Democrat Primary Candidate Quiz

[_EAllusion]

I meant in terms of demagogic tendencies.

Another thing that I see echos of Trump in Sanders is that Sanders has a toxic, bullying group of online followers that Sanders must know about, but doesn't do a lot to disavow. He doesn't seem to mind having these enforcers on his side. It's not that every Sanders supporter is a jerk, but Sanders is fairly unique among Democrats for having this organized, extremely online crowd be aggressive idiots on his behalf. Even more than Yang, he also seems to be a draw for the "alt-light" crowd that isn't conservative, but retains the more obnoxious elements of that sub-culture. If you are into Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris and are kind of a dick, but cannot abide Trump, there's a good chance you are backing Sanders. That is, unless you are into the hard stuff, in which case you're probably stanning Tulsi Gabbard.

[_DoubtingThomas]

If you are into Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris and are kind of a dick, but cannot abide Trump, there's a good chance you are backing Sanders.

I like Sam Harris, but I am not a dick.

bullying group of online followers that Sanders must know about.

Oh wow! Can you give us some links?

extremely online crowd be aggressive idiots on his behalf.

Most of them do not make nasty and personal, racist, or sexist attacks. Sanders followers are just young people that are struggling in life. You are grossly stereotyping. I thought you hated stereotypes.

Another thing that I see echos of Trump in Sanders is that Sanders has a toxic, bullying group of online followers that Sanders must know about.

It can't be more toxic than The Terrestrial Forum of this board. Show us some links please.

[_EAllusion]

Man, Bloomberg is trying to straight up buy the election and it is sort of working. That's concerning.

Upgrade this post to one step up from "sort of." Adjust the concern level accordingly.

[_MeDotOrg]

Suggested campaign slogan for both sides if Bloomberg is the candidate: Our billionaire will hurt you less than their billionaire.

[_EAllusion]

Bloomberg is awful, sure, but what really is raising my eyebrow is that he isn't anywhere near the median Democrat in his views and actions. If he's successful, it's the most obvious case of buying a Presidential nomination I can think of.

Wealthy people have a tremendous influence on election outcomes, but they actually spend a tiny fraction of their total wealth on politics. It's always fascinated me how cheap US elections are compared to the wealth on Forbes lists. What Bloomberg is doing has no equivalent in modern US politics. Trump may have been wealthy, but all the evidence suggests that Republicans filled his coffers rather than the other way around. If Bloomberg is able to demonstrate that it is possible to straight buy an election like this, it might encourage imitators to negative effect.

I've long marveled at the idea that idea that Bill Gates could spend one year of his annual increase in wealth on local legislative races and have a massive influence on the direction of the country for generations. We've been seeing some gradual change on this front recently, and nothing good will come of that if we somehow pull through the authoritarian movement in full force on the right.

[_EAllusion]

Speaking of which, I've noticed recently a huge influx of obnoxious pro-Bloomberg trolling in the comments of basically any negative story about Bloomberg in any online medium I look. The main theme seems to be to portray him as an inevitable nominee and therefore opposition to him is a pro-Trump betrayal. That seems like a paid influence operation underway.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Speaking of which, I've noticed recently a huge influx of obnoxious pro-Bloomberg trolling in the comments of basically any negative story about Bloomberg in any online medium I look. The main theme seems to be to portray him as an inevitable nominee and therefore opposition to him is a pro-Trump betrayal. That seems like a paid influence operation underway.

I mean that's not even an open secret. He's hired the equivalent of a Russian troll farm to combat Trump and his coterie of online influencers. Being a bit less cynical, I think it's just competitors trying to figure out the political landscape in 2016 forward. How can one win in this era of interconnectivity? How can one win when each individual is exposed to, probably, no less than half a dozen social media apparatuses, television, and whatever else I'm not thinking of in the moment. Being more cynical, the natural result of an asshole like Trump is an equally assholish competitor must rise and fight it out.



I think one of the reasons why Sanders was so popular in 2016 is because he's pugnacious, and 'spits fire, throws shade, and tells it like it is'. That's where we're at since the last primaries, and instead the DNC decided to rig the process and nominate someone who looked impotent in the face of a damned neanderthal... WHICH IS WHAT WORKED. Sadly.

Anyway. We'll see. The one upside for me is that Trump's election definitely cemented into fact that we're living in a simulation. I mean... c'mon.

- Doc