Obama Lies about Campaign Finances 90% are $25-50

[MojoMojoMojo]

Obama takes almost as much Corporate funding as Hillary,but he implies that he takes none.Now hes the frontrunner he probably takes more corporate funding than Hillary.
Last night he lied about the percentage of small donations which have been made to his campaign.
The Federal Election Commission figures are nothing like Obama states.
He gets around 70% from big business.
This statement is a lie."We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50."


Presidential Campaign Finance
Through 01/31/2008
Contributions
Individual $137,431,938
PAC $25
Party $0
Candidate $0
Transfers-In $0
Disbursements $113,291,436
Cash On Hand $24,940,159
Size of Donations
$200 and Under $47,323,742
$200.01 - $499 $10,452,546
$500 - $999 $11,440,957
$1000 - $1999 $21,130,641
$2000 and Over $49,472,185

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textdebate.php?page=15
"Now what I want to point out, though, more broadly is how we have approached this campaign. I said very early on I would not take PAC money. I would not take money from federal-registered lobbyists. That -- that was a multimillion-dollar decision but it was the right thing to do and the reason we were able to do that was because I had confidence that the American people, if they were motivated, would in fact finance the campaign.
We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."

[my3boyz]

1. NOT TRUE!!! Olberman had a whole segment on it last night! nt

[MonkeyFunk]

3. And what did Olbermann say?

[tpsbmam]

27. He said.....

that if you look at the numbers, donors who've donated $1000 or over have donated way more than 10% of the actual funds (can't remember the percentage). But in terms of numbers of donors, 90% of Obama's donors are, indeed, "small donors."

Someone correct me (I'm sure you will :P) if I'm inaccurate about the gist of what he said.

So Obama was telling the truth -- 90% of his donors are small donors.

[Lisa0825]

38. Exactly...

People who say he is lying are mixing up between number of donors and amount of donations.

Of the total donors, 90% have been people who made small donations.

That other 10% donated $1000 or more.

So basically it is correct that 90% of the donations are from small donors, AND it is correct that the 10% who are large donors add up to a large chunk of cash. These two statements are NOT contradictory.

[UALRBSofL]

45. Lisa0825 It's misleading to the general public

Because a large amount of the money came from big donors and a smaller amount of money came from 90% of individual voters. It would be like saying there were 10 people, 9 of them gave $100 and the last donor gave a million dollars. It's true 90% of the donors gave $100 or less but what he left out is the one contributer whom gave most of the money is corporate.

What Obama is doing is giving the general public the idea he has this huge grass roots effort to get out the vote and that almost all of his money came from the grass roots voters whereas it hasn't but he does have 90% of his donors are grass roots voters.

This is misleading, but, you can't hold it against him because it's typical beltway politics. I see nothing wrong with it because you want to give voters the illusion that your a grass roots candidate. I can say whomever our nominee is I'll vote for them because I don't see much difference between Hillary and Obama. :)

[Lisa0825]

46. Getting over 1 million donors is nothing to sneeze at.

In fact, I think it is MORE important than having that 10% large donors, because those are 1,000,000 motivated people with some amount of their personal money invested in a campaign. Most of those million have probably never donated to anyone before, and they are excited and determined to get the win for Obama.

And no, I do not feel that what I have heard and read Obama say has been misleading on this subject. However, everyone will have their own interpretation, and that will come from their perspective. When one backs another candidate, they are more likely to have more skepticism. That is just human nature.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

48. Today there are 1,011,577 individual donors

http://www.barackobama.com/

[maseman]

54. 1,011,578 now

I just sent some cash. Gobama!

[UALRBSofL]

52. Lisa, your absolutely right

Depending on who you support it can be looked at both ways. Thanks for pointing that out to me. :)

[tabasco]

63. Baloney.

Obama is talking about the number of supporters, not the amount of money.

There is no way to spin that as deceptive, but I know times are desperate and all that.

[MonkeyFunk]

68. But it is misleading

He didn't say 90% of my donors have given small amounts.

When you use the word "donations" you think of his entire pool of money raised. Saying 90% of donations came from small donors, one would reasonably think 90% of his pool of money came from that. I don't think most people think of individual transactions when they hear "donations".

