What the Dems need to do to win

November 5, 2018 • 12:00 pm

by Grania

I watched an interesting discussion with Rick Wilson, who is a never-Trump Conservative. He’s got some good pointers on why Republicans have been able to pull off wins, and what the Democrats need to do to defeat them, particularly in 2020.

It’s worth a listen. If you need motivation to listen, then first take a look at this thread by Daniel Dale, Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, who has been dutifully detailing all the things claimed at Trump rallies, most of it as one now has come to expect, fear-mongering, lies and manifestly inaccurate claims.

 

Unfortunately, also as one has now come to expect, the intended target audience laps it up and makes its own excuses for the inconsistencies and the unsavory character of the man delivering the claims.

If you have an hour to spare, this is not only interesting but also entertaining as Rick has a way with words, and also hates Bannon possibly more than he hates Trump.

 

126 thoughts on “What the Dems need to do to win”

  1. That Dale twitter feed is a vindication of one of Trump’s charges. It is clearly not the feed of a neutral observer. But that is what Dale pretends to be. You don’t defeat Trump by proving him right.

    1. How do you suggest an honest journalist cover a president who constantly prevaricates, fear-mongers, and race-baits? By spuriously pretending these things (unprecedented by a US president) aren’t occurring? By affecting a bogus sense of balance?

      Is there anything inaccurately attributed to Trump in Dale’s twitter feed?

    2. It depends on what you mean by “neutral observer”. If you mean that Dale should present Trump’s utterances and “let the audience decide”, then he’s clearly not that kind of neutral. Dale is neutral in the sense that he’s not lying himself in order to put his own spin on Trump’s speech acts.

      It is proper for a reporter to point out when someone they are covering is lying. Since Trump lies so often, this can make reporters seem biased against him and, since they are reasonable, knowledgeable human beings, they may actually be biased against him. Still, the alternative would be to not call Trump on his lies. I think Dale makes the right choice.

    4. That’s like saying a weather reporter in Seattle is not a neutral observer when she reports it’s raining when it’s raining.
      That it rains heavy and often doesn’t make the observation biased.

      1. Good analogy! That weather reporter would only be biased, as I see it, if they deliberately mis-reported how heavy the rain was to further their own agenda. (Perhaps, like me, they like rain.)

    5. How in the world can anyone even be neutral when talking about Trump? More to the point – why in the world should we read anything by someone who is neutral on Trump?

      1. And yet you ask why you lose.

        People do not like being told what to think, and they discount criticism from biased sources. Those two things are true of me, and I bet they are true of you. Why do you think they are not true of Trump voters?

        1. On most issues, any one who’s writing is neutral about Trump is simply not being honest – with themselves or with their readers. He is the most polarizing politician in the US today and to take him at his word on ANYthing is a mistake. One either accepts his incessant lies and malevolence and excuses them or one doesn’t – there is no middle ground.

          1. None of which is responsive to my point. Dale pretends to be neutral. He is not. This is exactly a complaint Trump makes.

            BTW, I agree you should never take Trump at his word. I told my Canadian friends this when they were upset by his nafta comments in the election. I predicted it was bullshit, that he’d get small tweaks, and claim a win, so much winning. Same with NATO.

          2. Please explain what a “neutral observer” is. Furthermore, explain how any Trump supporter would consider anyone who points out lies Trump is telling to be “neutral” in any way.

            I agree with your general point that people don’t like being told what to think, and I believe that reasonable people on the entire ideological spectrum would like to see less biased reporting and publications, but I think you need to define “neutral observer,” and then explain how a Trump supporter would believe anyone who calls Trump a liar is at all “neutral.” Because, even if a “neutral observer” exists, your statements still don’t add up to anything if you can’t provide a reason that virulent Trump supporters would find someone who calls him out to be “neutral.”

          3. I think it is clear that Dale opposes Trump. But he pretends, in his reporting, to be a neutral observer. This is exactly one of Trump’s complaints is it not? That press people with a bias pretend not to have a bias. CNN pretends not to be anti Trump, but they are. ( He does not complain about Fox having a pro Trump bias of course.) So here we have an example, Canada’s biggest paper, pretending its reporters aren’t biased. And he transparently is.
            But the mindset here seems to be that of the 100% mind.

