their own players in front of the media for lousy play.

[ElNono]

So would you be comfortable if a Republican politician posted a family member's name of yours who donated to a left wing ideologue. Let's say this ideologue was president. He made a speech about how CEOs are greedy sociopaths who've ruined the country. He yammers on about CEOs and capitalists with the same rhetoric as Trump does with immigrants. This may or may not have inspired a mass shooter to kill a dozen people at some business conference. The Republican posted the list saying, contra Castro, "these are the people funding hate."

I don't think you'd be on board with that. And yes, people should know where the money is flowing, but they can freely find out themselves. Castro could've tweeted, "I encourage all voters to look up campaign donor lists, both republicans and democrats." But he didn't frame it like that, and we know why.

My family member would be on that list out of his/her own volition, so it's not what I want or prefer, it's their choice. I can't control them. I certainly would prefer not to be in any list, and I certainly can control that, at least in this scenario.

See, my issue is that, logically speaking, if you were going to make an argument that public disclosure can lead to violence, harassment, etc, then the issue is with public disclosure laws, it's not that Castro or whoever was a megaphone for the information.

It's not really an argument anybody here apparently wants to advance, but it's actually the source of the information, and potentially one of the solutions. And given that, I'm not thinking Castro at all, I'm thinking, is the mere possibility of incidents worth shutting down public disclosure? I don't think it is, IMVHO.

I'm actually 180 degrees from where you're at. I would encourage people and provide the links if I were a public figure. For both parties. I think it's informative, and very much relevant to the political system we know today. Those lists are factual, they're not fake news, it informs the electorate. It's unfortunate we're always complaining about low info voters, and then prefer to hide information from them.

I welcome more of such disclosures, I hope it becomes a habit. There should be no shame from these people supporting their candidates, and no fear of repercussions, otherwise, the lunatics are running the asylum, tbh.

[Reck]

What he did was shitty and "flame fanning."

Who are we kidding. By donating to Trump in the first place you are already “fanning the flame.”

if you donate money (the max at that) you are by all means endorsing everything Trump stands for and wants to do.

Honestly if one of my family members donated to a scam artist in the first place I would have to question not only their intelligence but their morality as well.

[Thread]

Who are we kidding. By donating to Trump in the first place you are already “fanning the flame.”

if you donate money (the max at that) you are by all means endorsing everything Trump stands for and wants to do.

Honestly if one of my family members donated to a scam artist in the first place I would have to question not only their intelligence but their morality as well.

He mopped the fuckin' floor with her fuckin' ass.

[Chris]

ORANGE MAN BAD!

[midnightpulp]

My family member would be on that list out of his/her own volition, so it's not what I want or prefer, it's their choice. I can't control them. I certainly would prefer not to be in any list, and I certainly can control that, at least in this scenario.

See, my issue is that, logically speaking, if you were going to make an argument that public disclosure can lead to violence, harassment, etc, then the issue is with public disclosure laws, it's not that Castro or whoever was a megaphone for the information.

It's not really an argument anybody here apparently wants to advance, but it's actually the source of the information, and potentially one of the solutions. And given that, I'm not thinking Castro at all, I'm thinking, is the mere possibility of incidents worth shutting down public disclosure? I don't think it is, IMVHO.

I'm actually 180 degrees from where you're at. I would encourage people and provide the links if I were a public figure. For both parties. I think it's informative, and very much relevant to the political system we know today. Those lists are factual, they're not fake news, it informs the electorate. It's unfortunate we're always complaining about low info voters, and then prefer to hide information from them.

I welcome more of such disclosures, I hope it becomes a habit. There should be no shame from these people supporting their candidates, and no fear of repercussions, otherwise, the lunatics are running the asylum, tbh.

You can direct people to that information without pointing out key individuals. Just say, "I encourage all voters to look up campaign donor lists, both republican and democrat." Then, people can make their own choice on what to do with that information. But we know why he didn't say it like that. He was trying to influence his side into either shaming these people, boycotting their businesses, etc. I don't think Castro had any hopes that someone would take violent action, but he posted that list at a very touchy time. Politicians should endeavor to use neutral language whenever possible. They're supposed to be statesmen. Isn't that what we revile about Trump? He can't simply say, "I believe in tighter border security." No, he has to similarly influence by calling migrants rapists, invaders, an infestation, etc.

Labeling all Trump supporters as "fuelers of hate" is similarly irresponsible to the language Trump uses to describes immigrants. It's dehumanizing rhetoric that serves no other purpose that to stir up ugly sentiment. I understand from our point-of-view, we see Trump supporters as enablers of him, so we think, "Why can't they just see how terrible he is like we do and forsake him! Since they continue to support him, these people must be as bad as him. Fuck them!" But cognitive dissonance is very powerful, and many Trump supporters find excuses for his rhetoric or they convince themselves he was taken out context. Or, they might be single issue voters who hold their nose, but deal with his negatives because he's anti-abortion or believe he's truly going to bring back the Midwest glory days.

I think we just need to take the higher ground and not be petty like Trump often is.

[boutons_deux]

" He can't simply say, "I believe in tighter border security." No, he has to similarly influence by calling migrants rapists, invaders, an infestation"

Trash's "straight talk" is lies

Nothing wrong with a politician telling the "unvarnished" truth, (diplomatic euphemisms are LIES) like JC did with public info,

or truths like "Trash is a FUCKING RACIST" or

"Trash is fucking clinically disordered personality"

[Monostradamus]

I still don’t get it. If you donated to Trump, why aren’t you proud of it? Why do you want that information kept as quiet as possible? Why wouldn’t you voluntarily offer to people that you donated to him? Are you ashamed of it?

[Thread]

I still don’t get it. If you donated to Trump, why aren’t you proud of it? Why do you want that information kept as quiet as possible? Why wouldn’t you voluntarily offer to people that you donated to him? Are you ashamed of it?

Kinda like Antifa agents running to & fro sucker punching people while under mask, eh, Mono?

[TheGreatYacht]

Kinda like Antifa agents running to & fro sucker punching people while under mask, eh, Mono?

ANTIFA members are a very small percentage of the left just like the alt-right and neo nazis are a very small percentage of the right. Apples and oranges

[boutons_deux]

how many people has masked antifa sucker punched, who and why was sucker punched?

[hater]

Most probably don't want to be associated with Maga inbreds tbqh :lol

[TheGreatYacht]

You can direct people to that information without pointing out key individuals. Just say, "I encourage all voters to look up campaign donor lists, both republican and democrat." Then, people can make their own choice on what to do with that information. But we know why he didn't say it like that. He was trying to influence his side into either shaming these people, boycotting their businesses, etc. I don't think Castro had any hopes that someone would take violent action, but he posted that list at a very touchy time. Politicians should endeavor to use neutral language whenever possible. They're supposed to be statesmen. Isn't that what we revile about Trump? He can't simply say, "I believe in tighter border security." No, he has to similarly influence by calling migrants rapists, invaders, an infestation, etc.

Labeling all Trump supporters as "fuelers of hate" is similarly irresponsible to the language Trump uses to describes immigrants. It's dehumanizing rhetoric that serves no other purpose that to stir up ugly sentiment. I understand from our point-of-view, we see Trump supporters as enablers of him, so we think, "Why can't they just see how terrible he is like we do and forsake him! Since they continue to support him, these people must be as bad as him. Fuck them!" But cognitive dissonance is very powerful, and many Trump supporters find excuses for his rhetoric or they convince themselves he was taken out context. Or, they might be single issue voters who hold their nose, but deal with his negatives because he's anti-abortion or believe he's truly going to bring back the Midwest glory days.

I think we just need to take the higher ground and not be petty like Trump often is.

