Emerald

I love Cornel West! Such a graceful man.

Could totally see the similarity branding-wise.

Perhaps you have fewer energetic and emotional blocks in the sexual center of the body compared to others.

I started watching this a few days ago. He was doing well until about halfway through when he began talking about hypergamy and veered completely off track. It’s not because women want Mr. Perfect to be completely open with them. That would be equally off putting if it happened. Women are attracted to mystery and ambiguity because female sexual attraction begins with curiosity. Women like a man who’s a challenge to get to know deeply. But the women in the video answer that way because they are unaware and have likely been burnt before by men who have been dishonest. So, they think that, in order to be safe, they need a man who is completely predictable and straightforward. But even though that makes them feel safer, it isn’t what attracts them. What they really want is an trustworthy man who is reserved enough to make her wonder about him but open enough to have a deep connection with. And she wants that feeling of emotional safety that comes from being in that man’s arms. The actual answer is that women are focused on what they want but not HOW they want it. They want a trustworthy man to open up to them... but not because he’s open in general. She wants to feel like the man sharing his feelings is something rare and special that only she gets to see shine through in intimate moments. She wants exclusive access to his secrets. So, the man in the video is saying the equivalent of “Men actually do want an easy woman. But when he says that, he’s not taking about you... only Ms. Perfect.” But the reality is, that men don’t usually want an easy woman, even if they think they do and even if she’s Ms. Perfect. Men want a challenge and to know that they have won that challenge in the woman’s eyes and been granted exclusive access to the woman’s companionship.

The reason why is because there are tons of women looking to hook-up. And they are attracted to men. So, because you are a man, you will be attractive to some women automatically... on a dating and hooking-up level.

I think you misinterpreted what I was responding to. The OP was saying that Trump will try y to break the rules and try to stay in office even if he loses or if he wins a second term and his two terms are up. And I told him that that’s not going to happen. And if he tries to, there would be far more people against that illegal move and not for it. Also, impeachment as a process, is a joke. Because of the partisan stakes and the need for a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to successfully impeach, it’s basically guaranteed that no president will ever be impeached because it’s unlikely that any political party will ever have 2/3 of Congress. And if a president were ever in danger of that, they could just pull a Nixon. So, Trump certainly violated the emoluments clause of the constitution. But because establishment Democrats like Trump in that they can use his corruption to mask their own and look like the good guys by contrast, they likely don’t actually want to get rid of him. So, they make a case for impeachment that’s impeachable but not very strong... likely because Trump was looking into Joe Biden’s corruption. So, the impeachment is mostly for show to please their constituents and perhaps to obscure view of DNC corruption, as they knew Trump would be acquitted in the Senate and that it would give him a ratings boost following the acquittal.

That’s not going to happen. And there a more people that dislike Trump than like him to counter-march on Washington.

No judgment here. And of course, there is no ethical issue with any of this if it breaches no one’s boundaries... and it appears that it doesn’t. That said, have you explored into the roots of the addiction together? Addiction of any kind can reveal deeper issues that don’t necessarily have to do with the content of the addiction itself. And since you both have the same addiction, your relationship can be great for exploring the underlying causes deeper.

So, the Iowa Caucus app is apparently malfunctioning. So, here are some facts. Do with them what you will... The App is called Shadow and was created by former Hillary Clinton backers (Edit) The Shadow company received money from Pete Buttigieg's campaign, apparently for another service they offer Bernie Sanders had members of his team monitoring about 60% of the caucusing sites that showed him having a 5 point lead over Pete on average Mayor Pete already claimed victory before the results have fully come out... in a pre-scheduled tweet and in his speech Mayor Pete's campaign is getting a ton of positive media coverage Still no clear results

And you didn't respond to what I said at all. You just decided to deflect and focus on how you perceived that I didn't spend enough time to process what you said. I just want you to questions whether or not you're self-deceiving. If a person goes around trying to call everyone out for not being conscious enough, then it begs the question as to whether or not they have some errors of grandeur. And in those errors may be convincing themselves that they've attained some higher state, and then going around trying to flaunt their spiritual superiority to others. To me, your posts really smack of this. I'm not saying you definitely aren't where you think you are because I don't know. But I am saying that your posts make it seem that way.

You seem to be very invested in all this and make a lot of assumptions. Are you sure that you're not skipping straight to the "mountains again" part?

