Gene Lyons' column from last week!


Yes, he actually could:
Could Donald J. Trump get re-elected?

Yes, he actually could! Then again, something quite different could occur, possibly unconnected to any election.

With that in mind, Michael Cohen said the following to the House Oversight Committee:
COHEN (2/27/19): Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power, and this is why I agreed to appear before you today.
Cohen fears that there will never be a peaceful transition of power? Does that make any sense at all? Is that just totally crazy?

We're not entirely sure. We believe that we ourselves have mentioned that possibility in the past—and yes, Donald J. Trump does hold the nuclear codes.

We're not saying that Donald J. Trump would actually use those codes. We've just said it's a possibility, given the fact that the sitting president seems to perhaps and possibly be some version of "mentally ill."

Nor would this president likely take well to impeachment, or to attempted removal from office. Sectors of our liberal tribe are currently in love with those thrilling possibilities. Like Dr. Bandy X. Lee, we regard the sitting president as potentially "dangerous."

These peculiar things having been said, a new election is underway, and with it "election coverage." With that in mind, we strongly recommend Gene Lyon's syndicated column from last week.

Because we'd been called away from our sprawling campus on a mission of national import, we missed the column in real time. In his essay, Lyons brought his pungent wit to bear on the way our presidential elections have been "covered" over the past thirty years:
LYONS (2/20/19): [T]he kinds of insulting trivialities the nation's self-infatuated pundit class have long used to ridicule previous Democratic candidates are already in evidence. Remember Al Gore's bald spot and three-button suits? John Kerry windsurfing and his choice of the wrong—indeed, downright "inauthentic"—cheese on his Philly cheesesteak sandwiches?

Meanwhile, everybody supposedly wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush, a down-to-earth regular guy (and recovering alcoholic). And, quite coincidentally, the worst American president since the mid-19th century.

Until now.
Gene, who is a long-distance friend, had alerted us to the Washington Post's Power Pundit Rankings, the pitiful but highly familiar nonsense on which his column focused. As he continued, he stated several important points:
LYONS (continuing directly): Because an American presidential election is above all a TV show, print pundits must go to considerable lengths to get noticed (and, if possible, appear on TV). Hence the Post's made-for-TV power ratings. Readers are treated like so many children watching Saturday morning cartoons, candidates like animated characters.

So anyway, here we go. Right down the slippery slide to mass-market inanity: clothing, hairstyles, food choices, sexual peccadillos. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand eats fried chicken with a fork (inauthentic). Sen. Corey Booker is a self-righteous vegan (snob)...
And so on, but also so true! We the people actually are "treated like so many children" within modern pundit culture (though it seems we don't much notice).

And yes, a modern White House election actually is "an [extremely long-running] TV show." Stars are paid millions of dollars per year to keep viewers tuning in over the course of two years.

(How many millions of dollars? You aren't permitted to know! You're only asked to be concerned about the possible effects of large sums floating to Trump.)

The sheer stupidity Lyons describes has been the norm for decades. No, it didn't begin this year because we have an array of (highly capable) female candidates, though a wide range of modern liberals are eager to tell you that.

Lyons speaks well of E. J. Dionne at one point; we'll offer a demurral. Dionne doesn't play these reindeer games, but he has also never been willing to say one word about them. In fact, almost no one speaks up about this endless destructive nonsense. Within the press corps' sprawling guild, such things simply aren't done.

The gruesome gong-shows Lyons cites sent Bush, then Trump, to the White House. "Liberal" journalists refuse to tell you that this occurred. A code of silence has long been in place, and it gave us President Trump.

There's much, much more to say about this. We'll resume next week, though we'll make one guarantee right now:

Absolutely nothing will change! This is the established culture of our upper-end "rational animals" as of this rather late date.

The greatest mainstream column: Long ago and far away, E. R. Shipp served as the Washington Post's ombudsman. In a brief column called Typecasting Candidates, she actually described the way this idiocy works:
SHIPP (3/5/00): [R]eaders react—sometimes in a nonpartisan way, more often not—to roles that The Post seems to have assigned to the actors in this unfolding political drama. Gore is the guy in search of an identity; Bradley is the Zen-like intellectual in search of a political strategy; McCain is the war hero who speaks off the cuff and is, thus, a "maverick"; and Bush is a lightweight with a famous name...As a result of this approach, some candidates are whipping boys; others seem to get a free pass.
We'd register one objection. Candidate Bush was briefly treated in that dismissive way by the bulk of the mainstream press. As soon as Candidate McCain was dispatched, the press corps returned to treating Bush in the respectful, admiring way Lyons described last week.