Good luck convincing all the normies on the left to do that. That's like trying to convince all the normies on the right to stop supporting Israel and Zionism. It's hard to break off years of brainwashing.

[boutons_deux]

"Labeling all Trump supporters as "fuelers of hate" is similarly irresponsible"

At this point, even in 2015's "murderers and rapists", Trump supporters ARE fueling, endorsing, enabling, try to re-elect destructive, criminal Trash and his Exec of oligarchy whore destroyers, so the fucking LABEL(s) fits.

Trash is President because his voters chose to overlook or endorse his vindictive hate. so I say "label them all, and fuck them all".

They, esp the fucking Christian evangelicals, and the Repugs they repeatedly elect are PRIMARILY why America cannot solve its problems, cannot progress, but rather regresses by decades and centuries.

[Thread]

"Labeling all Trump supporters as "fuelers of hate" is similarly irresponsible"

At this point, even in 2015's "murderers and rapists", Trump supporters ARE fueling, endorsing, enabling, try to re-elect destructive, criminal Trash and his Exec of oligarchy destroyers, so the fucking LABEL(s) fits.

Trash is President because his voters chose to overlook or endorse his vindictive hate. so I say "label them all, and fuck them all".

They, esp the fucking Christian evangelicals, and the Repugs they repeatedly elect are PRIMARILY why America cannot solve its problems, cannot progress, but rather regresses by decades and centuries.

Boiled down:::

Trump President.
Not Clinton.

[Thread]

ANTIFA members are a very small percentage of the left just like the alt-right and neo nazis are a very small percentage of the right. Apples and oranges

We're even/steven, eh? Okay, I'll buy it.

[Monostradamus]

Kinda like Antifa agents running to & fro sucker punching people while under mask, eh, Mono?
Antifa are a bunch of pussies tbh. Apparently just like Trump donors.

[TheGreatYacht]

I can't endorse this. I would be pissed if any politician broadcasted on twitter the name of family and friends of mine who donated the max to Trump. Yes, it's "public information," but Castro knows full well what he's doing and should be cogent enough that it's probably not the wisest idea to advertise Trump supporters when nerves and anger are at all time highs in the country, when it's very possible at this moment, someone on "our" side is planning something terrible as "revenge" for El Paso.

I get Castro's logic might be, "Know who has donated the max to Trump in your city. If they're business owners, boycott their establishments to send a message." I don't have a problem with that, and Castro could've sent such a message without naming names. What he did was shitty and "flame fanning."
Sounds like what ElNono said...

https://youtu.be/d6feSYhzvYk

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1159491808063369218?s=19

[Pavlov]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1159491808063369218?s=19"doxxed"?

Hardly.

[Reck]

Chris, what part of public records do you not understand?

Maybe you and the people who run Trump's war room twitter should look up the definition of "Dox."

Morons.

[TheGreatYacht]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1159491808063369218?s=19

EVERY SINGLE politician should disclose who is buying them off. Period.

[clambake]

i guess these people will be fleeing to argentina soon.

[koriwhat]

Why does Mitch McConnnell look like a turtle and Trump like a oversized slovenly oompah loompah?

And both look like wimps.

fwiw what do you look like? let's compare!

your stones are merely beads and your glass house is nothing more than shattered.

[Blake]

fwiw what do you look like? let's compare!

your stones are merely beads and your glass house is nothing more than shattered.

:lol everyone knows what you look like, weakling.

[koriwhat]

:lol everyone knows what you look like, weakling.

and? again racistBlaKKe, i told you if you have so much animosity towards me you could easily come visit me and we can work this all out but bitches like yourself continue to hide behind their keyboards.

you're in the same category as bd24 tbh. both of yall are weak shit talking dipshits and that's all yall are.

[Thread]

Antifa are a bunch of pussies tbh. Apparently just like Trump donors.

...the only difference is Antifa is committing felonious assault & Trump donors aren't.

[Reck]

He mopped the fuckin' floor with her fuckin' ass.

Thread, and what does that have anything to do withthe 2016 election? Totally irrelevant!

[Thread]

Thread, and what does that have anything to do withthe 2016 election? Totally irrelevant!

I tossed a troll line. So, sue me.

[Chris]

I still don’t get it.

What a surprise :lol

[Monostradamus]

He's just informing his electorate that these people are supporting white nationalism and racism.

[Monostradamus]

...the only difference is Antifa is committing felonious assault & Trump donors aren't.
So Antifa has a reason to hide. Trump donors are even bigger pussies now.

[koriwhat]

...

funny you claim that as, what was it, 4-5 of those donors also donated to him and his brother prior. :lmao you fat fucking rice paddy

[Blake]

and?

You really look like a weakling.

You even confirmed it here so I don't know what you're babbling about regarding glass houses.

[koriwhat]

You really look like a weakling.

You even confirmed it here so I don't know what you're babbling about regarding glass houses.

like i've said a couple times now... you can claim whatever you'd like but that invite to find out for yourself is on the table; you won't take it though and keep being the same ol' tired keyboard warrior that you are. :tu

[Monostradamus]

funny you claim that as, what was it, 4-5 of those donors also donated to him and his brother prior. :lmao you fat fucking rice paddy
What’s that supposed to prove?

[koriwhat]

What’s that supposed to prove?

you're not one of the 99% of asians huh? you're one of the retarded 1% from what i can tell...

"trump's donors are supporting white nationalism/racism even though some of them donated to the siamese queers too..."

none of them are racists and this has more to do with you being a big fucking sissy with no spine.

[Chris]

He doesn't understand smear jobs.

Poor fella.

[Pavlov]

He doesn't understand smear jobs.

Poor fella.Explain the smear job, Qhris.

[Monostradamus]

you're not one of the 99% of asians huh? you're one of the retarded 1% from what i can tell...

"trump's donors are supporting white nationalism/racism even though some of them donated to the siamese queers too..."

none of them are racists and this has more to do with you being a big fucking sissy with no spine.
Supporting a racist doesn’t make you a racist, dipshit. For example, you buying crack rocks every day means you financially support 3rd world dictators and evil drug lords who murder people on a daily basis, but it doesn’t make you a murderer.

[clambake]

Supporting a racist doesn’t make you a racist, dipshit. For example, you buying crack rocks every day means you financially support 3rd world dictators and evil drug lords who murder people on a daily basis, but it doesn’t make you a murderer.

lol

[koriwhat]

Supporting a racist doesn’t make you a racist, dipshit. For example, you buying crack rocks every day means you financially support 3rd world dictators and evil drug lords who murder people on a daily basis, but it doesn’t make you a murderer.

prove trump is a racist first. then prove you didn't imply those who donated to him aren't racists. then prove how those same donors are racist that donated to both trump and the siamese homos.


now let's be real for a minute; how many crackheads are on computers, running a business, etc?

this crackhead shit is such a lame jab considering i have nothing to do with crack in the first place let alone do i know anything about it other than what i see in movies/tv. you seem to know more about it than i do but you don't see me claiming you're a crackhead do you?

as well, this crackhead thing wasn't even yours to begin with you follower.

last, way to deflect you 1%er.

[koriwhat]

Explain the smear job, Qhris.

playing coy as always. but but but it was all public information!!!

[Chris]

prove trump is a racist first.

JUST LOOK IT UP ON GOGGGGGGGLE :lol

[Pavlov]

playing coy as always. but but but it was all public information!!!OK, you explain the smear job.

[Blake]

like i've said a couple times now... you can claim whatever you'd like but that invite to find out for yourself is on the table; you won't take it though and keep being the same ol' tired keyboard warrior that you are. :tu

I don't need to see you in person to confirm the claim

1. You posted a picture of yourself
2. You very clearly stated "I'm a weakling these days"

[Blake]

JUST LOOK IT UP ON GOGGGGGGGLE :lol

Chris doesn't need Google. He uses Chuck Woolery Twitter feed.