[The Anti-Bush]

70. The only thing misleading is the OP itself.

[MojoMojoMojo]

74. Good point ,you have expressed it very well

[FogerRox]

78. You think that, .....we dont.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MonkeyFunk]

112. No I'm not

don't be daft.

If you think I'm a disruptor, hit the alert button.

[The Anti-Bush]

69. He dind't say 90% of the money comes from small donors.

It's your own fault if you can't understand plain English. The fact is that people who want to spread crap like this, they are looking at everything he says with biased eyes; looking for something bad.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. LOL

clearly he presented it in a way that was misleading - but that's OK - they all do it that way. But to pretend that a simple reading of what he said would make it clear is absurd.

He could've worded it differently if he wanted people to know the real truth.

[FogerRox]

75. I'll use the OP numbers

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $47,323,742
$200.01 - $499 $10,452,546
$500 - $999 $11,440,957
$1000 - $1999 $21,130,641
$2000 and Over $49,472,185


1) $69,217,245 was raised by $500 or less.

2) about 70 million raised by $1000 or more.

3) 47 million was raised by $200 donations or smaller.

4) 49 million was raised by $2000 donations or more.


Its quite stunning.

[FogerRox]

77. No its not misleading its stunning he got that much from so many people

[FogerRox]

80. Excuse me,

If 1 million people donate, you have one million donations. What is 90% of one million donations, hmmmmmmmmmm, that would be 900,000 donations.

[Honeycombe8]

98. I knew what he meant. If others are confused, maybe they aren't paying attention.

It's a truthful statement. This is not a big deal, if you or others thought he meant something else. It doesn't sound to me like he was trying to confuse people. There is no need to do that.

He did NOT say that 90% of the MONEY he got was from small donors. What I heard him say was that 90% of his DONORS are small donors. That's pretty clear.

In any case, Clinton's record on this issue is not too good, so it's probably best for her supporters to stay away from this issue. It just calls attention to the fact that Clinton's contributions are NEITHER primarily from small donors, moneywise OR number of donors-wise.

[0007]

47. 'Tis what I understood from Keith Olbermann last night.

[elixir]

50. *sound of fingers drumming on table...clock ticking..*

[surfermaw]

60. Can't remember exactly something like this

40% were donors of $1000, or more, which means 90 percent of his money comes from these 40% over a 1000 donors, The other 60% donors give what amounts to 10 % of the donations.

[JackORoses]

109. 90% of the donors gave $25-50

900,000 of 1,000,000

50% of the total cash raised came from these 900,000

The other 50% came from the remaining 100,000 donors of more than $1000

All factual.

And damn good fundraising if I say so my self.

[Window]

20. Not only that, it's been discounted and beat to death here on DU.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. It could be a tricky word game

Perhaps 90% of his donors gave small amounts. But to say 90% of donations came from small donors is misleading.

[rodeodance]

30. ah--yes, it is tricky

[Raejeanowl]

55. Agreed

Because when you say it that way, it's supposed to mean that 90% of the DONATIONS (i.e., 90% of the total AMOUNT of donations) came from small donors.

He would have to prove that 90% of his DONORS are small donors in order to say what's he's trying to imply.

It IS deceptive.

[FogerRox]

81. You need to look the word donation up in a dictionary.

3 people donate, you have 3 donations, 5 people donate, you have 5 donations

1 million people donate, you have one million donations. Lets take it a step further...


If 1 million people donate, you have one million donations. What is 90% of one million donations, hmmmmmmmmmm, that would be 900,000 donations.

[Hutzpa]

100. You're wasting your time

with these Hillbots/Mcbots they've consumed a large amount of kool-aid,
pissed out their skull.

:spray: :spray:

[TheDoorbellRang]

67. No one ever accused Obama of not being deft with words

Here his statement is not only true -- albeit easily misunderstood by those who never did like word problems in math -- but empowering to people who want a say in how their elected officials represent them.

I don't assume Obama's a saint by any means, but I do think that the more a campaign is supported by the little people, the better off we'll all be. Dean started this, Obama is continuing this and making it bigger -- it's a good trend.

