Free Speech

Rep. Joaquin Castro's Doxxing of Trump Donors in His District Has Flipped the Campaign Finance Discourse on Its Head

Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around.


Late Monday night, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–Texas) tweeted out a graphic featuring the names of San Antonio residents in his district who had donated the legal maximum to the re-election campaign of President Donald Trump.

"Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump," said Castro in a tweet that also called out specific businesses. "Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as 'invaders.'"

The tweet listed the employers of these Trump donors, including a dozen who said they were retired, and one self-described "homemaker."

Conservatives blasted Castro for the tweet.

"Targeting and harassing Americans because of their political beliefs is shameful and dangerous," said House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) in a Twitter response that also included a dig at the flagging presidential campaign of Castro's twin brother Julian.

Castro himself is not backing down, arguing that he did not create the graphic (it reportedly originated from an activist group) and that this is all public information anyway.

"No one was targeted or harassed in my post. You know that. All that info is routinely published," he said in response to McCarthy.

There is a difference, however, between campaign finance information being available and a member of Congress broadcasting that information on social media.

Castro also appears to be trying to draw a link between donors to Trump's campaign and the recent El Paso shooting, the perpetrator of which wrote a manifesto denouncing immigrants as "invaders." After the conservative backlash to his tweet, Castro retweeted a couple of supporters who made this link explicit.

Transparency advocates argue that by allowing the public to see who donates how much to which campaign committees and ballot initiatives, voters can better understand the motivations and incentives of officeholders and the relationships between special interests and the government. The stated justification of campaign finance transparency, in other words, is not to publicly shame private individuals for their political preferences.

And yet this isn't the first time that campaign contribution data has been used to punish private individuals for their political donations. Former Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign in 2014 after it was revealed that he gave $1,000 in support of a 2008 ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in California.

The ability to punish people for supporting or opposing particular political campaigns is one reason a lot of libertarians oppose making political donations public.

"Given all the death threats, risks to family members, calls for people to be fired, and personal relationships strained by politics, the value of political anonymity is higher today than at any time since the McCarthy era," wrote Brad Smith of the Institute for Free Speech, a group that opposes many disclosure requirements, in an April National Review article. "Requiring people to choose between participation in the political process and a private personal life will lead to a situation where the only ideas in the public square will be those deemed acceptable by the prevailing political majority."

I personally think making large-dollar donations public is a net benefit, but that's an issue reasonable people can reasonably disagree on.

And while reasonable people may not be able to reasonably disagree on Trump, Castro's tweet is just deepening the divide. He has given every person he singled out even more reason to support Castro's opponents, particularly since the nature of social media virality almost guarantees each of those individuals has received or will receive unpleasant messages thanks to Castro's spotlight. Whatever divisions he was hoping to fix, he has only deepened.

NEXT: Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws Imagine 'Due Process' That Does Not Exist on Paper or in Practice

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When Twitchy posted Castro’s tweets, they redacted the donors’ names. That was a good approach.

  2. One thing the otherwise well written article leaves out is that Castro apparently redacted the names of Hispanic Trump voters and doxed only the nonHispanic Trump supporters.

    That fact puts lie to any claim that he did this for “transparency”. If he thinks it is so important for people who donated to Trump to be publicly known, why is it somehow not important for Hispanics who do so to be doxed?

    He did this because he wants the mob to terrorize these people for the crime of disagreeing with him. But hey, he makes up for it by targeting them for their race as well. So there is that.

    1. He did it because he’s an Aztlan ethno nationalist that hates white people. It has nothing to do with simple political disagreement, because if that was the case, he would have listed the Hispanic donors, too.

      1. Exactly. But somehow it is Trump who is the open racist. The media hasn’t touched the racism issue. Even this article which is otherwise critical of Castro doesn’t say a word about it.

        1. The only reason Reason posted this article is to keep up appearances.
          They are lost to the long march

          1. +1

        2. And as you posted after this…the shooter said his feelings had zero to do with Trump at all.

          Does he think that if the NAAZP’s supporters list was published in AL n 1957, that’d be peachy?

          Yes, I’m comparing modern Democrats to…well, 1950’s Democrats.

          1. It’s public record, psychos

      2. Hispanics are white, you stupid fuckstick.

        EVERY survey that asks, also asks hispanics what trace they are. AND YOU NEVER NOTICED ,…. or did you go [psycho) again?

      3. because if that was the case, he would have listed the Hispanic donors, too

        HOW MA


    2. Source that non-Hispanics were redacted?

      1. Look at the list, there isn’t a single Hispanic name on it. He choose 44 names of max donors and none of them have Hispanic names. That is not the entire list of people who donated to Trump or donated the max. It is a hand picked list by Castro.

        1. This is so gonna blow up in the face of this Lefty Congressman.

          I bet some of these people have some pull too. People who donate the max to political campaigns tend to have some wealth.

          1. I keep hearing that the left’s outrageous tactics are going to come back to haunt them, but that never seems to happen. They keep getting bolder and bolder and the country keeps moving to the left.

            1. The USA is NOT moving to the Left. Trump is evidence of that.

              The Lefties are getting more desperate and being vocal about their rage and the Propagandists make it national news. That is why it SEEMS likes what you think.

              Lefties are having their tactics haunt them as evidenced by Trump’s election, looser gun laws, mass ignoring of the MSM Propagandists….

              1. The USA is NOT moving to the Left. Trump is evidence of that.

                He’s the one moving it!!!
                ALREADY changed Obama from negative support to a record-high positive.
                And MORE new debt than Obama!!! (CBO forceast 2024)
                And nearly 60% of voters will “definitelty not” vote for him in 2020

                90% of voters want universal background checks (80% STRONGLY)
                The GOP has virtually destroyed its entire agenda.

            2. They have most of the media operating as a bomb squad for them, which makes it REALLY difficult for things to blow up in their faces. As somebody once said, the media view their job as covering important stories… with a pillow, until they stop moving.

              But they ARE moving left a lot faster than the country, and when that media armor finally breaks down, it’s going to be ugly.

            3. Excuse me, what do you think the 2016 election was? They pulled a great deal of arrogant cr*p during Obama’s two terms and then nominated Shrillary, confident that she’d win in a walk. So confident, in fact, that they infuriated the ‘deplorables’ and Trump got elected.

              That is consequences in spades.

              Being who they are, they aren’t learning. They’re doubling down. I suppose it’s possible they will manage to steal the 2020 election, but I think it’s likelier they’ll get buried under Trump landslide.

              1. Yes, I actually think doubling down could work. It nearly worked back in 2016, and what they’re doing now is more like quadrupling down, and they’ve barely gotten started.

                I don’t think it’s guaranteed to work, but there’s a strong faction in the leadership of the Republican party that would be quite happy to see Trump defeated, even if it means they end up as the leaders of a perpetual minority party kept around just for show.

                These people do not see the Democrats as a personal threat, and they do see Trump as that threat: A Republican party in control of government, but with them personally losing control, is their nightmare scenario, not merely a less than ideal victory.

              2. Umm, nearly 10 million voted AGAINST Trump.

                He claims a “record-setting” victory in the Electoral College …. 39,000 voters!! (LMAO)

          2. Only if someone decides to doxx his staff.

        2. He made sure to post the little old retired grandmas. What a fucking coward.

          1. Wha

            1. What a psycho liar!

        3. 1) Hispanic is NOT a race, John.
          2) You call a “fact” what you ALSO said is a rumor.
          3) Why would Castro also delete the names of Asian and French Trump supporters?
          4) Why do you ASS-ume all hispanics have an hispanic surname?

          All 4 — posted by a hate-spewing psychopath.

          That is not the entire list of people who donated to Trump or donated the max. It is a hand picked list by Castro.

          PROVE IT, you shameless bigoted asshole (and all your fellow Trumptards who treat a RUMOR as FACT)


      2. Suicide time for you Kiddie Raper.

      3. Y’all. Listen to yourselves. BigNose has an extremely valid point. I have seen nothing that indicates this is true. If it is true, then it’s a damning point that turns him from a troubling, angry man into a hypocritical bigot. But as of now, it’s just an assertion by an anonymous user. Why are y’all acting like the villains here?

        John, thank you for responding, but I’m sorry, that’s not an argument. He chose 44 supposedly random people. The fact that there were no Hispanic names is a bit unusual. However, that is not in and of itself evidence.

        1. No no, you don’t seem to understand the rules of Reasontown here.

          The rule is:
          When a right-wing person is in trouble, then we are to parse the incident as finely as possible so as to give the benefit of the doubt wherever we can.

