Trump Impeachment

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

The act of abolishing slavery was not radical.  

Slavery abolitionists were extremely radical in the context of that time. Among the most extreme radicals in world history. 

https://aeon.co/essays/the-abolitionist-benjamin-lay-was-a-hero-ahead-of-his-time 

[Apparition of Jack]

4 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

This is very general.....can you be more specific

Sure. One good example is wealth / income inequality. It has been getting worse and worse every year since the 70s. This might not sound like a huge problem, but economic inequality results in very negative real-world consequences. One of the major ones is that wealth divisions become entrenched, making the rich richer and everyone else poorer. If you're born poor in a highly unequal economy, there's a 99% chance you'll die poor. Here's an article with a few other problems too.

So far, the Republican response to this has been to ignore the problem. If you point out how the situation is getting worse, you are attacked for being a "socialist" who wants to "take everyone's money." This prevents the issue being solved, which entrenches poverty. If Bernie gets into the White House, he'll make this a key issue and start the process of undoing the damage it has done.

Quote

The act of abolishing slavery was not radical.  This was done by constitutional ballot and over a period of time.  The civil war was a radical movement started by the opposition after this amendment to the constitution.  We see this happening today in this country because people don't like the process.........or the results.  @Leo Gura is correct, if you don't like it, get off your ass and get involved.

Thousands of people died in the fight to end slavery long before the Civil War ever broke out. Then once it finally did, hundreds of thousands more died. All because greedy slave-owners didn't want to give up owning other people. If anything, we should be grateful that we live in a time where radical action means non-violent protests in front of corporate headquarters, and not mass bloodshed on battlefields across a nation.

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I like the discussion regarding balance, centrist and mid-point. In particular, I've been contemplating the concept of high conscious balance. Below are some of my explorations. . . 

The U.S. recently went through 20 years of debating same-sex marriage. The conservative position was to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and to prohibit same-sex marriage within the "defense of marriage act". The progressive position was "Love is love" and same-sex marriage should be legal. The centrist/mid-point position was that marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual, yet homosexuals can have "domestic partnerships" in which they are given many of the rights marriage grants - such as being able to visit a severely ill partner in a hospital.

This centrist position seems to have the illusion of "balance" since it is the midpoint. Similar to how a scale is balanced by a midpoint and each side has equal weight. This is the traditional sense of "balance" and I like how the concept is being explored and recontextualized on the forum. . . So what might a conscious balance look like in this situation? As I create this construct, I would say that balance would include looking at various perspectives as well as various modes of being. We could consider perspectives of conservatives, progressives, straight, gay, psychologists, religious, scientists from different modes of being including intellectual/logical, empathetic, relativity etc. For example, from a relative experience homosexuality might seem unnatural to conservative, yet completely natural to a homosexual. From a logical perspective homosexuality naturally occurs in all animal species examined. So we could say that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena and the relative experience is natural to those that are homosexual - this would shift the *balance* toward legalizing same-sex marriage. Another argument presented by conservatives was that children in LGBTQ families are raised in an unhealthy environment and will have developmental problems, while progressives argued that their is no difference regarding child welfare between traditional and LGBTQ homes. Many social science studies supported the progressive claim. A centrist may find the mid-point and say "There is not an extreme difference between the childrearing, there is only a moderate difference and only a moderate negative impact on children in LGBTQ homes". Yet the midpoint between the two arguments is not accurate. So once again *balance* shifts toward allowing same-sex marriage.

Once it's fully explored, the balanced position would be legalizing same-sex marriage. Yet I think a balanced position would also have empathy and understanding for conservatives that feel very uncomfortable with homosexuality. There are some extreme conservatives that are highly motivated to portray homosexuality as evil and allow discrimination. However, there are also a lot of conservatives that were conditioned that way, perhaps through church and social groups. Homosexuality may feel weird to them. They may have never met or gotten to know a person in the LGBTQ community. Rather than stigmatizing all conservatives as stupid homophobes, a balanced position would allow space for someone to explore their own biases. I realize not everyone would be open and willing in this regard, yet many are and a balanced position recognizes this. Someone might be open enough to say "I think homosexuality is wrong. It feels weird and unnatural to me. Yet I'm not sure why." Rather than stigmatize the person as a "homophobe", a balanced position would allow exploration and growth. It would have a more empathetic understanding of the person. Rather than pointedly calling out them as homophobic devils and shaming, we might discuss conditioning within cultures as well as our own personal experience (I was raised in a traditional catholic environment and know this conditioning). We might introduce the person to someone in the LGBTQ community. A person may open a door by saying that they are straight, yet are occasionally attracted to the same-sex. This all allows space. . .  Yet a balanced position would still be balanced - it would understand that not all conservatives would be open to exploring this and growing. Some will consciously try to resist personal and social growth: they will deflect, obstruct and oppress. From a balanced view, this would be a different context and response. For example, it may be best to call out their homophobic devilry and at times shame them for it. They might not be willing to introspect it, yet by calling out their homophobic devilry it can increase collective awareness and reduce the social impact of their deflection, obstruction and oppression. 

