Who are you voting for?

[sunshinenbrick]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is nature the Earth in your opinion's?

 

 

Could the frenzy during occasions of ritual madness we experience in different ways when we are at different ages, 5 to 12; 13 to 20, and so on, be because of the Earth's seasonal changes?

 

I'd say, for me, nature just accounts for the way things are. Physics, mathematics, life, dreams, whatever...

 

And yeah I'd say even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' there are larger forces at work that likely affect us in ways we are perhaps unaware (moon, gravity, light, temperature)... Which goes back to the 'common consciousness' thing again.

 

 

Common consciousness?

 

Which does that relate to best, "the collective conscience" or "the collective conscious?

 

 

I suppose a conscience is perhaps a retrospective view of the conscious.

 

 

In your opinion then, is there such a thing as a completely good conscience while a person is conscious?

 

 

I'm not sure I believe in objective morals, but rather more in karma or a sort of balance.

 

 

So I would say yes and no. It depends which way you want to look at it, but then how you 'see' it may not be how it all works out...

 

As for politicians and those in the 'upper hemispheres' of our society, well they live in a different perspective of the world so their common sense will be different to most of us. But then things can change very quickly, look at Snowden, the US election drama, or the Panama Papers...

 

 

 

In your opinion what are some of the differences between a royal, even a newborn of any class, baby's common sense and say, a full grown man's common sense who is a king?

 

 

Not entirely sure I understand the question, but I would say it totally depends on the situation and the person. Some kids have lots of problems but achieve a lot, some have lots of advantages and get in lots of trouble. Some kings, queens and heads of state are loved by their people, some are not.

 

 

I asked you to give some examples of the difference of common sense in a child compared to an adult. In your opinion there are differences in situations and common sense applied therein.

 

I did not require an answer involving any situations.

 

Reread the question. Do you see any implication given therein asking you to define anything except common sense?

 

 

Wasn't sure if you were asking about just kings or not. Either way I would give the same answer anyway.

 

To perhaps put it another way, I think that things simply get more complex the more aware of the complexities we become. For example, if a baby puts their hand on a hotplate it hurts, they scream. The adult does the same thing, it hurts, they scream, and then they start asking questions as to why it hurts, 'how could I be so stupid?', could there be a way to make hotplates not burn you?

 

It's like the wooden chair I referred to before. The chair in its original form and the splintered broken chair. It is the 'same' chair, only becoming more complex. This principle seems to permeate the universe - the most complex of structures are made of ever simpler parts.

 

 

In my opinion the answer to my question is, "No." There is no difference, age doesn't matter, common sense is the same, only our experiences are different!

 

 

That's what I think, at least that was what I was trying to explain. Not sure I explained it very well.

 

But you have now :laugh:

[Deleted54170User]

Want to waste my time?

We could all, every voting age registered to vote USA citizen in the 50 states could watch while the candidates hoot and holler from one televised convention, not 50 times; where they go to one city in each state for each state of the U. S. of A. Just one long convention at the end of which all the registered voters vote.

The votes are collected after each candidate speaks and the one with the most from all fifty states wins.

ONCE for all campaigners, and all, each candidate takes the podium, once!

One convention and we all could vote from every state of the U.S. of A. using our satellite ISP, and landline ISP connections from a cell phone, pads, laptops, computers, Smart TV's and such to cast our votes once for each candidates liked positions, just one long convention!

I won't vote until they stop wasting time, burning up air time, and not gaining my confidence, or trust, while they claim they're getting the other state's votes.

How many people in the audience at the closed campaign hooting match voted for them?

[Harbringe]

On the common sense angle I feel obliged to point out that a post that gets so long with sunshinenbrick, on 04 Apr 2016 - 8:14 PM, said: or Pagafyr, on 04 Apr 2016 - 8:47 PM, said: that it takes up about half or more of the post without actually saying anything , does not show much evidence of common sense. Just thought that ought to be pointed out if your gonna be talking sense. :ohmy:

[HeyYou]

 

Want to waste my time?

