Mason Riggle

@berry when Leo says 'imaginary'.. this is synonymous with 'real'.. reality IS imaginary.. but imaginary is also real. It's how 'reality' comes to be.. it's 'imagined'. So.. your loved ones are 'real' as long as you imagine they are.

@SoonHei it seems we set some pretty arbitrary limits on ourselves indeed! What a ride!

You already are everything, and you already are effortlessly 'moving the objects in a room'... the same way you are effortlessly growing your hair, you also shine the sun, effortlessly.. It seems what happens is.. we also effortlessly 'pretend' this not what is happening. "Self-deception" IS the nature of reality. That's why it's said that to fully awaken to the deception is to die.. to 'kill the self'. "Awakening" is 'seeing through the deception'.. but to 'fully see through it' is to end it 'what is'.. because 'what is' is the deception itself... a cosmic play. "So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama." - Alan Watts.

Prohibition is not only profitable for the criminals on the streets who sell drugs, but also for the criminals in suits who enforce the prohibition. Just follow the money.

@Bodigger a stated 'vision' or 'goal' of a group doesn't guarantee the behavior of it's members. The OP asked why the Democrats don't organize under one idea.. and I was simply providing evidence that they do.. or at least they attempt to. I suppose I felt the question presented in the OP was a bit misguided. It's like asking, 'why don't people try to act nicer to each other?'.. the question makes the assumption that 'people do not try to act nicer to each other', and asks why? But what if it's the case that people 'do try to act nicer', and they simply fail at it.. the question 'why don't they do [what they actually are doing]?' makes no sense. I mean, why aren't you reading this right now? The response to that question is.. I am. This is why I presented the 'Democratic Party Platform' in response to the OP. Not because I agree with it.. or because I think Democrats in general follow those principals.. but rather to answer the question of 'why don’t they make a “Democratic Goals of the 21st Centurie.” Type of thing?' with the simply answer: They do.

Perhaps check out their Party Platform, which can be easily found on their website. https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/ ~~~excerpt from the Party Platform Preamble~~~ Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls. It’s a simple but powerful idea: we are stronger together. Democrats believe we are stronger when we have an economy that works for everyone—an economy that grows incomes for working people, creates good-paying jobs, and puts a middle-class life within reach for more Americans. Democrats believe we can spur more sustainable economic growth, which will create good-paying jobs and raise wages. And we can have more economic fairness, so the rewards are shared broadly, not just with those at the top. We need an economy that prioritizes long-term investment over short-term profit-seeking, rewards the common interest over self-interest, and promotes innovation and entrepreneurship. We believe that today’s extreme level of income and wealth inequality—where the majority of the economic gains go to the top one percent and the richest 20 people in our country own more wealth than the bottom 150 million—makes our economy weaker, our communities poorer, and our politics poisonous. And we know that our nation’s long struggle with race is far from over. More than half a century after Rosa Parks sat and Dr. King marched and John Lewis bled, more than half a century after César Chávez, Dolores Huerta, and Larry Itliong organized, race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind. We must face that reality and we must fix it. We believe a good education is a basic right of all Americans, no matter what zip code they live in. We will end the school-to-prison pipeline and build a cradle-to-college pipeline instead, where every child can live up to his or her God-given potential. We believe in helping Americans balance work and family without fear of punishment or penalty. We believe in at last guaranteeing equal pay for women. And as the party that created Social Security, we believe in protecting every American’s right to retire with dignity. We firmly believe that the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street must be brought to an end. Wall Street must never again be allowed to threaten families and businesses on Main Street. Democrats believe we are stronger when we protect citizens’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We will fight to end the broken campaign finance system, overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision, restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act, and return control of our elections to the American people. Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Democrats believe we are stronger and safer when America brings the world together and leads with principle and purpose. We believe we should strengthen our alliances, not weaken them. We believe in the power of development and diplomacy. We believe our military should be the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force in the world, and that we must do everything we can to honor and support our veterans. And we know that only the United States can mobilize common action on a truly global scale, to take on the challenges that transcend borders, from international terrorism to climate change to health pandemics. Above all, Democrats are the party of inclusion. We know that diversity is not our problem—it is our promise. As Democrats, we respect differences of perspective and belief, and pledge to work together to move this country forward, even when we disagree. With this platform, we do not merely seek common ground—we strive to reach higher ground. We are proud of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. We know that today’s immigrants are tomorrow’s teachers, doctors, lawyers, government leaders, soldiers, entrepreneurs, activists, PTA members, and pillars of our communities. We believe in protecting civil liberties and guaranteeing civil rights and voting rights, women’s rights and workers’ rights, LGBT rights, and rights for people with disabilities. We believe America is still, as Robert Kennedy said, “a great country, an unselfish country, and a compassionate country.”