[FogerRox]

79. WTF are you talking about ?

3 people donate, you have 3 donations, 5 people donate, you have 5 donations

1 million people donate, you have one million donations.

You need to look the word donation up in a dictionary.

"But to say 90% of donations came from small donors is misleading."

Its spot on.


Lets take it a step further...


If 1 million people donate, you have one million donations. What is 90% of one million donations, hmmmmmmmmmm, that would be 900,000 donations.

[boppers]

105. So, I was at the food bank, donating 10 cans of tuna...

..and this guy brought in a single tin of caviar.

Some people would think we had somehow donated equal amounts of food, in terms of monetary value.

Others could reasonably think that I had donated more food.


edit: word dupe

[John Q. Citizen]

106. It could be you don't understand english, also, Have you thought of that?

[avrdream]

4. This whole thing confuses me.

That 47 million dollars raised from under $200.00 donors - all of that money does not have to be reported?

So, if I keep donating less than $200.00 to Barrack, it doesn't show up under my name?

Is this true?

I don't know but, if it is, I'm a bit worried.

Something seems wrong here - I just don't understand it enough to figure it out.

Thanks for pointing out a few more of BO's misstatements (because his campaign will deny he lied).

[mckeown1128]

39. No... once you reach two hundred your name is reported. nt

[mckeown1128]

40. Hey what lie was made, by the way?

Because, it is clear to me that he didn't lie about anything.

[FogerRox]

82. Its simple

3 people donate, you have 3 donations, 5 people donate, you have 5 donations

1 million people donate, you have one million donations.

Lets take it a step further...


If 1 million people donate, you have one million donations. What is 90% of one million donations, hmmmmmmmmmm, that would be 900,000 donations.

[Johnny__Motown]

5. Clinton people just can't do math 90% of donations are small ones 10% large ones

and the 10% of large ones equals the amount of money of the 90% of small ones


You are confusing the amount donated with the number of donations.


The $25 or $50 is an example of small donation, not saying that he got 90% of donations in $50 or less. He said average was over $100 so how could he get 90% from $50 or less?


Maybe a bit convoluted but defiantly not a lie

[MojoMojoMojo]

11. Pretty astute ,I think youre correct

But I do think this statement is intentionally misleading.
IMO He intended for people to believe that 90% of his total funding is from small donors not corporations.
Ive shown this wording to a number of people, including MDs ,and you are the first to explain it.
BTW IMO his supposedly not taking money from Lobbys and PACs, is intended to give the false impression that he doesnt take any corporate funding.

[Johnny__Motown]

13. If you watch the debate he was kinda ... umm... stammering a bit and the 25-50 thing was just

examples of small donations.


As for corporate funding, I am less certain on this issue but....


I think that some of this is simply people working in an industry that give him money. NOT their employer.

For example. If someone working on an assembly line for GM gives him money he is not taking money from the auto industry but from an individual who works for the auto industry.3


Feel free to correct me, I would love to educate myself on this subject.

[MojoMojoMojo]

18. Definitely intentionally misleading ,read last sentence

(The exact goal would be, to actually be funded by people not corporations.)

Obama"We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people, that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."

[catgirl]

25. And many people gave more than they have in the past

including me. I gave 5 times the amount I've given candidates in
the past (4 donations total). This puts me over the $200 mark.
So there.

[Political Heretic]

91. I admit I was wrong, but am going to continue to try to salvage a candidate trashing post out of it

I just fixed your subject line.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. I think it's misleading

because if he refers to "90% of my donations", I think of 90% of the money he's raised, not 90% of the individual transactions.

But they all do it.

[FogerRox]

83. Repeating your tripe is false misleading and bordering on trolling

Get a life, a dictionary, and go to school until you are able to engage in public discourse above the 5th grade level.

[FogerRox]

85. What is 90% of one million donations ?

If 1 million people donate, you have one million donations. What is 90% of one million donations, hmmmmmmmmmm, that would be 900,000 donations.

