BUSTED: Tabloid Interview With Porn Star Spills Details on Affair With Donald Trump

Well, so much for that nondisclosure agreement.

The Daily Beast reported earlier today that In Touch Magazine would feature an interview with porn star Stormy Daniels (real name: Stephanie Clifford), where she described the tawdry details of her fling with Trump.

Sure enough, the magazine hit  your supermarket checkout lines today.

The cover features a large, glossy image of Daniels, with the headline:

“My Affair With Donald.”

It also includes such splashy teasers, as:

“He was sitting on the bed… and we started kissing.”

SECRET HOTEL HOOKUPS!

HOW THEY HID IT FROM MELANIA

It’s not like Daniels exactly violated the NDA. The interview is actually from 2011. So while she’s denying it now, and she supposedly took money from Trump’s attorney, Michael Cohen in 2016, it’s all closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted across the pasture.

Oops.

Some of the revelations from the In Touch article?

Daniels took a polygraph test about the affair and passed before the interview.

The first encounter was in 2006 at Trump’s Lake Tahoe, Nevada hotel. In the 2011 interview, the story was also corroborated by Daniels’ ex-husband, Mike Mos, as well as a good friend, Randy Spears.

Her friend and fellow porn star, Alana Evans, also confirmed knowledge of the affair.

Stormy told In Touch, “[The sex] was textbook generic,” while discussing the fling they had less than four months after Donald’s wife, Melania, gave birth to their son, Barron. “I actually don’t even know why I did it, but I do remember while we were having sex, I was like, ‘Please, don’t try to pay me.’”

You did it because you’ve deadened your soul by peddling your body for money, but that’s a whole other issue.

It all started at the American Century celebrity golf tournament in July 2006. “[Trump] was introduced to everybody. He kept looking at me and then we ended up riding to another hole on the same golf cart together,” Stormy recalled, adding that the business mogul later came to the gift lounge her adult-film company, Wicked Pictures, sponsored and asked for her number, which she gave him, before they posed for a photo together.

“Then he asked me if I wanted to have dinner that night. And I was like, ‘Yeah, of course!’” she told In Touch. Stormy, dressed up to go out on the town, arrived at Trump’s hotel room, where she says she was greeted by a bodyguard named Keith, who let her inside. Stormy claims Trump was sprawled on the couch watching TV, wearing pajama pants. “We ended up having dinner in the room,” she revealed to In Touch.

That would likely be Keith Schiller, Trump’s longtime bodyguard, who recently left the White House to take work in the private sector.

At one point, Stormy told In Touch, she excused herself to go to the bathroom. “When I came out, he was sitting on the bed and he was like, ‘Come here.’ And I was like, ‘Ugh, here we go.’ And we started kissing.” After having sex, Stormy said, “We hung out for a little while and he just kept saying, ‘I’m gonna call you, I’m gonna call you. I have to see you again. You’re amazing. We have to get you on The Apprentice.’”

Daniels claims that the future president pursued her, and that they had several more encounters. One of those happened at his private bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles.

Let me reiterate, for all the Evangelical Trump supporters: This was while his wife, Melania, was home with a 4 month old baby.

For those who will attack this as tabloid nonsense, let’s not forget Trump’s love of THE supermarket tabloid, National Enquirer.

I guess it all depends on if the stories benefit him, or not.

 

 

The post BUSTED: Tabloid Interview With Porn Star Spills Details on Affair With Donald Trump appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


More Details on Man Who Attacked Senator Rand Paul

The information about Rene’ Boucher, the man responsible for an attack on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is beginning to trickle in.

For starters, Boucher, like Paul, is a doctor. According to his Facebook page, he served as an anesthesiologist and pain management specialist with the U.S. Army from 1985 to 1993.

He studied Biology and Pre-Med at Providence College, and attended the College of Osteopathic Medicine in Des Moines.

His Facebook page is a long collection of anti-Trump memes and articles, with at least one article on Greg Gianforte, the Republican candidate from the Montana special congressional election who body slammed a reporter.

Other details:

Police have not described the exact circumstances around the assault. A statement from Paul’s office said, “Senator Paul was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested and it now a matter for the police,” according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

The actual assault happened in Senator Paul’s Bowling Green home on Friday night, but the news is just breaking.

Boucher was charged with one count of fourth degree assault and is being held at the Warren County Detention Center.