          4. I’ve heard people say this but it leaves me wondering how a reporter would cover Trump and still be a neutral observer in your eyes. Do you know any reporters that have done this? Are there examples of their “neutral” reporting on YouTube? At the risk of speaking for the rest, it seems that if a reporter called Trump on his lies, you would call him or her biased (not neutral).

          5. Again, I am not disputing whether or not Dale is neutral. I am asking you to define what a neutral source would be, and how it would still be considered neutral once it pointed out Trump lies (because, if they can’t be considered neutral at that juncture, your whole point about Dems wondering why they lost makes no sense).

            You keep dodging the questions.

          6. You can only dismiss what Trump says as BS if you are not actually negotiating something in which you have a stake. Trump has shown that he is willing to do many of the awful things he threatens to do.

        2. Would you mind clarifying for everyone the inaccuracies in the article to which you refer?

          Because so far all you’ve done is make a bunch of charged assertions and declined to back any of them up.

          And FYI, the whole ‘this kind of thing is why people vote Trump’ rhetorical manoeuvre, which seems to be pulled out by apologists whenever anyone criticises Trump or his supporters using language that is insufficiently soothing and euphemistic, is beginning to wear very thin indeed.

          Besides it doesn’t say very much for these mythical salt-of-the-earth, blue-collar, Real Americans if their response to arguments that are not phrased in a sufficiently respectful way is to immediately go out and vote for a lunatic.

          3. Okay, at this point, having already asked you to substantiate this false claim, I am calling you a liar. I did not refer to a single alleged inaccuracy. Nor indeed to a single claim made in the “article”.

          4. @Ken B: You claimed the reporter is biased against Trump. That clearly implies you think he has spun the facts in some way. I’ve read some of the Twitter thread and I don’t see any examples of anti-Trump bias.

            So instead of calling other posters here liars, why don’t you provide some evidence to substantiate your claim. I think you’ll find you get a less hostile response, if you do.

          7. That was MY question to you. Jesus Christ. ..

            If there are no inaccuracies in the article what precisely is your problem with it? You’ve still to give a single example of what your problem is with the article, all you’ve done is hop about like a mountain goat, from one pile of rocks to the other.

            As for the accusation of being ‘a liar’, I find it hard to take it seriously coming from you. You seem to be incapable of arguing in good faith, as evidenced by your slipperiness in this thread.

          9. Go ahead Jerry and ban me but this shit is too characteristic of this place. I made one point, with specificity. This was deliberately misrepresented by this poster.

            Making ANY point against a Trump critique is misrepresented as supporting every fucking thing Trump says or does. Talk about the 100% mind.

            Sorrel-Till has repeatedly asserted I referred to alleged inaccuracies. Where?

          10. Rather than play the victim here, you might be able to clean this up by simply explaining what you meant by “That Dale twitter feed is a vindication of one of Trump’s charges.” I hope I am fairly representing the issue here but, as I see it, this seems to imply Dale has indulged in some sort of fake news on his thread. If so, what did he say wrong?

          11. No, I didn’t. Go back and look at my post. I asked you if you could cite any inaccuracies in the article to which you referred:

            “Would you mind clarifying for everyone the inaccuracies in the article* to which you refer?”

            I never claimed you said there were inaccuracies in it – I asked for examples of inaccuracies. I expected that, in the event that you were incapable of citing any, you’d have the decency to concede that your initial whining complaint was bullshit.

            Again, for the third time, what is your problem with this article? Either you have some evidence to back up your complaint or you don’t. If it’s really too much effort for you just admit it. It’s half ten in the evening here, I’m tired, and you’re approximately 12% as interesting as you think you are.

            *or twitter feed, or whatever

          12. Paul Topping wrote; “you might be able to clean this up by simply explaining what you meant by “That Dale twitter feed is a vindication of one of Trump’s charges.””

            Actually Ken did exactly that when he said (just above): “That press people with a bias pretend not to have a bias. CNN pretends not to be anti Trump, but they are. ( He does not complain about Fox having a pro Trump bias of course.)…”

            Now you can disagree with Ken, but he did state that from the get-go and he has a point with this Dale fella (my response to Ken was – “so what”? :-)). Trump has a kinda, sorta point too; the “media” is NOT without bias. Of course, being Trump, he blows that up with insane and dangerous lies.

