Never Trump

[str8line]

I will never vote Trump, even though he appears to be a Jazz fan!

Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app

He forgot to put on his orange makeup. Or he accidentally went with yellow.

 

[Siro]

Even if Trump loses, is it entertaining to see how Trump has received a legitimizing platform on the biggest stage on earth? I'm happy you are so confident in the outcome in this election, but I don't enjoy watching anything Trump has brought to this election. Look at any of the top intellectuals Chomsky, Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Dennett, Coyne, Ayaan, and even ultraconservative Ben Shapiro. They are all saying what a disaster Trump would be. Many of these intellectuals have been very active in repudiating Trump. They've taken this threat seriously. I like the lambasting of Trump by comedians, but I can relate with Alt13 when it comes to sadness.

You're way too serious. I also question your classification of 'top intellectuals'.

 

[♪alt13]

Alt13 has gone full revolutionary on us!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[BYE]

You're way too serious. I also question your classification of 'top intellectuals'.

I'm not writing the definitive work on modern day intellectuals, but if you want to add to the list, then feel free. I'm glad you can sit back and enjoy the "show." Being serious is all relative. You know very little about me outside of this forum in which I post almost exclusively on Trump. If I had to paint a picture of someone who was obviously not an idiot who hasn't been bothered with the election, he/she is more often than not someone who is single, with no kids, in their twenties, and a regular toker of marijuana. In this election, I would also add male, comfortable financially, and with plenty of opportunities in his/her life. It's a lot easier to go with the flow when you're in this situation.

I don't know where you stand in relationship to these features, but we all ain't equal. Lots of people have more skin in the game than other people, and I try to understand them all. So feel free to give pronouncements about me, which reflect your complacency in imposing your ideal of a balanced human being on others. I can try to guess what you're like just as easily as you can label me.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm not writing the definitive work on modern day intellectuals, but if you want to add to the list, then feel free. I'm glad you can sit back and enjoy the "show." Being serious is all relative. You know very little about me outside of this forum in which I post almost exclusively on Trump. If I had to paint a picture of someone who was obviously not an idiot who hasn't been bothered with the election, he/she is more often than not someone who is single, with no kids, in their twenties, and a regular toker of marijuana. In this election, I would also add male, comfortable financially, and with plenty of opportunities in his/her life. It's a lot easier to go with the flow when your in this situation.

I don't know where you stand in relationship to these features, but we all ain't equal. Lots of people have more skin in the game than other people, and I try to understand them all. So feel free to give pronouncements about me, which reflect your complacency in imposing your ideal of a balanced human being on others. I can try to guess what you're like just as easy as you can label me.

I would start by removing Harris who, as far as I can tell, is mostly just a poor author. I would also remove Shapiro who is nothing more than Hannity 2.0 or Limbaugh 3.0 depending on how you look at it.

The rest I would consider serious people but it occurs to me that what the group you provided all have in common(perhaps Chomsky being the lone exception) is that they are the most ardent critics of Islam. While I tend to agree with most of those criticisms I don't think that that is a good metric for which we should use to determine who is a leading intellectual.

 

[BYE]

I would start by removing Harris who, as far as I can tell, is mostly just a poor author. I would also remove Shapiro who is nothing more than Hannity 2.0 or Limbaugh 3.0 depending on how you look at it.

The rest I would consider serious people but it occurs to me that what the group you provided all have in common(perhaps Chomsky being the lone exception) is that they are the most ardent critics of Islam. While I tend to agree with most of those criticisms I don't think that that is a good metric for which we should use to determine who is a leading intellectual.

You're right on the Islam point, which as has been pointed out by others, makes their criticism of Trump (and his anti-Islam rhetoric) even more notable. I still think Harris is just as sharp as most people on earth when it comes to many of his views. He has his own niche when it comes to writing, and he is trying to make sense of spirituality without religion. I'm not sure where I would put him if we were doing an ESPN-style intellectual rank, but he's extremely sharp on many issues. Shapiro is more of an ultra conservative throw-in, since I was trying to add a variety of intellectuals. He's not a complete ignoramus, but he is definitely an apologist.

