Forestluv

I wouldn't say "intuition to guess". It is deeper than that. And it's not just polls. For example, I am noticing things in Biden that I don't believe are getting picked up in the polls. Swing states have evolved, yet one needs to consider the time frame. At the population level, four years is often not a lot of time for social evolution. Yet, social evolution can be rapid at times as well. In terms of development, I would say that there has been greater awareness for many, yet there are also underlying dynamics that remain. Most polls have Trump underwater in swing states. It is not looking good at this point. Yet Trump can be good at manipulating narratives and emotions. He is essentially a bully and bullies don't go down easy. Imagine a bully in high school running for class president. He is unpopular, yet he is the biggest bully in school. Many students are afraid of him and many students believe the bully is protecting them. And the bully will bully the other candidate. There is a decent chance he wins.

Can you describe the sensation of suffering?

If I was to make a prediction, I would base it on a combination of statistics such as polling and bookies as my own analysis. And intuition would factor in. For example, Biden has been consistently leading the polls. I would place him in the top tier. However, I would not place him as the favorite. Biden's support is soft name recognition. Warren is putting a lot of effort into forming grassroots support and a broad coalition. Bernie has super strong support. Biden supporters are low knowledge and soft. Bernie supporters are among the most politically knowledgeable and are rock solid. Plus, Biden will likely lose the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) allowing another candidate to gain momentum. Obama was a big underdog to Clinton, yet he won Iowa and got a huge burst of momentum. Lastly, Biden's cognition is on the decline. Most people are not paying attention to the race this far out - once they do, I don't think they will like Biden. Even though he is currently ahead in the polls, I would put his chances at 30% of winning the nomination.

In September 2019, Warren is at 4:1 to win the 2020 election. In September 2015, Trump was at 18:1 to win the 2016 election. The odds are based on public perception of gamblers. I think this is an interesting metric, yet I would not say the public perception of gamblers is the best metric. As well, it is waaaaay to far out from the election. I doubt much money has been placed, thus the sample size is small. Personally, I would put Trump's chances of winning at about 45%. Yet I would not be surprised if Trump gets blownout. He could lose big, lose small or win small - yet Trump won't win big. The best he can do is match his 2016 performance (in which he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes). I also think there is about a 10% chance Trump doesn't even make it to the election.

I'm not sure if you are kidding, trying to be tricky or missed something here. . . That bookie you linked has the odds of Trump winning at -110. That is essentially even-odds. The reason each democratic candidate is shown as +450 and higher is because we don't know who the democratic nominee is yet.

Depends on the person. They resonate. I also took a small amount of cannabis edible, which nudges up my resonance. It was a deep mystical state.

That is a binary category which will get called out on the conscious politics subforum. A binary construct such as "socialist vs. non-socialist" is hyper dualistic and simple. One step up in complexity is a continuum of degree from socialist to non-socialist. As well, "socialist vs. capitalist" is also hyper dualistic. There are many different forms of integration between socialism and capitalism. The U.S. is a hybrid of socialist components as well as capitalist components. The conversation is not about "socialist vs. capitalist". It is about the relative balance between socialism and capitalism. No one in the U.S. is advocating for pure socialism or pure capitalism. Also, there are evolutionary levels of socialism. Old school dictatorial socialism is at a blue level. Bernie is two full conscious levels higher into Green democratic socialism.

Is that true in your direct experience? One day I was floating in a sensory-deprivation tank and went to a "place" before I was born. Everything after birth was absent. No images, words, objects, thoughts etc. All that stuff came after birth. One would think there would be nothing. Yet that wasn't quite true. There was a something. "Remembering" is a tricky thing. I used to think remembering was memories in the form of thoughts and images. Then other forms of remembering/memories were revealed. Muscle memories. Intuitive memories. Empathic memories. All non-verbal, non-image. Post-intellectual.

To me this doesn't resonate non-dual perspectives. Lots of dualities in there. Direct experience is king.