 

The post More Details on Man Who Attacked Senator Rand Paul appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Ed Gillespie Strings Together Poll Momentum in Virginia

I’ve been harsh on Ed Gillespie’s lackluster campaign in Virginia, but improbably enough, this polling shows him behind by much less than before!


In this combination photo, Republican gubernatorial candidate, Ed Gillespie appears at a debate at the University of Virginia-Wise in Wise, Va., Oct. 9, 2016 , left, Libertarian candidate for Virginia governor Cliff Hyra appears during an interview in Richmond, Va., on Sept. 22, 2017 and Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam appears during an interview in Richmond, Va., on Sept. 18, 2017. The major party candidates in Virginia’s closely watched race for governor are both promising to improve the state’s health care system. But Gillespie and Northam differ sharply on how to curb costs and increase care. Hyra favors less government intervention in the health care system. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, File)

Republican Ed Gillespie went 6 months without beating Democrat Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam in a poll. Six months is a long time not even to get a freak outlier your way. But in the last two weeks he’s now won three of the last six polls!

That’s a last minute shift. The newest two are The Polling Company at Gillespie +2 and Christopher Newport University at Northam +7.

The poll average still favors Northam, especially since that TPC poll is from a Republican leaning company. But still, Gillespie looks like he has a better chance of winning than he did all this year, which is good timing for him and the Republicans.

The post Ed Gillespie Strings Together Poll Momentum in Virginia appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Dolly Parton Distances Herself from Her Co-Star’s Anti-Trump Moment at the Emmys

Country music legend Dolly Parton appeared Monday on Fox and Friends to discuss her new music album for children called “I Believe In You,” when the conversation turned to the infamous moment at the 2017 Emmys when here 9 to 5 co-stars Lilly Tomlin and Jane Fonda took a moment to bash Trump.

“In [9 to 5], we refused to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot. And in 2017, we still refuse to be controlled by a sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot,” Tomlin and Fonda said with grins on their faces to raucous applause from the glittered audience.

The only one seemingly not enjoying themselves in that moment was Parton herself, whose facial reactions spoke louder than the cheers. Suffice to say, she wasn’t comfortable.

Speaking to Fox and Friends, Parton admitted as much. The country star confessed she was nervous beforehand, knowing what Tomlin and Fonda were going to say, but instead decided to stay out of it.

“I didn’t know what to say. I’ll always just go to a boob joke if all else fails,” she said.

But Parton explained her choice to stay quiet in that moment in a refreshing take on her stances on politics in combination with her celebrity status.

“I don’t do politics,” explained Parton.

Parton explained that her mother was a Democrat, and her father was a Republican, and she was reluctant to make either side mad at her.

“Plus, I’m an entertainer. I don’t usually voice my opinion in a situation like that,” added Parton.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”//video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

Parton’s stunning abundance of self-awareness could be a shining example for everyone in Hollywood, who seem to learn nothing about their audience despite falling viewership every time they get political. Parton, unlike many other Hollywood stars, seems to understand that her stage isn’t a pulpit best suited to condemn or preach a political message.

Her refusal to either defend or attack Trump shows a great amount of maturity on her part. She knows she has a job to do, and alienating half of her audience won’t make her successful at it. She treats both sides of the aisle with respect regardless of her own political stances.

The post Dolly Parton Distances Herself from Her Co-Star’s Anti-Trump Moment at the Emmys appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Ben Sasse On What The Republican Party Stands For: “I Don’t Know”

One of the problems with modern politics is the propensity of some people to look for the next “rock star” in the world of politics. It happens with both parties, but I am disappointed to say that it’s common in conservative circles. More often than not, the person in question is elevated not because of anything they’ve done but usually due to something they’ve said.

In that respect, I always caution people about fully embracing a politician. Politicians are almost always going to disappoint you. That isn’t an attack on them personally. It’s just the nature of the game. It’s politics. It happens. It’s why I am never shocked when a politician does something they ordinarily would not do or appears to be a departure from something they’ve done for years.

There is a difference, however, between being making political decisions at times and grandstanding for the sake of doing so. The real political leader is not afraid to call out members of their party for engaging in behavior of that exhibited by somebody in the opposition party. Currently, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse fits the bill.

