Press "Enter" to skip to content

Lowe, SDDP Hammer Noem over Trump; Keep It Up, Hawks!

From the desk of South Dakota Democratic Party vice-chairman Joe Lowe, I receive this latest call for the morally clueless Kristi Noem to denounce her party’s unqualified Presidential nominee:

During the string of candidate debates between Kristi Noem and Paula Hawks, Representative Noem said she would be voting for Donald Trump. We believe she is just voting the party line even though her candidate is deeply flawed.

Mr. Trump’s comments show that his presidency would like that of a third-world dictator. He said he would lock up his opponent. He wants to sue the women who are accusing him of groping and sexual assault. He wants to require Muslims in the United States to register in a database. He said that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email. He said that our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they’ve ever been in. He said that Mexican immigrants are bringing in drugs and crime and are rapists.

The worst Trump comment that should alarm every American is his refusal to accept the election results unless he wins.

We really question Representative Noem’s reasons for standing behind this man. His values do not represent the values our country was founded on. Apparently Kristi has just become part of the establishment and will just vote the party line [SDDP Vice-Chairman Joe Lowe, statement, 2016.10.22].

Lowe’s statement follows up on a Tuesday statement from SDDP exec Suzanne Jones Pranger on Noem’s indefensible defense of Trump:

The State Party congratulates Representative Paula Hawks on another great debate. Once again, Paula showed she is the right choice in this race on the issues important to all South Dakotans, and will make an excellent Representative for South Dakota in Congress.

I also wanted to commend Paula for the courage she showed by sharing her story as a victim of sexual assault. Paula’s story joins the chorus of many other survivors of sexual assault who say that Donald Trump – someone who has been accused by a growing number of women of sexual assault and was caught on video bragging about actions that amount to sexual assault – is unfit to be president.”

Rep. Noem’s defense of her support of Donald Trump with debunked right-wing conspiracy theories was incredibly insensitive and shows just how out-of-touch she is from the South Dakota values of respect for others and upholding the dignity of the survivors of horrible crimes like sexual assault. Once again Kristi Noem is putting party loyalty above South Dakota values [SDDP exec Suzanne Jones Pranger, statement, 2016.10.19].

Hawks has clearly and vigorously attacked Noem’s moral bankruptcy in sticking with a sexual predator for President. Can that moral stance win Hawks votes in red South Dakota?

I know of no rigorous public Presidential polling in South Dakota since Washington Post/Survey Monkey found Trump leading Clinton 51–37 in early September. I want to speculate that, unless South Dakotans are more contrarian than I expect, Trump’s disqualifying comments in the several weeks since that poll can only have eroded his support. Yet Clinton must not see seven points shifting from the Trump column here: instead of investing in South Dakota, she’s dispatching former South Dakota Senator Larry Pressler to work on his fellow Mormons in Utah.

Nonetheless, given that Noem has fifteen times more money than Hawks (and an even bigger gap between Senate candidate Jay Williams and incumbent Senator John Thune), I suggest that Hawks has everything to gain and nothing to lose by hammering away at whatever disgust with Trump may be bubbling among South Dakota voters. The Republicans clinging to Trump must be reminded of the moral horror behind their misguided party loyalty. The Democrats wanting a fight must be shown a fighter who gives Trumpism no quarter. And the decent folks in the middle must be reminded that of their two choices for U.S. House, only one, Paula Hawks, shares their simple decency in recognizing that Donald Trump is absolutely unqualified for the Presidency of the United States.


  1. mike from iowa 2016-10-23 10:26

    We really question Representative Noem’s reasons for standing behind this man.

    Ain’t it obvious? She stands behind him so he can’t kiss or grope her. Or, she is admiring his manly buttocks.

  2. Troy Jones 2016-10-23 10:26

    In short, choose the one who protects a cad and attacks the cad’s accusers over a cad. A distinction without a difference.

  3. bearcreekbat 2016-10-23 10:35

    Troy, I thought the Catholic Church prohibits divorce, yet you, as a stanch Catholic, still condemn a woman for defending rather than divorcing her husband? I don’t get it.

  4. bearcreekbat 2016-10-23 10:36

    staunch not stanch – sorry.