My point was that all of these thinkers are in accord when it comes to Trump. I'm not trying to write a book on the who's who of the thinking world. If you would like to add more to the list who prove my point, cool. If you would like to point to intellectuals who support Trump, cool.

 

[♪alt13]

You're right on the Islam point, which as has been pointed out by others, makes their criticism of Trump (and his anti-Islam rhetoric) even more notable. I still think Harris is just as sharp as most people on earth when it comes to many of his views. He has his own niche when it comes to writing, and he is trying to make sense of spirituality without religion. I'm not sure where I would put him if we were doing an ESPN-style intellectual rank, but he's extremely sharp on many issues. Shapiro is more of an ultra conservative throw-in, since I was trying to add a variety of intellectuals. He's not a complete ignoramus, but he is definitely an apologist.

My point was that all of these thinkers are in accord when it comes to Trump. I'm not trying to write a book on the who's who of the thinking world. If you would like to add more to the list who prove my point, cool. If you would like to point to intellectuals who support Trump, cool.

Neither Siro or myself said anything about supporting Trump or that there was a bunch of smart people who do.

 

[BYE]

Neither Siro or myself said anything about supporting Trump or that there was a bunch of smart people who do.

You're aware of my original post, right? My point was that I am taking Trump seriously like many intellectuals. Siro said, in so many words, that this has been entertaining and that he has known that Trump would never win. I said that I understand your sadness (you almost cried during the debates), since I have not found Trump entertaining unless he is lambasted by comedians. What did you think my point was?

 

[♪alt13]

You're aware of my original post, right? My point was that I am taking Trump seriously like many intellectuals. Siro said, in so many words, that this has been entertaining and that he has known that Trump would never win. I said that I understand your sadness (you almost cried during the debates), since I have not found Trump entertaining unless he is lambasted by comedians. What did you think my point was?

I hope your point wasn't to use various intellectuals to legitimize my feelings or to disregard siro's.

 

[BYE]

I hope your point wasn't to use various intellectuals to legitimize my feelings or to disregard siro's.

You know that makes no sense at all. I'm not even sure how that argument would run. I have made two main points with Siro: the first one concerned you inasmuch as I could understand your sadness. My mentioning of intellectuals had nothing to do with you really. I've not "disregarded" anyone's feelings or perspective. In fact, that was more or less the upshot of both of my points.

 

[♪alt13]

You know that makes no sense at all. I'm not even sure how that argument would run. I have made two main points with Siro: the first one concerned you inasmuch as I could understand your sadness. My mentioning of intellectuals had nothing to do with you really. I've not "disregarded" anyone's feelings or perspective. In fact, that was more or less the upshot of both of my points.

Ohh it seemed like you were using the authority of intellectuals to guilt siro into feeling more frightened. It also seemed like you pegged him as childish and privileged for feeling different than you do. I'm glad that I misunderstood you. I would hate to think that that's what you meant.

 

[BYE]

Ohh it seemed like you were using the authority of intellectuals to guilt siro into feeling more frightened. It also seemed like you pegged him as childish and privileged for feeling different than you do. I'm glad that I misunderstood you. I would hate to think that that's what you meant.

Do you really think that my use of authority would have any effect at all on "guilting" Siro? I understood your pain because I too have experienced anxiety about the election (that is the extent of my referring to anything having to do with you). Siro has found the election entertaining and said that he has known all along that Trump would lose. I pointed out that many intellectuals have taken Trump as a serious threat on many levels, like I have. Ergo, it's not a completely unreasonable response to have anxiety. He said that I was "too serious." So, I made a point about there being many different perspectives and situations, and it is much easier for a certain type of person to feel more at ease in this election than other types. I was somewhat defending myself in this point, since I felt he was dismissing and labeling me and others (like Muslims and Mexicans) that might feel anxiety about the election like I do.

