alternet--2020-11-05--America has become a failed state

America has become a failed state

This story was originally posted at Scheerpost .
Well , it 's over .
Not the election .
The capitalist democracy .
However biased it was towards the interests of the rich and however hostile it was to the poor and minorities , the capitalist democracy at least offered the possibility of incremental and piecemeal reform .
Now it is a corpse .
The iconography and rhetoric remain the same .
But it is an elaborate and empty reality show funded by the ruling oligarchs — $ 1.51 billion for the Biden campaign and $ 1.57 billion for the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are choices .
There are not .
The empty jousting between a bloviating Trump and a verbally impaired Joe Biden is designed to mask the truth .
The oligarchs always win .
The people always lose .
It does not matter who sits in the White House .
America is a failed state .
`` The American Dream has run out of gas , '' wrote the novelist J.G .
Ballard .
`` The car has stopped .
It no longer supplies the world with its images , its dreams , its fantasies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It supplies the world with its nightmares now . ''
There were many actors that killed America 's open society .
The corporate oligarchs who bought the electoral process , the courts and the media , and whose lobbyists write the legislation to impoverish us and allow them to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth and unchecked power .
The militarists and war industry that drained the national treasury to mount futile and endless wars that have squandered some $ 7 trillion and turned us into an international pariah .
The CEOs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tens of millions of dollars , that shipped jobs overseas and left our cities in ruins and our workers in misery and despair without a sustainable income or hope for the future .
The fossil fuel industry that made war on science and chose profits over the looming extinction of the human species .
The press that turned news into mindless entertainment and partisan cheerleading .
The intellectuals who retreated into the universities to preach the moral absolutism of identity politics and multiculturalism while turning their backs on the economic warfare being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrelenting assault on civil liberties .
And , of course , the feckless and hypocritical liberal class that does nothing but talk , talk , talk .
If there is one group that deserves our deepest contempt it is the liberal elites , those who posture as the moral arbiters of society while abandoning every value they purportedly hold the moment they become inconvenient .
The liberal class , once again , served as pathetic cheerleaders and censors for a candidate and a political party that in Europe would be considered on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ridiculed and dismissed by Biden and by the Democratic Party hierarchy , which bizarrely invested its political energy in appealing to Republican neocons , liberals were busy marginalizing journalists , including Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi , who called out Biden and the Democrats .
The liberals , whether at The Intercept or The New York Times , ignored or discredited information that could hurt the Democratic Party , including the revelations on Hunter Biden 's laptop .
It was a stunning display of craven careerism and self-loathing.The Democrats and their liberal apologists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oblivious to the profound personal and economic despair sweeping through this country .
They stand for nothing .
They fight for nothing .
Restoring the rule of law , universal health care , banning fracking , a Green New Deal , the protection of civil liberties , the building of unions , the preservation and expansion of social welfare programs , a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures , the forgiveness of student debt , stiff environmental controls , a government jobs program and guaranteed income , financial regulation , opposition to endless war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Championing these issues would have resulted in a Democratic Party landslide .
But since the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate donors , promoting any policy that might foster the common good , diminish corporate profits and restore democracy , including imposing campaign finance laws , was impossible .
Biden 's campaign was utterly bereft of ideas and policy issues , as if he and the Democrats could sweep the elections by promising to save the soul of America .
At least the neofascists have the courage of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a traditional democracy as a safety valve .
It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible .
It ameliorates the worst excesses of capitalism .
It proposes gradual steps towards greater equality .
It endows the state and the mechanisms of power with supposed virtues .
It also serves as an attack dog that discredits radical social movements .
The liberal class is a vital component within the power elite .
In short , it offers hope and the possibility , or at least the illusion , of change .
The surrender of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power vacuum that speculators , war profiteers , gangsters and killers , often led by charismatic demagogues , fill .
It opens the door to fascist movements that rise to prominence by ridiculing and taunting the absurdities of the liberal class and the values they purport to defend .
The promises of the fascists are fantastic and unrealistic , but their critiques of the liberal class are grounded in truth .
Once the liberal class ceases to function , it opens a Pandora 's box of evils that are impossible to contain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without Trump , is , as the election illustrated , deeply embedded in the body politic .
It is an expression among huge segments of the population , taunted by liberal elites as `` deplorables , '' of a legitimate alienation and rage that the Republicans and the Democrats orchestrated and now refuse to address .
This Trumpism is also , as the election showed , not limited to white men , whose support for Trump actually declined .
Fyodor Dostoevsky saw the behavior of Russia 's useless liberal class , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 19th century , as presaging a period of blood and terror .
The failure of liberals to defend the ideals they espoused inevitably led , he wrote , to an age of moral nihilism .
In Notes From Underground , he portrayed the sterile , defeated dreamers of the liberal class , those who hold up high ideals but do nothing to defend them .
The main character in Notes From Underground carries the bankrupt ideas of liberalism to their logical extreme .
He eschews passion and moral purpose .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying power structure in the name of liberal ideals .
The hypocrisy of the Underground Man dooms Russia as it now dooms the United States .
It is the fatal disconnect between belief and action .
`` I never even managed to become anything : neither wicked nor good , neither a scoundrel nor an honest man , neither a hero nor an insect , '' the Underground Man wrote .
`` And now I am living out my life in my corner , taunting myself with the spiteful and utterly futile consolation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligent man seriously to become anything , and only fools become something .
Yes , sir , an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be and is morally obliged to be primarily a characterless being ; and a man of character , an active figure – primarily a limited being . ''
The refusal of the liberal class to acknowledge that power has been wrested from the hands of citizens by corporations , that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty have been revoked by judicial fiat , that elections are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ruling elites , that we are on the losing end of the class war , has left it speaking and acting in ways that no longer correspond to reality .
The `` idea of the intellectual vocation , '' as Irving Howe pointed out in his 1954 essay This Age of Conformity , `` the idea of a life dedicated to values that can not possibly be realized by a commercial civilization — has gradually lost its allure .
And , it is this , rather than the abandonment of a particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The belief that capitalism is the unassailable engine of human progress , Howe wrote , `` is trumpeted through every medium of communication : official propaganda , institutional advertising and scholarly writings of people who , until a few years ago , were its major opponents . ''
`` The truly powerless people are those intellectuals — the new realists — who attach themselves to the seats of power , where they surrender their freedom of expression without gaining any significance as political figures , '' Howe wrote .
`` For it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American intellectuals in the past few decades — as well as to the relationship between 'wealth ' and 'intellect ' — that whenever they become absorbed into the accredited institutions of society they not only lose their traditional rebelliousness but to one extent or another they cease to function as intellectuals . ''
Populations can endure the repression of tyrants , as long as these rulers continue to effectively manage and wield power .
But human history has amply demonstrated that once those in positions of power become redundant and impotent , yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are brutally discarded .
This was true in Weimar Germany .
It was true in the former Yugoslavia , a conflict I covered for The New York Times .
The historian Fritz Stern in The Politics of Cultural Despair , his book on the rise of fascism in Germany , wrote of the consequences of the collapse of liberalism .
Stern argued that the spiritually and politically alienated , those cast aside by the society , are prime recruits for a politics centered around violence , cultural hatreds and personal resentments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is directed at a liberal elite that , while speaking the `` I-feel-your-pain '' language of traditional liberalism , sells us out .
`` They attacked liberalism , '' Stern writes of the fascists emerging at the time in Germany , `` because it seemed to them the principal premise of modern society ; everything they dreaded seemed to spring from it ; the bourgeois life , Manchesterism , materialism , parliament and the parties , the lack of political leadership .
Even more , they sense in liberalism the source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a resentment of loneliness ; their one desire was for a new faith , a new community of believers , a world with fixed standards and no doubts , a new national religion that would bind all Germans together .
All this , liberalism denied .
Hence , they hated liberalism , blamed it for making outcasts of them , for uprooting them from their imaginary past , and from their faith . ''
We are in for it .
The for-profit health care system , designed to make money — not take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handle a national health crisis .
The health care corporations have spent the last few decades merging and closing hospitals , and cutting access to health care in communities across the nation to increase revenue — this , as nearly half of all front-line workers remain ineligible for sick pay and some 43 million Americans have lost their employee-sponsored health insurance .
The pandemic , without universal health care , which Biden and the Democrats have no intention of establishing , will continue to rage out of control .
Three hundred thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand by January .
And by the time the pandemic burns out or a vaccine becomes safely available , hundreds of thousands , maybe a few million , will have died.The economic fallout from the pandemic , the chronic underemployment and unemployment — close to 20 percent when those who have stopped looking for work , those furloughed with no prospect of being rehired and those who work part-time but are still below the poverty line are included in the official statistics — will mean a depression unlike anything we have seen since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already tripled since last year .
The proportion of US children who are not getting enough to eat is 14 times higher than last year .
Food banks are overrun .
The moratorium on foreclosures and evictions has been lifted while over 30 million destitute Americans face the prospect of being thrown into the street .
There is no check left on corporate power .
The inevitable social unrest will see the state , no matter who is in the White House , use its three principle instruments of social control — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police — buttressed by a legal system that routinely revokes habeas corpus and due process , to ruthlessly crush dissent .
People of color , immigrants and Muslims will be blamed and targeted by our native fascists for the nation 's decline .
The few who continue in defiance of the Democratic Party to call out the crimes of the corporate state and the empire will be silenced .
The sterility of the liberal class , serving the interests of a Democratic Party that disdains and ignores them , fuels the widespread feelings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters support one of the most vulgar , racist , inept and corrupt presidents in American history .
An American tyranny , dressed up with the ideological veneer of a Christianized fascism , will , it appears , define the empire 's epochal descent into irrelevance .
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times , where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper .
He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and NPR .
He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show On Contact .

