extortion

[notes1]

DEM congressman castro, from texas, released the names and employer's name of some of his own constituents. their crime, they legally donated to the trump campaign. these included retired folks and homemakers. and, the amazing thing is, the congressman works for those he doxxed. he targeted these folks because they dared to contribute to the election of someone he disagrees with. in other words, the citizens he works for are only allowed to donate to those he approves of, or he will put them in harms way.

that is extortion. b/t/w, his brother is running for DEM potus.

this is an indicator of the depths the dems will sink to, if you do not do as instructed. they are the party of inclusion, tolerance and respect for all. that is unless you are the unborn or a trump supporter.

vote more dems.

[billryan]

You mean he had the audacity to publish public records? Outrageous.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

[rascal]

Anyone who donates to any candidate can easily be identified on campaign finance reports, which are required to be filed on a regular basis. This was enacted to shine a light on some of the hidden, behind the scenes, questionable financing of campaigns. Some people and corporations try to avoid public identification by donating to PAC's only, but that information can also be made public easily. Go online to FEC or your state's elections department (frequently the state secretary of state's office), and enter a candidate's name in the search block. You can quickly look over his/her donations for any given timeframe. As it should be!

[notes1]

regardless of whether the records are public, this DEM congressman highlighted particular donors, singled them out and may have put them in harm's way, from some left wing nut case. he put a target on their back. and, the congressman works for those he doxxed. these were legal citizens doing a legal act.

proves my point, the DEM leadership and their supporters will sink to new lows, just to win and gain power. it is bad enough when your team does something 'deplorable', but to justify it, makes one an accomplice in any harm that may come to those he doxxed.

[rascal]

So in your opinion, certain public records should not really be public records after all? Where do you draw the line? Either something is public or it is not... you can't pick and choose. Don't want your name to be on a public record? Don't donate. Don't want your recent real estate purchase to be listed on a public property transfer domain? Don't buy the property. And so forth. Not rocket science at all.

[billryan]

So when you justify trumps racists remarks and a trump supporter shoots up a Wal-Mart, sends bombs thru the mail or assaults a 13 year old boy for disrespecting our country, what responsibility do you bear?
That's about what I expected?
Perhaps stop worrying about potential harm and start paying attention to what is actually going on?

[Eduardo]

They were public record. Therefore, no need to "release" them, right?

The choice to do so, in the manner in which he did, is what is troubling. As are a lot of the "leftist" tactics the past few years, harassing people in places of business and at their homes. Illegal? No. Dignified? Also no.

[billryan]

No, what is troubling is the reaction by the right wing press to what is not an unusual situation at all.
There is a reason why political donations are public record. Are people embarrassed that they contributed? I wonder why?

[notes1]

interesting what hatred will do to one who advertises their religious beliefs and one dedicated to healing.

i don't recall reading any posts decrying members of your team for requesting cutting out the heart of mitch mcconnel or the leftist gunman in dayton.

[Eduardo]

Several of them have gone on record saying they are not the least bit embarrassed about it. They made the donation (as do millions of americans) and stand by it. The problem is when you weaponize this sort of information. What real purpose does it serve to put the info out there in this manner, if not some sort of call to action? (boycott at the very least).

Do we really want the people in our government targeting political opponents by going after their contributors personally? You can't think that's a good idea.