Trump Impeachment

[samedm9]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

“Getting major Mr. know it all vibes from you sir... I’ll call you BIG TREE from now on”

This reminds me of how Trump likes to give out derogatory nicknames to those he sees as adversarial.

 please just answer me: Have you yourself actually, hand on heart, done any of your own research on this particular law? yes..no ?”

Yes. However, I am not a lawyer. What I am pointing to is more fundamental.

AhAhaha, wow this is too funny.

Bigtree please don’t be too flattered by your new name.

i don’t see you as my adversary at all. Just as an aspect of myself that has come to a misunderstanding.

In all seriousness, 

what are you pointing to that is “more fundamental”?

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, samedm9 said:

 then I would again request, with all due respect mr BIG TREE

This reminds me of how Trump gives nicknames to those he sees as person opponents. Especially the ALL CAPS. Very Trumpian. Lol

If you wear a red lens you will perceive in red. I am not saying a red lens is wrong. Red is true for that lens. What I am saying is that a red lens will restrict a person within a contraction. Attachment and identification to that red lens will prevent expansion. Right now, it is most important to become aware of the red lens. Without that awareness, everything will be interpreted through this red lens and the person won’t even be aware of what is happening. This attachment/identification is due to many inputs - Leo has made many videos on this and I would be happy to direct you to those videos. Yet you seem to be more interested in arguing through your lens than expanding beyond your lens. In this situation, there is nothing I can do. Anything I show you will be interpreted through this red lens. I can show you blueberries and you would argue they are red. Which is true when viewed through a red lens. That is the dilemma of this trap. 

This is what I am referring to as more fundamental. Without this awareness, one will not understand interpretive filters and contextual manipulations to fit a narrative one is attached to.

A wise person can perceive through many lens. . . 

[samedm9]

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This reminds me of how Trump gives nicknames to those he sees as person opponents. Especially the ALL CAPS. Very Trumpian. Lol

If you wear a red lens you will perceive in red. I am not saying a red lens is wrong. Red is true for that lens. What I am saying is that a red lens will restrict a person within a contraction. Attachment and identification to that red lens will prevent expansion. Right now, it is most important to become aware of the red lens. Without that awareness, everything will be interpreted through this red lens and the person won’t even be aware of what is happening. This attachment/identification is due to many inputs - Leo has made many videos on this and I would be happy to direct you to those videos. Yet you seem to be more interested in arguing through your lens than expanding beyond your lens. In this situation, there is nothing I can do. Anything I show you will be interpreted through this red lens. I can show you blueberries and you would argue they are red. Which is true when viewed through a red lens. 

This is what I am referring to as more fundamental. Without this awareness, one will not understand interpretive filters and contextual manipulations to fit a narrative one is attached to.

I’ve seen all of master Leo’s videos thank you. And POV is not filtered by any “lens”. for the love of god bigtree... would you pleeaasssee help me, by referring me to any written law that would contradict my current stand point of “is bigtree lying or does he actually know about such a law”. 

You will find that once I have read this law, and have been liberated from the spell of the evil red lens, that you may have helped an individual (me)  who you(god) will eventually experience, instead of leaving me, a small fragile little sampling, utterly confused and in a state of  informational malnutrition by what I thought was a big giving tree (u ?), always willing to help. 

Not joking. I’m writing in a very sincere manor and if you could see my emotions and what I feel in my heart- you’d see nothing but love and forgiveness. 

So please.

Edited September 29, 2019 by samedm9

[Forestluv]

@samedm9 You want to stay within the contraction, which is fine. Yet there is nothing I can do. If you want to grow beyond this stage, I would recommend watching Leo’s video on “65 keys to a good life”. Imo, this is his most foundational video. He has done other videos that go deeper on a particular issue, like self bias, yet I think the foundational “65 keys” would be more beneficial here. As well, it’s not just theory. Direct experience of insights is super important. The foundation of which is practice.

[samedm9]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@samedm9 You want to stay within the contraction, which is fine. Yet there is nothing I can do. If you want to grow beyond this stage, I would recommend watching Leo’s video on “65 keys to a good life”. Imo, this is his most foundational video. He has done other videos that go deeper on a particular issue, like self bias, yet I think the foundational “65 keys” would be more beneficial here. As well, it’s not just theory. Direct experience of insights is super important. The foundation of which is practice.

? not even joking, low key broke my heart man. 

Your acting like I’m a complete idiot, when in fact I’ve had direct experience of temporary nirvana states, became god....seen infinite love.thanks to lsd.. I’m not some deranged trump supporter. I’m HIGHLY open.

i just don’t think your being honest with me at the moment.

and could use some literal help

I guess we’ll see if trump is found guilty then.. I’ll be back. Guilty or not.

Mannnn you made me feel sad not even joking...

ill keep looking for that law in the mean time. “Illegal to ask a foreign gov to investigate a political opponent”

without ur help... don’t really believe u but I’ll do it anyway.