[renegade000]

6. uh i think if you crunch the numbers it supports his claim

being conservative:

$2000 and over : $49472185/$2000 = 24737 donations
$1000-$1999: $21,130,641/$1000 = 21131 donations
$500-$999: $11,440,957/$500 = 22882 donations
$200-$499: $10,452,546/$200 = 52263 donations
under $200: $47,323,742/$199.99 = 236631 donations

this would imply that about 60% of the donations come from the smaller donation size group. again, this is being very conservative about average size of donations in each bracket. with a more realistic numbers i could see 90% of the total donations being from $25 to $50 dollar donations.

[dkf]

7. I donated something like $2000 to Dean last cycle.

Guess I was a corporate lobbyist type hmm?

Lame.

[casus belli]

8. My $25 was matched. I suspect a good part of the $ is matched donations.

I'm not sure exactl how it figures in, but I wouldn't think that the donor who matched my donation has each match counted as an individual contribution. He probably matches up to a certain amount and his total matched $ is probably counted as a single donation, even though he matched multiple donors.

[EmilyAnne]

9. I support Obama, but these are still important things to look into. Thanks for posting so others

can make their points on this issue, as well.

[Johnny__Motown]

10. They are confusing the number of donations with the amount donated

90% of the donations make up half the money
10% of the donations make up half the money





Half the money was in small donations but 90% of the donations were small. Got it yet?

[EmilyAnne]

12. Yep. Thank you. n/t

[Baconfoot]

14. The cause of the confusion is that you "raise" money whereas you "get" or "receive" donations.

The word "raise" is not the best choice for clarity there.

It's B+ sentence at best.

[Johnny__Motown]

15. I agree,

[bowens43]

16. Your post is very misleading. In fact one mught call it a lie.

Itcertainly isn't evidence of Obama lying. SAwiftboating like this is the major reason Hillary is losing.

[Johnny__Motown]

17. check post #11 he was just confused on the wording, he was not the only one

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MojoMojoMojo]

21. In context of the paragraph ,the statement is intentionally misleading

"Now what I want to point out, though, more broadly is how we have approached this campaign. I said very early on I would not take PAC money. I would not take money from federal-registered lobbyists. That -- that was a multimillion-dollar decision but it was the right thing to do and the reason we were able to do that was because I had confidence that the American people, if they were motivated, would in fact finance the campaign.
We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."

[johnnydrama]

23. you seem to be

highlighting American people there. People who work at corporations aren't American people?

[mckeown1128]

43. I am sorry but I don't see it.

Where did he lie or distort?

[FogerRox]

86. Bullshit pal, repeated assertations of this type, is considered borderline trolling

The dictionary disputes your use of the word "donations"

1 million people donate, you have one million donations.

[Perky]

22. HE IS NOT TAKING MONEY FROM CORPORATIONS!!!!!

Neither is Hiullary fo that matter at least not directly.


Show ma shred of evidence to support this silly contention.

Just because someone works for a coporation does not mean the corporation is givimg the money. Hell I work for a corpration, I have given to Obama.
Corporations are not permitted to give money directly... They can contribute to PACS, PACs can give money to campaigns But Obama is not accepting PAC money or money from federal lobbyists. CLINTON IS.

Now You a also need to go back to remedial math.


Even a simple analysis of the dollars you supplied shows how wrong headed the OP was.


Size of Donations
$200 and Under $47,323,742
Let's say the average was $100. That's 473,237 contributions 85%
$200.01 - $499 $10,452,546
Lets say the average was $350 that is 29,864 contributions 5%
$500 - $999 $11,440,957
Lets say the average was $750, that is 15,254 contributors 3%
$1000 - $1999 $21,130,641.
Lets say the average is %1,500, that is 14,897 contributions 3%
$2000 and Over $49,472,185
Let's say the average was $2,150 (the max is $2,300, that is 23,010 Contributions 4%

Just using that math the average would be about $250 but that assumes the giving was on a bell shape curve within each bracket. It is far more like that the lowest bracket has more contibutors at the low end of the bracket than the high end. That is why Obama accuratel says that the aveage is $109

There was nothing misleading at all in what Obama said.

[yourguide]

26. opensecrets.org shows

Hillary has taken over $1,000,000 in PAC money (big corporations)
and almost $800,000 in money from Lobbyists.