That said, Shipp described the basic system. Our "journalists" tend to "typecast" candidates, treating them as characters in a novelized drama.

They get assigned their stereotypical roles; from that point on, the facts are sifted, invented and rearranged to make the story-lines work. This typecasting is routinely based on the silly trivia Lyons mentioned last week.

Shipp wrote a very brief, highly insightful column. In line with the rules of this reindeer game, her piece was completely ignored.

Are we humans "the rational animal?" That's the role we've long assigned ourselves in self-admiring columns and books!


  1. Yes, Bob, it is crazy to imagine that Donald Trump might try to hold on to the Presidency after he had been impeached and convicted or defeated for re-election. Despite the fantasies of the Trump-haters, President Trump has been punctilious about not exceeding his legal powers. In particular, he has deferred to Court limitations on his powers, even when some judge were obviously wrong. E.g., the so-called "Muslim ban". BTW, unlike most other Presidents, Trump has had vast successes in other areas. So, chances are, his ego is less tied up in being President.

    It's also ironic, since it's Trump's enemies who have worked overtime to prevent Trump from fully exercising his legal powers as a legally elected President. Unjustified decisions by lower court judges designed to hamstring Trump. Legislators who automatically oppose anything Trump supports, such as Sen. Schumer, who voted for a wall previously, but opposed one when Trump supported it. Media, who support legislators and judges who are trying to nullify the election. Insider who trumped up the Steele Dossier in an effort to impeach Trump, or at least, to interfere with his Presidential activities. And, a chunk of the public who chant, "Not my President!" in favor of preventing President Trump from doing his job.

    1. Yeah. Obama and Clinton never faced anything like it. LOL.

    2. Republicans need to run Trump as "The best Republicans have to offer". How could anyone pushback on that truth?

    3. Did the Democrats in Congress meet during Trump's inauguration to come up with a strategy of making the people suffer to assure Trump is a one-term President?

      It's almost as if every Right-wing accusation is really a confession, without the "It's almost as if" part.

    4. "Yes, Bob, it is crazy to imagine that Donald Trump might try to hold on to the Presidency after he had been impeached and convicted or defeated for re-election."

      Meh. I still remember Bob planing Trumpist-fascist takeover for the 2018 election season ("there will be no November!").

      Alas, November came and November went -- and no putsch.

      So, naturally, the big event has now been rescheduled for November 2020. After all, Zombies are not famous for originality and creativity...

    5. Mao, you are a national treasure.

    6. Mao,
      Did you ever find out why Putin had Trump say all that crazy shit in his CPAC speech?

    7. Tell me more about your fantasies, dembot. Only with more feeling this time. I like dembots with passion.

    8. Trump is half-assing it, as usual.
      Instead of signing an executive order requiring colleges to protect students who clearly state the fact that "God is a figment of dim-witted imaginations," his executive order should require everyone on campus to say it.
      Trump is lazy, but we already knew that.

    9. Despite the fantasies of the Trump-haters, President Trump has been punctilious about not exceeding his legal powers.

      You're so fucking dishonest David, it's disgusting. David Brooks wrote about you the other day:

      Supporting Trump requires daily acts of moral distancing, a process that means that after a few months you are tolerant of any corruption. You are morally numb to everything.

      Did I imagine Trump firing Comey and then inviting Russian goons into the oval office to laugh about it, followed by going on national tv to state point blank that he fired Comey because he wanted to end this "Russia thing"?

      Is any of this false or give you pause to ponder what sort of precedents are being set by this megalomaniacal lunatic you are so devoted to?

      Trump has now fired or threatened most senior officials related to the Russia investigation

      And, as of Wednesday, he had “fought back” against a majority of top officials involved in leading, overseeing or making administration decisions about that probe. According to an analysis by The Washington Post, of the more than a dozen officials with what could be construed as leadership roles in the investigation, more than half have been fired and/or threatened with official recourse.

      Punctilious, huh? Just your normal president punctiliously maintaining the wall of separation between Justice Dept investigations and the executive.

      Did I just dream his constant rants attacking his own AG just because he recused himself for the SC investigation? And then finally firing him to install an unqualified republican hack who was on record saying the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt and who himself is under criminal investigation. The "acting" AG? You cool with that too, right, you bullshit hypocrite?

