Trump Junior

Show me where the meeting was actually about Russia providing info on Hillary. Yes, it was a set up, whereby an individual lured the meeting, But show me where she was an operative on behalf of Russia. Show me what policy she was pursuing on behalf of the Russian regime. Jr. did NOT meet with any agent or policy negotiator for Russia. If you say he did, show me the agent, the authority of the agent, the Russian policy being negotiated, etc.
Re: Discussions could violate. Yes, and Jr., Hillary, and you COULD all be late blossoming kool aid lovers of Jim Jones. I think we should investigate that. At least, that is how the "evidence" could be interpreted. S/
Re: "... a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services ...."
"That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."
Define "fix." Did Trump pay Hillary to play politics poorly, so she would lose, like for the Black Sox? That kind of fix? Are you saying opposition research is criminal fixing of an election? OMG! Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. Did Trump register dead people to vote? Did he invite hordes of illegals to invade and corrupt the republic and the political process? Did he encourage motor-voter registration of illegals? Did he trade political favors to launder campaign contributions? Define fix, then give me your "evidence" that Trump engaged in any fixing.
Re: "Laws have apparently been broken": I'm sure a lot of laws are broken every day. Give me your evidence that Trump violated any law. Other than that you and Progs don't like him.
So far, were I judging, I would say you don't have a glimmer of a scintilla of an evidentiary fact that could be pertinent to anything other than this: Oligarchs doing all they can to put their train back on the tracks for completely destroying the republic, except in its name. My evidence for that is strong! Trump wants to make America great again. He wants to enforce the borders. He does not want to endanger us with non-assimilable cultures. Your guys are the exact opposite. I say investigate them! The evidence against them is profound.
Why do you want to help the forces that so obviously want to divide and destroy the U.S.?

Collusion IS going on ... to destroy the republic. It is collusive coordination among media owning oligarchs who kick bs at Trump and Conservers of Liberty, 24/7/365.
Their purposes and methods need to be investigated. Why do they want to promote open borders, floods of uneducated socialists, breakdown of family units, hatred for the founding ideals of the republic? Is this collusive enemy of the representative republic entirely within, or is it also colluded without? What is the quid pro quo?
How many in Congress and the bureaucracies have been compromised by it? Does it amount to treason or war against the republic? Should it require forfeiture of licenses and assets? Forfeiture of pensions for treasonous profs? How deep does the corruption go? How much does it threaten the republic, and the world?

What did the Russian regime offer Trump, when did they offer it, when did Trump accept the offer, what was the quid pro quo, when was it agreed or consummated, and what law was violated? Crickets?
What did the Russian regime offer Hillary, when did they offer it, when did Hillary accept the offer, what was the quid pro quo, and what law was violated? Uranium?
How do domestic Oligarchs weaken the U.S., when do they weaken it, how do they coordinate constant and continuous talking points that undermine every politician who seeks to salvage America, what do they get in exchange, and what laws are they violating? Borders/cheap labor?

Jr. met with someone who was not an agent for Russia, who had no authority to bind Russia, who had nothing to offer, who was promised nothing, who never met with DJT, who someone thought had dirt on Hillary, so Jr. met to see if there was dirt, Jr. did not get any dirt, Jr. ended the meeting, and there was no quid pro quo. That's about it. So, of course, the stoopid party calls it a smoking gun. That's because they are looking feverishly for something, anything, that can get them back on their track for killing the republic.
The Oligarchic puppeted MSM has nothing, so it kicks up dust, like Billy Martin when he managed the Yankees. Except Billy Martin did not kick up dust constantly, continuously, 24/7/365.
What do we get from this? Well, if one has a brain, one gets that the Oligarchy is very upset with DJT for trying to salvage the representative republic from the clutches of the NWO wannabe people farmers and their toolish farm-ees.
This s is very tiresome, very old, very juvey, very stoopid. Time to turn off the indoctrination machine and take a ride through the beautiful mountains. There's too much in the mountains to waste time on progloids. Take 10, and then start figuring out ways to punish the progloid media that wants to erase our borders, flood us with liberty illiterates, and turn us over to the NWO despotism. Freaking f the bastids!

Gay Marriage

The USA was founded to be a representative republic. Not a Sheikdom. Not a Communal Grope Society. Not a marriage of citizens to Big Gov. Only recently have Western States embraced the idea of Gay Marriage. Whether they can continue to do so and remain representative republics is far from clear.
I am not aware of any representative republic that endured very long in history while embracing gay marriage. If anything, it appears to me that militant gays are leading the West down a primrose path of destruction by advocating for Big Gov to force tolerance for every kind of *poison to representative republicanism. Indeed, the destruction of republics and their replacement with an open society NWO (people farm) is what the oligarchy wants! So it's hardly a coincidence that the oligarchy would be "all in" for something as poisonous and destructive to the fiber of a nation as gay marriage.