This story was originally posted at Scheerpost.
Well, it's over. Not the election. The capitalist democracy. However biased it was towards the interests of the rich and however hostile it was to the poor and minorities, the capitalist democracy at least offered the possibility of incremental and piecemeal reform. Now it is a corpse. The iconography and rhetoric remain the same. But it is an elaborate and empty reality show funded by the ruling oligarchs — $1.51 billion for the Biden campaign and $1.57 billion for the Trump campaign — to make us think there are choices. There are not. The empty jousting between a bloviating Trump and a verbally impaired Joe Biden is designed to mask the truth. The oligarchs always win. The people always lose. It does not matter who sits in the White House. America is a failed state.
"The American Dream has run out of gas," wrote the novelist J.G. Ballard. "The car has stopped. It no longer supplies the world with its images, its dreams, its fantasies. No more. It's over. It supplies the world with its nightmares now."
There were many actors that killed America's open society. The corporate oligarchs who bought the electoral process, the courts and the media, and whose lobbyists write the legislation to impoverish us and allow them to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth and unchecked power. The militarists and war industry that drained the national treasury to mount futile and endless wars that have squandered some $7 trillion and turned us into an international pariah. The CEOs, raking in bonuses and compensation packages in the tens of millions of dollars, that shipped jobs overseas and left our cities in ruins and our workers in misery and despair without a sustainable income or hope for the future. The fossil fuel industry that made war on science and chose profits over the looming extinction of the human species. The press that turned news into mindless entertainment and partisan cheerleading. The intellectuals who retreated into the universities to preach the moral absolutism of identity politics and multiculturalism while turning their backs on the economic warfare being waged on the working class and the unrelenting assault on civil liberties. And, of course, the feckless and hypocritical liberal class that does nothing but talk, talk, talk.
If there is one group that deserves our deepest contempt it is the liberal elites, those who posture as the moral arbiters of society while abandoning every value they purportedly hold the moment they become inconvenient. The liberal class, once again, served as pathetic cheerleaders and censors for a candidate and a political party that in Europe would be considered on the far-right. Even while liberals were being ridiculed and dismissed by Biden and by the Democratic Party hierarchy, which bizarrely invested its political energy in appealing to Republican neocons, liberals were busy marginalizing journalists, including Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, who called out Biden and the Democrats. The liberals, whether at The Intercept or The New York Times, ignored or discredited information that could hurt the Democratic Party, including the revelations on Hunter Biden's laptop. It was a stunning display of craven careerism and self-loathing.The Democrats and their liberal apologists are, the election has illustrated, oblivious to the profound personal and economic despair sweeping through this country. They stand for nothing. They fight for nothing. Restoring the rule of law, universal health care, banning fracking, a Green New Deal, the protection of civil liberties, the building of unions, the preservation and expansion of social welfare programs, a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures, the forgiveness of student debt, stiff environmental controls, a government jobs program and guaranteed income, financial regulation, opposition to endless war and military adventurism were once again forgotten. Championing these issues would have resulted in a Democratic Party landslide. But since the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate donors, promoting any policy that might foster the common good, diminish corporate profits and restore democracy, including imposing campaign finance laws, was impossible. Biden's campaign was utterly bereft of ideas and policy issues, as if he and the Democrats could sweep the elections by promising to save the soul of America. At least the neofascists have the courage of their demented convictions.
The liberal class functions in a traditional democracy as a safety valve. It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible. It ameliorates the worst excesses of capitalism. It proposes gradual steps towards greater equality. It endows the state and the mechanisms of power with supposed virtues. It also serves as an attack dog that discredits radical social movements. The liberal class is a vital component within the power elite. In short, it offers hope and the possibility, or at least the illusion, of change.
The surrender of the liberal elite to despotism creates a power vacuum that speculators, war profiteers, gangsters and killers, often led by charismatic demagogues, fill. It opens the door to fascist movements that rise to prominence by ridiculing and taunting the absurdities of the liberal class and the values they purport to defend. The promises of the fascists are fantastic and unrealistic, but their critiques of the liberal class are grounded in truth. Once the liberal class ceases to function, it opens a Pandora's box of evils that are impossible to contain.
The disease of Trumpism, with or without Trump, is, as the election illustrated, deeply embedded in the body politic. It is an expression among huge segments of the population, taunted by liberal elites as "deplorables," of a legitimate alienation and rage that the Republicans and the Democrats orchestrated and now refuse to address. This Trumpism is also, as the election showed, not limited to white men, whose support for Trump actually declined.
Fyodor Dostoevsky saw the behavior of Russia's useless liberal class, which he satirized and excoriated at the end of the 19th century, as presaging a period of blood and terror. The failure of liberals to defend the ideals they espoused inevitably led, he wrote, to an age of moral nihilism. In Notes From Underground, he portrayed the sterile, defeated dreamers of the liberal class, those who hold up high ideals but do nothing to defend them. The main character in Notes From Underground carries the bankrupt ideas of liberalism to their logical extreme. He eschews passion and moral purpose. He is rational. He accommodates a corrupt and dying power structure in the name of liberal ideals. The hypocrisy of the Underground Man dooms Russia as it now dooms the United States. It is the fatal disconnect between belief and action.
"I never even managed to become anything: neither wicked nor good, neither a scoundrel nor an honest man, neither a hero nor an insect," the Underground Man wrote. "And now I am living out my life in my corner, taunting myself with the spiteful and utterly futile consolation that it is even impossible for an intelligent man seriously to become anything, and only fools become something. Yes, sir, an intelligent man of the nineteenth century must be and is morally obliged to be primarily a characterless being; and a man of character, an active figure – primarily a limited being."
The refusal of the liberal class to acknowledge that power has been wrested from the hands of citizens by corporations, that the Constitution and its guarantees of personal liberty have been revoked by judicial fiat, that elections are nothing more than empty spectacles staged by the ruling elites, that we are on the losing end of the class war, has left it speaking and acting in ways that no longer correspond to reality.
The "idea of the intellectual vocation," as Irving Howe pointed out in his 1954 essay This Age of Conformity, "the idea of a life dedicated to values that cannot possibly be realized by a commercial civilization — has gradually lost its allure. And, it is this, rather than the abandonment of a particular program, which constitutes our rout." The belief that capitalism is the unassailable engine of human progress, Howe wrote, "is trumpeted through every medium of communication: official propaganda, institutional advertising and scholarly writings of people who, until a few years ago, were its major opponents."
"The truly powerless people are those intellectuals — the new realists — who attach themselves to the seats of power, where they surrender their freedom of expression without gaining any significance as political figures," Howe wrote. "For it is crucial to the history of the American intellectuals in the past few decades — as well as to the relationship between 'wealth' and 'intellect' — that whenever they become absorbed into the accredited institutions of society they not only lose their traditional rebelliousness but to one extent or another they cease to function as intellectuals."
Populations can endure the repression of tyrants, as long as these rulers continue to effectively manage and wield power. But human history has amply demonstrated that once those in positions of power become redundant and impotent, yet retain the trappings and privileges of power, they are brutally discarded. This was true in Weimar Germany. It was true in the former Yugoslavia, a conflict I covered for The New York Times.
The historian Fritz Stern in The Politics of Cultural Despair, his book on the rise of fascism in Germany, wrote of the consequences of the collapse of liberalism. Stern argued that the spiritually and politically alienated, those cast aside by the society, are prime recruits for a politics centered around violence, cultural hatreds and personal resentments. Much of this rage, justifiably, is directed at a liberal elite that, while speaking the "I-feel-your-pain" language of traditional liberalism, sells us out.
"They attacked liberalism," Stern writes of the fascists emerging at the time in Germany, "because it seemed to them the principal premise of modern society; everything they dreaded seemed to spring from it; the bourgeois life, Manchesterism, materialism, parliament and the parties, the lack of political leadership. Even more, they sense in liberalism the source of all their inner sufferings. Theirs was a resentment of loneliness; their one desire was for a new faith, a new community of believers, a world with fixed standards and no doubts, a new national religion that would bind all Germans together. All this, liberalism denied. Hence, they hated liberalism, blamed it for making outcasts of them, for uprooting them from their imaginary past, and from their faith."
We are in for it. The for-profit health care system, designed to make money — not take care of the sick — is unequipped to handle a national health crisis. The health care corporations have spent the last few decades merging and closing hospitals, and cutting access to health care in communities across the nation to increase revenue — this, as nearly half of all front-line workers remain ineligible for sick pay and some 43 million Americans have lost their employee-sponsored health insurance. The pandemic, without universal health care, which Biden and the Democrats have no intention of establishing, will continue to rage out of control. Three hundred thousand Americans dead by December. Four hundred thousand by January. And by the time the pandemic burns out or a vaccine becomes safely available, hundreds of thousands, maybe a few million, will have died.The economic fallout from the pandemic, the chronic underemployment and unemployment — close to 20 percent when those who have stopped looking for work, those furloughed with no prospect of being rehired and those who work part-time but are still below the poverty line are included in the official statistics — will mean a depression unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s. Hunger in US households has already tripled since last year. The proportion of US children who are not getting enough to eat is 14 times higher than last year. Food banks are overrun. The moratorium on foreclosures and evictions has been lifted while over 30 million destitute Americans face the prospect of being thrown into the street.
There is no check left on corporate power. The inevitable social unrest will see the state, no matter who is in the White House, use its three principle instruments of social control — wholesale surveillance, the prisons and militarized police — buttressed by a legal system that routinely revokes habeas corpus and due process, to ruthlessly crush dissent. People of color, immigrants and Muslims will be blamed and targeted by our native fascists for the nation's decline. The few who continue in defiance of the Democratic Party to call out the crimes of the corporate state and the empire will be silenced. The sterility of the liberal class, serving the interests of a Democratic Party that disdains and ignores them, fuels the widespread feelings of betrayal that saw nearly half the voters support one of the most vulgar, racist, inept and corrupt presidents in American history. An American tyranny, dressed up with the ideological veneer of a Christianized fascism, will, it appears, define the empire's epochal descent into irrelevance.
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor, and NPR. He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show On Contact.


