questionreality

Black jobs are the jobs that a large percentage of black people take - such as those that don't require high qualifications for example. In this case, he means that the immigrants are providing competition and taking away their jobs. What is so hard to understand about that?

@Leo Gura I am still waiting for your full response to show me examples of why you think Trump is actually racist, - given that you said they are on public record. This one video of what happened 20 years ago is not really enough and you know it. I don't think it's good to throw such terms lightly, because then it totally loses it's meaning.

I don't think you understand what racism is and just throw that term loosely around because you want to. Racism is defined as: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. If saying an N word 20 years ago makes a person even today racist, then a lot of people would fall into that category, which you normally don't call racist, such as Joe Rogan. The traits that you listed are common traits not just person who is a racist, but a lot of other things as well. So far, you didn't bring actual examples as to what makes Trump racist.

Gaslighting is defined as manipulating someone into questioning their own perception of reality. I did not do that, nor ever want to do that. I apologize for my offensive rhetoric of "woke leftist", just tired of everyone bringing up the race/racist card. With that said, I would genuinely like for you to show me more instances of what makes him racist - because like I said, not even a bit I ever considered him to be racist - he quite frequently talks to black people on podcasts, public places, etc and I never got the sense that he somehow has prejudice against them. Joe Rogan not long ago also was almost cancelled for saying a n word long time ago on some podcast, but he was too big/popular to be cancelled. And there were many people who called out the absurdity of it. How is this any different?

The people that voted for him in 2016 would say otherwise. If you didn't vote for him, then it doesn't really matter what you think, what matters is what the people who voted for him think.

So to you he is a racist, just because 20 years ago he said a n word on set? This is all the evidence that you have? I didn't think that you were one of the woke leftists, but now I am starting to think otherwise. They tend to do exactly this - go back 20 years, find 1 thing and then put a label + cancel people. I have not heard him say anything, nor any behavior in the last 10 years that would indicate he is anywhere close to a racist. Is this really all you got?

Understood. On a side not, I have not actually seen any evidence that Trump is actually racist - for some reason leftists always try to bring up the race card, and always make it about the race. If they do it this time - they will lose the election and vice versa (if Trump's campaign somehow will bring up Kamala's background). People are tired of that shit. I was going to say fair enough until I read the last sentence. You were actually wrong about human psychology and other things - and here you are trying to say that Americans were stupider that you thought, which is not a genuine, nor honest admission of being wrong.

Interesting take, but he actually delivered a lot of the things that he promised during his presidency to his followers- so to say that he delivers nothing to his followers is not correct.

Pretty much every politician overpromises and Trump actually fulfilled a lot of his promises during his last 4 years of presidency

We are talking here about the possible use of dog whistle rhetoric, not just any con artistry - which requires playing chess, not checkers. And you pretty recently mentioned that Trump is not playing chess like Putin (that he is dumb), thus if he gets elected you won't be totally fucked. So this kind of contradicts your previous statement, understand? The problem here is when it's convenient for you, you say that trump is dumb and when it's not, you don't think that he is dumb. Same goes with your predictions - You said Trump has 0 chance of ever being president again few years ago and now you claim that you were not wrong, it's just circumstances have changed, because it's convenient for you to do so.

@DocWatts Thanks for sharing. it's an interesting theory, yet it still contradicts the main leftist narrative: that Trump is very dumb and with this logic, he wouldn't be intelligent enough to come up with this thin dog-whistle rhetoric. It really comes down to your own interpretation of what he said, as many on the right and center believe that Trump meant that the issues will be fixed so good, that the people won't have to worry about voting next time.

An interesting viewpoint, but to play devil's advocate, this can also be considered a conspiracy theory. The left all the time loves to label people on the other side "conspiracy theorists", how about this time? Or this time it's different? I am talking about the idea that he actually wants to be a dictator and that there won't be anymore elections. Could you also bring some examples of Trump's hateful dangerous rhetoric? I mean from this election cycle.

So if you guys think that he actually meant that in the context that there won't be anymore elections and he would be a dictator, that he just accidently slipped and said that? With some things, you say that you cannot trust what comes out of his mouth but on the other hand you take such statements at face value? Trying to be open-minded here. He could have also meant that he will have the issues that matters to them fixed so good, that they won't have to vote, as it won't matter anymore, no?

Which part of Europe are we talking about? Because in Russia and in eastern European countries they do care, but this is also where you have the top of the cream when it comes to beauty and femininity.

What is the reason that he can't take psychedelics anymore? Like he quit them for good? I must have missed this.

Nice straw man, very dishonest dismissal from you - this has nothing to with not taking bookie betting odds and you know it. In fact with this statement, you have confirmed everything else that I wrote about you above. In fact, with such dishonesty, I am not sure if you can be even taken seriously. Everything started with this statement of yours: Coming from a guy who also made claims about reaching the highest levels of consciousness in the history of human man kind, and claiming to have the highest teaching, this is a big deal. You preach self-honesty, avoiding self-bias, watching out for blind spots, etc. Yet, you don't embody what you preach. You are more delusional than I thought and it's quite sad to see.

