Forestluv

U.S. federal unemployment rates are notorious for underestimating true unemployment. Even if unemployment is relatively low, another concern is quality of jobs. Many jobs are minimum wage without benefits and security - and people are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.

Yang's main thrust is his UBI plan and to me he is too one-dimensional. I only know a bit about UBI. I think it has good intentions, yet I don't think it is the best strategy because it doesn't address the deeper systemic issues. I don't think it is the most effective use of money. For example, it won't address inequality in health care, racism, jobs, empowerment. I would rather see something like a guaranteed job program. As well, it diverts too much from existing social infrastructure. Currently, it would be very hard to dismantle social programs like medicare and social security that have deep infrastructure. Republicans have tried for decades and have failed. If deep social programs are weakened by diverting their resources to UBI, it will be easier for Republicans to dismantle weakened social programs as well as the new UBI program. Secondly, UBI can be used as an excuse by Republicans to cut programs such as food stamps. To me, UBI doesn't go nearly far enough to address underlying issues and shift power back to the people. I see it like a band-aid.

I think Wisconsin is one of the most important states for Trump. From your perspective, do Trump's declining poll numbers reflect the general attitude you see in Wisconsin? Have you seen a shift since his election? I live in Michigan, which narrowly went to Trump - similar to Wisconsin. Here there has been a considerable shift. In 2018, Democrats won governor and many lower level seats switched democrat. Also, Republicans were benefiting from gerrymandering and an voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gerrymandering bill. I don't see Trump winning Michigan again.

I think Biden has soft support based on name recognition and Obama's VP. He represents a "return to normalcy". His biggest positive with voters is "electability" and the polls reinforce this. People in polls select Biden often for electability - which reinforces his electability images. I think as people get to know Biden, he will fade. Not just because of his checkered past on the issues, his creepy behavior toward girls or his gaffes. I think most of his supporters see him as a nice guy that is socially awkward and made a few bad votes he learned from. My bigger concerns are that he will not excite the base or new voters - at all. I hear a media narrative that "all democrats will be energized to vote against Trump regardless of the democratic candidate". To me, this seems like a corporate frame to nominate a centrist and maintain the status quo. Biden would suck energy out of the electorate. My second major concern is Biden's cognitive decline. This is being ageist. Bernie is older than Biden and Bernie is still mentally sharp. Warren is also in her 70s and sharp. Biden is not. His memory is failing. He is creating personal stories that combine memories of events that took place years apart. He has struggled to remember Obama's name. Multiple times he hasn't known what state he is in. Several times during the climate debate he struggled to be cognitive. Trump's team has already picked up on this and called Biden "mentally unfit". Trump will be brutally attack Biden on this and I he now longer has the mental clarity and crispness to counter. So how do we "get rid of him"? I was hoping he would naturally fade away and we do see him fading in the polls, yet I'm concerned it is too gradual. The good news is that Bernie and Warren have more support combined than Biden. I'd like to see Biden fall and the race come down to Bernie and Warren. This mainly falls on the hands of other moderates to expose Biden. A few candidates have done this somewhat effectively in the debates. In particular, other centrist candidates need to press Biden. I hope Biden can fall based on the issues. I'd rather not go after his cognitive decline. I don't think he is still cognitively healthy enough to beat Trump and be an effective President (although he would be better than Trump). Yet to reveal this in a humane way would tricky. Right-wingers are brutal to each other and eat their own. Yet progressives don't like to harm each other. Cory Booker told Biden during the debate like "You are drinking the kool-aid and don't even know the flavor". This was a jab at Biden's declining cognition, yet came across as tongue-in-cheek. Early stages of dementia is difficult to deal with and I would never want to take advantage of someone's declining mind - yet we are talking about the presidency here. If Biden doesn't fall below Bernie and Warren in the next month, I think this point should come to the forefront. I'm amazed at what resonates with Trump supporters. It's a totally different resonance than progressives. Sometimes I try to see it from the perspective of a Trump supporter, yet it takes effort. For example, Trump supporters don't care about Trump's lying or corruption as long as they "own the libs". Yet progressives get upset when a candidate meets with someone associated with corporate America - in particular health insurance, fossil fuel industry, gun lobby or military industrial complex. Progressives hold their candidate to a much higher standard than conservatives. The biggest blunder for Warren so far was her claim of Native American heritage. In degree, this would rank somewhere around 100,000 on a list relative to Trump's behavior. Yet Trump has the leveraging dark magic and was able to equalize Warren's mishap to his own atrocious behavior. I totally agree. Bernie has the most passionate supporters by far - in particular people under 35. He would ignite a movement. 50,000+ rallies with intense passion. People vibrating with hope and desire to evolve. Bernie is a very special person and candidate. We may not see another Bernie in our lifetimes. I think Bernie is more solid than Warren. She is my #2. Warren is trying to build a broader coalition that includes the establishment. I don't think she would hit the same level of energy Bernie would, yet I think she could still generate excitement and would be able to settle down the resistance in the media and corporations generate. I don't think this is good for policy, yet it would have a political benefit in terms of electability. Bernie won't back down to conservatives, media or corporations. Warren would in many contexts (except she is very strong against corporate corruption). I think it's more than just "change". I think many people feel and desire forward motion toward Green. To transcend the toxicities of Blue and Orange - such as hyper capitalism, racism and inhumane treatment of "the other".

