Too left for me policy-wise, but I've developed an interest in what he has to say.

I wonder sometimes if he had as big a profile as Bernie, whether he'd have been able to sell more people on far-left ideas. He just uses such a different political approach... scrubbed entirely of the the histrionics and negativity and he's a lot more chill and intellectual about it all. *Extremely* well versed in the research relevant to the left wing's causes etc. Plus he has proven executive strengths given the work he's put in to grow the GP so far and when he talks about it it's almost like... he's putting us on game or something *shrug* For eg. he went off in one speech about how prohibitive ballot access laws are in the US (compared to other electoral democracies) and how for a political party to actually grow in America a party basically *has* to run pres candidates just to establish ballot lines in states (to then run candidates for lower offices, etc.)

This is one interview of his I thought was a good listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PR94A5dR5E (part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ho3FqXI7gQ (part 2)

My favorite part is in part 2 when he talks about how pres debates really shouldn't be produced by corporate media, tying it back to how it reinforces the Dem-Repub duopoly. And also an interesting point about how US politics as a whole might even be less contentious/hyper-partisan if 3rd/fringe parties had bigger profiles because polarization develops easier in a duopolized system vs a multi-party.

edit: just read the article you linked. ewww @ RT. He gets a side-eye for that