Bno

Not sure how accurate this list is, but here's what I found through a quick search using the ecosia.org search engine: https://www.angloinfo.com/blogs/global/angloinfo-world-expat-life/20-most-democratic-countries-in-the-world-do-you-live-there/ And here is a BBC article that has a link to the Princeton study: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

On Leo's video on structure vs content, he mentioned Donald Trump meeting with Kim Jung Un. Many people in the media criticize this, including Senator Bernie Sanders. However, I see this as a good thing since this minimizes tensions between us and North Korea. Isn't meeting with foreign leaders to minimize tensions and increase peace one of the president's jobs? Trump has done many horrible things while in office, but starting new wars with other countries is not one of them although that's a very low bar that was set for him by former presidents George W Bush (started Iraq and Afghanistan) and Barack Obama (started Syria, Lybia, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen). We are currently in 7 wars and the establishment government and intelligence agency wants to get into Iran and has economically and politically interfered or tried to interfere in Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, and Ukraine.

And the chances of nuclear catastrophe decreases.

A Princeton study came out recently that showed the US is more of an Oligarchy than a Democracy.

What makes you think meeting with them would decrease the chances of ending the dictatorship? And are you also proposing that we keep tensions with them high which would also increase the chances of a nuclear war? At least by meeting with them, you are offering a different perspective and reducing the chances of nuclear war.

Not completely. The establishment government was there before him and still is there now. John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Elliott Abrhams and many others wanted more aggression in Syria after the (staged) gas attacks and kept pushing for war with Iran. However, Trump chose not to exacerbate military involvement in those countries. Earlier this year, he was so close to declaring war with Iran until he spoke to Tucker Carkson of Fox News (lmao!). But he still interfered in South America, which is what the establishment wanted.

I would like to see this too. Or conscious education. I really liked Leo's ideas on an ideal education system in his Conscious Politics Part 4 video and wish to hear more details about it.

@Leo Gura Yup, and Trump hasn't done anything to help them this whole time. Whoever Trump's opponent is in the general election needs to make it a top priority to point this out as much as possible.

@Leo Gura I agree. However, idt any of the candidates are purposefully catering to them specifically. The economic policies being proposed by progressives just so happen to be liked by some Trump voters.

@Leo Gura Yeah, it seems like they're strong in the mainstream media portrayals, but these depictions and polls are biased towards older (50+) democrats. To win an election the candidate needs to win over republicans and independents in addition to democrats, which credible polls have shown populists like Sanders, Gabbard, and Yang are popular among independents and former Trump voters while establishment candidates like Biden and Warren are very weak.

How many months or years or meditation does it take to open it?

This is a very good analysis of American group consciousness and why some people were disapointed with the conclusion of the Mueller Report.

@remember Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept does some really good work.

Out of curiosity, I would like to know what news commentators and journalists you guys listen to. We could all also recommend to each other who to listen to and who is the most conscious. I listen to the following: Kyle Kulinski - Secular Talk Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and others - The Grayzone Project Niko House - MCSC Network Tim Black Jimmy Dore - The Jimmy Dore Show Kim Iversen Jamarl Thomas Graham Elwood Ron Placone The Convo Couch Primo Nutmeg Michael Tracy Rising - The Hill

@remember As history has shown, real change needs to come from within the political system, and outside of it with the people.

@Leo Gura I meant for the current times that we're in. People are starting to see through standard career politicians that the mainstream media pushes. It looks to me like we're at a transitional state. We're seeing across the map that more progressive and populist candidates are either winning despite all financial odds (like AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tilab) or getting their victories stolen because of DNC rigging (see what happened to Tim Canova in FL).

@Apparition of Jack I see what you're trying to say. It surely is a systemic issue, but systems can begin to change if one person starts the change, and what better person to change the group consciousness level than the US president? Just look at the new progressive movement that started because of Bernie Sanders opening a lot of American eyes. I can assure that my consciousness level also increased thanks to my discovery of Actualized.org, as I'm sure many others here can also attest to that. Also, I think people are collectively more conscious than what many here think. Bernie Sanders was in 2016 and still currently is the most popular US politician. The primaries were stolen from him because of the DNC rigging. When it comes to Universal Health Care, over 70% of Democrats and Independents agree we should have it and in some polls even more than 50% of Republicans think we should have it. The problem is that were not getting the changes we need because many people's first priority isn't election integrity. But I digress, I won't put all the blame on Obama. Maybe he did try to make changes but the pressure by his peers were too much. But the question was what he will be remembered for, and it is true that his presidency was followed by the rise of Trump. Many 2 time Obama voters were unhappy enough to vote for Trump or not vote at all and a small insignificant group voted 3rd party.

Donald Trump is a populist candidate. The only way to beat him is with another populist candidate like Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and maybe Andrew Yang. More importantly, he needs to be attacked for his economic policies so that his base votes against him. He did not deliver what he promised (draining the swamp, giving people more jobs, "winning tremendously"). People voted for him because they are sick and tired of career politicians like the Clintons, the Bushes, the Rubios and the Cruzes. Unfortunately, Warren is too much of a standard politician herself and putting her up against Trump will be a nail biter.

For increasing fracking, expanding the war from 2 to 7 countries, bailing out wallstreet after they ruined the economy, running out of bombs in Syria, giving us Obamacare (which is essentially Romneycare) when he promised us universal healthcare, having one of the best campaigns of all time in 2008 but giving us more of the same instead of actual hope and change, supporting NAFTA and the TPP, tweaks around the edges, and giving us the rise of Donald Trump.

Tulsi Gabbard has better foreign policy than Bernie Sanders. Bernie makes up for this though with his outstanding domestic policy. I will be happy with either one as president.