 

[♪alt13]

Do you really think that my use of authority would have any effect at all on "guilting" Siro? I understood your pain because I too have experienced anxiety about the election (that is the extent of my referring to anything having to do with you). Siro has found the election entertaining and said that he has known all along that Trump would lose. I pointed out that many intellectuals have taken Trump as a serious threat on many levels, like I have. Ergo, it's not a completely unreasonable response to have anxiety. He said that I was "too serious." So, I made a point about there being many different perspectives and situations, and it is much easier for a certain type of person to feel more at ease in this election than other types. I was somewhat defending myself in this point, since I felt he was dismissing and labeling me and others (like Muslims and Mexicans) that might feel anxiety about the election like I do.

Really you thought he was dismissing the fears of Muslims and Mexicans?

I thought he was simply a concerned citizen that took a look at the electoral college and then thought thank god he can't win that game.

 

[BYE]

Really you thought he was dismissing the fears of Muslims and Mexicans?

I thought he was simply a concerned citizen that took a look at the electoral college and then thought thank god he can't win that game.

He was dismissing the anxieties of a human being ("You're too serious"). He had no idea who I am or what my background is. Do you know if I'm a Muslim or a Mexican? Furthermore, if you had read my posts, you would see that I have been concerned with the lasting effect that Trump's presidential bid will have on our political system and the general legitimization of his ideologies. I'm not going to continue to converse through you like some Siro surrogate. I only have his words and their inescapable conclusions (he can always clarify). If you want to start posting as Siro, then I can address your words rather than trying to guess how your words and his feelings accord.

 

[♪alt13]

He was dismissing the anxieties of a human being ("You're too serious"). He had no idea who I am or what my background is. Do you know if I'm a Muslim or a Mexican? Furthermore, if you had read my posts, you would see that I have been concerned with the lasting effect that Trump's presidential bid will have on our political system and general legitimization of his ideologies. I'm not going to continue to converse through you like some Siro surrogate. I only have his words and their inescapable conclusions (he can always clarify). If you want to start posting as Siro, then I can address your words rather than trying to guess how your words and his feelings accord.

I read everything that you posted. Perhaps you should reread the last few pages. You used me as a surrogate. If you did not want to converse with me you should not have used my feelings to advance your views. You invited me.

 

[BYE]

I read everything that you posted. Perhaps you should reread the last few pages. You used me as a surrogate.

If you did, you obviously missed many points. I was trying to explain my brief conversation with Siro to you, since you made comments about the intellectuals and continued a conversation by saying, "Oh, I thought you were saying this, or that." It's only after you said "I thought Siro was saying this or that" that the fruitlessness of the conversation became obvious. I was trying to respect you as a person since your were asking. If I did use you as a surrogate, that is immaterial. I'm not now, and I don't want to argue for the fun of it.

 

[♪alt13]

If you did, you obviously missed many points. I was trying to explain my brief conversation with Siro to you, since you made comments about the intellectuals and continued a conversation by saying, "Oh, I thought you were saying this, or that." It's only after you said "I thought Siro was saying this or that" that the fruitlessness of the conversation became obvious. I was trying to respect you as a person since your were asking. If I did use you as a surrogate, that is immaterial. I'm not now, and I don't want to argue for the fun of it.

lol

 

[BYE]

lol

I have tried to respect anyone on here who is willing to have an open conversation. I at times get angry, but I respect another person's argument if they are respectful enough to care. It is obvious that nothing I could have said would have made any difference at all and you had already decided that what I had to say was **** anyway. Just put me on ignore, and I will do the same for you. If you want to waste time on here than feel free. I'd appreciate it if you didn't waste mine.

 

[♪alt13]

I have tried to respect anyone on here who is willing to have an open conversation. I at times get angry, but I respect another person's argument if they are respectful enough to care. It is obvious that nothing I could have said would have made any difference at all and you had already decided that what I had to say was **** anyway. Just put me on ignore, and I will do the same for you. If you want to waste time on here than feel free. I'd appreciate it if you didn't waste mine.

You really should reread the last few pages with some objectivity.

 

[Dr. Jones]