We could all, every voting age registered to vote USA citizen in the 50 states could watch while the candidates hoot and holler from one televised convention, not 50 times; where they go to one city in each state for each state of the U. S. of A. Just one long convention at the end of which all the registered voters vote.

The votes are collected after each candidate speaks and the one with the most from all fifty states wins.

ONCE for all campaigners, and all, each candidate takes the podium, once!

One convention and we all could vote from every state of the U.S. of A. using our satellite ISP, and landline ISP connections from a cell phone, pads, laptops, computers, Smart TV's and such to cast our votes once for each candidates liked positions, just one long convention!

I won't vote until they stop wasting time, burning up air time, and not gaining my confidence, or trust, while they claim they're getting the other state's votes.

How many people in the audience at the closed campaign hooting match voted for them?

 

This is what I was thinkin' as well. In this day and age of instant information at your fingertips, that is absolutely ZERO reason for political campaigns to start TWO YEARS before the election...... I am sure the broadcaster just love the advertising dollars they get though..... Not to mention the venues that make millions from hosting such conventions......

 

For my part, I would like to see political campaigns restricted to within three months of the election for which they are running. Limit campaign contributions to 5000.00 bucks per registered voter. (said voter can contribute a TOTAL of 5 grand to the candidate(s) of his(her) choice.) That's it. Corporations are NOT people, and I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the views of those that control the political purse strings at any corporation, are in line with the employees that work there.......

[sunshinenbrick]

On the common sense angle I feel obliged to point out that a post that gets so long with sunshinenbrick, on 04 Apr 2016 - 8:14 PM, said: or Pagafyr, on 04 Apr 2016 - 8:47 PM, said: that it takes up about half or more of the post without actually saying anything , does not show much evidence of common sense. Just thought that ought to be pointed out if your gonna be talking sense. :ohmy:

 

In my 'defense' I was merely answering some questions and having discussion with another member. I'm sorry if I upset you :sad:

 

Regarding common sense, I think a few people both here and on other topics have expressed their anxiety over things not being so 'common' or 'sensical', so this leaves a good deal of room for debate, other than just assume it simply doesn't exist anymore (which I have also thought about and suggested myself).

 

Just because something is 'common' or 'sensical' does not mean it is necessarily easy to understand, or rather, explain. The very nature of it being 'common sense' perhaps suggests that there is no way to explain outside simply stating it as 'common sense'.

 

... but then I guess that is just common sense, right? :laugh:

[sunshinenbrick]

 

Want to waste my time?

 

In all fairness, it was you who asked me the question.

 

Or was it rhetorical?

[Deleted54170User]

 

 

Want to waste my time?

 

In all fairness, it was you who asked me the question.

 

Or was it rhetorical?

 

 

You took my meaning in the wrong way. :geek: If I had added an exclamation point after the question mark I would of expected your answer the way you gave it.

 

It was just a soft question, nor a blunt and exclamation of how exhausting someone else might be if we were debating like the candidates constantly.

 

I was hoping for a longer and more time consuming discussion so I could learn more about what people think about. :wub:

[sunshinenbrick]

 

 

 

Want to waste my time?

 

In all fairness, it was you who asked me the question.

 

Or was it rhetorical?

 

 

You took my meaning in the wrong way. :geek:

 

I was hoping for a longer and more time consuming discussion so I could learn more about what people think about. :wub:

 

 

That's cool, I am also keen to discover and discuss what other people think. Perhaps I was a little put out by something else and my humble apologies for my sarcasm :blush:

 

And by the way I very much agree with your point on the whole 'time wasting' (or should I say 'money making') thing. Although it can be hard to come to a consensus among hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, there are those that turn the whole thing into a fan-fare for there own selfish gains and leave the rest of us for 'chumps'...

[Deleted54170User]

 

 

 

 

Want to waste my time?