Government and Religion did not help this situation.  I think it may have been better if Religions would have worked to keep marriage out of government.  It doesn't belong in government, it is a religious sacrament.  If people want to get married, get married.  We can't expect people to change there religious traditions, which are thousands of years old, and accept something so very different.  I think these type of things take years to evolve, and when the LGBTQ community throws it in the faces of religious people it is natural for them to rebel.  By having government involved it makes religious people feel like they are being forced to accept it.  Had government not been involved, the LGBTQ communities could have gotten married in there churches/communities and it could have been a smoother transition into acceptance.  Why does government care weather I am married or what race I am?  When it comes to government, I don't see advantages in being straight, gay, or otherwise, but I do empathize with all in this situation.

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

My bigger concern is the extent that Trump is concealing his wrongdoings.  

What is he concealing?  I thought he released the transcript.

[Bodigger]

59 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Slavery abolitionists were extremely radical in the context of that time. Among the most extreme radicals in world history. 

https://aeon.co/essays/the-abolitionist-benjamin-lay-was-a-hero-ahead-of-his-time 

I guess that would be in the context of that time. 

[SerpaeTetra]

13 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

What is he concealing?  I thought he released the transcript.

Actually, the call transcripts were moved to a very classified server meant for the most sensitive information in an attempt to cover up the call that happened in July.  After the whistle blower complaint was finally released, then the transcripts were released because they would eventually come out anyway.    

[Forestluv]

57 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Government and Religion did not help this situation.  I think it may have been better if Religions would have worked to keep marriage out of government.  It doesn't belong in government, it is a religious sacrament.  If people want to get married, get married.  

Yet the reality is that marriage has aspects of religion, government and social construct. By trying to insulate marriage into religion, it ignores the government and social aspects. A centrist view of allowing "domestic partnerships" does not address these three areas and essentially creates a two-tier system of "traditional marriage" and "domestic partnerships" - with domestic partnerships being a second-rate type of union. 

57 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

We can't expect people to change there religious traditions, which are thousands of years old, and accept something so very different. 

This is the dilemma being discussed in the thread. Conservatives will always want to use adherence of tradition to block and obstruct evolution. The argument that a traditional has been around for thousands of years and we need to make slow incremental changes would be a centrist position. If the centrist is actually open to change. Incrementalism can also be used as a tactic by inauthentic conservatives to block/inhibit evolution. To conservatives all change will appear as being "radical". Sometimes societal evolution is slow, sometimes it is rapid. 

57 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I think these type of things take years to evolve

It did take years to evolve. Decades of evolution actually. I remember signs of the LGBTQ movement in the early 1980s. That is 40 years of evolution.

57 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

when the LGBTQ community throws it in the faces of religious people it is natural for them to rebel.  

The LGBTQ community wants inclusion and equal rights. Marriage is a fundamental aspect of the human experience and social structure. From the perspective of those privileged that already have rights - an outside group asking for equal rights will be perceived as demanding extra rights.

57 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

By having government involved it makes religious people feel like they are being forced to accept it.  Had government not been involved, the LGBTQ communities could have gotten married in there churches/communities and it could have been a smoother transition into acceptance.  

Same-sex marriage is not restricted to a religious issue. It is much much broader than that. There are extensive issues regarding the human experience, inclusion, equal rights and social interactions. You are seeing this from the perspective outside of LGBTQ - looking at them as an out-group. You are not seeing this from the perspective of within LGBTQ - looking at it from the in-group. I'm not saying your perspective is wrong - it is true as an out-group perspective wanting to maintain group boundaries. However, this is a contracted view. 

57 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

but I do empathize with all in this situation.