            Frankly I wouldn’t WANT an unbiased media – but that’s because I believe few of them on their own. For many things, I need to see claims made by various media before I’ll buy into them (to greater or lesser degrees). I know….YMMV.

            To take this away from the shitstorm of politics – every time I read an article in the media about a scientific item that I have expertise in, I find myself gritting my teeth because of the inaccuracies, misunderstandings and (sometimes) the politicization of the reporting. The media, like the internet, is a vast wasteland. But, like the internet, there are oases of good reporting and (again YMMV).

          13. Yes, I read the “bias” bit but, as I have already commented, it is hard to see what kind of unbiased reporting Ken expects. Yes, the MSM has a bias … a bias toward truth. They can’t report Trump fairly without calling him on his lies. They can’t call him on his lies without being seen as in opposition to Trump. In Trump’s eyes, and perhaps Ken’s, the only way they can be neutral, non-biased, is to simply ignore his lies.

            I know hear you on the science reporting but it is really not a good analogy. Where science reporters go wrong is when they try to explain something they barely understand to readers who know even less. Most of the mistakes made here are honest ones. I don’t think reporters are twisting Trump’s words, either accidentally or on purpose. I guess the closest reporters come to that is when they claim Trump’s words represent a racist or nationalist “dog whistle”. It is often claimed by Trump apologists that these dog whistles are imaginary. I don’t buy it but at least it is at least an opinion, and not something that can be proven absolutely.

          15. Well put. It reminds me of when a Trump supporter says that his heart is in the right place. What heart? What place? I get the feeling they aren’t willing to tell you the real reason they support Trump.

    6. I don’t understand what you are referring to with “proving him right”. It could be interpreted to mean that you think Dale proves that journalists are the enemy of the people. Given the fact that you are commenting here, I assume you are referring to something else which I haven’t heard of.

        1. Theoretically it is possible but what is Trump right about? I can’t think of anything. His tax cuts may have given corporate American a short-term boost but at the expense of the deficit.

          1. The only thing I can think of is the commuting (no pardon mind you) of Alice Johnson’s life sentence for a non-violent drug charge. At the same time, he wouldn’t have done it without Kim Kardashian’s urgings, so he only gets partial credit.

          3. Irrelevant. I said ONE thing Trump complains about is vindicated by this thread. But that is misrepresented as me saying the thread is full of inaccuracies, or that I agree with ANOTHER DIFFERENT claim Trump made.
            This is the 100% mind at work.

          5. Yes, but that ONE thing you said was wrong and it didn’t vindicate Trump. And the “100% mind at work” is obviously getting in your head.

        2. Hmmm… I was hoping for a direct answer to a question that was at least clearly implied. Instead I got a rhetorical question unrelated to anything I have ever written here or anywhere else.

          Calling the press the enemy of the people and hedging about a journalist getting assassinated by a political ally is not ‘wrong about some things’. It is completely alien to sane discourse.

    7. @Ken B:

      You keep pretending Trump is a normal politician. He is not.

      Donald Trump is unqualified to hold any position of public trust. He is certainly unfit for the office of the presidency — by experience and training, by intellect, by character, and by temperament. He came into office an arrant ignoramus on matters of public policy and governmental affairs, and — from all appearances — he will leave office an arrant ignoramus on public policy and governmental affairs, too.

      He does not read, seems incapable of learning in any conventional sense, and refuses to follow competent advice. Of the people he’s surrounded himself with, half are flunkies chosen for their obsequiousness; the other half he refuses to pay any heed of. That’s why he has more than double the rate of staff and cabinet turnover of any previous US president.

      Trump is a narcissist nonpareil, an inveterate (perhaps, compulsive) liar, and, quite possibly, a sociopath. He puts his own interests — both personal greed and unslakeable need for self-aggrandizement — ahead of country, ahead of party, ahead of common human decency. He’s driven by a morbid fear of looking weak and being labeled a “loser.” To avoid that end he may well jeopardize the constitutional foundations of this great Republic, and — it is impossible to rule out — the safety and well-being of the free world.

      Now, a guy like that — well, the ordinary contours of objective journalism as they’ve developed over the generations we’ve enjoyed a free press have never had to deal with anything like Trump before.

      1. You got that right. I think the press has never really had to deal with a guy like Trump (no sane people have), so it isn’t surprising that much of the media is so critical of him.