  5. mike from iowa 2016-10-23 10:52

    choose the one who protects a cad and attacks the cad’s accusers

    Got proof? Other than hearsay from Fake Noize?

  6. Loren 2016-10-23 10:54

    The one sure thing about sending Noem back to DC is knowing how she will vote… she will vote the way she is TOLD! I’m pretty sure it doesn’t take a PHD to take the party talking point, walk over to the podium and select the lever that is indicated on the piece of paper. She certainly hasn’t convinced me she is a deep thinker or that she has a lot of initiative.

  7. mike from iowa 2016-10-23 10:55

    Woman Number 11 came out and accused Drumpf of offering her 10000 dollars for sex and he would let her use his private jet to fly from Vegas to LA if she agreed to the sex. He was married to Melanoma at the time.

  8. Porter Lansing 2016-10-23 11:19

    There’s a quite discernable choice, Mr. Jones. This election is about affirming our Democratic progression of USA’s rebuilding and dismissing your groups obstructionist, lazy governing. Our candidate will certainly move the ball forward. Your party’s goal is to take the air out of it and we all know how that worked for Tom Brady.

  9. Troy Jones 2016-10-23 11:50


    The issue of Trump’s prior marriages (and current) are complex with regard to Trump since he was not married inside the Church. Suffice it to say, any assessment we have on this is a matter of individual prudential judgment and we are to consider it in light if all matters keeping in mind he is not bound by Church law and his awareness of it if he were is likely minimal.


    Are you really asserting that several women haven’t accused Bill of certain conduct ? Are you really asserting nothing occurred in light of the admissions by Bill about Flowers and Lewinsky (and don’t forget the Blue Dress)? Are you really asserting that Hillary didn’t attack each and every one of the accusers? These are all matters of the public record.

    With regard to the recent accusations against Trump, they are she said-he said. How are those accusations different than those of the women accusing Bill?

  10. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-23 11:52

    Paula Hawks has two weeks to remind South Dakota voters that Noem is a huge part of the 93% disapproval rating that congress regularly receives.

    Under Trump’s plan for Constitutional reform, Noem will be out of office in the next term. Is that something she can accept from beloved leader if she wins this election?

    The House is already in disarray even before the election, if Hillary wins this election or Donald for that matter, Paul Ryan is expected to be overthrown within the next 4 weeks. If Noem knew what she was doing she was doing she would be working to ensure the House remains in tact for any transition of power.
    Noem has chosen to defend a candidate with the morals of an alley cat and not the family values of the South Dakota electorate.

  11. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-23 11:55

    Repeat after me, one more time:

    “Bill Clinton is not running for President of the United States”.

  12. mike from iowa 2016-10-23 12:09

    No, Troy. I asked for proof. You are not providing any. Remember Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, except she, by her signed and sworn statement says that was all made up.

    Gennifer Flowers claims of affair in Little Rock’s Hotel Excelsior predate the existence of the hotel by 5 years.

    Kathleen Willey lied to the independent cousnel and the FBI about her claims of misconduct.

    That leaves a single, mostly credible witness who pursued the affair according to Linda Tripp.

    What exactly was HRC’s part in abusing these women?

  13. Rich 2016-10-23 12:18

    Party first, country second. That’s the SDGOP way.

  14. grudznick 2016-10-23 12:56

    Mr. Joe’s hateful partisan hackery will cause Ms. Hawks to lose by even more than she normally would. It’s a done deal.

  15. Ben Cerwinske 2016-10-23 13:02

    If Hillary wins, then Bill will become the First Gentleman (and a powerful one at that). Therefore I believe it is a relevant issue regardless of how you view the evidence.

    The issue of sexual assault allegations are extremely difficult. They’re almost impossible to prove. In Trump’s case though, he has admitted such conduct.

  16. jerry 2016-10-23 13:21

    Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that fact sheet in that hand of yours?
    Hey Joe, I said where you goin’ with that fact sheet in your hand, oh
    I’m goin’ down to prove that NOem lady ain’t doin her job, no
    You know I caught her messin’ ’round supportin the punkin head man..