          When a left-wing person is in trouble, then we are to just respond with inchoate rage and conspiracy theories.

          1. Psychotic, bigoted, and hypocritical.

            Keep checking those boxes, jeff.

          2. For chemjeff, the rules are reversed.

          3. Poor idiotic jeff. Keep proving your love of Vox headlines as the depth of your analysis.

          4. You must be an expert boomerang thrower.

          5. While I don’t particularly agree with Jeff’s normal posts, he does have a point here, and y’all are supporting it. The title of this site is “Reason”. Not “Namecalling”. Please act like it.

          6. When a left-wing person is in trouble, then we are to just respond with inchoate rage and conspiracy theories.

            SIX “geniuses” FULFILLED his prediction (so far)

        2. Nothing a political operative does is “random”.

          Trump polled 30% among Hispanics in Texas IIRC. San Antonio is majority Hispanic.

          What is the p-value on all 44 names being “white”? Assuming that 75% of Trump’s votes in San Antonio were white, you get 0.75^44.

    3. The only thing that’s “transparent” about this is the goal: to make it dangerous to donate to the “wrong” party.

      1. He actually was the subject of a pretty tough interview on CNBC today. With the exception of a few real crapweasels like Radley Balko, most people seem pretty appalled by this. I mean, when you are a minority Democrat and you have lost Maggie Halberman you might want to stop digging

        1. Being the cynic that I am, I figure their reasons are tactical rather than principled. They might be familiar with the old saying “what goes around comes around”.

          (For the radio audience: no the Republicans shouldn’t imitate this rotten behavior. But if it becomes a habit with Democrats that will be the foreseeable result.)

          1. I think there is some of that. But I am okay with people doing the right thing for selfish reasons. This shit needs to stop. I don’t care who is doing it.

          2. For the cynics, “what goes around” is the primary thing that keeps society together. You have to crack down on horrible ideas because it could happen to you too.

            1. The competing notion on the left is that “what goes around won’t come around”, because democracy is like a train, when you reach your destination you get off. They can pull any crap they need to reach power, and then just ruthlessly crush the opposition. Which, having been ruthlessly crushed, will never be in a position to pull the same crap on them.

              1. This.

                They never expect the monster they create to eat them, because while the monster is busy eating everyone else, the left is busy building monster proof armor…

                1. …or, more likely, a bigger monster to eat the first.

                2. Well, they certainly don’t learn their lessons…

                  “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”

                  “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions…”

                  Then there’s the Senate nuclear option for non-SCOTUS Presidential appointments, that Democrats used to thwart the minority. How’s that working for you now Democrats?

                  Then Tim Kaine, thinking his VP office and a Senate majority was secured, promised to go full nuclear to include SCOTUS. Thanks for the idea, said Mitch McConnel, now here’s Justice Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

            2. Take a lesson from when that newspaper decided to publish all the gun permit holders. Don’t doxx Democrat contributors, doxx Castro’s staff.

        2. This Congressman might single-handedly turn Texas more Red than ever before!

          Watch, this Congressman get the boot when Texas picks up House seats from Blue states and they remap the congressional districts.

          Haha. He will have such a hilarious look in his eyes as he becomes one of those Congressman who get kicked out of the House simply because their congressional district no longer exists.

          1. This Congressman might single-handedly turn Texas more Red than ever before!

            Reversing over a decade of moving blue? Statewide Texas Republicans ALL now win by TEENY margins …. like Cruze’s 3% margin over a nobody.

            Keep sniffing the Kool-Aid

        3. eh, that depends on where you look. I read a few (left-leaning) articles that reported on it yesterday and they didn’t seem to have a problem with it, nor did their comment sections. The line of reasoning was “something, something, Republicans are threatening illegal immigrants with deportation so its ok to threaten their donors”

          I have a feeling that if you’re ok with this or not is gonna fall along party lines, except for the few people who are far-sighted enough to see the inevitable outcome of ‘what goes around comes around’

          1. If you were a first-generation Hispanic immigrant, would YOU want to know which local businesses to avoid, if any?

            Do you oppose consumer boycotts, or just learning who to boycott?

            It’s generally considered improper to judge anyone, if you have not walked in their shoes.

    4. John….This one is a tough nut. We want and expect full disclosure of who contributes to political campaigns. Hence, we release lists of people who donated to campaigns. All fine and good.

      Now we have a Congressman, a Congressman for Pete’s Sake, subverting this law for an entirely different, and conflicting purpose. The Congressman has stated his motive: Name and shame contributors to POTUS Trump.

      Until someone proves demonstrable harm, my view is we have to live with this. If someone is harmed (reputationally, physically, financially, etc), they have the Courts to adjudicate their claim.

      Don’t get me wrong…I think what the Congressman is doing is highly questionable, and makes it just that much easier for a nutso or a mob to harass these donors. From a moral and ethical perspective, that is problematic. We want free and open participation in the political; process for citizens. What the congressman is doing is counter to this principle. That is wrong.

      1. This congress,and should be destroyed, and made an example of for what he has done.

        1. Its all public record … which Atlas_Psycho ADMITTED …. then went batshit saying it’s a crime to release. what HE says has ALREADY been released (OMFG) …. and Last of the Shitheads goes even crazier (as always)

          1. Liberty….Please re-read my comment. I never stated it was a crime to release the names. I think what the Congressman is doing has serious moral and ethical issues, though. But what he is doing is legal.

            1. )Please accept my deepest, most sincere and heartfelt apology

              It was John who pulled that bullshit, which must have made me daffy… but has now passed.

              I’m curious. Would Trump be subverting the law, if he gratefully accepted opposition dirt from Russia … while ALSO denying he’d ever done such a thing … which IS illegal!

              If I was hispanic, 1st or 2nd generation, I would want to know which local business owners were max contributors to my attacker. I phrase it that way because today’s hispanic immigrants assimilate by the third generation … exactly the same as ALL immigrants (including my German parents) for over 100 years.

              I’d never judge a hispanic on this, since I’m 3rd generation AND never walked in his shoes. Germans never suffered such abuse, hatred and bigotry, even during WWII. (Japaese did, tghus swe GERMANS know it wa

              1. …. know it was purely racist by FDR … which was confirmed by federal commission that investigated it … and by Clinton, explicitly, that racism was a major part of that.

  3. Pretty sure one of those donors also donated to Castro…. Leftism really is a snake eating it’s own tail

    1. At least one did according to Fox News.

      1. You fucking said a hundred times you don’t watch FOX News.

        You are all liars. Every last rightwing fucktard is a liar.

        1. Fox News has articles on line.

          And the number is up to 6.

        2. Tony, fuck off and kill yourself. Everything wrong with this country is the fault of you and everyone who thinks anything like you.

          1. You mistake me for ratfucking Republicans, sweetie.

            1. Tony saving the world on the keyboard via Keep up the good fight bro!

      1. Kill them all, the Lord Shall Know His Own.

        1. Typical Trumpster. As we saw so long ago in Charlottesville, where they LITERALLY attacked (mosty) leftists. standing peacefully, with clubs, many wearing Nazi helmets and carrying police-style riot shields. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

          Which Trump, of course, lied about.

    2. If I were that donor, I’d make damned sure that I never gave another dime to ANY Democrat. If any of them came around with their hand out, I’d tell them to fuck off and ask Castro for it.


    3. Pretty sure one of those donors also donated to Castro…. Leftism really is a snake eating it’s own tail

      You just ate your own ass … assuming that a nmax donor to Trump would also support an hispanic liberal Democrat.

      Rightism really is as vicious as leftism.

  4. Well, I know which BBQ place to dine at next time I’m in San Antonio. And I don’t even like Trump.

    1. Unfortunately it is a crappy barbecue place, which is rare in San Antonio.

  5. the San Antonio Riverwalk water smells awful, Joaquin.

  6. Well at least Castro’s cronies did not sick the cops on the GOP donors like the Dems in Wisconsin did under a double secret investigation (the investigators searched homes and seized evidence telling those under investigation that it was illegal under the law they were operating under to retain and speak to a lawyer about what had happened).

    1. I remember that shit. I remember that a judge eventually told the cops to stop, but the victims never got any justice, did they?

      1. A campaign has to be waged against Castro designed to ruin his career, and his personal life. That’s how you end this. Rip Castro apart and shove his shredded, scorched remains to the rest of the progtard filth as an object lesson of what happens when traitors like them dare cross good Americans.

