According to the liberal history books, in 1988 the GOP cast Michael Dukakis as too elitist, cosmopolitan and not American enough. In 1992, it ran a similar attack against Bill Clinton -- remember the hullabaloo about draft dodging and that trip to Russia? In 2000, ditto with Al Gore, though the emphasis was less on foreignness and more on extraterrestrialness. And in 2004, there was John Kerry's "global test" for U.S. national security.Fighting charges of racism with the we're-boringly-predicatable defense.
Even the defense is old, old, old. Think of all those people who rely on the ancient quip "I don't hate [black people/women/whatever], I hate everybody."
पोस्ट्स
६२ टिप्पण्या:
Perhaps it's the democratic candidates who are boringly "predicatable."
"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."
-- W.C. Fields
The fact that it worked in three of four cases and the democratic candidates were unable to defeat the likes of GWB is testimony to its effectiveness. Nothing boring about winning.
As for racism, I think Bill Clinton (D-NY) tried that already.
I've never understood the "elitism" charge. Who is more privileged than the Bushes? Would anyone, given the choice, send their kid to U of Idaho rather than Harvard? I've read the suggestion that the Dems are elitist because they're convinced they have the answers and others don't, but isn't the same true for Republicans?
So I think it's funny that David Brooks suddenly realizes that the elitism charge isn't merely a defense of the University of Idaho, but also an attack on Harvard.
My daughter could easily get into at least two of the Ivys but, even if I could/would pay for it, I'm still pushing her to attend UNC-CH.
It's a better education, she'll meet a better class of people, and unless she has some unlikely career turn (BCG or what-not) the degree will serve her better by not associating her with the *sswipes that come out of these prestige uni's.
-XC
PS - Not even worth discussing if Obama is being treated in a racist fashion by the R's. That's like trying to convince someone that the NYT is liberal when they're sure it wasn't because, see, they printed an article critical of Obama .. on page 12 ... last year.
One of the key tenets of Bokononism is belief in the inevitable spiritual progress of mankind that will result in the attainment of the Perfect Niceness.®
Case in point: I used to be cruel to my woman.
I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved.
Man, I was mean but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can.
Yes, I admit it's getting better.
Well, exactly. It is not racist. It is predictible.
Just like all of the old, old, old Dem talking points and attacks.
"He favors the rich!! Look! He loves Big Oil and CEOs!" Blah, blah...
Expat(ish) -- I would suggest to you that you may be letting your prejudices get in your daughter's way. Just the doors the Ivies can open are worth a hard look, and I would suggest too that you're underestimating the intensity and intelligence of those places.
But UNC-CH is a terrific school, and I certainly think that most of our state schools are wonderful institutions of learning. I wish we supported them more. The University of Michigan (one of my alma maters) once really was a state school -- now it gets so little state support it essentially runs itself like a private institution, dependent on the generosity of its donors and its luck with its investments.
Are you really suggesting your daughter will be a better person if she doesn't attend one of the Ivies? That I find hard to accept, but I do think it's part of the reverse-elitism people like Brooks are reacting negatively to.
Except for that one idiot AP reporter, whose found racial undertones in Palin's attack on Ayers, who exactly is calling McCain or the GOP "racist?"
What they're being accused of is stirring up angry crowds to believe Obama pals around with a terrorist.
Which he does.
Goldberg is missing the point completely. The media doesn't want any more campaigning from McCain/Palin. Their campaign is a distraction and it's hurting America. Whenever they open their mouths, somewhere in America an angry rightwinger is aroused, and we can't have that.
The better way for Republicans to handle this particular charge is to laugh at it. Don't get all bitter.
The tell tale sign of intellectual, social, and spiritual immaturity is combining concepts of good and evil with classifications like "black", "white", "Jew", "Arab."
Yet the so-called intellectual elite in America are stuck on this.
They think that the most base and broad classifications of people are also containers for quality attributes.
That is the evil subliminal message being fed to white voters through this whole campaign - vote for Obama or you're a racist! What a nasty trick...
Except for that one idiot AP reporter, whose found racial undertones in Palin's attack on Ayers, who exactly is calling McCain or the GOP "racist?"
Mort for one, and if he were awake he'd tell you so.