 

In all fairness, it was you who asked me the question.

 

Or was it rhetorical?

 

 

You took my meaning in the wrong way. :geek:

 

I was hoping for a longer and more time consuming discussion so I could learn more about what people think about. :wub:

 

 

That's cool, I am also keen to discover and discuss what other people think. Perhaps I was a little put out by something else and my humble apologies for my sarcasm :blush:

 

And by the way I very much agree with your point on the whole 'time wasting' (or should I say 'money making') thing. Although it can be hard to come to a consensus among hundreds of millions, if not billions of people, there are those that turn the whole thing into a fan-fare for there own selfish gains and leave the rest of us for 'chumps'...

 

 

Yeah! I noted where you might of gotten your feeling tweaked up a little so I responded quickly.

 

You added the money into the discussion right where it belongs.

[Deleted54170User]

 

 

Want to waste my time?

We could all, every voting age registered to vote USA citizen in the 50 states could watch while the candidates hoot and holler from one televised convention, not 50 times; where they go to one city in each state for each state of the U. S. of A. Just one long convention at the end of which all the registered voters vote.

The votes are collected after each candidate speaks and the one with the most from all fifty states wins.

ONCE for all campaigners, and all, each candidate takes the podium, once!

One convention and we all could vote from every state of the U.S. of A. using our satellite ISP, and landline ISP connections from a cell phone, pads, laptops, computers, Smart TV's and such to cast our votes once for each candidates liked positions, just one long convention!

I won't vote until they stop wasting time, burning up air time, and not gaining my confidence, or trust, while they claim they're getting the other state's votes.

How many people in the audience at the closed campaign hooting match voted for them?

 

This is what I was thinkin' as well. In this day and age of instant information at your fingertips, that is absolutely ZERO reason for political campaigns to start TWO YEARS before the election...... I am sure the broadcaster just love the advertising dollars they get though..... Not to mention the venues that make millions from hosting such conventions......

 

For my part, I would like to see political campaigns restricted to within three months of the election for which they are running. Limit campaign contributions to 5000.00 bucks per registered voter. (said voter can contribute a TOTAL of 5 grand to the candidate(s) of his(her) choice.) That's it. Corporations are NOT people, and I find it HIGHLY unlikely that the views of those that control the political purse strings at any corporation, are in line with the employees that work there.......

 

 

Imagine all the money they could make if they followed your idea's and also got the public attention because we got candidates chosen by the online method I mentioned. All the take out, ordered delivery food service, the family get togethers for them, and try to imagine just one city like that, filtered through 50 times with only one tenth of the population watching the debates because the other nine tenths of either Democrats or Republican families don't care since their votes going to go on one side of the fence or the other.

 

Now if all the people of a place the size of New Jersey turned their focus on the running of the candidates and both sides of the fence watched because they felt like they were cared enough about too they might be among the majority whose vote counts. Hmm?

 

Multiply that same situation with all fifty states watching and picking the candidates from the starting events while the candidates are still small fish in the ocean of sharks.

 

The possibility that freedom of choice might get more peoples attention voting online.

 

Would people spend more time on the look out and sift through all the possible candidates?

 

We might if we thought there was a chance we all could bring a candidate out of, like the UK English like to say, Out of the Pond, and be a part of entire lineup of possible candidate choices.

 

I'd go for it and work to see if the masses choices would rise to the final line up of 3 parties with 3 leaders at the top to see if we the people could make the difference in bringing our selve, the people, back into the fold of United We Stand.

 

Interested?

 

I rather get in where the minnows swim and watch to see if one I think has potential is picked by a majority of the people of the 50 states.

 

Rather than watching 10 candidates, hand picked by an invisible group, flop around like tuna fish out of water.

 

I'd say it would be a safe guess that there would be an increase in all the money markets for several months still PLUS, but less hassle because the total voting would be for sensible plans which emerge from the public opinions that even the higher up hemi-sphere use some of in their method of madness.