A little off topic, but a nice quasi-review of Obama's new memoir, predictably chock full of self-aggrandizing rubbish and fawned over by every other milqetoast liberal limpet:

https://bypass.theweek.com/articles-amp/950908/obama-pretender

"We are still paying for Obama's faceplant on his most important task. An increasingly lunatic Republican Party took advantage of that failure to seize control of Congress, and eventually elected Donald Trump, who is currently attempting to overturn the election he lost. It sure seems unlikely that Obama's vice president Joe Biden will countenance the extreme action now necessary to preserve American democracy.

Obama had a golden opportunity to knit the country back together after a disastrous Republican presidency and a brief moment of Wall Street helplessness. He didn't do so because he couldn't stomach the radical action necessary to heal the nation's wounds and repair the social contract, and instead invented a lot of excuses why he had to sit on his hands and do nothing. The name for such a person is a coward".

In this, Obama shares the same qualities as Trump: a slick salesman and an incompetant statesman, beholden to masters dictating their every substantive policy move. His 'Hope' being the exact rhetorical equivalent of Trump's 'Build the Wall'. God, even Trump unkept bullshit slogans were policy proposals rather than vague feel-good nothingisms.

As an aside, can anyone even remember Biden's campaign slogan?

by memory, build back better? Or something like that?

My conclusion is that ruling elite in the US wants the country to be divided.

And the elite is extremely successful in this.

Many people go along with this, thinking that they can simply win the other side as they are right and the others are wrong.

Hence nothing changes and the elite prevails.

I think the 'elite' are global entities with limited ties to the US.

The apparent division in the US comes from a political pendulum that's mostly in free fall.

Remember when Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel's brother, wrote that article in the Atlantic about how life after age 75 wasn't worth living?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

Ezekiel Emanuel is now on Biden's COVID advisory board. Given the demographics of who COVID usually kills, it's not clear to me if Emanuel will be advising for or against COVID.

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/penn-medicines-ezekiel-emanuel-named-bidens-coronavirus-task-force

Fucking hell.

My conclusion is that ruling elite in the US wants the country to be divided.

And the elite is extremely successful in this.

Many people go along with this, thinking that they can simply win the other side as they are right and the others are wrong.

Hence nothing changes and the elite prevails. — ssu

It's interesting you say that. When I think "ruling elite" the group that comes to mind would be people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet, the Waltons... I keep a loose attention to these people but unless I'm missing something I don't see them as having one common interest in keeping the country divided, but who knows I may be missing something. I view them more as unique individuals with their own plans and goals.

I think you attribute too much agency to what essentially emerges from a political system that is ruled by money.

I don't think so.

I think the "polarization" is a means to keep the present system up. The worse the situation is for more Americans, the more polarized and poisoned the atmosphere has to be. The objective for those in power is that the power perpetually changes from one to the another in four to eight years. You see, the candidate who is depicted as "ultra-right" or "ultra-progressive" doesn't rock the boat as there will be enough of Americans who reject them on the other side.

It's interesting you say that. When I think "ruling elite" the group that comes to mind would be people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet, the Waltons... I keep a loose attention to these people but unless I'm missing something I don't see them as having one common interest in keeping the country divided, but who knows I may be missing something. I view them more as unique individuals with their own plans and goals. — BitconnectCarlos

You should perhaps look at those people that man the various administrations: there is a small group of people (let's remember that the US has 330 million people) that get a position in the administration after their party has gotten into power again. Or how many of them are multimillionaires (when it came to the Trump administration).

It's simply is very lucrative as a career choice to be in either of the two parties, as they are in power in a very normal manner. You can have that lucrative board room / think tank place in the private sector when you party is out of power.

You should perhaps look at those people that man the various administrations: there is a small group of people (let's remember that the US has 330 million people) that get a position in the administration after their party has gotten into power again. Or how many of them are multimillionaires (when it came to the Trump administration). — ssu

Could you give me examples? I agree that they exist, I'm honestly just curious as to how many there are and whether they all have the same goals. Typically when I think of "class" I'm thinking of like tens of millions of people, maybe at the very least a million. Anything smaller - especially if its only in the hundreds, would just be a group of people. Additionally, I'd like to know how much power these people have in the grand scheme of things. Virtually every remotely big figure in politics or business or the intersection of the two is a multi-millionaire (defined as net worth at least $3-4mm) so this label doesn't mean much to me.