[indimuse]

28. cool poster of bho,BUT..here is what..Chicagoan who would know, wrote about BHO

<<snip>>

Bill Baar said...
Obama v HRC?

Tough choice but the clearest difference is Obama is pretending there is a lot more then is really there... Sunil Garg, a Chicagoan who would know, wrote this yesterday. Here's the final para... (I'll be back to address more comments but a few balls in air right now).

For those of us with the "audacity" to hope for change and reform in Illinois, Obama has been a disappointment. Obama's actions in Illinois, as opposed to his rhetoric, have repeatedly put personal political expediency and partisan politics before change, principle and reform, and audacity seems only appropriate when there is no political risk to him. At the end of the day, it may be unrealistic to think that Obama would challenge the status quo in his home state and his actions may very well be an example of the old adage that "all politics are local." Yet, that thinking reduces Obama's expansive vision to one where change in Washington becomes the panacea for our nation's problems and where Obama only means what he says in a tiny sliver of land on the East Coast, and that doesn't feel like change, unity and certainly not audacity. One thing seems certain -- voters would do well to take a peak at who from Illinois is on Obama's bandwagon to D.C.

3:04 PM, February 01, 2008
Bill Baar said...

[yourguide]

33. Considering that Obama won...

Illinois: 65% to 33%

and HRC won NY 57% to 40%

I think it's pretty clear which state is happier with their senator.

[mopinko]

36. bill baer also said-

George Soros – a Jewish tycoon and the mastermind of ultra-modern colonialism. He uses his wealth and slogans like liberty, democracy, and human rights to bring the supporters of America to power.

he also posts on illionize, a real bag of nuts.

google is your friend. why do we have to have nuts like this quoted all the fucking tme around here. at least post a link to this crap so people can see what you are referring to.

[Political Heretic]

92. PAC money is not all big corporations. Advocacy groups and CBOs can be PACs

Do you know what a CBO is?

[FogerRox]

90. Right On Perky, take them to school, what an ass kickin you punks just got.

3 people donate, you have 3 donations, 5 people donate, you have 5 donations. 1 million people donate, you have one million donations. WHats so fucking hard to understand, unless thats not the goal.....

Bunch of trolls and flambaiters who pretend they dont know what the word donation means and cant figure % on a calculator.

[elizm]

24. Another deperate, PATHETIC attempt. Give it up. nt

[hollowdweller]

29. This illustrates the economic disparity in the US

That even in a candidate with probably a record amount of small donors that the small segment of big donors can still beat them money wise. Good for Obama for raising the cash but it's kinda sad that the little guy has trouble matching the rich folks even when they all band together.

[rodeodance]

31. yes, you are right

[MagsDem]

32. What DOES he tell the truth about?

Yes, Obama supporters will spin themselves dizzy but yes, that was just another piece of bullshit he laid out their last night. He's also full of shit about lobbyist donations. He doesn't "take" money from them, just has them bundle it from non-lobbyists instead.

[mckeown1128]

41. What BS?

Obama didn't lie... tell me where he lied?

[Unsane]

34. Thanks Mr. 16 Posts.

[MethuenProgressive]

58. This from a guy who has been here 3 weeks

:rofl:

[YOY]

35. The 5 People who rec'ed this FReeper drek shoudl be ashamed of themselves

n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. Obama has Corporate Lobbyist in Top Advisory positions on his team why would they give him money?

[blonndee]

42. This post is shit.

Intentionally misleading.

[FogerRox]

107. Correct, this post is shit

[scheming daemons]

44. 10% of donors have donated 50% of funds.... 90% of donors have donated the other 50% of funds...

90% of Obama's donors are "small donors" (< $1000)

50% of Obama's funds come from "bigger donors" (over $1000)


Both statements are true.

[Occam Bandage]

49. He didn't lie. 90 percent of the donations are from small donors. He didn't say 90% of their funds.

[elixir]

51. Symantics** 70% of funds from big donors (corps/limousine liberals) 30% from peons

[ContinentalOp]

64. Limousine Liberals!?

Sweet! I hope to be one of them someday.