Perhaps 'desire' is nothing more than the path of least resistance. Water flows in the direction it 'desires' to flow.. the water doesn't 'have' desires.. it flows according to 'desire'.. the path of least resistance.

It seems useful to view 'freedom/no freedom' as a paradox, or duality, just as you would view 'nothing/something' (non-existence/existence).. Why is there something instead of nothing? Isn't it the case that the very notion of 'something' only makes sense in light of it's opposite, which is 'nothing', and the opposite is also true.. what do we mean by 'nothing'? Well, this 'nothing' concept only has meaning when contrasted with it's opposite, which is 'something'. 'No freedom' is what we find when we see only one side of the paradox. Side A) For any purely determined system, there can be no deviation whatsoever in the 'unfolding' or 'playing out' of that system. Zero Freedom. But what we also find, is that this 'seemingly determined' system is also 'seemingly infinite', and given this 'unconstrained' nature of the determined system, every possibility has the potential to play out.. Side B) infinite possibility.. a.k.a. freedom.. a.k.a. God/you/everything.. This type of 'infinite freedom' doesn't really make any more Universal sense than 'no freedom' does, and so it is that this 'free will/no free will' duality arises, a yin/yang situation, which seems to be the same way 'nothing' divides itself up, becoming 'something'. If you are fine with paradox, the 'free will/ no free will' conundrum just becomes another, 'of course that's how it is.. both are true, and not, simultaneously'.

He's definitely vilified as an aging cooky 'socialist'. Heavy stage orange/blue tribalism. People are solidly 'Christian' or 'Republican' or 'Libertarian'. Liberal and Democrat are dirty words, insults.. And everyone not 'with them' is seen as the enemy, to be defeated at all cost. Words like 'antichrist' are used literally, and there is always an overarching 'agenda' attached to the motives of anyone who isn't in lock step with their team. The most openly racist people I find myself among (mostly in my family) are the most ardent, outspoken, and unwavering Trump supporters. The real die hards also seem to be the ones most likely to be on public assistance/unemployed and also most likely to believe in conspiracy type stuff like big foot, flat earth, faked moon landing, and baby eating.

Well.. You'd be wrong. I live in a rural conservative county, complete with our own rodeo. I'm surrounded by Trumpers. My family, coworkers.. All pro Trump. I'm drowning in 'the other side' I got to here all about Michelle, Obama's tranny wife, I got to here him called a nig***. I got to hear all about 'the muzzies' and how much fun it is killing them... I have no desire to view things from the perspective of 'the other side.. I have more than glimpsed it.

A zinger.. Like the payments to porn stars, the cheating on his wife, the bankruptcies, the failed businesses, the pussy grabbing, the ease with which he hurls personal insults, the pettiness... The real shock is that anyone can find this person anything other than morally corrupt. You don't have to do anything illegal to be a shit person.

@Bodigger at least 100 million people in the US think Jesus is going to return in their lifetime. It's no mystery that 63 million are easily duped by 'one sided' or narrow minded arguments and candidates such as Trump.. It's not a 'struggle' to understand how people could vote for Trump any more than it's a struggle to understand how 1 in 4 Americans think the Sun goes around the Earth.. there are a lot of stupid people out there. Just be sure to recognize which way the arrow points in the evolution of consciousness.. and the direction the spiral moves. It's not an easy task to drag the status quo into higher states.. but it's fairly easy to recognize what the status quo is.