alternet--2020-11-05--Why Google is facing serious accusations of monopoly practices

This article was produced in partnership by Newsclick and Globetrotter .
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google-Alphabet ( Alphabet is Google 's parent company ) on October 20 for a range of anti-competitive practices using its monopoly power in the search market .
It is the only major action in the U.S. against tech monopolies in recent years , the last one being the 1998 action against Microsoft .
Eleven state attorneys general have joined the Department of Justice suit , with more expected to follow .
Google 's current market share in online searches globally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more than 98 percent in countries like India .
The only market in which it has virtually no market share is in China , where it shut shop for its search engine in 2010 .
The four major tech companies—Google-Alphabet , Facebook , Amazon , and Apple—are globally on the radar for their monopoly power and their ability to drive out competition .
The recent hearings in the U.S. Congress relating to the Big Four were followed by a staff report of the subcommittee on antitrust , commercial and administrative law that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either break up or limit these companies .
Facebook has additionally come under the scanner for being an instrument of hate speech , helping the formation of violent militias , and promoting conspiracy theories , including COVID-19 conspiracies .
A Delhi assembly committee—Committee on Peace and Harmony—is investigating Facebook 's role in Delhi 's communal riots that took place earlier in 2020 ( full disclosure : I also deposed before this committee ) .
Meanwhile , Google faces the following charges in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business agreements to shut out competitors • Paying mobile phone manufacturers and web browsers to make Google as their preset , default search engine • Controlling the online ad market with its selling and buying tools to ensure that web publishers are locked in • Using its control over the Android operating system to position its Chrome web browser and search engine as the default for mobile platforms Much of these sound like legalese and beyond our ability to understand what Google is doing .
The simple issue is that Google uses its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Google properties to grab more than 30 percent— $ 103.73 billion in 2019—of the global digital ad revenue pie .
Facebook has a little more than 20 percent , but today 's story is Google and not Facebook .
Google and Facebook have one similarity .
Neither of them generates any content ; they show users content generated by others .
Their entire business model is capturing our eyeballs so that we , or our attention , can be sold to advertisers .
Those who create content may get a small fraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the bulk of the digital revenue is appropriated by Google as the major gatekeeper of the digital world .
How does Google get so much of the ad revenue ?
Does its search engine not show other sites that a person searching on Google would also visit ?
And would these sites also not get a share of the online advertisements ?
Visiting other sites via Google searches is decreasing year by year , as pointed out by Rand Fishkin , a leading expert on search engine optimization .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust , commercial and administrative law , David Cicilline , said , `` In 2004 , Google 's cofounder Larry Page said the purpose of Google is to have people come to Google , quickly find out what you want and to get you out of Google and get you to the right place as fast as possible . ''
Fishkin shows with figures that this is not the case anymore ; if it ever was .
Today , the majority of searches on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the links in the displayed search pages ( zero clicks ) .
In the browser search market , more than 50 percent of searches generate zero clicks on the search result page links .
If clicks do occur , a significant share of such outgoing clicks is only for other Google sites such as YouTube , Google Maps , etc .
Clicks on search pages leading outside the Google universe are dwindling every year .
The situation is worse with mobile searches than for the desktop market , where Google has a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apple mobile phones should be independent of Google and , therefore , non-Google websites might fare better in Apple 's ecosystem of iPhones , iPad , etc .
That , however , is not the case .
Google pays an estimated $ 8 billion to $ 12 billion , nearly 20 percent of Apple 's annual profits , for Apple to carry Google search and maps as the default setting for Apple phones and Siri .
These figures relate to the search engine outputs and the resulting clicks .
What about the proportion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning when sites are visited from other sites , where do they come from ?
Seventy percent of such web referrals on any site still come from Google properties .
If a website gets on Google 's bad side , the site could fall into a deep black hole , which only the faithful will visit .
So , if a website owner wants to generate traffic for a site , the owner will have to configure the site in a way that Google can catalog all the content on the website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the website owner will have to adapt ; otherwise , the site will not show up on Google searches , Google Amp pages , and Google News .
All sites have to spend money to make Google 's task of crawling the web for content easier .
If people want their videos to be viewed , the only realistic option is YouTube .
And there is no way to fight with Google even if that means a dwindling share of ad revenue for a website owner .
Google holds all the cards !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ queries on Google lead to zero clicks ?
Zero clicks happen because Google increasingly curates the results of the queries , displaying the required information on the search result page itself so that most searchers do not go further .
Even Wikipedia is worried , as its clicks from Google are dwindling .
Even when queries lead to other sites in the list of results , they also still lead to Google properties as they promote either the sites or the content of such sites—for example , YouTube videos on the search page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people do not visit the world outside Google .
The rules of ranking that Google imposes on others do not apply to Google properties and sites , which have consistently higher rankings on Google searches than searches on other search engines like DuckDuckGo , Bing , etc .
As Fishkin puts it , the answer to the question of how to be ranked number one on a Google search is an easy one : be owned by Google !
The European Union regulators have penalized Google on occasions , but Google has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the monopoly it has achieved through its anti-competitive action can not be reversed .
It is like license fees that telecom companies pay to secure the monopoly of the airwaves .
In India too , Google has been fined , but the amount of the fine was a paltry $ 21 million .
It does not even count as a rap on the knuckles for Google .
These tech monopolies are also facing action in the European Union and Australia and even in the UK .
In the UK , the Monopolies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Competition and Markets Authority ) was replaced with a weakened Competition Commission in 1999 , a step which India quickly copied in 2002 .
Even with a weaker regulatory framework than the earlier anti-monopoly regulations , the UK 's Competition and Markets Authority stated in its recent report that these companies `` are now protected by such strong incumbency advantages—including network effects , economies of scale and unmatchable access to user data—that potential rivals can no longer compete on equal terms… We need a new , regulatory approach . ''
India has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only have the government and its regulatory agencies sheltered Reliance Jio in controlling the national telecom monopoly , but they have also 'blessed ' huge investments from Google and Facebook of $ 4.5 billion and $ 5.7 billion respectively , helping cement all three of their monopolies .
While all other technology partners bring in their technology tools and platforms , Jio 's key to success is its old-fashioned monopoly over India 's telecom network .
India is slated to be the world 's biggest market after China in the coming decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are witnessing is a tectonic shift in the way big tech companies and their owners are being viewed .
Not as Ayn Rand 's imaginary captains of industry , who through superman-like powers are creating a new world , but simply as venal and predatory monopolies .
Even in the fractured politics of the U.S. , there seems to be a bipartisan consensus that monopolies are inherently dangerous to consumers and competitors alike .
Otherwise , why would a Justice Department under Trump file a case against Google-Alphabet , in which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking up the monopolies as advocated by Senator Elizabeth Warren—is off the table .
Prabir Purkayastha is the founding editor of Newsclick.in , a digital media platform .
He is an activist for science and the free software movement .