[FogerRox]

87. Sematics ? How so ? funds vs donations is not semantics

[zulchzulu]

53. Another swing and a miss from an attacking Hillbot

As proven through the thread, Obama is correct.

Next!

[elixir]

56. Yes, when he words it like that, it's correct. My post states the reality-semantics.

[MethuenProgressive]

57. "He gets around 70% from big business." That's no surprise.

[Political Heretic]

89. It's also untrue.

:)

[jackson_dem]

59. The dishonesty of Obama helps further cement the cynicism he claims to be fighting against

He is being intentionally misleading in an effort to hide the fact he is a corporate candidate. You don't raise $182 million from janitors...

[GoldieAZ49]

61. there are many things coming to light now

no wonder he doesn't want the national media anywhere near him


I hope all of these issues are addressed before it is to late

[jackson_dem]

62. Which is why I hope Clinton stays in until Pennsyvlania

She would have nothing to lose and if Obama's support craters as the msm myth of Obama crumbles she will be there to pick up the pieces.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. I understand that Clinton supporters have problems counting.

Iowa doesn't count.

South Carolina doesn't count.

Wisconsin doesn't count.

Texas won't count.

Pledged delegates don't count.

Superdelegates don't count.

Let's face it. Math doesn't count. It's also got a well known sexist bias.

That said, Obama's correct. 90% of his donations are in the 25-50 dollar range.

[Medusa]

72. Best.Post.Of.The.Day!

:rofl:

[tabatha]

96. Agreed. Nothing counts but what you want.

By the way, if 90% of Obama's donors had donated more than $2000, he would be rolling all the way to November.

[mckeown1128]

104. No..it isn't...

it's the best post of the week. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JimGinPA]

73. The OP Title Is The Real Lie

:eyes:

[Avalux]

76. I really am not sure what your point is in posting this. We aren't that stupid.

:hi:

[Redstone]

84. Get a job, would you? Or at least a hobby that doesn't involve spamming discussion groups, OK?

Redstone

[Political Heretic]

88. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG - WAS EXPLAINED ON MSNBC.

90% of DONATIONS are from small donors

x% of the total money raised is different than number of donors, genius.

A small number of people gave a huge amount of money, while tons of people gave small amounts of money.

[FogerRox]

95. Either these punks are trolls, or they are incapable of using a calculator to do %

If 10 people donate, you have 10 donations. I think the English dictionary will back me up on that.

[tabatha]

97. I admire your energetic defence of the truth.

I have seen Obama supporters called blind, but right now there are some stubborn people clinging to the word "lie" even though they are completely delusional.

[FogerRox]

99. partisian politics is one thing

The root word of donations is donor, period, any dictionary will back me up on that. I would also cite Perky's post where Perky used a calculator to show the math.

Thanks.

[Cleita]

101. Is there a problem?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

[FogerRox]

108. Perky, post # 22 even did the math for the encumbered.

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $47,323,742
Let's say the average was $100. That's 473,237 contributions 85%
$200.01 - $499 $10,452,546
Lets say the average was $350 that is 29,864 contributions 5%
$500 - $999 $11,440,957
Lets say the average was $750, that is 15,254 contributors 3%
$1000 - $1999 $21,130,641.
Lets say the average is %1,500, that is 14,897 contributions 3%
$2000 and Over $49,472,185
Let's say the average was $2,150 (the max is $2,300, that is 23,010 Contributions 4%

[Johnny__Motown]

102. 90% of donations were small 10% were large, end of story. any other point of view makes you look bad

Just drop it.


He told the truth even if you are so desperate to trip him up you will grasp any straw no matter how small.

There is no discussion of this on any media source. If he had lied it would have been covered. Look at the Canada NAFTA thing, he didn't lie and still it was covered as if he did.

Just drop it, you all look foolish.


refer to post #5 if you must then let it go

[Hillary_Hillary]

110. More lies....

[nolabels]

111. So what is the problem then?

I don't see that part about this billionaire gave this and that poor person gave that. I just see a lot of assumptions based on assumptions. Instead of trying to sling innuendo how about a little honesty. Unless there is some kind information about income levels and personal wealth and how it rates to them certain amounts donated it will still be mostly just assumptions still