This isn't empathy. Empathy is understanding the in-group perspective. Not just intellectually. If you were an LGBTQ person, you would have a much higher level of empathy. If you had a child that was LGBTQ, you would have higher empathy. Or if you were a psychologist working with LGBTQ issues such as stigmatization and abuse or someone that volunteered working with victims of LGBTQ discrimination. Or dating an LGBTQ person. These types of direct experience would help someone gain empathy and "get it" at a deeper level than intellectual arguments. The perspective you offer does not show empathetic understanding of LGBTQ. 

48 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

What is he concealing?  I thought he released the transcript.

Trump and a few of his loyalists have been over-classifying material of wrongdoing into the highest secure coded server in which only a few people have access. This is an abuse of the system. There are other confidential servers to use. The highest secure coded server is designated for the most extremely sensitive material of national security - such as covert operations. . . He is hiding other incriminating information on that server - that is my biggest concern - because it is a fundamental breakdown of democratic society. 

42 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I guess that would be in the context of that time. 

Of course. It is always in the context of time. During transitions of evolution, progress will also seem radical and extreme to conservatives. After the transition, it is no longer the conservative position - it becomes the moderate position. This is a foundational dynamic of conservativism and has shown itself over and over. For example, inter-racial marriage was a radical idea to conservatives at the time. It is no the consensus position. Yesterdays progressives are today's moderates and today's progressives are tomorrow's conservatives. For example, today's conservatives say "marriage is between a man and a woman" and today's progressives say "marriage is between two humans regardless of sex/gender". Yet this is becoming the moderate position. My gen z students are totally fine with same-sex marriage - that might still considered progressive. Yet when I ask them "How do you feel about future marriage between an android and human?". . . Then they get uncomfortable. Generations from now, todays youthful progressives will be conservatives. They will be protesting to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage - there will be marching with signs such as "Marriage is between two humans". Trans-human / android marriage will seem radical to todays progressives in the future and they will adopt the new conservative position of "marriage is between two humans", yet it will not seem radical to the future progressives. 

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Apparition of Jack said:

Honestly? IMO, it's Bernie and his movement. Remember, harnessing the spiritual aspect of life doesn't mean you come across as charismatic or likeabe (it can mean that, but you have to be careful you're not being deceived by ego too.) It means you're in touch with what's really going on around you, you're able to see greater trends, and not only that, but you're able to harness them, regardless of what the world around you is saying.

The current problems in the US are complex and many-layered, and it takes guts to peer at them head-on and be prepared to make the changes needed to face them. Trump and the GOP aren't willing to do either -  in fact they're more or less digging their heads in the sands and deny they even exist. Bernie and his progressive movement are the opposite however - they see the structural problems and they are willing to take them on. No one is saying it will be easy, but then nothing in life that's worth doing ever is. If you're worried about traditional values being upended, then you really shouldn't be - communities retain tighter bonds and have more cohesive support networks when their material needs are met, which is something that Bernie is willing to do (unlike the Republicans, who aren't meeting America's needs at all.)

Also keep in mind that harnessing truth and wisdom will always be met with backlashes, especially when the powers of society gain their authority by denying these very things. Bernie might appear "too controversial", "too aggressive", and so on, but this is only because there are too many powerful people who rely on lies and deceit who are threatened by his swinging of the truth-sword.

Well said

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

 If Bernie gets into the White House, he'll make this a key issue and start the process of undoing the damage it has done.

Curious....how will he begin this process and keep the money in the country.  This has been attempted in the past by raising the top tax bracket for people making over $400k annually to 96%.  The money went outside the country.

 

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

we should be grateful that we live in a time where radical action means non-violent protests in front of corporate headquarters, and not mass bloodshed on battlefields across a nation.

 But there has been bloodshed across the nation....

Sad to say, but if Trump gets in for another four years, there will be unnecessary bloodshed.....Why?

[Bodigger]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Of course. It is always in the context of time. During transitions of evolution, progress will also seem radical and extreme to conservatives. After the transition, it is no longer the conservative position - it becomes the consensus position. This is a foundational dynamic of conservativism and has shown itself over and over. For example, inter-racial marriage was a radical idea to conservatives at the time. It is no the consensus position. Yesterdays progressives are today's moderates and today's progressives are tomorrow's conservatives. For example, today's conservatives say "marriage is between a man and a woman" and today's progressives say "marriage is between two humans regardless of sex/gender". Yet this is becoming the moderate position. My gen z students are totally fine with same-sex marriage - that might still considered progressive. Yet when I ask them "How do you feel about future marriage between an android and human?". . . Then they get uncomfortable. Generations from now, todays youthful progressives will be conservatives. They will be protesting to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage - there will be marching with signs such as "Marriage is between two humans". Trans-human / android marriage will seem radical to todays progressives in the future and they will adopt the new conservative position of "marriage is between two humans", yet it will not seem radical to the future progressives. 

