The 2020 Election: Is Common Sense Making a Comeback?

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Great, thanks.
.

You're welcome, you're stupid.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Great, thanks.
.

You're welcome, you're stupid.

Mac1958

I will never let you determine the definition of any given word son.
I'll break you.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Great, thanks.
.

You're welcome, you're stupid.

Mac1958

I will never let you determine the definition of any given word son.
I'll break you.

Funny, since you couldn't give me YOURS, which is what I was ASKING for.

"I'll break you" - LOL, you'll just crack me up.
.

 

[task0778]

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 becausetu..

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.)

Donald Trump is arguably the most divisive, polaraizing, incompetent and courrupt person slithering on the surface of the planet.

I pray fervently that his political career ends soon and ends completely. We cannot bear four more years of his antics, his boorishness and is complete ineptitude.

That's pretty much where I stand. Good luck to you Trump supporters. One day the shadow will lift.

And he's building a wall and trying to improve our border security, as well as our national security. It's not like the wall will guarantee no more illegal entries, but it helps funnel more people to the checkpoints. Which oughta be upgraded, and increased in number. Not his fault congress won't improve the situation after decades of doing nothing.


I accept that you hate the President personally for partisan reasons. I know you won't vote for President Trump in 2020. That is your right and I won't try to talk you out of it. But you would be hard put to put together an honest list of significant accomplishments of Barack Obama or George W. Bush in their entire eight years. But President Trump in 2-1/2 years has accomplished:

--Kick started a stalled, stagnant economy to an amazing degree.

--Trillions of dollars of operating and venture capital that had been sidelined here or sheltered overseas to protect it from Obama's oppressive policies have been put back into the economy that helped promote that kick start.

--Wages are rising comfortably without noticeable inflation for the first time in quite a while.

--People are going back to work and in spite of the retiring baby boomers now exiting the labor market in record numbers, the labor participation rate ticked up a bit last month. That is clear evidence that a lot of people who want and need jobs are finding them.

--People who were struggling with two or three jobs with little or no benefits are now able to secure permanent full time jobs with benefits. That is due to small business being relieved of the Obamacare mandate that forced them to either not expand their work forces or utilize only part time and/or temporary labor.

--Our allies who had been leeching off of us for years are starting to pay more of their fair share in return for the security we provide them.

--Bad trade deals that had been bleeding jobs and manufacturing capability from the USA are being renegotiated, and because of that, plus a more equitable tax policy and more reasonable regulation policies, more businesses are returning to the USA than are leaving. Our manufacturing base is increasing for the first time in a very long time.

--Unemployment is at record or near record levels not only overall, but for essentially every American demographic including black people, Hispanics, women, youth, the hard core unemployed, etc. etc. etc.

--Family wealth is increasing for the first time in a long time due to increased earnings and also due to home values increasing, again without significant inflation.

--We are negotiating with countries that are the most dangerous to the USA and/or their neighbors, militarily and/or economically and seeing progress, though slow, being made. Progress is being made in areas in which there was a lot of grumbling and blustering by previous administrations, but were otherwise ignored.

--We are energy independent which frees us from being held hostage by OPEC or anybody else.

If that is your definition of 'incompetent' I sure hope we get a whole bunch more of it.

 

[basquebromance]

corporations dont care about your health. they care about profits. can we all agree on that?

 

[Crepitus]

the three ring circus tRump oozed out of.

Can't even get a metaphor straight, eh? Go back to high school.

That one to complicated for ya?

Sorry. I'll try to dumb it down for ya next time.

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Great, thanks.
.

You're welcome, you're stupid.

Mac1958

I will never let you determine the definition of any given word son.
I'll break you.

Funny, since you couldn't give me YOURS, which is what I was ASKING for.

"I'll break you" - LOL, you'll just crack me up.
.

This is your problem kid, my "opinion" ( like yours) is immaterial, you want the definition of any given word to be malleable, it isn't. You're a punk who need EVERYTHING to be "relative".

 

[Ambivalent1]

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.

Great, thanks.
.

You're welcome, you're stupid.

Mac1958

I will never let you determine the definition of any given word son.
I'll break you.

Funny, since you couldn't give me YOURS, which is what I was ASKING for.

"I'll break you" - LOL, you'll just crack me up.
.

I will break you son, you however will never see it because your ego is too wrapped up in trying to be "right".

 

[Third Party]

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.)

Third Party-probably Howard Schultz

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Great, thanks.
.

You're welcome, you're stupid.

Mac1958

I will never let you determine the definition of any given word son.
I'll break you.

Funny, since you couldn't give me YOURS, which is what I was ASKING for.

"I'll break you" - LOL, you'll just crack me up.
.

I will break you son, you however will never see it because your ego is too wrapped up in trying to be "right".

I asked you to provide a definition for a word YOU used, and you've gone full-on drama queen, snowflake. You don't even have the balls to back up your own words.

You intimidate no one. Sorry.
.

 

[FA_Q2]

I doubt I will vote for Trump. I don't see a good reason to but there are a lot of reasons not to. At one point I may have been able to vote for Biden just because he was the only one on stage that was not completely insane. Now that he has gone on an apology tour and bent the knee to the SJW, he is more unlikely than Trump at this point. His debate performance was abysmal. Every other democrat running is bat shit insane.

That leaves me with third party again this year. It would be really nice if the dems would run someone not crazy but alas, that miracle is not to happen next year.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

“Family money”?
How much family money was he gifted?
Operating on other people’s money, limiting risk and potential exposure is fundamental for all wealthy folks.
You didn’t know that?

I just happen to know that, it was $100 million. He's turned it into billions. Some ventures have failed, the majority have succeeded. He failed here.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I probably wont vote.

that way, nobody here can blame me for the mess we will be in.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I probably wont vote.

that way, nobody here can blame me for the mess we will be in.

Or blame you for the mess we're in because you didn't vote.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Or blame you for the mess we're in because you didn't vote.

a win/win to be sure.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.)

[X] The candidate who prioritized liberty


.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.)

[X] The candidate who prioritized liberty


.

so... you are not voting then.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

I think abortion coverage for biological males that identify as the female gender is going a bit beyond just subjectivity.

Don't you?

 

[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.

I think abortion coverage for biological males that identify as the female gender is going a bit beyond just subjectivity.

Don't you?

Yes.
.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

“Family money”?
How much family money was he gifted?
Operating on other people’s money, limiting risk and potential exposure is fundamental for all wealthy folks.
You didn’t know that?

I just happen to know that, it was $100 million. He's turned it into billions. Some ventures have failed, the majority have succeeded. He failed here.

It was closer to half a billion and since he hides his taxes we have no real idea of his net worth. Personally I think that's why he's hiding them. Not because they provide evidence of misdeeds, but because they would reveil he's not a billionaire at all.