You read me wrong, I was not blunt enough. To say that everyone has some ego, is false equivalence and does not apply to Leo's case. This is not about having different political views, as people can agree to disagree, this goes much deeper than that. When your guru tells you that he is the most conscious person on the planet (or in his own words, experienced the highest levels of consciousness any human being in history that did), trashes other spiritual teachers and teachings, and claims to know more about politics than almost anyone on the planet, you should see HUGE RED FLAGS. When your guru almost never admits that he was wrong, never apologizes for anything and displays that level of arrogance, you should see HUGE RED FLAGS. In the latest video on the topic of "being wrong" that he did, he still at the end found justifications for his wrongdoings and sobbed over himself "reaching highest levels of consciousness", while on this forum he claimed that he was being vulnerable and humble. At this point, it is fairly obvious that he was either a narcissist from the very beginning or has lost himself along the way (as happened with many gurus). I am also not the first person to point this out either, just see what the ex mods and ex long time users of this forum have said. The scariest part is that majority of the followers/students are not able or willing to see these obvious things on the surface - they are in complete denial, ignore the red flags and find every excuse in the book to justify it. This in no way devalues all the value that he brought to all of us over the years. In fact, it's the work that he preaches allows us to see this.

Or a grand delusion, in which you are ego-tripping big time, and don't even know it

It's not just controversial - it is gross and in bad taste. Not something you would expect to see at the Olympics. Take a look at the comparison between 2014 Olympics opening ceremony in Sochi and in 2024: Can you see the difference and what actually looks classy?

He blew them out of the proportion on purpose - to make a point overall of the trend he is noticing. Unfortunately, if you been too influenced by the "progressive" ideas, and are in the "progressive" bubble, you will not see what he is talking about. While I agree with you he has a strong pro Russian bias, he still makes solid points which progressives fail to see.

He claims that he is a conservative now and that he changed - so I take his words at face value and yes, I do think that his response is genuine. And I do like his response - I mean it makes sense on some levels, as I personally didn't like the olympic ceremony either.

I will post here 2 interesting perspectives on the opening ceremony from one Russian writer (Dmitry Gluhovskiy - progressive) and a response of a popular intellectual blogger, with sarcasm (conservative): Dmitry Gluhoskiy ( he loved the ceremony and attached the picture with transgender): https://x.com/glukhovsky/status/1817577342195179702 "Today's Europe is much more united around and based on the values of progress, enlightenment, humanism and the idea of the value of human rights than on the values of religion, which has made great efforts to stop progress for centuries. If Europe still defined itself through religion, Europeans would have an average life expectancy of 25 years, like in France before the Revolution, the population would be generally poor and illiterate, and any attempt to introduce scientific thinking and instill in people the value of their lives would lead to accusations of heresy. Long live enlightenment, long live progress!" And response from Nikolai Sobolev, blogger, translated into English: "The writer Glukhovsky* is an excellent example of an intellectual who is thoroughly imbued with rationalistic and liberal propaganda. How does this manifest itself? A person sincerely believes that there is some kind of linear “progressive” development - moral, like the generally accepted stage-technological one. And the countries that are the most economically developed, at the same time, according to the logic of such “thinkers,” are pioneers not only of technological, but also of moral development. These countries, based on this popular point of view, show us, the entire human civilization, a “natural future” that cannot be overcome and bypassed. Here, we need to be progressive, that’s the only way. In feathers from the ass, for example. Morality, like iPhones, you know, evolves. Here, the 18th century - then all sorts of stupid Kants could write nonsense about the moral imperative, be inspired by Christ’s “Sermon on the Mount” and all sorts of evangelical nonsense. What fools! They didn’t understand life. Now, for example, in the 21st century, their truly smart, civilized followers no longer stoop to talking about morality, ethics and God. All this primitiveness and tales of old people from the past will be rejected extremely “progressively” in favor of human freedom from everything that can fetter violent orgasm and public ejaculation. Another thing! Progressive. After all, who ever said that, for example, you can’t have sex with dogs? A disgusting anachronism. Yes, and those same pedophiles, of course, did not choose their hobbies. You need to be understanding. A terrible existence determined their consciousness; how can we reject Nature itself, right? People are not to blame. Condemnation of any form of natural deviation is a barbaric rudiment and a relic of the dark past. Acceptance, assimilation of any deviation with the public display of genitals to hundreds of millions of people (at the Olympics, jokes aside, one transgender person set his balls on fire) is the only true path available. This is human Progress. You are crouching, twisting your nose, you don’t understand, but Western European civilization and the writer Glukhovsky have finally realized that any such crazy thing needs deep penetration and active popularization. Well, religions, all these commandments, the moral law... everything is relative. Today we want with a dog, tomorrow with a turtle. On the stage. There is no God, no one is watching. We killed him and put a transgender guy in a funny hat in his place. Lol. Another child is nearby so that he progresses faster in the right direction. So that pharmaceutical companies can quickly squeeze the progressive person of the Future out of his puny little body. There will be no conclusion. The only sad thing is that too often apparently smart people turn out to be absolute idiots. And I’m not talking about Kant now."

Not all of the athletes. And this doesn't change the fact that Russia who was expelled from the games, and countries like US was allowed to, is a hypocrisy at it's finest. Also, why is Israel allowed to compete?

This is false equivalence. Claiming that the earth is flat and that you are the most conscious and the wisest person are not in the same category. Again, there is a big difference in thinking you are the best at particular niche, where there is a quantitative measurement (such as sports, finance, etc) versus positioning yourself as the most conscious and wisest human on planet. If you don't see the difference, then I cannot explain any further than that. As @Bobby_2021 and I have already pointed out, he will make all sorts of political predictions and statements, and when he is wrong, he will just say "circumstances have changed". As I said before, he also almost never admits that he is wrong (in anything). So if he made the wrong prediction, it's not that he made a mistake, it's just the circumstances have changed. The reason I am bringing this up, is that it's an occurring pattern that those with eyes opened already have seen for years.

Just because one is able to produce videos like this, does not mean that they have deeper understanding than almost everyone on the planet. I am not denying that he has a lot of knowledge and intelligence - but as a rule of thumb, the wisest people never claim that they are the wisest. It's incredible that majority of his followers are not able to see the absurdity of such statements.