Can Republicans help it if Democrats *like* to nominate people with an aura of "better-than-thou"? ;-)
Even if they don't really act that way, I can't see any other way to explain Kerry, can you? Though he was sort of a weird hybrid because no one actually thought he was smart... he was just an arugula kind of guy.
But really, if you're looking for government to solve your problems you NEED to elect people who are smarter/better than you. Don't you?
As for the racism.
I don't believe for a MINUTE that anyone really thinks that attacks on Obama are made of racist motivation... at least not the portion of elites that are beating that horse and acting like it's legitimate. They know very well that it's the unanswerable charge. A person simply can not *say* "I'm not a racist." Just denying it is like proclaiming that you really are. (And in the world of "all members of the oppressor class are racist and must admit it," it's not even a secret rule.)
What they're being accused of is stirring up angry crowds to believe Obama pals around with a terrorist.
Which he does.
Bullshit, you don't believe this for a minute, and neither does McCain.
"Old" is pretty much synonymous with "inadequate", isn't it?
Well, I do fit the phrase. I am an EOH, and I'm at peace with that.
Can Republicans help it if Democrats *like* to nominate people with an aura of "better-than-thou"? ;-)
After hearing the last damned debate, hearing both Obama and McCain say absolutely anything but what might actually be something resembling a truthful or factual remark, I've been walking around with an aura of "better-than-them".
It's racist because racism is taken very broadly.
The correct argument is that racism taken broadly is completely undeserving of the disrepute that racism taken narrowly deserves.
In fact it's a sign of the opposite of narrow racism that broad racism happens.
That is the evil subliminal message being fed to white voters through this whole campaign - vote for Obama or you're a racist!
I can't tell if this comment is tongue in cheek but I actually heard a co-worker last week state that considering the state of the economy, the war etc; the fact that Obama is only up ten points in the polls can only be attributed to people afraid to vote for a black man.
Anecdotal to be sure but it certainly ties in with the Obama criticism=racist platform.
Its going to be a glorious 4 years.
He's not saying they "hate everybody". He's saying that they treat all Democratic candidates the same, regardless of skin color. He offers examples to back up that claim.
Are his examples not factual? Tell us how they aren't! Do you have any good examples that show the GOP in a different light? Let's hear 'em!
Talking about the facts may be boring and "old", but some of us are okay with that.
The claim of racism is being devalued by all of this foolishness. Cry wolf too many times, when there is no real threat, and the villagers will stop listening. Keep it up and, the villagers might even get a little pissed off.
garage mahal, quoting John Stodder: "What they're being accused of is stirring up angry crowds to believe Obama pals around with a terrorist.
Which he does. "
garage mahal: Bullshit, you don't believe this for a minute, and neither does McCain.
John Stodder does, John McCain does, I do, and Stanley Kurtz is all over it. Why? Because it's true. William Ayers is a terrorist who has not repented of his actions, and Ayers' and Obama's work on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge makes clear that both men hold a radical left-wing value system that they believe should be the cornerstone of public education. 20 years of attending Rev. Wright's radically racist church is just the icing on this toxic cake. We won't even discuss the list of economists on the letter indicating that Obama's tax plan will make an already-suffering economy worse—and no, that's not an endorsement of the Bush administration's economic policies, which have never been able to be characterized as "conservative."
I'll give the Democrats this: for once in my adult life, they haven't fielded a bland, boring candidate. Instead, they've fielded a poisonous one. The fact that this cretin might actually win due to a perfect storm of events 30+ years in the making is frustrating, but if we can survive the Carter years, we'll muddle through the Obama years, and perhaps then we can have an actually conservative administration or, if not that, at least a split executive and legislative branch again, which seems to be a good pattern for the US (Reagan and Democratic congress, Clinton and Republican congress...)
From the linked article:
The most laughable evidence that McCain is sowing hatred stems from the shouts of "terrorist!" and "kill him!" from a few hothead buffoons at McCain rallies. Of course, rather than foment this sort of thing, McCain went out of his way to chastise his own supporters personally and publicly.
Really? McCain responded to cries of "terrorist" and "kill him"? When was this? My recollection is quite the opposite.
As I recall, McCain could not come up with a satisfying squelch even for the question, "Can we beat the bitch?".
Its going to be a glorious 4 years.
I completely agree. We're damned if he wins, and damned if he loses.
