If a guy’s view of society is such that he needs to carry a handgun into Walmart just to buy toilet paper, its kinda hard to build any sort of trust.
First of all, have you ever googled "mass shooting at walmart"? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mass%20shooting%20at%20walmart
2nd of all, the guy I know who does this is perfectly willing to admit the odds of him ever being in a situation where he needs to draw are low enough that it probably won't happen during his lifetime. Thing is if it does happen he'd like to be able to do something other than bleed.
Yet experience shows from the KKK, to strikebreakers, to the Freikorps, to the murder of abortion doctors that easy access to firearms only works to the benefit of the dominant majority, to suppress the rights of unpopular minorities.
The Klan would agree with you that gun control was a much needed and desirable thing.
Further, “The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time — either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back.”
The problem is, exactly one side is stopping reasonable laws.
What gun laws would you view as too onerous? Better yet, what laws would you support that enable gun ownership? Perhaps banning these gun-free zones which turn into mass murder shooting ranges? Something else?
If the answer is "nothing", if the very definition of "reasonable law" must always mean restriction of gun rights and not enabling them, and your core beliefs are that individuals don't have the right to a gun, then imho it's easy to believe whatever laws you pass won't be enough and you'll always be back for more.
It's the whole Russia-needs-land-to-give-up-in-a-war problem. Sooner or later the NRA will lose. Gun laws will be passed, either because there's a mass murder or because the Dems get control. When that happens, the NRA will lose territory, and where they end up depends on where they start. If you know you can lose a hundred miles then you want the border far from the capital.
What we have witnessed in history before, is that it was the average German, the basically decent loving people, who enabled the worst of the Holocaust.
This is why I mentally translate "racist" and/or "nazi" into "not a democrat".
The guy who supported his daughter becoming a Jew is an antisemitic to Nazi levels? Was that before or after he was waving a rainbow flag at his own rally?
Oh, and his AG choice is a KKK supporter... when he's not desegregating schools, executing KKK leaders, or supporting the previous Black AG. Because what we're supposed to treat seriously is the hearsay at the hearing where he got Bork'ed and not his actions.
Accusations of Racism is a club used for cynical political purposes. Trump and his crew oppose open-boarders and illegal immigration (one of the big reasons I voted against him), however that's just a (bad) policy choice.
If accusations of racism/Nazism is the only way you've got to describe bad policy then you've already lost the argument. Trump isn't sending his daughter and grandchildren into death camps. Suggesting he will just shows that you don't have a serious argument and people tune you out.
We’re the party of the working class and will help you...
Except your jobs will be sacrificed to the "green".
You can't be trusted to choose your own school because you might choose the one which doesn't have the union, their jobs are more important than your kid's education.
And gov employees will get gold plated pensions far greater than yours, however you get to pay for them.
Greens and the Government come before the working class.
Ignoring that the allegations are from insiders talking about other insiders (thank you wiki-leaks); the way that Foundation raised and spent money was deeply corrupt on the face of it.
Give me millions of dollars or I'll do nasty things to you in my role as head of an important US government agency. Don't worry, the money can't be spent on me personally, I'll just personally spend the Billions I get on approved (left) causes run by my friends and increase my power base.
If I spend money on an Elementary school, everyone aided by it will know darn well that the money comes from me directly. If I want a political favor they'd better fork over because I'm the one who is holding their wallet. I.e. I'm only going to fund that school if it's in the district of someone I already know I want a favor from.
The influence of this foundation is supposed to be subtle, but purse-strings aren't nothing. Two Billion dollars spent in support of left causes (and in support of HRC's political career) probably goes a long way to explain why HRC was only opposed by someone outside the party who never took money.
If your allegation is a *bribe*, and you are not able to state who *did* the bribe or for what purpose, uh, yeah, kinda important.
My allegation is that she was given those trades, rather than strapping on a pair of skates and then winning the Olympics.
It, even in the event your understanding of events is completely correct, changes things from a *bribe* to an illegal donation.
So all we have is a politician's wife who received more than a year's worth of income... for what exactly? Since we don't know, it must be "innocent"? Who gave her the money, why was this "donation" obfuscated so much, and who were these trades taken from?
it is very easy to make statements that are technically true but cause incorrect conclusions using probabilities.
There's no way to spin winning the Olympics so that it's easy. This type of trading is a serious competitive sport done at high levels by serious people for serious money.
Name some people who have made similar levels of profits in similar situations. If it's *easy* to make 10x on your first day and 60x or 100x over all, lots of people must have done it.
