I read the links. I also went searching for more info on this. I don't see where Biden and Obama ordered her in particular to be chained to a chair. It's interesting framing though.

Much like Jeffery Epstein name drops the Trump references are omitted in right wing media I see the same is occurring with Trump here again when it comes to Jill Stein.

In the search for Biden ordering Jill Stein to be chained to a chair, I found there was mention that Stein hoped Trump would allow her onstage to debate in 2016 with Hillary calling back to when Regan did for a 3rd party candidate, well sort of.

The 3rd party candidate that ran against Regan that year was also not allowed in the main presidental debate due to a lack of numbers too, so towards the end of the election Regan did have an extra separate debate with this 3rd party candidate. I suspect it was a good PR move for Regan at the time. I don't see how this would not be a calculated move in a national election campaign.

So in the above post I don't also see mentioned is Trump's role in the 2016 election to not help Stein secure a place in the debate with Hillary. With hindsight of what happened this year with the GOP debates where Trump wasn't even apart of these debates, it turned out to be foolish to expect Trump to help Stein to get on stage back in 2016.

What's more interesting from the Wiki link posted above, Trump was involved in shutting down election recount efforts by Stein after the 2016 election with the issues brought up by computer scientists for 3 states. There would be later controversy over funding raised for the recount efforts. Where did the money go?

2016 presidential election recount fundraising

In November 2016, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers including J. Alex Halderman and John Bonifaz (founder of the National Voting Rights Institute) expressed concerns about the integrity of the presidential election results. They wanted a full audit or recount of the presidential election votes in three states key to Donald Trump's electoral college win—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—but needed a candidate on the presidential ballot to file the petition to state authorities. After unsuccessfully lobbying Hillary Clinton and her team, the group approached Stein and she agreed to spearhead the recount effort.[74]

A crowdfunding campaign launched on November 24, 2016, to support the costs of the recount, raised more than $2.5 million in under 24 hours,[75] and $6.7 million in nearly a week.[76] On November 25, 2016, with 90 minutes remaining on the deadline to petition for a recount to Wisconsin's electoral body, Stein filed for a recount of its presidential election results. She signaled she intended to file for similar recounts in the subsequent days in Michigan and Pennsylvania.[77]

President-elect Donald Trump issued a statement denouncing the recount request saying, "The people have spoken and the election is over." Trump further commented that the recount "is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded."[78]

On December 2, 2016, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit to stop Stein's recount.[79] On the same day in Wisconsin a U.S. District Judge denied an emergency halt to the recount, allowing it to continue until a December 9, 2016, hearing.[80] On December 3, 2016, Stein dropped the state recount case in Pennsylvania, citing "the barriers to verifying the vote in Pennsylvania are so pervasive and that the state court system is so ill-equipped to address this problem that we must seek federal court intervention."[81]

Shortly after midnight on December 5, 2016, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith ordered Michigan election officials to hand-recount 4.8 million ballots, rejecting all concerns for the cost of the recount. Goldsmith wrote in his order: "As emphasized earlier, budgetary concerns are not sufficiently significant to risk the disenfranchisement of Michigan's nearly 5 million voters".[82] Meanwhile, however, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that Stein, who placed fourth, had no chance of winning and was not an "aggrieved candidate" and ordered the Michigan election board to reject her petition for a recount.[83] On December 7, 2016, Judge Goldsmith halted the Michigan recount.[84] Stein filed an appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, losing her appeal in a 3–2 decision on December 9, 2016.[85]

On December 12, 2016, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond rejected Stein's request for a Pennsylvania recount.[86]

In May 2018, The Daily Beast reported that approximately $1 million of the original $7.3 million had yet to be spent and that there remained uncertainty about what precisely the money had been spent on

It's interesting to me as there has been more than a few reports over the years of fundraising issues for Trump and where did the money go? Why were funds spent on personal items and payoffs to Pornstars not to mention various legal fees?

I did find on Jill Stein's FB post about not being allowed into the debate, there was a FB commenter asking why should she be allowed in the national debate when the 15 percent theshold hasn't been met? That means Roseanne Barr should also be allowed into the debate along with a few others that were campaigning too with miniscule numbers.

None of these points will land with the right people but it is interesting the framing we all can look at things with. It really speaks to the limits of the human brain to process all of the modern inputs and the shear volume of noise we are exposed to on a daily basis these days. With our phones the constant drip is non stop and we can't fact check most of it in real time. I've spent over an hour reading and searching for more info on this one point alone.

It also highlights the role of social media algorithms to focus and feed more concentrated but slightly different and similar material to keep users engaged. It pushes conspiracy materials quite easily and much like financial scammers the media companies can't keep up with filtering it.

I know there's plenty of blame pointed at social media due further polarization of all sides but I don't think it's to serve one party over another. It's really about making more money for socal media no matter the party. Some are just better than others at weaponizing these tools for their cause like the 2016 election, the Jan 6th insurrection, Brexit, Vice Presidents chaining debate candidates to chairs.

We all get to yell fake news or alternative facts. Now we just get to believe whatever made up things we like now, especially if it's repeated enough by us or others on social media.

One thing is for certain. There's going to be more violence this next time around. Be it for a loss or a win for either side. There is so much more than the Jan 6 crowds stirred up now. It won't matter who's been arrested, convicted, etc as we see today it doesn't matter already. The world has become too complicated and confusing for many and there will be simplification attempts made to clear all of this up once and for all. It won't help wth the anxieties many have but that doesn't matter.

I just really hope this hunch is wrong.