The 2020 Election: Is Common Sense Making a Comeback?

[Theowl32]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.

Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

Sigh....

Just go blow it out of your ass.

 

[Crepitus]

Do you really think he's a billionaire? I don't. I think that's why he's hiding his taxes.

You saw his tax return for 2005 didn’t you… Let’s go on what we know… Whatta ya say?

2005? How many bankruptcies has he filed since then?

/——/ None. Trump has never filed bankruptcy. Tanks for asking.

Lol, more than a few times.

/——/ Link

Why do you kids always want links for shit that is common knowledge?
The sky is blue. You don't need a damn link.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is shocking that Trump did not win in a landslide. Apparently, the American people have a very high tolerance for corruption and political correctness.

In fairness, probably many Hillary voters did not believe she was corrupt and being politically correct is seen as normal for them and they see anything else as just wrong or even evil. There are a lot of folks out there who have been poorly educated but very effectively indoctrinated.

But yes, President Trump should have won by a much larger margin. Had it not been for the attempted 'soft' coup by the deep state allies of Obama and Hillary with a mainstream media that gave Hillary 90% or better positive or at least benign coverage while giving Trump 90% or better negative coverage, the outcome would likely have been very different. If Hillary had been treated like anybody else would have been treated if that anybody else had blatantly and deliberately mishandled classified materials and then destroyed evidence to cover that up, Hillary would likely have not been the Democrat nominee.

But that's all water under the bridge so far as the 2016 election was concerned.

Trump has even a more uphill battle in 2020. Hopefully most of the deep state bad actors have now been sent packing, but we don't know who is left there. And the media will double down as the dutiful Democrat attack machine to try to bring President Trump down. And the permanent political class among the GOP are not doing the President any favors and are consistently undercutting him. They don't want the status quo that enriches them so handsomely disturbed either.

Those of us who know the score need to be constructive and informative to get the honest word out there that the MSM won't report. And we must not become discouraged or weary in our efforts because we just might make the difference come a year from November.

 

[Mac1958]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.

Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

Sigh....

Just go blow it out of your ass.

POOT!

Yay!
.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Robert Curry raised an interesting question in this short essay this week.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/03/is-common-sense-making-a-comeback/

He observed the glaring lack of common sense in the Democrat debates with Julian Castro advocating abortion rights for transgender women taking the top prize for the proposal demonstrating the least common sense. But as he sadly but accurately pointed out, whoever wins the Democrat nomination is unlikely to do so by promoting a common sense agenda, goals, objectives etc. (Personal note: common sense Democrats are being booed off stages almost everywhere.)

That is a sad commentary on our current political environment though probably many Democrats will not agree with it. But for conservatives, Curry is just stating the obvious and preaching to the choir.

The more interesting point he raised is that President Trump was/is clearly the common sense candidate. I concur with that. He isn't partisan. He is no ideologue. He can't be described as a conservative, libertarian, or right winger. But his vision, his goals, his objectives are all solidly rooted in common sense. What the problem actually is. What needs to happen to solve it.

But the question is, did America elect him mostly because he offered common sense that we were hungry for? Or did people vote mostly against what they saw as blatant obviousness of Clinton dishonesty and corruption mixed with lack of vision and promoting an unacceptable status quo?

If the vote was more against Hillary than for Trump, what will that bode for the 2020 election? Is there sufficient appreciation for what the President has accomplished to earn him sufficient votes to win next year? Or has America lost it to the point that they will vote for irrationality instead of common sense?

So where are you at this point?

Will you vote for President Trump because he is the Republican? Or because he is the common sense candidate? Or will you vote against him because he is Donald J. Trump? Or will you vote against him because he is on the Republican ticket? Or will you vote for any Democrat to prevent a Republican win? Or will you vote for somebody else for reasons not enumerated here?

Please explain your vote.

(Multiple choice on the poll and you can change your vote if you change your mind.)

If you think tRump is the "common sense candidate" you might need to look up the definition of "common sense".

Not one of your 20 plus candidates has any common sense. Rumpy will run rings around them all.

Are you sure? Did you look it up? 'cause I don't think you are correct.

I'm quite sure yes, hell I'm not even voting for him but your clown show will not defeat him.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.

Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

 

[Mac1958]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

 

[candycorn]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

You’re making them crazy.