If those "experts" who had never heard of any retail person accomplishing this are simply wrong, or if "expert advice" makes this easy, then history should be littered with good examples.
You seem to think this somehow says things about *today*, that the Clintons are still corrupt.
The pattern is, the spouse who is out of power collects money for the spouse who is, the spouse who is in power does favours for the people giving the money.
If we're talking about "currently", then they have a very oddly structured Charity, which is funded mostly by people HRC can do political favours for. They have Bill give speeches to people who are subject to HRC's political power.
An older example would be Bill pardoning Rich after HRC received various amounts of money from Rich's wife. Let me just quote former President Carter on this, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts."
Of course now that TCF exists, Rich's wife could have just given large amounts of money to the Foundation, presumably for the same effect. To my eye, that's the entire purpose of TCF existing, and for that matter it's reason she'd need her own private email server.
But if you want to claim that’s basically legalized bribery, I agree. You want to claim it’s something unique to the Clintons, I have to disagree.
The unique part with the Clintons was Bill was giving speeches to people who would have assumed they were subject to Hillary. Senator, Sec of State, and then (assumed) President. Imagine Barbara Bush giving speeches to people dealing with her husband while Bush was still in power.
Of course, regardless of whether or not you agree with me about the real problem here…I think we both agree that Trump is a completely ludicrous solution.
I would say "a real problem" rather than "the real problem"... as for Trump, ludicrous or not, we're stuck with him. Let's hope all those years managing hundreds of companies has taught him something. I would have far rather seen Romney run on a pro-growth platform (because if we have growth then all this discontent disappears) but whatever.
Studies have repeatedly shown that the concerns of non-wealthy people are simply not addressed *at all*.
Of course they're not. The larger and more encompassing the gov, the more it's going to be removed from the people. The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of upper management.
Why should Congress or the President pay attention to someone making $10k/year, or even $100k/year, when they don't have the bandwidth to talk to everyone who makes a million a year who wants to deal with them?
Michael J Fox went public with his getting Parkinson's, and the head of one of these "cure-Parkinson's" groups went with him to Congress and met with various high powered members. Afterwards she broke down and started crying; Mike was surprised because he'd thought they were doing pretty well, they got to talk to Trent Lott and so forth. Then he realised she'd been trying to do this sort of thing for years or decades and without the power of his Celebrity, they never would have talked to the Congressmen.
You think that Congress is going to actually give Trump a blanket waiver to accept any foreign gifts?
I think Trump is even more money motivated than the Clintons, and the talk of "gifts" ignores the way Trump is going to cash in on this. The Trump brand just increased in stature. The Trump organization is well positioned to cash in on this just from a branding standpoint. Even if he never finds out who is assuming what by renting whatever, we now have the appearance of quality and presidential attention.
We'll get an ugly compromise on gifts, maybe handing over his brand to his kids. I seriously doubt a GOP controlled Congress is going to go to war with their unexpectedly popular President on an issue already inspected by the general population.
‘Oh yeah? What about that time you blanket-allowed the president to accept any foreign gifts?’
We've already seen this. HRC made doing her official duties contingent on foreign governments giving money to her charity. That the charity mostly did good things (at least from the Left's standpoint) is irrelevant.
Now, it’s very likely that with Jeff “Too racist for the 1980’s” Session as AG, it’s going to be gone, maybe literally soon enough.
The guy's history (reportedly) includes desegregating schools, having the head of the state Klan given the death penalty, and supporting the nomination of Eric Holder.
‘No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.’
Any bets on whether Congress will "consent" to the President keeping his empire? Maybe give him a general waver? IMHO they'd be crazy not to, his empire is a big reason why people voted for him.
You stand and say, often, that we should give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Yet here you wish to talk about Clinton’s corruption, as if it is a given and solid thing...
What part of this are we pretending we don't understand? That they're not given big bags of money (fact 1)? Or that they don't do "favours" for the people who do this (fact 2)?
As Marc Rich's pardon demonstrates, the Clintons' behaviour doesn't rise to the level of "criminality" because we can't legally prove an defined agreement between the first fact and the second. However we do know both those facts exist.
Bill and HRC are both lawyers, they know where the lines are drawn. They apparently don't step over lines which end in their arrest. However the line they stay inside is "provably criminal" rather than "ethical" or "appearance of impropriety".
As long as they deliberately mix their personal and public business (for example raising money for her own private "charity" from the people she's doing favours for as the Sec of State) and getting big bags of money transferred to their control; "openly corrupt" (as opposed to "criminal") seems like a good way to describe them.
Feel free to suggest a description other than "openly corrupt", but whatever we say needs to describe how they use their public office to rake in 9 or 10 digits of money.