I do understand this.  Do you think it is healthy for the human collective?  Healthy in the manner of what we are attempting to accomplish here?

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

Curious....how will he begin this process and keep the money in the country.  This has been attempted in the past by raising the top tax bracket for people making over $400k annually to 96%.  The money went outside the country.

First off, the top marginal tax rate being proposed is 70% on every dollar made past the first $10 MILLION made in the year. So, it's not as high as 96% and the income isn't as low at $400k. It's actually a very modest tax proposal that would effect VERY few people.

Also, the effective rate could be worked down to somewhere around 30-40%, even for people making over $10 million per year as there are many different tax breaks available. And new tax breaks could be created for businesses who invest in their business, create new jobs, and pay their workers well.

Secondly, back in the 50s, when the top marginal tax rate was between 90% and 93%, it was known as "the golden age of economic growth." And that's because of the reason I listed above. When people know the tax rate will be high, they will be sure to do the things that will give them tax breaks including investment in their business. And that's what created the economic boom of that time. It really helped us get up out of the Great Depression.

Also, businesses outsourcing and seeking tax havens is NOT a problem of us expecting too much in taxes. It's the result of there being ineffective legislation that has tons of loopholes specifically placed there by politicians who have been bought off by corporate interests. And that's the source of the issue. It's not about the amount of taxes. The businesses would do it anyway. It's about corporate and government corruption.

And this is specifically why Bernie Sanders is the BEST choice for president. He will stick it to big corporations that want to leave to avoid paying their fair share. He doesn't take any money from them. So, he has no conflict of interest. He will close up all those loopholes that corporation use, and he will tax them heavily for leaving and outsourcing. 

And for corrupt politicians who stand in his way, he will use the bully pulpit and lead protests in that politicians home-state. Which, of course, would be a terrible look for them come election time.

 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Bodigger said:

Do you think it is healthy for the human collective?  Healthy in the manner of what we are attempting to accomplish here?

That a really good question and it's something I contemplate often. What is *healthy* is relative and we all have our own biases. There are often times I question whether I am supporting something healthy for the individual and for the collective. Attachment, identification, bias and open-mindedness can be quite subtle and sneaky. It's so easy to become subtly attached/identified to "something". We all do this - it's human nature and there are many different dynamics. For example, in consciousness work we speak of a "spiritual ego". A person that has done a lot of spiritual work may think that their views hold more weight because they are "more conscious" than the person they engaged with. In one context, that may be true - yet it's sooo easy for the ego to sneak in and mask personal beliefs as "highly conscious" realizations and "experience" beyond scrutiny. . . For example, some people on the thread are pushing back the assumption that Green progressive values are better or higher than Blue/Orange conservative values. Here, I'm asking if there is something I am missing or forgot. For example, that there may be healthy structural aspects of Blue/Orange conservative values needed for a healthy balance. Or that Green progressives can have Blue/Orange shadows they haven't worked through. 

Any criteria I give as being "healthy" is relative and can be deconstructed away. Generally, I am more motivated to move toward greater inclusion, consciousness expansion and harmony. When I see the opposite of that: marginalization, consciousness contraction and conflict a desire arises to relieve it. That is how I've been wired since I was a kid. Yet what is "healthy" is relative and I've been trying to work on my intuition skills, because my intellect is insufficient. One thing I've noticed is that I have good intentions, yet intention implies I know what is healthy. Intention has a filter. For example, someone may come to me with an anxiety issue - this would trigger me to "help". I may think that the person needs to do such and such to reach a healthier state. Perhaps they need to do meditation or introspection work to resolve their anxiety issue. To me, this would be healthy. Yet is it? Maybe it's best to not have an idea of what is "healthy" for them. Maybe that is just my idea that I am projecting on to them. Perhaps sometimes it's healthier to just sit with the anxious person and accept them in that moment. Rather than trying to fix them and change them into a peaceful person, perhaps just letting them be and loving them for whoever they are in that moment. 