[koriwhat]

OK, you explain the smear job.

i claim you're playing coy and you still want me to explain shit to you? you do know what coy means, right?

you act like you have no clue about anything just because you'd like everyone to put it out on a platter for you to digest but it ain't happening. just like you claimed in another thread that my logic was flawed when presented with 2 different scenarios i am not playing anymore games with you today.

be a man for once pav.


I don't need to see you in person to confirm the claim

1. You posted a picture of yourself
2. You very clearly stated "I'm a weakling these days"

no, what i'm saying is keep bucking up face to face or stfu already and let me dick down your ol' lady.

[Pavlov]

i claim you're playing coy and you still want me to explain shit to you? you do know what coy means, right?

you act like you have no clue about anything just because you'd like everyone to put it out on a platter for you to digest but it ain't happening. just like you claimed in another thread that my logic was flawed when presented with 2 different scenarios i am not playing anymore games with you today.If you can't explain the smear job, just say so.

[koriwhat]

If you can't explain the smear job, just say so.

i can and refuse to. i hate your childish games. be a man, and be a genuine one at that for once, and things might change in your favor.

[Pavlov]

i can and refuse to.I'll take that as proof you can't.:tu

[koriwhat]

I'll take that as proof you can't.:tu

i don't care how you take it. :tu

[Pavlov]

i don't care how you take it. :tuThen you wouldn't keep posting about it.:tu

[koriwhat]

Then you wouldn't keep posting about it.:tu

you're a broken record of invisible W's which mean nothing whatsoever to anyone but a broken down sissy like yourself pav, chump, or whatever your next handle might be. troll away troll!

[Winehole23]

Do you think politicians ought to curtail their free speech in the interest of public safety?

Can an be a yes or no question if you’re rationing keystrokes. DarrinS and Chris pretend to be strongly offended by the disclosure, but can't or won't answer this question.

It's like they want to register a complaint, but they don't want to follow it through to any logical conclusion.

[Chris]

No one wants to talk to your condescending ass. You burned your bridges, now go sleep in the bed that you made.

[clambake]

No one wants to talk to your condescending ass. You burned your bridges, now go sleep in the bed that you made.

lol however will he survive?

[Trill Clinton]

prove trump is a racist first. then prove you didn't imply those who donated to him aren't racists. then prove how those same donors are racist that donated to both trump and the siamese homos.


now let's be real for a minute; how many crackheads are on computers, running a business, etc?

this crackhead shit is such a lame jab considering i have nothing to do with crack in the first place let alone do i know anything about it other than what i see in movies/tv. you seem to know more about it than i do but you don't see me claiming you're a crackhead do you?

as well, this crackhead thing wasn't even yours to begin with you follower.

last, way to deflect you 1%er.

He was sued for racial discrimination for refusing to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about apartment availability. He also unfairly called for the death penalty of innocent black teens, the Central Park 5. That's just a two instances but enough to call a spade a spade.

[Pavlov]

lol however will he survive?:rollin

[Blake]

no, what i'm saying is keep bucking up face to face or stfu already and let me dick down your ol' lady.

What I'm saying is that I don't need to meet your weakling ass face to face. You've provided your own testimony plus pictures to confirm you're really a weakling.

I'm further saying I can call you a scrawny weakling and there's nothing you can do here but take it.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS and Chris pretend to be strongly offended by the disclosure, but can't or won't answer this question.

It's like they want to register a complaint, but they don't want to follow it through to any logical conclusion.


What did Castro want his followers to do with this information?

[boutons_deux]

Trump’s Opponents Want to Name His Big Donors. His Supporters Say It’s Harassment.

Calling out the people who fund campaigns is not a new tactic in politics,

but the question of how much should be publicly disclosed about those donors has been an issue that Republicans,

led by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, :lol

have repeatedly raised in recent years.

While the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United case to uphold public disclosure,

Republicans and wealthy allies like the Koch brothers have argued that it results in donor harassment and

has a chilling effect on free speech. :lol

In a heated political environment, boycotting the businesses of big donors like Mr. Ross

has led to a new round of outrage at either end of the political spectrum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/us/politics/castro-trump-donors.html?emc=rss&partner=rss (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/us/politics/castro-trump-donors.html?emc=rss&partner=rss)

Fuck all these greedy, venal, inhumane Capitalist assholes, to hell

One Capitalist said he donates to Trash because he wants MORE tax cuts, not because he's racist.

iow, his Capitalism is 100% inhumane, as all Capitalism is.

[DarrinS]

What did Castro want his followers to do with this information?

I haven't seen a good answer to this question. His brother and several candidates said drumpf is a white nationalist and complicit in the El Paso shooting, and then post this list a couple days later.

[TSA]

What did Castro want his followers to do with this information?

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1159629442853101569

[ElNono]

I haven't seen a good answer to this question. His brother and several candidates said drumpf is a white nationalist and complicit in the El Paso shooting, and then post this list a couple days later.

He didn’t say he wanted his followers to do anything with it. Nothing would be the answer? That’s not a good answer?

[ElNono]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1159629442853101569

Sorry, I’m not trading voting disclosure for phone calls.

[Reck]

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1159629442853101569

Oh no! words

[clambake]

I haven't seen a good answer to this question. His brother and several candidates said drumpf is a white nationalist and complicit in the El Paso shooting, and then post this list a couple days later.

ask ducks. he doxxed a lady. ask him why.

[DMX7]

Sorry, I’m not trading voting disclosure for phone calls.

Kochs are really concerned about Democracy. :rolleyes

[spurraider21]

Kinda like Antifa agents running to & fro sucker punching people while under mask, eh, Mono?
if you think supporting trump is on the same playing field as sucker punching people...

[Pavlov]

I haven't seen a good answer to this question. You can't even think of a good answer to this question.

At all.

What did Castro want his followers to do with this information?

[Spurtacular]

What did Castro want his followers to do with this information?

What is your answer to this question?

[Thread]

if you think supporting trump is on the same playing field as sucker punching people...

No. Hillary saw him coming front & center & still got cold cocked.

[Winehole23]

No one wants to talk to your condescending ass. You burned your bridges, now go sleep in the bed that you made.White flag post, still no reply to a straightforward topical question.

If you refuse to play, I'm not the one who looks bad.

[Winehole23]

I haven't seen a good answer to this question. His brother and several candidates said drumpf is a white nationalist and complicit in the El Paso shooting, and then post this list a couple days later.Does it bother you when politicians use publicly available information to fire people up?

Fetal tissue researchers get their info shared by activists to the public, even though they do not perform abortions. How is it improper for Dems to share information with the public about who gives money to politicians who promote racism and white nationalism?

[Winehole23]

Castro wanted people to know which local leaders maxed out for Trump. I expect they'll get public feedback of all kinds -- good, bad, worse and totally indifferent. It's also foreseeable that people will vote with their feet, for and against any associated businesses based on the information.

Do you think politicians are obligated to curtail their own speech, or to refrain from singling people out?

[clambake]

Castro wanted people to know which local leaders maxed out for Trump. I expect they'll get public feedback of all kinds -- good, bad, worse and totally indifferent. It's also foreseeable that people will vote with their feet, for and against any associated businesses based on the information.

Do you think politicians are obligated to curtail their own speech, or to refrain from singling people out?
that, sir, is a trick question.

[Winehole23]

that, sir, is a trick question.That question, sir, goes to the solution -- if any -- for the purported problem.

If we grant that politicians have an obligation to limit their own free speech so as not to endanger others, it is time to move on to whether Castro actually endangered other people merely by highlighting public information, and if yes. how that might be remedied, consistent with the 1st Amendment etc..