Sorry to bombard you with all of these questions. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm actually curious as to the extent of this.

I think the "polarization" is a means to keep the present system up. The worse the situation is for more Americans, the more polarized and poisoned the atmosphere has to be. The objective for those in power is that the power perpetually changes from one to the another in four to eight years. You see, the candidate who is depicted as "ultra-right" or "ultra-progressive" doesn't rock the boat as there will be enough of Americans who reject them on the other side. — ssu

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. They will lobby regardless of whether you're a Democrat or Republican and those receiving money clearly understand that having any political career means giving them what they want or you can forget funding your next.

The objective of those in power that you describe just confuses the fact that the objective for politicians is to win and in a two-party system they will alternate as a result. There's no silent or gentleman's agreement between GOP and Democrats to share power by alternating each other. If one could always win, they'd do whatever they need to make sure that happens. So we have gerrymandering and other voter disenfranchisement because it helps the GOP. The Democrats would do the same if it would help them.

And we see that both parties are both ideologically rudderless because of money being the primary driver of decisions. Since there's no essential ideological difference anymore, the only way to differentiate is to hurl shit. So it becomes toxic due to circumstances not as the result of some grand plan of elites. It's a simple fact that money buys you votes in the US.

This is the one hopeful note about the 2016 Trump win: that the election cycle isn't just about money.

Could you give me examples? I agree that they exist, I'm honestly just curious as to how many there are and whether they all have the same goals. — BitconnectCarlos

Naturally we are interested here in the Biden administration, as obviously it's now very current:

Kamala Harris: I'll leave this one as there are obvious reasons for her pick.

1) Secretary of State designee: Anthony Blinken


Blinken was the deputy Secretary of State in the Obama administration and before that in Joe Biden's National Security Advisor (to the Vice President of the United States). Blinken was then before in the Clinton administration in the National Security Council and speechwriter and assistant to Joe Biden. Blinken comes from a career diplomat family as his father was an US ambassador as was his uncle.

So this guy is working on his third Democrat administration.

2) Secretary of Treasury designee: Janet Yellen


Fed Chairwoman. Bill Clinton appointed her as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, where she served from August 12, 1994 to February 17, 1997. Yellen then became Chair of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) from February 18, 1997 to August 3, 1999. Later Barack Obama appointed her as a replacement to Bernanke. After Trump appointed a replacement for the Fed Chairperson, Yellen went to work to the Brookings Institution think tank before now picked by Joe Biden.

This woman is has been basically working along all administration since Clinton, even if the Federal Reserve isn't part of the administration, naturally.

3) Secretary of Agriculture designee: Tom Vilsack


Governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007. Then from start of the Obama administration worked as the Secretary of Agriculture until the end of Obama's second term.

Need to say anything? This guy has worked at the same job under the last Democratic administration and earlier was a governor from a state where agriculture is rather important.

4) Chief of Staff designee: Ron Klain


Biden's campaign advisor. Also Clinton-Gore campaigns advisor and Gore's campaign advisor. Served as chief of staff to Vice President's Al Gore and, of course, Joe Biden.

Again a person that has served in all three Democratic administrations, basically in the same position. Now just the President's Chief of Staff, not the VP's.

Do you notice my point here? Of course there are those politicians from the House of Representatives who are picked for cabinet posts etc. but that is very normal for political careers everywhere. But when you look at the next lower level, the story is similar. And naturally those that have worked in the Carter administration are now quite old! But they would be there, if they would be younger.

Even if we had this outrageous Trump administration and it had it's infusion of career military generals, which hadn't been the usual choice, and the odd multimillionaires, it is hardly a surprise that people like John Bolton waltzed into the White House... and waltzed out.

So please understand just how tiny these circles are in a country with 330 million people when the position are filled by only two political parties.