Reminds me of JP:

To me, Warren comes across as a University professor. She is very good at explaining complexities in simple terms. She is a great teacher. I personally love that about her (I'm also a University professor). Teaching has it's place, yet it doesn't bring forth emotion. When Warren goes for the emotion angle, she often talks about her poor upbringing and her fearful mother mustering up the courage to take a minimum wage job to save their house and family. It's a touching story and inspiring from one perspective, yet it doesn't seem to get the emotions going. Sometimes she seems a bit out of touch and old fashioned. I think as she does more big rally's she will get better in this area. I suppose this is important for an election, yet it can also be fluff. Obama was very good at rhetorical inspiration, yet ended up capitulating on issue after issue. Bernie doesn't have the same rhetorical skills, yet he is such a grounded progressive and has so much courage. He was the first top tier politician to speak out against Israel's maltreatment of the Palestinians and brought into question the U.S.'s unconditional financial support of Israel. This was a huge risk and it took a lot of courage. He took the conservative backlash like a champ and then the other candidates followed his lead and voiced their concerns about Israel and our financial relationship with them. To me, that is a leader. . . He also held a rally in kentucky - McConnell's home state to shame McConnell. He is fearless and will stand up for his principles. He is on another level. . . . He might not have the best rhetorical skills, yet his barking against powerful oppressors can ignite a lot of emotion. Even something like "I wrote the damn bill!!!" ignited a lot of emotion in his supporters because he knocked down a corporate dem trying to control the narrative.

What are your impressions of Bernie and Biden relative to Trump?

I think something is inevitable. Over the last 40 years in the U.S. capitalism has grown in power - in particular political power. And wealth has been hyper concentrated into the top 1%. To me, this seems unsustainable. The main advantage I see with UBI is that at a surface level, it is very simple and easily presented to the public. Yet I don't think it is the best use of resources because it doesn't address deeper issues. I'd rather see money directed toward lower/middle income America in a way the addresses inequality in an integrated manner. For example, the GND uses money in a way that addresses several underlying issues. As well, my understanding is that everyone would get a fixed amount like $1,000, yet if someone is already receiving aid their UBI income would decrease. Like if someone was on food stamps that would factor into UBI. In my view, this would create an imbalance. From people's current level, lower income might be essentially receiving $500/month, while middle and upper income receive $1,000 per month. I think this will be a good way to "sell" it to the public because those under the poverty line are desperate for any help and those in the middle/upper class understand lower class won't be receiving as much. To me, this isn't the most effective distribution.

U.S. federal unemployment rates are notorious for underestimating true unemployment. Even if unemployment is relatively low, another concern is quality of jobs. Many jobs are minimum wage without benefits and security - and people are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.

Yang's main thrust is his UBI plan and to me he is too one-dimensional. I only know a bit about UBI. I think it has good intentions, yet I don't think it is the best strategy because it doesn't address the deeper systemic issues. I don't think it is the most effective use of money. For example, it won't address inequality in health care, racism, jobs, empowerment. I would rather see something like a guaranteed job program. As well, it diverts too much from existing social infrastructure. Currently, it would be very hard to dismantle social programs like medicare and social security that have deep infrastructure. Republicans have tried for decades and have failed. If deep social programs are weakened by diverting their resources to UBI, it will be easier for Republicans to dismantle weakened social programs as well as the new UBI program. Secondly, UBI can be used as an excuse by Republicans to cut programs such as food stamps. To me, UBI doesn't go nearly far enough to address underlying issues and shift power back to the people. I see it like a band-aid.

I think Wisconsin is one of the most important states for Trump. From your perspective, do Trump's declining poll numbers reflect the general attitude you see in Wisconsin? Have you seen a shift since his election? I live in Michigan, which narrowly went to Trump - similar to Wisconsin. Here there has been a considerable shift. In 2018, Democrats won governor and many lower level seats switched democrat. Also, Republicans were benefiting from gerrymandering and an voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gerrymandering bill. I don't see Trump winning Michigan again.