Sasse hasn’t shied away from being critical of President Donald Trump when necessary. Naturally, such an inclination earns him derision among the pro-Trump crowd but even the knee-jerk reactionary anti-Trump contingent lambasts Sasse because he’s not engaging in knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric. I had somebody tell me Sasse is “enabling” Trump by voting to confirm his cabinet nominees. That’s a silly criticism as Sasse’s decision to approve is based on his determination the candidate is fit for the role not because Sasse doesn’t like Trump.

In a recent podcast, Sasse had some things to say about Trump and the GOP, the latter being eye-opening:

“There’s a risk in our media-driven, and particularly digital media-driven culture; TV-based, broadcast-based, and image-based culture of this digital moment,” Sasse says. “There is a danger that we create shorter and shorter attention spans, more and more unbridled passions, less and less self-control and self-restraint. I don’t think that our Founders would believe that America could long prosper if the people were not readers.”

I asked him how, in a word, he’d describe Trump. All he came up with: “current president.”

But Trump isn’t his only problem. Asked for one word to describe the Republican Party, he again came up with two: “question mark.”

Sasse was presented with a similar question:

Asked what the GOP stands for, he says, “I don’t know.”

I give Sasse credit for being honest. In retrospect, with Donald Trump as president, it’s hard to explain to people what the GOP stands for these days. It’s easy enough to roll through the usual litany of reasons people are used to hearing and have heard for the last 35-40 years.

Talk is cheap. Sasse understands that. Hopefully, there will be more like him who will choose to lead instead of just go along for the sake of party politics.

The entire podcast can be heard here.

 

The post Ben Sasse On What The Republican Party Stands For: “I Don’t Know” appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Russian Gambit: Why the “hack” changes nothing

Why will I cast my vote for the Republican winner of the Texas Presidential election? More the point, why will I "ignore the Russian hack of the election"?

My college had strict attendance requirements. Three credit classes were allowed three cuts. More and you were kicked out of the course or received a zero averaged in with your grade.

Steve and Tommy noticed one particularly pro-sports psychology teacher, who took regular attendance, seemed to ignore the absences of student athletes. Being young and seeing themselves as defenders of truth, justice and the American way, they took it upon themselves to investigate.

To make a long story short, they hacked the teacher's grade book. Steve carried it to the library. Tommy copied it and Steve returned it to its place. It presented clear evidence of a double standard in the teacher's handling of grades and attendance. 

It was two very naive young men who walked into the Dean's office thinking he'd be concerned only with the grade disparity. They received a real-world education for the next hour.

The two were grilled about how they came into possession of the incriminating evidence. No one seemed concerned about the greater offense. Only their disparate roles in the purloining and copying of the incriminating evidence, along with a healthy dose of legalistic doublespeak, saved both from expulsion by the dreaded "God squad": the campus disciplinary committee.

The WikiLeaks hack into the Democratic National Committee computers reminds me of the story from my college days. 

WikiLeaks has never made a fraudulent release. Democrats seem to forget, WikiLeaks was the hero of civil liberties when it showed the National Security Agency was monitoring our wireless calls. I applauded it then; I applaud it now.

Like the Dean, Democrats seem not to care what the evidence proved about themselves. They act unconcerned if the hack proves the Democrat Primaries were stacked against Bernie Sanders. 

The DNC never intended a fair primary. Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz conspired to use Sanders' Jewish ethnicity against him. ABC commentator and DNC operative Donna Brazile, loved by Democrats and respected by many, not only fed debate questions to Hillary Clinton but she looked us in the eye and lied about it when caught. As Donald Trump said, the system was rigged.

Fast forward to December 18. No one seems to remember Democrats, indeed all Americans, were aware of the hack months before the election. There's no new information here and certainly no evidence of campaign collusion in an unlawful act.

The focus is on the demon of the the Cold War, Russia. The, as yet unproven, Boogeyman of the "election hack." 

Only the election wasn't hacked. Not one iota of proof has been offered to suggest a single vote was tampered with by the Trump campaign or anyone else. Electronic voting machines cannot accessed by outside hackers. 

The election was sound. People voted based on what they knew: what they knew about Donald Trump; what they knew about the Democratic Party; and what they knew about Hillary Clinton. Trump won that election.

False news stories and the ability to wage a 40 day negative campaign focusing on one person, the President-Elect, has only served to divide the nation and erode the foundations of its institutions. Fear and desperation rule the day. Democrats appear willing to destroy this nation before they will accept President Trump. 

Shame on them! I call it, "The Russian Gambit."

Just as the Dean's reaction to the psychology teacher's corruption seemed suspect and false, so does the Democratic campaign to destroy the President-elect. They're hoping the Russian Gambit will sway the electoral vote.

Forgive me if it sounds disingenuous when, after decades of coddling murderous despots around the world and modeling "Che chic," the same people have finally found a tyrant they can't stomach. 

Don't upset China by answering a phone call but say nothing conciliatory about Russia? I'm not buying what you're selling. It's smoke and mirrors. 

It's only my opinion and mine is worth no more than yours, but I have one more vote to cast. I will vote for sound cabinet choices, conservative Supreme Court Justices and a myriad of federal judge appointees to come in the next four years. I will vote for the rule of law.

This is why I will cast my vote for the Republican winner of the Texas Presidential election, President-Elect Donald Trump. 


Texas Elector…A Matter of Conscience

I am a Texas elector.

Donald Trump was not my first choice in the Republican Primary. I am an unrepentant Rand Paul supporter; but by the first week of March, Rand Paul was out of the race. I voted for Ted Cruz. 

When Texas electors were chosen last May 14 it was clear that Donald Trump was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Every person who asked to be an elector did so fully informed of who was to be the nominee.

Each of us signed a pledge that, as electors, we will support the nominee when called to Austin on December 19.

It is a remarkable year to be an elector. We have received more than 60,000 emails from anti-Trump forces. The emails include passionate pleas, promises of fame, death threats and every vile and vulgar language imaginable. Anyone who is tossed back and forth by waves of public criticism, or who is blown here and there by every wind of a crafty and cunning media, probably ought not be an elector.

Is it possible that our vote could be a matter of conscience? Yes it is. Always. Every state. Each elector. I agree with Hamilton in Federalist 68. But there is nothing new here nor does it rise to the level of disqualification.

So you think that being "without scruple," or "unprincipled and voluptuary," someone "who would plunder the country," is a disqualification?

That's precisely what Alexander Hamilton thought of Aaron Burr, yet I have found no record of Hamilton lobbying electors to change their vote in 1800 when Burr tied Jefferson in the Electoral College. 

Perhaps that is because those are opinions, not facts, and Hamilton knew the difference. 

Are there greater spiritual principles applicable? Certainly. But they are not esoteric proclamations of "ought" to a man whose heart I cannot possibly judge.

The principles that matter apply much closer to home.

As to seeking the role of an elector there is this one: 

Suppose one of you wants to do some great thing. Won't you first sit down and count the cost to see if you have what it takes to see it through? Because if you don't you may find yourself unable to finish and everyone who sees it will ridicule you saying, "This person started something and didn't know what he was getting into." (Luke 14, paraphrased). 

We each knew what we were getting into. This is politics, not choir practice, and it is always a messy business involving imperfect people. God only knows how conflicted the mind of a Hillary Clinton elector must be.

But judging righteousness isn't my job. Not here; not hereafter.

"It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another," (Psalm 75.7 NIV).

Can one really imagine a 1980 Republican elector making judgments of righteousness between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? It wasn't their job then; it isn't my job now.

What role does conscience play in my decision? It obliges me to do my duty and to keep my word.

I signed a pledge to vote for the party's nominee. The document was probably legally flawed, but I am not looking for a reason to be derelict in my duty.

So, if you want to make this about faith and conscience, let's do. You may call it ethics, morality or values, but something guides one's conscience. Here is how it applies to me; I can speak only to my own.

Conscience and faith compel me to make no commitment without having counted the cost to see if I have the moral fortitude to fulfill my commitment.

Jesus said, "I tell you, do not swear an oath at all…all you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’."

My conscience also tells that my word ought not depend on the validity of the oath I swore. That my "yes" should mean "yes," not "maybe." Trustworthy.

It comes down to whether I will do my duty or seek an excuse in the face of pressure based on non-adjudicated allegations or my distaste for one cabinet pick or another. 

Ironically, to quote the Federalist papers, which were written under pseudonym, as justification for changing a vote because someone doesn't like how the President-Elect uses social media, belies an ignorance of the times. Newspapers and publishing under pseudonym were to readers in 1787 what social media is today: the leading edge of public discourse.

That same thinking might have abandoned Madison in 1808 because one didn't like the fact that Madison previously wrote under an assumed name.

Yes, there is a reason they are called "faithless electors." I refuse to become one. 

I will vote for Donald Trump on December 19 regardless of pressure, peril, or promise of publicity. No oath necessary.

Because I am a Texas elector.


Worst it’s ever been? Remember 1968

The 2016 Presidential Election is U.S. presidential politics at its very worst, right? Hardly!

That premise, promoted by addle-minded baby boomers who smoked too much weed to remember their own history and by millennials desperate to find something to suffer, is the luxury of a generation that sees too little adversity and too much social media.

It's not the worst in this writer's memory. It doesn't even come close. Historians often point to the election of 1800 as the most divisive and bitter of our nation's history. But it isn't necessary to reach that far for a year and an election, that was worse than 2016.

For this writer, 1968 must certainly rank as the worst in memory. Everyone lived under the shadow of the Cold War and fear of nuclear war. School children were drilled in what to do in case of a nuclear attack. Public buildings posted signs designating them as shelters from nuclear fallout.

In many ways the 1968 election began in 1963 – November 22, 1963 to be precise, when a dynamic leader and young father, President John Kennedy, was assassinated. Two days later, with live television cameras rolling, Oswald himself was killed by Dallas strip club owner, Jack Ruby. It's difficult to imagine a time without YouTube, social media and instant news, but we were media virgins then. Live violence was rarely broadcast and TV violence was heavily censored.

Murder and assassination was the rule in the 1960's. Medgar Evers was assassinated in 1963, five months before JFK, by a Klansman. In 1965 Malcom X was murdered by three members of the Nation of Islam.

The national mourning lasted through the 1964 election when a Texan, Lyndon Baines Johnson, won the election in an electoral landslide. Johnson was arguably the most corrupt, racist and misogynistic president of the 20th century. Johnson was a bully, demanding that secretaries follow him into the bathroom to take dictation. He was abusive of his wife and subordinates. He consistently called Civil Rights legislation that "n—–r bill."

By 1968, a Presidential Election year, the country was reeling from social upheaval caused in part by the manner in which LBJ and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were micromanaging the war. 1968 was the worst year of the war for Americans, 16,899 died that year; that's 325 deaths per week.

Anti-war protests, which began in 1965, reached their peak in 1968 and were becoming increasingly violent. The Tet Offensive, launched by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese in January, had demonstrated that the war was nowhere near an end and possibly unwinnable.

Add to that mix the Civil Rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Because of Dr. King's leadership and influence, the movement was a pacifist one up to 1968, enduring attacks, lynchings, beatings and indignity by turning the other cheek.

It was natural that the Civil Rights movement began to join forces with the Anti-War protesters and the violence and destruction grew.

By Warren K. Leffler / Library of Congress - This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID ppmsca.19733.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.العربية | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | Türkçe | українська | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29629697The 22nd Amendment allowed Johnson to run for another term; however, faced with opposition from anti-war candidates Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson announced in March that he would not seek reelection. With Johnson's unexpected departure his Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, announced his candidacy. Altogether, Democrats fielded nine candidates at one time or another in the 1968 primaries.

Republican Richard Nixon, loser of the 1960 contest against John Kennedy, easily defeated California Governor Ronald Reagan and Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican nomination.

Southern segregationist and Democrat George Wallace ran as a third-party candidate on the American Independent ticket, hoping to win enough electoral votes to prevent anyone from winning electoral majority. Wallace calculated that he could be the power broker for the winner if the House of Representatives were to determine the election and that he could negotiate an end to federal desegregation of southern states.

Wallace received 46 electoral votes (Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas electors plus one faithless elector from North Carolina pledged to Nixon) and was the last candidate to receive electoral votes who was not a member of one of the two major parties. He received 13.53% of the vote, concentrated mostly in the southern states.

On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King was assassinated by a sniper on the balcony of his Memphis hotel. Blacks rioted in major cities across the country, except Indianapolis where Bobby Kennedy, still grieving the loss of his brother five years earlier, calmed angry African-Americans, reminding them that he, too, had lost someone at the hands of an assassin.

Just two months later, on June 6, 1968, Bobby Kennedy was killed in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles the night he won the California primary.

America watched Hubert Humphrey receive the Democratic nomination in Chicago, alternating between scenes of the convention and live television of Chicago police beating mostly peaceful protesters. The specter of Chicago haunted Humphrey through the fall.

American cities were burning and the culture was in chaos – the worst in living memory.

History has written the results. Nixon won, then went on to Watergate fame four years later, eventually resigning in disgrace.

But the Republic survived. It survived the corruption of Lyndon Baines Johnson. It outlasted segregationists, assassins, Vietnam and Nixon.

That was a bad year. What we see today is little more than bad entertainment by comparison. Yes, it looks bad. Americans are on the verge of living fully documented lives and what we see just isn't that pretty. 

There appears to be no great statesman out there. We didn't think we had one in 1968 either, but Ronald Reagan sure looked good 12 years later.

*The photo used in the article above is a scene from 1968 Washington, D.C. after the D.C. riots. It was taken by Warren K. Leffler / Library of Congress.


BREAKING: Active Shooter At Ohio State University Campus

There is an active shooter situation at Ohio State University. An NBC Affiliate reported:

An alert was issued for an active shooter on Ohio State University’s Campus, Monday morning.

Ohio State University Police sent the alert at about 9:56am.

The alert said, “Buckeye Alert: Active Shooter on campus. Run Hide Fight. Watts Hall. 19th and College.”

Police are telling people to shelter in place and avoid the area of College Road north.

OSU Emergency Management tweeted the following:

The post BREAKING: Active Shooter At Ohio State University Campus appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Emails to Electors reflect the character of HRC supporters…and some observations about media

Emails to Electors reflect the character of the element of the Democratic party that strongly supports HRC. Their reaction to my strongly worded message says more about them than me.

All humor aside, it is critical that Republicans know what kind of people send emails to electors.

 

Media filters

Please allow a quick digression into what you should know about media, including your favorite blogger. We are not conduits of raw news, we are filters of news.

It is impossible to deliver every message to you, so I must filter them and my biases are part of that filter.

When things are calm, or when I have days to think about an article, I have the luxury of examining those biases and how they affect my story. But if I'm an editor with a 10 p.m. deadline competing for the attention of a reader or viewer who is bombarded with sensational stimuli from a half dozen media sources, it is difficult to resist the urge to present the extremes.

Those decisions are even more critical when dealing with images and video. The subjective judgements of what to show are influenced by what readers and viewers find visually interesting. Social media and advanced analytics have made news increasingly consumer driven.

Did I say that too indirectly? Let me say it again.

Gentle reader, the media delivers what your viewing and reading habits tell researchers you want to see. Yes, it's ultimately our fault because we gravitate towards the sensational.

So, know that I could drag out the dozen or fewer, highly offensive, "F–k your God" emails. Headline, You won't believe what HRC supporters are saying, and the last one will shock you. Warning: X-rated. Readers would share that bad news all over social media. The message would go viral. SandstormScholar.com would enjoy fifteen minutes of fame.

But if only a dozen of 8,000+ correspondents chose to behave this way, how representative are they? They are the .2 percenters. And that's about how much attention I intend to give them. Focusing on bad behavior amplifies and empowers bad actors.

Scale is an important but often a neglected part of the story.

 

The character of HRC supporters reflected in emails

I've learned that we listened to the same speeches from the two candidates and heard distinctly difference messages. HRC's message was fear driven and many, many people believed it.

Fear is the stated movitation of most writers. They seem genuinely afraid. That's a terrible thing. Only time will change it.

The reader may find it interesting to know that roughly four fifths of the writers are female.

The following email typifies 75% or more of the messages I receive in emails to electors. If you want to know their ilk, this is it:

As a concerned US Citizen and voter, I naturally sent an electoral college email and got your response. With my personal views aside, I greatly appreciated that you took the time to put up an auto-response that addressed me and my concerns.

Despite political views amongst Americans, what we sometimes forget, which is honestly the most important part, is that because we are Americans we can even have a view/opinion and express it. I will always support the democratic party, but I also am appreciative to anyone in government that takes the time to care, which you did with your auto-responder. It's truly a rare thing.

—Shannan in Georgia

Political convictions aside, the inescapable conclusion about the overwhelming majority of HRC supporters is they are fine Americans, thoughtful, courteous and engaged.

This is a great country and her citizens are great people. If we each know and assume that about the other we can begin to heal.