@giglio I'm not sure where to start... and I'm not sure it's useful to waste everyone's time responding to most of this... but here goes. Is it though? It seems I'm not the only one who makes this stretch... “There’s very clear evidence, as reflected in the memo of the call, that President Drumpf specifically asked the president of Ukraine to help in the process of digging up dirt on Joe Biden,” says Elliot Mincberg, a former chief counsel for oversight and investigations of the House Judiciary Committee, who is now a senior fellow at a liberal advocacy group People for the American Way. “That is clearly asking a foreign national to provide something of value to his campaign and that’s illegal under federal law.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Campaign finance law states: “It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a federal, state, or local election.” Campaign finance expert Trevor Potter, who is president of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, says this: "the president’s call violates this rule and serves as a “classic case” of a candidate illegally requesting help from a foreign government." “The president, who is a candidate and has a campaign, asked a foreign government — which is included in the definition of a foreign national — for a favor, for help in a way that would benefit his campaign, harm his opponent,” he says. “And that would fit within the ban on soliciting foreign national contributions or taking anything of value.” An investigation into Joe Biden conducted by the Ukrainian government qualifies as a “thing of value” contributed by a foreign entity, he says. Ah yes, let's believe the guy who is counting on Trump for $391 Million in Military Aid to confirm whether or not he was pressured. I'm not sure you understand how blackmail works... This is a huuuuge stawman.. nobody is 'protecting Biden' because he's a candidate. The US is attempting to protect it's elections from interference and corruption, which Trump's behavior clearly is (his singling out Biden, and no other person, as the target of an investigation, all the while holding $391 Million in congress approved military aid hostage). You can't place the relatively minor 'everyday' corruption above National Security, because undermining national security is vastly more important to US Citizens than Corporate Corruption, although both are unacceptable. You wouldn't authorize the local Sheriff's Office to start conducting unlimited 'warrantless' searches of people's homes just for the 'Noble Cause' of eliminating 1 notorious pot dealer... this isn't to say pot dealing is good and can't be investigated.. you just can't undermine the rule of law itself in order to do it. I'll just take it you don't believe the FBI, who laid out in a 400 page report what happened in 2016. A total of thirty-four individuals and three companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. Eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials. Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who had been appointed as National Security Advisor by the incoming Trump administration, was convicted of making false statements to FBI investigators about his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition, and he was dismissed from his position. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts of tax evasion and bank fraud,[14] pursuant to his earlier lobbying activities for the Party of Regions of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich.[15][16] He later pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud and obstruction of justice; in total, he was sentenced to over seven years in jail.[19] In February 2018, Mueller's team indicted thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities, including the Internet Research Agency (IRA), for conducting social media campaigns about the U.S. elections,[20] and twelve members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, for hacking and leaking DNC emails. You choose to ignore the evidence. Ya think? There are good reasons even innocent people are not allowed to interfere with investigations of themselves. Shall we just dismiss the actions of every person accused of a crime which they feel they didn't commit? How well do you think that defense will play out in court? Not 'anyone' would be frustrated, as you later point out only low consciousness people do this. Mature people, they type of people you want as President, do not behave this way. This is a strange defense of Donald Trump, which just seems to be more evidence that he is not fit for the office of President, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Obstructing an Official Investigation is not a good look for the supposedly innocent. Obstructing an investigation into foreign corruption surrounding US elections does not personally instill me with much confidence that Trump is all about 'rooting out corruption and getting to the bottom of what happened'.. Was there interference by Russians or not? Was the investigation 'bogus', or was this investigation warranted? The investigation clearly outlined ways the Russian's, who, by all appearance at the very least, were in contact with Trump Campaign officials, vehemently attempted to influence US elections. The investigation also clearly outlined the many ways Trump and his team attempted to obstruct this investigation. Yes, I'm glad you pointed out the larger picture of all of this, which is that it doesn't really matter if the now infamous 'phone call' violated any specific laws. This is exactly why tossing out all of these side bars, what-about-isms, and 'musings' about WHY Trump is unfit for office, really don't have much to do with the fact that he IS unfit for office.. they reek of desperate 'justification' for the indefensible actions of Donald Trump.