      Did I imagine that he has asked numerous high ranking people involved in the investigation whether they were loyal to him? Can you imagine how hysterical you would be if President Obama had fired Comey and joked about how he wanted to end the ridiculous email investigation. I can't even contemplate the speed with which your Republican treasonous bastards would have impeached him.

      Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him

      From the NY Times, February 19, 2019:

      President Trump’s efforts have exposed him to accusations of obstruction of justice as Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, finishes his work.

      Read it, you fucking whore. I don't want you to remain so fucking misinformed any longer about what a monstrous abomination you support unconditionally.

      The story of Mr. Trump’s attempts to defang the investigations has been voluminously covered in the news media, to such a degree that many Americans have lost track of how unusual his behavior is. But fusing the strands reveals an extraordinary story of a president who has attacked the law enforcement apparatus of his own government like no other president in history, and who has turned the effort into an obsession. Mr. Trump has done it with the same tactics he once used in his business empire: demanding fierce loyalty from employees, applying pressure tactics to keep people in line and protecting the brand — himself — at all costs.

    10. David is the best debater on this blog and Mao is the most entertaining. MM is fun. Trump's CPAC speech was off the chain and watching him win again in 2020 can't happen soon enough. If we're extra lucky he'll be running against Pocahontas.

    11. 10:55,
      You mean the fantasy where every Conservative is not an asshole?

    12. "If we're extra lucky he'll be running against Pocahontas."


      And zombies absolutely must nominate her: she is, after all, The Woman Of Color™...

    13. ...and hopefully a closet lesbian to boot...

    14. I see Trump is blaming his failed negotiations with Kim on the Michael Cohen hearings.
      In case you thought Trump is some kind of outlier in the GOP, he proves he's just another typical member of the "party of accountability".

    15. Did he say "vast left wing conspiracy"?

    16. No one more woke than a WOC. If Pocahontas is smart she'll revive the Nasty Woman crusade. Voters loved it.

    17. Of course the voters loved it. They aren't "snowflakes", who can't take a little criticism without crying like babies, after all.

    18. It that the vigina hat thing? Or is 'nasty woman' a separate gig? Eh, don't worry, they'll revive everything, and more.

    19. To the dembot zombie at 12:39 PM,
      You mean they're going to bring back honesty and integrity to the political process? Why would I fear that?

  2. "I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, that there will never be a peaceful transition of power"

    Fear not, Michael -- he won't lose.

    1. The only way Trump loses, is if he accidentally gives black people a fair shake.

    2. Trump gave black people many more jobs, much lower unemployment, and a lot fewer being murdered.
      To me, that sounds like a "fair shake".

    3. Fake news, 12:43.

    4. No, @12:47, It's real news.

      This FBI report for 1st half 2018 shows that the murder rate declined 6.1% for Metropolitan counties, where most black Americans live.

      "Black unemployment rate falls to 5.9%, ties record low hit earlier this year"

    5. Trump "gave them nothing". By the way, look at all the taxes that people will have to pay this year because the rich had to have their tax cuts, paid for by cutting the tax exemption for state and local taxes. How many of these taxes are paid by blacks? A lot.

    6. "because the rich had to have their tax cuts, paid for by cutting the tax exemption for state and local taxes"

      Did you come up with this fascinating theory all by yourself, dembot? Or has it been concosted in the bowels of one of your zombie 'think-tanks'? Just curious.

    7. Alan - first of all, Trump cut tax rates for all levels of income. Secondly, he did limit the deduction for state and local taxes SALT to $10,000. That will hurt high earners, but poor people won't have SALT much above $10,000. Third, there's an increased standard deduction, so few poor people will itemize their deductions. In short, Trump's tax does help moderately poor blacks.

      Of course, people too poor to pay any income tax did not receive a tax cut. They weren't hurt by tax reform, but they weren't helped.

    8. David, poor people buy cars. When they do, they pay sales tax. Now they cannot use that deduction to offset their income and reduce their taxes.

      People are upset because their withholding (based on the previous tax system) wasn't sufficient to cover what they owe, so they are having to pay additional tax when they may have gotten a refund before. How can it be that people are getting a tax break if they are getting less money back and even having to pay more when they have withheld the same amount as last year? It makes no sense to say they are getting any kind of cut compared to last year when they are clearly having to pay more tax (with the same withholding). People aren't fooled. They know this isn't a cut, no matter what you say about deductions.