[Winehole23]

These jokers want the opprobrium that attaches to the complaint of recklessness, without the logical consequences of upholding the principle defended.

It's frankly not hard to see why, that principle is so easily turned around on Trump.

[Winehole23]

which underlines how the griping about Castro is a deflection.

another mass shooter who took inspiration from the President's insistent, inflammatory rhetoric about immigration, is apparently not as scary as pointing out publicly who's all in for Trump.

[Winehole23]

here's the sort of thing Castro might have been aiming at, putting pressure on businesses and donors to reconsider their support:

1159785141935529985

[TheGreatYacht]

Spurtacular

https://youtu.be/ThWPcUOiw8g

[Winehole23]

What did Castro want his followers to do with this information?Put pressure on people to justify/reconsider their support. Why wouldn't that be legit?

[Trill Clinton]

Team trump really looking like snowflakes behind this. Looking Charmin soft.

[boutons_deux]

Unlike Trash, JC didn't exhort

"rough 'em up"

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?

Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell ... I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise,"

he said security guards were too gentle with a protester. "He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing," Trump said.

"I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."

"Get him out," he said of a protester. "Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766 (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766)

Hilarious you rightwingnutjob assholes are OUTRAGED that JC simply highlights some people using public information.

[DarrinS]

Put pressure on people to justify/reconsider their support. Why wouldn't that be legit?


Seriously? What kind of "pressure" should be applied to retirees and homemakers who support a president you don't like?

People should be able to support whichever candidate they want.

[Pavlov]

Seriously? What kind of "pressure" should be applied to retirees and homemakers who support a president you don't like?Are these people listed retirees and homemakers, Darrin?


People should be able to support whichever candidate they want.Nothing is making them unable to do so.

[TheGreatYacht]

Seriously? What kind of "pressure" should be applied to retirees and homemakers who support a president you don't like?

People should be able to support whichever candidate they want.

People should be able to see who is buying off our politicians.

[Winehole23]

Seriously? What kind of "pressure" should be applied to retirees and homemakers who support a president you don't like?

People should be able to support whichever candidate they want.Public criticism (media coverage, public/social media comment) doesn't prevent anyone from supporting the candidate of their choice. People deciding all on their own to support or not support businesses based on who they support likewise restricts no one's ability to support any given candidate.

There's no right to max out on political contribution without the public knowing. Doesn't the public deserve to know who's spending money to influence elections and officials?

[Reck]

People should be able to support whichever candidate they want.

Umm they are.

These people though want it both ways. They want to support someone who is disliked overall but also want to remain anonymous for fear of losing customers.

People deserve to know what one is about. Stop whining about this already.

[DarrinS]

People should be able to see who is buying off our politicians.

You DO realize that this a list of people who maxed their donations as individuals. That's just $2,800

[Pavlov]

You DO realize that this a list of people who maxed their donations as individuals. That's just $2,800What's your great fear here, Darrin?

[Chris]

Trump donor targeted by Castro says he's raised $1 million for president's campaign since 'outing'


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-donor-targeted-by-castro-says-hes-raised-1-million-for-presidents-campaign-since-outing


: )

[Pavlov]

Trump donor targeted by Castro says he's raised $1 million for president's campaign since 'outing'


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-donor-targeted-by-castro-says-hes-raised-1-million-for-presidents-campaign-since-outing


: )So what's the problem again, Qhris?

[Winehole23]

What's your great fear here, Darrin?The market might vote with its feet against pro-Trump business owners, but I wouldn't rule out that some of them might benefit from the notoriety. The stubborn refusal to consider possible positive consequences tells you something about Darrin's priors.

[TheGreatYacht]

Trump donor targeted by Castro says he's raised $1 million for president's campaign since 'outing'


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-donor-targeted-by-castro-says-hes-raised-1-million-for-presidents-campaign-since-outing


: )

Backfired. Good. Joaquin Castro is one of them neoliberal corporatist Democrats (Republican lite). I still applaud him for what he did though. People should know who is buying off every politician.

[Winehole23]

You DO realize that this a list of people who maxed their donations as individuals. That's just $2,800What's the problem with this being public information? What's the problem with public figures highlighting the information?

[DarrinS]

The market might vote with its feet against pro-Trump business owners, but I wouldn't rule out that some of them might benefit from the notoriety. The stubborn refusal to consider possible positive consequences tells you something about Darrin's priors.

It could definitely backfire on Castro, but that doesn't excuse his very poor taste and questionable motive.

[Winehole23]

It could definitely backfire on Castro, but that doesn't excuse his very poor taste and questionable motive.What was in poor taste?

What, in your opinion, was his motive?

[Chris]

Backfired. Good. Joaquin Castro is one of them neoliberal corporatist Democrats (Republican lite). I still applaud him for what he did though. People should know who is buying off every politician.

Not interested in your trolling. Appreciate it if you didn't quote me in the future. Please and thank you.

[TheGreatYacht]

It could definitely backfire on Castro, but that doesn't excuse his very poor taste and questionable motive.

Facts over feelings. Facts don't care about your emotions.

[spurraider21]

Facts over feelings. Facts don't care about your emotions.
TheBenShapiroYacht

[DarrinS]

Backfired. Good. Joaquin Castro is one of them neoliberal corporatist Democrats (Republican lite). I still applaud him for what he did though. People should know who is buying off every politician.


Lol, buying off politicians with $2800

[DarrinS]

TheBenShapiroYacht


:lol

He probably hates himself for invoking Shapiro.

[TheGreatYacht]

Not interested in your trolling. Appreciate it if you didn't quote me in the future. Please and thank you.

I'm not trolling. I wish and hope that Republicans will start doing the same and disclose the donors of Democrats. Expose all the corporatist and neoliberals in Congress. The winners in all this would be the Democratic Socialists (Justice Democrats) because they are the least corrupt. A lot of Democrats and Republicans have the same donors so I know Republicans wouldn't play that game :lol

[TheGreatYacht]

Lol, buying off politicians with $2800

Umm...Super PACS

[Winehole23]

Lol, buying off politicians with $2800Lol thinking rich donors don't know how to work around individual limits

Do you think political contributions should be private?

[spurraider21]

Lol, buying off politicians with $2800
1:48


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9RJyFOoQZI

[DarrinS]

Lol thinking rich donors don't know how to work around individual limits

Do you think political contributions should be private?


I'm not sure all the retirees on that list can afford fundraising dinners at 250K per plate. :lol

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure all the retirees on that list can afford fundraising dinners at 250K per plate. :lolIf they can afford max contributions on a fixed income, they must not be doing bad.

I've answered all your questions to me, will you answer mine to you?

[Winehole23]

These two questions: as a matter of law, should political contributions be private?

As a matter of social courtesy, do you think politicians should curtail their free speech or avoid singling out others for scrutiny?

[clambake]

just in this case.....i guess

[Winehole23]

just in this case.....i guessscruples for thee, but not for me

[Blake]

These two questions: as a matter of law, should political contributions be private?

As a matter of social courtesy, do you think politicians should curtail their free speech or avoid singling out others for scrutiny?

Do people contribute to campaigns for tax purposes or similar such purposes only?

If so, I think at very least you should be able to check a box labeled "not for public knowledge"

[Winehole23]

Do people contribute to campaigns for tax purposes or similar such purposes only?

If so, I think at very least you should be able to check a box labeled "not for public knowledge"Why?

[Spurtacular]

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)

https://youtu.be/ThWPcUOiw8g

Saw this. This is just reason I don't care for Castro. He can't even call invaders for what they are; furthermore, he's trying to demonize people for taking ownership in their democracy.