I think Biden has soft support based on name recognition and Obama's VP. He represents a "return to normalcy". His biggest positive with voters is "electability" and the polls reinforce this. People in polls select Biden often for electability - which reinforces his electability images. I think as people get to know Biden, he will fade. Not just because of his checkered past on the issues, his creepy behavior toward girls or his gaffes. I think most of his supporters see him as a nice guy that is socially awkward and made a few bad votes he learned from. My bigger concerns are that he will not excite the base or new voters - at all. I hear a media narrative that "all democrats will be energized to vote against Trump regardless of the democratic candidate". To me, this seems like a corporate frame to nominate a centrist and maintain the status quo. Biden would suck energy out of the electorate. My second major concern is Biden's cognitive decline. This is being ageist. Bernie is older than Biden and Bernie is still mentally sharp. Warren is also in her 70s and sharp. Biden is not. His memory is failing. He is creating personal stories that combine memories of events that took place years apart. He has struggled to remember Obama's name. Multiple times he hasn't known what state he is in. Several times during the climate debate he struggled to be cognitive. Trump's team has already picked up on this and called Biden "mentally unfit". Trump will be brutally attack Biden on this and I he now longer has the mental clarity and crispness to counter. So how do we "get rid of him"? I was hoping he would naturally fade away and we do see him fading in the polls, yet I'm concerned it is too gradual. The good news is that Bernie and Warren have more support combined than Biden. I'd like to see Biden fall and the race come down to Bernie and Warren. This mainly falls on the hands of other moderates to expose Biden. A few candidates have done this somewhat effectively in the debates. In particular, other centrist candidates need to press Biden. I hope Biden can fall based on the issues. I'd rather not go after his cognitive decline. I don't think he is still cognitively healthy enough to beat Trump and be an effective President (although he would be better than Trump). Yet to reveal this in a humane way would tricky. Right-wingers are brutal to each other and eat their own. Yet progressives don't like to harm each other. Cory Booker told Biden during the debate like "You are drinking the kool-aid and don't even know the flavor". This was a jab at Biden's declining cognition, yet came across as tongue-in-cheek. Early stages of dementia is difficult to deal with and I would never want to take advantage of someone's declining mind - yet we are talking about the presidency here. If Biden doesn't fall below Bernie and Warren in the next month, I think this point should come to the forefront. I'm amazed at what resonates with Trump supporters. It's a totally different resonance than progressives. Sometimes I try to see it from the perspective of a Trump supporter, yet it takes effort. For example, Trump supporters don't care about Trump's lying or corruption as long as they "own the libs". Yet progressives get upset when a candidate meets with someone associated with corporate America - in particular health insurance, fossil fuel industry, gun lobby or military industrial complex. Progressives hold their candidate to a much higher standard than conservatives. The biggest blunder for Warren so far was her claim of Native American heritage. In degree, this would rank somewhere around 100,000 on a list relative to Trump's behavior. Yet Trump has the leveraging dark magic and was able to equalize Warren's mishap to his own atrocious behavior. I totally agree. Bernie has the most passionate supporters by far - in particular people under 35. He would ignite a movement. 50,000+ rallies with intense passion. People vibrating with hope and desire to evolve. Bernie is a very special person and candidate. We may not see another Bernie in our lifetimes. I think Bernie is more solid than Warren. She is my #2. Warren is trying to build a broader coalition that includes the establishment. I don't think she would hit the same level of energy Bernie would, yet I think she could still generate excitement and would be able to settle down the resistance in the media and corporations generate. I don't think this is good for policy, yet it would have a political benefit in terms of electability. Bernie won't back down to conservatives, media or corporations. Warren would in many contexts (except she is very strong against corporate corruption). I think it's more than just "change". I think many people feel and desire forward motion toward Green. To transcend the toxicities of Blue and Orange - such as hyper capitalism, racism and inhumane treatment of "the other".

It is edible. I would weigh it out, put it in a capsule and swallow it on an almost empty stomach. Sublingual is probably a bit more efficient yet 4-aco tastes really bad. It’s awful.

To an extent. For example, 5-meo and Aya are very different trips.