        The tie for the NAP has long passed. These people are at war with us and we better strike back.

        1. The thugs are getting open, now BRAGGING about their demand for admitted aggression.

          A campaign has to be waged against Castro designed to ruin his career, and his personal life. That’s how you end this. Rip Castro apart and shove his shredded, scorched remains to the rest of the progtard filth as an object lesson of what happens when traitors like them dare cross good Americans.

          The time for the NAP has long passed. These people are at war with us and we better strike back.


          The time for the NAP has long passed.

          (LMAO) For your ilk, the authoritarian right, it never existed.

          Left – Right = Zero

  7. Look, Castro is merely saying that we should all strive to be more inclusive, be more tolerant and accepting of others as we embrace our common interests in uniting against those treacherous, evil, white supremacist Nazi bastards called the Republican Party who engage in the hate-filled politics of divisiveness.

    1. Well, since you put it that way . . .

  8. When Nixon signed the Federal Election Campaign Act in ’71, he wrote (in part), “By giving the American public full access to the facts of political financing, this legislation will guard against campaign abuses and will work to build public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process.”

    Good call, Dickie.

    1. Dickie was more honest than the lying sack of shit Republicans here? I guess I should not be surprised.

      1. This is the second vituperative, vulgar post you have fouled this blog with. Many of us here are not members of either political party and your hate-mongering is not winning anyone other than Antifa brown shirts (you know those freedom-loving, radical-left neanderthals who beat a photographer so badly in Oregon to put him in the hospital). Perhaps you should exercise right and go out have five-minute hate scream a la Orwell.

        1. You gave youtrseklf awa

        2. You gave yourself away, as an alt-right goober.

          our hate-mongering is not winning anyone other than Antifa brown shirts (you know those freedom-loving, radical-left neanderthals who beat a photographer so badly in Oregon to put him in the hospital).

          How does that compare with Trump LYING to defend MUCH greater violence, against HUNDREDS, and ONE DEATH BY ASSAULT … in Charlottesville … when YOUR cocksucker President claimed the “alt-left” initiated the violence by charging and beating his adoring racvists and nazies with clubs.

          UNDENIABLE PROOF follows. .You ARE one of the “lying shit Republicans I mentioned … and you also SUCK at denying it … you are WAY out of your league, lying conservatard. .

          1. Part 2. Suck it up!
            The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs

            “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
            Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
            Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.
            Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry.

            These are Racists and Jew-Haters.
            Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
            Trump threw his own daughter under a bus. SHAMEFUL.

            Left – Right = Zero
            Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
            As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction, roaring like dinosaurs, chirping like dodo birds.

  9. Like it or not this is inevitable in our toxic political discourse. It is the logical result from when we shift from saying we disagree with our political rivals policies to saying our political rivals are unAmerican and they hate our country. President Trump’s strategy for the 2020 election appears to be to cement a small solid base and then make everyone else so disgusted we will stay home and not vote. If you support President Trump financially you are going to get called on it. You can not hide behind “I only do it for his policies”. Not with the vitriol he throws out.

    1. If you support President Trump financially you are going to get called on it. You can not hide behind “I only do it for his policies”. Not with the vitriol he throws out.

      You mean like calling people Nazis and white supremacists and saying the are to blame for mass murders? You mean vitriol like that?

      I know, it is different when your side does something. You mean well.

      1. President Trump is the leader of this country. I have seen a lot of Presidents. I have never seen any as divisive, by a long shot. This is not about anyone but the President. If you support him you have to take the baggage he brings. There was a time when you could have helped him. By setting limits. That time is gone.

        1. Oh bullshit. You’re just exercising selective memory. The only difference between how the Left reacts to Trump and how they acted with Republicans going back to Hoover is that Trump likes the drama as much as they do.

          All this hysteria forever has originated from the left, in an effort to jawbone the country into following their agenda. “He’s so divisive!’ is code for, “He doesn’t accept the left-wing consensus!”

          1. All this hysteria forever has originated from the left,

            I agree with you except on this point. I have seen hysteria from the right just as much. They just do a much poorer/richer (kinda of depends on your perspective) job of it. Starbucks coffee cups or flag kneelers are hysteria, along with hits like Obama is a secret Muslim and the Clinton death squads. Its all hysteria, all the time.

            1. Yea, the right totally made those their fundamental concerns.
              Therefore it equals the Left’s obsession with Nazis everywhere, climate apocalypstism, systemic racism, gays are going to be holocausted, everyone’s going to die if health insurance isn’t nationalized, Russia-
              Ok, gotta cut myself off at some point.
              I’m merely trying to say that I’m in complete agreement that discussing Starbucks absurdity, Obama’s statements about himself, and suspicions regarding the unnatural deaths of those close to the Clintons is exactly equivalent to fanatical obsessions and fundamental goals.
              Yup, not false at all

            2. The Right is always trying to play catchup when it comes to hysterical hyperbole. Every time it looks like they’ve caught up, the Left turns it up even more.

        2. How old are you? 5?

          Obama was more divisive than Trump, but you <3 Obama, so you ignore his divisiveness,

        3. You must be young.

          For some of us who know history, FDR put Americans in internment camps. That is pretty divisive.

          Obama signed into law ObamaCare which create an unconstitutional requirement to buy health insurance (which is unprecedented in US history). That is pretty divisive.

          1. He also ran a program where illegal gun purchases were facilitated to create the illusion that Mexican cartels were arming themselves from American gun stores, rather than the back doors of Mexican army armories.

            And ran Operation Chokepoint, where legal businesses he disapproved of were cut off from financial services by threatening banks with abusive regulatory actions.

            Both of those were pretty divisive, too, and the last has been taken over by the private sector, so it’s still going on.

        4. You are correct – Trump is the most divisive President we’ve ever had. Which is exactly why we have Trump. Where were you when the Left was calling every Republican ever, from Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon to John McCain and Mitt Romney a dangerous, malevolent, racist right-wing extremist? There was no divisiveness there because the GOP actually thought the Left was making a good-faith argument and that they actually needed to defend their position. Donald Trump is divisive because his primary argument against attacks on him are “Fuck you, you stupid piece of shit, you’re fat and ugly and nobody likes you” – which is exactly and precisely the response these bad-faith arguments deserve and the response they’ve deserved all along. Things are so much more peaceful when you just wordlessly hand your lunch money over to the school bully, things get much less peaceful when you kick the school bully in the nuts, but blaming Donald Trump for the lack of civility because he’s kicking the school bully in the nuts is a strange way of looking at things.

          1. ^THIS^ this is EXACTLY the right analysis AFAIK
            on a side note… wasnt jerryskids a strident leftist apologist? or am i missing something?

            1. I’m with you on both counts. but suggest the strident is not appropriate, as it may be misunderstood. Since he, himself, never displayed the hatred that he calls out here, we should assume that has been in him all along, but we just disagree on the issues.

              Which gets ,me back to HIS point on civil disagreement.

          2. I agree, a homerun for Jerryskids.
            And, I confess. I’m surprised that it’s from him.

        5. Trump is divisive because so many of you are traitors and Marxist scum

    2. “” It is the logical result from when we shift from saying we disagree with our political rivals policies to saying our political rivals are unAmerican and they hate our country.”‘

      What about saying things like no civility until dems are elected? Then blame Trump for the lack of civility.

    3. So basically you are saying that you are as scummy as Trump and it’s ok cuz whatabout

    4. What about the 20+ Democratic candidate doing the exact same thing?

      Are their supporters going to ‘finally get called on it’ to? Or do they get to hide behind ‘I only do it for her policies’ when their donations to Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren get outed?

    5. the ‘unamerican’ epithet has been spewed at general groups of adversaries in politics from forever – on both sides.. that has nothing to do with the toxic disc environment . the toxic environment has everything to do with trump sticking up for himself in the only way he knows how – which may be immature and like a bully – but it is just hitting back. AND look who are the targets. The press – which obviously and undeniably are almost universally against him, and the partisan political hacks and those that pick up their standard among the plebeian class. it is a chicken and egg question, who threw the first stone…. who started it. well, if you follow the fisa machinations and accounts of preemptive preparations for spying on his campaign [on a scale that makes richard nixon look like a choir boy] it does lend credence to the idea that it was the dems and their institutionally embedded cronies that actually cast the first stone.

      the main point i wanted to make [i just remembered] was that it seemed to conflate the american electorate with the political and media classes that constitute the target of trumps attacks. those classes are no more american than a mutilated man can be a woman. the man is human, the political classes are american… but the man is not humanity writ large and those hacks in the press are not a proxy for the american electorate.