[DarrinS]

This Texas landowner labeled illegal immigrants as "invaders". Maybe some intrepid ST keyboard warrior can find out who he donated to? Oh, and this video is from 2014.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNSveBUB_8

[Reck]

Darrin fully triggered now.

[Spurtacular]

This Texas landowner labeled illegal immigrants as "invaders". Maybe some intrepid ST keyboard warrior can find out who he donated to? Oh, and this video is from 2014.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNSveBUB_8

Democrats are serious about this, I'm assured by them of this.

[Winehole23]

This Texas landowner labeled illegal immigrants as "invaders". Maybe some intrepid ST keyboard warrior can find out who he donated to? Oh, and this video is from 2014.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNSveBUB_8The invasion rhetoric is old as the hills, true.

Why do you suppose DJT has been featuring it in thousands of FB ads since he got elected?

The majority of the so-called invaders no longer come across the southern border, they come here on valid visas and overstay, but you don't see any Canadians or EU (or hell, even Chinese or [non-Islamic] South Asian) immigrants singled out as "dangerous hombres."

What's up with that?

[Winehole23]

Are you afraid of answering straightforward topical questions, DarrinS?

You seem to have no problem asking them.

[koriwhat]

The invasion rhetoric is old as the hills, true.

Why do you suppose DJT has been featuring it in thousands of FB ads since he got elected?

The majority of the so-called invaders no longer come across the southern border, they come here on valid visas and overstay, but you don't see any Canadians or EU (or hell, even Chinese ot South Asian) immigrants singled out as "dangerous hombres."

What's up with that?

maybe that's step 2? first it's secure the border then start kicking out overstays and whatnot? i'm all for kicking everyone out who's illegal regardless of race, religion, background.

[Winehole23]

Step 2 is to proceed in a neutral, non-racist manner.

Got it.

[koriwhat]

Step 2 is to proceed in a neutral, non-racist manner.

Got it.

so you're not racist by suggesting all coming across the border are mexican? is mexico guatemala or venezuela or for fucks sake the middle east or africa?

[Winehole23]

o you're not racist by suggesting all coming across the border are mexican? is mexico guatemala or venezuela or for fucks sake the middle east or africa?i don't think I did.

The El Paso shooter's declared intention was to shoot "Mexicans" though.

[koriwhat]

The El Paso shooter's declared intention was to shoot "Mexicans" though.

and he was a pos. either way, rhetoric is thrown by both sides but we focus on the repubs when we had a lefty shoot up people in the same weekend too. it's quite sad.

[DarrinS]

The invasion rhetoric is old as the hills, true.

Why do you suppose DJT has been featuring it in thousands of FB ads since he got elected?

The majority of the so-called invaders no longer come across the southern border, they come here on valid visas and overstay, but you don't see any Canadians or EU (or hell, even Chinese or [non-Islamic] South Asian) immigrants singled out as "dangerous hombres."

What's up with that?


Is that Hispanic Texas landowner in the video a racist?

[Chris]

This is why you don't smear them:

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1159965418829811712?s=20

[DarrinS]

Bill Clinton's 1995 SOTU would be deemed white nationalist by today's standards.

Pssst, it's not racist to have tough immigration policy. This was once centrist dem policy.

[Thread]

This is why you don't smear them:

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1159965418829811712?s=20

Tell it, Chris. Testify!!!

[Chris]

Tell it, Chris. Testify!!!

:bobo

[ElNono]

This is why you don't smear them:

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1159965418829811712?s=20

Taking a photo with the POTUS is smearing them?

lol at this logic. Anything with or about Dennison must be kept secret!

[Trill Clinton]

This is why you don't smear them:

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1159965418829811712?s=20

fake news. she denied the reports of getting death threats. y'all are so gullible.

[ElNono]

Bill Clinton's 1995 SOTU would be deemed white nationalist by today's standards.

Pssst, it's not racist to have tough immigration policy. This was once centrist dem policy.

We went through this already. Having tough immigration policies doesn’t mean you should label immigrants rapists, or invaders.

You seemingly dislike Castro’s actions for some alleged ulterior political motive, but this case of the immigrant boogeymen doesn’t ring a bell?

[Chris]

^ strange how they always show up together

[ElNono]

yeah, we have a WhatsApp channel to coordinate shitting on you. Oh wait, you’re a conspiratard, you might actually believe that.

[Trill Clinton]

^ strange how they always show up together
^^^^

falls for fake news

[Chris]

^^^^

falls for fake news

nah...he went to school with her niece

[DarrinS]

We went through this already. Having tough immigration policies doesn’t mean you should label immigrants rapists, or invaders.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972

[TheGreatYacht]

How about we address the root cause of migrants and refugees. Why don't we try to fix this? Crying and bitching about the invaders ain't gonna accomplish shit. I know that this is an inconvenient truth and elephant in the room for conservatives and patriots but this is the best way to end the crisis at the border imho...fix this problem below.

https://youtu.be/ueNWlMyUNy4

[ElNono]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972

Even if we take those numbers at face value, the rape is happening on the journey, not necessarily by the people coming in.

And I tell you something else, over half of the illegals coming in fly, don’t go through the southern border, that’s why it’s not just a gross generalization, but factually wrong.

[DarrinS]

Even if we take those numbers at face value, the rape is happening on the journey, not necessarily by the people coming in.

And I tell you something else, over half of the illegals coming in fly, don’t go through the southern border, that’s why it’s not just a gross generalization, but factually wrong.

I don't doubt that a large percentage fly in and never leave.

[DMC]

Name one person who was killed for being photographed with Trump. No one.

You can lodge points for your side, but don't be stupid. You only harm your cause.

[ElNono]

I don't doubt that a large percentage fly in and never leave.

Back to the point, being tough on immigration and deriding immigrants are completely different things, and you can certainly do the former without the latter. The latter is entirely a political point for the base.

Obama was probably one of the toughest presidents on illegal immigration recently, and he didn't need to call anybody anything to do it.

[ElNono]

Name one person who was killed for being photographed with Trump. No one.

You can lodge points for your side, but don't be stupid. You only harm your cause.

She got calls though, allegedly, and hurt her feelings.

[TheGreatYacht]

ElNono preach the choir brother!

[Winehole23]

Is that Hispanic Texas landowner in the video a racist?I don't think skin tint confers immunity to racism, do you?

[Winehole23]

In a racial caste system such as we have in the USA, is the hostility of the oppressed to their oppression to be judged the same as the oppression itself?

Not rhetorical. Serious question.

[Winehole23]

To answer yours, DarrinS, I don't have enough to go on from a brief, possibly contrived, vid.

Don't know the dude, cannot say conclusively.

[Winehole23]

Bill Clinton's 1995 SOTU would be deemed white nationalist by today's standards.

Pssst, it's not racist to have tough immigration policy. This was once centrist dem policy.Pretending Trump = Bill Clinton in 1995 and that creating concentration camps for Central Americans is merely "tough policy" and administratively neutral vis a vis race, is about the most abject apology for a lawless and racist policy that can be imagined.

[Blake]

Why?

Chick-fil-A for instance got the boot in SA because their donations were public knowledge. I don't think that's fair to them.

[Winehole23]

Chick-fil-A for instance got the boot in SA because their donations were public knowledge. I don't think that's fair to them.The free market ain't fair. People vote with their feet.

If you don't want to do business with bigoted assholes you don't have to. Too bad for Chick Fil A.

[Blake]

The free market ain't fair. People vote with their feet.

If you don't want to do business with bigoted assholes you don't have to. Too bad for Chick Fil A.

Right, I agree.

But I think a person should have the freedom to be a bigot in private if they so choose. Chick-fil-A was outed by their tax returns.

[Winehole23]

Right, I agree.

But I think a person should have the freedom to be a bigot in private if they so choose. Chick-fil-A was outed by their tax returns.Any distinction between flesh and blood people and fictitious legal persons? All political contributions should be private?