    Just for you Mr. grudznick, borrowed from “Hey Joe” by my man Jimi Hindrix

  17. bearcreekbat 2016-10-23 14:12

    Troy, perhaps I misunderstood your initial point. I read it to mean that you were attacking Hillary for defending Bill rather than divorcing him. Your response focused on Trump’s divorces instead leaving me a bit puzzled.

    I agree that Trump is not bound by your church’s laws, although I am a bit surprised that any staunch Catholic would defend his divorces, his admitted philandering and attempts to cheat on all three wives, and his bragging about kissing any women he wants and grabbing their genitalia. And many of the allegations that Trump continually made unwanted sexual advances are not actually mere “he said, she said” claims, but are claims corroborated by other people, including individuals that were confided in immediately after Trump alleged kissing and groping, by Trump’s own bragging to Howard Stern and Billy Bush, and in the worst allegations by a woman who signed an affidavit under oath swearing that she witnessed Trump rape and assault a child. If Trump’s lawyers are unable to settle that case, he is toast given the wealth of admissible corroborating evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s allegations.

    See the complaint and sworn affidavits in the district court file at:

    It becomes even more surprising for a staunch Catholic to equate the above conduct to Hillary’s decision to defend her husband against allegations that he denied to her, and to not divorce him when he finally admitted one actual affair with another woman.

    If Hillary belonged to the Catholic church, what would her priest have advised her to do about Bill? Divorce him? Forgive him and make efforts to make the marriage work as it should? I would have thought the latter, yet your comments imply the former.

  18. mike from iowa 2016-10-23 14:41

    JΞSTΞR ✪ ΔCTUAL³³º¹ @th3j35t3r
    Riddle me this. Why is RUSSIA TODAY releasing WIKILEAKS dumps 20 minutes BEFORE WIKILEAKS if they are not in bed together?? >>
    7:51 PM – 22 Oct 2016

  19. bearcreekbat 2016-10-23 16:21

    mfi asks an interesting question: “What exactly was HRC’s part in abusing these women?” CNN’s Steven Holmes examined the evidence surrounding claims about Hillary’s behavior toward Broadrick, Flowers, Willey, Jones and Lewinsky. After describing some of the claims we read in hostile news stories, Holmes reported:

    . . . Hillary Clinton reacted in what could be seen as negative ways. According to some accounts, she at the very least went along with the hiring of a private investigator to look into the background of Gennifer Flowers. Some see her reaction as especially problematic coming from a person who promotes herself as a champion of women.

    Still, Broaddrick’s example of intimidation is open to interpretation, and is weakened by her answer to NBC that no one “near Bill Clinton” had tried to intimidate her. Willey is not able to link the incidents that occurred directly or indirectly to Hillary Clinton. The comments Clinton made about Lewinsky were spoken in private to a close confidante. And Paula Jones has not pointed to a specific attack.

    All, in all, we think Trump’s blanket charge that Clinton “viciously” attacked these women to be an exaggeration too far.

    Hillary’s conduct during difficult times in her marriage might not have been perfect, but the actual evidence suggests that she behaved as a rational, reasonable and loving spouse. Believing and supporting your husband against allegations from other women might well be a mistake, but it is hardly the equivalent of sexually assaulting another person.

  20. Porter Lansing 2016-10-23 16:53

    Hiring a private investigator is the proper response to a political attack on her husbands privacy. What? You think she should just believe some strange person’s allegations without her own facts? Get real, anti-Clinton zealots. Great post, BCB.

  21. jerry 2016-10-23 17:27

    mfi’s question still stand Mr. Jones. Republicans cannot answer that part of loyalty to your spouse as they have some pretty good examples of how they address the same kind of issues. Starting with punkin head, Newt, Girliany. Love escapes these bad hombres.

  22. Troy 2016-10-24 03:13


    I have not once defended Trump’s behavior. In fact, originated a thread on the SDWC asking him to withdraw. All I am noting is the hypocricy for you to use his behavior as a rationale for him being unfit when by the exact same standard Bill and Hillary’s behavior is ignored.

    The constant reference to “hostile sources” only reinforces your double standard. Friendly sources do all they can to excuse it. But, if you want to hold Trump to account, you have to not use the standard of friendly sources but one which it applies equal without regard to the party. Or you are a hypocrite.