[Forestluv]

@samedm9 You don’t seem to be resonating with what I am pointing to. We are not on the same frequency. That happens sometimes.

Regarding laws: One of the laws is a campaign finance laws, such as title 52, code 30121. You may also be interested in looking into anti-bribery statutes such as Title 18 code 201 and McDonnell vs. the United Staes, the Hobbs act and obstruction of justice such as Title 18, code 1519.

This is more than enough info to get you going on your research into the matter.

[remember]

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0107.xml

i find this very interesting, also i thought why not have a look into the law the us helped to install in west germany after ending the known incident which we don`t want to take as a comparison to the situation taking place in the us. but is widely known as a precedent of setting a deeply disrupted country into order again. we are thankful to the day minute and second that we have such a strong law at our side. constitutional laws are also there to judge in the name of constitutional democracy and to find ways to streangthen democracy.

Edited September 29, 2019 by remember

[Cocolove]

yea dude i found info on campaign finance laws in one google search

[Hansu]

I realize that what Im going to say here is kind of centrist and Im trying to question centrist way of thinking but...
Couldn't the trump and anti-trump sides in this thread at least try to treat each other like adult human beings? Im not trying to sound smart but on multiple account in this thread someone has been asking for sources on a claim and then that source has not been provided despite multiple requests or the source is shit and at least once instead of providing a source, the asker has been ridiculed for not understanding and "not going to be understanding ". Please note the passive agressive emoticon. It makes me sick reading this Twitter level shit. Is this what actualized.org stands for? Acting like kindergardeners?

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Hansu

[Forestluv]

@Hansu You are missing something regarding intention and orientation. Context is important. For example, if someone was lost in a foreign city and asked someone for directions to the train station and the other person starting going into abstract concepts like how train stations are illusions and everywhere is nowhere - it would be crappy in this context. Yet there are other contexts that have very different dynamics. . .  For example, there is a particular “show me” dynamic which restricts a person. My effort was to reveal that dynamic, yet I was unable to. At point, I just listed out the statutes. Yet there is something going on deeper than the statutes, which is a much more profound realization. 

If you saw someone that was unaware they were stuck in a bear trap, what do you think would be more helpful: to show them a map of the train station and walk away . . .or to show the person the trap they are in and help them get out? This is a very different context. In this context, showing them the map and walking away would be the crappy thing to do. However if the person responds “I’m not in a trap!! I’ve been free of traps for years!! You just think you are better than me. Well you are not!!!” - then there is nothing we can do except wish the person the best and move on. . .

[samedm9]

5 minutes ago, Hansu said:

 but on multiple account in this thread someone has been asking for sources on a claim and then that source has not been provided ......and at least once instead of providing a source, the asker has been ridiculed 

Feels

[remember]

i also wonder what the law on precedents is. does someone know? i mean even if there is no law in that case, what would be the law on precedents?

i also find this very interesting in the debate, but i`m not really understand ing what is going on in the us constitutional law and am far away from the dynamics in the us.

constantly wondering about media used for defamation in general and about twittering defamations and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

Edited September 29, 2019 by remember

[samedm9]

43 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@samedm9 

Regarding laws: One of the laws is a campaign finance laws, such as title 52, code 30121. You may also be interested in looking into anti-bribery statutes such as Title 18 code 201 and McDonnell vs. the United Staes, the Hobbs act and obstruction of justice such as Title 18, code 1519.

 

None of these were violated, in regards to the conversation detailed in the transcript of the call. 

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, samedm9 said:

None of these were violated, in regards to the conversation detailed in the transcript of the call. 

Exactly. This is the problem with the “show me” trap I was trying to avoid. There is nothing I can do at this point other than wish you well. . . Leo mentioned the same thing earlier in the thread. However, I thought I’d give it a try. Unfortunately, to no avail. Hopefully, our dialog may be helpful to other people reading the thread. ? 

If anyone is interested in this “show me” trap, Leo does a great job pointing to it at the end of his “What is Truth” video with the donkey and the mirror. Somewhere in the last 15min or so.

[Hansu]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Exactly. This is the problem with the “show me” trap I was trying to avoid.

Could you open up this to me? Im having hard time understanding why someone would claim something but then find problematic providing source? Wouldnt it be more productive for everyone to simply not claim something if you know that the other participant is going to cling on wanting a source?

In my eyes this is the biggest difference between the right and the left in politics all around the world, and Im having so much difficult undertstanding why it is practiced.

I mean, if you know that the people on right love traditional argumenting and clings on statistics, then why would you purposely go against the grain?

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Hansu

[samedm9]

32 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Exactly. This is the problem with the “show me” trap I was trying to avoid. There is nothing I can do at this point other than wish you well. . . Leo mentioned the same thing earlier in the thread. However, I thought I’d give it a try. Unfortunately, to no avail. Hopefully, our dialog may be helpful to other people reading the thread. ? 

In your view which of these law has been violated and why, bigtree?