It's the very first state to weigh in on their choice for the nominee. So, the winner gets a media bump because they're starting out on a good foot. After this, once a week, there will be new states that do their primaries. Next Tuesday is New Hampshire. Then after a few weeks, it's Super Tuesday where a whole bunch of states do their primaries. And then, after that, it keeps rolling until June when every state in the US. has done their primary. But Iowa is the very first step and sets the tone for the entire primary process. So, since Pete did well, he got a bump in the polls. Since Biden did poorly, he has really fallen off. People changes their votes to go with who they think will win. So, most of Biden's support has gone to Bernie and probably some to Pete and the other candidates. Now, a new poll came out after Iowa, showing that Bernie is poised to win in most states, with Biden only winning a few.

It’s important to get your paradigm right if you plan to live in a society... or live a human life in general. So, it’s unwise to engage in spiritual bypassing by invalidating relative truths by writing over them with higher spiritual understandings. You have to be non-dual and hold space for both. So, if there is a potential that elections are being corrupted, it is of immense practical importance to push back on that as a populace. Otherwise it encourages more corruption and detrimental outcomes on the relative. To be truly aware, you must become aware that relative truths coexist with absolute Truth. And to make a distinction and prioritize absolute truisms over practical truths, will be incredibly unwise. It would also create a false dichotomy between spiritual and mundane that doesn’t actually exist So, practically, if we don’t push back on potential corruption or are too trusting, it leaves us wide open to even more corruption happening. And that wouldn’t be healthy or functional for our society.

@whoareyou Yeah, gullibility and passivity in the face of potential corruption enables most devilry that exists. It’s those that do nothing and say nothing in the face of wrongdoing (or potential wrongdoing) who are complicit in devilry by allowing it to go unchecked. Honestly, at this point, if people aren’t seriously contemplating the potential for corruption in the Iowa Caucus, then I just think of them as being incredibly naive and unworldly. Also, lots of spiritual bypassing going on here too. From Leo and a couple others. Using more spiritual truths to invalidate practical truths as though that is the conscious choice. That’s why it’s so important to get the paradigm right and not use truths from one paradigm to lie to one’s self in another paradigm. If they recognized that, they’d see that they are speculating just as much as anyone else. Also, that corruption is a perfectly reasonable speculation about the events that are unfolding. And practicing blind faith in the integrity of the political institution and the election process and defaulting to “there is no corruption” as the only valid interpretation of the events at hand is a huge assumption not based in truth at all. And not based in historical precedents either. And even more importantly, an assumption with far greater potential for negative consequences compared to the alternative interpretation of events.

Update: The results are still at 97% with Pete ahead in delegates by a razor thin margin of 0.1%. The satellite caucuses that Bernie did best in have still not been reported. Tom Perez, chair of the DNC is now calling for an “Immediate” recanvass of the votes from scratch... “immediately” almost certainly meaning before the remainder of the votes are counted. Again. Do with this new information what you will.

Devils in the government will keep getting away with devilry as long as fools continue giving them the benefit of the doubt. When there is motive, stakes, conflicts of interest, inconsistencies, and a history of corruption, it is pure devilry to convince people that their lack of trust in the establishment is unfounded. And it’s specifically your type of devilry that keeps truth from coming to light.

I disagree with the idea that a bug would be so significantly more reasonable to postulate about as the cause of what is happening in Iowa, in a political system that’s based mostly off of politicians doing the bidding of major corporations and industries for money. And that’s especially true when an anti-establishment candidate is running who may upset the continuation of that corruption. But you seem to think it’s like a 1000 to 1 chance that some corruption is happening. If I were to guess, I’d put the odds at 70/30 in favor of your bug theory. But because the chances for corruption are still so significant, given the financial ties and the inconsistency in numbers and the establishment’s extensive history of corruption, you can’t just rule out the possibility of corruption as though it’s somehow ludicrous to suspect. Government corruption happens every single day on an ongoing basis. Also, I can’t stress enough how important it is for everyday people to practice healthy skepticism toward the political institution. It helps keep them more honest, so that they’re less likely to try something funny. Don’t just give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s better to be over-suspicious and wrong than it is to be under-suspicious and get fucked over. The worst case scenario with the first scenario is that you say, “Nanana bo boo. Told ya’ so.” to me. And I can live with that minor ego blow. The worst case scenario with the second scenario is that we fail to push back on corruption and many people continue to get messed over. And we miss the opportunity to get someone in office who will work to turn the tables.

