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

[dvdjs]

So if its already public, what do you suppose Castro’s motive is by tweeting it?

He spoke about his motives: to call them to reflect and end their support of Trump.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

So if its already public, what do you suppose Castro’s motive is by tweeting it?

He spoke about his motives: to call them to reflect and end their support of Trump.

Reflect with “encouragement”…

 

[dvdjs]

Reflect with “encouragement”…

Sure. Awareness that one’s public deeds have become well-known can help people to do the right thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So if its already public, what do you suppose Castro’s motive is by tweeting it?

I think it’s pretty clearly to intimidate. Castro didn’t just publish the names and occupations. He attributed to them something that’s just plain slanderous. Here’s part of it:

" “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”

This isn’t just “Here’s a list of Trump contributors”. It’s “These people hate you and are contributing toward a campaign of hating you.”

It’s despicable. Castro is the real “hater” here, and is encouraging others to commit it with him.

 

[KMC]

I’m thinking the same kind of encouragement that folks outside of Mitch McConnell’s house are trying to exert…

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/06/protestors_outside_mitch_mcconnells_house_stab_the_motherfcker_in_the_heart.html

 

[MamaJewel]

Sad to see so many Cubans under a Castro family regime.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

So if its already public, what do you suppose Castro’s motive is by tweeting it?

I think it’s pretty clearly to intimidate. Castro didn’t just publish the names and occupations. He attributed to them something that’s just plain slanderous. Here’s part of it:

" “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”

This isn’t just “Here’s a list of Trump contributors”. It’s “These people hate you and are contributing toward a campaign of hating you.”

It’s despicable. Castro is the real “hater” here, and is encouraging others to commit it with him.

agreed. There is a lot of disingenuousness about his motives.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I understand “doxxing” to be the release of private personally identifying information that was not otherwise public.

Would publishing information hacked from private emails be doxxing?

 

[dvdjs]

agreed. There is a lot of disingenuousness about his motives

There is no slander. Truth is an absolute defense. Likewise no disingenuousness.

 

[Guinness]

I think it’s pretty clearly to intimidate.

Of course it is. The really surprising thing is how many Catholics think it’s proper for a powerful politician to try to intimidate people exercising their 1st amendment rights. And people wonder why I’m such a 2nd amendment absolutist. This is why.

This is an example of how frighteningly normalised domestic terrorism has become. Jovially forseeing armed killings as normal defense. It’s staggering.

I think powerful politicians trying to intimidate ordinary citizens into not exercising their right to free speech is pretty staggering. Even more staggering is that people are defending it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I think powerful politicians trying to intimidate ordinary citizens into not exercising their right to free speech is pretty staggering. Even more staggering is that people are defending it.

I know what you think which is I assume why you envisage a bloodbath in Texas over it is a rational response.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Would publishing information hacked from private emails be doxxing?

Depends.

What information was published? Was it privileged information?
Was the information already available to the public?
What was the method of “hacking?” The word is used as an umbrella term for a broad range of scenarios which can include exploitation of a security vulnerability, unauthorized access of unprotected information, network sniffing, or even calling someone on a phone and asking for information.

 

[Guinness]

I know what you think which is I assume why you envisage a bloodbath in Texas over it is a rational response.

Maybe Trump should publish the names and addresses of AOC’s donors so we can see what a rational response looks like.

 

[F_Marturana]

Again, all donors to political campaigns are public.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again, all donors to political campaigns are public.

True. But when a politician says those donors contribute to hate for the people of El Paso did, as Castro said, that’s disgusting in the extreme. He’s telling people “these people hate you”, tempting the unstable among them to hate back.

Disgusting.

 

[JimG]

So if political donation records are already available on the FEC website, there is no reason for anyone else to publish the names except for purposes of intimidation. And that’s what was intended.

 

[pnewton]

This is a good reason why they shouldn’t be.

There are better reasons why it must be.

 

[pnewton]

Of course it is. The really surprising thing is how many Catholics think it’s proper for a powerful politician to try to intimidate people exercising their 1st amendment rights.

So, are you in favor of intimidating Castro because he is exercising his first amendment right? I am seeing a lot of hypocrisy, where the right to free speech is seen as limited only to the politics one agrees with, and denial of the reality that rights always come with responsibility and consequences.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

This is a Catholic website filled with posters claiming to be Catholic. Don’t expect a condemnation of people like Castro.

 

[Zach]

That’s because there are a lot of ideologues. Everything is interpreted and distorted through the prism of their ideology. Facts and balance don’t matter. With ideologues it’s not enough to agree to disagree. It’s if you don’t agree with us you are morally bankrupt and even evil. With ideologues there is an orthodox group think. They all have to nod in agreement on all points or else be banished and ostracized.