When will people get over "deplorables"?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

A white arab-looking male whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Of course!

And if it was a white whose name Vladimir Ivanov Putin, it would be plausible to assume that he belongs to Russian orthodox church. Racism?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

A white arab-looking male whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Of course!

And if it was a white whose name Vladimir Ivanov Putin, it would be plausible to assume that he belongs to Russian orthodox church. Racism?

If he publicly denied being Russian Orthodox, then it would indeed be bigoted to assume that, as it would imply that Russian Orthodoxy was somehow a suspect religion.

[AmericanNation]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

1) Birther stuff was started by Hillary Clinton and fueled by Obama acting really weird about it...
Kind of a weird thing, but the worst actors in the saga are Democrats. 

2) Obama has more affiliation with Islam than any other religion.  His education by Muslims, living in Muslim countries, his family being Muslim, the only church he has claimed to belong to was led by a racist 'former' Muslim Jeremiah Wright, but he says he isn't a Muslim...
I think he is pretty obviously an atheist, but he clearly over sympathizes with Islam.

3) Not sure what you're talking about with white supremacy, so I can't comment. 

The first 2 are pretty reasonable given the circumstances, so no not disgraceful at all.  It seems like a nauseating gotcha game dems like to play.  They pretend justified suspicion or interest is some sort of super crazy.  Maybe study people sometime, you might learn something.       

[PresidentTRUMP]

Never, same as the Romney 48% comment which ended up costing him the election possibly. He may of still lost but it would have been much closer in the end without that comment.

[AmericanNation]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

A white arab-looking male whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Of course!

And if it was a white whose name Vladimir Ivanov Putin, it would be plausible to assume that he belongs to Russian orthodox church. Racism?

If he publicly denied being Russian Orthodox, then it would indeed be bigoted to assume that, as it would imply that Russian Orthodoxy was somehow a suspect religion.

LOL, it isn't bigoted to try and figure out the truth... the wrong is on the guy lying about his religion, background, sympathies, etc.  

[AmericanNation]

The difference is, several polls have shown that many Trump supporters (particularly during the primaries) do hold racist views (birtherism, belief that Obama is a Muslim, outright white supremacism). Do you deny that these views are disgraceful?

Lol, it is not a racism.

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t? And about the whole Obama=Muslim thing, given that he has publicly denied being a Muslim, this would imply that being a Muslim was something to hide- something potentially incriminating.

A white arab-looking male whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Of course!

And if it was a white whose name Vladimir Ivanov Putin, it would be plausible to assume that he belongs to Russian orthodox church. Racism?

If he publicly denied being Russian Orthodox, then it would indeed be bigoted to assume that, as it would imply that Russian Orthodoxy was somehow a suspect religion.

LOL, it isn't bigoted to try and figure out the truth... the wrong is on the guy lying about his religion, background, sympathies, etc.  

This is like the Hillary health saga.  She is displaying nearly all the symptoms of a neurological disease.  If someone says "I think she has parkinson's disease" They aren't racist, bigoted, or homophobic.  They are trying to figure out the truth based on math, science, wisdom, etc.  The Clinton's lying about everything makes it impossible to believe them.     

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

She's done damage to her campaign that she'll never undo; she can only contain and minimize.

I've never seen a campaign where a candidate trashed 1/2 of the other candidate's supporters.  Hillary, however, can't hide her contempt for culturally conservative white voters.  They're scum in her book, for WHO they are.  

Ummm... try 2012?

Besides, if "cultural conservatism" is the new euphemism for bigotry, then yeah, so-called cultural conservatives deserve some criticism (even if not in these words). At least get them thinking about their own choices; maybe some of them can pull a Robert Byrd. Unlike poverty, open racism is an individual choice.

Robert Byrd long ago apologized for being a Klan member, and compiled a mostly liberal record in public office on civil rights matters.  Jesse Jackson has not yet apologized for calling NYC "Hymietown" in 1984.  Al Sharpton has never apologized for perpetuating a hoax that smeared the name of white police officers in the Tawana Brawley matter, nor have the Democratic elite shunned them.  But I digress.

Whatever one's beliefs, folks have at least a moral right to believe that their President has their best interests as Americans at heart.  It is sad that black folks haven't had that at least from the Grover Cleveland Administration until LBJ, and the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies did, indeed, engage in "Southern Strategies".  I'm not for that at all.  But I'm also not in favor of a President governing America by doing, say, white folks in Appalachia in the same way that many Presidents did black folks.  That's Hillary's message to 25% of America; that they're scum, and now it's THEIR turn to be oppressed.  The guesswork is in trying to figure out who comprises the 25%.