      1. Trump is the aggressor. From the moment he came down that escalator announce. I blame his base. All the sane Republicans have left the party, along with the sane Democrats.

        This leaves both party’s base with mostly extremists, which drives away more, which get more extreme, a death spiral

        On at least a dozen occasions, Trump HAS moved toward unity, being Presidential. EVERY TIME, he’s been forced back by his base of hate-spewing cretins. (like the cretins on the left.)

        Trump is, I suspect, trapped by his total lack of experience in business management. Real estate investment does not demand a lot of skill in strategy and tactics. His failed tactic was sticking with his base, which means THEY OWN HIM. .

        Kennedy’s tax cuts, which were identical to Reagan’s, allowed him to ignore his own extreme left. He didn’t need them. The AFL-CIO and far-left in Congress screamed about … yep … tax cuts for the rich. KENNEDY.

        Obama tried the same thing in 2008. Gary Johnson had a great ad in 2012, showing how Obama campaigned AGAINST a mandate,smarter than anyone on the right! “If a mandate would work, we could mandate everyone buy a house and end homelessness.” KAPOW!

        He also rejected … universal coverage! Said we could not afford it until we reduced the MEDICAL costs! (which was in his original proposal) . SAID one major problem was his own grandmother, who got a costly hip transplant when she was terminal cancer, and died a few month later. Only ONE other politician has DARED to say that. Mitch Daniels said we have the world’s most costly health care, as the only country that will pay $250,000 for 6 more months of life!. TRUE.

        Obama even had an private alternative to the public option, to get GOP votes A co-op HMO is all prepaid BUT owned and controlled by members, so NO scrimping on care. Doctors salaried employees of their patients. They own their own pharmacy, pick u your scripts as you leave the clinic. And their own hospitals. NO BILLING.

        Based on a Seattle co-op I was in for about 15 years. Private. Cheaper than a gov plan (no billing) … and has a lower-cost competitor!. It was endorsed by Daily Kos, THE most liberal website in America … as an acceptable replacement to a public option! Despite the right-wing goobers here, to most liberals and progressives,a PRIVATE, member-controlled non-profit IS socialized medicine! Think about it,

        The dumbfuck Republicans refused the deal, which would have killed single-payer forever. More government health IS a real threat now. Blame assholes like (mostly) McConnell and Hatch. .

        And Trump has made it even worse.

  10. I love this where Lefty politicians get some stupid idea from their staff or come up with it themselves and it backfires.

    Trump is going to get MORE money just so people national publicity as confirmed donors of Trump.


    1. I think this kind of thing is a sign of weakness and desperation rather than strength. Socialists take over a country one of two ways; either they get elected and take power and then either fix or cancel all future elections (see Venezuela, Cuba, Turkey, or Chile under Allende) or they use terror and brute force to take over because they can’t win an election (Russia in 1918, and Germany in 1938). Before now, the Democrats haven’t needed to resort to this kind of stuff because they have spent 90 years now slowly taking over every institution in the country. The fact that they have gone bat shit insane and are starting to resort to it now is I think pretty good evidence they feel their opportunity slipping away.

      1. I feel exactly the same way. Although this stuff sounds bad superficially, it indicates that the Democrat Party is done for nationally.

        They are uncoordinated and doing things that will likely hurt their cause.

        As you said John, the tactic of quietly assume leadership roles in Academia, use mass media as a Propaganda tool, and the government bureaucracy has paid off well for them….until Trump.

        I see the silver lining. The End of the Democrat Party and the rise of a non-Socialist political movement to challenge runaway debt, bloated governments, and striping of civil rights (Libertarians hopefully).

        1. I hope you are right about the D party, but I think you seriously underestimate the grip they have on the younger generation. Just as you see comments here saying people will visit that BBQ joint, expect the help treating to tank. Did that restaurant in DC go under for refusing service to ? Republican? I’m sure they’re doing just fine. The kids are not alright…

          1. The kids will grow up to have some recognition that they are individuals. That’s when collective guilt and grievance doesn’t sell so easily. Rinse and repeat.

            They will always be chasing their tails.


          2. The Democrats wish that young people were Democrats. They are not, by and large. The extremist young people are something else (likely Communists). The Democrat Party has some intersectional points they see eye-to-eye on but Pelosi is trying to stave off these young people from destroying the Democrat Party before election 2020.

            The Democrat Party is shifting even farther Left because these young people are not Democrats, so the Party of slavery is chasing them Left. This will scare off Democrats that are not Communists.

            If the Democrat Party is mainly Communists, then they will have no power nationally. The Democrat Party had national power because of the size of its tent.

            1. You post the same silly comments over and over. You’re like a yappy chihuahua with OCD.

              1. Eric, you too say the same things. In your case it is worthless shit. Worthless, like you. You are a soulless progtard and have no value. Deep down you likely are aware of that, and this is why you lash out at good Americans. Something you can never be.

                Like so many of your kind, you should drink Drano and end the blight your life inflicts on our country.

                1. Hehe. Love it. And love you too Shitlord.

                2. One must be TOTALLY insane to think the Democrats are in trouble! AND that young people aren’t all that liberal.

                  The GOP is a MASSIVE fuckup. As shown just below.
                  My timestamp of August.9.2019 5:40 PM.

                  OR .. how the GOP TOTALLY FUCKED UP HEALTH CARE … by refusing Obama’s offer of a PRIVATE, NON-PROFIT ALTERNATIVE to a public option — that would have killed single-payer forever! He tried a Kennedy, and got fucked. JFK’s tax cuts were IDENTICAL to Reagan’s later cuts … to escape his own far-left, WHO CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THEIR OWN PRESIDENT.

                  REPUBLICANS could have killed single-payer, but McConnell did say it was more important to deny Obama a second term. The hatred was already fatal to the GOP, well before Trump.

                  You can drive Last of the Shitheads INSANE by reading the summary here.

                  I forgot to add you can see Gary Johnson’s 2012 ad PROVING that Obama ran as a MODERATE on healthcare. opposed BOTH the mandate AND universal coverage (until AFTER we reduced the MEDICAL costs — which the original Obamacare would have done! I need a part 2 for a second linkl.

                  1. Part 2 , PROOF that Obama campaigned as a MODERATE on health care in 2008.

                    Also GUARANTEED to cause another raging hissy fit by Last of the Shitheads!!

            2. The Democrats wish that young people were Democrats. They are not, by and large.

              We SHOULD be concerned about … your sanity.

              Young people are MASSIVELY Democrats, Republicans are MASSIVELY .,.. old … dying off. And you EVEN support the policies that drive young people away! The GOP is LITERALLY committing suicide. If the Dems weren’t so stupid, the GOP would be dead already.

              What if Bernie and Elizabeth got a brain and said, “My health care reform will cost you NOTHING, just like today.. Your employer will merely send the check to the government, instead of some profit-gouging private insurance company.”

              Sneer all you want, they’ll kill us. Our tribe has already fucked up. They go ape-shit about $32 trillion in 10-year costs .. which is less than we pay now!!!. Dumbfucks like Cato and Mercatus REQUIRE that you believe that $32T is an INCREASE, because insurance companies will still get the same dollars for NOTHING.
              Yes, YOU are that HUGE a sucker.

              What do you smoke? What’s your dealer’s price and phone number?

          3. A few flights on Pinochet Air will straighten them out…

        2. “Challenge runaway debt, bloated government”…..

          If only. I don’t see it happening. Too late.

        3. LC1789 also sneered “a GOP landslide” in 2018.
          Just sayin’

      2. I don’t know, I believe they think they’ve already got the 2020 election rigged through the news media, social media sites, and search engines, and can afford to take the mask off.

        Now they’re just debating among themselves who gets to be President for Life.

        They might be right, because they DO have an enormous edge in those areas, so that only people who know they’re in a left-wing bubble and actively try to escape it can avoid being spoon fed the propaganda. Are there enough people outside the bubble for them to lose?

        We’ve only seen the initial steps of their deplatforming campaign, after all. By this time next year, who knows? Any search for Trump on Google might bring up a picture of Hitler, FB comments approving of Republicans might be auto-deleted, and most non-left websites will be under constant DDOS attacks, and not able to pay their security services because Visa won’t process the payment.