  23. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24 04:40

    Jones … Your assertions of equivalency between our candidate, her former USA President husband and your common con-man pretender candidate are unstable rantings from one whom failure is almost to much to take. Imagining listening to your dribble on hypocrisy for the next eight years is our just reward, though. You’re sure welcome to join the progress and help us craft and create a better place for all Americans but you’re going to have to pay your way, for once. No more blaming the poor because your profits are off for a quarter

  24. Troy Jones 2016-10-24 06:19


    If you think Clinton is the best Democrats can nominate, I guess you have your “just” reward. And, it makes sense since the gist of anything you have to say is to personally attack those who disagree with you. Personally, I’m saddened Clinton and Trump are our choices.

    What will be interesting to find out is if Clinton can get support in SD in excess of the Democrat registration. To the degree she doesn’t, she harms down ballot Democrat candidates. To the degree she exceeds, she helps down ballot Democrat candidates.

  25. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24 06:38

    I think HRC is by far the best candidate we could offer. She’s the most qualified candidate in decades and would have easily beaten any of the seventeen your side put up against us. Seeing how there’s no Democrats you don’t dislike your acceptance of her is typical and not worthy of note. Thinking you’re being personally attacked when you assert B.S like this is a “you problem”, Mr. Jones. A bit thicker of a skin would be helpful to your self-esteem. How about a valid credible source for these numbers? Democrat early voter turnout is very high and numbers look to exceed record acceptance of the first woman President in USA history.
    ~ Roughly 25% of the electorate says they support Hillary and 22% support Trump.
    The rest support either support Hillary because they dislike her less than Trump or support Trump because they dislike him less than Clinton.
    Think about it: We will have a President with roughly 75% of the electorate opposed to them. – Troy Jones

  26. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-10-24 07:15

    Troy, I don’t have to posit that Hillary Clinton is the best Democrat we could nominate to join Porter in rejecting false equivalencies between her and the deplorable Republican nominee.

    Strip the names and party labels and look just at résumés. One party nominates a lawyer, social advocate, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State. The other party nominates a reality TV show celebrity and real estate/casino who went bankrupt four times and has no public service résumé. On just that information, most readers would say party #1 choose a reasonable candidate while party #2 must have experienced a strange lack of talent in its primary or some other unusual factors.

    Clinton will get more support than Dem registration. Don’t forget her anomalous popularity in the 2008 primary. That popularity will spill beyond the party boundaries. More South Dakotans will shake off the shouting and vote honest South Dakota values… which Donald Trump does not reflect.

  27. Darin Larson 2016-10-24 07:35

    Troy, you talk about the “exact same standard” not being applies to HRC that was applied to Trump. Are you kidding me? HRC didn’t sexually assault anyone and didn’t brag about being able to get away with it because of who she was.

  28. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24 07:53

    kuh m-PUHNGK-shuh n\
    1. a feeling of uneasiness or anxiety of the conscience caused by regret for doing wrong
    2. any uneasiness or hesitation about the rightness of an action.

  29. mike from iowa 2016-10-24 08:07

    All I am noting is the hypocricy for you to use his behavior as a rationale for him being unfit when by the exact same standard Bill and Hillary’s behavior is ignored.

    Melanoma Drumpf starred in some tittilating girl on girl naked photo shoots and was photographed nude several times. There are also rumors of her being an escort- which I suppose you are unaware of that meaning.

    As for Bill, being the object of malicious and false rumors is not necessarily a disqualifier for a guy WHO IS NOT ON THE THE FREAKIN” BALLOT!

  30. jerry 2016-10-24 09:04

    Thankfully Troy Jones comes to the place to show us how convoluted his republicans think about the obvious. When I read Mr, Jones it is not lost on me how far through the looking glass republicans have sunk. The 32% base, of which Mr. Jones is a card carrying member, is a clear and present danger to what happens when party ignorance rules. I now call that the Trump Syndrome, a very dark place where up is down and reality has waived bye bye. Only way to cure the funk is to elect Paula Hawks for starters, then to start the purge of the South Dakota legislature. No more stinkin thinkin as business as usual, we need new ideas and new directions.