It is edible. I would weigh it out, put it in a capsule and swallow it on an almost empty stomach. Sublingual is probably a bit more efficient yet 4-aco tastes really bad. It’s awful.

To an extent. For example, 5-meo and Aya are very different trips.

4-aco-dmt is highly similar to shrooms. It is very different than dmt. I’m not aware of a substitute similar to Dmt. Dmt is very different than lsd and shrooms. I wouldn’t say it’s stronger - although the visuals are certainly stronger.

@Winter 4-aco-dmt is very similar to shrooms and easy to acquire. If someone resonates with psychedelics and feels a calling to diversify, I think it’s a great idea. If someone is having negative issues with LSD and is looking for shrooms to save the day - that’s a different dynamic and I would be more cautious.

@Annoynymous Yes, Trump has rabid support of his followers - about 35% and they vote. Biden has soft support based mostly on name recognition. I think Biden would lose because he won’t excite the base, young voters and new voters. Plus his cognition is declining - his memory is beginning to fade and he is starting to show difficulty speaking coherently. Trump will be brutal in the next election and I don’t think Biden could handle it. I strongly believe a progressive is needed to stand up strong against Trump and show contrast. This will energize the base, youth and give new voters a reason to vote. Democrats win with inspiring progressives like Obama, they lose with corporate centrists like Hilary Clinton. As well, I don’t believe the media narrative that the U.S. isn’t ready for a progressive. Most progressive proposals on health care (M4A), gun laws (ubc) and climate change (GND) and wealth tax have enormous support ranging from 60-90% support. These are mainstream proposals. One needs to get to the most extreme left policies such as reparations and decriminalizing illegal immigration to see support drop below 50% and the democratic nominee will run on those. The progressive democrat will win on the issues. It isn’t even close. To win, Trump needs to make the contest personal, distort, use fear and create racial divisions. He would lose on the issues. That is why the democrats want to debate on the issues - because they win on the issues. Bigly.

LSD and shrooms are on the same level of intensity. The differences are subjective. The best way to find out is try it. For me, the differences are fairly subtle. It’s not like the difference between LSD, 5-meo-dmt, Ayahuasca and San Pedro. Those are major differences ime.

