Oooh, 16

He thinks himself "one of the good ones". The dissonance is right up there with "the only moral abortion is my abortion".

Imagine you want to store your iPhone backups on Dropbox, Google drive, or whatever. They're just files, should be simple right? Well, since they lack the access/apis necessary to facilitate this, you're required to have icloud storage if you want phone backups. These include far more than just photos/etc. Idk how I feel about it other than the obvious "I think choice is healthy, apple is capable of designing system compatibility, and I would like to have more choice even if I'm not inclined to leverage it."

He's the richest man in the world. He's got private security likely on par with secret service I'd imagine.

Depends on the game. Apex, Riot, ubisoft, and EA all ban vm players. A list of other companies do as well.

Easy way to get yourself banned in online games just an FYI. Most online games will detect and ban virtual machines now since they've become commonplace in cheat/hack communities.

"Nobody prepared me for this."

Yes.

Also, anything that isn't ranked choice voting that allows people to specify an order of preference at time of vote is not good politics and is not going to, and shouldn't, sit well with progressives. Tit-for-tat is additionally an issue that many voters and progressives consider objectionable (source: exit polls). You can call it basic politics if you want, but if you're progressive you'll need to accept that it's going to continuously cause us to lose elections and bleed voter support. People are clearly tired of establishment politics. Trump has proven that twice. Running as an anti-establishment candidate both times and winning, both times.

That is simply not true. Stop spreading misinformation. In addition I did not claim they made the decision for each candidate. What they did was run a first-past-the-post cacus that allowed candidates with conflicting interests to allocate their political weight against a clearly popular candidate. If they'd done ranked choice voting from the start, it would not be an issue, instead they allowed candidates (like Bloomberg) to spend millions, gather significant support, and then cast that support to a vastly unpopular candidate. You're literally trying to argue Hillary was a good candidate with the best chance of winning but both polls, exit polls, and the caucus itself showed that not to be the case. Without the collaborative actions against Bernie by the other candidates allowed by the DNC Hillary would've never headlined the 2016 ticket.

Then you don't understand US politics.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the 2016 DNC cacus run. Absolutely ignorant.

Did they change the vote totals?:

Yes. Every running candidate next to Bernie pulled out, dedicating their votes to Clinton instead. It was blatant and out in the open. Hell, Bloomberg even "entered" the race late in caucusing and pulled out shortly after an insane ad spend dedicating his votes to Clinton as well. That's "putting their 👍 on the scale".