Trump's comments on Mexicans may have been over the top, but he wasn't referring to American citizens.  He was referring to foreigners who sought to crash our border, and pointing out that a significant number of these folks have, indeed, engaged in crimes within the US.  He has no obligation to those folks beyond dealing with them in a Constitutional manner during the deportation process and respecting their Constitutional rights to due process of law.  Trump has, to date, never disparaged a group of American citizens as Hillary did.  Trump, indeed, is far more likely to conduct himself in a manner as being President of ALL Americans, even in polarizing times, than Hillary Clinton will.  "Stronger Together" isn't a governing philosophy for a Hillary Clinton Administration; it's a rallying cry for the Democratic Left, pure and simple.  And that's fine for being a candidate.  But let's dispel the notion that Hillary Clinton is a candidate that considers the welfare of every American citizen to be important.  (I doubt the re-education camps she intends for the "deplorables" will even be air-conditioned, lol.)

[AmericanNation]

She's done damage to her campaign that she'll never undo; she can only contain and minimize.

I've never seen a campaign where a candidate trashed 1/2 of the other candidate's supporters.  Hillary, however, can't hide her contempt for culturally conservative white voters.  They're scum in her book, for WHO they are.  

Ummm... try 2012?

Besides, if "cultural conservatism" is the new euphemism for bigotry, then yeah, so-called cultural conservatives deserve some criticism (even if not in these words). At least get them thinking about their own choices; maybe some of them can pull a Robert Byrd. Unlike poverty, open racism is an individual choice.

Robert Byrd long ago apologized for being a Klan member, and compiled a mostly liberal record in public office on civil rights matters.  Jesse Jackson has not yet apologized for calling NYC "Hymietown" in 1984.  Al Sharpton has never apologized for perpetuating a hoax that smeared the name of white police officers in the Tawana Brawley matter, nor have the Democratic elite shunned them.  But I digress.

Whatever one's beliefs, folks have at least a moral right to believe that their President has their best interests as Americans at heart.  It is sad that black folks haven't had that at least from the Grover Cleveland Administration until LBJ, and the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies did, indeed, engage in "Southern Strategies".  I'm not for that at all.  But I'm also not in favor of a President governing America by doing, say, white folks in Appalachia in the same way that many Presidents did black folks.  That's Hillary's message to 25% of America; that they're scum, and now it's THEIR turn to be oppressed.  The guesswork is in trying to figure out who comprises the 25%.

Trump's comments on Mexicans may have been over the top, but he wasn't referring to American citizens.  He was referring to foreigners who sought to crash our border, and pointing out that a significant number of these folks have, indeed, engaged in crimes within the US.  He has no obligation to those folks beyond dealing with them in a Constitutional manner during the deportation process and respecting their Constitutional rights to due process of law.  Trump has, to date, never disparaged a group of American citizens as (edit:)Hillary did.  Trump, indeed, is far more likely to conduct himself in a manner as being President of ALL Americans, even in polarizing times, than Hillary Clinton will.  "Stronger Together" isn't a governing philosophy for a Hillary Clinton Administration; it's a rallying cry for the Democratic Left, pure and simple.  And that's fine for being a candidate.  But let's dispel the notion that Hillary Clinton is a candidate that considers the welfare of every American citizen to be important.  (I doubt the re-education camps she intends for the "deplorables" will even be air-conditioned, lol.)

Exactly right.

You must be punished because your grandfather was alive when someone else's grandfather did something to someone is the dems 'best' justification for this crap...  yea your family may have freed the slaves, BUT you must pay for the sins of someone who owned a slave, etc etc.   

Yea, you are the party founded to end slavery. and yea the dems are the party of slavery, segregation, jim crow, and the clan, BUT you are white, so you're racist. 

Can any dems talk anymore without devolving into this stupidity???
the answer is basically no, because they automatically go to this when they lose an argument and they can't put forward any winning arguments.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

She's done damage to her campaign that she'll never undo; she can only contain and minimize.

I've never seen a campaign where a candidate trashed 1/2 of the other candidate's supporters.  Hillary, however, can't hide her contempt for culturally conservative white voters.  They're scum in her book, for WHO they are.  

Ummm... try 2012?

Besides, if "cultural conservatism" is the new euphemism for bigotry, then yeah, so-called cultural conservatives deserve some criticism (even if not in these words). At least get them thinking about their own choices; maybe some of them can pull a Robert Byrd. Unlike poverty, open racism is an individual choice.

Robert Byrd long ago apologized for being a Klan member, and compiled a mostly liberal record in public office on civil rights matters.  Jesse Jackson has not yet apologized for calling NYC "Hymietown" in 1984.  Al Sharpton has never apologized for perpetuating a hoax that smeared the name of white police officers in the Tawana Brawley matter, nor have the Democratic elite shunned them.  But I digress.