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. — Benkei

What special plan do you need? It's simply to a) not have a valid third party emerge to ruin the show and b) keep the people polarized as then they will vote against the party they hate? I think it's pretty clear that the whole system is based on minimizing the role of possible other political parties starting from the electoral college system. The creaming on the top is the "primaries" as this way "for people to have a say" in the system. And Americans will now surely believe in the "primaries"-system as it gave them Trump, which obviously the GOP elite didn't want and then Trump got the grip of the whole party.

You see, this kind of "deal" doesn't need any kind of written or oral agreement, it is basically like the "way of the land" as the saying goes.

There's no silent or gentleman's agreement between GOP and Democrats to share power by alternating each other. — Benkei

Who needs that, because NATURALLY people will get enough of one side at least after 8 years or 12 years. If you are given two political choices, the natural outcome is that enough people will be disappointed in one party to give the another a chance. Hence just look at how the administrations change.

Again don't think that this is implemented by an mutual open agreement. I doesn't have to.

"If you are given two political choices, the natural outcome is that enough people will be disappointed in one party to give the another a chance. Hence just look at how the administrations change."

Makes you wonder what the point of it all is. This scenario looks like a ship sailing across the ocean with a different party grabbing the bridge and setting course for a different destination each time. In the early days sailing ships used to trace a zig-zag course but that was with a purpose, a final destination in mind.

I am not sure if democracy is a good thing for the United States of America. More to the point, maybe a two party system is not a good system. Before anyone gets upset, remember the Founding Fathers, so revered by the American populace, did not establish America based on a two party system.

America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared

John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” And that’s exactly what has come to pass.

JANUARY 2, 2020

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/

Of course this a just academic. It is too late to go back. It is nice to know that China has a one party system, and has done quite well with it.

This scenario looks like a ship sailing across the ocean with a different party grabbing the bridge and setting course for a different destination each time. — FreeEmotion

Well, my point above is that it's the exact same two parties, same two cabals, which just rotate from one to the another. In a democracy it would be healthy to get new people with new ideas to power every once in a while. Not exactly the same people from four or eight years ago.

I am not sure if democracy is a good thing for the United States of America. — FreeEmotion

Still best option, if it only would work.

It is too late to go back. It is nice to know that China has a one party system, and has done quite well with it. — FreeEmotion

The real problem with a one party system is that once things go really bad, there is nothing to replace those in power. There is no way to know just how bad things are and if the system is a totalitarian one, it will exist in place so long as there is nothing to do and the whole system collapses.

China just shows that with economic growth, people accept any kind of system.

Again don't think that this is implemented by an mutual open agreement. I doesn't have to. — ssu

Which is my point. There's no agency involved, it naturally emerges from a winner takes all system where plurality is enough and bribery is legal.

The only agency is keeping out third parties. And that is all you need.

it naturally emerges from a winner takes all system where plurality is enough and bribery is legal. — Benkei

Oh no, no. Not bribery. Just official acts, which may or may not include bribery. For example, bestowing lavish gifts on, or gifting money to, a politician in return for, e.g., setting up a meeting with someone influential or useful isn't bribery. The politician doesn't tell anyone what to do, he's just using his position as a public servant to facilitate a meeting between someone who's given him a nice gift and someone else they want to meet. That's not bribery, for goodness sake. Our Supreme Court has said so.

It’s because people generally cannot handle subtlety — Pfhorrest

— Pfhorrest

This seems to be a sad fact. I am the first to acknowledge there are 'crazies' on each side, to use the intellectual term, and it is up to each side to control its extremists. I saw a tweet the other day suggesting some negative things about Biden - give him a chance, he just got elected ( but this claim is disputed ) , and there is a lot of antagonism on both sides.

Possibly four years more of hubris and the I believe some higher knowledge will sink in to both sides slowly. Debate is alive and well. The moment people stop insulting the other side we know true progress has been achieved. I will miss it though.

Why don't you just come out and say what your hinting at. More than half the American population were part of the fraud. They all conspired to 'illegally' throw Trump out of the office which he righteously deserves. Of course all those people will insist that there was no fraud, just an election. So, why do you believe that there was fraud? Because mailed in votes were counted in the middle of the night? If it happened after midnight it must be evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that the reporting has been one sided, however, some of you have seen better reporting but I will leave it at that.

Irregularities were insignificant: my view is that even insignificant incidents like this may be used to garner support for the Republican side with the battle cry of 'stealing' and 'undemocratic'. Not having any access to any evidence or not having seen any evidence yet, that is what it looks like now.

Donald Trump, Rudy Guliani and other Republicans are taking a huge 'tremendous' gamble :

1. Sufficient evidence will be found and admitted to court to overturn the election. This is what they are saying.

2. Insufficient evidence will be found to overturn the election but sufficient to preserve their reputations and standings in the Republican political sphere.

I am no saying it is unintelligent, but that it all depends on what the stakes are. I find the risks under (2) extremely high for them, and I cannot quite figure out what they are getting at.

I do no think it makes sense to cal people delusional. Politically motivated grand-standers - maybe.

We all realize that it is not true until CNN says it is true. Or BBC. It is their filter that is applied to our information, which is tragic.

There is a quote from "Moonlight Over Paris" written many years ago that is relevant here:

It's a beautiful song which echoes a philosophical view - not sure what it is called:

Does the moonlight shine on Paris
After the sun goes down
If the London Bridge is falling
Will anybody hear a sound
If you follow the sunset will it ever end
Does the moonlight shine on Paris

Oh and how can you just walk away
Is it something that I said
I see only black and white
You see green and red
You believe in the miracles
Water into wine
I believe it when it makes the New York Times

https://genius.com/Paolo-santos-moonlight-over-paris-lyrics

You have to check your laws.

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. — Benkei

It's total war, or looks like it. I agree with mostly what has been said except the claims to idiocy. Not Trump or anyone. Maybe in the end we are the idiots because we get only the information we are supposed to get, we only hear the tunes we were meant to dance to and we dance to them. Some of us can't dance.

I believe that attacking the other side is exactly what Trump is accused of doing, and not very helpful. He was elected legitimately and his supporters have the right to a view, just not the right to craziness, which we may see on our screens.

At it again...

Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud 'more than sufficient' to swing victory to Trump
Andrew Mark Miller
Washington Examiner
Dec 2020

I take the article itself with a grain of salt.
Haven't read the report (not yet anyway), might have to be taken with a grain of salt as well.
Either way, it seems clear that those people had decided "Trump won" and "fraud" before most of this (alleged) evidence was dug up.

Ah, Peter Navarro, the only economist whom Trump could find who thought that a trade war with China was a good idea, and who was promptly installed into a position that meant anything at all.

In short...

Trump goes off the deep end with UNHINGED new conspiracy theory
Brian Tyler Cohen; 8m:14s youtube; Dec 13, 2020

Misc comments...

If he didn’t trust the machines why is he so convinced he won. — Kym Higginbottom

He only claims fraud in the states he lost. He is the fraud he speaks of. Guys a con man. — Anita Luca

What's really scary is that a lot of people believe every word he says. — Kerry Ellison

The Authentic Appeal of the Lying Demagogue: Proclaiming the Deeper Truth about Political Illegitimacy
Hahl, Kim, Sivan; American Sociological Review; Jan 10, 2018

I have skimmed through Peter Navaro's report. Much of the report is based on testimony and statistical analyses which have no standing with CNN and the mainstream news. CNN has already said that there is nothing unusual about sudden large spikes in votes for Biden, and also admits that there were no observers present in during the vote counting shown in the 'suitcases of votes' video, butr the observers were 'not asked to leave' - but offers no evidence. In an environment such as this, only the courts will be able to give the final decision.

Quoting from the report:

Critics on the Left and within the Democrat Party have, on the other hand, dismissed these charges as the sour grapes of a whining loser. Some of these critics have completely denied any fraud,
misconduct or malfeasance altogether. Others have acknowledged that while some election
irregularities may have existed, they strenuously insist that these irregularities are not significant
enough to overturn the election.

Also:

There is a similar Battle Royale raging between large anti-Trump segments of the so-called
“mainstream” media and alternative conservative news outlets. Across the anti-Trump mainstream
media diaspora – which includes most prominently print publications like the New York Times
and Washington Post and cable TV networks like CNN and MSNBC – a loud chorus of voices has
been demanding that President Trump concede the election

The fact that " some election irregularities may have existed" is basically agreed by all sides. The Trump campaign has one task remaining: to get the courts to rule in their favor with the required evidence and therefore convince the "mainstream" media, namely: "New York Times and Washington Post and cable TV networks like CNN and MSNBC" that what they are saying is true.

In any case, this will all be over January 6th. If the Trump team does not prove its case, I suggest that it will lose a large chunk of its voter base, since these Trump supporters will either will decide they are lying or decide that the Trump legal team and other similar legal groups cannot prove their allegations when so much evidence exists, which is shows an inability to deliver on promises.

Either way I am closely watching. My message to both sides is: please do not make any mistakes. The stakes are too too high.

Trump supporters will either will decide they are lying or decide — FreeEmotion

Oh yeah, after the thousands of lies that Trump has made while in office never lost him any support, what's going to change now?

Now Trump's farce is starting to reach the insanity which it deserves, I think. The just pardoned Michael Flynn, promoted the idea that Trump ought to use the military to "rerun" the elections in key states.

"He could order the, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states," Flynn told Newsmax. "I mean, it's not unprecedented. These people are out there talking about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times."

Such delirious comments from the disgraced and short lived Trump National Security Adviser made actually even the military respond to such insanity with the Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville saying in a joint statement that there “is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”

Off course what the armed forces will do, or not do in this case, doesn't matter. The only objective with floating these kind of absurd ideas was to get Donald Trump's attention, just as it was with lawyer turned conspiracy buff Sidney Powell, who has made such a splash that Trump floated the idea of her being a special counsel to investigate the "rigged" elections. Doesn't matter that under federal law, special counsels are appointed by the U.S. attorney general, not the President. That Powell was earlier declared to be off the Trump team after wild conspiracy theories just fits to the logical picture, if there is any logic, how Trump picks those who he listens to. Somebody explaining to Trump that he can easily turn the elections and get reinstated as President in January because pigs fly, will get Trump's ear and attention. Because, who could have known that pigs don't fly? It was a great idea and the person suggesting it had balls.

Trump's actions are now equivalent to a certain German leader in his bunker in April of 1945. And similar behind the scenes struggle for power is going on in the Trump administration.

I can imagine that the Trump team meeting with Powell and Flynn alongside others in this boat ended in a shouting match. This is what the end of the Trump administration looks like.

, I wasted time looking at that data from The New York Times.
_{(FYI, the data they have is in json format, and was used for a kind of general running overview during the counting. I think other news also relied on it, while America tensely watched, with much nail-biting it seems.)}

Sure, there are some bumps and jumps here and there in the data. And those particular ones the conspiracy theorists zoomed in on, have more Biden counts than Trump counts. It's not that the Trump curve doesn't jump, but it jumps less than the Biden curve. By itself, this stuff doesn't prove anything, could be whatever.
_{(If anyone also wants to waste time, I can point them at the data, show how to extract things into tabular format, and load it up in whatever spreadsheet software. Getting fancy, load it up in, say, SageMath, Jupyter, Scilab, which is free software. Mathematica and Maple are commercial.)}

So, they needed to correlate the exact timing with something going on at the places where the votes were counted. Hence that footage where they'd grabbed frames, added red arrows and circles, and pointed out alleged crimes/criminals. That's what Brian Cohen commented on, in part anyway.

Sometime, they went on to point fingers at those vote-machines. "The plot thickens." Though it seems the company then warned Powell et al of lawsuits.

Ridiculous and bizarrely entertaining. :)

But what's of greater concern is there are people who believe that the unsupported allegations made in these legal actions are true and that their rejection by the courts is just another part of the "steal." — Ciceronianus the White

And some of them have guns. And Pompeo has railed China-fear-hate up among some, too. And socialism-phobia. "Crazies" to quote the late McCain?

The only objective with floating these kind of absurd ideas was to get Donald Trump's attention, — ssu

And possibly to get Trump's base acclimated to these kinds of ideas, so that the next time an election doesn't go the right way, they might just seem a bit more reasonable.