Joaquin Castro doubles down amid backlash over tweeting names of Trump donors

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your employer can’t discriminate against you based on your political donations or party affiliation.
My employer would terminate me if they thought I brought negative public attention to the company even in the absence of wrong doing. It is in the employment contract. Though I think that clause primarily exists for social media behaviours.

Some friends have complained about my social media accounts being boring. But knowing my public footprint affects my employability I prefer it be that way.
 
dox

/däks/

verb

INFORMAL

gerund or present participle: doxxing
  1. search for and publish private OR identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.
“OR” – a tiny, two-letter word, occasionally overlooked or sometimes confused with the word “and,” which can drastically change a definition.
 
Thanks for posting this. I had no idea it was so easy.

I’m not certain whether or not it makes a difference how large or small the TOTAL donation is. I recall making a few donations to various folks, but the total was under $200 (what I think I read today to be the crossover point at which donations become public), and I didn’t see mine listed.

This is reason number 36,872 why I am vehemently against easy access to personal information–whether it be considered “public” or “private.” Our information should be our own property. We should have the sole right whether or not to disclose it to a third party.
 
If I climbed over your fence into your backyard, would I be considered a trespasser, or simply an undocumented resident?
 
If I climbed over your fence into your backyard, would I be considered a trespasser, or simply an undocumented resident?
Neither. You would not be a resident, but trespass requires more than just one’s presence.
 
I have no idea what your point is. And you didn’t quote the part about if someone entered Castro’s house illegally what he would call them.
Countries and houses are not the same thing.
 
Nice! Does that include the 20,000 others who came along with me?
 
Neither. You would not be a resident, but trespass requires more than just one’s presence.
No, it doesn’t.
According to FindLaw,
“Trespassing is the legal term for the situation in which one person enters onto the land of another without permission or the legal right to be there.”
and
“Trespass is an entry onto land without the consent of the landowner.”
 
For those of you who think what Castro did was no big deal, since it’s public information, what would you think about this scenario…

MAGA-hat wearing, open-carrying, Trump supporters watching carefully to see who goes to see the new “Hunt” movie, taking pictures of their faces, their cars, and their license plate numbers, then publishing that information, along with other pertinent publicly available information, in the local paper or local digital news source?
 
No, it doesn’t.
Where I am a person must knowingly be entering the property of another, be informed that their presence there is for forbidden, and refuse to leave. Simply being there isn’t sufficient for criminal trespass.Having a “No Trespassing” sign can count towards that communication. Otherwise a person that enters into my yard generally isn’t trespassing.

There are other ways that trespass can occur, such as someone intentionally and maliciously causing damage of more that 500 usd in value or entering a private vehicle with malicious intent. Check your local laws for the required elements of trespass. I am only speaking on the laws for my region.
MAGA-hat wearing, open-carrying, Trump supporters watching carefully to see who goes to see the new “Hunt” movie, taking pictures of their faces, their cars, and their license plate numbers, then publishing that information, along with other pertinent publicly available information, in the local paper or local digital news source?
See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
 
Trump has referred to undocumented immigrants as “invaders” many, many times. That rhetoric is identical to the El Paso shooter’s.
I would guess both have also said “and” and “the”, which further proves that Trump is the cause of the El Paso shooting. :roll_eyes:
If I climbed over your fence into your backyard, would I be considered a trespasser, or simply an undocumented resident?
If you’re a citizen or legal resident, you’re a trespasser. If you’re here illegally, you’re a resident temporarily without documentation who has every right to be in her yard.
 
Last edited:
I would guess both have also said “and” and “the”, which further proves that Trump is the cause of the El Paso shooting. :roll_eyes:
Yes, dehumanizing rhetoric that encourages violence (how do we typically respond to “invaders”?) is exactly the same as the articles “and” and “the”. The right’s response to this is parody at this point.
 
I do understand that.

The sort of identifying information would be, as I said, an unlisted phone number, etc.
 
Public record of donations is a small step toward eliminating undue influence in elections.

If you look, you will see very small donations listed.

You may have donated to a state campaign which has different disclosure laws?
 
The laws about public photography and publishing those photos can get a bit dicey (people try to take photos/video of me literally every time I set foot out in public, so, I do try to stay current on the laws.)

In my state, if I am in a public place, walking down a sidewalk, people can take my photo. They can publish those photos.

watching carefully to see who goes to see the new “Hunt” movie,
I’ve no idea what this movie is or why someone would have interest in who attends it, however, if I do not want the world to know I am walking into that movie I ought not walk into that movie.
 
I’m so sorry that people are cruel to you. That’s so shameful. May God bless and protect you.
 
Yes, dehumanizing rhetoric that encourages violence (how do we typically respond to “invaders”?) is exactly the same as the articles “and” and “the”. The right’s response to this is parody at this point.
Indeed. It has been reduced to suggesting that Trump’s statements and the shooters manifesto have no meaning; they are just collections of random words with some overlap. Beyond sad.
 
No, it doesn’t.
I take it you are not actually familiar with how the law is prosecuted. Or maybe it is a state to state issue. None the less, this demonstrates the problem with every amateur with an internet having an “informed” opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top