Yes you did Leo. You’ve been arguing up and down that it’s just a bug to everyone on this thread with everyone as though it’s a clear Occam’s Razor. And you’ve been insisting that anyone who as much as suspects foul play is foolish, despite the fact that any sane person would be suspicious of what’s happening in Iowa... especially given the details that I shared in my original post and the fact that our political system is already riddled with corruption. Also, do you seriously expect that the truth about political corruption will magically reveal itself with “calm and patience” if no one at the grassroots level is suspicious about it? If so, that’s a foolish expectation... and you’re smart enough to know that. The truth only comes out if enough people are pushing for it. And that process of getting the truth to come to light is anything but calm. Don’t expect corrupt institutions to reveal their corruption to you on a silver platter. And I haven’t made one single accusation. I’ve only told you what I’m suspicious of and the facts that make me suspicious. Also, this is NOT an ideology.... anymore than it’s an ideology to state that ‘perhaps foxes shouldn’t be allowed in the chicken coop.’

I haven’t watched the video but I can already tell you that WWIII is not around the corner. America only does war with much smaller countries that pose very little threat to us as a nation, so that it can usurp the power structures of those countries for financial gain and create a path from the military industrial complex directly into the giant pot of tax dollars collected from tax payers. So, America is largely safe from the full depth and breadth of the horrors of war due to extreme imperialism and an allyship with almost all other first-world nations. Also, I see no signs of the dissolution of the US.

Again. I’m not assuming anything. You are. You’re the one that’s arguing tooth and nail that there’s DEFINITELY no corruption happening and that it’s DEFINITELY just a bug. When if you were honest and as committed to truth as you claim to be in this interaction, you’d be like me and admit that you don’t actually know and see that both interpretations of the event are possible. And that assuming that everyone is acting in good faith as the default assumption is just as big of an assumption as thinking that there’s DEFINITELY corruption. And your default assumption is that the institution is honest and is the beacon of final truths in the situation... which is completely divorced from historical precedents. So, if you want to seek truth and not just survival in the argument, you must admit to yourself that you don’t actually know anything. What I’m saying is that there’s enough going on here that’s gone wrong to warrant suspicion, especially given the facts that I mentioned in the original post. And my argument is that we should default to suspicion in these cases to avoid being gullible and allowing potentially corrupt things to happen by virtue of ASSUMING the institution and the players in it are following the rules. It’s better to err in the direction that has no consequences if you’re wrong.

Bernie has only 3 fewer delegates than Pete now, which is 0.1% different at 97% reporting. Getting close to the wire.

It’s a conspiracy theory in the sense that it’s a hypothesis about a conspiracy. but that doesn’t make that hypothesis true or false. The term conspiracy theory is actually neutral. It just has a negative connotation because we relate the word to various silly hoaxes not grounded in any likelihood at all. But Conspiracies do happen and often. And so you can’t treat a conspiracy theory about run-of-the-mill corruption in politics and a conspiracy theory about unicorns taking over the planet equally. And I absolutely am suspicious of what’s going on with the Iowa Caucus. And if a person has no shred of suspicion or thinks that conspiracy wouldn’t happen, then I submit to you that that’s foolishness. You should be wary of motive, conflicts of interest, and historical precedence, which corruption lines up with. The fact of the matter is that we don’t know. So, there is a hypothesis that it’s a simple bug in the system. And there’s a hypothesis that it’s happening because of deliberate attempts to mess with the election. Both are 100% possible as hypotheses. So no one truly knows. So, it’s foolish to look at one of those potentials and scoff at it like I’m saying we have to wear tin foil hats to keep aliens from harvesting our brainwaves. So, it’s important to show healthy skepticism in the intentions of the political institution and see that skepticism as valid. Otherwise politicians will take advantage of a populace that always gives the benefit of the doubt to the establishment y to avoid looking conspiratorial in the fashion of a flat earther.

95% so we don’t actually know yet. Also, I personally trust Bernie’s numbers more anyway, even though they obviously can’t hold up for the results. Bernie has a much better record of integrity compared to any other politician in the establishment and (of course) the establishment as an institution. So, I can’t really help but have more trust in his reporting even though he has a conflict of interest too. The DNC has simply done too much shadiness, selling out, and nepotism to have any faith in their integrity. So I will still be incredibly suspicious at the whole process. And that’s a valid suspicion. And you should be suspicious too. Also, I’ll apologize to Mayor Pete as soon as he apologizes to me and everyone else for taking money from major industries including Big Pharma to do their bidding in office. Edit: Also, if you were really concerned with truth over survival you would recognize that assuming there’s corruption and assuming there’s not corruption are both based in speculation completely ungrounded in first-hand experience.

Here’s a good video on the topic that really explains why it’s perfectly rational to be suspicious of intent to corrupt the process.

Actually, as strange as this may sound, I just saw a poll on this. And a plurality of Biden’s supporters have Bernie as their number two choice.