Alright, have a nice day dude.
If you really thought Trump was anti-establishment

You’re as stupid as his racist deplorable base

Alright, have a nice day dude.
Which candidate received more "establishment" endorsements, donations, and support in the 2016 Presidential election?If you really thought Trump was anti-establishment
You’re as stupid as his racist deplorable base![]()
And the goal posts CONTINUE to moveWhich candidate received more "establishment" endorsements, donations, and support in the 2016 Presidential election?
Which candidate received more "establishment" endorsements, donations, and support in the 2016 Presidential election?
![]()
Foresight about what, Trump's degeneracy? I never believed or stated he was some Man of Morals. And I'm far from alone, even on this very website, by being shocked by the sheer dysfunction and ineptitude of this administration. But I never thought this would be some smooth ride, part of what I hoped Trump would do would be to break shyt. Also I find that charge a bit funny as one of the only people here who foresaw the path through which Trump actually won the election, but that's neither here nor there and I'm not sure what this has to do with TNC anymore...
I believe your lack of foresight in Trump coincides with your views of TNC as well.![]()
Foresight about what, Trump's degeneracy? I never believed or stated he was some Man of Morals. And I'm far from alone, even on this very website, by being shocked by the sheer dysfunction and ineptitude of this administration. But I never thought this would be some smooth ride, part of what I hoped Trump would do would be to break shyt. Also I find that charge a bit funny as one of the only people here who foresaw the path through which Trump actually won the election, but that's neither here nor there and I'm not sure what this has to do with TNC anymore...
Despite that fact that even before the election, agents of said systemic power endorsed him?
Which candidate received more "establishment" endorsements, donations, and support in the 2016 Presidential election?
Are you seriously running with the narrative that in the 2016 election, Donald Trump was the establishment candidate? This is the hill you want to die on?Receiving less establishment endorsements doesn’t necessarily mean you’re antiestablishment, moron
Child’s logicNo wonder you supported Trump
Exhibit #3485384753845 of why you're a shytTY poster and a dumb fukkLiterally the first question you asked in this thread:
Literally the post you claim to be shifting goalposts:
I think you're either genuinely confused or trolling.
Elections are contextual, and of the two choices, he wasn't the one who represented the entrenched systemic power I am interested in seeing dismantled.
And then you responded with a horsehit filled post about Hillary fukking ClintonDespite that fact that even before the election, agents of said systemic power endorsed him?
If you believe I lack foresight, I don't know what you would call TNC stans who were shocked to the core by the election. But My views on TNC have more to do with my general distrust of white liberalism. I believe in radical emancipatory change, so of course I'm not going to be awed by TNC's milquetoast ruminations written for white liberals.I believe your lack of foresight in Trump coincides with your views of TNC as well.
ExodusNirvana, my love, do you know what an election is? It's when people and institutions make a choice between candidates they want to represent them and their interests. So if I say that of the candidates, I prefer the one not supported by and representing entrenched systemic powers, and you say that Donald Trump was that candidate endorsed by those agents, it is not "nonsense" or "horseshyt" to provide evidence showing you are incorrect, and that the other candidate was, in fact, more supported by those agents. It is, in fact, necessary context. Do you know why? Because the election was not Donald Trump in a vacuum. It was Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton. It's like if someone was forced to choose between eating shyt or drinking piss, and you choose drinking piss, and then someone asks you why you would drink piss, and then you say you didn't want to each shyt, and then they lose their mind and yell at you asking you why you are even bring up shyt.Exhibit #3485384753845 of why you're a shytTY poster and a dumb fukk
YOU SAID
I SAID
And then you responded with a horsehit filled post about Hillary fukking Clinton
COMPLETELY disregarding the point I made because you're either a stupid fukk (likely) or a troll (also likely) because Paul Ryan, Mitch Turtleface, Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT and ARE THE ENTRENCHED SYSTEMIC POWER
Get in the fukking coffinExodusNirvana, my love, do you know what an election is? It's when people and institutions make a choice between candidates they want to represent them and their interests. So if I say that of the candidates, I prefer the one not supported by and representing entrenched systemic powers, and you say that Donald Trump was that candidate endorsed by those agents, it is not "nonsense" or "horseshyt" to provide evidence showing you are incorrect, and that the other candidate was, in fact, more supported by those agents. It is, in fact, necessary context. Do you know why? Because the election was not Donald Trump in a vacuum. It was Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton. It's like if someone was forced to choose between eating shyt or drinking piss, and you choose drinking piss, and then someone asks you why you would drink piss, and then you say you didn't want to each shyt, and then they lose their mind and yell at you asking you why you are even bring up shyt.
Do you understand now?
ExodusNirvana, my love, do you know what an election is? It's when people and institutions make a choice between candidates they want to represent them and their interests. So if I say that of the candidates, I prefer the one not supported by and representing entrenched systemic powers, and you say that Donald Trump was that candidate endorsed by those agents, it is not "nonsense" or "horseshyt" to provide evidence showing you are incorrect, and that the other candidate was, in fact, more supported by those agents. It is, in fact, necessary context. Do you know why? Because the election was not Donald Trump in a vacuum. It was Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton. It's like if someone was forced to choose between eating shyt or drinking piss, and you choose drinking piss, and then someone asks you why you would drink piss, and then you say you didn't want to each shyt, and then they lose their mind and yell at you asking you why you are even bring up shyt.
Do you understand now?