I could care less if you wish me well, I’m trying to have a discussion about politics.

w h e r e I s t h e v i o l a t i o n 

ive read everything you provided and more...

if you have no response, all that I can do is conclude: you don’t know the law well enough to claim that anything Trump said is unlawful. 

You tried to get all spiritual teacher/ mentor on me... “your just seeing out of a lens” ...blah blah blah... that’s cute. Now prove to me, with third dimensional facts that trump broke these laws. 

Btw: still nothing on Schiffs opening statement.? Why u avoiding it?

Edited September 29, 2019 by samedm9

[The Don]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Oh, it's gonna get a lot worse. This is only the tip of the iceberg of Trump's criminality.

If the public only knew how much criminal stuff Trump has done, they would come for him with pitchforks.

Trump has been skating on thin ice for years now and he's about to fall through.

@Leo Gura, with all due respect, Trump has done nothing wrong. And mark my words: Trump will never be removed from office as he's going to be reelected.

Trump is not a problem. The left is. Please remember this article: https://www.wnd.com/2019/01/democrats-and-the-dark-art-of-projection/

On the other hand, we live in America which is a free society. It really is free. You can do whatever you want. Western Civilization gave us human rights and Trump is fighting for that; for your human rights and freedoms.

If Trump would be a problem, you couldn't speak freely.

So please! Enough with this rage against Trump.

Everyone should take full responsibility for their own lives.

As long as your God-given rights are protected, you shouldn't worry about the man in the White House.

[Forestluv]

44 minutes ago, Hansu said:

Could you open up this to me? Im having hard time understanding why someone would claim something but then find problematic providing source? Wouldnt it be easier to simply not claim something if you know that the other participant is going to cling on wanting a source?

Sure, this is related to what you wrote in an earlier thread about left and right. We could consider this on a left vs right axis. Yet there are other axes we could draw as well.

In terms of SD, this gets into Yellow. It is the reason why Green level progressives get so frustrated with blue/orange regressives. However, Green is not fully aware of the underlying dynamic. This gets fully revealed at Yellow.

It’s not about making a claim and not providing a source to back it up. It’s about the underlying orientation and personal energetics. There are a lot of things going on with attachment/identification, survival, fear etc. Yet to get it simple, one way this is revealed is through the underlying orientation and energetics of “show me”. Those that are in touch with their intuition know this intuitively recognize this dynamic. As well, it becomes obvious to anyone that has introspected and personally worked through it. This isn’t a left or right dynamic. It is on another axis. It is about resistance to development.  It commonly occurs in progressive vs regressive discussions due to resistance to evolve. For example with Green and Blue/Orange. 

I’m willing to have an Orange level discussions, yet when this dynamic pops up it takes precedent over the underlying topic. There can be no discussion of the underlying topic due to orientation and energetics. Trying to engage usually makes things worse and is counter-productive. The personality goes into debate mode and hyper-contracts. Engaging in debate at an Orange level will only intensify the contraction through various defense mechanisms. There needs to be at least a little bit of  openness, curious and willingness to make progress. When I see this dynamic, the dynamic itself becomes more important in the contraction the person wants to defend. In terms of developing higher consciousness, if there is a basic level of openness/willingness one can use rational thinking to guide a person through it. Yet this takes an extraordinary amount of patience and skill. There are all sorts of land mines that can get triggered. And I generally don’t like this approach.

Imagine someone acting like a dog. You see them on their hands and knees sniffing other dog butts. The person wants to debate with you whether bulldogs have the best smelling butt. They say “show me evidence that bulldog butts aren’t the best”. However, you realize that this person actually thinks they are a dog. You ask: “You realize you are a human and not a dog, right?”. The person then gets defensive and says things like “You think you are at a higher level and better than me. You are being dishonest and won’t show me evidence that bulldog butts don’t smell the best”. At this point, it becomes obvious that they are contracted within a personality dynamic of thinking they are a dog. So. . . What becomes more important:  to debate whether bulldog butts smell the best or to reveal to them that they are a human, not a dog? For me, expanding consciousness toward self actualization is much more important. Orders of magnitude more important. So I will pull out a mirror and say “Look. That is you. You are human not dog”. If the person refuses to look and says “You think are some special human calling me a stupid dog. And you haven’t even shown me evidence that bulldog butts don’t smell the best”. There is nothing an do. I can’t force them to self actualize. I may give in and provide evidence that St. Bernard butts smell better than bulldog butts. .  . and how will the person respond? “Now way!! That doesn’t validate the superiority of St. Bernard butts!!! How many bulldog butts have you even smelled?? Are long have you studied butt aroma??”. . . .Do you see the problem? Engaging in this debate can cause further contraction into the dog fallacy. The are missing the more important point that they are not a dog - they are human.

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, The Don said:

Western Civilization gave us human rights and Trump is fighting for that; for your human rights and freedoms.

?

[The Don]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

?

Yes, Trump is doing that.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Notlc9s7U