    9. @5:26 - that Democratic talking point about getting smaller refunds is no longer the case. As as today, refunds are higher than before.

      The average tax-refund amount was down significantly from last year during the first three weeks of the 2019 tax season.

      Democratic lawmakers blamed the GOP tax-cut law for the decrease, and many Americans expressed outrage online about receiving smaller refunds.

      But the latest IRS data indicated the average refund is now up 1.3% compared with 2018.

    10. BTW Alan and @5:26 - even the people who are getting smaller refunds paid less tax throughout the year. Thus they had use of more of their money sooner. That is a good thing.

    11. he did limit the deduction for state and local taxes SALT to $10,000. That will hurt high earners...

      Not high earners, middle income earners, especially those living in blue states. High earners are making out like bandits and of course people like you living on my tax dollars paying you maximum SS benefits which go untaxed in CA; hence the misleading import of your fucking "average" statistic.

    12. mm - the middle income earners will mostly take the standard deduction. I may well pay a higher federal income tax due to losing the SALT deduction. I expect to take the standard deduction now.

      In theory SS benefits shouldn't be taxed, because after-tax money was used to pay for it. That is, the money we pay for SS has already been taxed once.

      But, I agree with you. SS began with a small benefit and a 1% wage assessment. FDR called it a floor of protection. He said, "we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."

      Today, SS has grown into a monstrosity, whereby my wife and I receive a lot more in SS and Medicare benefits than what the average family of four live on. As you know, we're stuck with it. Can you imagine a Democratic or Republican candidate running on a platform of cutting SS benefits?

    13. ..the middle income earners will mostly take the standard deduction..

      Bullshit. Is that supposed to make it better. Don't worry about losing your SALT deductions, you can just take the smaller standard deduction? Quite a shell game your hero played. Give with one hand, take with the other. And don't forget losing personal exemptions. That's a big fucking deal for middle class families raising a family. My own brother raising 4 children is taking a big hit and he ain't rich, asshole. Another broken promise from the bullshitter in chief.

    14. Hello, dembot? Your beautiful zombie dream is 90% federal income tax.

      Call Madam Pelosi, and demand to raise federal taxes to 90% of the income. In fact, make it the motto of your zombie 'party'.

    15. Stand in line, dembot. Ivanka is calling for a 100% estate tax. She says it's because people want to work for what they get.

    16. The 90% tax rate on income is the motto of the Republican Party. That's what they mean by MAGA, shithead.

  3. And what, pray tell, comes after the ellipsis in Lyons’ column? (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand eats fried chicken with a fork (inauthentic). Sen. Corey Booker is a self-righteous vegan (snob)...) This:

    “Amy Klobuchar yells at the help (bitch).”

    Hmm. It was just this past Thursday that Somerby berated a letter writer to the Times who complained about the sexist coverage of Klobuchar being a bad boss.* That was pathetic tribal narrative when the letter writer said it. Sounds like Lyons might agree though. But Somerby decides to exempt Lyons from the charges.

    *SOUTHERN FRONTIERS OF THE RATIONAL IMPULSE: Narrative certainties of a failed tribe!


  4. 12:25P, The quality of what you write and your comprehension of what you read is so low, that’s it’s not clear what you’re saying. Somerby “berated” (really?) a letter writer who had complained about allegedly “sexist” coverage of Klobuchar. Somerby’s charge was not that the letter writer was engaged in “tribal narrative” but that she apparently didn’t know that the press routinely writes similar idiotic coverage about male candidates. The tribal narrative is the press corp’s (not the letter writer’s), and the press corp comprises equal opportunity ignoramuses.

    Sounds like Lyons might agree though.
    With whom? With the letter writer? With Somerby?

    But Somerby decides to exempt Lyons from the charges.
    What charges?

    With the letter writer’s? (Are you saying that Lyons is writing sexist things but Somerby doesn’t care?)

    With Somerby’s charges? (Are you saying that Lyons is repeating tribal narrative but Somerby gives him a pass?)

    Do you even know what you’re saying?