Trump is in this situation because for months no one serious thought he'd win. Having said that, I have serious doubts that either Obama or Bush before him had good transitions. There were a lot of "not ready yet" mistakes, possibly leading to 911 in Bush's case.
...when faced with the least godly candidate to ever grace the stage...
From their point of view, why is this true?
When Trump does his fowl-mouthed-old-man thing, does he take the Lord's name in vain? Call down God's wrath on someone? Has Trump worshipped other gods (money doesn't count)? Discouraged the worship of God? Sued a church or something?
In other parts of the world, there are Christians being put to death for the crime of having their god. Obama seems determined, because of political correctness, to not call the situation for what it is, even if the followers of that ideology/religion some times show up here and shoot up an army base or gay night club. Hillary would follow Obama's policy.
After that we have... what? Sex? Compare what Trump has said to what Hillary+Bill have actually done.
Trump brings a total lack of dignity to the office, which we might compare to Congress investigating Hillary for various crimes even before she takes office.
Trump's real "sins" (compared to HRC), are an absolutely total lack of piety (i.e. Pride) and a disconnect from what I'll call "the Christian Culture"... although weirdly his family seems really functional (and non-Trump-ish), so I'm not sure how much "family values" would weigh against him.
And then we have the Supreme Court, where Trump has already released "his" list (copied from Heritage or someone)... and this is probably the most important point. Trump offered a simple deal, the Religious Right backs him and he'll use Heritage(?) to pick his Supreme(s). The Court is currently 4-4.
I’m sure most conservatives would rather not vote for a man known to assault women, but those voters – unlike liberals I suppose – did not view Trump’s behavior as fundamentally disqualifying.
To be fair, liberals consider this sort of behaviour "disqualifying" only when it's a member of the GOP. They were just fine with Bill's behaviour and defended him against impeachment... even though the Presidency wasn't at stake with VP Gore also a Dem.
Trump got +5% of Dems to vote for him (i.e. 5% more than Romney), but +4% of the GOP switched to Hillary. So a significant number of people were turned off by either/both sides.
I don't think anyone really condones Trump's behaviour, they ignore or tolerate it because they like the message. For example the Evangelicals went heavy for Trump, not because they approve of his divorces or believe he's actually pro-life, but because he put in writing who he'd put on the Supreme Court.
On “Confession of a Liberal Gun Owner”
First of all, have you ever googled "mass shooting at walmart"? https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mass%20shooting%20at%20walmart
2nd of all, the guy I know who does this is perfectly willing to admit the odds of him ever being in a situation where he needs to draw are low enough that it probably won't happen during his lifetime. Thing is if it does happen he'd like to be able to do something other than bleed.
Think of it as another type of insurance.
"
The Klan would agree with you that gun control was a much needed and desirable thing.
Further, “The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time — either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/opinion/gun-control-and-white-terror.html
"
It's not about armed revolt. It's about increasing the cost of implementation.
"
What gun laws would you view as too onerous? Better yet, what laws would you support that enable gun ownership? Perhaps banning these gun-free zones which turn into mass murder shooting ranges? Something else?
If the answer is "nothing", if the very definition of "reasonable law" must always mean restriction of gun rights and not enabling them, and your core beliefs are that individuals don't have the right to a gun, then imho it's easy to believe whatever laws you pass won't be enough and you'll always be back for more.
It's the whole Russia-needs-land-to-give-up-in-a-war problem. Sooner or later the NRA will lose. Gun laws will be passed, either because there's a mass murder or because the Dems get control. When that happens, the NRA will lose territory, and where they end up depends on where they start. If you know you can lose a hundred miles then you want the border far from the capital.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/trumps-supposed-muslim-registry-is-just-more-fake-news/
I like numbers, so rather than state an opinion let's show some.
Number of Nazis in the US: 400
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States
But the number of SJW in the US is harder to estimate but at 10,000x they'd be 4 Million, or less than 10% of the people who voted for HRC.
On “Confession of a Liberal Gun Owner”
Now that Trump is elected, does that change anyone's mind about gun ownership?
Everyone on the Left still sure we can trust the government's sanity over multiple centuries?
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
Trump waving the rainbow flag at his rally.
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3698
http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2016/10/31/trump_rainbow_flag.png
"
This is why I mentally translate "racist" and/or "nazi" into "not a democrat".
The guy who supported his daughter becoming a Jew is an antisemitic to Nazi levels? Was that before or after he was waving a rainbow flag at his own rally?