If he loses, it's because Americans are racist! If he wins, every criticism of his administration is going to be "racist".
Personally, I hope he loses so we can get the racism stuff out of the way and move on. Otherwise, it is definitely going to be a glorious four years. ugh.
John Stodder said...
"Except for that one idiot AP reporter, whose found racial undertones in Palin's attack on Ayers, who exactly is calling McCain or the GOP 'racist?'"
*blinks* John, I have to assume that you're joking.
That's because your recollection is wrong.
The shout of "Kill Him" was at a Palin event...never mind the fact that such a cry could just as easily be meant in the same sense as "Kill them" at a sporting event. As far as I know, Palin didn't respond to it, but there's no indication she asked for it either.
McCain, when presented with a woman claiming Obama is an Arab terrorist, took the mike and corrected her, saying he was a good family man who he had disagreements with. I believe our host actually had a post about it.
Terri said...
"I completely agree. We're damned if he wins, and damned if he loses. ¶ If he loses, it's because Americans are racist! If he wins, every criticism of his administration is going to be 'racist.'"
Terri, the liberals already think that we're racists. If Obama loses, it was because of racism; if he wins, he won in spite of racism. Look at the front cover of Time magazine this week - it claims that the economy has trumped race in this election. It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out the underlying claim they're making.
Gonzales: There is one question, Inspector Callahan: Why do they call you "Dirty Harry"?
De Georgio: Ah that's one thing about our Harry, doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody: Limeys, Micks, Hebes, Fat Dagos, Niggers, Honkies, Chinks, you name it.
Gonzales: How does he feel about Mexicans?
De Georgio: Ask him.
Harry Callahan: Especially Spics.
Here's the thing - I want someone to compile a list of exactly how many headlines have used the word "race" in the last six months. And not "race" as in contest, but "race" as in ethnicity.
I cannot open up one news site these days without a headline blaring at me about "race". And to tell you the truth, I am sick of being browbeaten with it. Sick and tired of basically being called a "racist" because I haven't embraced "The One".
And I don't see the Obama campaign making statements to the contrary, the way the McCain is expected to give the "he's a good family man" line. I, as an American who is going to vote for the person I think would be the best man for the job, would expect the Obama campaign to repudiate all this crap being flung in my direction also. But, then I have always had expectations that were too high for my own good.
Apparently, to call Obama a socialist, is also racist.
The shout of "Kill Him" was at a Palin event...never mind the fact that such a cry could just as easily be meant in the same sense as "Kill them" at a sporting event. As far as I know, Palin didn't respond to it, but there's no indication she asked for it either.
There's no reason to think she heard it.
Yes, when a woman got the mic at a town-hall meeting and said Obama was a terrorist, McCain disagreed with her.
This is quite different from expecting candidates to hear the odd shout in a huge crowd of shouting people. (And I still think that the "kill him" is as likely to have been directed at *Ayers* whom Palin had just mentioned in her speech. That is, if it ever actually happened.)
Expat(ish) said...
My daughter could easily get into at least two of the Ivys but, even if I could/would pay for it, I'm still pushing her to attend UNC-CH.
...but you're not pushing for her to go to NCSU, and you're not encouraging her to forgo college and enter the job market. UNC-CH is the elite school in NC and is highly ranked nationally. The question comes back about the criticism of "elitism" when the natural trend is for parents encourage their children to excel or succeed.
You've lost it professor. The "defense" is old? What defense is needed? The accusation that establishing Obama as a radical is somehow racist needs no "defense." Rational human beings looking at Obama's past record see what looks an awful lot like the record of Ayers, et al. in their post-Weathermen days-- shakedowns of corporate and government entities on behalf of the "poor" (and for salaries for those doing the shakedown) and grand spending on goofy educational projects. Yet calling Obama on this is racist? Bill Clinton was right--far from race costing Obama votes, this guy has gotten a pass BECAUSE of his race. Millions will ignore everything else and vote based on a feel-good concept of "look what a great country we are because we've elected a black man as our president." Hmm--voting based on race-what's that called again?
"I've never understood the "elitism" charge. Who is more privileged than the Bushes?"
Elitism in this context refers to contempt for what are generally called "middle class" values, particularly love of country and religious belief. It has nothing to do with privilege, economic or social situation.
I think it's probably endemic in our political class, but leftists are unusually inept at concealing it.