**********************



To argue that Christians as a group are bashers is, well, rather biased bashing.  By that broad brush method, I could as easily argue that all gays must be bashers of Christians.
Since you raised the topic, I would remind you that there is a difference between sexual relationships versus marriage ... under the traditions of a society and the laws of a State.  Whatever may have been the religious or other practices in Ancient Egypt would have no bearing on that.
I'm sure sex slavery, chattel sex contracts, and polyamory also predated the Bible.  However, the people who founded the USA were mainly from Britain.  Their legal usages were from the British Common Law.  (They were not immigrants to the USA, because the USA did not exist before they founded and created it.  When they founded the USA, they joined via a Constitution. ) In main, the various States had adopted common law usages from Britain. 
During that time, Britain did not recognize any legal form of marriage between persons of the same sex.
The USA was founded to be a representative republic.  Not a Sheikdom.  Not a Communal Grope Society.  Not a marriage of citizens to Big Gov.  Only recently have Western States embraced the idea of Gay Marriage.  Whether they can continue to do so and remain representative republics is far from clear.   I am not aware of any representative republic that endured very long in history while embracing gay marriage.  If anything, it appears to me that militant gays are leading the West down a primrose path of destruction by advocating for Big Gov to force tolerance for every kind of poison to representative republicanism.
*****************
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_the_United_Kingdom:
390  – The Roman emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius issued an imperial decree to the Codex Theodosianus, that criminalizes "all persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people."
1541  – The Buggery Act 1533 only ran until the end of the parliament. The law was re-enacted three times, and then in 1541 it was enacted to continue in force "for ever".
1680  – A same-sex marriage was annulled. Arabella Hunt married "James Howard"; in 1682 the marriage was annulled on the ground that Howard was in fact Amy Poulter, a 'perfect woman in all her parts', and two women could not validly marry.
1828  – The Buggery Act 1533 was repealed and replaced by the Offences against the Person Act 1828. Buggery remained punishable by death
1866  – Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman (preventing future same-sex marriages). In the case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee (a case of polygamy), Lord Penzance's judgment began "Marriage as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
2004  – The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is passed by the Labour Government, giving same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
On 17 July 2013, Royal Assent is given to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013.

******************

Now you're not advocating for gays generally, but for rich gays. I would agree that rich people often find an easier path by knowing whose ass to kiss. I believe the acronym is KUSD. That tends to be a default mechanism for selecting out representative republicanism and replacing it with people farming. Which is precisely what the NWO wants to bring about: The undermining of national and moral borders to replace them with a one world people farm -- to be run by oligarchs and their tools. Maybe that's why fascists often make such fashionably dressed goose steppers? And this would make the world better, how?

Schumer is scary smart about knowing things that are evil and stupid. Who does he serve? Not ordinary, decent, free-thinking Americans. Nope. He serves people farmers and their tools. Big Nasty NWO Gov.

For NYC, it'd be tough to call who would make the best fit for Mayor. Carlos Danger, Hellary, Al Franken, or Chelsea Clinton. A lot of dogs are coprophagians. New Yorker's, too. What can you say about a city that voted 79% for Hillary?

 We are now plagued with Four Poisonous Horsemen: Islam, BLM, La Raza, and Gov Forced Sponsorship of Gay Marriage. They are poisonous to a representative republic that is based on free-thinking about decent values.
Christianity is based on freedom of conscience. There is nothing Christian about advocating for drinking poison.
Show me one representative republic in history that has long endured while under the control of Muslims, Race baiting codependency, Race based entitlement mindedness, or Homosexual de-defining of marriage. Evil has united to form a fist against decent civilization. Meanwhile, our leaders are mainly wussie men and feminazis.

Alinsky Nutjobs in a nutshell: Pagan Commies who demand Christian charity, but who want it their way --- free of Christian obligations. As long as that's their style, they can ESAD.

Too many Americans allowed wussies to pretend massive codependence is a virtue. This is why we have so many men who want to become women and so many children who want never to have to grow up.
Now, we are getting more men who see this as a deal breaker. They do not want to be made responsible to take perpetual care of people who see themselves as entitled.
So, the wussies seek replacement care providers, by importing third worlders. Yeah, that's a solution! S/

When everyone wants to marry the gov, the gov needs revenue. Taxes. When gov takes over employing most people, it needs ever more taxes. Which leads to ever more regulations. Intrusiveness. Break up of community, volunteerism, and family life. When faith, family, and fidelity are undermined, you get Big Gov, with big misery.