  5. Lyons characterizes the press coverage of Klobuchar’s “yelling at the help” as equivalent to calling her a “bitch”, which is a sexist charge. In other words, Lyons is calling the coverage of Klobuchar sexist. The letter writer charges the Times with sexism because of their coverage of her essentially “yelling at the help.” In other words, the letter writer accuses the Times of essentially the same thing as Lyons’ press criticism: trivial, in this case sexist, coverage. But for some reason, Somerby does not accuse Lyons of spouting tribal nonsense. The letter writer is writing a complaint specific to the Klobuchar coverage, (a letter not an op-Ed, and letters can’t be arbitrarily long) and isn’t required to mention every instance of press misbehavior.

    So, the letter writer’s complaint is of a piece with Lyons’, and Somerby’s.

    1. 3:47P, Thank you for taking the time to explain, especially after my churlish criticism of your ability to read and write. No snark, really. Thanks.

      Your prose is a bit clearer here, so I think I now follow your line of reasoning. Unfortunately, I remain confirmed in my judgment that you’re unable to read for comprehension.

      The press coverage of Klobuchar’s treatment of her staff is the equivalent of calling her a bitch, which is indeed sexist. But that’s not Lyons’ complaint about the coverage. His complaint is right there quoted in TDH’s blog entry and in bold:

      [T]he kinds of insulting trivialities the nation's self-infatuated pundit class have long used to ridicule previous Democratic candidates are already in evidence.

      The criticisms (including the ones TDH cites about Gillibrand and Booker) are “mass-market inanity.”

      The letter writer does not charge the NYT with sexism because its reporters accused Klobuchar of “yelling at the help.” The letter writer charges the NYT with sexism because they don’t write about male candidates in the same way. And, as TDH points out, this is not true. It’s mass-market inanity for men as well as women and all the way down.

      This mass-market inanity, as applied to both sexes, is what Lyons is writing about. And it’s also one of TDH’s favorite hobbyhorses to ride.

      The letter writer is making a mistaken complaint about sexism. It turns out that the NYT is an equal-opportunity trivializer.

  6. This posting is spot on, and what Somerby should be talking about as often as possible.

  7. I don't see anything wrong with covering trivial aspects of candidate behavior as long as the statements on issues and programs are also covered. The problem with sexism is that men get far more coverage than women do so that their stand on various issues is better known. Lacking anything substantive to judge female candidates on, they are judged by stereotypes and trivialities.

    Republicans didn't bring Clinton down by focusing on hairstyle or voice. They realized that she was competent and that her stand on issues was widely known, so they attacked her character, honesty, and service, portraying her as part of a global conspiracy of the rich to control the world, a grasping member of the Clinton crime family, a liar who wanted only to get big fees from Wall Street, and so on.

    I do agree that it is wrong to cover things like a candidate's wardrobe, and especially wrong to hold women to a different standard than men on such things, but I think elections hinge on bigger things, including actual policies.

    The last election was stolen, in part by a social media campaign that spread that image of Clinton as a terrible person (not a terrible dresser) so that everyone, even the people who voted for her, thought she was evil on some level. At the same time, the meme that no one was enthusiastic about her candidacy, a major untruth, infected the media, who seemed to talk only to Clinton detractors, and they never reported on her positive accomplishments and proposals.

    If we keep focusing on whether trivial things are sexist, we will miss the major unfairness in the amount of substantive coverage of female candidates (or its lack).

    Biden has been positively dithering. He can't seem to make up his mind whether to run or not. He did this in 2016 too. No one has suggested that his indecisiveness might be a liability for someone in a leadership role. Why not? Is it because it is incompatible with male stereotypes, or is it because the press likes Biden? Ignoring the liabilities of candidates who are liked by the press (as Trump was), is another form of bias that no one seems to be talking about.

    There is so much Somerby could be discussing if he were to take his own blog seriously.

  8. Deadrat accuses various anonymi of misreading Somerby's posts. This arises, in part, from the failure of those anonymi to restate Somerby's arguments before disagreeing with them, so that it is clear what is being disputed. By restating an argument (in your own words), it is clear that the premise stated by Somerby IS understood. Then what follows is disagreement, not misinterpretation. If deadrat disagrees with those who take issue with Somerby, fine, he can then state his reasons. But calling people mistaken in their reading comprehension would not be legitimate.

    I find that very few of the anonymi writing comments have distorted or misunderstood Somerby. I believe they are expressing their own opinions, which diverge from Somerby's. That is what comments are for. But it isn't possible to have a real discussion if deadrat rushes in, shouting that people here just cannot read.