"kill him" is as likely to have been directed at *Ayers"
It was my understanding that it was directed at Ayers, a sentiment a large segment of the population probably shares, given that he is, in fact, a terrorist.
John Stodder does, John McCain does, I do, and Stanley Kurtz is all over it.
So Country First and Terrorist Sniffer Outer John McCain served in the House of Lords with a guy that hangs around with terrorists, and he just now tells us about it, 3 weeks before an election? Why didn't he tell us when we first knew Obama would be the Dem nominee? Why didn't he tell us while he was serving alongside him in the Senate? Why weren't Republicans informing the American public there was a terrorist in the House? Because it's bullshit, and he has nothing left, that's why it wasn't brought earlier.
We survived the Carter years because the Gramscian cancer had not metasticized so deeply into the tissue of American institutions and culture as it has now. Even so, the current crises affecting us(subprime mess, energy dependence and putting development of domestic supplies off limits, allowing Iran to be taken over by radical Islamists)all have their roots in the Carter administration.
But that's nothing compared to what we're up against now. The Dems along with their media allies will NEVER allow Republicans back in power. The end will justify any means to these people. Since at least the Wilson administration the belief on the left has been that the Constitution is outdated, and that the nation must be reformed under a more socialist-collectivist structure with experts and technocrats making the decisions that the great unwashed masses are unqualified to make.
This November, barring some unforeseen change in our electoral trajectory, America as we know it will be finished.
Paul:
This November, barring some unforeseen change in our electoral trajectory, America as we know it will be finished.
I think this is right. And, as much as I respect John Stodder's reasons for voting for Obama, I think one of John's major errors is believing America today, and in the future, is, and will be, the same America that has always been.
As I have said in the past, America is on a relentless leftward push, and after Obama wins the election, Dems will put into play things that will not only keep this leftward push moving, but will actually accelerate it substantially.
Here is Sen. Obama saying that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone."
"It's not that I want to punish your success," he says.
Makes me miss Bill Clinton...what a soothing seducter he was.
Obama is so flat-footed. Not much empathy. I don't think he feels anyone else's pain, much less his own.
Yesterday I found a passage in his book "Dreams" where he extinguishes a match between his fingers just as "Lawrence of Arabia" does in that movie, Obama's favorite. Both men, when asked how they tolerate the pain, reply that the trick is not to care.
Because it's bullshit, and he has nothing left, that's why it wasn't brought earlier.
Garage, I still sit in awe at your reflexive defense and devotion of the Kwisatz Haderach when it wasn't so long ago that Hillary's star was in ascendence and your vocal dislike of The One who will rule us all was second to none.
Never again will I doubt a liberal's committment to THE PARTY over personal loyalty to an individual.
I'm enjoying Althouse posts so much more now that the veil of neutrality has been lifted. Not because she saw the light and came towards The One, but because it feels safer and more peaceful to comment on a post that was written by someone who shares my dreams of change and hope.
And the racist commenters here don't scare me anymore because, let's face it, they wouldn't be here if they didn't, deep down, share those same dreams!
Love,
Zach
more peaceful to comment on a post that was written by someone who shares my dreams of change and hope.
Good grief, what utter nonsense.
Garage, I still sit in awe at your reflexive defense and devotion of the Kwisatz Haderach when it wasn't so long ago that Hillary's star was in ascendence and your vocal dislike of The One who will rule us all was second to none.
I noticed you didn't even attempt to refute my post. Now get crackin.
It isn't hateful to rigorously question the man who wants to be president.
Or is it? Have we reached the point where opposing an Obama presidency == racism?
I noticed you didn't even attempt to refute my post. Now get crackin.
Well you have a point garage which is why I didn't bother to refute it. You are correct that the Republican Party itself didn't bring this Ayres stuff up but conservatives have been for some time, unless of course you were paying attention. Kind of how like conservatives were talking about Palin long before McCain picked her and the only ones caught off guard were the ones not paying attention.
As for having nothing left, again, for the umpteenth time, what exactly new other than HOPE AND CHANGE is Obama bringing that isn't reprocessed 1960s liberal policies? I honestly don't think we can afford another New Deal/Great Society. At least I can't maybe you're one who will still be wealthy after Obama's tax hike.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"And the racist commenters here don't scare me anymore because"
I'm almost afraid to ask a question that I'm sure I know the answer to already, but what commenters here are you so cavalierly branding "racist[s]"?