[Blake]

Any distinction between flesh and blood people and fictitious legal persons? All political contributions should be private?

I think so. What's the downside?

[Winehole23]

I think so. What's the downside?One downside is we might not find out when pols are crooked. Disclosure keeps people accountable, the public already knows who's owed favors and can take that information to the voting booth when the next election comes around.

[Blake]

One downside is we might not find out when pols are crooked. Disclosure keeps people accountable, the public already knows who's owed favors and can take that information to the voting booth when the next election comes around.

"Might not"

I'm fine with innocent until proven guilty. If the FBI has reason to believe there might be corruption, let them get a warrant to dig. I prefer that to public perception and misconception.

[Winehole23]

"Might not"

I'm fine with innocent until proven guilty. If the FBI has reason to believe there might be corruption, let them get a warrant to dig. I prefer that to public perception and misconception.Sunshine is the best disinfectant, the paper trail starts with the public record. The less we have to go on, the greater chance the crooks get away with it.

[ElNono]

Right, I agree.

But I think a person should have the freedom to be a bigot in private if they so choose. Chick-fil-A was outed by their tax returns.

So this is a good point, and more reason to keep these records public. It makes them either conscientiously embrace and support their private thoughts publicly, or abstain. The choice is always theirs.

I think we can both agree this country will be better served with less racism and bigotry, so I'm glad this puts those people in that conundrum.

[pgardn]

I think so. What's the downside?

We want transparency in government, but not for the people who run it?
Corruption begins when we don’t know who might be owed favors. And both teams blame each other for what is considered despicable by both.
People in government have every right to claim I don’t owe them a damn thing, they like my policies for our country.
Then the people can decide.

Its the same basic premise yet again. Rights of the individual v. the good of the whole. We have seen the intelligence community abuse this, we have seen individuals commit crimes and hide behind it.

[Blake]

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, the paper trail starts with the public record. The less we have to go on, the greater chance the crooks get away with it.

Funny, i took you more for a personal freedom type guy vs more of a big bro type :lol

[TheGreatYacht]

The brainwashing of right-wingers to defend the elites is blatantly obvious in this thread :lmao. Give it up Trumpsters. Quit torturing yourselves. You cannot defend the indefensible.

[pgardn]

Dp

[pgardn]

So this is a good point, and more reason to keep these records public. It makes them either conscientiously embrace and support their private thoughts publicly, or abstain. The choice is always theirs.

I think we can both agree this country will be better served with less racism and bigotry, so I'm glad this puts those people in that conundrum.

Never use “so” to start a sentence. People might believe you are thinking and going to release informative arguments in the parlance of our times.

Thanks

Chris (K-12 English Vocabulary Champion)
Mrs. Crutchfield (mentor to Chris)

So stop it, lest we wack you with a ruler.

[Blake]

So this is a good point, and more reason to keep these records public. It makes them either conscientiously embrace and support their private thoughts publicly, or abstain. The choice is always theirs.

I think we can both agree this country will be better served with less racism and bigotry, so I'm glad this puts those people in that conundrum.

I think it's more reason to keep records private. I think people have a right to be what they want to be in private. That right should include the ability donate to their favorite politician without fear of retribution.

[Winehole23]

Funny, i took you more for a personal freedom type guy vs more of a big bro type :lolI'm not doctrinaire. Donation disclosure is a check against abuse of power. I can see the privacy concern too, perhaps below a defined threshold there could be anonymity for the donations of private citizens.

[pgardn]

I think it's more reason to keep records private. I think people have a right to be what they want to be in private. That right should include the ability donate to their favorite politician without fear of retribution.

BE versus DO what they want?
They are doing something by donating cash. To a process that affects all of us.

[Blake]

Never use “so” to start a sentence. People might believe you are thinking and going to release informative arguments in the parlance of our times.

Thanks

Chris (K-12 English Vocabulary Champion)
Mrs. Crutchfield (mentor to Chris)

So stop it, lest we wack you with a ruler.

Lol

[Blake]

BE versus DO what they want?
They are doing something by donating cash. To a process that affects all of us.

And what does knowing who they donated to do for you?

[Blake]

I'm not doctrinaire. Donation disclosure is a check against abuse of power. I can see the privacy concern too, perhaps below a defined threshold there could be anonymity for the donations of private citizens.

Honest question because I'm not aware: how has donation disclosure specifically curbed abuse of power?

[Blake]

I'm not doctrinaire.

I thought I recall you being irate about police search of vehicles on the public road without warrants.

The argument for being "if they're not doing anything wrong then what do they have to hide?"

[Blake]

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/are-your-neighbors-giving-money-political-candidates/

^ find out if your neighbors, co-workers or family members are trumptards, libtards, progrssitards or republitardz

[pgardn]

And what does knowing who they donated to do for you?

Now convince me that this donation is not associated with corruption.
Mainly because both parties use this constantly.
Drain the swamp was a phrase used to clean up.

And I have used this phrase to show how our current president has done nothing of the sort.
I would like to know what contributions lead to ambassadorships.
Because they do, in both parties. People are paying for government positions with campaign contributions.

And in turn these government employees work for the president’s next campaign.(illegal)
Blue team and red team rail against this but realize how powerful it is.

[Blake]

Now convince me that this donation is not associated with corruption.

So you subscribe to guilty unless proven innocent

[pgardn]

So you subscribe to guilty unless proven innocent

I prescribe to a psuedo trial.
Especially since so many lesser donors than the mega owners get government jobs for contributions.
I want it more transparent than it is for government employees.
And I want the press to have access to the slugs that pay for play.

People donate and then become a DC parasite.
So I agreed with Trump in an attempt to stop this. But he has done the opposite.

[Blake]

I prescribe to a psuedo trial.
Especially since so many lesser donors than the mega owners get government jobs for contributions.
I want it more transparent than it is for government employees.
And I want the press to have access to the slugs that pay for play.

People donate and then become a DC parasite.
So I agreed with Trump in an attempt to stop this. But he has done the opposite.

I'm fine with having to disclose your contributions if you get a government job/contract. That makes sense.

Who is an example of a DC parasite

[pgardn]

I'm fine with having to disclose your contributions if you get a government job/contract. That makes sense.

Who is an example of a DC parasite

Mitch McConnell.

I can give many more examples and why they are in my estimation.

On occasion I actually watch C-span. There was a subcommittee investigating cable/internet etc... takeover by big companies and they had some witnesses that own smaller local providers who were getting smeared. It was rather complex. But nuts and bolts were exposed and the VP of ATT I believe, basically admitted that a rule change would hurt "his" stockholders and then slipped up and said people on a much higher pay scale make these decisions. Well this of course led to discussion of ownership etc... who are these people etc... Then There were representatives throwing softballs at this guy as well. wtf??? Why? Ask something that actually is germane to the line of questioning. No, just do your best with your time to get this off course because the pseudo trial was going badly.

I know there had to be reporters and others taking all this down.
I hope they can get to the facts about contributions to these representatives that tried to divert the subject. Overt shit.
It was quite blatant and sickening. And hell I dont really even understand all the ramifications to the consumer. I just know representatives of the US House tried to derail the questions that were getting very uncomfortable.

Anecdotal but powerful. CSPan can be useful.
Cspan obviously is important in transparency.
I hope some of this strange questioning has a legit answer.
It stunk of payola.

But in the very large picture this whole topic is again, at its foundation, an individual rights vs. rights of the society.
It can be very complex. Your concerns are certainly legit. Privacy for individuals.

[ElNono]

I think it's more reason to keep records private. I think people have a right to be what they want to be in private. That right should include the ability donate to their favorite politician without fear of retribution.

Nobody is telling them not to be whatever they want to be in private. Donating to their favorite politician is not a private matter, however, it ends up affecting the public at large.

Now, past potential social shunning, there shouldn't be any other kind of retribution, and educating about that is probably just as important as transparency when it comes to money in politics.

[Blake]

Nobody is telling them not to be whatever they want to be in private. Donating to their favorite politician is not a private matter, however, it ends up affecting the public at large.

Now, past potential social shunning, there shouldn't be any other kind of retribution, and educating about that is probably just as important as transparency when it comes to money in politics.

Donations don't directly affect the public at large.

And maybe morally there shouldn't be any retribution or discrimination but there is: Chick-fil-A.

[Blake]

Mitch McConnell.

Mitch is a senator.

[Winehole23]

Honest question because I'm not aware: how has donation disclosure specifically curbed abuse of power?Honest answer, it doesn't matter.

Voters can compare donor lists with recorded votes and decide who's on the level and who's too stinky to remain in office. The transparency benefits voters and can be a check on compromised pols absent any legal process proving or punishing wrongdoing.

[Winehole23]

I thought I recall you being irate about police search of vehicles on the public road without warrants.

The argument for being "if they're not doing anything wrong then what do they have to hide?"There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's car, as well as well established 4th Amendment rights.

A similar presumption of privacy doesn't exist for political contributuons, which are subject to limitation and disclosure by law.

[Blake]

Honest answer, it doesn't matter.

I know in the end this doesn't matter. This is a vacuum. The reason I'm asking is that I disagree with your claim and your reasoning behind the claim.

And I'm fine with a regulatory agency looking into each donation....... I'm not fine with John Q Public getting info on his neighbor.

[Blake]

There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's car, as well as well established 4th Amendment rights.

A similar presumption of privacy doesn't exist for political contributuons, which are subject to limitation and disclosure by law.

Here's a solid article on the court history of it all:

https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-newsletters-item-Mar_2019_PIF_The_First_Amendment_Right_to_Politica l_Privacy_Chapter_6_Campaign_Finance_and_Other_Ver y_Public_Exceptions_to_Privacy.html

Almost was found to be a 1st amendment violation in the 1950s but the court decided the risk of corruption overruled it.

[ElNono]

Donations don't directly affect the public at large.

And maybe morally there shouldn't be any retribution or discrimination but there is: Chick-fil-A.

They absolutely do. You simply cannot run a campaign without money. From filing fees, to setting up a campaign, to marketing, fundraising is integral to a campaign's viability.

I still don't see how this is not a choice for the donor to make. If they're bigots in private, there should be no reason not to embrace that, and deal with the consequences, hopefully for the better.

[Blake]

They absolutely do. You simply cannot run a campaign without money. From filing fees, to setting up a campaign, to marketing, fundraising is integral to a campaign's viability.

That didn't explain how they affect the public at large.

How did the donations to Hillary's campaign affect us?


I still don't see how this is not a choice for the donor to make. If they're bigots in private, there should be no reason not to embrace that, and deal with the consequences, hopefully for the better.

They should have a right to keep their bigotry private if they so choose. And the problem is perceived bigotry when there might not be any.

And you saying they can simply choose to either donate and be subject to being outed or not donate at all is a false dilemma.

And and it has nothing to do with campaign corruption.

[ElNono]

That didn't explain how they affect the public at large.

How did the donations to Hillary's campaign affect us?

She was the Dem candidate, a terrible one at that. In no small part, she's just as responsible that we have this administration running the country.

And let's stop pretending that if she didn't have the fundraising power, she would've made it anyways.


They should have a right to keep their bigotry private if they so choose. And the problem is perceived bigotry when there might not be any.

And you saying they can simply choose to either donate and be subject to being outed or not donate at all is a false dilemma.

And and it has nothing to do with campaign corruption.

It totally has to do with corruption and currying favors. It goes to both parties. If you support X candidate, do so proudly.

Let's be honest here, the only reason this is an issue is because the candidate they're supporting likes to align himself with shady ideologes.

[pgardn]

Mitch is a senator.

So what?

Edit:

I see your reasoning as I gave an example that does not cover how broad a parasite can be defined.
My bad.
McConnell gets favors from donations and access that help him in more than getting re-elected. Which is actually a twofold parasite.

[pgardn]

Nobody is telling them not to be whatever they want to be in private. Donating to their favorite politician is not a private matter, however, it ends up affecting the public at large.

Now, past potential social shunning, there shouldn't be any other kind of retribution, and educating about that is probably just as important as transparency when it comes to money in politics.


They absolutely do. You simply cannot run a campaign without money. From filing fees, to setting up a campaign, to marketing, fundraising is integral to a campaign's viability.

I still don't see how this is not a choice for the donor to make. If they're bigots in private, there should be no reason not to embrace that, and deal with the consequences, hopefully for the better.

I went over most of this.
I do understand his concerns.

[ElNono]

This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:

https://i0.wp.com/doorfliesopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2906582-1377231271-59450.jpg?fit=500%2C281&ssl=1

If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.

[pgardn]

This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:

https://i0.wp.com/doorfliesopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2906582-1377231271-59450.jpg?fit=500%2C281&ssl=1

If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.


There is a bigger problem.
Get too famous on twitter and get threatened.
Get to hated on ST and people put the wrong photo of you up and some poor guy with nothing to do with this site gets posterized and actually finds out the ridiculous things being said about him.

The true detectives of this site are a little overzealous.

[Blake]

This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:

https://i0.wp.com/doorfliesopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2906582-1377231271-59450.jpg?fit=500%2C281&ssl=1

If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.

Or a neighbor punches another neighbor for donating to Trump

Or Chick-fil-A loses a contract because a councilman made a rash voting decision

Or any number of examples

[Blake]

So what?

Edit:

I see your reasoning as I gave an example that does not cover how broad a parasite can be defined.
My bad.
McConnell gets favors from donations and access that help him in more than getting re-elected. Which is actually a twofold parasite.

And I'd be totally down for a campaign finance committee to investigate such perceived parasites

[ElNono]

Or a neighbor punches another neighbor for donating to Trump

Or Chick-fil-A loses a contract because a councilman made a rash voting decision

Or any number of examples

The first one is assault. We have a court system for that.

The second one can also be challenged if Chick-fil-A feels they're being discriminated.

The whole point is that no matter what the example, excesses are what's wrong, not transparency.

This idea that we need to keep the shady shit because "people are unruly" is convenient for corruption, but it's all backwards. Democracy is all about co-existing with different ideas.

[pgardn]

The first one is assault. We have a court system for that.

The second one can also be challenged if Chick-fil-A feels they're being discriminated.

The whole point is that no matter what the example, excesses are what's wrong, not transparency.

This idea that we need to keep the shady shit because "people are unruly" is convenient for corruption, but it's all backwards. Democracy is all about co-existing with different ideas.

This is well put.

But Castro putting out the list...
I personally would rather a watchdog group put it out that followed public records.
But I would still want it seen. Same for the next Democratic President.

[ElNono]

This is well put.

But Castro putting out the list...
I personally would rather a watchdog group put it out that followed public records.
But I would still want it seen. Same for the next Democratic President.

Look, you want to point fingers at Castro because he used his megaphone as a political tool? Go ahead.

But, what I see as dangerous here is that the knee-jerk reaction is that we need to curtail transparency because "publish shaming". Ridiculous. Invite more disclosure, and let the people form their own opinions.

I mean, there's such a lack of trust in the political system as it is, anything that brings transparency and, at least, a modicum of information to the voters is welcome.

[Blake]

The first one is assault. We have a court system for that.

The second one can also be challenged if Chick-fil-A feels they're being discriminated.

