Then I guess the Koch brothers are also fair and balanced, because they donated to the DLC, of which Bill and Hillary were founding members.

I have a somewhat hugely different takeaway from both those events, though.

whoever supports plutocrats.

Money always comes first for guys like Murdoch, social issues are a far second.

use an IUD?

I know. Women and gays (and Christmas trees) are tools for them to get the churches shilling for them. Clearly, Christian principles are not their motivation. Besides, not a word about abortion or birth control in the bible,* but a lot about not judging, charity, etc.

*For the sake of accuracy, and not getting anyone blindsided, I note that this is debatable---and debated.

There is a verse in ONE of the Psalms, in which David (or whoever wrote the Psalms) has God saying that he (God) had counted every hair on our heads before we were born. It might also say that God knew us and/or loved us before we were born. I don't remember now, but I do remember the hair bit. Anti-abortionists use that verse. And, of course, "Thou shalt not kill" is applied to even the "morning after" pill.

And somehow, Onan "spilling his seed" rather than impregnate either of his two daughter in laws who were trying to seduce him turns out to be a prohibition against sex without procreation as well as a ban on masturbation. Nothing about reluctance of a man to fuck the much young widows of his own sons. (Typically, his sons, like most men in that time and part of the world would have married women much younger than they were.)

So, now you've been warned. However, compare those those alleged prohibitions in the Old Testament, which are certainly open to interpretation, with very clear, express statements--and actions--of Jesus about not judging, taking care of the poor and even choosing against religious law if people are hungry.

'and employees' is pretty important - that's how the US government can appear 4th in Obama's list, for instance. It'd be interesting to know the split between Fox (film and non-news TV), Fox News, and News Corp.

I don't recall being asked my employer(s) whenever I've donated. And, for better or worse, all my donations show up under my own name, and with my address, to boot. Nothing I am very happy about, given how many nutters are out there.

eg

between the primary and the general.

I even thought I might have violated the limit, but I didn't bother to check because, at that point, I didn't care. I figured they could just go ahead and jail me, if they wanted.

I guess I brought it on myself. Meanwhile, what's with the cheapos at Fox?

Both asked for my employer and occupation. Even though I am an American abroad I still entered them as required.

I've made my donations over the phone and online and have no written record. However, when I google, my donations do show up under my own name.

I gave too much to be listed under my employer's umbrella.

gave it back after the yen hit the fan (said hit being thanks, no doubt, to the Obama campaign). That's why I never got it when Obama blasted Citizens United for allowing donations from foreigners. I thought they were allowed before Citizens United? I thought Hillary returned the money for political reasons and not because she had violated then existing law by accepting the donations?

This may sound conceited, but I know I am not stupid. My education may not be Choate and Harvard, but it was not the worst by any means, either. And I still feel so clueless sometimes.

How many law degrees do we have to have, and how many 100 page statutes do we have to read before we can really figure out what is happening, or what happened, or what should happen? And what's wrong with this picture when I even have to ask that?

And it's a bad joke, a very bad joke.

Apparently, Limbaugh has them programmed that the Democrats nominated the wrong person (the wrong COLOR person). They think Hillary is conservative. I think this is one of those times when the broken clock is right.