  9. I don’t need your permission to write my comments, which I’ll do in the manner I see fit. I’m not interested in what you think is “legitimate” because you’re not the arbiter of the permissible here. And what you “find” or “believe” about this commentariat has no importance for me.

    So sorry.

    Did I “rush in” with my comment? Was two hours not a long enough wait?

    Am I shouting? Are these auditory hallucinations new or have you been suffering from them for a while? In either case, you might want to seek help.

    How is it even possible for my comments (or any comments for that matter) to derail a “real discussion”? I always post under my nym, so it’s easy to just skip what I write.

    You’re my favorite personal troll, aren’t you? You may think you’re my toughest critic, but since you seem compelled to answer my every reply, then, bitch, you’re really my biggest fan.

    I think I’ll sit this one out, if you don’t mind. And even if you do.

    1. "Did I “rush in” with my comment? Was two hours not a long enough wait?

      Am I shouting? Are these auditory hallucinations new or have you been suffering from them for a while? In either case, you might want to seek help."

      Excessive literalness is another troll ploy for attacking someone without dealing with the substance of their comment.

      Or maybe you just cannot process figures of speech due to some frontal lobe problem (schizophrenia, OCD, some form of dementia or TBI).

      It would be easier to ignore you, deadrat, if you weren't constantly claiming some higher ground, such as ability to read for comprehension better than the other commenters who write here.

      I am not your favorite anything. I would like to be able to comment here without having someone like you calling me names on the basis of specious criticism. It gets old and the unpleasantness of your habitual response tends to spoil my day.

      Trolls have that "dark triad" of personality traits: narcissism, machiavellianism, sociopathy. Now they are adding sadism to the mix. So, ruining my day, or anyone else's is probably part of your fun. I just don't want you to think you are making any important points with your destructive intrusions here. You don't read any better than anyone else here. It is just your lazy way of criticizing others without having to think about what they have said. Lazy. People see through it.

    2. How cute. Deadrat has a mini-me.

  10. With apologies to ADM:

    Big trolls have little trolls upon their posts to slight 'em,
    And little trolls have lesser trolls, and so, ad infinitum.

    1. deadrat, I never realized that a famous mathematician wrote that poem. I always knew him for the De Morgan laws:

      not (A or B) = not A and not B; and
      not (A and B) = not A or not B

      I wish everyone knew these laws; it would help avoid ambiguity and misunderstandings.

  11. Hello, just wanted to say, I loved this article. It was practical.

  12. Hey everyone!
    Today I come to you with so much excitement!
    I have been married & barren for 5years i had no child. i have never been pregnant i was a subject of laughter from my Friends & neighbors, i almost lost my marriage because of this issue . i was so confused that i did not know what to do until i came across this great Dr online and i contacted him at once i was scared weather it was going to work because i never believed things like this before, so i decided to give it a try and i did all what Dr Ahmed asked of me and today to my greatest surprise i took in the first time and i gave birth to a bouncing baby boy and now my marriage that was about crashing before is now restored. my husband now love and want me better, Am so happy for everything that have been happening my life since i met this Dr Ahmed. I want to tell all the women out there who have a similar situation like that the world is not over YET they should dry up their tears and contact this great man and their problem will be gone or are you also having other problems you can also contact Dr Ahmed, here is how you can contact him or Contact him via his whats-app number +2348160153829.
    Alexa Planter


  13. Really informative article.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.เว็บไซต์คาสิโนออนไลน์ที่ได้คุณภาพอับดับ 1 ของประเทศ
    เป็นเว็บไซต์การพนันออนไลน์ที่มีคนมา Gclub Royal1688
    และยังมีหวยให้คุณได้เล่น สมัครหวยออนไลน์ ได้เลย
    สมัครสล็อตออนไลน์ได้ที่นี่ >>> Golden slot
    ร่วมลงทุนสมัครเอเย่น Gclubกับทีมงานของเราได้เลย


  14. Im grateful for the blog post.Really thank you!

    โปรโมชั่นGclub ของทางทีมงานตอนนี้แจกฟรีโบนัส 50%
    เพียงแค่คุณสมัคร Gclub กับทางทีมงานของเราเพียงเท่านั้น
    สมัครสล็อตออนไลน์ >>> goldenslot
    สนใจร่วมลงทุนกับเรา สมัครเอเย่น Gclub คลิ๊กได้เลย