        1. i am more inclined towards this view. and my fear is that if they successfully leverage these advantages they and their Shih-Tzus in the press will pronounce that their crazy shark jumping pandering agenda actually has a mandate.
          then america becomes the united states of thelma and louise . step on gas pedal, steer towards cliff.

    2. Why are you so totally delusional? He’ll get more money??
      YOU were the one who predicted a GOP landslide in 2018!
      Every disaster, you invent some CRAZY bullshit and call it a victory.
      Optimism is good, healthy and necessary. But delusions are …. delusional.

      Plus, you’re the guy who says your father is “selfish as shit” for opposing cuts in his Social Security, with so much debt. But YOU are ENTITLED to MORE debt, if it puts money in YOUR pocket, with an unpaid for tax cut … stolen from your own children.

      Your dad paid for his Social Security — a dumb way, but paid. You’re a pure mooch. But, of course, entitled. 🙂

  11. “Castro himself is not backing down, arguing that he did not create the graphic”

    Gosh. You think maybe you could give gun manufacturers and dealers the same sweet forgiveness?

    1. What difference does it make that he didn’t create the graphic? He still tweeted it didn’t he?

      1. Holy shit. This from the guy who CONSTANTLY defends Trump’s tweets as nothing but fluff that people shouldn’t freak out about.

        And then here comes Tulpa with an even more facepalm-worthy self-pwning:

        “He Tweeted it, and as a elected representative his dissemination of the list imparts the appearance of official sanction.”

        That is literally my argument about why Trump spouting stupid shit on Twitter actually does matter. Thank you!

        Anyway, that said, I do agree that Castro shouldn’t have done this either. It is possible that some triggered person will attack one of these donors, and that is not acceptable.

        Related note: If we all survive this shit, it will be straight up embarrassing to reflect on, for example, Washington’s letters (as examples of the writings of our high-ranking politicians) as opposed to all this Twitter nonsense. I mean seriously, imagine reading all these Tweets twenty years from now. It’s the official record. It’s (sadly) our modern version of the Adams-Jefferson letters. What a disgrace.

  12. donations are like votes they should be treated the same anonymously.

    1. “donations are like votes…” Having previously worked in DC, I can tell you how sad and ironically true that statement is. Most of us poor slobs vote at the ballot box. The votes that really count are cast at golf courses and over lunch at swanky restaurants.

      Not trying to pile on you Ron, but I’m sure our founding fathers are all spinning in their graves at this scenario. Let’s call it what it is – political contributions are legalized bribery. If we’re going to legalize it, what if went the opposite direction and made it completely, 100% transparent? Make ALL political contributions fully public and searchable, whether they be large, small, foreign or domestic, personal, or through a PAC/business. I think we all have a right to know who’s buying our politicians.

    2. “donations are like votes they should be treated the same anonymously.”
      … as long as you guarantee that everybody gets a donation, and everybody’s all count the same amount. Otherwise, admit that the rich get more votes than the others.

      1. Even a retarded Silicon Valley tech goon knows that not everyone in the US is allowed to vote.

      2. Look, way back when the NAACP got an exemption from financial transparency because they could demonstrate their donors would be attacked if they were known. Just about any right-wing organization is in the same position today, and ought to get the same exemption.

        The left isn’t into disclosure because they want transparency. They’re into it because they want hit lists.

  13. Castro himself is not backing down, arguing that he did not create the graphic…

    Trump didn’t create that GIF of him violently taking down a wrestler with CNN’s logo, he only tweeted it out. Any violence against journalists is not the president’s fault.

    It’s amazing how much of this stuff can be turned around on the other party.

    1. If we can’t turn things around on our opponents, why play the game?

      1. Because progressivism is totalitarian and progressives seek to dictate every aspect of our lives?

        1. Which is exactly why they have to go. I’m doing what he did, Castro proves my contention. Time to start scraping them off.

          Let’s start with him.

    2. And CNN notably threatened to reveal the guy who created the gif if he didn’t apologize, and reserved the right to do so if he did something similar in the future.

      1. Oh I wish it had been me.
        I would’ve called local television, FoxNews, and whoever else seemed like a good idea, then walked right into the CNN Center and announced my presence.
        Then we could have a chat, face to face

        1. +10

        2. I would pay good money to see CNN get publicly embarrassed like that. I mean, more so than the constant embarrassment that they run 24/7

    3. Ya, a generalized “CNN” logo is precisely the same thing as SPECIFIC individuals’ names and businesses… And NO ONE knows that “professional wrestling” is staged, faux violence… And in that tweet President Trump ACTIVELY called for “targeting” of CNN by saying that CNN is “fueling a campaign of hate” rather than just calling them liars, just like Rep. Castro did to those donors…

      TOTALLY equivalent…

    4. a) if such is the case i think it is reasonable to assume the gif was created as humor. your adding of ‘violently’ to the description gives your game away – it was a wrestling themed gif – what do you expect [plus, isnt the common understanding that pro wrestling is fake anyways??]
      b) trump is human, .. why does any human on social media retweet humorous stuff… cause they enjoyed it cause it was funny

      you are trying too hard here at false equiv

  14. “Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around.”

    Almost as long: the reasons we opposed this law have just come true.

  15. It’s always amused me that lefties complain about imagined white supremacy at the same time they want LBGTQWERTY running things. I guess it isn’t racism when you try to put a minority in power. Oh wait, isn’t that what South African whites were, a minority? Who am I supposed to root for now, which minority is in favor?

    1. “Just follow your feelings, they’re more important than logic and intellectual consistency” – Leftists

  16. Who is christian britshgi to tell anyone what campaign finance laws are for? As libertarians shouldnt we be all about folks’ freedom to live by their own campaign finance laws?

  17. Tweets like this could lead impressionable, disaffected youths to believe that there’s a movement afoot to eliminate white people, and that violence is justified in their defense.

    1. A disaffected youth is a teenager who locks himself in his room because the world doesn’t understand him, not a murderer (even a young one).

      “By Allah, there’s a conspiracy against Muslims/whites/whoever! Let me blow something up/shoot people/drive a truck into crowds!” No, kid, you’re beyond disaffected, you’re a very naughty boy, and must be put away.

      If beyond-disaffected youths want to express their disaffection through murder, they should be locked securely away, whether in prison or (if they’re declared insane) in a loony bin.

  18. First, he didn’t “dox” them (since that is providing information about where to find them – work or dwelling – or other conduits via which to confront them), as much as he just aggregated a bunch of publicly-available info.

    “Castro also appears to be trying to draw a link between donors to Trump’s campaign and the recent El Paso shooting”
    The donors would have a defense, here, if Trump hadn’t become so anti-brown-immmigrant until _after_ the election, but that’s not the case, here. Millions of people, long before the election, were telling anybody who would listen that Trump was actively fomenting white resentment toward non-whites and countenancing intimidation and violence toward them. In other words, the donors cannot claim that they didn’t know full well that things like El Paso were going to be much more likely with Trump as POTUS.

    1. Considering Castro is a Chicano ethnonationalist, your defense of him rings rather hollow.

    2. Dude, my address is ‘publicly available’ – its in the property tax registration after all. My phone number is ‘publicly available’. My name is publicly available. The number of people in my household is publicly available. Mainly thanks to laws that require I make that information publicly available under penalty of being killed by law enforcement.

      Just because you put out ‘publicly available’ information making it easy to locate someone doesn’t mean that you haven’t doxxed them. Literally every person ever doxxed has been doxxed because the doxxers did the research required to put all that information together – from publicly available databases.

  19. Well, I guess I learned something new today. I always thought doxxing meant revealing the identity of a person who wished to remain anonymous. But now evidently doxxing also means simply publishing already public information about someone who is not actively trying to conceal his/her identity.

    I don’t think the two should be considered morally equivalent. After all, even under this looser standard, just publishing a phone book (is that even still a thing?) would technically be “doxxing”. Is publishing a phone book something that should be considered ‘wrong’?

    And what Castro did, while certainly creepy, is the latter case, not the former. He didn’t reveal the identities of people who were trying to remain anonymous. He compiled and published already public information that everyone already had access to.

    Now, argue all you want that the state shouldn’t require individuals to submit their identities to be published as a price of making a donation to a political candidate. I’m sure many libertarians can be persuaded of this position. However this position also has some downsides – such as, for example, foreigners could very easily fund a candidate’s campaign with very few hurdles. If we’re okay with that, then go right ahead and get rid of the reporting regulation.

    1. “argue all you want that the state shouldn’t require individuals to submit their identities to be published as a price of making a donation to a political candidate.”