This article was produced in partnership by Newsclick and Globetrotter.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google-Alphabet (Alphabet is Google's parent company) on October 20 for a range of anti-competitive practices using its monopoly power in the search market. It is the only major action in the U.S. against tech monopolies in recent years, the last one being the 1998 action against Microsoft. Eleven state attorneys general have joined the Department of Justice suit, with more expected to follow.
Google's current market share in online searches globally stands at about 92 percent and rises to more than 98 percent in countries like India. The only market in which it has virtually no market share is in China, where it shut shop for its search engine in 2010.
The four major tech companies—Google-Alphabet, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple—are globally on the radar for their monopoly power and their ability to drive out competition. The recent hearings in the U.S. Congress relating to the Big Four were followed by a staff report of the subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law that recommended appropriate legislative action to Congress to either break up or limit these companies.
Facebook has additionally come under the scanner for being an instrument of hate speech, helping the formation of violent militias, and promoting conspiracy theories, including COVID-19 conspiracies. A Delhi assembly committee—Committee on Peace and Harmony—is investigating Facebook's role in Delhi's communal riots that took place earlier in 2020 (full disclosure: I also deposed before this committee).
Meanwhile, Google faces the following charges in the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice:
Creating a web of exclusionary and interlocking business agreements to shut out competitors
Paying mobile phone manufacturers and web browsers to make Google as their preset, default search engine
Controlling the online ad market with its selling and buying tools to ensure that web publishers are locked in
Using its control over the Android operating system to position its Chrome web browser and search engine as the default for mobile platforms
Much of these sound like legalese and beyond our ability to understand what Google is doing. The simple issue is that Google uses its monopoly over the search engine and its other Google properties to grab more than 30 percent—$103.73 billion in 2019—of the global digital ad revenue pie. Facebook has a little more than 20 percent, but today's story is Google and not Facebook.
Google and Facebook have one similarity. Neither of them generates any content; they show users content generated by others. Their entire business model is capturing our eyeballs so that we, or our attention, can be sold to advertisers. Those who create content may get a small fraction of the ad revenue that Google generates, but the bulk of the digital revenue is appropriated by Google as the major gatekeeper of the digital world.
How does Google get so much of the ad revenue? Does its search engine not show other sites that a person searching on Google would also visit? And would these sites also not get a share of the online advertisements?
Visiting other sites via Google searches is decreasing year by year, as pointed out by Rand Fishkin, a leading expert on search engine optimization. During the House hearing on July 16, 2019, the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, commercial and administrative law, David Cicilline, said, "In 2004, Google's cofounder Larry Page said the purpose of Google is to have people come to Google, quickly find out what you want and to get you out of Google and get you to the right place as fast as possible." Fishkin shows with figures that this is not the case anymore; if it ever was. Today, the majority of searches on Google lead to no further clicks on the links in the displayed search pages (zero clicks).
In the browser search market, more than 50 percent of searches generate zero clicks on the search result page links. If clicks do occur, a significant share of such outgoing clicks is only for other Google sites such as YouTube, Google Maps, etc. Clicks on search pages leading outside the Google universe are dwindling every year.
The situation is worse with mobile searches than for the desktop market, where Google has a more dominant position. It might seem that Apple mobile phones should be independent of Google and, therefore, non-Google websites might fare better in Apple's ecosystem of iPhones, iPad, etc. That, however, is not the case. Google pays an estimated $8 billion to $12 billion, nearly 20 percent of Apple's annual profits, for Apple to carry Google search and maps as the default setting for Apple phones and Siri.
These figures relate to the search engine outputs and the resulting clicks. What about the proportion of web traffic referrals that sites receive, meaning when sites are visited from other sites, where do they come from? Seventy percent of such web referrals on any site still come from Google properties. If a website gets on Google's bad side, the site could fall into a deep black hole, which only the faithful will visit.
So, if a website owner wants to generate traffic for a site, the owner will have to configure the site in a way that Google can catalog all the content on the website easily. If Google makes changes, the website owner will have to adapt; otherwise, the site will not show up on Google searches, Google Amp pages, and Google News. All sites have to spend money to make Google's task of crawling the web for content easier. If people want their videos to be viewed, the only realistic option is YouTube. And there is no way to fight with Google even if that means a dwindling share of ad revenue for a website owner. Google holds all the cards!
How does Google ensure that most search queries on Google lead to zero clicks? Zero clicks happen because Google increasingly curates the results of the queries, displaying the required information on the search result page itself so that most searchers do not go further. Even Wikipedia is worried, as its clicks from Google are dwindling.
Even when queries lead to other sites in the list of results, they also still lead to Google properties as they promote either the sites or the content of such sites—for example, YouTube videos on the search page are curated in such a way that people do not visit the world outside Google.
The rules of ranking that Google imposes on others do not apply to Google properties and sites, which have consistently higher rankings on Google searches than searches on other search engines like DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. As Fishkin puts it, the answer to the question of how to be ranked number one on a Google search is an easy one: be owned by Google!
The European Union regulators have penalized Google on occasions, but Google has been happy to pay the fines, as the monopoly it has achieved through its anti-competitive action cannot be reversed. It is like license fees that telecom companies pay to secure the monopoly of the airwaves. In India too, Google has been fined, but the amount of the fine was a paltry $21 million. It does not even count as a rap on the knuckles for Google.
These tech monopolies are also facing action in the European Union and Australia and even in the UK. In the UK, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (now renamed as the Competition and Markets Authority) was replaced with a weakened Competition Commission in 1999, a step which India quickly copied in 2002. Even with a weaker regulatory framework than the earlier anti-monopoly regulations, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority stated in its recent report that these companies "are now protected by such strong incumbency advantages—including network effects, economies of scale and unmatchable access to user data—that potential rivals can no longer compete on equal terms… We need a new, regulatory approach."
India has been charting a very different course. Not only have the government and its regulatory agencies sheltered Reliance Jio in controlling the national telecom monopoly, but they have also 'blessed' huge investments from Google and Facebook of $4.5 billion and $5.7 billion respectively, helping cement all three of their monopolies. While all other technology partners bring in their technology tools and platforms, Jio's key to success is its old-fashioned monopoly over India's telecom network. India is slated to be the world's biggest market after China in the coming decades.
The global anti-monopoly actions show that what we are witnessing is a tectonic shift in the way big tech companies and their owners are being viewed. Not as Ayn Rand's imaginary captains of industry, who through superman-like powers are creating a new world, but simply as venal and predatory monopolies. Even in the fractured politics of the U.S., there seems to be a bipartisan consensus that monopolies are inherently dangerous to consumers and competitors alike. Otherwise, why would a Justice Department under Trump file a case against Google-Alphabet, in which, according to its spokespersons, nothing—presumably even breaking up the monopolies as advocated by Senator Elizabeth Warren—is off the table.
Prabir Purkayastha is the founding editor of Newsclick.in, a digital media platform. He is an activist for science and the free software movement.


alternet--2020-11-05--Why the Supreme Court probably won’t decide the 2020 election — despite Trump's efforts