Yes, I live in the U.S. . . Trump has hardcore support by about 35% of population - and they vote. They don't care if Trump lies, cheats, manipulates or harms "the other", like putting kids in cages. About another 10% of the population is soft support. They like aspects of Trump's policies, yet wish he would tone down his overt racism and awful tweeting habit. Trump has a low chance of winning the popular vote. He actually lost the popular vote to Clinton by 2% (about 3 million votes). Unfortunately, the U.S. has an archaic "electoral college" which disproportionately weighs rural areas - Trump's strongest support. Trump is playing a game in which he needs to win about six "battle ground" states to win the presidency - even though he is likely to lose the popular vote. A few problems I see with democrats. . . Only two democrats will excite the progressive base: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In contrast to right-wingers, progressive don't like candidates that lie, cheat, manipulate and schmooze with lobbyists (e.g. Hilary Clinton). This will keep them at home. I'm really worried about Biden - I don't think he can get the job done. He is a centrist corporate democrat and he will not excite the base. The democrats need a fighter to counter Trump. Unfortunately, Biden looks to be in early stages of dementia and clearly has cognitive decline. I don't think he will be able to handle the brutal assault of Trump and I think it would be awful for an elderly man losing his cognition to go through that. As well, Republicans have a voter suppression infrastructure setup and democrats are often wimps to stand up to it (except for Stacey Abrams). If Trump can stabalize and return to his 2016 and 2018 form, I think it will be close for the electoral college (yet he will lose the popular vote). However, I think Trump is starting to show cracks and is losing mental fitness. I think he could further deteriorate mentally. As well, I am hoping that the rift with Mike Pence continues. Trump is not happy that Pence has ambitions to run for president in 2024 and Pence recently hired Marc Short (an anti-Trumper) as his chief of staff. There are rumors Trump wants to dump Pence and get Nikki Haley as a lapdog to appeal to moderate women. If Trumps mental decline and infighting continues, it will be much harder for Trump to get re-elected.

Watching Walsh try to launder himself from Trump is certainly a joke. Walsh has been an overt racist for years and is now trying to claim moral character by contrasting himself with Trump.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of this. I've noticed a couple Republicans criticize Scaramucci and Walsh as coming out too late and highlighted that they had come out against Trump years ago - as if it gives them more credibility. I'm curious if this dynamic will intensify in the future. Perhaps years in the future when the Republican party is drying to launder itself, Republicans will be bragging that they came out against Trump earlier than other Republicans.

Yea, I think he may be too far gone. Personal development and awakenings generally need some willingness. I can't see that from Trump. Especially if he is still in the power game and is fighting for power. . . If he lost re-election and became a toxic pariah and suffered greatly, perhaps he would become willing - yet I don't see it happening. One dynamic that is starting to slowly arise involves Republicans that have come out against Trump. The recent ones like Joe Walsh are being criticized because it took him so long. Republicans that come out in 2015 against Trump and remained against Trump are saying they are more credible than recent converts like Joe Walsh. There is a good chance this will continue in the future. I can imagine 10 years from now, Republican candidates touting their record on Trump - that they came out against Trump way back in 2017 and their Republican opponent didn't come out until 2020. There was a similar dynamic with democrats and the Iraq war. Democrats that voted for the Iraq war benefited short term, yet took a hit long term after the Iraq war debacle. This is one reason I support impeaching Trump. Put every congressman on record whether they side with Trump. Then shift the narrative to whether 4 Senators have the courage to do the right thing. Noone thinks the senate will convict, yet there would be extreme pressure on a small group of Republican Senators. . . 21 Tory's just left their party in the UK. It could happen in the U.S. as well.

"Candidate Forgets Dog Whistle" is a good title. There are plenty of people in the U.S. that think whites should be segregated from "the other". This mentality is particularly sensitive to inter-racial marriage because it is an integration of two ethnicity AND they will produce children of mixed ethnicity. To white supremacists, this is seen as losing their purity and heritage. Since Trump took office, racists have become more emboldened. Yet, there are still lines that white supremacists know they cannot cross because they will become weakened. Sometimes, a white supremacist needs to disguise their racism with a "dog whistle". That is, to phrase something in a way that racists know your intention/meaning, yet still gives the racist wiggle room. The woman in the video sucks at it. She comes right out and says "White and Black people should not get married". There is no wiggle room. A "dog whistle" would be something like: "I think men and women should stick with their kind when marrying". Racists will know what this means, yet they still have space for wiggling. For example, if called on this statement, the person could obfuscate and say "No, it wasn't racist. I just meant it's best for people to stick to their kind regarding common interests, goals, religion etc. YOU are the racist for suggesting I was the racist!!" Trump does this all the time. For example, when he first announced his candidacy, he said "Mexicans are rapists and criminals. And some I assume are good people". This is a type of "dog whistle". Racists clearly understood the intention/meaning, yet Trump and racists didn't have to absorb the full brunt of the racism. In response, racists could say "Trump didn't say all Mexicans were criminals and rapists. He said some were good people. YOU are the racist for saying it's racist!!". Then the racist can play the victim as if they are being oppressed. Trump does this well and about 35% of the U.S. population strongly resonate with it.