Whatever one's beliefs, folks have at least a moral right to believe that their President has their best interests as Americans at heart.  It is sad that black folks haven't had that at least from the Grover Cleveland Administration until LBJ, and the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies did, indeed, engage in "Southern Strategies".  I'm not for that at all.  But I'm also not in favor of a President governing America by doing, say, white folks in Appalachia in the same way that many Presidents did black folks.  That's Hillary's message to 25% of America; that they're scum, and now it's THEIR turn to be oppressed.  The guesswork is in trying to figure out who comprises the 25%.

Trump's comments on Mexicans may have been over the top, but he wasn't referring to American citizens.  He was referring to foreigners who sought to crash our border, and pointing out that a significant number of these folks have, indeed, engaged in crimes within the US.  He has no obligation to those folks beyond dealing with them in a Constitutional manner during the deportation process and respecting their Constitutional rights to due process of law.  Trump has, to date, never disparaged a group of American citizens as Trump did.  Trump, indeed, is far more likely to conduct himself in a manner as being President of ALL Americans, even in polarizing times, than Hillary Clinton will.  "Stronger Together" isn't a governing philosophy for a Hillary Clinton Administration; it's a rallying cry for the Democratic Left, pure and simple.  And that's fine for being a candidate.  But let's dispel the notion that Hillary Clinton is a candidate that considers the welfare of every American citizen to be important.  (I doubt the re-education camps she intends for the "deplorables" will even be air-conditioned, lol.)

She has never called for anyone to be "oppressed". She called racism and sexism "deplorable", because that's what they are- a disgrace upon our country's name. "Re-education camps" are nothing but a purifies conspiracy theory.

[AmericanNation]

She has never called for anyone to be "oppressed". She called racism and sexism "deplorable", because that's what they are- a disgrace upon our country's name. "Re-education camps" are nothing but a purifies conspiracy theory.

those words are(were) important words with meaning.  

They should be used carefully.

They should be used only when something fits perfectly into context and definition.

You have shown zero context and met zero criteria of the definitions.

You are acting recklessly and wrongly, just like Hillary Clinton.  

Misuse of those words and the actions / decisions  made by a person who believes in the massive misuse of those words is / will be oppressive and wrong.  She is calling for people to be dismissed and silenced (wrongly) for no reason.  

As for re-education camps, they are real and their is mountains of evidence.
simply type
"mandatory college diversity courses"
into a search engine.  
you get at least 86 million hits.
The euphemism "diversity" is used to push a lot of really stupid stuff for no reason... you aren't allowed to point out all the stupid / incorrect stuff in the mandatory brainwash session.  You are forced to admit guilt for your transgressions, even if you haven't done anything... classic maoist re-education camps.  

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

She's done damage to her campaign that she'll never undo; she can only contain and minimize.

I've never seen a campaign where a candidate trashed 1/2 of the other candidate's supporters.  Hillary, however, can't hide her contempt for culturally conservative white voters.  They're scum in her book, for WHO they are.  

Ummm... try 2012?

Besides, if "cultural conservatism" is the new euphemism for bigotry, then yeah, so-called cultural conservatives deserve some criticism (even if not in these words). At least get them thinking about their own choices; maybe some of them can pull a Robert Byrd. Unlike poverty, open racism is an individual choice.

Robert Byrd long ago apologized for being a Klan member, and compiled a mostly liberal record in public office on civil rights matters.  Jesse Jackson has not yet apologized for calling NYC "Hymietown" in 1984.  Al Sharpton has never apologized for perpetuating a hoax that smeared the name of white police officers in the Tawana Brawley matter, nor have the Democratic elite shunned them.  But I digress.

Whatever one's beliefs, folks have at least a moral right to believe that their President has their best interests as Americans at heart.  It is sad that black folks haven't had that at least from the Grover Cleveland Administration until LBJ, and the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies did, indeed, engage in "Southern Strategies".  I'm not for that at all.  But I'm also not in favor of a President governing America by doing, say, white folks in Appalachia in the same way that many Presidents did black folks.  That's Hillary's message to 25% of America; that they're scum, and now it's THEIR turn to be oppressed.  The guesswork is in trying to figure out who comprises the 25%.

Trump's comments on Mexicans may have been over the top, but he wasn't referring to American citizens.  He was referring to foreigners who sought to crash our border, and pointing out that a significant number of these folks have, indeed, engaged in crimes within the US.  He has no obligation to those folks beyond dealing with them in a Constitutional manner during the deportation process and respecting their Constitutional rights to due process of law.  Trump has, to date, never disparaged a group of American citizens as Trump did.  Trump, indeed, is far more likely to conduct himself in a manner as being President of ALL Americans, even in polarizing times, than Hillary Clinton will.  "Stronger Together" isn't a governing philosophy for a Hillary Clinton Administration; it's a rallying cry for the Democratic Left, pure and simple.  And that's fine for being a candidate.  But let's dispel the notion that Hillary Clinton is a candidate that considers the welfare of every American citizen to be important.  (I doubt the re-education camps she intends for the "deplorables" will even be air-conditioned, lol.)