Oh, and his AG choice is a KKK supporter... when he's not desegregating schools, executing KKK leaders, or supporting the previous Black AG. Because what we're supposed to treat seriously is the hearsay at the hearing where he got Bork'ed and not his actions.
Accusations of Racism is a club used for cynical political purposes. Trump and his crew oppose open-boarders and illegal immigration (one of the big reasons I voted against him), however that's just a (bad) policy choice.
If accusations of racism/Nazism is the only way you've got to describe bad policy then you've already lost the argument. Trump isn't sending his daughter and grandchildren into death camps. Suggesting he will just shows that you don't have a serious argument and people tune you out.
On “Morning Ed: Labor {2016.11.21.M}”
Except your jobs will be sacrificed to the "green".
You can't be trusted to choose your own school because you might choose the one which doesn't have the union, their jobs are more important than your kid's education.
And gov employees will get gold plated pensions far greater than yours, however you get to pay for them.
Greens and the Government come before the working class.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
This is why I assume it's the left painting swastikas. For every true nazi there's tens of thousands of SJWs who'd love to paint the Right as nazis.
"
Ignoring that the allegations are from insiders talking about other insiders (thank you wiki-leaks); the way that Foundation raised and spent money was deeply corrupt on the face of it.
Give me millions of dollars or I'll do nasty things to you in my role as head of an important US government agency. Don't worry, the money can't be spent on me personally, I'll just personally spend the Billions I get on approved (left) causes run by my friends and increase my power base.
If I spend money on an Elementary school, everyone aided by it will know darn well that the money comes from me directly. If I want a political favor they'd better fork over because I'm the one who is holding their wallet. I.e. I'm only going to fund that school if it's in the district of someone I already know I want a favor from.
The influence of this foundation is supposed to be subtle, but purse-strings aren't nothing. Two Billion dollars spent in support of left causes (and in support of HRC's political career) probably goes a long way to explain why HRC was only opposed by someone outside the party who never took money.
On “The Scorecard”
My allegation is that she was given those trades, rather than strapping on a pair of skates and then winning the Olympics.
So all we have is a politician's wife who received more than a year's worth of income... for what exactly? Since we don't know, it must be "innocent"? Who gave her the money, why was this "donation" obfuscated so much, and who were these trades taken from?
There's no way to spin winning the Olympics so that it's easy. This type of trading is a serious competitive sport done at high levels by serious people for serious money.
Name some people who have made similar levels of profits in similar situations. If it's *easy* to make 10x on your first day and 60x or 100x over all, lots of people must have done it.
If those "experts" who had never heard of any retail person accomplishing this are simply wrong, or if "expert advice" makes this easy, then history should be littered with good examples.
The pattern is, the spouse who is out of power collects money for the spouse who is, the spouse who is in power does favours for the people giving the money.
If we're talking about "currently", then they have a very oddly structured Charity, which is funded mostly by people HRC can do political favours for. They have Bill give speeches to people who are subject to HRC's political power.
An older example would be Bill pardoning Rich after HRC received various amounts of money from Rich's wife. Let me just quote former President Carter on this, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts."
Of course now that TCF exists, Rich's wife could have just given large amounts of money to the Foundation, presumably for the same effect. To my eye, that's the entire purpose of TCF existing, and for that matter it's reason she'd need her own private email server.
"
The unique part with the Clintons was Bill was giving speeches to people who would have assumed they were subject to Hillary. Senator, Sec of State, and then (assumed) President. Imagine Barbara Bush giving speeches to people dealing with her husband while Bush was still in power.
I would say "a real problem" rather than "the real problem"... as for Trump, ludicrous or not, we're stuck with him. Let's hope all those years managing hundreds of companies has taught him something. I would have far rather seen Romney run on a pro-growth platform (because if we have growth then all this discontent disappears) but whatever.
Of course they're not. The larger and more encompassing the gov, the more it's going to be removed from the people. The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of upper management.
Why should Congress or the President pay attention to someone making $10k/year, or even $100k/year, when they don't have the bandwidth to talk to everyone who makes a million a year who wants to deal with them?
Michael J Fox went public with his getting Parkinson's, and the head of one of these "cure-Parkinson's" groups went with him to Congress and met with various high powered members. Afterwards she broke down and started crying; Mike was surprised because he'd thought they were doing pretty well, they got to talk to Trent Lott and so forth. Then he realised she'd been trying to do this sort of thing for years or decades and without the power of his Celebrity, they never would have talked to the Congressmen.
