• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Campaign Contributions

tytlyf

Not Religious
And? You didn't read it. You'd see Trump is in a huge world of hurt. He just told his supporters that his #1 platform policy of immigration is a hoax. We warned you last year.

We all know the Kochroaches spend billions buying people. These are the people you support, they are not middle class. They are taking advantage of you. It's pretty obvious. Been that way for decades.

Stop supporting corporate ownership of government, you vote against the middle class worker. I bet you hate unions too.
 
Last edited:

Underhill

Well-Known Member
I find it interesting that while Clinton has a lot more large contributors, she also has more small donors in real numbers.

I've heard the right present it as percentages, which makes it sound like Trump has more popular support, but the truth is she is leading in both camps, just a lot more in the large donor pool.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
I find it interesting that while Clinton has a lot more large contributors, she also has more small donors in real numbers.

I've heard the right present it as percentages, which makes it sound like Trump has more popular support, but the truth is she is leading in both camps, just a lot more in the large donor pool.
I don't find that entirely surprising. She has more clout and support from the wealthy.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Interesting that Hillary has outspent Donald by more than 3 to 1, but she is not ahead of him by anywhere near that ( if at all)...hmmm...
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Interesting that Hillary has outspent Donald by more than 3 to 1, but she is not ahead of him by anywhere near that ( if at all)...hmmm...
I tend to stay away from polls until after the debates start. An interesting thing to keep an eye on for sure.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
I don't find that entirely surprising. She has more clout and support from the wealthy.

The point of these small donations is that they aren't from the wealthy. So the point is she has more supporters among the small donors than Trump as well as the larger donors.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The point of these small donations is that they aren't from the wealthy. So the point is she has more supporters among the small donors than Trump as well as the larger donors.
Hmm. seems there may be a little defugalty in that statement
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-16/leaked-list-hillary-clintons-mega-donors
seems there may be a few 1% in the mix.
then we have this from the LA times, not exactly a RW news source
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-hillary-clinton-fundraising-20160824-snap-story.html
looks like more of the 1% and pushing the boundaries of "she's for the middle class". Don't think the majority of those really cared what the middle class was worried about.
 
Last edited:

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Hmm. seems there may be a little defugalty in that statement
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-16/leaked-list-hillary-clintons-mega-donors
seems there may be a few 1% in the mix.
then we have this from the LA times, not exactly a RW news source
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-hillary-clinton-fundraising-20160824-snap-story.html
looks like more of the 1% and pushing the boundaries of "she's for the middle class". Don't think the majority of those really cared what the middle class was worried about.
I will say, I do appreciate you expanding your sources a bit more. I like it! :D That said, I am not surprised to see 1% folks in the mix.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Hmm. seems there may be a little defugalty in that statement
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-16/leaked-list-hillary-clintons-mega-donors
seems there may be a few 1% in the mix.
then we have this from the LA times, not exactly a RW news source
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-hillary-clinton-fundraising-20160824-snap-story.html
looks like more of the 1% and pushing the boundaries of "she's for the middle class". Don't think the majority of those really cared what the middle class was worried about.

I'm talking about your link, you know, at the beginning of the thread? The one that breaks down donations into large donations and small donations.

I said Hillary had more large donations, much more. But my point was, and what was surprising to me given the way the media has reported it, she also had considerably more small contributions.
 
Top