      4. I don’t need to read the second half of Bob Woodward’s book now.

        Having read a little over half of it, I would add a this category to your staff classification: there is also a group of, what Woodwood calls, natural predators. These are people like Ivanka and Jared for whom the whole thing is a personal political game, a zero sum game at that. The objective is not to make America great again but to make themselves great and, because they believe it to be a zero sum game, that means destroying other White House staffers.

        I think Trump has turned the White House into a real life version of The Apprentice.

        2. …or a version of Survivor. Anyone can get “voted” off the island at any moment.
          The news is saying there will be a major turnover in staff after the midterms. I don’t think Ivanka and Jared have anything to worry about. The few sane heads, like Jim Mattis, will be replace by more casino lounge thugs.

          1. I don’t know Survivor. The reason I chose The Apprentice (apart from the fact that Trump hosted it in the US) is that it sets up a weird dynamic where you have to work with a team of people to win the task and avoid being in the firing line, but the people you are working with are also your competitors. I’ve seen it in the past that people appear* to have deliberately sabotaged a task in order to get their team leader fired who they perceive as a threat in the overall competition.

            * I say “appeared” because the programme is subject to editing by the production team whose objective is to entertain the viewers, not give an honest account of what happened.

  2. I am almost done with Wilson’s book “Everything Trump Touches Dies.” It’s a good read, filled with hilarious observations and insights (and insults) about Trump and his associates. It’s a bit like Art Buchwald meets Al Franken meets Hunter S. Thompson. Wilson also lets the Dems have it, and no doubt the advice he gives in the book is much the same as in the video.

  3. I enjoy listening to the Never Trumpers for obvious reasons. They demonstrate that their conservatism is not so strong that they’ll put up with the lies, cheating, demagoguery, and false populism of Trump and his followers. Unfortunately, I suspect they have little influence over Trump voters as they are too easily lumped in with the educated elites that Trump warns them not to trust. In their minds, if they are paid by CNN then they are just more “fake news”.

    1. When Donald Trump eventually craters (as assuredly he will) and the smoke clears, it’ll be the never-Trump Republicans who’ll be in line for the “Profile in Courage” awards. I’ve long disagreed with most of them on most things — still do! — but there are many principled conservatives in the never-Trump camp for whom I’ve gained a great deal of respect, Rick Wilson (and his fellow former GOP strategists Steve Schmidt and Mike Murphy) among them.

    2. This is weird and backwards. Never Trumpers put their conservative principles *before* party loyalty. Trump has driven a lot of them out of the party. That,s the main reason 55 house members retired — Trump’s party is not the party they want.

      1. Many of the Never Trumpers have said that they think Trump is too high a price to pay for putting conservative judges on the Supreme Court, for example. I see your point also. There are several ways to look at it.

        1. Paul, that IS my point. Conservatives want conservative judges right? But the never Trumpers will pass up on the chance if it means they have to support Trump. Ergo, they are putting their principles above political interests.
          Are we just miscommunicating? Do you mean they will sacrifice *advancing their agenda*? Because that I agree with, but it’s an example of putting principle over expediency.

        2. Therein lies their nobility; they’ve put principle before Party and narrow political interest, something way too many pusillanimous establishment Republicans have refused to do. They allowed Trump to slither out of the slime-pit of Birtherism and to conquer their party. Now they are afraid to cross him for fear of inciting the wrath of his white-nationalist base.

          There will be condign hell to pay in the end, mark my words — you shall know it by the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. 🙂

  4. “What the Dems need to do to win”

    Well that one is simple: VOTE! and vote like the democratic future of the country depends on it, because it does.

    2. Nah, I’m just gonna stay home and tweet my anger instead. It’s far easier AND I get to extra virtue signaling points if I blame white men!

      1. Huh? What’s that got to do with anything? How did you make such a leap?

        Are you really so fixated on white identity politics that you can’t bear not to talk about it for more than half an hour?

        This kind of itch-scratching white-male persecution complex is just the inverse of the far-left and their grievance mongering.