 

[candycorn]

It is shocking that Trump did not win in a landslide. Apparently, the American people have a very high tolerance for corruption and political correctness.

In fairness, probably many Hillary voters did not believe she was corrupt and being politically correct is seen as normal for them and they see anything else as just wrong or even evil. There are a lot of folks out there who have been poorly educated but very effectively indoctrinated.

But yes, President Trump should have won by a much larger margin. Had it not been for the attempted 'soft' coup by the deep state allies of Obama and Hillary with a mainstream media that gave Hillary 90% or better positive or at least benign coverage while giving Trump 90% or better negative coverage, the outcome would likely have been very different. If Hillary had been treated like anybody else would have been treated if that anybody else had blatantly and deliberately mishandled classified materials and then destroyed evidence to cover that up, Hillary would likely have not been the Democrat nominee.

But that's all water under the bridge so far as the 2016 election was concerned.

Trump has even a more uphill battle in 2020. Hopefully most of the deep state bad actors have now been sent packing, but we don't know who is left there. And the media will double down as the dutiful Democrat attack machine to try to bring President Trump down. And the permanent political class among the GOP are not doing the President any favors and are consistently undercutting him. They don't want the status quo that enriches them so handsomely disturbed either.

Those of us who know the score need to be constructive and informative to get the honest word out there that the MSM won't report. And we must not become discouraged or weary in our efforts because we just might make the difference come a year from November.

Meanwhile back in reality, your master lost by 3M votes. Talk about delusional

 

[Ambivalent1]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

LOL, you poor kid.

Let's start here lil guy, surely we can agree on this "definition" of the word, right?

"
truth
[tro͞oTH]
veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality ·
authenticity · dinkum oil
antonyms:
dishonesty · falsity

• (the truth)
  that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
  "tell me the truth" ·
  the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
  antonyms:
  lies · fiction
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
  "the emergence of scientific truths"

 

[Ambivalent1]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

You’re making them crazy.

I've been eating progressives for various meals for going on 20 years honey, neither of you can "make" me crazy.

 

[Mac1958]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

LOL, you poor kid.

Let's start here lil guy, surely we can agree on this "definition" of the word, right?

"
truth
[tro͞oTH]
veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality ·
authenticity · dinkum oil
antonyms:
dishonesty · falsity

• 
  
  
  • (the truth)
    that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
    "tell me the truth" ·
    the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
    antonyms:
    lies · fiction
  • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
    "the emergence of scientific truths"

So you had to go to a dictionary. I was hoping you had an actual opinion in context.

Let's look at the last one: "A fact or belief that is accepted as true".

Accepted by how many people? By what percentage of the populace? Just your half?
.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

LOL, you poor kid.

Let's start here lil guy, surely we can agree on this "definition" of the word, right?

"
truth
[tro͞oTH]
veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality ·
authenticity · dinkum oil
antonyms:
dishonesty · falsity

• 
  
  
  • (the truth)
    that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
    "tell me the truth" ·
    the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
    antonyms:
    lies · fiction
  • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
    "the emergence of scientific truths"

So you had to go to a dictionary. I was hoping you had an actual opinion in context.

Let's look at the last one: "A fact or belief that is accepted as true".

Accepted by how many people? By what percentage of the populace? Just your half?
.

Had to go? ANY conversation worth while MUST start with a foundational agreement, with a foundation to gauge statements by there can be no "real" conversation. Things do not revolve around your (or mine opinion) despite the need you have for that to be "true" If you cannot agree to the stated definition of any given word there is then no foundational basis .

Please note I have recognized your unwillingness to even settle on the given meaning of a word. That's just not how it's done old boy

 

[debbiedowner]

If the election were held today, you could look at the crowds the candidates are bringing in to their fold to determine the election. All 800 people at a Biden event will vote for Biden. All those thousands of people waiting in line for days to support Trump will vote for Trump.
There ya go.

That crowd on the Washington Mall yesterday--this is in a town that is so dark blue I doubt any Republican bothers to campaign there at all--was absolutely incredible. Many tens of thousands of people stood in the pouring rain to support the President's celebration of the greatness of America and the men and women who have contributed to make it that way.

And all of Trump's rallies draw standing room only crowds and he has to set up big screens for the overflow outside the venues. Unlike the Democrats, he doesn't feature entertainers, popular musicians or bands, etc. to lure the crowds. It is just him. And they come. The music was great yesterday but it all was accomplished with a great military band and choir.