4-aco-dmt is highly similar to shrooms. It is very different than dmt. I’m not aware of a substitute similar to Dmt. Dmt is very different than lsd and shrooms. I wouldn’t say it’s stronger - although the visuals are certainly stronger.

@Winter 4-aco-dmt is very similar to shrooms and easy to acquire. If someone resonates with psychedelics and feels a calling to diversify, I think it’s a great idea. If someone is having negative issues with LSD and is looking for shrooms to save the day - that’s a different dynamic and I would be more cautious.

@Annoynymous Yes, Trump has rabid support of his followers - about 35% and they vote. Biden has soft support based mostly on name recognition. I think Biden would lose because he won’t excite the base, young voters and new voters. Plus his cognition is declining - his memory is beginning to fade and he is starting to show difficulty speaking coherently. Trump will be brutal in the next election and I don’t think Biden could handle it. I strongly believe a progressive is needed to stand up strong against Trump and show contrast. This will energize the base, youth and give new voters a reason to vote. Democrats win with inspiring progressives like Obama, they lose with corporate centrists like Hilary Clinton. As well, I don’t believe the media narrative that the U.S. isn’t ready for a progressive. Most progressive proposals on health care (M4A), gun laws (ubc) and climate change (GND) and wealth tax have enormous support ranging from 60-90% support. These are mainstream proposals. One needs to get to the most extreme left policies such as reparations and decriminalizing illegal immigration to see support drop below 50% and the democratic nominee will run on those. The progressive democrat will win on the issues. It isn’t even close. To win, Trump needs to make the contest personal, distort, use fear and create racial divisions. He would lose on the issues. That is why the democrats want to debate on the issues - because they win on the issues. Bigly.

LSD and shrooms are on the same level of intensity. The differences are subjective. The best way to find out is try it. For me, the differences are fairly subtle. It’s not like the difference between LSD, 5-meo-dmt, Ayahuasca and San Pedro. Those are major differences ime.

Yes, I live in the U.S. . . Trump has hardcore support by about 35% of population - and they vote. They don't care if Trump lies, cheats, manipulates or harms "the other", like putting kids in cages. About another 10% of the population is soft support. They like aspects of Trump's policies, yet wish he would tone down his overt racism and awful tweeting habit. Trump has a low chance of winning the popular vote. He actually lost the popular vote to Clinton by 2% (about 3 million votes). Unfortunately, the U.S. has an archaic "electoral college" which disproportionately weighs rural areas - Trump's strongest support. Trump is playing a game in which he needs to win about six "battle ground" states to win the presidency - even though he is likely to lose the popular vote. A few problems I see with democrats. . . Only two democrats will excite the progressive base: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. In contrast to right-wingers, progressive don't like candidates that lie, cheat, manipulate and schmooze with lobbyists (e.g. Hilary Clinton). This will keep them at home. I'm really worried about Biden - I don't think he can get the job done. He is a centrist corporate democrat and he will not excite the base. The democrats need a fighter to counter Trump. Unfortunately, Biden looks to be in early stages of dementia and clearly has cognitive decline. I don't think he will be able to handle the brutal assault of Trump and I think it would be awful for an elderly man losing his cognition to go through that. As well, Republicans have a voter suppression infrastructure setup and democrats are often wimps to stand up to it (except for Stacey Abrams). If Trump can stabalize and return to his 2016 and 2018 form, I think it will be close for the electoral college (yet he will lose the popular vote). However, I think Trump is starting to show cracks and is losing mental fitness. I think he could further deteriorate mentally. As well, I am hoping that the rift with Mike Pence continues. Trump is not happy that Pence has ambitions to run for president in 2024 and Pence recently hired Marc Short (an anti-Trumper) as his chief of staff. There are rumors Trump wants to dump Pence and get Nikki Haley as a lapdog to appeal to moderate women. If Trumps mental decline and infighting continues, it will be much harder for Trump to get re-elected.

Watching Walsh try to launder himself from Trump is certainly a joke. Walsh has been an overt racist for years and is now trying to claim moral character by contrasting himself with Trump.