Competent people can be happy alone or with other people. Miserable people are never happy, but they do love company for their misery. So much that they feel compelled to impose their misery on everyone else.
Miserable people push drugs, corrupt youth, want to screw everything and everyone, tear down all monuments to heritage, and corral the masses into pens --- where law droolers regulate them up the wazoo. They call this "social justice." They tend not to like children because they want to be the children.
The formula for producing hordes of miserable people: Undermine faith in a caring Godhead, undermine traditional families, and promote admiration for burdens on society (anti-patriots, anti-police, anti-borders, anti-decency).
Lefties want to be burdens, forever.

I don't care about your private make believe. What I care about is using the law to forcibly indoctrinate kids. Shoo. Get off the gay pile and read and learn a little further. There's a whole internet out there.
Is general profiling of Christians a Prog thing? Americans generally are NOT obsessed with bashing gays. They tend only to be concerned that gays ought not be licensed to use gov (in the name of tolerating gays) to forcibly regulate and require the people to indoctrinate and groom their children.
They do not tend to believe gov ought to be specially and monetarily rewarding expressions of gayness. They tend not to believe gay unions, formally encouraged and favored in law, are conducive to the preservation of a decent republic. They prefer traditional families over minutiae-regulating government.
Professing Christianity probably has little to do with the underlying concern. I think you are demonizing people who admire the teachings of Jesus under much too broad a brush.
Will militants among gays be satisfied when the institution of marriage has been de-defined to the point of meaninglessness? I doubt it. Modesty does not seem to restrain them in anything else.

Sovereigns v. Globalists. Americans v. Totalitarians and their Tools. Free Thinkers v. Law Droolers. Human Beings v. Corrupti and Ignoranti. Responsible Adults v. Codependent Scientisimists.
Sovereign Americans can do for themselves or incentivize help. Globalists will always force misery and be miserable. That's why they want to screw everyone and everything, and reduce it to the lowest common denominator.

************

To not notice how water runs downhill is to be oblivious. Water will do that, whether or not it offends you. Con-spire just means to breathe together. A conspiracy does not have to be planned or malicious. A society of care-less people can easily fall to a lowest common denominator. If you don't apprehend that, then your avatar (Truth&Morality) is just an insult.

I read enough of your history to see you show no great fondness for representative republicanism. Your attitude (Supreme Arbiter?) bespeaks elitism. I suspect the ideal of a society of independent and free-thinking citizens offends you. IAE, I don't detect much concern from you about how to establish or preserve any such a society. Perhaps because you take the condition of mass enserfment under the rule of elites to be not just a default condition, but a good one?

I don't see the truth or morality in your rationalizations. Just rationalizations for your wannas.

Maybe if humanity evolves to a society of pre-programmed and sexless (or omnisexed?) cyborgs, then we will have no need or desire for raising children or for individual freedom of conscience within anything like a representative republic. But when the day comes that freedom of conscience becomes irrelevant, then we truly will have become the farmed subhumans.



***************

We are all in service as perspectives of the same Godhead. Consciousness is Consciousness. If your consciousness had been associated with the body and context of a different perspective, the feedback for your life path would have followed the same as that perspective.

What is managed is the Information that accumulates to each perspective. Information that serves a reconciling, unfolding purposefulness is preserved. Information that does not, is not. What we find joy in affects what the Reconciler finds joy in.

No system of patterns can stick -- to repair and replicate itself as needed to nurture and sustain itself --- unless it has means to find its likeness to be attractive. That "means" is conscious appreciation. It's why patterns, as they happen to be programmed to develop, happen to be programmed to attract likeness.

Sinning pertains to bad faith and bad will. The story of Jesus is to illustrate that the Reconciler has not "left the building." That God knows our pains, angst, joys. Jesus wept. Endured mortal death. Disclaimed yolo. Christianity is a story about how the Godhead cares and reconciles. It is less a blood cult than a care system. (Godless pagan omni-sexism-hedonism, otoh, seems to be a feces cult.)

If everything were physically, measurably equal and equally charged (if symmetry were not cracked), could anything manifest or any value find expression? it is only because our experiences and contexts are different (unequal) that we can each express ourselves as a different person. To rebel against that is to rebel against humanity. That leads to corruption and idiocy. IOW, Sinisterism (Leftism).

What the sinister Left really wants is equality for itself (without earning it), and servitude for everyone else.