Is that because they admire him as a person so much? I don't think so. I think they appreciate what he is accomplishing and they share his vision and the goals and objectives he has accomplished and/or is doing his damndest to accomplish. And they put themselves out there to support that vision. The great crowds attending Trump rallies are true Americans who love their country and want it to be great and strong and prosperous with real opportunity for all regardless of skin color or ethncity or gender or sexual orientation or creed or political leanings. He is the only person campaigning on that theme that many of us have been hungry for. We have wanted that for many years now.

What the alphabet media refused to cover yesterday:


Evenso I don't know that those amazing people will outnumber the leftists, indoctrinated, snowflakes, haters, and malcontents. I won't be confident until President Trump's second inauguration.

So how much larger was the crowd than any other 4th of July in D.C. for fireworks?

2014

Fourth of July Attracts Crowds to National Mall

 

[konradv]

If you think tRump is the "common sense candidate" you might need to look up the definition of "common sense".

Yep, billionaires always lack common sense don’t they?

Trump's the exception that proves the rule. He made it on family money, political connections and borrowing other people's money and letting them take the hit in bankruptcy.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

LOL, you poor kid.

Let's start here lil guy, surely we can agree on this "definition" of the word, right?

"
truth
[tro͞oTH]
veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality ·
authenticity · dinkum oil
antonyms:
dishonesty · falsity

• 
  
  
  • (the truth)
    that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
    "tell me the truth" ·
    the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
    antonyms:
    lies · fiction
  • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
    "the emergence of scientific truths"

So you had to go to a dictionary. I was hoping you had an actual opinion in context.

Let's look at the last one: "A fact or belief that is accepted as true".

Accepted by how many people? By what percentage of the populace? Just your half?
.

Your "real" point here is that a thing can "only" be a truth to those that deign to "believe" it.

 

[Mac1958]

Common sense, like "Truth", is in the eye of the beholder.
Since we no longer communicate, we can all just make up our definitions as we go and claim the high ground.

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

LOL, you poor kid.

Let's start here lil guy, surely we can agree on this "definition" of the word, right?

"
truth
[tro͞oTH]
veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality ·
authenticity · dinkum oil
antonyms:
dishonesty · falsity

• 
  
  
  • (the truth)
    that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
    "tell me the truth" ·
    the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
    antonyms:
    lies · fiction
  • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
    "the emergence of scientific truths"

So you had to go to a dictionary. I was hoping you had an actual opinion in context.

Let's look at the last one: "A fact or belief that is accepted as true".

Accepted by how many people? By what percentage of the populace? Just your half?
.

Had to go? ANY conversation worth while MUST start with a foundational agreement, with a foundation to gauge statements by there can be no "real" conversation. Things do not revolve around your (or mine opinion) despite the need you have for that to be "true" If you cannot agree to the stated definition of any given word there is then no foundational basis .

Please note I have recognized your unwillingness to even settle on the given meaning of a word. That's just not how it's done old boy

I guess you're not going to answer my direct and clear question.

I'm specifically trying to establish a working definition, but never mind.

That's okay, I'm used to that here.
.

 

[Ambivalent1]

It is shocking that Trump did not win in a landslide. Apparently, the American people have a very high tolerance for corruption and political correctness.

In fairness, probably many Hillary voters did not believe she was corrupt and being politically correct is seen as normal for them and they see anything else as just wrong or even evil. There are a lot of folks out there who have been poorly educated but very effectively indoctrinated.

But yes, President Trump should have won by a much larger margin. Had it not been for the attempted 'soft' coup by the deep state allies of Obama and Hillary with a mainstream media that gave Hillary 90% or better positive or at least benign coverage while giving Trump 90% or better negative coverage, the outcome would likely have been very different. If Hillary had been treated like anybody else would have been treated if that anybody else had blatantly and deliberately mishandled classified materials and then destroyed evidence to cover that up, Hillary would likely have not been the Democrat nominee.

But that's all water under the bridge so far as the 2016 election was concerned.

Trump has even a more uphill battle in 2020. Hopefully most of the deep state bad actors have now been sent packing, but we don't know who is left there. And the media will double down as the dutiful Democrat attack machine to try to bring President Trump down. And the permanent political class among the GOP are not doing the President any favors and are consistently undercutting him. They don't want the status quo that enriches them so handsomely disturbed either.