I agree it is very difficult to approach - including all the reasons you write about. I find it much harder to empathize with Trump than the vulnerable people he is harming. I'm high on the empathic scale and I naturally empathize with vulnerable people getting abused. This generally overwhelms my ability to empathize with the perpetrator. It takes effort for me to empathize with Trump. I agree with what you said about people using past trauma to justify their behavior. Some people even make up traumatic stories to get attention and compassion so they can cause more harm . . . In the case of Trump, he plays the victim, yet he does not use his past trauma as an excuse for harmful behavior. Being open about his own personal traumas would be far to intimate, scary and a sign of weakness to Trump. He is the opposite. He is in denial about his past trauma and in denial that his behavior is harmful. From his perspective, it is beneficial. He is so far on the narcissist scale, that he completely lacks empathy. It's very difficult for me to imagine what this mentality is like, since I am on the other extreme toward empathy. What makes it even harder to have empathy/compassion for Trump is that he has had the resources and access for help and to evolve beyond this. It's not like he lived in poverty, was abused as a child, continued to live in poverty, act out his trauma by hitting his own kids, getting locked up in solitary confinement, getting beaten in prison etc. . . Trump has had privilege his whole life and used his privilege and power to enact pain onto others - often the most vulnerable among us. So, he is a very difficult case. He is at a Red level, yet had resources and opportunities to evolve upward. This is the first Red-level president the U.S. has had in modern history. It's a bizarre thing to process. Yet, other countries have had to deal with Red-level dictators. Yet I can tell he is mentally ill and it's getting worse. I've watched his recent interviews and speeches closely and he is ill and not doing well. Yet, I also think he should be stopped. I live in a "swing state" that narrowly went to Trump and I will be doing a lot of volunteer work for the democratic nominee (hopefully not Biden). That is a potential positive from this mess. I do think a lot of people are becoming more "woke". Especially the younger "z" generation. I've been working with 18-22 y.o. students for 15 years. There is something different about this next younger generation - a type of transformational shift. This is a really good question. Trump clearly needs therapy. If this was any other person - an uncle, a coworker, a bus driver - whoever - family and friends would have intervened to reduce the harm and help him. Yet power and denial makes intervention much much harder. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we could isolate Trump in a small high conscious community off the grid. Filled with self-actualized people and psychologists - completely out of Trump's element. It would be hell for Trump, yet I wonder if he is capable of having a breakthrough.

I think it depends on the person and their prior conditioning, energetics and baseline conscious level. I had 20+ years of meditation and personal development work before my first trip - I was primed. For a while, I assumed my experience would be true for others and I was pro-psychedelics. Yet over time, I've seen that for some - psychedelics are a very sensitive, tricky thing and can distract or even derail. Now, I have a much more cautious attitude with people using psychedelics. As well, there is a certain skill involved that may take many trips to develop.

A few thoughts on my experience: 1) Many deep insights are remarkable at first, yet after a while seems pretty obvious. The paranormal is remarkable at first, yet then becomes normal. 2) A deep / expansive experience gets re-contextualized into a puny human brain. A human mind can't capture it all. The mind tries to "make sense of it" and in doing so it becomes condensed and a lot is lost. Imagine being omniscient and returning to human. That would fry a human brain. 3) Once the the direct experience is contextualized, it becomes an "experience", a "memory". It's not just with psychedelics. Imagine the first time having sex, scuba diving or sky diving. At the time., it is mind-body amazing - perhaps for days afterwards. Yet then it becomes a memory/experience and that naive excitement of the first time dwindles. Yet, it can become embodied and mature. For example, on one 5-meo trip all of reality was deconstructed to Mu and then fully reconstructed. This was mind-blowing at the time. I remember pacing around my house yelling "That just happened! That just happened!". It was so far beyond anything imaginable it was like I had to reinforce to myself it actually happened. When I reflect on it now, I don't have that same amazement - yet it was extremely profound. It has altered the way I relate to reality, duality, nonduality, relative and absolute. I can never unsee it. When I'm with someone, I can tell if they have been to the null void. This summer I was with a high level buddhist monk who had much more knowledge and meditative experience than I. Yet I knew he hadn't gone the whole way to Nothing in direct experience. To me, it's simple and obvious now. Yet at the time of realization, I was shaken up for about a week and my whole reality was transformed.