          1. Yes, Grania is correct, I was being a wee bit of a smart ass, channeling my inner SJW… 🧐 I will be voting, although I am not optimistic about the outcome. I live in Redneckistan, aka the Bible Belt, and see no hope of a “blue wave”, but, if I take the philosophical view, in 10 years we’ll all be dead or laughing at something else…

          2. Fair enough mate.

            “In ten years we’ll all be dead”

            I really was hoping for a bit longer than that tbh.

          4. I know it was a joke, but the constant persecution complex with some of my fellow white guys gets wearing.

            “always assume the /s tag” – is this a kind of ‘web buddha’ zen commandment? Like ‘mention not Hitler in the thread’, and ‘feed never the troll’?

          7. That makes sense when there’s a “sarcasm” to start it off. (I’d prefer to make it even less confusing.) Perhaps there was one in this case but I think I have seen /s without.

          9. Us computer people sometimes put any word we want inside a tag: … and for one with no internal text. Why restrict yourself to real HTML tag names like ‘s’ that can be confusing? Is it strikeout, sarcasm, or starving?

  5. Trump has done everything he can to make the midterm elections about himself, going all in with his nativism, xenophobia, and race-baiting — running his own counterpart to the infamous “Willie Horton” tv ad; sending US troops to the boarder to confront a “caravan” of asylum-seeking refugees he falsely claims contains Middle Easterners and MS-13 members; turning lose his minions to make racist robocalls against the black gubernatorial candidates in Georgia and Florida.

    Once the elections are over, this is shaping up to be the most eventful lame-duck session of congress ever, with Trump likely making a move on Attorney General Sessions (probably this week, perhaps as early as tomorrow night after the polls close) in an effort to close or curtail the Mueller investigation. Mueller, for his part, also seems poised to drop a bombshell or two of his own soon, likely with an indictment of the Trump administration’s greasy éminence gris, Roger Stone, possibly with charges against Jared Kushner and DJT Junior to follow.

    1. Given the reality of the last presidential election that gave as POTUS Trump I am far too cynical to actually be hopeful. But of interest, there were many young people at my polling place voting when I went to vote and I’ve never seen that before here. Never. And this is a town known for being mostly older, conservative wealthy and redneck on the mid to lower income / working class side. Blindly Republican voters in other words.

      1. I guess that I am hopeful and fearful at the same time. In Colorado, if the Independents show up, the Dems should do fine, but…. As an aside, CO is completely mail-in, paper balloting and is considered the state with the most secure voting.

        1. Well if CO voting is secure (as is OR and WA which also have mail-in only) then that is a positive, not a negative. Republicans cheat in many ways, having secure voting curtails many of their tactics: closing and moving voting places, demanding voter i.d.s, making people stand for hours in order to vote, obviating the need for provisional ballots, etc.

          2. Oh, sorry. The “as an aside” sentence made me think you were leaning towards “fearful”.

  6. In a interesting take on bipartisanship, the two most popular governors in the country are moderate Republicans in democratic states (Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan from Massachusetts and Maryland).
    https://morningconsult.com/2018/07/25/americas-most-and-least-popular-governors-2/

    It makes sense because activists are more extreme than the people. Also moderate Republicans (not Trumpians) tend to be fiscally conservative which can help reign in the impulses of Democrats who (in Oregon at least) tend not to look towards the future obligations.

    1. Given recent Republican presidents’ budgets, tax-cuts, and increases to the deficit, they are even worse at looking to our future obligations. Republicans only dislike spending when they don’t control it or when it isn’t used to line their own pockets, and that of their friends. And if the Dems take the House as expected, we will see how Trump is making lots of money from his presidency.

        1. Skeptical that Mercatus Center is an unbiased source; anyone who ranks Kansas as #17 in fiscal responsibility has a skewed perspective. It and the university seem to be Koch affiliated.

  7. I suppose there is a sense in which I have greater disdain for Bannon than Trump, but I fear Trump more than I fear Bannon, partly because of his greater capacity to do damage, and partly because he is even less predictable.

    1. Yes, this is a very good point. People like Bannon are ten-a-penny, and have been for decades.

      People like Trump, genuinely dangerous populists, are far thinner on the ground, because they combine a whole load of traits, like shamelessness, dishonesty, a complete willingness to tear down laws to keep themselves out of trouble, with a kind of grotesque, bloated carnival-show charisma, and an incredibly natural, intuitive feel for the gremlins of the conservative mind. He is a perfect storm of awfulness.