Not you, Simon.
Zach, well, I'm glad to hear it, but I think the question still has to stand. Just who are you tarring with that brush?
"I'm almost afraid to ask a question that I'm sure I know the answer to already, but what commenters here are you so cavalierly branding "racist[s]"?"
That's simple. Everyone who fails to embrace the Maximum Leader and the hope and change he will bring to America, and then the world.
If Mort were awake, he would say you are all racists.
Everyone else, except Simon, is a racist commenter.
Everyone else, except Simon, is a racist commenter.
Well then I want rankings and I damn well better be in front. The only time I was ever first for anything was when I beat out everyone else to fertilize the egg. Ever since then I've been the wallflower at the school dance.
I demand satisfaction.
I've read the suggestion that the Dems are elitist because they're convinced they have the answers and others don't, but isn't the same true for Republicans?
Not for the limited government-type of conservatives. (Seen any lately? Nah, me neither.)
The point of small government conservatism is to say that, no, in fact, the government doesn't have the answers, and should rule limitedly and with humility.
The government can solve one problem for one type of person: If you don't want to contribute at all to society but also don't want to starve, the government can take money from people who do contribute and give it to you.
The government can also solve the pesky problem of competition for big businesses, by enacting severe regulation and taxation that makes it impossible for competitors to arise.
What else? The government can solve the problem of overall prosperity by insisting that foreigners not be allowed to sell their goods here, or only at severe disadvantage, or by insisting that everyone, no matter how unqualified, be allowed to incur the same level of debt.
The current fiasco is a good example of why the idea of limited government has merit.
ah i love it
Paul said...
We survived the Carter years because the Gramscian cancer had not metasticized so deeply into the tissue of American institutions and culture as it has now. Even so, the current crises affecting us(subprime mess, energy dependence and putting development of domestic supplies off limits, allowing Iran to be taken over by radical Islamists)all have their roots in the Carter administration.
But that's nothing compared to what we're up against now. The Dems along with their media allies will NEVER allow Republicans back in power. The end will justify any means to these people. Since at least the Wilson administration the belief on the left has been that the Constitution is outdated, and that the nation must be reformed under a more socialist-collectivist structure with experts and technocrats making the decisions that the great unwashed masses are unqualified to make.
This November, barring some unforeseen change in our electoral trajectory, America as we know it will be finished.
electoral beatdowns and crises that they can't understand bring out the crazies
Donn said...
Paul:
This November, barring some unforeseen change in our electoral trajectory, America as we know it will be finished.
I think this is right. And, as much as I respect John Stodder's reasons for voting for Obama, I think one of John's major errors is believing America today, and in the future, is, and will be, the same America that has always been.
As I have said in the past, America is on a relentless leftward push, and after Obama wins the election, Dems will put into play things that will not only keep this leftward push moving, but will actually accelerate it substantially.
yes, things like reason, merit, reality, oversight, competence, reform.
To clarify what I think:
I don't believe Obama holds the same views as Ayers.
However:
Ayers is a terrorist. He is not a former terrorist or an ex-terrorist. Semantically speaking, if you robbed a bank 30 years ago and haven't robbed one since, you nonetheless remain a "bank robber." Charles Manson is appropriately still called a murderer, even though his last murder took place around the same period of time that Ayers was designing bombs and plotting to blow them up to accomplish his political goal of overthrowing the government. Although Ayers was never convicted, he has written at length about these activities and has not, himself, disputed that he is a terrorist.
Obama is, or was until recently, Ayers' friend. They worked together, more closely than he's admitted, they socialized, and they engaged in the great game of politics together. So while it might offend your ears to hear Sarah Palin say Obama is "palling around," i.e. spending social time with, a terrorist, it is an unassailable truth.
Because I don't think Obama is the equivalent of Ayers, I don't happen to think the mere fact of their relationship is a very important issue. I don't think it helps McCain/Palin to keep harping on it, and their odd handling of the issue is one of the reasons I won't vote for the GOP ticket. What some of you have said about the Annenberg Challenge and where its money was spent, and what Obama might have done to direct those funds, strikes me as more worthy of debate than the mere association.