**************

Gov, brought to you by people farmers, will be inviting everyone to call every kind of relationship a marriage. So gov can regulate it, tax it, pander to it, open borders to it, and gain power over whatever progeny may be produced by it. This will be In the (fake) name of equality and social justice. Per Obama, the proponents of this think we should all say, "Thank you." Once decency is dead, evil has a clear field.
Some Libs thought, ok, we can tolerate this. Which we could, if we were still able to define limits. But, so far, all the defining has been to erase. To erase limits, borders, nations, families. Toleration has moved to celebration, to required celebration, to required indoctrination, to prosecution of opponents as hate mongers. Evil loves to prosecute its opponents. Soon, no one will be able safely to resist. This is "progress"? When personal pleasure is the only guide star, what principles can possibly resist the abysmal fall to every depravity?
Transhumanism and gov control over progeny requires that marriage be de-defined, and then eliminated once it has been rendered meaningless. At that point, families will become irrelevant, and the masses will become the livestock of oligarchs. Under fair minded principles of science, of course. S/
Along the slippery slope, independent nations, to most effects, will be eliminated. Of course, Progs will lie, claim the slippery slope is not there (even as it operates right before your eyes), and divert the attention of its dombies with prog-candy. We are beyond respectful argumentation with such people, because, apart from what pleasures them, they have no concept of truth.

***********

Power of Positive Consciousness

It seems reasonably to be conceptualized that the only thing that actually exists is the Godhead, being for its aspects comprised of Consciousness (including Unconsciousness), Substance, and Information.  Its expression would seem to unfold with Consciousness (including Unconsciousness) using Math to correlate with Math-Verses to express the aspects of the Godhead.  Consciousness is expressed as a correlate with manifested potentiality.  Unconsciousness abides as a correlate with in-manifested potentiality.  What is manifested is that which has become incorporated as Information into a record that can be sussed by at least one perspective of Consciousness, that happens to correlate with the manifestation.


Consciousness feeds back with Math-Verses, to imagine models, tinker with math, tinker back with each model, until it is ready to expand on the model.  By imagining and acting as if a model were true to a purpose, Consciousness tinkers to make the model true to a purpose.  This is the power of Positive Consciousness as it feeds back with Math.  In our own human realm, we have power to imagine systems of virtual reality, and then to make them so, perhaps even to inhabit them with our Consciousness.  Thus, we can design new systems of forms (Substance), wherewith to accumulate new systems of Information.  (Is anything posted on the Internet ever really lost?)

*****************


CSI
The reason I is continuously renormalized:  Is because each aspect is continuously expressed in respect of the other two.

Consciousness is that which has capacity beyond mortal measure to function with math-verses to produce appearances (manifestations) of Substance that is measurable within whatever the limits as happen to be established for each math-verse.
Substance is not produced merely out of math, but out of C that has capacity, functioning with math, to express S, that will, consistent with math, pass into I.
Mortal POC perspectives of consciousness are what associate with each manifestation that appears as S.

No appearance is collapsed as an expression of S unless there is associated a way to sense/interpret/record it, as I.

Whatever senses/records a manifestation is, then and there, at some level, conscious of it.

Higher C is that which retains potential capacity to express manifestations that have not yet been determined, as well as capacity to reconcile all those that have been determined.
It may have capacity to experience the qualitative feelings of all lesser mortal POC, that is at least coextensive with whatever math-verse it sponsors.

For every manifested pattern, manifested to sensation, there is associated at least one mortally attached POC.

A recorder is a level of C.

The way to believe, to have one's I preserved, is by expressing GW.  Mere profession of incantation is important only to reinforce that end, not as an end in itself.

***********

Would sustenance of life in a derivative virtual cloud be at the mercy of the laws of nature of our present math-verse, i.e., limits to the speed of light, etc.?

Or could it "break through" to expand and redefine new limits for a new math-verse?

Ex.: By arranging for a parallel array of computers, calculations could exceed the SOL.
To exist, the new math-verse would have to be defined by renormalizing limits of some kind.  But how may our present limits could they break through?

May we, by designing out own math- based math-verse simulations, inhabit a tech cloud, perhaps thereby to immunize ourselves to black holes?
I have no opinion on this.
May some higher consciousness already have designed such a higher math-verse, to which select POC's may be invited?  heaven?

May an informational record of dead people be revived, to resurrect some such perspectives to such a heaven?  I have no opinion on this.

From my perspective, I do not think in terms of a series of collapsing cosmic waves as accounting for all that is expressed with the cosmos.
Rather, I think in terms of a continuous, math-based, feedback flux of CSI.

Now, for measurably practical and expanding limits of tech, I may think in terms of collapsing waves.

Moreover, I suspect those limits are altered and phase shifted, however slowly, by our participatory feedback.

What we can dream, we can often move towards.
On this, I think David Deutsch has some interesting ideas about the nature of science in his The Beginning of Infinity.

POC's associate with appearances of patterns, but we do not abide "inside" such patterns.

That a pattern is sensed does not mean it is conscious.
It just means at least one POC senses it.
Moreover, POC's at levels below that of humans abide.
Every pattern that is sticky is, in that sense, sensory and conscious at some level.
The C as the general level of the Godhead is conscious of all reconciliations of participating wills.
And it is qualitatively empathetic of each P.
Because each P is simply a limited, blinkered, P of the general C.

RENORMALIZATION
No real time in itself.
No beginning of time.
No film at edge of soap bubble
No age of universe.
Just an age during which I concerning such age happens to be accessible to associates for what happens to be the math-verse that defines the experiences to which our senses and capacities are adapted.

What so empowers and leverages the general C?
The math for which it has innate capacity to be the activating ingredient.
Stored appearances that are not presently associated with any mortal POC, such as an early Big Bang out of a black hole, are simply math-based artifacts of the flux of the CSI Godhead.


*****************

When no C any longer supports any appearance, the math behind the sponsoring light cone simply winks out.

The senses of each POC is mathematically limited to a renormalizing light cone that defines its mortal limits.  Each such light cone arose in a sequence by transversing through a renormalizing black hole.

During its life, and the lives of its progeny    will perceive its field of appearances to be expanding outward in entropic disorganization.

Even as it accumulates I.

Matter is stored I.
Energy is transmitting I.
All present S is a transitory combination of M and E (stored and transmitting I), that is to be accumulated into past recorded I.

When no mortal POC is associated, then whatever the storeage/transmission, it is a function of flux of the CSI Godhead.

No pattern is in itself C.
But some patterns are associated with POC's.
And all patterns are associated with the flux of the CSI Godhead.

**********

The so-called origin, instead of from a point in space, may have come from a sequence beyond which, from our access from our math-verse, I has been lost.

Our Universe/Cosmos may be in a Steady State, after all.

Had POC been around, 13 B years ago, more I, further back, may have been available to them.

Moreover, their sensory interpretation of the Universe/Cosmos at that time may well have been re-normalized to have been somewhat different from ours.

Why do appearances seem to be flying apart?
Does that have to do with where we are in our I cycle?

May black holes be instruments of renormalization to preserve the Steady State?
Is every POC inexorably headed to a black hole?

*****************

Not soap film.
Diff math-based systems of dimensionality. for defining separate universes, with which the inhabiting M-E and POC so happen to be attuned to sense, record, interpret, communicate, transmit, renormalize.
Even if so, that suggests the inhabitants are all connected with a communizing C, which is a basis for their innate capacities for empathy.
Whatever availed the communizing C, therewith availed empathy, i.e., the Golden Rule.
Sagan:  I don't know why we should respect the GR, but we are unlikely to have evolved as he have if we had not.

But, why is survival an important purpose?
Because, without a predator instinct --- for elites to rule masses --- our economies would not have happened to have evolved as they have.
NOTE:  They myths we adopt affect the way we evolve, which in turn affects the myths we continue to adapt and adopt.

***??? Does the communizing C care about "me"?  Does it empathize/feel my joys and griefs?  Experience, recycle, preserve, learn, appreciate
Left the Building?  Feedback, connection, reconciliation

Is Big Bang v. Steady State really resolved???
No matter the POC, it would always be renormalized to experience the appearance of rainbows, i.e., a false end of the apparent universe, and a false record of a spacetime "point" of beginning.

I is lost.
But it is lost only in ways that renormalize so that no one can know what was really lost.  What is lost can no longer be known.

Lost I is what lies behind the so-called Beginning.  Not any real "point" in S-T dimensionality.

RAINBOW -- receding
If manifested M-E is necessarily associated with C, and C adopts perspectives, and perspectives overlap among various math-based layers and levels, then whatever connects C fully appreciates each and every perspective of it.

*********

Opponent is postulating a common S-T, which is amenable to the collapsing of innumerable "bubbles" and differential dimensional experience.
Different systems of math-based rules for connected POC to inhabit.
Still, if C is C, then it would be the same Creator, creating/collapsing each and every bubble.
The collapsing/creating does not take place "in" S-T.
But with no-thing but a field of math.


************

Sinning is bad faith and bad will.
God not left the building.
God knows our pains, angst, joys.
Jesus wept.  Endured mortal death.  Disclaimed yolo.
A way to show cares and not left.
Not a blood cult.  A care system.
Not a feces cult.

*******************

For our math-verse, there is no ultimate algorithm in itself.  Whatever the math-verse, it is applied by and to the C that accompanies it.  Whatever the nature of any math-verse that we ferret out, there always abides behind it potentialities for an infinity of collapses, shifts, choices, applications.

With what math does DNA provide a frame for an organic body/form to direct the building, repair, replacement, and mutation of appendages and cells, at the cellular level, in the transmission and reception of math-charge-based signals?  How do math-based electrons "know or decide" where they want to go?  How far up and down does C extend?

Implicate something other than math, which is not measurable by math.  So, how does it relate in any relevant way?  A: It relates to innate intuition, empathy, via GF and GW.

Energy is what is signified as I is carried/transmitted.
S is what is expressed as I is stored/organized.

E-M are aspects for carrying and organizing our ongoing accumulation of I.

C Awareness is associated with every collapsing manifestation of newly recording/accumulating/storing/carrying of I.
As the process produces complex bodies, able to coordinate, sense, and store I on many levels, animal and human POCs emerge.

Beyond the M-E, something spiritual renormalizes/reconciles/feedbacks for the various POCs.
Otherwise, choices from possibilities would not be effected.

Our bodies are not the causes.  Only the significations.

Because C consists in being aware from a P of I, and I is what is fluxed to be carried and stored, therefore, M and Ë appear to be physical because locally contextualized P's experience them as such.
To what purposes are I  thus contextualized?
"I" am a locally contextualized, renormalized system of stored and carried I -- expanding and transcending Information.

Is part or all of what unfolds pre-determined, contemporaneously determined, or post-rationalized?


***************

How is it that all Matter that absorbs E is preserving pattern reorganizations that will preserve Information --- as if all M were sensible/aware/receptive of I.

C, at some interconnecting level.

So, what is the ongoing goal purpose of C?
To appreciate art from among many reconciling perspectives.
To reconcile Ps to communicate appreciation of art/beauty reconciliation.

At math-quantum levels, M-E fuzzes.
All M is stored/organized E.
All M is stored/organized I.
All E is reactive/radiating M.
All E is I being activated within limits defined in math.

As I step, I apprehend a world of supporting casts of POCs, contemporaneously renormalized.

Functions of fractal infinities

As one POC steps/apprehends into a realm of fractal math, it does so as others also so happen contemporaneously to be inclined. ...
So as to support the appearance/renormalization of Substance.
In some fractal possibilities, there is only fuzz, awaiting happenstance activation.

**************

By remaining empathetic with GW, we are obeying God, thus exhibiting GF.

Be Empathetic.
Try to be understanding, which may well entail tough love.
Place for wussie atheists and gay jesus people to prevent anyone from questioning their "truths".

As near as I can tell, a number of them are not sites for informing insights or debating issues.
They are more like e-harmony fast-date services for gender-fluids and snowflakes.

If IT has power to set the math-based laws and allow for choices, then I see nothing in science to defy intuition that IT retains power to feedback to guide the choices.

As I is signified to a POV and contextualized to a locus, it re-presents as measurable S.
As S forms complex patterns with feedback and means for taking in nourishment and preserving itself, it expresses a level of awareness.
As levels of A become more complexly organized, self-A emerges, coordinate with the locus of S-T where and when it is expressed.
The reconciling C, as it chooses and guides the forms it purposes to express, necessarily appreciates when and where some forms feedback to become more resistant or accommodating to change and flux.

The Reconciling Consciousness RC is appreciative of forms associated with C at all levels and layers.
No form/level/layer can be expressly manifested and made a part of the I record that is beyond the appreciation of the RC.

***************

I wonder:  May the math-verse we inhabit be amenable of being sensed differently, depending on how our group of inhabitants happens to be formed?  I, and all who happen to share my general context, may sense the stars to be receding at such and such an accelerating rate.  (Regardless of whatever the loci for the general context I happen to inhabit, I suspect every present observer from every star would measure the away-acceleration of other stars, in all directions, to be at the same rate.)
However, may there happen to abide other perspectives, in parallel aspects of our math-verse that are beyond our potential experience, that may sense stars to be receding at a different rate?
May our math-verse be such that, whatever the rate of away-acceleration of stars, that rate will be renormalized to fit the experiences of whatever the form and context of observers that happen to inhabit our math-verse?  May we live out our lives chasing an away-acceleration, much as a country boy may chase one or the other of the ends to a rainbow?
Perhaps the ideas of an originating point in space or a limiting ceiling in expanse, may fit, ultimately, more with illusion than with measurable reality.  What we measure may be more fit to whatever renormalizations are needed to sustain our math-verse as it appears to us than to fit with any "real" nature of physicality. 
Whatever the math that defines our math-verse, perhaps it is intimately related to the character that avails our perspectives of consciousness.  Perhaps a unifying theory of substantively measurable physics must remain forever incomplete, because our physics seems to be so intimately related to an immeasurable aspect or capacity of our consciousness.  (In itself, the math-verse as we occupy it need not itself occupy space-time.  Rather, space-time would be a derivative of the math-verse being activated by a reconciling aspect of Consciousness.)
Even so, by postulating and acting as if various models of empiricism could offer a more complete explanation, we do seem able to tinker to express and bootstrap astonishing capacities ....



**************

C at every level
Caring
Fractals
Sticky

**********

Cracked Symmetry
At each instant  C, at whatever level, takes a contextual POV from one perspective, it simultaneously takes a POV from every perspective that is necessary to support its reconciliation with S and I.
At every fractal layer/level of manifestation.

No system of patterns can stick -- to repair and replicate itself as needed to nurture and sustain itself --- unless it has means to find its likeness to be attractive.  That "means" is conscious appreciation.  It's why patterns, as they happen to develop, happen to attract likeness.  This is a derivative of patterns that happen to be formed by C as it images with math-verses.  Something ineffable about C avails it with capacity to image/imagine/in-form S out of its inter-functioning with math.  Something ineffable about C allows it to advance empirical technologies by bootstrapping them.

Gov v. God

Lefties blame the gov, even as they want ever more gov.  They blame oligarchs, even as they are funded by oligarchs.  They are being farmed, but they are too stupid and corrupt to know what to do about it.   Of course, the way not to be farmed is to become a competent, independent, free thinking human being.  Not a whiny sheeple.  What "good" did whiny sheeple ever do, except to divert the attention of the sheeple while they are fleeced and farmed?
What did "tend my sheep" mean?  Did it mean to take over authority to command and farm the people?  Or did it mean to continue to show the way by leading example?  Did it mean to invite and nurture followers, or did it mean to capture and force followers?  Did it mean to deploy love to reduce the need for gov, or did it mean to increase the role of gov to diminish the need for love?
If more free stuff from gov promotes gratitude, good will, and mental health, then why do so many recipients of gov welfare hate America so much?  Why are the radicals who clamor for using gov to force "equality" so filled with hate?  Instead of helping people feel justified in gang banging to force "equality," wouldn't it be better to help them become individually competent and more spiritually understanding?  If increased gov is good spiritually, then why are so many Dems atheists?


Regarding Honest Democrat:
Say you need an honest person.  A person comes to you who has a recent history of supporting:
Fake victim pranks, the making of non-pc speech into hate crime, the punishing of people who decline to recognize 50 genders, the shouting down of persons invited to speak at universities, the need for inner city denizens to be availed space to destroy, free chits for everyone except white Christian males, a scheme for handicapping social benefits based on skin color scales, forfeiture of property as needed to make material redistribution equal, assistance for illegal evaders of border enforcement personnel, general violence against police, destruction of monuments concerning heritage, antipathy against Christians, blind advocacy for carbon banking, conflation of scientism with science.
Could you find it in you to trust such a person's honesty?  (But hey, Dems, even with their crime stats, are just as moral as anyone else, donchaknow?)
I agree.  Honest Democrat is an oxymoron.  Only in their delusions are they the least bit honest, morally competent, trustworthy, or American.  Only by being primed to lie to themselves do Dems convince themselves they are honest.

The Left already has equality. Equality in idiocy. Leftism is equally as idiotic today as it was yesterday.

This Wetland grab seems to have been going on for some 40 years. This nonsense would startle Camus, Kafka, and Orwell.

Ghetto people elect Representatives on their intellectual level, that they can relate to. These Reps speak on a 5th Grade level because that is their intellectual level, as well as the level for their base. That's why their funders select them. That's why they are safely in the pocket of their funders. That's why the system has come to float crap.
Trump functions at a much higher level, but he tends to speak at a 5th Grade level. He does this for various reasons. To expand his base; to lull his media detractors into a false and vulnerable sense of superiority; to hammer his points home. Trump is a Jedi Master at fighting the floating crap.

The lowest rung just get farmed. The agitators, apologists, talking heads, race pimping blackmailers, and politicians definitely get paid.

Lefties blame the gov, even as they want ever more gov. They blame oligarchs, even as they are funded by oligarchs. They are being farmed, but they are too stupid and corrupt to know what to do about it. Of course, the way not to be farmed is to become a competent, independent, free thinking human being. Not a whiny sheeple. What "good" did whiny sheeple ever do, except to divert the attention of the sheeple while they are fleeced and farmed?
What did "tend my sheep" mean? Did it mean to take over authority to command and farm the people? Or did it mean to continue to show the way by leading example? Did it mean to invite and nurture followers, or did it mean to capture and force followers? Did it mean to deploy love to reduce the need for gov, or did it mean to increase the role of gov to diminish the need for love?
If more free stuff from gov promotes gratitude, good will, and mental health, then why do so many recipients of gov welfare hate America so much? Why are the radicals who clamor for using gov to force "equality" so filled with hate? Instead of helping people feel justified in gang banging to force "equality," wouldn't it be better to help them become individually competent and more spiritually understanding? If increased gov is good spiritually, then why are so many Dems atheists?

Radicals are often funded, infiltrated, and infested by capitalistic oligarchs. They become the tools of the oligarchs, who structure the economics so they can hedge, tip, and win --- regardless of how the wind blows. They own the players, then decide which way to tip the game in order to make the biggest financial killing. The idea of radical redistribution of wealth is not any kind of practical philosophy. It loots and destroys, but it never comes close to achieving the equalization of redistribution that it promises.
The design for the American Constitution was genius. Over time, it became insufficient in itself to ensure the representative republic. It allowed the assimilating ideal and faith to unravel. It allowed oligarchs to profit immensely by mooching from the central gov in order to sell out the nation. Its amendments and people did not keep pace with the unfolding challenges.
Franklin was not confident we could keep the republic. And now it hangs by a thread. If the thread breaks, we will default to a system for farming people, regardless of how we label it. Such systems go under many names for misdirecting aspirations, but they all arc back to a kind of enserfment of the masses.
In trading individual freedom for group security, fake fairness, and free equality, the maddening masses merely tighten their own chains. Mooching Oligarchs and their toolish dombies absolutely deserve every bit of ridicule and acrimony that Trump directs their way.

The Left has become little more than a hodge podge alliance of gang banging parasites. There is no more principled philosophy in them than in a swarm of malaria carrying mosquitos.

Logic and Triviality

Basic courses in logic are fine, for going deep down the empirically quantitative rabbit hole.  But what about the subjectively qualitative rabbit hole?

1)  Is a statement of appreciation for beauty not a statement?  Must it be either true or false?  Or may it be conditionally true or false, depending on time, place, and observer?  As well as changes in the mood of the observer. 

There are many similar examples that seem often to trouble Progs operating under a little training in logic.  A random sample of similar statements may be:

Ambiguity is (or is not) your friend.
Faith-based systems of morality are (all) bad.
Rule under elites who rely only on science is the best form of government.
Profiling, intolerance, and inequality are always bad.
The moral best is the quickest, most painless and permanent release from pain.
The slippery slope is a fallacy.
Democracy is the best form of government.
It is true that I feel bad.  Except now I feel better.  Maybe.

Many qualitative statements concerning fleeting subjective feelings (about the truth of one's feelings, or judgments about goodness or beauty) are necessarily incomplete.  To suggest that a statement that a thing must be either true (or beautiful) in itself, or not, is not a statement that is amenable of an either/or kind of logic or math.

I do not say that ambiguity is my friend.  I say it can be my friend for some purposes in some contexts, but it may not be my friend in others.  Moreover, my original judgment about the truth of my feeling may be subject to change upon additional reflection.

2)  A like problem carries over even for things that we assume to be quantifiable.  This is because our models in respect of what we are measuring are often incomplete, uncertain, expanding, or changing.  Because no non-trivial model can support a complete explanation for everything, it may be that hidden, fluxing, or changing variables preclude a final judgment about the truth or falsity of important concerns (such as what is appropriate for human purposefulness) that remain beyond the trivial.  On that account, perhaps it would be folly for a citizenry of free thinkers to surrender their freedom to so-called elites of science and logic?

3) Moreover, how much can we trust our empiricism to so-called unchanging or objective laws of physics?

Do those laws flux and phase shift over time?  Upon active input by change agents?  How much of what we take to be laws of nature are renormalizations of appearance?

Does it make logical sense to believe there is really any such thing as a particle-in-itself?  Or a real point of origin of the so-called Big Bang?  Or a measurable end to our universe?  Or a present "now-ness" that applies throughout our physical universe?  Must every mortal at ever spatial locus in our measurable universe presently measure its age at some 13 billion years?

Is Information really always preserved, or is it simply renormalized to so appear to observers?  (If all representational record of a bit of Information truly were lost, how would any mortal mind know it?)

4)  Given concerns such as those listed above, it seems to me to be folly to expect that every purposeful judgment "should" be confined to some kind of incomplete or pc system of so-called true-false tests of logic.  Rather, I think human reason should also entail respect for that which seems to be self evident, intuitive, and/or empathetic.  That would be meant to restore the human factor into decisions that concern humanity.  Citizens of experience may want to consider, if they value a representative republic, what kind of fundamentals about faith, family, and fidelity are necessary or conducive to sustaining it?  That kind of question is not legitimately answerable by moral scientists or true-false logicians.

I wonder:  How many kids in college who learn about debate fallacies are also learning about the limits of logic and non-faith?

***************

‽ Based on current trends among schools of thought, there is presently no consensus for a standard classification of maths --- except to suggest that any attempted model for classification of maths would be outside an accepted consensus regarding philosophy ‽

************

I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."