The Trump campaign has filed two lawsuits in federal court over ballot counting and voting deadlines in Pennsylvania , threatening to take the election to the Supreme Court .
Both consciously echo the two main legal theories of Bush v. Gore , the infamous Supreme Court case that decided the contested 2000 presidential election .
But this race is not likely to be decided by the Supreme Court .
There are several reasons , sitting at the intersection of law and politics , why the ghosts of Florida past wo n't rise again in Pennsylvania .
As a law professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform , I rate success in Trump 's efforts to wrench back Biden 's lead through litigation as a real long shot , though not out of the question .
Trump 's latest Pennsylvania lawsuit draws on the “ equal protection '' argument cited in Bush v. Gore .
In the 2000 case , Democratic candidate Al Gore challenged Florida 's first machine-generated vote count when thousands of voters had problems marking their punch card ballots .
The Florida Supreme Court allowed a statewide recount to ensure that all legal votes were counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infamous “ hanging chads '' – incomplete marks on those punch card ballots – varied from county to county .
The U.S. Supreme Court held that this lack of uniformity violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution , which guarantees equal weight for votes .
The court shut down the recount and declared Bush , the Republican candidate , the winner in Florida – and therefore of the 2000 election .
Republicans are trying a similar play in Pennsylvania with a legal claim filed on Election Day .
In some Pennsylvania counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in ballots were disqualified for technical reasons to confirm their signature or fill in missing identifying information , validating their ballot so it will count .
Since only some Pennsylvania counties were doing this “ ballot curing '' process , the Trump camp argues , the state 's lack of uniformity violates the Equal Protection Clause .
No matter what the lower courts rule , the plaintiffs will likely take this case , which makes a federal constitutional claim , to the Supreme Court .
The court might decline to take it for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in Bush v. Gore , the justices actually cautioned that their decision was unique to Florida 's 2000 vote count and should not be given much weight as precedent .
Trump 's other Pennsylvania legal challenge , which was filed in state court back in September , is also rooted in Bush v. Gore .
It invokes an often overlooked concurring opinion in that case , which advanced an alternate theory for handing Bush a win .
The opinion , written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenary authority '' of state legislatures to allocate Electoral College votes .
Under Article II of the Constitution , state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they do n't even have to hold a presidential election if they do n't want to .
Whatever their process , Rehnquist wrote , it should be respected ; no court , state or federal , should disturb it .
That “ plenary authority '' is uncontroversial .
But Rehnquist 's concurrence is .
In it , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose timing and deadlines deviated from the legislatively provided election rules , Florida 's Supreme Court was usurping the Florida legislature 's plenary authority .
This “ Article II theory '' is considered rather fringe – but Republicans are advancing it in Pennsylvania .
In September , the Pennsylvania courts agreed with the Democratic Party that due to COVID-19-related concerns , mail-in ballots received up to three days after the election could still be counted , even if the post office neglected to affix a legible postmark .
In October , the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the receipt deadline for absentee ballots .
The GOP challenged this extension in federal court , arguing that Pennsylvania 's Supreme Court was usurping the state legislature 's authority by extending the mail ballot deadline .
Upon appeal , the U.S. Supreme Court twice declined to halt the counting of these late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania .
But it did order that the ballots in question be segregated for a possible post-election challenge .
It is generally accepted that federal judges should defer to a state court 's interpretation of its own state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of four conservative justices , Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch used Rhenquist 's opinion on Bush v. Gore to argue that state courts can not usurp the role of state legislatures .
In effect , these four justices believe Pennsylvania 's top court had no grounds to extend the voting deadline .
Should the Supreme Court hear this case again , Justice Amy Coney Barrett – the conservative jurist who recently replaced the progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – could become the crucial fifth vote necessary to overturn the Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ + Society editors pick need-to-know stories .
Sign up for Politics Weekly . ]
That ruling would invalidate all affected Pennsylvania votes , as well as votes anywhere else in the country where courts or administrators changed election rules to make them more flexible .
That 's thousands upon thousands of votes , potentially enough to change the election 's outcome .
That outcome could be catastrophic for public confidence in both the Supreme Court and the American electoral process .
These lawsuits could theoretically stop the election from being certified by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But more likely , if the suits had any traction , they would be resolved quickly to meet the Electoral College 's Dec. 12 deadline .
This scenario looks increasingly less likely .
After winning Wisconsin and Michigan , Joe Biden has a number of credible paths to the necessary 270 Electoral College votes without Pennsylvania .
If that happens , a Supreme Court ruling there would n't change the outcome of the 2020 election – though it could set an important precedent for later elections .
If there is a Trump loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court may also decline to hear his case .
As a rule , the court is reluctant to decide issues unless it has to .
More Trump legal challenges in North Carolina , Georgia and Michigan are involving the courts in this election .
But this litigation wo n't be able to reverse a decisive , multi-state Electoral College win .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

by Steven Mulroy, University of Memphis
The Trump campaign has filed two lawsuits in federal court over ballot counting and voting deadlines in Pennsylvania, threatening to take the election to the Supreme Court. Both consciously echo the two main legal theories of Bush v. Gore, the infamous Supreme Court case that decided the contested 2000 presidential election.
But this race is not likely to be decided by the Supreme Court.
There are several reasons, sitting at the intersection of law and politics, why the ghosts of Florida past won't rise again in Pennsylvania. As a law professor who's authored a book on election reform, I rate success in Trump's efforts to wrench back Biden's lead through litigation as a real long shot, though not out of the question.
Equal protection
Trump's latest Pennsylvania lawsuit draws on the “equal protection" argument cited in Bush v. Gore.
In the 2000 case, Democratic candidate Al Gore challenged Florida's first machine-generated vote count when thousands of voters had problems marking their punch card ballots. The Florida Supreme Court allowed a statewide recount to ensure that all legal votes were counted.
But the standards for counting the infamous “hanging chads" – incomplete marks on those punch card ballots – varied from county to county. The U.S. Supreme Court held that this lack of uniformity violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees equal weight for votes. The court shut down the recount and declared Bush, the Republican candidate, the winner in Florida – and therefore of the 2000 election.
Republicans are trying a similar play in Pennsylvania with a legal claim filed on Election Day.
In some Pennsylvania counties, election officials were contacting voters whose mail-in ballots were disqualified for technical reasons to confirm their signature or fill in missing identifying information, validating their ballot so it will count. Since only some Pennsylvania counties were doing this “ballot curing" process, the Trump camp argues, the state's lack of uniformity violates the Equal Protection Clause.
No matter what the lower courts rule, the plaintiffs will likely take this case, which makes a federal constitutional claim, to the Supreme Court.
The court might decline to take it for any number of reasons. One is that in Bush v. Gore, the justices actually cautioned that their decision was unique to Florida's 2000 vote count and should not be given much weight as precedent.
State legislatures
Trump's other Pennsylvania legal challenge, which was filed in state court back in September, is also rooted in Bush v. Gore. It invokes an often overlooked concurring opinion in that case, which advanced an alternate theory for handing Bush a win.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist as a supplement to the majority decision, is rooted in the “plenary authority" of state legislatures to allocate Electoral College votes. Under Article II of the Constitution, state legislatures have total power to decide how their Electoral College votes should be awarded – they don't even have to hold a presidential election if they don't want to. Whatever their process, Rehnquist wrote, it should be respected; no court, state or federal, should disturb it.
That “plenary authority" is uncontroversial. But Rehnquist's concurrence is. In it, he argued that by ordering an emergency recount whose timing and deadlines deviated from the legislatively provided election rules, Florida's Supreme Court was usurping the Florida legislature's plenary authority.
This “Article II theory" is considered rather fringe – but Republicans are advancing it in Pennsylvania.
In September, the Pennsylvania courts agreed with the Democratic Party that due to COVID-19-related concerns, mail-in ballots received up to three days after the election could still be counted, even if the post office neglected to affix a legible postmark. In October, the state's Supreme Court then ordered an extension of the receipt deadline for absentee ballots. The GOP challenged this extension in federal court, arguing that Pennsylvania's Supreme Court was usurping the state legislature's authority by extending the mail ballot deadline.
Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court twice declined to halt the counting of these late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania. But it did order that the ballots in question be segregated for a possible post-election challenge.
It is generally accepted that federal judges should defer to a state court's interpretation of its own state law. But in separate opinions written on behalf of four conservative justices, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch used Rhenquist's opinion on Bush v. Gore to argue that state courts cannot usurp the role of state legislatures.
In effect, these four justices believe Pennsylvania's top court had no grounds to extend the voting deadline. Should the Supreme Court hear this case again, Justice Amy Coney Barrett – the conservative jurist who recently replaced the progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – could become the crucial fifth vote necessary to overturn the Pennsylvania decision.
[The Conversation's Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories.Sign up for Politics Weekly.]
Court victory unlikely
That ruling would invalidate all affected Pennsylvania votes, as well as votes anywhere else in the country where courts or administrators changed election rules to make them more flexible. That's thousands upon thousands of votes, potentially enough to change the election's outcome.
That outcome could be catastrophic for public confidence in both the Supreme Court and the American electoral process.
These lawsuits could theoretically stop the election from being certified by the Electoral College per the normal procedure. But more likely, if the suits had any traction, they would be resolved quickly to meet the Electoral College's Dec. 12 deadline.
This scenario looks increasingly less likely. After winning Wisconsin and Michigan, Joe Biden has a number of credible paths to the necessary 270 Electoral College votes without Pennsylvania. If that happens, a Supreme Court ruling there wouldn't change the outcome of the 2020 election – though it could set an important precedent for later elections.
If there is a Trump loss that doesn't hinge on Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court may also decline to hear his case. As a rule, the court is reluctant to decide issues unless it has to.
More Trump legal challenges in North Carolina, Georgia and Michigan are involving the courts in this election. But this litigation won't be able to reverse a decisive, multi-state Electoral College win.
Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of Memphis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-11-05--'This isn't going to happen': Top GOP operative throws cold water on Trump's claims of 'voter fraud'

As President Donald Trump and his allies desperately try to push the narrative that the election that 's slipping away from him is actually being stolen via voter fraud , a longstanding top operative in the Republican Party threw cold water on the suggestion .
Karl Rove , the former adviser to George W. Bush , wrote a blog post on Thursday describing the state of the race .
His overall analysis seemed to generally match the consensus view of election analysts at the time — votes in key swing states remain outstanding , but results look increasingly favorable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly lay out that Trump is on a track to lose .
He even put a negative spin on his analysis for Biden , arguing that his campaign did nothing to lift up down-ballot Democrats .
But in one notable paragraph , he sharply broke with the president and his allies who are concocting baseless claims about voter fraud to cast doubt on the results and drum up legal challenges to the process .
The level of voter fraud needed to turn the election around for Trump , Rove explained , is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the spectrum who believe widespread election fraud is possible .
Some hanky-panky always goes on , and there are already reports of poll watchers in Philadelphia not being allowed to do their jobs .
But stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require a conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie .
That is n't going to happen .
Though Democrats have been worried about reports that the post office — deliberately or otherwise — delayed delivery of a substantial number of mail-in ballots , they have n't been making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final election .
Those claims are coming from the Trump camp — which strongly suggests they think they 're losing .
It 's notable that Rove , of all people , is n't on board for this gambit .
`` Karl Rove is an expert on fake voter fraud scandals , '' said HuffPost reporter Arthur Delaney .
`` He was involved in firing US Attorneys for not prosecuting bogus voter fraud cases , a disgrace that led to the resignation of the Attorney General . ''