The whole point is that no matter what the example, excesses are what's wrong, not transparency.

This idea that we need to keep the shady shit because "people are unruly" is convenient for corruption, but it's all backwards. Democracy is all about co-existing with different ideas.

So you want to prevent potential corruption through transparency while I want to prevent potential violence through constitutional right to privacy?

To each his own.

[Blake]

Look, you want to point fingers at Castro because he used his megaphone as a political tool? Go ahead.

But, what I see as dangerous here is that the knee-jerk reaction is that we need to curtail transparency because "publish shaming". Ridiculous. Invite more disclosure, and let the people form their own opinions.

I mean, there's such a lack of trust in the political system as it is, anything that brings transparency and, at least, a modicum of information to the voters is welcome.

In this case, this allows the people to form ideological opinions about the corporations who donated to Trump.

Maybe that's Castro's right but it's in poor taste and ultimately serves no purpose to the public at large.

[elbamba1]

In this case, this allows the people to form ideological opinions about the corporations who donated to Trump.

Maybe that's Castro's right but it's in poor taste and ultimately serves no purpose to the public at large.

My biggest issue with what Castro did was make a loose allegation that anyone who donated to Trump did so because of bigotry. People vote for all kinds of reasons and in this last election, I suspect some people voted for Trump because they could not stand Hillary Clinton and not because they supported Trump.

[Blake]

My biggest issue with what Castro did was make a loose allegation that anyone who donated to Trump did so because of bigotry. People vote for all kinds of reasons and in this last election, I suspect some people voted for Trump because they could not stand Hillary Clinton and not because they supported Trump.

Exactly.

But let's out these bigots any way!

Because potential corruption! (?)

[Winehole23]

This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:

https://i0.wp.com/doorfliesopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2906582-1377231271-59450.jpg?fit=500%2C281&ssl=1

If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.Because conservatives are afraid someone might say something mean, shun them socially, or boycott their businesses?

Talk about having the cowardice of one's own convictions.

[Winehole23]

1161030736465391617[LEFT]

[Blake]

Because conservatives are afraid someone might say something mean, shun them socially, or boycott their businesses?

Talk about having the cowardice of one's own convictions.

Well let's get all the cowards in the open then. Get rid of secret ballots. Have Castro shame every Trump voter coming out of the open booth.

[Winehole23]

Well let's get all the cowards in the open then. Get rid of secret ballots. Have Castro shame every Trump voter coming out of the open booth.That's just silly, Blake. Politcal contributions aren't the voting booth.

[DarrinS]

Does anyone virtue signal harder than Whinehole?

[spurraider21]

Does anyone virtue signal harder than Whinehole?
if you dont have a rebuttal, sometimes its better to just stay quiet tbh

[TeyshaBlue]

That's just silly, Blake. Politcal contributions aren't the voting booth.
He called them racist because they supported Trump. So did the voter....Trump supporter racist ergo sum.

[Winehole23]

if you dont have a rebuttal, sometimes its better to just stay quiet tbhI asked Darrin at least twice to weigh in on whether he thought political contributions should be secret, apparently it wasn't something he wanted to discuss.

I'm old enough to remeber when the NYT printed a list of everyone who gave money to the Clinton Foundation, right down to donations of $1; Darrin is old enough to remember it too, maybe he's loath to give up disclosure as a club to bash political enemies, like Joaquin Castro is doing now.

[rmt]

supporting Trump now equivalent to bigotry - have some of you not learned anything from the last election - painting millions with a broad brush. Do you think I want my car keyed? my house egged by some nut?

[TeyshaBlue]

That's just silly, Blake. Politcal contributions aren't the voting booth.

When you throw that blanket up in the air, it can float down on anyone.

[TeyshaBlue]

I asked Darrin at least twice to weigh in on whether he thought political contributions should be secret, apparently it wasn't something he wanted to discuss.

I'm old enough to remeber when the NYT printed a list of everyone who gave money to the Clinton Foundation, right down to donations of $1; Darrin is old enough to remember it too, maybe he's loath to give up disclosure as a club to bash political enemies, like Joaquin Castro is doing now.

Did the NYT make sweeping generalizations concerning the donating population?

I don't remember them doing so.

[Winehole23]

He called them racist because they supported Trump. So did the voter....Trump supporter racist ergo sum.A political opinion, one that is widely held.

I didn't think that racism was the main reason DJT won in 2016, but I do think it's the main reason he'll lose next year.

I think DJT has shown his racist bona fides, time after time, policy after policy. Whether Trump supporters personally consider thenselves racist matters little: they all support a candidate who continues to demonize brown people and mainstream herrenfolk democracy, even after notorious white power massacres.

[Winehole23]

Did the NYT make sweeping generalizations concerning the donating population?

I don't remember them doing so.Not sure why that matters. Why does it?

Disclosure is disclosure is disclosure. I seriously doubt the NYT's anodyne recitation of facts failed to inflame a wacko or two for being anodyne.

[Winehole23]

When you throw that blanket up in the air, it can float down on anyone.Absolutely, but the law makes a distinction between the voting booth and the checkbook.

Btw, I agreed with Blake part way, I can see the privacy issue, just unsure it trumps the broader public interest to have as much information as possible about money influencing politics.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not sure why that matters. Why does it?

Donations are already public record. Perjorative generaliztions applied to said records are asinine.

[Winehole23]

Donations are already public record. Perjorative generaliztions applied to said records are asinine.That's a fair objection, but this goes back to my question about normative values, which DarrinS likewise avoided:

Do politicians, and especially politicians who hold high office and wield great influence, have any obligation to curtail what they say, or refrain from singling people out for calumny?

I think there's a good argument to be had that the answer is yes, but oddly, none of the people criticizing Joaquin Castro so far want to have that conversation either.

[DarrinS]

Donations are already public record. Perjorative generaliztions applied to said records are asinine.

Yahtzee

[DarrinS]

if you dont have a rebuttal, sometimes its better to just stay quiet tbh

Ok, thanks counselor

[Winehole23]

YahtzeeSo, Darren, do you think politicians have a normative obligation not to single people out pejoratively in their tweets?

[Winehole23]

Demands answers, then ditches when the roles are reversed.

Classic DarrinS.

[Pavlov]

supporting Trump now equivalent to bigotry - have some of you not learned anything from the last election - painting millions with a broad brush. Do you think I want my car keyed? my house egged by some nut?Could be worse; you could be shot after the president goes along with someone's saying you should be shot.

[Blake]

Lol "painting millions with a broad brush"


They don't see a problem. They turn a blind eye to what is happening in Europe. They sprout their statistics instead of using common sense. Don't invite people from terrorist countries into the US.

[ElNono]

So you want to prevent potential corruption through transparency while I want to prevent potential violence through constitutional right to privacy?

To each his own.

We have a system to deal with violence already that doesn't need to step all over electoral transparency, and also provides tangible remedies for victims.

You're looking to implement a solution for something that already has one, all the while weakening democracy. I'm not on board, tbh.

[ElNono]

supporting Trump now equivalent to bigotry - have some of you not learned anything from the last election - painting millions with a broad brush. Do you think I want my car keyed? my house egged by some nut?

It's not about you. In the grand scheme of things, having transparency of how money flows in politics and how it influences decision makers is much more important than a dozen eggs or a paint job.

[Winehole23]

It's not about you. In the grand scheme of things, having transparency of how money flows in politics and how it influences decision makers is much more important than a dozen eggs or a paint job.BUT THE MEAN LIBERAL SCARED NICE PEOPLE AND DID A DIVISIVE

[TeyshaBlue]

It's not about you. In the grand scheme of things, having transparency of how money flows in politics and how it influences decision makers is much more important than a dozen eggs or a paint job.

We had that prior to Castro's troll job.