Well.. that was supposed to be a link to a video.. let me try again. If no video appears below, it is TED Talk from Dance Choreographer Wayne McGregor you may or may not find interesting.

@giglio Obviously.. Did you read the parts of the law that I highlighted in red??.. I will try presenting it again, this time I will highlight the sections of the law that relate to this in greens... (a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for— (and then here it gives 2 options.. 1 or 2.. the second one applies) 2) a person (Donald Trump) to solicit (to ask for), accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) here is subparagraph (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value (an investigation into a political opponent), or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national (Volodymyr Zelensky).

The 'free-rider' problem may be an unavoidable trade off that comes with having any type of organized society. Every man for himself seems to be a losing strategy when compared with teamwork. A team where several members are not contributing, yet still accessing the benefits of working as a team, is generally preferable to a team of 1. Obviously, a team where everyone contributes is ideal, but unrealistic, as not every member of a society will be capable of contributing at the same level. "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."

“What you took to be the thinker of thoughts is just one of the thoughts.” - Alan Watts

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121 52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals ( A (a)Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (b)“Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

@Bodigger Yes, my personal opinion is that Obama did not exhibit behavior that gave me the impression he was Narcissistic. This isn't to say he isn't a narcissist or unwell. I am giving you the opportunity to persuade me that my assesment is wrong.

@Bodigger Let me first just point out that Donald Trump is currently sitting in the Oval Office, and Obama is not. Obama's state of mind may have been relevant 4 years ago, but it's not 'the other side of the story' when talking about Donald Trump. There really is no 'other side' to the topic 'Trump is not well' besides taking the stance that 'Trump is well', which you don't seem to be taking. As I've explained, it's not simply a partisan talking point. George Conway, a Republican, recently wrote an almost 12,000 word article outlining his experiences with Donald Trump and his concerns over his 'Fitness for office' which I linked to above. I don't recall ever seeing anything like this from Democrats surrounding Obama's state of mind. Was Obama guilty of giving 'political' answers, giving 'non-answers', and deflecting from questions? No doubt. Did his supporters engage in the same types of deflective behaviors when presented with Obama's shortcomings? Again, without a doubt. This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. The extent to which Donald Trump exhibits behaviors which are classic signs of Narcissism and Self Delusion are at a level unlike any President in recent history. Here is just a small sample of quotes from Trump that display his narcissism in plain view. "In my great and unmatched wisdom" "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world." "There's nobody bigger or better at the military than I am." "I think I'm much more humble than you would understand." ... if you don't mind.. for comparison, perhaps you would like to provide some evidence that rises to this level of narcissism that you suggest Obama is guilty of.

@Serotoninluv It seems like Trump himself is rather adept at deflection as well. He's great at giving 'non-answers' and changing the narrative. I'm not sure why so many people do not notice this.. perhaps I'm hyper sensitive to it, having lived with and having been a victim of an extreme narcissist. To me, it's completely obvious when someone is engaging in this type of behavior, which is a huge red flag for me when it comes to Trumps mental state. It's a classic sign of 'self-delusion' that you will notice easily in many 'religious' people when confronted with contradictions in their beliefs.. they instantly go into deflection mode. And you're right.. we all do it, to some extent or another, as long as there is some form of 'ego' which is trying to preserve itself. Projection is another classic defense mechanism of the ego . I'm not engaging in 'x behavior'.. you are.

@Bodigger perhaps you should start another thread about the implications of applying new standards to government officials if this is your legitimate concern. Once again I'm left with the feeling that everything that came after '[you're right, it's not new] is just distraction and noise. It's as if I've stated that my car is blue and I don't like blue cars, and you point out that my car is, in fact, red, and not blue.. and then I say, yes it's red, I get that.. but I really don't like blue cars, which is what I really want to talk about, instead of the fact that I'm completely wrong in my original assessment of my own car.

@Bodigger always good to be able to laugh at one's self! As far as setting new standards, I'm not sure this is anything new. There was plenty of public concern surrounding the mental decline of Reagan and both Bushes towards the latter end of their presidencies, when signs and symptoms of aging began to show.

Exactly. And in diagnosing what the problem with your car might be, if any, it serves no useful purpose to point out other cars which may also be not working.