Those are all factors, and brainwashing is also a problem. But beyond that, Trumpism is to a certain extent the logical conclusion of the American culture. He represents a perverted yet unabashed and clear representation of the American Dream - at least the illusion of Trump does.

The me-first thinking, the worship of capitalism, the shameless revelry in gaudy displays of tasteless wealth - it’s all there. It’s completely unsurprising to me that someone like him would appeal to a lot of Americans. There are a lot of people who idolise and wish they themselves could be like the image he projects.

Compounded, I’m sure, by an often full diaper. Must be quite the bouquet.

Which is an extremely important distinction. “I’m sorry you were offended” is not a true apology, and everyone should be aware of this whether regarding Trump or other bullies you may encounter in your life.

Reminder that he is a malignant narcissist, and is biologically incapable of accepting blame, responsibility or personal faults. As per the Narcissist’s Prayer:

That didn’t happen.

And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

And if it is, that’s not my fault.

And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did, you deserved it.

I think you’re giving Trump too much credit. This comment sums it up succinctly, but I sincerely believe Trump is not capable of thinking about the future. He only brought up the cats and dogs because he thought it was his best anti-immigrant fear-mongering line available at the time.

I won the debate, but the only reason I lost was she cheated!

Betteridge’s Law strikes again.

So we’re now at the “black people cause disease” stage, I see. Are we allowed to call upon the Nazi Germany parallells yet, or is that still “extreme and exaggerated rhetoric”?

I would call it a mix of sealioning and concern trolling. Also be mindful of direct accusations as this person also enjoys reporting people for the slightest perceived rules infractions.

Could be suspicious activity for sure, but then again think about it this way: what better time and angle of attack to choose if you’re looking to get people on the internet riled up?

I have to be extremely careful with my words here since calling someone a troll is against the rules, and the user has also shown he’s very happy to report even the slightest perceived rules violation.

I think the agenda hypothesis is possible, but I’m getting more and more convinced he’s doing what he is doing because it gives him some sort of pleasure. I think he enjoys getting people to argue with him. I think he enjoys knowingly dancing around the letter of the law whilst ignoring its spirit - gleefully reminding others to “please be civil”. I think he enjoys getting others to lash out and subsequently reporting them.

That’s what I think their motivation is.

As I said yesterday, I can’t believe he is not banned yet. Repeatedly claiming that he doesn’t care about the spoiler effect because he “doesn’t believe in it” and copy-pasting long (often unrelated) walls of text at people verbatim sounds to me like multiple violations of the “good faith discussion” rule.

Like the Lincoln Project said, who’d have thought it was actually Donald Trump who brought us all together?

His policies are obviously great, we all know this. But you can’t go into a hostile environment like a Fox News Town Hall and completely dominate proceedings on policy alone.

Bernie can control a room on power of pure charisma, force of personality and personal authority in a way few people are capable of. Just watch his Fox News town hall.

I don’t much have an issue with the material they chose to post - the nature of a link aggregator will sort them to the bottom regardless due how how voting works and as you say, they’re legitimate sources.

My issue is more regarding their conduct in the comment sections.

Genuine question: why has he not been banned? To me he seems to repeatedly violate the rule about arguing in good faith, and - to be honest - his passive aggressive civility feels at times more hostile than straight up attacks.

“I don’t know that I would characterize it as [an] active, recruited, knowing asset in the way that people in the intelligence community think of that term," McCabe said. "But I do think that Donald Trump has given us many reasons to question his approach to the Russia problem in the United States, and I think his approach to interacting with Vladimir Putin, be it phone calls, face-to-face meetings, the things that he has said in public about Putin, all raise significant questions.”

“You have to have some very serious questions about, why is it that Donald Trump … has this fawning sort of admiration for Vladimir Putin in a way that no other American president, Republican or Democrat, ever has"

He is obviously not a recruited asset, but I think it’s fair to say he is so dense, dumb, self-unaware and transparently susceptible to simple flattery that he is almost having the same impact as one in practice.

Very astute observation. I think the only thing I disagree with is that I personally think the media do to a large extent directly dictate viewers judgements. Which makes the rest of your points even more salient.

Would not object. It’s been a good run, Donald.