She has never called for anyone to be "oppressed". She called racism and sexism "deplorable", because that's what they are- a disgrace upon our country's name. "Re-education camps" are nothing but a purifies conspiracy theory.

My "re-education camps" comment was a rare form of sarcasm, hence the lol.  I have a friend who I posted about who really believes this, and that was a bit "out there" to hear that.

But Hillary's "deplorables" was aimed at the parts of White America that will never support her.  She has always had contempt for these folks, going back to her days in Arkansas. 

[Buffalo Bill]

Trump needs to ride this and twist it as her saying this about "ordinary Americans" and point to the fact that the majority of troops are supporting him so Clinton was really saying that our troops are deplorable.  These types of maneuvers could have the potential to cost her the election.

[Buffalo Bill]

I really take offense to that comment and she is out of touch with the average American.

She's an out of touch Ivy League elitist funded by Goldman Sachs who thinks she has the right to dictate which health care plan Americans can purchase. 

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

It's not that they will never support her, though for many of them this is true. It is because many of them espouse a worldview which places people in different social classes based on things like race, gender and sexuality- the definitions of racism, sexism, and homiphobia. Many of Trump's supporters have made comments to this effect- if one was feeling particularly speculative, one could argue that this is the foundation behind "Make America Great Again", considering our country's history of oppression of these very groups. Yeah, the 50's were nice- if you were a wealthy, white male (or, if you were lucky, a female) who didn't step out of line. Now, this is a bit of a leap of interpretation, and I would forgive rejecting it (I have reservations about it myself), but it's hard to argue that this isn't what's resonating with his supporters.

[Buffalo Bill]

It's not that they will never support her, though for many of them this is true. It is because many of them espouse a worldview which places people in different social classes based on things like race, gender and sexuality- the definitions of racism, sexism, and homiphobia. Many of Trump's supporters have made comments to this effect- if one was feeling particularly speculative, one could argue that this is the foundation behind "Make America Great Again", considering our country's history of oppression of these very groups. Yeah, the 50's were nice- if you were a wealthy, white male (or, if you were lucky, a female) who didn't step out of line. Now, this is a bit of a leap of interpretation, and I would forgive rejecting it (I have reservations about it myself), but it's hard to argue that this isn't what's resonating with his supporters.

You sound like a liberal whining about race, gender, and equality. 

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

[Buffalo Bill]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump. Things aren't black-and-white between hating and revering someone, you know.

[Seriously?]

When will we stop talking about this? What could possibly distract us from it?

Nothing. Hillary made her bed with that comment. Now she has to lie in it.

That BS pissed off a lot of already ticked off and motivated Republicans.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump.

It was a "mistake" alright.  A tactical mistake, in which she gave up the ghost as far as what she really thinks of 25% of America that doesn't support her.  But it's what she meant.

"Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Scripture describes Hillary Clinton to a "t".

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

The point is, Clinton looks at bigotry and says "this can be improved". Trump sees the same bigotry, and thinks "this can be exploited" (just like bankruptcy laws, just like foreign workers, just like American contractors). Which of these people do you want leading your country?

Not the one calling people "deplorables"

Oh my god, you just don't see it.

Clinton sees bigotry (which few would deny exists in our society) and calls it a disgrace (I do not agree with her wording, but this is her point). Trump, on the other hand, tailors his message to speak to these exact people, and gets their support, along with the economically distressed, and with partisan GOP'ers and hardcore #NeverClinton-ers after the primary. These people probably now make up the majority of his voters, but it's hard to deny that it was bigots, and bigotry, that got him the nomination in the first place.

No she rants about bigotry about anyone who disagrees with anything she says.  You sound like you think she's some sort of saint.

examples please. Even in the "deplorables" speech (which was a mistake), she acknowledges that many support Trump out of economic anxiety. Maybe you should actually look at what the candidates have said... and I'm far from considering Clinton a saint, but I respect her, which is more than can be said for Trump.

It was a "mistake" alright.  A tactical mistake, in which she gave up the ghost as far as what she really thinks of 25% of America that doesn't support her.  But it's what she meant.

"Out of the wellsprings of the heart, the mouth speaks."  Scripture describes Hillary Clinton to a "t".

OK. Now hold Trump to the same standards. Go ahead; what did he really mean when he spoke about Mexicans being rapists? You tell me. Besides, openly acting on bigotry is a personal choice. Where you're born isn't.

[Helsinkian]

Do you really believe that any white President would be subjected to this bullsh*t?

Some opponents of Angela Merkel's immigration policies have photoshopped images of her to look like she's wearing a hijab or other Muslim garb (see example). I don't know how serious they are about such allegations, though.