Of course I read the article. And of course, I know more about the Buttigieg campaign than you do.These are the breakdowns: Pete has raised $51M from >600,000 donors. Of that, $26M (a slight, not "vast" majority) comes from people who have donated $200 or more *in total* but $9M of that is from people (like me) who donated that amount in smaller dribs and drabs. There could not possibly be 10,000 donors who have given $2800 because that would be $28M (your claim was 83%, or >500,000 donors in that category). I could believe that the correct figure is 5000 maxed-out donors, which is 0.83% of the donor pool, two orders of magnitude off from the figure you claimed. I know that 23 of them are billionaires, for $64,400 or 0.13% of the total money.
"Centering his religion in his campaign is a bad look." I disagree. We cannot allow Republicans to continue to pretend they own religion. Christians who believe in helping other people, and do not believe in forcing their beliefs on others, are a major percentage of the population."Giving Zuckerburg a tour is a bad look." At that time he was a mayor, not a Presidential candidate, and trying to attract investment to a distressed city, and you think he should have spurned an important player?"Recommendations are pretty highly dependent on who is doing the recommending." He needed some IT personnel. You think he should not have hired anyone who has worked for a major firm? Specifically not those who have attracted favorable attention from the top boss?"you are projecting revulsion about a person based on a short typed exclamation" which is used to express revulsion. "I see what you are trying to do here" What I was trying to do was to understand what you were trying to express. I thought the meaning of "Yech" was rather clear."By the way, I know some of the guys in the current MIT Media Lab scandals" I assume then that when you knew them, it was before any scandal broke? Well too bad: by your own standard, since you ever any association with them in the past, you're disqualified for anything, ever again.
there is no such thing as a "filibuster-proof" House majority. There is no such principle. And when was there a majority in the Senate of at least 60%? Come back next semester after you've taken U.S. Government.
You seem to equate small donor contributions with SuperPACs. Funny!
As a gay man, I'd love to see us represented. But, just as Hillary did not reflect my sister, my mother, my friends - Pete doesn't represent me.
Please review his history at McKinsey & Company: you know them for: support of authoritarian regimes, Pharma scandals, ICE, Saudi Public Relations, Insider Stock trading scandals, climate change denialism, South African scandals, and the securitization of mortgage assets which encouraged the banks to fund their balance sheets with debt, driving up risk, which 'poisoned the global financial system and precipitated the 2008 credit meltdown'.
Another neoliberal isn't going to help - even if he is gay. Identity politicians can be misleading.
So to you, eating at the same table is a "kiss up"? Oh my, you have so much to learn.
Read the link; it might help you understand actual policy positions - not guilt by association. Putin has met with Obama AND Bush. Your propaganda is childish at best and, seemingly, deceptive.
'So to you, eating at the same table is a "kiss up"?' In that case, yes. She was at the table with his chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, press secretary, a propagandist filmmaker and his wife who would shortly be setting up a meeting with Trump Jr. to discuss exchanging dirt on Hillary for sanctions being lifted, and Michael Flynn, subsequently Trump's first NSA, and a compromised Czech politician."Oh my, you have so much to learn." No, I think I know quite enough.
Pete's campaign filings do not include anything about Zuckerberg giving him either cash or assistance, or anything about PACs. You show a chronic inability to stick anywhere near the facts.
"You seem to equate small donor contributions with SuperPACs." WTAF are you talking about? Sanders and Warren have shifted millions into their Presidential campaign funds from former Senatorial campaign funds which were derived in part from PAC contributions. That's the fact, and it is not secret."Please review his history at McKinsey" He walked away from a lucrative corporate job, taking a massive pay cut, to devote himself to public service. He does not badmouth his prior employer (and they have nothing bad to say about him) but in his autobio he calls their conduct in the Middle East the product of profound cultural ignorance.Pete is by far the least wealthy candidate in the race, due to his intentional choice to walk away from large piles of money, although he could have gone to Wall Street and written his own ticket if money was any part of his motivations. It is infuriating to see supporters of a candidate worth literally ten times as much try to slander him as a puppet of money.
I have. In the first two quarters he had fewer large donors than he does now. That is because small early donors who agreed to make regular contributions, like my $25/month, now count as 'large donors' if the cumulative total has reached $200.
Of course I read the article. And of course, I know more about the Buttigieg campaign than you do.These are the breakdowns: Pete has raised $51M from >600,000 donors. Of that, $26M (a slight, not "vast" majority) comes from people who have donated $200 or more *in total* but $9M of that is from people (like me) who donated that amount in smaller dribs and drabs. There could not possibly be 10,000 donors who have given $2800 because that would be $28M (your claim was 83%, or >500,000 donors in that category). I could believe that the correct figure is 5000 maxed-out donors, which is 0.83% of the donor pool, two orders of magnitude off from the figure you claimed. I know that 23 of them are billionaires, for $64,400 or 0.13% of the total money.
"Centering his religion in his campaign is a bad look." I disagree. We cannot allow Republicans to continue to pretend they own religion. Christians who believe in helping other people, and do not believe in forcing their beliefs on others, are a major percentage of the population."Giving Zuckerburg a tour is a bad look." At that time he was a mayor, not a Presidential candidate, and trying to attract investment to a distressed city, and you think he should have spurned an important player?"Recommendations are pretty highly dependent on who is doing the recommending." He needed some IT personnel. You think he should not have hired anyone who has worked for a major firm? Specifically not those who have attracted favorable attention from the top boss?"you are projecting revulsion about a person based on a short typed exclamation" which is used to express revulsion. "I see what you are trying to do here" What I was trying to do was to understand what you were trying to express. I thought the meaning of "Yech" was rather clear."By the way, I know some of the guys in the current MIT Media Lab scandals" I assume then that when you knew them, it was before any scandal broke? Well too bad: by your own standard, since you ever any association with them in the past, you're disqualified for anything, ever again.
oy, who knew? They are certainly an exception based on their size.
there is no such thing as a "filibuster-proof" House majority. There is no such principle. And when was there a majority in the Senate of at least 60%? Come back next semester after you've taken U.S. Government.
Size has nothing to do with it.
Sorry. It's just quicker than typing "a HUGE majority of 257 to 178". You are right and I am wrong.
Please review ALL of Pete's campaign filings... don't just pick and choose.
Review the initial 2 campaign filings - when he was being elevated.
You seem to equate small donor contributions with SuperPACs. Funny!
As a gay man, I'd love to see us represented. But, just as Hillary did not reflect my sister, my mother, my friends - Pete doesn't represent me.
Please review his history at McKinsey & Company: you know them for: support of authoritarian regimes, Pharma scandals, ICE, Saudi Public Relations, Insider Stock trading scandals, climate change denialism, South African scandals, and the securitization of mortgage assets which encouraged the banks to fund their balance sheets with debt, driving up risk, which 'poisoned the global financial system and precipitated the 2008 credit meltdown'.
Another neoliberal isn't going to help - even if he is gay. Identity politicians can be misleading.
Whom am I to believe? You, or Pete and his campaign filings?
As for judges, you forget that he supports the Judge on the right supporting "Citizen United". Re-read the article, please.
So to you, eating at the same table is a "kiss up"? Oh my, you have so much to learn.
Read the link; it might help you understand actual policy positions - not guilt by association. Putin has met with Obama AND Bush. Your propaganda is childish at best and, seemingly, deceptive.
'So to you, eating at the same table is a "kiss up"?' In that case, yes. She was at the table with his chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, press secretary, a propagandist filmmaker and his wife who would shortly be setting up a meeting with Trump Jr. to discuss exchanging dirt on Hillary for sanctions being lifted, and Michael Flynn, subsequently Trump's first NSA, and a compromised Czech politician."Oh my, you have so much to learn." No, I think I know quite enough.
Pete's campaign filings do not include anything about Zuckerberg giving him either cash or assistance, or anything about PACs. You show a chronic inability to stick anywhere near the facts.
"You seem to equate small donor contributions with SuperPACs." WTAF are you talking about? Sanders and Warren have shifted millions into their Presidential campaign funds from former Senatorial campaign funds which were derived in part from PAC contributions. That's the fact, and it is not secret."Please review his history at McKinsey" He walked away from a lucrative corporate job, taking a massive pay cut, to devote himself to public service. He does not badmouth his prior employer (and they have nothing bad to say about him) but in his autobio he calls their conduct in the Middle East the product of profound cultural ignorance.Pete is by far the least wealthy candidate in the race, due to his intentional choice to walk away from large piles of money, although he could have gone to Wall Street and written his own ticket if money was any part of his motivations. It is infuriating to see supporters of a candidate worth literally ten times as much try to slander him as a puppet of money.
I have. In the first two quarters he had fewer large donors than he does now. That is because small early donors who agreed to make regular contributions, like my $25/month, now count as 'large donors' if the cumulative total has reached $200.
I'm not.