Regarding what are we trying to accomplish here, I would say to share insights, explore ideas/experiences and increase awareness. Yet again, it can get tricky with things like "awareness". Is the intention to help someone become aware of a personal dynamic? Or is the intention more toward debating and trying to get someone to think and perceive more like I do? Sometimes, I pause and ask "what is the source of my motivation here?". Sometimes that gives me clarity. 

I'm actually not that interested in debating the politics itself. I'm more interested in human perception dynamics. 

 

[samedm9]

17 hours ago, Robi Steel said:

, Its great. I get what youre saying. Its not like your concepts are wrong. but these concepts can be used in really subtle ways to justify an unbalanced picture and to stress the less relevant talking points to avoid others. Maybe Im fooled, totally possible. Maybe there is some really sneaky twisting and subtle ignorance in your argumentation that you dont notice ....

Thank you so much. You get it.

STILL no one has produced a legitimate reasoned argument that demonstrates, with reference to WH released transcript, a correlation between a quote/s from the call, and a law that has been broken.

The only somewhat understandable claim so far, is that trump acted to “solicit” a “thing” of “value”, from Ukraine, in behalf of his administration, for increased reelection-ability.

What is the “thing” you claim is valuable?

How is the “thing”, explicitly of “value” to the Trmp admins re-election, or as some say for trumps “personal gain”.

So again, I ask that anyone who believes that Trump broke a law, to:

1. State the law you believe he broke.

2. Give a quote/s from the transcript correlating to that.

3. Explain with Reference to the quote/s, how the law was broken.

Should be Simple Enough if you claim he broke a law. all you have to do, is provide 3rd dimensional proof!

I’m not asking for any tangents of political discussion. 

I have no biases to trump..As some may claim, as if they can read my mind, k. I’m just as suspicious about him as I am of anything. I just don’t like being manipulated to adhere to what people like Adam Schiff want me to correspond to politically, when they’re obviously lying.

btw, still no comments on Adam Schiffs opening statement, k.

[samedm9]

23 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

For example, the balanced position with regards to Trump is to put him on trial and send him to jail for any crimes he committed. .

What crimes has he broken.

Hahaha. Leo. You cannot just claim that’s the case without stating which crimes and how the have been broken. It doesn’t work like that brother, there’s no validity... you know this.

On 01/10/2019 at 7:53 PM, Leo Gura said:

Of course no Trump supporter would consider that balanced or fair.

I don’t consider myself a trump supporter, but yes it would be balanced and fair, if had in fact broken laws.

[Robi Steel]

15 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is the dilemma being discussed in the thread. Conservatives will always want to use adherence of tradition to block and obstruct evolution. The argument that a traditional has been around for thousands of years and we need to make slow incremental changes would be a centrist position. If the centrist is actually open to change. Incrementalism can also be used as a tactic by inauthentic conservatives to block/inhibit evolution. To conservatives all change will appear as being "radical". Sometimes societal evolution is slow, sometimes it is rapid. 

Yes that is a general concept which is true. You are now bringing this up for the second time and think that this actually counters any arguments made. 

Tradition is not "obstructing" evolution. Tradition is the primary basis for evolution. The thing that we give to our children are the things that form a multigenerational construct in reality, society. Without tradition, there would just be loose anarchy all the time and no long term development could ever take place.  We will always need a huge contemplation and incorporation of all our traditions (unlike we are doing now). Were gonna adjust them, replace them, get rid of some and so forth. There is almost no truth in the most radical progressive ideas because it doesnt consider that if we just run non-stop at the next thing, very quickly the ground beneath our feet will fall away. Change is simply not linear or an easy step by step forward process toward the next thing. Thats how your typical surface-level progressive thinks. Change is actually driven most by strong traditions. Because those traditions have already been set up so that they can correct themselves (science). 

If there were no super strict rules in a Buddhist monastery, it would fall apart immediately. To handle more freedom, you need more restriction and a basis. They have the knowledge that there are no rules, so there needs to be serious balance. 

The best evolution is not getting to the next thing as quick as possible, thats simply not true. Im pretty sure Russia wouldn´t be such a dystopia if it hadn't tried that socialist dream so early ( that wasn't stage blue btw). Conservatives are extremely important and sometimes need to take over to stop left tyranny. As a yellow thinker, I tend to swing to my conservative or more liberal role depending on what is needed at the moment in society. They are equal. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Robi Steel

[Forestluv]

@Robi Steel I think your model is rationalizing tradition and not considering personal and social dynamics of attachment, identification and resistance. In SD terms, Orange rationalizing Blue.