  8. Trump’s poll numbers have been going down as he continues to campaign, and Republicans in Congress are whinging that he’s doing everything he can to seemingly make this entire election nothing more than a referendum on his administration when they’d dearly likely to campaign on their own local issues.

  9. Trump’s poll numbers have been going down as he continues to campaign, and Republicans in Congress are whinging that he’s doing everything he can to seemingly make this entire election nothing more than a referendum on his administration when they’d dearly likely to campaign on their own local issues.

    1. The House Republicans are also pissed because Trump has abandoned those races since he knows they’re a lost cause. He’s focusing all his malevolent energy on Senate races.

  10. Trump barely won in 2016, so I have a hard time seeing him do better in 2020, with his record of lies, incompetence, and criminality.

  11. I enjoy listening to Wilson and other never-Trumpers (Charlie Sykes, Max Boot, etc.). Up to a point. While it is good that there are conservatives out there who refuse to sink completely into the sewer, there is precious little reflection about how they helped create the sewer that horrifies them. Trumpism didn’t appear out of the blue. It has been nurtured for decades by a Republican establishment who nurtured this base, who created and nurtured propaganda machines like Fox News and the talk radio horror shows of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. The idea that facts can be countered by “alternative facts” and “we make our own reality” flow naturally from a base that’s been brought up on fundamentalist religion whose leaders have been more and more important to the Republican Party since the days of Ronald Reagan.

    /rant

    If you’re an American and you haven’t voted yet, get out there tomorrow. This is not a time to pretend that your vote doesn’t matter. The Republican Party must be reborn and that can’t happen until it is demolished.

    1. As you say, the Republican establishment created the fertile ground in which Trump festers but, for the most part, the Never Trumpers did not participate in that. I used to read Max Boot;s editorials in the LA Times occasionally. I didn’t always agree with him but I don’t remember him spouting any conspiracy theories or siding with Limbaugh and his ilk. We might wish they would have fought against them but I don’t think we should discard our allies against Trump for that. The best we can hope for is to get back to the time when the two parties respectfully disagreed but cooperated when they could.

      1. That is going to be a long time coming. I don’t see anything in the foreseeable future to bring it about. Split is just too wide.

          3. The past is never dead; it’s not even past, as a wise novelist from Oxford, MS, wrote. If anyone knew a thing or two about how the Civil War didn’t end at Appomattox, it was he.

    4. You give the Democrats a free pass and this is more partisan rant than real analysis of the Trump phenomenon. If the Democrats lose then maybe they will reconsider their alliance with Regressive Leftism.

      2. No, we should not give the Democrats a free pass. But, Regressive Leftism is at least an attempt at supporting the disenfranchised minorities against the power of historically entrenched institutions. This is a positive and even a noble attempt, as naive and misguided as much of it has become. But, the dark tunnel we are now going through is driven by bigotry, greed and fear. Make comparisons at your own risk.

  12. in re my district ?
    for the U N I T E D States Congress ?

    I want this very nice man*,
    this very qualified man
    to finally TAKE AWAY the reins
    from this very mean, this very cowardly and
    this quite corrupted 16 – year incumbant,
    Mr King. Mr King, the UNkindest.

    Please 4th District voters of I o w a:
    GET THIS ONE DONE.

    “IF you build it, they will come.”
    PLEASE COME OUT for Mr J D … …, please:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC7_lmtDysM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFWy4C9MSQw

    Blue
    * Grandma Fern’s darling kiddo … …

    1. I’m with ya, Blue. If there’s any troglodyte that needs to be cashiered from congress, it’s Iowa’s Steve King. Send him back whence he came — the 19th century.

  15. Trump is just a symptom of the disease- which is the GOP going back decades. Focus on Trump is just a distraction from how the GOP have been robbing the American people since Gingrich. Whenever the GOP are in control, they benefit the super rich and screw the rest of us and the planet. How can any reasonable, humanitarian person support the GOP?

  16. I just finished his book. You’re right – he has a lot of good advice for Democrats. I totally agree with him that we are not good at politics and desperately need to learn some harsh lessons quickly.

  17. The Rick Wilson Video is an absolute must see! Worth every mouth watering word spoken! Absolutely stunningly true! Thank You! For your eyes on it! 🙂 <3

Comments are closed.