As President Donald Trump and his allies desperately try to push the narrative that the election that's slipping away from him is actually being stolen via voter fraud, a longstanding top operative in the Republican Party threw cold water on the suggestion.
Karl Rove, the former adviser to George W. Bush, wrote a blog post on Thursday describing the state of the race. His overall analysis seemed to generally match the consensus view of election analysts at the time — votes in key swing states remain outstanding, but results look increasingly favorable for Joe Biden — though he didn't explicitly lay out that Trump is on a track to lose. He even put a negative spin on his analysis for Biden, arguing that his campaign did nothing to lift up down-ballot Democrats.
But in one notable paragraph, he sharply broke with the president and his allies who are concocting baseless claims about voter fraud to cast doubt on the results and drum up legal challenges to the process.
The level of voter fraud needed to turn the election around for Trump, Rove explained, is just not plausible:
There are suspicious partisans across the spectrum who believe widespread election fraud is possible. Some hanky-panky always goes on, and there are already reports of poll watchers in Philadelphia not being allowed to do their jobs. But stealing hundreds of thousands of votes would require a conspiracy on the scale of a James Bond movie. That isn't going to happen.
Though Democrats have been worried about reports that the post office — deliberately or otherwise — delayed delivery of a substantial number of mail-in ballots, they haven't been making sweeping claims about fraud that would undermine the final election.
Those claims are coming from the Trump camp — which strongly suggests they think they're losing. It's notable that Rove, of all people, isn't on board for this gambit.
"Karl Rove is an expert on fake voter fraud scandals," said HuffPost reporter Arthur Delaney. "He was involved in firing US Attorneys for not prosecuting bogus voter fraud cases, a disgrace that led to the resignation of the Attorney General."


alternet--2020-11-05--Why capitalism was destined to come out on top in the 2020 election

No matter who `` won '' the U.S. election , what will not change is the capitalist organization of the country 's economy .
The great majority of enterprises will continue to be owned and operated by a small minority of Americans .
They will continue to use their positions atop the capitalist system to expand their wealth , `` economize their labor costs , '' and thereby deepen the United States ' inequalities of wealth and income .
The employer class will continue to use its wealth to buy , control , and shape the nation 's politics to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ownership and operation of the economic system .
Indeed , for a very long time , they have made sure that ( 1 ) only two political parties dominate the government and ( 2 ) both enthusiastically commit to preserving and supporting the capitalist system .
For capitalism , the question of which party wins matters only to how capitalism will be supported , not whether that support will be a top governmental priority .
No matter who won , the private sector and the government will continue their shared failure to overcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crashes ( `` downturns , '' `` busts , '' `` recessions , '' and `` depressions '' ) will continue to occur on average every four to seven years , disrupting our economy and society .
Already in this young century , we have endured , across Republicans and Democrats , three crashes ( 2000 , 2008 , and 2020 ) in 20 years : true to the historic average .
Nothing capitalism tried in the past ever stopped or overcame its instability .
Nothing either party now proposes offers the slightest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No matter who won , the historic undoing of the New Deal after 1945 will continue .
The GOP and Democrats will both keep reversing the 1930s ' reduction of U.S. wealth and income inequalities ( forced from below by the Congress of Industrial Organizations [ CIO ] , socialists , and communists ) .
As usual , the GOP reverses these gains for Americans further and faster than Democrats , but both parties have condoned and managed the upward redistribution of wealth and income since 1945 .
The GOP will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavishly .
The Democrats will likely moan occasionally about inequality while serving the wealthy quietly or implicitly .
The GOP will `` economize on government costs '' by cutting social programs for average people and the poor .
The Democrats will expand those programs while carefully avoiding any questioning , let alone challenging , of capitalism .
No matter who won , what U.S. politics lacks is real choice .
Both major parties function as cheerleaders for capitalism under all circumstances , even when a killer pandemic coincides with a major capitalist crash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party that criticizes capitalism and offers a path toward social transition beyond capitalism .
Countless polls prove that millions of U.S. citizens want to consider socialist criticisms of capitalism and socialist alternatives to it .
The mass of voters for Bernie Sanders , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , and other socialists provided yet more evidence .
However , the system allowed and enabled a near-fascistic right wing to take over the GOP and the presidency .
At the same time , it aided and abetted the Democrats in excluding a socialist from even running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-standing , well-known cheerleaders for capitalism .
Sanders was , in contrast , a critic .
A new political party that offered systemic criticisms of capitalism and advocated for a transition to a worker-coop based economic system would bring real choice into U.S. politics .
It would place before the electorate a basic question of vital importance : what mix of capitalist and worker-coop organized enterprises do you wish to work for , buy from , and live with in the United States ?
Voters could thereby genuinely participate in deciding the range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us will become able to choose .
Will we mostly have to accept positions as employees whose jobs are designed exclusively by and for employers ?
Or will all job descriptions include at least two basic tasks : a specific function within an enterprise 's division of labor plus an equal share ( alongside all other enterprise workers ) of the powers to design and direct the enterprise as a whole ?
Any community that wishes to call itself a `` democracy '' for more than rhetorical , self-promotional reasons should welcome a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work is organized .
Most adults spend most of their lives at work .
How that work is organized shapes how their lives are lived and what skills , aptitudes , appetites , and relationships they develop .
Their work influences their other social roles as friends , lovers , spouses , and parents .
In capitalism , the work experience of the vast majority ( employees ) is shaped and controlled by a small minority ( employers ) to secure the latter 's profit , wealth accumulation , and reproduction as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy , the economy would have to be democratically reorganized .
Workplace decisions would be made on the basis of one person , one vote inside each enterprise .
Parallel , similarly democratic decision-making would govern residential communities surrounding and interacting with workplaces .
Workplace and residential democracies would have significant influences over one another 's decisions .
In short , genuine economic democracy would be the necessary partner to political democracy .
Many `` capitalist '' societies today include significant sites of enterprises organized as worker cooperatives .
What they need but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislation , legal precedents , and administrative decisions to protect worker coops and facilitate their growth .
Early capitalist enterprises and enclaves within feudalism likewise had to find or build political parties for the same reasons .
Anti-feudal and pro-capitalist parties contested with feudal lords and their monarchs first to protect capitalist enterprises ' existence and then to facilitate their growth .
Eventually , pro-capitalist parties undertook revolutions to displace feudalism and monarchies in favor of parliaments in which those capitalist parties could and did dominate .
Today , pro-capitalist parties publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominance is threatened .
Mass disaffection from capitalism is growing .
One reason is the relocation of capitalism 's growth from its old centers ( Western Europe , North America , and Japan ) to new centers ( China , India , and Brazil ) .
Globalization—the polite but confused term for that relocation—generates economic declines in the old centers that destabilize communities unable to admit let alone prepare for them .
There , vanishing job opportunities , incomes , and social services provoke increasing questions and challenges confronting capitalism .
These are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the capitalist system .
Polls and other signs of that disaffection abound .
In the United States , on the one hand , the Republican Party lurched to the right .
Trump-type quasi-fascism wants to impose a nationalist turn to `` save '' U.S. capitalism .
On the other hand , the old , pro-capitalist establishment running the Democratic Party blocked Bernie Sanders and other socialists from any real power or voice .
Saving capitalism was and also remains that establishment 's goal .
Capitalism eventually defeated and displaced feudalism by combining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with macro-focused political parties finding ways to protect those enterprises and facilitate their growth .
Capitalists ' profits funded their parties ' activities .
Socialism will defeat and displace capitalism by a parallel combination of expanding worker coops and a political party using government to protect them and facilitate their growth .
The worker coops ' net revenues will finance their parties ' activities .
The emergence of politically significant socialist parties is well underway in the United States .
Besides the small remainders of past socialist parties , Occupy Wall Street , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Socialists of America , the two Sanders campaigns , and the rise of other socialist politicians such as Ocasio-Cortez are all signs of socialist renewal .
But those signs also reveal a huge remaining problem : disorganization on the left .
The social movements , labor unions , and the new socialist initiatives need to coalesce into a broad , new socialist party .
If that party could also become the political voice of a growing worker-coop sector of the economy , many key conditions for a transition beyond capitalism will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts , Amherst , and a visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University , in New York .
Wolff 's weekly show , `` Economic Update , '' is syndicated by more than 100 radio stations and goes to 55 million TV receivers via Free Speech TV .
His three recent books with Democracy at Work are The Sickness Is the System : When Capitalism Fails to Save Us From Pandemics or Itself , Understanding Marxism , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Economy for All , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