      That’s the exact argument.

      “foreigners could very easily fund a candidate’s campaign”

      I can see the Russian and Chinese operatives now – kicking themselves because they have to fill out a report in triplicate about all the money they’re laundering in to American campaigns. “Darn you, campaign finance reform, you have thwarted our evil schemes yet again!”

    2. it is borderline fascistic. Doxing is not just revealing private information, it’s directing people to go after private citizens. He is trying to sick the mob on some business owner in Texas for donating to Trump. Not for speaking out, or doing anything with his own voice (by all accounts it’s an apolitical business), but because the owner donated to a politician you don’t like, well…

      And the excuse of it being publicly available is weak sauce. They know it’s wrong. That’s making the argument for it not to be publicly available, because the left are a bunch of intolerant thugs who will ruin anyone they can because they disagree. Hell they tried to ruin a high school kids life because he smiled awkwardly at an activist beating a drum in his face.

      I’ve said it before on this site… how long until arguing against the minimum wage is considered “hate speech” against the poor?

      1. chemjeff gets in a sweat whenever his left-wing buddies come under for scrutiny.

        1. Amd the kicker is he’s just some Canadian college kid. Yet he has endless opinions on how we need to run our country.

    3. This is the same stupid argument you made about the Oberlin case.

      1. Is it? I don’t seem to recall that the Oberlin case revolved around the concept of doxxing.

        1. It revolved around targeting the non-woke through the fomenting of a left-wing mob.

    4. Pedo Jeffy, I totally called this above. I knew you would slither in and make this exact argument, just like the sophist little retard you are. Always got to back up the progtards.

      No wonder everyone hates you so much.

    5. Isn’t this one of those dog whistles you’re always yelping about, jeff?

      1. Also of note is Castro only posted white donors information… Which would indicate he wanted to target white people.

        What now Jeff?

    6. When it was Carlos Mazza – a media figure – you said Crowder merely mentioning his existence was enough to have doxxed him.

      1. you said Crowder merely mentioning his existence was enough to have doxxed him.

        Now that is NOT TRUE. When I referred to the doxxing of Maza, I specifically referred to the fact that he was textbombed on his personal cell phone. Not his mere existence per se.

        1. But you still blamed Crowder who never gave out Maza’s cell phone number nor asked people to harass him? And in fact told his viewers to do the opposite and please not to bother the man?

        2. You still blamed Crowder for the textbombing.

    7. But now evidently doxxing also means simply publishing already public information about someone who is not actively trying to conceal his/her identity.

      You mean since these private citizens, who are not public figures, didn’t take active measures to conceal their identities (by, let me guess, not donating, amirite?) then that means they must have wanted to become figures of public discussion?

      You’d make a good judge – after all, it was a real judge who thought ‘you can’t be considered to have invoked your right to remain silent unless you speak’. Merely remaining silent is not enough anymore. Now you have to speak to affirm your silence.

      1. You mean since these private citizens, who are not public figures, didn’t take active measures to conceal their identities (by, let me guess, not donating, amirite?) then that means they must have wanted to become figures of public discussion?

        I phrased that poorly. I should have said, “publishing already public information about someone who consented to make that information public”. Hope that helps.

        1. So, again, what’s the difference? Maza consented to make his phone number public in the same way as these campaign donors did.

        2. But, they didn’t necessarily consent to have that information public. They donated. Did they get a form in the mail asking if they wanted their donation to be on a publicly accessible list? No, they did not, ending up on the list was not optional.

          The only sense in which they “consented” to make the donation public, is that they made the donation. So Agammamon nailed your position.

          1. They consented to make that information public because they donated in this particular manner, presumably knowing that this information being made public was one of the conditions of donating.

            They could have not donated. Or they could have donated in ways that did not reveal their identities, such as via a PAC, or volunteering their time.

            If you are going to argue that it should not be mandatory to reveal one’s identity in order to donate directly to a candidate’s campaign, then I’m all ears on your thoughtful and complete argument to that extent. I will agree that the practice is at a minimum problematic. I am not (yet) on board with getting rid of it entirely, but I’m willing to entertain the possibility, and I think a lot of liberty-minded people are as well.

            But if you’re just going to complain about it in this case without even considering the larger ramifications, then that just screams ‘special pleading’.

            1. Speaking of special pleading, why do you think Castro identified only white donors?

    8. Is publishing a phone book something that should be considered ‘wrong’?

      Yes. Yes it should be. And it should have been for all the years people published phone books. The white pages are an immoral affront and an invasion of privacy.

      Or are you making the argument that because they did it in the past that it is ok?

      1. To be honest I never really thought about the phone book as an invasion of privacy. The subject never really crossed my mind.

  20. Remember this is the same guy who said
    “All women including Transgender should have the right to choose”

    1. No, that was his brother, Julian. They’re twins, so it’s easy to get their lizard-faces mixed up.

    2. What’s the point of fighting for his right to kill babies if he can’t have babies?

      Monty Python used to be absurdist comedy. Now its social observation comedy.

      1. Wow, you actually believe abortion is “killing babies”.

        1. To get technical, it depends on what point in its development. In any case, you’re obviously killing a unique individual member of the species Homo Sapiens.

  21. When the Supreme Court upheld these mandatory disclosures, they had a caveat that exposing someone to risk of physical or even job retaliation for their donations could be challenged on a case-by-case basis. I guess they had to make this caveat because they’d already said public employees didn’t have to disclose their membership in an organization if the membership would expose you to retaliation (i. e. belonging to the NAACP when you’re a public-school teacher in a Jim Crow state).

    So the court said, “OK, if there are abuses they can be dealt with when they happen, BUT that’s no reason to strike the whole law down.”

    But now abuses are becoming the norm – at least if we take into account the “chilling effect.” How can a donor have any confidence their donation won’t be used to attack him physically and lead to his firing? You just have to rely on the good faith and niceness of the activists, which is no security at all.

    1. The problem is non-leftists don’t act like leftists, so they never think they will be on the receiving end of that crap. Leftists always try to say “wait you can be fired for being Gay in X State”, but Republicans don’t do this. Literally find me one person who a Republican fired for being a Democrat, etc. It’s all projection on their part.

      Yet this is common on the left. Try getting any job in Hollywood without being a raving leftist. Try rationally talking on a forum at Google (Demore) then getting fired for having the wrong opinions, etc. Now they are going after anyone who is a Trump donor, or in NY, they publish the list of concealed carry holders. The left routinely purges those they disagree with, it’s part of their underlying ideology. They are the fascists they claim to oppose

      1. Or, rather, the fascists were just a competing strain of the left, they disagreed on a few minor points of how to go about implementing socialism.

  22. These people would literally send you all to the gulags if they could. Castros underlying ideology is the same one that killed 100 million people in the last century.

    1. Quit whining. You should use the time you have before replacement more wisely, you bigoted rube.

      1. You should be more careful about claiming your enemies will be replaced, hicklib, considering Trump is inciting young white men to violence.

        1. Trump doesn’t have to incite, the woke are doing that all on their own.

      2. Arty, do you not understand that all of you can be wiped off the map in a week or so if we ever decide not to stay our hand? Your very existence is barely tolerated as it is.

  23. Deport him. Somewhere…


    2. Via Pinochet Air.

  24. Let me see if I have this straight.

    Chemjeff informs me that when a conservative commentator *merely talks about* a dude who a) makes public editorial videos, is the face of a multi-million dollar company, uses multiple forms of social media as part of his job – that’s doxxing.

    But when a Progressive politician publicizes a semi-private donor list, that’s ‘just already publicly available information’?

    In any case – Reason, Britschi, you can’t just say ‘that’s not what the purpose of requiring the registration of campaign donors’. Don’t play dumb. We all knew that making a list means that at some point that list will be used to hurt people. Its what these shitbags (and here I mean shitbags of all political leanings) do.

    So, decide if its worth it. Decide if donor lists being used to shame donors and the damage that does to public discourse (and the damage caused to individuals) is worth it in order to keep tabs on ‘lobbyists’ and foreigners trying to influence politicians.

    If it is, fuck it. Nothing else to talk about.

    Its the same thing with the 2nd amendment. We are willing to tolerate a certain amount of mayhem because the consequences of what we would have to do to stop that would be *even more mayhem*.

    Or the 1st amendment and ‘fake news’.

    1. Chemjeff informs me that when a conservative commentator *merely talks about* a dude who a) makes public editorial videos, is the face of a multi-million dollar company, uses multiple forms of social media as part of his job – that’s doxxing.