But let's start from a common factual basis, if we can. Has Obama palled around with a terrorist? Yes. Now let's debate its significance.
I've never seen the expression "Gramscian cancer" before. What's it mean?
And, as much as I respect John Stodder's reasons for voting for Obama, I think one of John's major errors is believing America today, and in the future, is, and will be, the same America that has always been.
Thanks, Donn for the respect. And if thinking America in the future is, and will be the same America that has always been is an error, I confess to it, at least with respect to presidential politics. Whether Obama is really a moderate or not, the job will moderate him.
Here's what I pay attention to:
Iraq: Bush invaded Iraq. But Clinton also planned to invade Iraq, and I believe Gore, despite what he says now, would have done so in the wake of 9/11.
Fiscal policy: Bush 41 raised taxes to address the deficit. Clinton raised them again. In both cases, it was said the economy would suffer. Instead, after a mild recession, it flourished.
Social policy: A Democratic congress defeated Hillary Clinton's absurd health care plan, just as a Republican congress would have done.
Trade policy: Bush 41 pursued NAFTA. Clinton/Gore pushed it through.
I am a believer in historical forces. I think, except at the margins, the times make the (wo)man. I also think the presidency is inherently a weak office, as our forefathers designed it. The primary powers given to the president are to execute the laws and defend the nation. It is in that narrow sense that I have concluded, even reluctantly, that Obama should get my vote. I don't think McCain has the temperament for the job as it will have to be conducted in the next four years. I also think Obama's ties to the liberal side will help make some of the harsh medicine of the coming credit squeeze go down easier. I must say, I think his handling of the Wall Street bailout was impressive, while McCain's was, um, not.
McCain is a warrior. If this was 2004 or 2002, I'd want him as president. But the issue now is how to keep the country from falling into a Depression. My judgment is, Obama is a better leader for that circumstance.
Look, if you want to change the direction of the country's policies, it is far more effective to change the leadership of congress. The constitution makes that clear. So, whatever you do with your presidential vote -- and I'm not "advocating" Obama -- I recommend you vote for Republicans this November. Support the Blue Dog Democrats, too. The netroots want to purge them (they're not good at math). Truly, I am much more worried about Nancy Pelosi than Barack Obama. Focus on checking her power if you want to keep America on track.
I'm really critical of Democrats. The lefties on this site think I wet my bed over it. Actually, they're not giving me enough credit. I'm pissing in their beds, not mine.
However, I consider myself enough a kind of liberal. I think it's just fine if the pendulum swings back on social welfare issues for awhile. I think his tax plan is a joke, and won't get passed in the form he's presented it. But I'm not opposed to him trying to address things like health care and alternative energy. Democrats are better at things like that. However, I suspect he won't have much time for any of that. The economy will keep our next president very busy, and he'll use up every chit he has on it.
Speaking of predictable... it's become the norm to excuse any failing of one's own upon racism of another especially within the African American community.
Student does not do his homework and fails... racist teacher.
African American students have comparably low scores on standardized tests.. blame it on racism ignoring the effects of relatively uneducated parents and low income.
Could we please consider possibility that Obama isn't the target of racism but just another politician whose opponent is criticizing him?
John Stodder rocks!
I'd buy you a beer, but I don't drink. (I guess that shouldn't matter if you do, but...)
I agree with you as far as the Iraq War goes. I'd note that if Gore had waged it, most of the arguments of the past five years would've been reversed.
I don't know what was so impressive about how Obama handled the economic "meltdown", though.
I hope your assessment is correct. Obviously it's not 2002 and 2004--but is it August 2001?
I'm voting for McCain as a protest against Palin's treatment but my vote, like yours, doesn't really matter much, does it? We're in a blue city in a blue county in a blue state.
John Stodder said...Except for that one idiot AP reporter, whose found racial undertones in Palin's attack on Ayers, who exactly is calling McCain or the GOP "racist?"
A guy named Barry something
Maureen Dowd
Frank Rich
John Lewis
Barney Frank
Alcee Hastings
Meeks et al
David Gergen/James Carville
Time magazine reporter Karen Tumulty
I'm too nauseous to continue....
"I don't hate [black people/women/whatever], I hate DHIMMIcrats
Every illuminati political candidate goes through the same treatment when running for a political position. Elitists will say that their group is being mistreated, but history has proven the treatment is the same.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा