lookin

Here's a website that's tracking the implementation of Project 2025: Tracking Project 2025 Out of 316 specific objectives, 115 are listed as 'done', 63 are listed as 'in progress', and 138 are listed as 'not started'. So, with Trump in office for a little over six months, he and his crew are about halfway through implementation of a program designed to take apart our democratic form of government. It's pretty amazing that we who support our 250-year 'experiment' with democracy have been given the playbook for how it will be destroyed, along with a specific progress report for how much is already gone and how much remains to be dismantled. It's even more amazing, to me anyway, that this tracking report isn't the lead story in every news outlet in the country. If I were looking to thwart its goals, I'd publish at least one Project 2025 story for every Jeffrey Epstein story. The "success" of this plan to get rid of three branches of government and replace them with a 'unitary executive' branch is well underway and Trump's antics have definitely helped to move it along. We sure can't say we haven't been warned. 😳

Well, the folks at the Jacobin Foundation do. Although they're proudly leftist, Socialist and bordering on Marxist, they sure know how to dig for data and reach defensible conclusions. They say there's a subset of Trump voters - about 11% - who are economic populists and also hold socially moderate views. Their social attitudes aren't progressive, but they aren't socially conservative either. Can't say I picked through the data line-by-line but the folks who put together the report clearly did. They say this 11% of Trump voters - 5% of the total electorate - are the easiest pickings for the Democrats and, even if Democrats could pick up half of them, it could be enough to swing a close election. Now all we have to do is hope there is another election.

I won't say this is witness-tampering but I will say it places the witness in a position to be tampered with. What I wanna know is how many folks might Todd Blanche bring along as witnesses, and who might they be? And will there be any record of his conversation with Maxwell? If the answers are 'No', 'No one' and 'No', I think we will have opened the Overton Window to include an Executive branch that does its own judging and sentencing without oversight. They've done it with immigrants and Eric Adams and this could be another high-profile display.

I guess if I hadn't been watching Trump for the last decade, I'd be more inclined to think this is the caper that will finally peel away the bulk of his followers. But he's wriggled out of more tight spots than Harry Houdini. Still, that won't stop me from setting this latest escapade to music. Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o And on that list he had some names, ee-i-ee-i-o With a not-me here, and a not-me there Here a not, there a me, everywhere a not-me Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o And on that list was Donald Trump, ee-i-ee-i-o With a pussy-grab here, and a pussy-grab there Here a pussy, there a grab, everywhere a pussy-grab Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o And on that list was Teflon Bill, ee-i-ee-i-o With a cum stain here, and a cum stain there Here a cum, there a stain, everywhere a cum stain Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o And on that list was Dershowitz, ee-i-ee-i-o With a lawsuit here, and a lawsuit there Here a law, there a suit, everywhere a lawsuit Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o And on that list was Prince Andrew, ee-i-ee-i-o With a Palm Beach here, and a Palm Beach there Here a Palm, there a Beach everywhere a Palm Beach Jeffrey Epstein had a list, ee-i-ee-i-o 🎶 🎶 🎶

🎶 🎶 🎶 Hey, Mister Tangerine Man Tell a lie for me Make it creepy and I Promise I will follow you Hey, Mr. Tangerine Man Tell a lie for me In miasmic MAGA gaslight I’ll come following you 🗣️ 💩

You may be right that Trump himself has no plan but, according to that Frontline piece, those around him sure do. It's called the 'unitary executive theory' and argues that the Constitution gives the President sole authority over the Executive Branch. That means, for example, Trump doesn't have to let the Justice Department do its job impartially but can tell them that they now work directly for him and he will tell them whom to prosecute and whom to let alone. Nixon tried that, going so far as to say that it's legal if the President does it. There was a lot of blowback against Nixon and subsequent administrations moderated their quest for power. Trump, and those around him, are making up for lost time. I'm really glad, and will look forward to your take on it. I was surprised by how conscious the effort is to implement the 'unitary executive theory' and how far along the path the Trump administration has travelled. Steve Bannon keeps popping up in the documentary saying there's no stopping them. Getting rid of seventeen Inspectors General two weeks into his term, and without the required notification of Congress, took away Congressional oversight of the State Department among others. According to the Frontline piece, Congress has already been hobbled, and it's unclear if the Judicial Branch has much power left. Trump has already signaled that he may just ignore judicial rulings and it's not clear how the justices would enforce their rulings. I sure hope there's some way to maintain three independent branches of government, as the country's founders intended, but I'm not sure who has the willingness, authority, and power to make it happen. Whoever it is will have to get busy before too much longer.

Same here! And sometimes I'll ask them to loosen their belt just so I can be sure.

Gotta say, I was amazed to read Trump's Truth Social post this morning in which he starts out railing against The Radical Left Democrats and then turns on his own base. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “bullshit,” hook, line, and sinker. They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years. . , , Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore! Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! He's throwing away not only his political toadies but also many of his followers who have stuck with him through thick and thin, but who are starting to question their leader on this one issue. That seems like a big move and I'm looking for a precedent of an authoritarian leader telling a large number of his followers to get lost. Hitler did it, but only in the final days of World War II when he was surrounded by Russian and American troops and blamed the German people for not fighting harder. He committed suicide soon after. Jim Jones arranged for his followers to commit suicide, which he did too, but only when he concluded that the American military was on its way to round them all up. But, as far as I know, Trump isn't at the end of his rope just yet. So why would he think it's OK to cut off a significant part of his base? Perhaps he thinks he can bully them back into line. Or perhaps he thinks he now has enough power to turn his followers into subjects with no ability to resist. I didn't think he had that much power yet but, after watching Frontline's Trump's Power and the Rule of Law last night, I'm thinking a little harder. 🤔

Hmm. I don't recall there ever being much daylight between your views and mine. Perhaps we were considering different aspects of a complex issue. 🤔 The authoritarian follower is a personality type rather than a political type. My understanding is that they used to be distributed pretty evenly between parties, but that they started migrating to the Republican party after George H. W. Bush's Willie Horton ad which targeted their fear of the "other". Donald Trump has made this his specialty, so it's no surprise that they make up a large part of his base. One characteristic of this personality type is that they will act (vote) against their own interests if their leader tells them to. I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as you are about populism, but my understanding is that it focuses on benefits for the voter and often pits the interests of the 'common man' against the interests of the 'elite'. If that's true, the vilification of the 'other' would appeal to the authoritarian follower but the message about benefits may get tuned out if their leader tells them not to worry about it. Trump's base, in particular, seems more accepting of losing benefits than are those who aren't attached to a leader. I don't know how much Trump's followers will endure before they break away from their leader. It could be a lot, if Hitler's Germany is any example.

Thanks for remembering that, @stevenkesslar. I find in my off-board life, as well as this on-board life, that it's really difficult for most of my friends to understand what makes the authoritarian follower tick. If you're not one of them, it's tempting to get mad at them, call them stupid and ascribe a host of negative qualities to them. This contributor to Psychology Today made a list of thirty qualities guaranteed to make non-authoritarian-followers give them a wide berth. I also get the willies when I'm around an authoritarian follower. But I'm also aware that I'm not going to change them. I have a friend who goes on endlessly about his family members who were Bolsonaro supporters and are now Trump fans, and he spends hours trying to convince them how wrong they are. I got hoarse telling him he's wasting his time and I've now concluded that I'm wasting my time telling him he's wasting his time. For me the goal is not to rail against authoritarian followers, as tempting as that is, but to figure out how to reduce their negative political impact. If I believe, which I do, that their identity revolves around following a leader, then one solution would be to find them a better leader than Donald Trump. Some religions have been successful in attracting authoritarian followers, sometimes promoting their fear of the other and dislike of ambiguity. And, of course, the military is a natural fit for authoritarian followers. The Republican party under Donald Trump has made a specialty of bringing them into the tent, but the Democratic party has not. And the Democrats have lost elections as a result. And that's where I get stuck. I don't want to belong to a political party that's based on a fear of the 'other', that doesn't tolerate opposing thoughts, and that follows a leader rather than a set of values. Personally, I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders but he's not a Democrat, he doesn't promote fear of the other, he allows for different points of view and - unfortunately - he's unelectable. Or so they say. So here are some questions I'm asking these days. Is it possible to win a national election without appealing to authoritarian followers? Can a contemporary political party succeed without an authoritarian leader? Is there a stronger rallying point than fear of the other? Can differences of opinion become a strength rather than a weakness? Based on what I see in many other countries today, and what I've seen in this country in the past, the answers are clearly "yes". But, after I'm all done defining the problem, how do I go about solving it? What do others think? Can the Democratic party peel away some authoritarian follower voters while staying true to its values?

Sorry, kids, we only do Venmo

It's been a while since someone offered me a penny for my thoughts and, now that the U. S. mints are going to stop making them, I wonder if I'll ever get another offer. 🤔 Don't get me wrong. My thoughts have never been a major source of revenue. For starters, there aren't that many of them and the ones that do come along never seem to generate a whole lot of interest. If I get a penny twice a year I'd consider it a pretty good year. Now soon even that little trickle will be gone. Worthless thoughts will slowly pile up, one on top of another, until a random breeze blows through and scatters them to the wind. 💨 And what about you folks? Will there still be a reason to be thoughtful in a country that no longer makes cents? What do you think?

The second pathology lab speculated that the first pathologist looked at the cells sliced through by the biopsy needles and decided they were very strange looking and gave them a Gleason score of 5. The more experienced pathologist at the second lab looked at them and concluded they were Gleason 3 cells that had been sliced through by a biopsy needle. I don't think anyone was trying to "force" the diagnosis. They just had different levels of skill and experience. The first doctor I saw was also a surgeon and his lab was the one that came up with the Gleason 9. Neither was trying to "push the scales". In fact, although he was a surgeon, his recommendation was for treatment with radiation. He based it on my age and his belief that I would have more side effects from surgery than from radiation. The second doctor, also a surgeon, said he looked at functional age rather than chronological age, and thought I'd be a good candidate for either surgery or radiation. I chose surgery because I'd have radiation as a backup if the surgery didn't get all the cancer. With radiation, surgery is not a backup if the radiation fails. Hormone treatment is a backup if neither surgery nor radiation get all the cancer. I apologize for going into all this detail. My intention is to let folks know that prostate cancer does not always lend itself to generalizations. There are a number of variables and they can be dealt with one by one. Second opinions are valuable at every stage. You are your own best advocate and, if that's difficult for you, try asking a friend or loved one to come along to your appointments with you. In addition to President Biden's medical issues that he's dealing with, he's also had to put up with kibbitzers bloviating from the sidelines and reaching useless conclusions. He's having a tough enough time and those who offer snide and uninformed comments are showing cruelty rather than compassion. I'll bow out of this for now. If anyone is going through any of this, please feel free to PM me if I can be of any help. And thanks to the OP for starting this thread! 👍

It turns out the second test from my surgeon's lab was the correct one. When my prostate was removed, they looked at the entire prostate - rather than just the biopsy samples - and confirmed the Gleason score of 7. My surgeon's lab concluded that the first lab had misinterpreted the "worst" of the cells they were looking at. After looking at the entire prostate, rather than the biopsy samples, my surgeon's lab further concluded that the Gleason score of 7 was a 3+4 which was better than the 4+3 they had read from the samples. As you say, that could have led to a period of 'watchful waiting'. The deciding factor for me, however, was the genetic analysis that showed an aggressive form of cancer that would have spread quickly had it escaped the prostate. I lost no time getting the surgery. I realize this is only one case of many but I decided early on that I was going to learn everything I could about the specific form of cancer that I had. I was blessed to be surrounded by very knowledgeable support group members, in the hands of an excellent surgical team, and covered by good insurance.

I feel sorry for President Biden to have to go through all of this and I'm hopeful that the hormone treatments will effectively manage his cancer for the rest of his life. He'll have good doctors who know the latest options. I had a PSA test when I was 62 and it was in the normal range. For the next twelve years, my doctor would give me a digital rectal exam at my annual physical except for one year when she missed. I was out in the parking lot when I realized it and almost walked back in to remind her, but I decided to wait another year. The next year she found a lump on my prostate and sent me for a biopsy. It came back with a Gleason 9 score, the same score Biden got and the highest one there is. I also got a PSA test which came back within the normal range. I wanted to learn everything I could about this unusual form of prostate cancer and I was lucky to join a terrific support group and learn about some other tests I could do. I had the biopsy sample genetically tested and found I had an aggressive fast-growing cancer, but one that did not create a high PSA. I also had a CT scan that told me the cancer had not yet metastasized outside the prostate wall, but that it was about to. My support group recommended one of the best surgeons in the area and he wanted his hospital to check the biopsy results and, using the same biopsy samples, they came back with a Gleason score of 7. So how about that? An aggressive fast-growing form of prostate cancer, that a PSA test wouldn't have picked up, that generated two different Gleason scores, and that a digital rectal exam found just in time. I decided on surgery, one where they check to make sure the walls are clear of cancer cells and, if they're not, they go back in and cut a little wider. The surgeon also took out twenty-three nearby lymph nodes, just in case some cancer cells had escaped from the prostate and were in circulation. The lymph nodes all came back clear. That was seven years ago and I get an ultra-sensitive PSA test twice a year. Knock on wood, they've been coming back undetectable. I'm writing all this to let my esteemed fellow-posters know that there's more than one kind of prostate cancer and that generalities don't cover them all. I think each of us is his own best advocate and should do the level of screening and testing he feels is right for him. If you decide to do little or no testing, the odds are likely to be in your favor. If you decide to go for a higher level of surveillance, don't let anybody talk you out of it. President Biden and I are both lucky to have access to good medical care and I hope that others will have access to the knowledge and support they need to take good care of themselves.