Hillary raises 45 million so far. 90% of donations were under $100

[Billy000]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

 

[Billy000]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

 

[Kosh]

It is funny to watch these far left drones talk about Hilary when they chose Obama over Hilary in 2008, many even claimed that Hilary was to far to right for their tastes. Now they are pushing for her to be president all because the far left masters tell them so.

 

[Zander]

You leftwingmuts need to stop sniffing Hillary's stinky panties and learn to think!!! "According to the campaign, 91 percent of the donations made in Clinton’s first three months as a candidate were small dollar donations of $100 or less." 91 percent of the donations.......Not of the TOTAL value of the donations.

Fantasy Liberal world- 4,500,000 working class Hillary supporters reached into their pockets and gave $10 to elect Hillary!!
Reality- She raised $44 million from 5 or 6 Billionaires.....

Liberals are so fucking gullible....

 

[SwimExpert]

Well gee considering she was accepting donations as low as a $1 it would matter.

So, when your argument has the snot beaten out of it, it no longer matters. I'll have to keep that one in mind!

Can you find a republican candidate with those kinds of numbers? No you cannot.

If they started walking around pan handling for $1 donations, I'm sure they all would.

 

[Moonglow]

It is funny to watch these far left drones talk about Hilary when they chose Obama over Hilary in 2008, many even claimed that Hilary was to far to right for their tastes. Now they are pushing for her to be president all because the far left masters tell them so.

Just because she is a candidate does not mean she will win...

 

[Vigilante]

 

[FA_Q2]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

 

[Billy000]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

 

[Zander]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

 

[Billy000]

Blackhawk provided a link for the story from the front page. I didn't because I couldn't post a link from my phone at the time.

It's completely ridiculous to assume 9 people donated a $1 considering the maximum donation per person is 2,700. 90% of donations of under 100 indicates many individual people donated money as low as a $1. Why is that so hard to believe? It also matters because as the source says the campaign had set a goal for 100 million by the end of the year. She raised 45 million in 3 months.

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

 

[Zander]

It is not a matter of hard to believe. The fact is that your post is meaningless without both context and a point - something you failed to provide again.

The extreme example was to provide a framework with which to convey to you how meaningless the statement was without context.

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

 

[Billy000]

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

Because she will make much bigger bucks than 45 million from Super Pacs I assure you.

 

[Billy000]

Why are you so concerned with my presentation of the thread when the facts speak for themselves? Hillary raised 45 million. 90% of the donations were under $100 and the maximum per person in the other 10% was $2,700. That indicates popular support.

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

I'm not sure if you quite understand super Pacs. They are independent donations. They are not totaled with individual donation figures.

 

[Zander]

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

Because she will make much bigger bucks than 45 million from Super Pacs I assure you.

Why not just admit you're full of shit?

 

[Billy000]

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

Because she will make much bigger bucks than 45 million from Super Pacs I assure you.

Why not just admit you're full of shit?

Again super Pacs are independent figures. They are not included in broad donation figures.

 

[Zander]

Not really.

It indicates she got X dollars in donations. Unless we have more information it really does not indicate popular support - that is conjecture.

As I said earlier - the 'facts' do not speak for themselves.

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

I'm not sure if you quite understand super Pacs. They are independent donations. They are not totaled with individual donation figures.

Now you're just making shit up as you go along.....

There is nothing in the article (or anywhere else) that says the $45 million was raised ONLY from individuals. Lay off the bong......

 

[Billy000]

It also clearly indicates 2,700 is the maximum donation. That's all the info we need. End of story.

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

I'm not sure if you quite understand super Pacs. They are independent donations. They are not totaled with individual donation figures.

Now you're just making shit up as you go along.....

There is nothing in the article (or anywhere else) that says the $45 million was raised ONLY from individuals. Lay off the bong......

Lol it does actually. It said the maximum donations raised were 2700

 

[Zander]

Stop being so damn gullible!

Yes, $2700 is the maximum donation for individuals ....not for Corporations, PACs. Super PACS, etc.....

Yeah and those aren't counted in this 45 million figure.

How do you know?

"Clinton’s campaign did not provide the official filings, which will be made available to the public in two weeks"

???

I'm not sure if you quite understand super Pacs. They are independent donations. They are not totaled with individual donation figures.

Now you're just making shit up as you go along.....

There is nothing in the article (or anywhere else) that says the $45 million was raised ONLY from individuals. Lay off the bong......

Lol it does actually. It said the maximum donations raised were 2700

No.

It doesn't.

The Clinton campaign has not released any of the details.

Now please stop being so stupid.