Well, now you're changing your stance.  Instead of explaining why this was an overgeneralization or false generation, you're just saying it is mean.  And maybe it is.  But that's a different matter entirely.  By the way, I'm not sure what this has to do with integrity.  This in no way goes against any moral code I hold, nor is it dishonest.

I gave a pretty good list of reasons why support for Drumpf is a solidly unintelligent position.  I will briefly restate that supporting a candidate who wants to hold people accountable for thought crimes, paints the majority of immigrants as criminals, insists that all muslims are out to get us, and again, advocates fucking war crimes, is far worse than calling someone, or someones I guess, morons.

Edit: Plus right after criticizing me for making a generalization... you go ahead and generalize antitrump-supporters (anti-trump supporters? Wha?) as having a superiority complex that prevents them from making rational judgments.  Lol.

Agreed too the fullest

There exists well respected professionals who support Trump so are the doctors, engineers, scientists, and entrenpreneurs morons too ? In politics there is no such thing as having just reasons over one or another but I guess we can't have a civilized society anymore if Trump is POTUS ... 

No I don't believe that one is necessarily better than the other because it's all just one big bigotry or conceitedness in the end ...

Yes.  They are morons.  You can be very good in certain areas, yet still be a moron.  See for example, Ben Carson.  By the way, I'd like to see all of these well respected professionals who support Donald Trump.  

But, I am a rational person.  That's why I gave a list of rational reasons, which you're continually ignoring.  If you can give me a solid counter-argument, my stance would change, but instead you're just picking one particular sentence from each post, instead of reading the whole thing, and responding to the main idea.

Does the same apply to the other side or is there a double standard that prevents that too ?  

Politics =/= Rational (There's a good reason why I don't take almost all forms of social science seriously.) 

Why should I have to convince you when your preference to disapprove of Trump will never disappear ? 

Eh... I'm not sure what your question is asking really.  

Not sure why you assume my preference to disapprove of Drumf won't disappear.  I gave a list of why I disapprove.  Counter those points, and my position will change.  Politics can absolutely be rational.  

Of course, you are under no obligation to convince me of anything.  Unless of course, you want to attack my position.  If you do so, you should have something to back that up.

I've skimmed a few of your posts in the past and it doesn't look like you'll ever budge your position either plus it doesn't look like you consider both sides either ... 

No politics can never be rational because it's basis is entirely dependent upon the aggregate sentiments and the heuristical nature makes the results practically nondeterministic or unverifiable ... 

I'll budge my position when I'm wrong.  Which honestly does not happen all that often, because if I'm not confident about something (which is quite often) I keep my mouth shut on the subject.  If your position is founded on solid reasoning and evidence, there is no reason to budge.  

If you're going to accuse me of not considering both sides... when you're not presenting any sort of argument... then that is absolutely irrational.  I've tried my best to listen to you, but you're just not saying anything of value.  If you refuse to back up what you're saying, what you're saying is worthless.

If you don't think it is worth talking to me, then just don't.  But don't initiate a conversation with me,  refuse to give any kind of argument, and then say I'm too stubborn to reason with.  Because that is frankly a dick move.  

If this is what you're going to do, then please do just don't respond to me in this topic, or in any topic in the future.

There is no such thing as wrong in politics and the bolded only keeps validating why I won't even try to counter you considering when you already have a prejudice ... 

Yes, cherrypicking lines out of context certainly validates your position.  Again, if you are just going to respond for the sole purpose of telling me that I'm not worth taking to, then that's what is called being a dick.

If there is a person that you don't feel is capable of rational conversation, there is a very simple thing to do.  You don't talk to them.  Which is what I will be doing with you from now on.  Please don't ever respond to any of my posts in the future.