"
I think Trump is even more money motivated than the Clintons, and the talk of "gifts" ignores the way Trump is going to cash in on this. The Trump brand just increased in stature. The Trump organization is well positioned to cash in on this just from a branding standpoint. Even if he never finds out who is assuming what by renting whatever, we now have the appearance of quality and presidential attention.
We'll get an ugly compromise on gifts, maybe handing over his brand to his kids. I seriously doubt a GOP controlled Congress is going to go to war with their unexpectedly popular President on an issue already inspected by the general population.
We've already seen this. HRC made doing her official duties contingent on foreign governments giving money to her charity. That the charity mostly did good things (at least from the Left's standpoint) is irrelevant.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
Stuff like funding your kid's wedding?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/clinton-foundation-head-accused-chelsea-of-using-funds-for-wedding-campaigning-and-avoiding-taxes/
"
The guy's history (reportedly) includes desegregating schools, having the head of the state Klan given the death penalty, and supporting the nomination of Eric Holder.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/in-alabama-jeff-sessions-desegregated-schools-and-got-the-death-penalty-for-kkk-head/article/2005461
On “The Scorecard”
‘No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.’
Any bets on whether Congress will "consent" to the President keeping his empire? Maybe give him a general waver? IMHO they'd be crazy not to, his empire is a big reason why people voted for him.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
Odds are the Left is proclaiming the Right are Nazis again. The Right mostly doesn't see itself as racist.
"
What part of this are we pretending we don't understand? That they're not given big bags of money (fact 1)? Or that they don't do "favours" for the people who do this (fact 2)?
As Marc Rich's pardon demonstrates, the Clintons' behaviour doesn't rise to the level of "criminality" because we can't legally prove an defined agreement between the first fact and the second. However we do know both those facts exist.
Bill and HRC are both lawyers, they know where the lines are drawn. They apparently don't step over lines which end in their arrest. However the line they stay inside is "provably criminal" rather than "ethical" or "appearance of impropriety".
As long as they deliberately mix their personal and public business (for example raising money for her own private "charity" from the people she's doing favours for as the Sec of State) and getting big bags of money transferred to their control; "openly corrupt" (as opposed to "criminal") seems like a good way to describe them.
Feel free to suggest a description other than "openly corrupt", but whatever we say needs to describe how they use their public office to rake in 9 or 10 digits of money.
"
test
"
Trump is in this situation because for months no one serious thought he'd win. Having said that, I have serious doubts that either Obama or Bush before him had good transitions. There were a lot of "not ready yet" mistakes, possibly leading to 911 in Bush's case.
On “On Reversing the Tide”
From their point of view, why is this true?
When Trump does his fowl-mouthed-old-man thing, does he take the Lord's name in vain? Call down God's wrath on someone? Has Trump worshipped other gods (money doesn't count)? Discouraged the worship of God? Sued a church or something?
In other parts of the world, there are Christians being put to death for the crime of having their god. Obama seems determined, because of political correctness, to not call the situation for what it is, even if the followers of that ideology/religion some times show up here and shoot up an army base or gay night club. Hillary would follow Obama's policy.
After that we have... what? Sex? Compare what Trump has said to what Hillary+Bill have actually done.
Trump brings a total lack of dignity to the office, which we might compare to Congress investigating Hillary for various crimes even before she takes office.
Trump's real "sins" (compared to HRC), are an absolutely total lack of piety (i.e. Pride) and a disconnect from what I'll call "the Christian Culture"... although weirdly his family seems really functional (and non-Trump-ish), so I'm not sure how much "family values" would weigh against him.
And then we have the Supreme Court, where Trump has already released "his" list (copied from Heritage or someone)... and this is probably the most important point. Trump offered a simple deal, the Religious Right backs him and he'll use Heritage(?) to pick his Supreme(s). The Court is currently 4-4.
"
:Amusement:
"
To be fair, liberals consider this sort of behaviour "disqualifying" only when it's a member of the GOP. They were just fine with Bill's behaviour and defended him against impeachment... even though the Presidency wasn't at stake with VP Gore also a Dem.
Trump got +5% of Dems to vote for him (i.e. 5% more than Romney), but +4% of the GOP switched to Hillary. So a significant number of people were turned off by either/both sides.
I don't think anyone really condones Trump's behaviour, they ignore or tolerate it because they like the message. For example the Evangelicals went heavy for Trump, not because they approve of his divorces or believe he's actually pro-life, but because he put in writing who he'd put on the Supreme Court.
"
Trump did significantly better than Romney with Blacks, Hispanics, Asians... but not Whites.
Reading the stats... one of the big things which stands out is Trump did a lot better with the poor (under $30k) than Romney.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.