      Umm wut? I am not sure what you’re talking about. I am the one saying that using the term “doxxing” in a derisive manner to include simply publishing already existing publicly available data, is inappropriate here.

      I am trying to create a distinction between a person who reveals the identity of someone who is trying to remain anonymous (usually bad), and a person who compiles publicly available information into one spot (possibly bad, but not necessarily so – e.g. a phone book).

      Hope that helps.

      1. Of course it is, because you need to spin this in the least damaging way possible. If someone on the right had done this you would be screaming from the rooftops about how this was tantamount to an assault.

        Hell, look at how you lost your shit over PizzaGate.

      2. Doxxing, per Merriam Webster (Emphasis my own)

        to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge

        It’s all about the end result; that is to fuck with people one doesn’t like. You’re just arguing semantics

        1. Once again I learned something new today.

        2. It’s not private information so by that definition it’s not “doxing”.

          1. ‘Private’ information does not mean information not available in any public document, but information that people typically expect to be held ‘private’ by those who have it so as not to personally identify themselves. There are a lot of regulations and lawsuits out there that have revolved around this understanding of what ‘private’ information is.

      3. chemjeff radical individualist
        June.5.2019 at 11:04 pm

        So, Jesse, who do you think is responsible for doxxing Maza?

        1. You didn’t consider it inappropriate there.

          1. But this case is totally different.

            I mean, in one case, absolutely no one was doxxed and in the other, someone dug up identifying information on people to punish them – but its ok because its a Democrat doing it.

          2. I can’t believe you dredged up a 3-month-old comment on a completely unrelated case.

            But as far as I can see, I was using the term “doxx” as I have explained earlier – revealing private information about a person who didn’t want that information made public. Which, in my view, is wrong.

            In the case of Carlos Maza, it was his phone number. Sure his name was already public knowledge, but not his phone number AFAIK.

            I never defended doxxing Maza *at all*.

            I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove, but it isn’t what you think you’re trying to prove.

            1. But you just said up above that it doesn’t count if the person being doxxed didn’t take affirmative actions to prevent his identity from being made public.

              . . . about someone who is not actively trying to conceal his/her identity.

              Two months. June was two months ago.

              And in both cases the topic we’re talking about is doxxing. You swore that someone doxxed Maza because he got text-bombed. But his phone number is publicly available and he wasn’t actively trying to conceal his identity – as evidenced by the fact that he works as the most widely known Vox media personality they have.

              Same thing happens – someone releases private information identifying people who were not actively trying to conceal their identities. In one case its not doxxing, in the other case it is. The difference? One was a Conservative and one was a Progressive.

              1. I never defended doxxing Maza *at all*.

                No duh. Nobody said you did.

                I said you consider Maza to have been doxxed but you don’t consider these other people to have been.

              2. But his phone number is publicly available

                Maza’s personal cell phone number was publicly available? That was not obvious from any of the articles posted.

                And good heavens. I did not “swear” that Maza was doxxed. I took him at his word that he believed that he was doxxed, i.e., his private information that he didn’t want revealed, was revealed without his permission.

                And BY THE WAY. I didn’t say that they weren’t both examples of “doxxing”, by my evidently new understanding of what the word means, I said that they should be considered not morally equivalent.

                And what is your point in bringing up 2-month-old conversations? Trying to prove that I’m some sort of hypocrite for turning a blind eye to “doxxing” conservatives but totally aghast at “doxxing” liberals? Here is my standard, which is completely consistent with what I wrote 2 months ago:

                Publishing information that is private, against the will of the owner of that information, is WORSE than publishing information that is already public, and that has already been consented to be made public by the owners of that information itself, EVEN IF both of those cases fall under the definition of “doxxing”.

                My understanding is that Maza’s phone number was not public knowledge. That was what I believed in the context of that discussion. Certainly no one else in that discussion challenged that contention.

                Why are you even bothering to dredge this all up?

                1. Maza’s personal cell phone number was publicly available? That was not obvious from any of the articles posted.

                  Everyone’s phone number is publicly available. How do you think phone books used to work? Or reverse lookup services?

                  1. Everyone’s phone number is publicly available.

                    It is? Even cell phone numbers? That is honestly news to me.

                    I understand landline numbers can be looked up via phone books and the like, unless individuals request to be removed. I wasn’t aware that cell phone numbers worked the same way.

                    How does this work exactly?

                    1. Yes, cell numbers work exactly the same way land line numbers work, in the sense that they are default searchable, but you can pay to have them private.

                      And in the sense that paying to have them private is only effective if you’re nobody anybody is very interested in to begin with.

                2. Because its fun to watch people twist in the wind, trying to justify how something is OK when one person does it but not ok when a different person does it.

                  Principles, not principals.

                  1. You’re presuming bad faith where it does not exist.

                    1. So what have you been doing here then? Other than trying to find a justification that will stick for why Castro didn’t dox anyone but Crowder did.

                3. My understanding is that Maza’s phone number was not public knowledge.

                  It’s “publicly available information,” you fucking hypocrite.

                  Regardless, the issue isn’t so much the question of “doxxing,” it’s the deliberate targeting of these individuals for left-wing harassment, including people who have donated to his and his brother’s political campaigns because he was too fucking stupid to check his records.

    2. “In any case – Reason, Britschi, you can’t just say ‘that’s not what the purpose of requiring the registration of campaign donors’. Don’t play dumb. ”

      Bingo! Reason is playing dumb by deliberately confusing the pretext for creating such lists, and the actual reason. It was always about retaliation.

      1. If by “retaliation” you mean “public shaming”, then sure. That is the point.

  25. Elsewhere..Twitter suspends McConnell’s account for audio video evidence of a large mob outside his home threatening violence and taunting him.

    1. Just goes to show that nobody should even use Twatter.

      Then it will be used solely by Lefty terrorists and can be dragged into a RICO lawsuit.

  26. Libertarians For Censorship?

    Knowledge is good.

    Censors are bad. So are bigots.

    Carry on, clingers.

    1. “Censors are bad. So are bigots.”

      Is a powerful member of Congress attempting to intimidate private citizens bad? Or is your answer dependent on the color of the jersey the Congressperson is wearing……

      1. IT’S PUBLIC RECORD, DUMBASS … signed into law by Nixon … to expose any possibility of donor corruption.

        Or is your answer dependent on the color of the jersey the Congressperson is wearing……

        (LMAO) They simply cannot help themselves!

        And we all know what bevis is so afraid of.

  27. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Read More

  28. His list included people that had previously donated to him. A move that may inhibit people from donating to political campaigns. Castro has not principle and no intelligence.

    1. That’s a warning shot: Donate exclusively to the left, or you’re in season.

      1. And then they wonder why we won’t give up our guns.

    2. He’s a faux-righteous coward.

      Like all lefties.

  29. Data is easy to find, if a little clunky to do.

    You can go out to Open Secrets and do an advanced search on their donor lookup database of people with San Antonio zip codes who donated to Trump (or Republican PACs, etc.) in the 2016 election cycle. Unfortunately, you can only search one zip code at a time, so it takes a while. Open Secrets also will do custom searches of their donor data for a “small” fee, which may be what Rep. Castros did.

    Reason might want to spend a few bucks to see if Rep. Castros redacted names suggesting a certain ethnicity from the list.

    1. John already bullshitted, shamelessly, that hispanic names were intentionally deleted … from a list NOT prepared by Castro

      This has launches a firestorm of outrage and hatred by the authoritarian right ,.. exactly as reported by Reason

      They are SCARED shitless.

  30. This is a manufactured complaint designed to distract from Trump’s role in inciting the El Paso terrorist. The whole point of keeping track of who is giving money to politicians is to reveal corruption and influence. It’s a good thing to understand who’s giving money and what they’re getting for that money. There’s nothing even new about the public disclosure of donors. Republicans have been using and publishing the names of people who donated to Clinton’s campaign for years.

    1. Thank you.

  31. I like it. And hope the all sides start employing the same tactic. Maybe it will discourage more people from giving money to these crooks.

  32. The whole point of keeping track of who is giving money to politicians is to reveal corruption and influence. It’s a good thing to understand who’s giving money and what they’re getting for that money.

    This part is, at least as far as I understand it, the facial reason for having public disclosure of donors to campaigns.

