Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Open Government, Open Season
Rep. Joaquin Castro, Congressman from Texas and Chairman of his twin brother’s floundering presidential campaign, tweeted out the names of 44 of his constituents who gave the maximum amount allowable to President Trump. Many are local business owners, many are simply retirees. Now, they could be targets.
Castro defended himself by pointing out that the list was generated from public records. And it’s true. The Federal Elections Commission requires all Federal campaigns report names, addresses and occupations of every donor no matter how large or small and it’s all entered in a searchable database on the FEC website. The idea is to allow the average citizen to know who ostensibly has the candidate in his pocket. With presidential campaigns now approaching $1B (Hillary Clinton spent a whopping $768M for second place in 2016), the maximum amount any individual can give is a pittance in the grand scheme of things.
Still, Castro and the organization that originated the list aren’t interested in transparency. All they are interested in is intimidating those that disagree with them. They are using the FEC database as a registry to pin their equivalent of a yellow Star of David on President Trump’s supporters. And maybe, just maybe, a target on their backs.
National Review’s David French called it “way out of bounds.” But many on the right, French included, have spent the better part of the last four years demonizing the electorate much more than the elected. He has consistently called Trump voters racists and white nationalists and just a few days ago called for a “war” against them. Now, he just might get his wish.
Many on the right have given this crusade against individual voters a sheen of legitimacy. But there is no legitimacy, only a bastard child come for his own pound of flesh. And the government may well be providing all the information he needs.
Published in Politics
For what it’s worth, the crazy Dayton shooter was for gun control.
Perhaps a reminder that they may not want us to have guns, but they’ll happily use them against us.
I noticed over at Power Line, John Hinderaker was speculating based on the trailer that the deplorables turn the table on their bi-coastal hunters in the movie, which would be a shock, especially since the film’s coming from Comcast/NBC-Universal. Hard to see anyone involved with the production ever getting a job in a major release again if the movie ends with the Trump supporters winning, and the story being set up so audiences cheer for them to win. (I suppose the whole thing could be played so over the top it becomes an obvious parody of killing in the “Death Race 2000” mold. But given the left’s current sense of humor, I can’t see them not storming the corporate gates at Comcast if they release a movie where the rich elite liberals are the bad guys.)
How is this distinct from the Purge series?
I suppose no stand-ins or euphemisms here for what the hatred’s all about, and who it’s being directed towards.
I think the main difference is that in The Purge, the bad guys (the government) are clearly intended to be conservative; all rich, white men. If you assume that the hunters are going to be portrayed as bad, then this time it’s the liberals.
My twitter is locked after this
This was when Cuomo was making fun of a woman who said she would defend her family with a weapon if threatened
(“only in America” tweeted Cuomo). The woman happened to be the survivor of a violent rape.If you read Twitters rules, there is nothing in that tweet that violates them.
Well except that I embarrassed a Democrat.