No matter who "won" the U.S. election, what will not change is the capitalist organization of the country's economy.
The great majority of enterprises will continue to be owned and operated by a small minority of Americans. They will continue to use their positions atop the capitalist system to expand their wealth, "economize their labor costs," and thereby deepen the United States' inequalities of wealth and income.
The employer class will continue to use its wealth to buy, control, and shape the nation's politics to prevent the employee class from challenging their ownership and operation of the economic system. Indeed, for a very long time, they have made sure that (1) only two political parties dominate the government and (2) both enthusiastically commit to preserving and supporting the capitalist system. For capitalism, the question of which party wins matters only to how capitalism will be supported, not whether that support will be a top governmental priority.
No matter who won, the private sector and the government will continue their shared failure to overcome capitalism's socially destructive instability. Economic crashes ("downturns," "busts," "recessions," and "depressions") will continue to occur on average every four to seven years, disrupting our economy and society. Already in this young century, we have endured, across Republicans and Democrats, three crashes (2000, 2008, and 2020) in 20 years: true to the historic average. Nothing capitalism tried in the past ever stopped or overcame its instability. Nothing either party now proposes offers the slightest chance of doing that in the future.
No matter who won, the historic undoing of the New Deal after 1945 will continue. The GOP and Democrats will both keep reversing the 1930s' reduction of U.S. wealth and income inequalities (forced from below by the Congress of Industrial Organizations [CIO], socialists, and communists). As usual, the GOP reverses these gains for Americans further and faster than Democrats, but both parties have condoned and managed the upward redistribution of wealth and income since 1945.
The GOP will likely celebrate explicitly the wealthy they serve so slavishly. The Democrats will likely moan occasionally about inequality while serving the wealthy quietly or implicitly. The GOP will "economize on government costs" by cutting social programs for average people and the poor. The Democrats will expand those programs while carefully avoiding any questioning, let alone challenging, of capitalism.
No matter who won, what U.S. politics lacks is real choice. Both major parties function as cheerleaders for capitalism under all circumstances, even when a killer pandemic coincides with a major capitalist crash. Real political choice would require a party that criticizes capitalism and offers a path toward social transition beyond capitalism. Countless polls prove that millions of U.S. citizens want to consider socialist criticisms of capitalism and socialist alternatives to it. The mass of voters for Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other socialists provided yet more evidence. However, the system allowed and enabled a near-fascistic right wing to take over the GOP and the presidency. At the same time, it aided and abetted the Democrats in excluding a socialist from even running for that presidency. Trump and Biden are long-standing, well-known cheerleaders for capitalism. Sanders was, in contrast, a critic.
A new political party that offered systemic criticisms of capitalism and advocated for a transition to a worker-coop based economic system would bring real choice into U.S. politics. It would place before the electorate a basic question of vital importance: what mix of capitalist and worker-coop organized enterprises do you wish to work for, buy from, and live with in the United States? Voters could thereby genuinely participate in deciding the range of job descriptions from which each of us will become able to choose. Will we mostly have to accept positions as employees whose jobs are designed exclusively by and for employers? Or will all job descriptions include at least two basic tasks: a specific function within an enterprise's division of labor plus an equal share (alongside all other enterprise workers) of the powers to design and direct the enterprise as a whole?
Any community that wishes to call itself a "democracy" for more than rhetorical, self-promotional reasons should welcome a one-person, one-vote decision-making process governing how work is organized.
Most adults spend most of their lives at work. How that work is organized shapes how their lives are lived and what skills, aptitudes, appetites, and relationships they develop. Their work influences their other social roles as friends, lovers, spouses, and parents. In capitalism, the work experience of the vast majority (employees) is shaped and controlled by a small minority (employers) to secure the latter's profit, wealth accumulation, and reproduction as the socially dominant minority. In a real democracy, the economy would have to be democratically reorganized. Workplace decisions would be made on the basis of one person, one vote inside each enterprise. Parallel, similarly democratic decision-making would govern residential communities surrounding and interacting with workplaces. Workplace and residential democracies would have significant influences over one another's decisions. In short, genuine economic democracy would be the necessary partner to political democracy.
Many "capitalist" societies today include significant sites of enterprises organized as worker cooperatives. What they need but lack are allied political parties to secure the legislation, legal precedents, and administrative decisions to protect worker coops and facilitate their growth. Early capitalist enterprises and enclaves within feudalism likewise had to find or build political parties for the same reasons. Anti-feudal and pro-capitalist parties contested with feudal lords and their monarchs first to protect capitalist enterprises' existence and then to facilitate their growth. Eventually, pro-capitalist parties undertook revolutions to displace feudalism and monarchies in favor of parliaments in which those capitalist parties could and did dominate.
Today, pro-capitalist parties publicly deny but privately fear that their political dominance is threatened. Mass disaffection from capitalism is growing. One reason is the relocation of capitalism's growth from its old centers (Western Europe, North America, and Japan) to new centers (China, India, and Brazil). Globalization—the polite but confused term for that relocation—generates economic declines in the old centers that destabilize communities unable to admit let alone prepare for them. There, vanishing job opportunities, incomes, and social services provoke increasing questions and challenges confronting capitalism. These are now leading to broad and growing disaffection from the capitalist system. Polls and other signs of that disaffection abound. In the United States, on the one hand, the Republican Party lurched to the right. Trump-type quasi-fascism wants to impose a nationalist turn to "save" U.S. capitalism. On the other hand, the old, pro-capitalist establishment running the Democratic Party blocked Bernie Sanders and other socialists from any real power or voice. Saving capitalism was and also remains that establishment's goal.
Capitalism eventually defeated and displaced feudalism by combining micro-level construction and expansion of capitalist enterprises with macro-focused political parties finding ways to protect those enterprises and facilitate their growth. Capitalists' profits funded their parties' activities. Socialism will defeat and displace capitalism by a parallel combination of expanding worker coops and a political party using government to protect them and facilitate their growth. The worker coops' net revenues will finance their parties' activities.
The emergence of politically significant socialist parties is well underway in the United States. Besides the small remainders of past socialist parties, Occupy Wall Street, the recent growth and prominence of the Democratic Socialists of America, the two Sanders campaigns, and the rise of other socialist politicians such as Ocasio-Cortez are all signs of socialist renewal. But those signs also reveal a huge remaining problem: disorganization on the left. The social movements, labor unions, and the new socialist initiatives need to coalesce into a broad, new socialist party. If that party could also become the political voice of a growing worker-coop sector of the economy, many key conditions for a transition beyond capitalism will have been achieved.
Richard D. Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, in New York. Wolff's weekly show, "Economic Update," is syndicated by more than 100 radio stations and goes to 55 million TV receivers via Free Speech TV. His three recent books with Democracy at Work are The Sickness Is the System: When Capitalism Fails to Save Us From Pandemics or Itself, Understanding Marxism, and Understanding Socialism.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


alternet--2020-11-05--Trump's clownish coup attempt appears to be backfiring

Caveat : As I 'm writing this on Thursday morning , I do n't know how this election will end .
Joe Biden could be declared the winner today — but there remains a chance that Donald Trump can pull this out thanks to traditional Republican methods of vote suppression , rather than his ham-fisted coup attempt .
On Wednesday afternoon , word went out on social media : A group of MAGA yahoos were outside the Philadelphia Convention Center .
They were there to offer backdrop to Rudy Giuliani , Eric Trump and other members of Trump 's reality-TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been flown in to give speeches echoing Trump 's demands that the vote-counting happening inside be halted — not for any vaguely legitimate legal reason , but simply because he likes the numbers where they are .
But the plan hit a snag : The good people of Philadelphia , who also know how to read a press release and were not interested in letting the second-born failson and a martini-soaked former Lifelock spokesman do a photo-op menacing the dutiful election officials who are just trying to count the votes .
A crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Count every vote ! ''
Eric and company turned tail and ran to their safe space , to give their dumb speeches outside the charter plane section of the Philadelphia airport . '
In all the post-election chaos , that incident did n't really register on the national news , but on the ground here in Philly , it felt like a perfect distillation of how Trump 's attempted coup is going : About as well Pinky and the Brain 's various schemes to take over the world .
It turns out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depose democracy are — shall we say ?
— underdeveloped .
His main weapons appear to be whining and making comically obtuse proclamations on Twitter , in the vain hope that someone mistakes them for law .
It started at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday , when Trump , reportedly against the advice of his campaign team , gave a speech baselessly declaring the election a `` fraud '' and declaring himself the winner .
It did n't take , resulting in a whole lot of online mockery and every reputable news source — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of those !
— informing America that none of it was true .
So he kept at it on Twitter , letting loose a series of conspiracy theories that Twitter immediately put behind content warnings .
Apparently unclear on why democracy was n't ending simply on his say-so , Trump let loose with this partially-polished turd on Twitter : `` We have claimed , for Electoral Vote purposes , the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ( which wo n't allow legal observers ) the State of Georgia , and the State of North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BIG Trump lead .
Additionally , we hereby claim the State of Michigan , if , in fact , ... .. '' The result was another Twitter warning and the internet whiling away the hours dunking on President Hereby-Pants .
It 's been widely understood for weeks , if not months , that Trump intended to stage a coup the second it looked like he might not win this election , mostly because he kept bragging about his plans .
Many activists , politicians and journalists — including me — worried that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump has considerable advantages when it comes to pulling off a coup .
He has stocked the federal bureaucracy with cronies who were ready and eager to help him steal this election — including a postmaster general who barely bothers to hide that he 's trying to slow down the mail and an attorney general who has eagerly joined Trump 's efforts to delegitimize mail-in ballots .
Trump also has a Republican Senate that has so far backed his every play , no matter how corrupt or even criminal , to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state-level Republican politicians willing to pull all sorts of strings to help him .
( Which is one reason why Trump performed much better than expected in some states — voter suppression works . )
And he has a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court , one that is hostile to the very concept of voting rights .
To ice that particular cake , a number of those justices — including Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh — have made it clear they were willing to entertain ludicrous legal arguments to throw out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't get out of the way of all the people ready and willing to help him steal this election .
His stalwart belief that he knows better than the experts and that any problem can be met with more bluster and bullshit is , once again , breaking a system that , if he 'd just left it alone , might have actually worked for him .
This is how he kept failing at business .
Trump was basically handed a billion dollars in free cash — first by his father and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' — over the years .
He could have stuffed that money in a mutual fund , spent the rest of his life playing golf , and been rich beyond most people 's wildest imagination .
Instead , Trump insisted on burning through all that dough on a series of bad business decisions , putting him anywhere from $ 400 million to over $ 1 billion in debt .
Similarly , if Trump had reacted to the coronavirus by stepping aside and letting the medical experts , some of whom still exist in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it 's likely that the pandemic would be far better controlled .
He would have enjoyed a ratings boost that would have helped his re-election chances .
Instead , Trump meddled every step of the way : undermining testing , insinuating that the whole thing was a hoax to hurt him , mocking people who wear masks , encouraging people to ignore social distancing and pushing snake-oil `` miracle '' cures , and even one point , pondering whether injecting oneself with household cleaning products might be the magic bullet .
Thankfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affairs appears to be undermining his own efforts at a coup .
The original plan was clearly to cough up some dense legal language that made it sound as if there were legitimate constitutional concerns that counting all the votes would somehow imperil our electoral systems .
It would be total nonsense , of course , but the rebuttals would also come from lawyers talking legalese , causing most of the public to view the whole thing as an impenetrable legal dispute rather than an outright assault on democracy .
Instead , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : That would seem to undercut any plausible deniability that this is about anything but Trump 's belief that the only votes that should count are votes for him .
Even the biggest right-wing hacks in the judiciary like to keep up the pretense of being honest actors , and Trump chips away at that every time his stubby fingers grapple with the Twitter app .
Even the biggest doofuses out there are struggling to pretend there 's some legitimate argument behind Trump 's whining .
Which explains how the pro-Trump protests so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the clown car : This is n't over , to be sure .
Trump still has a lot of powerful , intelligent and deeply evil people in his camp who have , at least until now , been shameless about saving this idiot from his own incompetence while running his corrupt schemes .
( See : Trump , Donald , impeachment trial of . )
But so far , Trump 's efforts to steal this election seem to be backfiring , in large part because he ca n't hold it together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legitimate argument .
His compulsive need to get in his own way and make everything worse for himself may end up saving our democracy .

Caveat: As I'm writing this on Thursday morning, I don't know how this election will end. Joe Biden could be declared the winner today — but there remains a chance that Donald Trump can pull this out thanks to traditional Republican methods of vote suppression, rather than his ham-fisted coup attempt.
On Wednesday afternoon, word went out on social media: A group of MAGA yahoos were outside the Philadelphia Convention Center. They were there to offer backdrop to Rudy Giuliani, Eric Trump and other members of Trump's reality-TV Oberkommando. The authoritarian Klown Korps had been flown in to give speeches echoing Trump's demands that the vote-counting happening inside be halted — not for any vaguely legitimate legal reason, but simply because he likes the numbers where they are.
But the plan hit a snag: The good people of Philadelphia, who also know how to read a press release and were not interested in letting the second-born failson and a martini-soaked former Lifelock spokesman do a photo-op menacing the dutiful election officials who are just trying to count the votes.
A crowd of protesters showed up, chanting "Count every vote!" Eric and company turned tail and ran to their safe space, to give their dumb speeches outside the charter plane section of the Philadelphia airport.'
In all the post-election chaos, that incident didn't really register on the national news, but on the ground here in Philly, it felt like a perfect distillation of how Trump's attempted coup is going: About as well Pinky and the Brain's various schemes to take over the world.
It turns out that President Bleach-Injector's ideas on how to depose democracy are — shall we say? — underdeveloped. His main weapons appear to be whining and making comically obtuse proclamations on Twitter, in the vain hope that someone mistakes them for law.
It started at 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday, when Trump, reportedly against the advice of his campaign team, gave a speech baselessly declaring the election a "fraud" and declaring himself the winner.
It didn't take, resulting in a whole lot of online mockery and every reputable news source — plus Fox News, which is not one of those! — informing America that none of it was true. So he kept at it on Twitter, letting loose a series of conspiracy theories that Twitter immediately put behind content warnings.
Apparently unclear on why democracy wasn't ending simply on his say-so, Trump let loose with this partially-polished turd on Twitter: "We have claimed, for Electoral Vote purposes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (which won't allow legal observers) the State of Georgia, and the State of North Carolina, each one of which has a BIG Trump lead. Additionally, we hereby claim the State of Michigan, if, in fact,....."
The result was another Twitter warning and the internet whiling away the hours dunking on President Hereby-Pants.
It's been widely understood for weeks, if not months, that Trump intended to stage a coup the second it looked like he might not win this election, mostly because he kept bragging about his plans. Many activists, politicians and journalists — including me — worried that he might pull it off.
After all, Trump has considerable advantages when it comes to pulling off a coup. He has stocked the federal bureaucracy with cronies who were ready and eager to help him steal this election — including a postmaster general who barely bothers to hide that he's trying to slow down the mail and an attorney general who has eagerly joined Trump's efforts to delegitimize mail-in ballots. Trump also has a Republican Senate that has so far backed his every play, no matter how corrupt or even criminal, to hold on to power. He has hundreds of state-level Republican politicians willing to pull all sorts of strings to help him. (Which is one reason why Trump performed much better than expected in some states — voter suppression works.) And he has a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, one that is hostile to the very concept of voting rights. To ice that particular cake, a number of those justices — including Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh — have made it clear they were willing to entertain ludicrous legal arguments to throw out legitimate ballots.
But Trump just can't get out of the way of all the people ready and willing to help him steal this election. His stalwart belief that he knows better than the experts and that any problem can be met with more bluster and bullshit is, once again, breaking a system that, if he'd just left it alone, might have actually worked for him.
This is how he kept failing at business. Trump was basically handed a billion dollars in free cash — first by his father and then through his time on "The Apprentice" — over the years. He could have stuffed that money in a mutual fund, spent the rest of his life playing golf, and been rich beyond most people's wildest imagination. Instead, Trump insisted on burning through all that dough on a series of bad business decisions, putting him anywhere from $400 million to over $1 billion in debt.
Similarly, if Trump had reacted to the coronavirus by stepping aside and letting the medical experts, some of whom still exist in the federal government, do their jobs, it's likely that the pandemic would be far better controlled. He would have enjoyed a ratings boost that would have helped his re-election chances. Instead, Trump meddled every step of the way: undermining testing, insinuating that the whole thing was a hoax to hurt him, mocking people who wear masks, encouraging people to ignore social distancing and pushing snake-oil "miracle" cures, and even one point, pondering whether injecting oneself with household cleaning products might be the magic bullet.
Thankfully, Trump's insistence on mismanaging his affairs appears to be undermining his own efforts at a coup. The original plan was clearly to cough up some dense legal language that made it sound as if there were legitimate constitutional concerns that counting all the votes would somehow imperil our electoral systems. It would be total nonsense, of course, but the rebuttals would also come from lawyers talking legalese, causing most of the public to view the whole thing as an impenetrable legal dispute rather than an outright assault on democracy.
Instead, Trump is out there tweeting stuff like this:
That would seem to undercut any plausible deniability that this is about anything but Trump's belief that the only votes that should count are votes for him. Even the biggest right-wing hacks in the judiciary like to keep up the pretense of being honest actors, and Trump chips away at that every time his stubby fingers grapple with the Twitter app.
Even the biggest doofuses out there are struggling to pretend there's some legitimate argument behind Trump's whining. Which explains how the pro-Trump protests so far seem like they got dumped directly out of the clown car:
This isn't over, to be sure. Trump still has a lot of powerful, intelligent and deeply evil people in his camp who have, at least until now, been shameless about saving this idiot from his own incompetence while running his corrupt schemes. (See: Trump, Donald, impeachment trial of.) But so far, Trump's efforts to steal this election seem to be backfiring, in large part because he can't hold it together well enough even to pretend he has a legitimate argument. His compulsive need to get in his own way and make everything worse for himself may end up saving our democracy.