    If libertarian opinion is turning against this mandatory disclosure of information – which again I think is understandable on some level – then I think it’s going to have to confront some other hard issues. Such as, if donations are anonymous, then how will we, the voting public, even know if there is outright bribery taking place in the form of campaign contributions? How will we know if foreigners are “meddling” in our elections and bankrolling candidates to suit their agendas, and not ours?

    And if the answer is “bribery should be legal” and “foreign donations should be legal”, then I think that is going to be an even tougher sell than the idea of reforming or abolishing campaign finance laws generally.

    1. “ how will we, the voting public, even know if there is outright bribery taking place in the form of campaign contributions?”

      What exactly is the difference between a bribe and a campaign contribution?

      1. The politician gets to spend the bribe on personal stuff, rather than his campaign.

      2. What exactly is the difference between a bribe and a campaign contribution?

        Ummm, look for any special favors granted the donors … as Trump has done at a record pace.

        Including the convicted Russian money launderer (Deutsche Bank) who financed him out of bankruptcy .. with nearly $300 million in UNSECURED loans to (then) one of the worst risks in America. The charges will apparently be filed closer to the election.

    2. Everybody is getting lost in the trees arguing about the definition of doxing and legalities and public vs. private donor lists and the like. The issue here is the forest – a member of Congress is trying to intimidate private citizens over their political donations. You don’t have a problem with that?

  33. I’m going the other way: let’s make all political donations, and all individual votes, public records.

    Because democracy is too sacred to go without transparency. Or something.

    Of course, no one will target people for voting badly, because the whole point of having a democracy is for everyone to have a voice, and consents to being governed by the outcomes, rather than resorting to violence.

    It would be silly for those same people to turn around and start targeting political opponents for retribution. I mean, that would make the entire exercise look absurd.

  34. One Merriam-Webster definition of invasion is “the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful”. If millions of people that break the law as their first act on American soil and can’t support themselves even if they were legal isn’t “hurtful” what is?

    1. Driving over the speed limit?

  35. Trump is in trouble if donating to his campaign is seen as shameful and something to hide. Once supporters would go as far as putting signs on their lawns or vehicles to show support. If Trump’s most generous supporters can be scared off by publishing publicly available info, his support is thin and lukewarm and signals trouble.

    1. “Trump is in trouble if donating to his campaign is seen as shameful and something to hide.”

      I thought your side thought that “suppression” – working through intimidation or other means to keep people from participating in the political process – was a bad thing. Turns out it’s totally swell when the right team does it. You’re nothing but a fucking hypocrite.

      1. Voter suppression: asking EVERYONE, of ALL races to go get a FREE ID if they can’t afford to pay for one…

        Not Voter suppression: an ELECTED OFFICIAL of ONE PARTY specifically targeting people, BY NAME, LOCATION, and OCCUPATION, for a shame and harassment campaign..

      2. If Trump’s supporters see the publishing of publicly available information as intimidation, then Trump is in trouble. Trump needs people who aren’t afraid to be seen as supporters if he wants to keep his job. If Trump’s most generous supporters are intimidated by this, then Trump is in trouble.

        1. “If a person of power wants to try to intimidate private citizens to influence them away from using their rights as citizens to participate in the political process, it’s cool as long as it’s somebody on my team.”

          You’re a fucking fascist.

          1. “You’re a fucking fascist.”

            If Trump loses his fascist support, he’s in trouble.

            1. Eat a fucking bullet you worthless fucking turd.

              1. If Trump loses the worthless fucking turd vote, he’s really in trouble.

  36. Well, at least Rep. Castros didn’t put the Trump donors’ pictures on a billboard along with the word “Idiots”. That would just be wrong.

  37. It’s not doxxing to list publicly available information. He didn’t send out their phone numbers. This is free speech of the most important kind.

    And all of you idiots would think so if the (R)s and the (D)s were reversed.

    1. I wouldn’t think so if the d and r were reversed.

      This is pure intimidation of private citizens by an employee of the government. He’s counting on the online mob to make these people’s lives miserable.

      Of course, to you it’s swell because you think that rights should only accrue to those you agree with.

      1. Whose rights were violated when?

        Of course as everyone knows, Trump’s online mob are a model of civility and calm discourse.

        1. Whose rights are violated when government officials intimidate private citizens? He’s trying to push people into staying out of the political system. Same accusation at you – if Trump did this it’d just be more proof that he’s Hitler.

          A mob is a mob, regardless of political opinion.

          1. Trump is a fat orange criminal on a vast scale. I can’t think of a more patriotic use of free speech than publicizing his political donors, which were already public anyway.

            Jesus fuck do I really have to sit through this bogus rightwing crocodile tears freakout today? I have other shit to do.

            1. LOL. I’m not a republican. I did not vote for Trump.

              I’m theoretically up for grabs as a voter going into the future. If you think this bullshit makes me want to consider letting your side get anywhere near power, you’re sadly mistaken.

              And you don’t have empathy worth a shit. I’m sure if somebody grabbed your political opinions from somewhere and threw them and your name out to the Breitbart crowd you’d laud that person for the patriotic use of their free speech. Rights for thee, but not for me, right Tony?

              1. What rights are we talking about again? The right not to disclose what is already disclosed by law?

            2. Of course you think that, because you’re a worthless sniveling little piece of shit. Go fucking kill yourself you retarded turd.

              1. If Trump loses the retarded turd vote, he may be in trouble.

  38. Yet another demonstration that the Left plays relentless in group preference and out group attack, publicly targeting those who support the right with personal destruction.

    They will never stop until the Right fights back *in kind*. Why should they? It’s a winning tactic and costs them nothing as long as long as the Right doesn’t fight back.

    1. The right just murdered 22 people at a Wal-Mart.

      1. Tony, where were you when the Antifa zealot attacked a facility full of people with fire bombs specifically inspired by AOC’s concentration camp bullshit.

        Do you decry all political violence or does the flavor change your opinion?

        1. You’re trying to bait me into offering support for Antifa, which I don’t do. This guy was an anarchist, by the way, so he’s closer to you idiots in terms of policy goals.

          Where were you when the guy sent pipe bombs to political and media figures targeted every single day on FOX News, talk radio, and the rightwing internet? And the aforementioned mass murderer parroting Trump talking points?

          I’m against murder and terrorism, for the record. And you?

          1. “This guy was an anarchist, by the way, so he’s closer to you idiots in terms of policy goals.

            Attaboy, Tony. Gotta assume that anybody who pushes back at you much be one of those fascist Trumpsters.

            1. He was an anarchist, was he not, before he didn’t kill anybody? Not my team. Not in any dimension.

              The guy who did manage mass slaughter basically quoted Trump directly.

      2. I must have been sleep walking at the time, I totally do not remember doing that.

  39. I don’t understand the butt-hurt of the donors. A long time ago I donated money to Mitch McConnell because he was a friend of the coal industry, and that was important to someone close to me. I don’t care that people knew that then or know it now.

    1. You’re probably not living in an area where somebody learning you donated money to him could get your house burned down.

  40. Short term thinking at work here. Democrats can’t seem to imagine a future in which they are the targets of this type of campaign.

    1. It’s uglier than that: They imagine a future in which they can’t be the targets of this type of campaign because their foes are crushed and powerless. Where they’re not dead.

  41. I someone doxxed donors to Planned Parenthood, you can be sure that there would be people lined up on the left to tell us all how those people’s lives were now in danger.

    1. Maybe you want political donations to politicians to be totally dark. Fair enough. Let China and Saudi Arabia just take over the whole fucking thing. As long as they help Republicans, you’re cool with it.

      Planned Parenthood are not government officials.

      You’re lucky we don’t take treason seriously anymore.

      1. Kill yourself you worthless pile of shit.

  42. What about doxxxing?

  43. Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around.

    Good grief, how naive can you be? Political donations have always been made public so that politicians can retaliate against their political enemies. Ditto for campaign finance laws.

  44. This just means people will donate to PACs instead of candidates. Nice job.

  45. Maybe the correct answer is a donation clearing house so that the politicians don’t actually know who donated to them?

    Would that have the added benefit of removing quid pro quo?

  46. “Targeting and harassing Americans because of their political beliefs is shameful and dangerous,” said House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.)

    Tell that to American ISIL/Daesh supporter Anwar al-Awlaki.

    Oh, wait a sec, you can’t tell him because we fired a hellfire missile up his ass.

    We should give the evil cretins knowingly supporting Conservatives’ vile evil murderous pro-pollution ideology a break while not giving those knowingly supporting ISIL/Daesh a break – because White privilege?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.