For a yellow level model, consider integrating components of blue, orange and green to create a holistic, integrated model. For example, we could add components of Blue such as rule of law. As you said, rule of law is an important structural component to build a society. What aspects of orange and green could we add?. . . When we do this, be mindful of more nuances. For example, at Blue "rule of law" is very binary. Someone either breaks the law or obeys the law. Someone is either a criminal or non-criminal. Yet as we enter Orange and Green, the blue-level rule of law framework remains - yet we build upon it. For example, to this rule of law, we add in degrees/spectrums at Orange and relativity at Green. So, we still have blue-level rule of law, yet green rule of law will have more nuances and will look different than blue rule of law. We are developing a green expression of a blue value. . . In the context of SD evolution, we don't want to maintain the *tradition* of the blue level value. We want to use it as a substrate. For example, imagine a ball of clay. We are not discarding the clay, we are molding it into a new form. 

As well. . . what are some unhealthy aspects of blue we would want to phase out? What are some new Orange values we would want to add in? What are some new green values we would want to add in? . . . As we consider various experiences, perspectives, values and mix that with various modes of being such as binary thinking, logical thinking, empathy, intuition, relativity etc. - we can create an integrated holistic model that would make Yellow proud 

[samedm9]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Robi Steel I think you are rationalizing tradition....

would you appreciate it if somebody, through impulse to breach norms(to cause mixture, create a partition) licked your ice cream before you bought it - an act of deconsecration, a Breach of trust, destruction of reliability in what IS...an inclination toward filthiness.

Right/left .... Order/chaos.... stagnation/novelty 

overly novel = nothing to cherish 

overly stagnant = squandering of surprise, newness 

too much of either is mundane...

..the dance/balance stimulates thrill.

 

 

No attention to Adam Schiffs fraud??? (just look into it)  

Still no solidarity in claims of trump committing crimes, with reference to call transcript.?

Edited October 2, 2019 by samedm9

[tenta]

22 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

My bigger concern is the extent that Trump is concealing his wrongdoings. Every presidency has wrongdoings and attempts to conceal it. Yet Trump is at a more dangerous level of wrongdoing and concealment. I think this hyper-concealment is just as important as the wrongdoings. I would say the concealment issue may be even more important because it destroys the fundamental foundation of democracy. Democratic elections are a fundamental expression of consent. The public gives their consent for a person to lead the country. Yet consent is based on information. If wrongdoings and nefarious intentions are concealed, the public cannot give consent. . . This is a fundamental issue of ethics. For example, clinical trials in medicine ethically requires consent of volunteers, yet if researchers conceal information, such life-threatening risks of the drug, the volunteers cannot consent. The pharmaceutical company may claim consent and say "look!! They signed on the dotted line!!". Yet it would not be considered consent in ethical and legal contexts. 

 

His supporters are hiding, defending or making excuses for it even if trump himself isn't trying to conceal it

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, samedm9 said:

would you appreciate it if somebody, through impulse to breach norms(to cause mixture, create a partition) licked your ice cream before you bought it - an act of deconsecration, a Breach of trust, destruction of reliability in what IS...an inclination toward filthiness.

This is an important transition from red to blue. If you want to develop above blue in Orange and Green, you will need to expand and add in some nuances and complexity. I wrote a bit about this in the post above.

Re-framing using the "What about XYZ?" is a defense of deflection from this development process. It is a form of resistance found in every stage of consciousness development. 

10 minutes ago, tenta said:

His supporters are hiding, defending or making excuses for it even if trump himself isn't trying to conceal it

@tentaYes, that is part of the dynamic. Notice how there are nuggets of truth within their narrative. It's a key part of the game they are playing. Those nuggets of truth provide grounding for the devilry. Without those nuggets of truth, grounding would be lost and the whole thing collapses. Many Trump opponents think Trump is 100% lying and delusional. He isn't. He needs a small percentage of truth as grounding for deflection and obfuscation. 

[samedm9]

2 minutes ago, tenta said:

 

His supporters are hiding, defending or making excuses for it even if trump himself isn't trying to conceal it

What do you mean by “it”?