Those of us who know the score need to be constructive and informative to get the honest word out there that the MSM won't report. And we must not become discouraged or weary in our efforts because we just might make the difference come a year from November.

Meanwhile back in reality, your master lost by 3M votes. Talk about delusional

How does the United States elect a President?

 

[francoHFW]

Robert Curry raised an interesting question in this short essay this week.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/03/is-common-sense-making-a-comeback/

He observed the glaring lack of common sense in the Democrat debates with Julian Castro advocating abortion rights for transgender women taking the top prize for the proposal demonstrating the least common sense. But as he sadly but accurately pointed out, whoever wins the Democrat nomination is unlikely to do so by promoting a common sense agenda, goals, objectives etc. (Personal note: common sense Democrats are being booed off stages almost everywhere.)

That is a sad commentary on our current political environment though probably many Democrats will not agree with it. But for conservatives, Curry is just stating the obvious and preaching to the choir.

The more interesting point he raised is that President Trump was/is clearly the common sense candidate. I concur with that. He isn't partisan. He is no ideologue. He can't be described as a conservative, libertarian, or right winger. But his vision, his goals, his objectives are all solidly rooted in common sense. What the problem actually is. What needs to happen to solve it.

But the question is, did America elect him mostly because he offered common sense that we were hungry for? Or did people vote mostly against what they saw as blatant obviousness of Clinton dishonesty and corruption mixed with lack of vision and promoting an unacceptable status quo?

If the vote was more against Hillary than for Trump, what will that bode for the 2020 election? Is there sufficient appreciation for what the President has accomplished to earn him sufficient votes to win next year? Or has America lost it to the point that they will vote for irrationality instead of common sense?

So where are you at this point?

Will you vote for President Trump because he is the Republican? Or because he is the common sense candidate? Or will you vote against him because he is Donald J. Trump? Or will you vote against him because he is on the Republican ticket? Or will you vote for any Democrat to prevent a Republican win? Or will you vote for somebody else for reasons not enumerated here?

Please explain your vote.

(Multiple choice on the poll and you can change your vote if you change your mind.)

If you think tRump is the "common sense candidate" you might need to look up the definition of "common sense".

Yep, billionaires always lack common sense don’t they?

When they lost more money than anybody in the country over a 10-year period Yes. When all they ever have done in politics is parrot a bunch of garbage propaganda, yes.

 

[Ambivalent1]

What a stupendously ignorant response. Truth is "true" whether or not ANYONE believes it. You are certainly the product of an education that reeks of " moral equivalence".

What is your definition of "Truth"?

Get as specific as you would like.
.

LOL, you poor kid.

Let's start here lil guy, surely we can agree on this "definition" of the word, right?

"
truth
[tro͞oTH]
veracity · truthfulness · verity · sincerity · candor · honesty · genuineness · gospel · gospel truth · accuracy · correctness · rightness · validity · factualness · factuality ·
authenticity · dinkum oil
antonyms:
dishonesty · falsity

• 
  
  
  • (the truth)
    that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
    "tell me the truth" ·
    the fact of the matter · what actually/really happened · the case · so · gospel · gospel truth · God's truth · the honest truth · fact(s) · reality · real life · actuality
    antonyms:
    lies · fiction
  • a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
    "the emergence of scientific truths"

So you had to go to a dictionary. I was hoping you had an actual opinion in context.

Let's look at the last one: "A fact or belief that is accepted as true".

Accepted by how many people? By what percentage of the populace? Just your half?
.

Had to go? ANY conversation worth while MUST start with a foundational agreement, with a foundation to gauge statements by there can be no "real" conversation. Things do not revolve around your (or mine opinion) despite the need you have for that to be "true" If you cannot agree to the stated definition of any given word there is then no foundational basis .

Please note I have recognized your unwillingness to even settle on the given meaning of a word. That's just not how it's done old boy

I guess you're not going to answer my direct and clear question.

I'm specifically trying to establish a working definition, but never mind.

That's okay, I'm used to that here.
.

I gave it to you, you've simply chosen not to "agree" with it. It's a standard Prog defense mechanism, I however won't allow you to play that game. The definition I posted is accepted as true right up until it no longer fits your world view.