Would be a good idea
1/8-baked thought.

Most people are reasonably steady and predictable in their tendencies, and we get more steady as we get older.

Social media gives us a chance to know candidates for political office, or candidates for major CEO positions, to an extent that isn't possible with staged nonsense like "debates" or "interviews".

Trump and Hillary started out with staged speeches that were NOT typical of their steady and normal temperaments. In Hillary's case we got to know her from the Guccifer leaks. In Trump's case we got to know him from his own open Twitter output.

Now we can judge the normal tendencies of both. Hillary's normal tendency is infinite criminality, vile blackmail, gangland viciousness, universal murder and omnicide. Trump's normal tendency is absolutely trivial and unimaginably meaningless pre-teen girlfights.

In fact we don't even need 140 characters for these creatures. Two words will do.

Hillary: KILL EVERYTHING.

Trump: MINE'S BIGGER.

Let's turn this backwards. Get rid of all the "debates" and "interviews". In theory a neutral computer could pick up one month of public and private social media output from all official candidates, from before the campaign started. For 2016, pick a month in 2013.

Show us the entire month's output from all candidates, with overly personal or libelous stuff redacted. If a candidate genuinely has no output, genuinely doesn't use social media, that would tell us even more than the content from the users. This candidate is the ONLY good leader.

If we had seen an equally selected and filtered set of output from all official candidates at the start of the campaign, we wouldn't have been surprised. No bait-n-switch possible.

Of course this wouldn't work in practice because there is no neutral. Every agency or NGO that could possibly run this job belongs to the Empire.


SOROS DELENDA EST.
  ¶ 3:34 PM