Direct experience is really important. There is an energetic shift that is key.

I would say Mate has a lot of yellow, which isn't quite showcased in the context of the video. Empathy is a green trait and Mate has very strong empathic understanding ability. In a sense, I would consider absence of personal judgement to be a Tier2 trait, since the personality gets transcended as we enter Tier2. So in that regard, I suppose we could say it's yellow. Yet I think a mature strong empathetic green could still be operating at high green. I think Mate and Wilber are good contrasts. Mate has a much deeper embodiment of Green, while Wilber is much shallower on Green embodiment and is concentrated toward cognitive intellect.

I went to a similar place. I think some ideas may be more true or delusional - relative to the population consensus of what reality is. Yet on the absolute level, all just ideas appearing. . . For example, Trump thinking Alabama is in hurricane danger after he draws a Sharpie circle on a map would be delusional on a relative scale, yet just more ISness on an absolute scale. @cetus56 That woman reminds me of spinners at Grateful Dead shows.

No creation needed. You are already a no-self. There is no escaping no-self. The question is: "How does one create an illusory self state?" Is this assumption true? I think self love and care is awesome. I also like activities to release blockages, such as yoga, shamanic breathing and sensory deprivation tanks. I would be mindful of creating a "no-self" state. In some contexts it is helpful. For example, relaxing the mind and letting go of the "story" of me and allow space for greater awareness of body and mind dynamics - which can lead to healing and personal development at the human level. Yet in another context, it is trying to create a "state" that is not Now. This can be alluring in terms of desiring and chasing states that are not Now. This gets nuanced and tricky. In terms of personal development, nondual experiences can certainly be helpful for personal development. For example, if I can enter trans-personal realms, could I heal myself and rewire my brain? I think a lot of new discoveries in this area will arise in the future. So I'm not saying this is a "bad" thing. Yet observe this dynamic at a deeper level. Who is the "I" in which the desire is arising? To me, the energetic source is from the construct of a personal "I". That's great for personal development. Yet when we enter trans-personal states, it's a different game. It seems like you are asking "How can I use trans-personal states for personal gain?" (To create the world "I" desire). There is a deep and challenging surrender here. It is not intellectual, it is energetic. "How do I create the new world I desire?" is an important question at the personal level. Yet the person dissolves as we go trans-personal. This question gets surrendered along with the entire personality. This personal question is not important at a trans-personal level. Some people refer to this as a form of "death". Who you are as real "dies". At a trans-personal level, your question is equivalent to "How can I use this to create the world some dude name Marc in Greece that I've never met desires?" - because there is no you or Marc. This will be unpalatable at the personal level and there will be backlash. "Well, I'm not going to surrender if that means I become irrelevant and don't benefit". . . At a trans-human level, it gets even more radical. Your question would be equivalent to "How would I use this to create the world that a mosquito in Vietnam desires?"

That's what I was getting at. The breakdown of subject vs. object. Yet it would probably open a can of worms. Worms can be fun to play with, yet sometimes it's better I keep my lid shut @Telepresent Yea, sometimes I need to refrain from being a nondual prankster.

@Fuku Language and beliefs are inherently dualistic and humans tend to become attached/identified to one side of a dualism. So, it can be helpful to see the opposite side of the dualism - yet "right" vs "wrong" is still a dualistic framework and highly contracted/limited.

It's not missing the point, it's another point. Often, human minds become contracted within a conditioned framework and it's helpful to come from a different angel, Yet here, it's probably not the best approach, so I edited my comment.