  31. jerry 2016-10-24 09:38

    NOem fully supports Trump who tweeted this yesterday on the battle for Mosul, Iraq. “Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
    The attack on Mosul is turning out to be a total disaster. We gave them months of notice. U.S. is looking so dumb. VOTE TRUMP and WIN AGAIN!”
    No where in our history has a nominee for the presidency disrespected the lives of the military involved in war time service, unless they were anarchists. NOem supports someone who is so totally anti military, that the stink is starting to stick to her much like the skunk spray we now smell across the state.

    BTW, Mosul, Iraq is a large complex city of about 2 million civilian people. This place must be taken with the blood and guts of the allied troops on the ground. Trump and those who think likewise are idiots that do not understand the complexity of urban warfare.

  32. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24 09:49

    We need a leader who calls a military operation “dumb”? Does his only voting block, working class white males respond to that language?

  33. bearcreekbat 2016-10-24 10:34

    Troy, I think you must be taking “dodge and weave” lessons from Kelly Ann Conway. I asked you some pretty straightforward questions about your assessment of Hillary but you don’t seem inclined to respond. You indicated you disliked Hillary because of she is “the one who protects a cad and attacks the cad’s accusers.” Apparently you condemn Hillary for believing, supporting, and ultimately forgiving Bill, rather than divorcing him.

    Forget about Trump for a minute and focus on what drives your anger, fear or hatred of Hillary. It could be that your angst really comes from within rather than from anything you believe Hillary did or should have done. And because of our prior conversations I believe you to be a staunch Catholic, which I would think could help you decide whether it is consistent with the teachings of your faith to criticize Hillary because of her behavior during her husband’s infidelities. My straightforward questions to you are:

    If Hillary belonged to the Catholic church, what would her priest have advised her to do about the allegations that Bill denied and the conduct that he admitted? Believe him? Forgive him and make efforts to make the marriage work as it should? Divorce him?

    Simply answer these questions, ignore them altogether, or dodge and weave again. Your choice will reveal a great deal about what is behind your critique of Hillary as a spouse.

  34. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-24 11:24

    Holy Cow!
    David Newquist’s newest blog post is powerful, a must read.

  35. bearcreekbat 2016-10-24 11:45

    mfi – great link! I laughed until I teared up.

    Roger, thanks for the heads up on Newquist’s post. Let’s hope he is wrong about a possible violent civil war when Trump loses.

  36. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-24 11:55

    Way funny link mfi, thanks.

  37. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24 12:13

    Great article, Dr. Newquist.
    Concerning a violent uprising, one needn’t worry that HRC would be intimidated by deplorables. Compared to the milder mannered President Obama, she’ll govern …… well, let me use two words — A-10 Warthog.

  38. mike from iowa 2016-10-24 12:13

    Northern Valley Beacon article was really good (as per usual). Thanks to you, Roger for bringing it to our attention.

    For a look at Amerika 180 degrees out of phase with reality- try C4P- conservatives for Palin- just the facts.

    Yoko sez she had a brief romantic fling with HRC back in the 70’s. Of course wingnuts jumped all over this as proof HRC is a lesbian and unfit for the WH.

    Ah the 70’s. I fondly remember Herbie. Jeez, mfi, are you gay?

  39. jerry 2016-10-24 12:31

    Roger, what would be the rally cry of those opposed to democracy? How could the old guys take themselves away from the coffee shops to march out into the hills or into the cities to battle whom? The supply chain at McDonald’s would soon run out of cakes and sausage leaving the old farts to a diet of oatmeal and dirty water. Diarrhea and dysentery killed more in the American Civil War than bullets ever even thought of. What about those guns that we all have, what happens when you run out of ammo or just get tired of carrying all that stuff after you have run out of gas? As long as we have our bellies full and the checks keep coming, it will hard to take Americans away from the living room tee vee no matter what Trump says. LaVoy Finicum thought differently and old LaVoy was a victim of his own stupidity, but got to keep his hat. There out there for sure, but it does not take to much to identify the leaders and take them out of the picture. Take a look at what is going on in Standing Rock to see how it is done with an unarmed opposition that should have us all up in arms to protect our water. Instead, we want to ignore it because Indians and all of that inconvenient stuff. If we do not give a damn about our drinking water, then the talk about an armed insurrection is just that, ugly talk. Punkin Head and his moll, NOem are just undemocratic in a society that has abide by the Constitution that they think is just a piece of paper.

