2016 Postmortem

retrowire

(10,345 posts)

83. no i acknowledge the difference.

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 01:21 PM

Jul 2015

so then why do you think the majority of these individuals donating top dollar amounts are not apart of the higher levels of the company? ie: bankers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the "Hillary is owned by banks meme" is NOT debunked. [View all] retrowire Jul 2015 OP

You're looking at her donor list in the NY senate... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #1

emilys list is great, so are the others you mentioned retrowire Jul 2015 #2

Oops, it's actually 91% of donations, not 92%. Here: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #3

thank you retrowire Jul 2015 #5

Nope not the only source, you could have Googled this... but since you didn't I helped you out. Agschmid Jul 2015 #20

thanks for the additional sources retrowire Jul 2015 #31

Except this... Agschmid Jul 2015 #33

disregard the false numbers then. retrowire Jul 2015 #39

Corporations and unions mind you are barred from donating directly to candidates. Agschmid Jul 2015 #46

PACs are how they sidestep that law. retrowire Jul 2015 #58

Good now you get it. Agschmid Jul 2015 #59

She only got $8000 from Citigroup PAC. The REST.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #61

those donors being... retrowire Jul 2015 #62

NO. She got $8000 from Citigroup PAC. She got.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #65

And since they are a public company... Agschmid Jul 2015 #75

Are owners not individuals? Agschmid Jul 2015 #73

they are individuals retrowire Jul 2015 #79

Yes but the numbers show contributions from individuals and PAC's separately. Agschmid Jul 2015 #81

no i acknowledge the difference. retrowire Jul 2015 #83

I don't doubt that some are. Agschmid Jul 2015 #85

true. retrowire Jul 2015 #89

So? She's going to be going up against the Koch brothers billions. pnwmom Jul 2015 #41

as long as she fights fire with fire right? retrowire Jul 2015 #42

Vote for whoever you want. We will too. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #44

i respectfully agree. retrowire Jul 2015 #49

She plans to raise $2.5 Billion Dollars. Where will that be coming from? sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #87

Yes, and obviously the way to overturn CU is to... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #88

but money doesn't win elections retrowire Jul 2015 #93

9 out of 10 times it does. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #94

are you okay with that? retrowire Jul 2015 #95

I'm okay with Hillary's plan to overturn it. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #96

9 out of 10 chance? retrowire Jul 2015 #97

Umm, not fear; Math. Statistics. Data. History: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #98

How do you overturn something that the people who pay for your election sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #103

You are against things every day that you participate in. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #105

Yes, it IS the way. If every Democrat refused to take these bribes THEN sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #102

Good luck convincing Republicans. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #104

92% of donations. Not 92% of dollars. jeff47 Jul 2015 #10

this. retrowire Jul 2015 #13

The 3.4% figure you're using is based on her senate contributions. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #16

But did all of those donations that were less than $100 SheilaT Jul 2015 #32

No and the Hillary campaign didn't claim that... Agschmid Jul 2015 #34

Which is, as those who keep on saying it know, very misleading. SheilaT Jul 2015 #37

So when they say EXACTLY what happened they are being misleading? Agschmid Jul 2015 #38

Scrap that statistic, op is referring to her senate contributions, not 2016 campaign. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #36

my second update clarifies it though. retrowire Jul 2015 #55

3.4%. That's the key number here. 3.4% of her money came from financial sector employees. DanTex Jul 2015 #4

Historically, stocks perform better under Democrats. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #6

and thanks to janeyvee retrowire Jul 2015 #7

The list is telling of two things: DanTex Jul 2015 #9

... retrowire Jul 2015 #11

Again, you are conflating 2 separate issues. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #17

Well thats the number DanTex is using. retrowire Jul 2015 #18

Dan is attempting to debunk a meme. You are.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #21

what? retrowire Jul 2015 #24

Your update made it confusing. So... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #27

i think you may be confused. retrowire Jul 2015 #28

Okay, lets try this again: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #29

alright retrowire Jul 2015 #45

Why would you post the same exact response here? Agschmid Jul 2015 #47

I dunno retrowire Jul 2015 #50

I'm not sure you fully understand how donations work: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #51

you're just repeating your very first post. retrowire Jul 2015 #52

What you're forgetting is that... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #53

if proximity matters... retrowire Jul 2015 #54

No, proximity myth not debunked. Proximity very much intact. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #57

nice change of subject. retrowire Jul 2015 #60

WHAT?? Citibank IS NOT her top donor. Individuals are. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #63

the individuals from... retrowire Jul 2015 #64

All of whom live, work, and raise families in her state. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #66

you got me retrowire Jul 2015 #68

One minute you're saying PACs are the problem "sidestepping",, next you're saying.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #72

i never said that individual donations were the problem. retrowire Jul 2015 #78

It's mildly offensive to call another poster "not open to reason" Agschmid Jul 2015 #82

PA's? retrowire Jul 2015 #84

PA's = Personal Attacks Agschmid Jul 2015 #86

i figured it out after thinking on it a bit. retrowire Jul 2015 #90

Thanks, keep on keeping on. Agschmid Jul 2015 #91

When I worked in Silicon Valley, Mabus Jul 2015 #92

3.4% is from her senate career. tammywammy Jul 2015 #30

ok retrowire Jul 2015 #43

And again... Agschmid Jul 2015 #48

That post is trying to conflate dollars with donations. jeff47 Jul 2015 #12

It is indeed impossible to debunk that which is not bunk. n/t FlatBaroque Jul 2015 #8

2-5 Leave. Agschmid Jul 2015 #14

I'm sorry? retrowire Jul 2015 #15

It means your post was alerted on, and it survived 2-5. Agschmid Jul 2015 #22

ohhh retrowire Jul 2015 #25

The details DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #99

thanks for the defense retrowire Jul 2015 #100

2 people voted to hide.. frylock Jul 2015 #26

Do we have average and median donation amounts for Hillary? xynthee Jul 2015 #19

K & R !!! WillyT Jul 2015 #23

1%, 3.4%, 9.8%? Really? Geez, Who the Hell Cares??? Gamecock Lefty Jul 2015 #35

All these 'debunking' threads show how unlikely any meaningful campaign finance reform is - PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #40

Since you're updating, you can update that 3.4 is wrong bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #56

Debunked....debunked from here to Sunday George II Jul 2015 #67

we're taking about the campaign financing retrowire Jul 2015 #69

I'm keeping up just fine....when I talked about campaign financing earlier this week, I got... George II Jul 2015 #71

The remaining 9% could not have donated more than $2700 ea. to her campaign fund. Agschmid Jul 2015 #70

Thank you. I'm not sure OP fully understands donor process. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #74

They clearly do not. Agschmid Jul 2015 #76

Another important thing to mention is that even if the majority of HRC's donors guillaumeb Jul 2015 #77

this is what im trying to convey retrowire Jul 2015 #80

I understood that as your point. I thought you put it very well. guillaumeb Jul 2015 #101