  40. Troy 2016-10-24 12:44


    Serious? You want me to give marriage counseling to two people and pretend I’m an ordained Priest and they are Catholic and part of my flock? As it what they should do is above my pay grade, I’ve never made a statement what Bill and Hillary should have done with regard to their marriage. My only comment has been simple (despite your and other’s attempt to draw conclusions about my motive or views).

    My comment is nothing more than: The view Trump is unfit because he is a cad and not applying the same moral and intellectual standard to the Clinton’s is hypocritical because Bill too is a cad and Hillary attacked his accusers PUBLICLY. Give me an example of another person whose spouse did what he did where the cheated upon spouse publicly attacked the “other women?”

  41. jerry 2016-10-24 12:47

    Just keep pretending your hate is not misdirected. What is it about women that scares the hell out of you dude?

  42. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-24 13:03


    Many of the Trump defenders have come out in recent weeks to say that Trump has changed and should be forgiven his “grab ’em by the Pu**y” comment and for groping numerous because it was so long ago.
    Trump himself declared at last debate that “nobody respects women more than I do”.
    If Trump supporters can forgive Trump for statements and actions made a decade ago why can’t they forgive Bill Clinton for his actions two decades ago? The GOP is indeed the party of hypocrites.

  43. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-24 13:10

    Did you bother to read bear’s link to the affidavits filed by Trump’s 13 year old rape victim?
    You can find it on bear’s post 10/23/16 at 14:12.
    This is your Donald Trump and hell be called to answer some motions sometime in December, hopefully.

  44. Roger Cornelius 2016-10-24 13:12

    The 70’s were almost as fascinating as the 60’s.
    As a reminder of those times, peace activists Tom Hayden died today.

  45. bearcreekbat 2016-10-24 13:13

    Troy, thanks for your response as it clarifies where you stand when it comes to marriage, trust, defending a spouse and divorce. My apologies for bringing your religion into the discussion as that is really none of my business since you have not relied on your religion to attack or defend either candidate. I mistakenly thought this was an area were we both agreed about the views of the church, but I recognize that I was wrong.

    As for Hillary’s “public attack” perhaps you could reference which public attack or attacks you are referencing? From what I have read, Hillary’s comments about Lewinsky were made privately. I think Hillary publicly called Flowers a failed cabaret singer, but I am unsure if that qualifies as an “attack” in your view.

    I assume you read the CNN Reality Check I posted, which seems to debunk the “public attack” meme.

    Here is another one:

    According to Romper,

    “A 2015 CNN report revealed that when Clinton was asked about Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones on the campaign trail, she replied: “Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

    So which “public attacks” are you referencing?

  46. bearcreekbat 2016-10-24 13:25

    Troy here is a link to Politifact’s analysis. After discussing each case Politifact concluded:

    Trump said that Hillary Clinton “viciously” attacked women who accused Bill Clinton of abuse.

    Bill Clinton certainly has been accused of sexual assault and having affairs. The record shows Hillary Clinton played a role in defending her husband, and that the Clintons’ first presidential campaign deployed tough tactics to defend against stories of consensual sex.

    But in the cases of alleged abuse by Broaddrick, Willey and Jones, Hillary Clinton was largely silent. The words she allegedly had with Broaddrick are subject to interpretation. Approving the release of Willey’s letters does qualify as an attack, but using a person’s words against them is a fairly tame tactic. And Clinton did not attack Jones directly.

    Overall, we rate the claim Mostly False.

  47. mike from iowa 2016-10-24 13:51

    Good one, Roger. Let’s stir up the rabble. Tom Hayden was married to “Hanoi Jane” Fonda and maybe sired an activist or two.

    OMG! They had one son together. Guess what their son Troy’s name is? Troy for the win!!!!

  48. Porter Lansing 2016-10-24 14:11

    There’s a young politician in the MidWest with many of Mr. Hayden’s traits. Can’t remember his name though. Nebraska or North Dakota, I recall.
    “If you assume that there is no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, then there is a possibility that you can contribute to making a better world.” – NC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.