Trump vs. Biden

[anticlimatic]

Could you elaborate. What do you mean tilt?

Are you asking to explore/vet it in conversation, or do you seriously not see it? Honest question.

 

[Jonny]

At 0:04 and the last 2 seconds of the video.

Its quite difficult to find livestreams with the actual count, as they were conveniently all taken down.

I appreciate your providing me with a video, though it's unfortunate that any timestamp is cutoff and it isn't a direct clip (rather, it's someone who decided to record their television screen at this exact moment for some reason). Unfortunately, I can't find the direct footage.

Here's what I found:

WATCH: Election results - PBS NewsHour special coverage - YouTube

7:06:09
Trump - 1,571,972
Biden - 1,213,796

7:23:15
Trump - 1,720,016 (+148,044)
Biden - 1,325,610 (+111,814)


2020 Election Night live coverage | NTD - YouTube

3:32:19
Trump - 1,081,776
Biden - 973,647

3:35:46
Trump - 2,119,202 (+1,037,426)
Biden - 1,732,066 (+758,419)


FOX NEWS -ELECTION NIGHT 2020 (10:00 P.M E.T-1:00 A.M E.T) (11-3-2020) - YouTube

49:44
Trump - 54.7%
Biden - 42.6%
40% reporting

55:39
Trump - 54.9%
Biden - 42.4%
42% reporting

1:01:56
Trump - 55.2%
Biden - 42.2%
44% reporting

These would have roughly taken place at similar times. In the second example, over the course of 3 minutes their numbers changed by over 1 million total votes. In the third example, while actual vote counts aren't shown, it roughly matches the percentages shown in the CNN results (reporting & candidate percentages).

This is a testament to how differently the votes counted in the states actually make their way to various news organizations. In other words, these numbers have no bearing on what is actually being counted and reported by the counties, only how each news organization enters that data into their systems and projects it to the public.

Let me know if you find direct footage.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you asking to explore/vet it in conversation, or do you seriously not see it? Honest question.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "tilt".

 

[Jonny]

Please explain to me how I am gaslighting. Walking away from a debate, is not gaslighting. Calling the Democratic leaders corrupt and evil, is not gaslighting. What is gaslighting, is calling Trump and Republicans corrupt and evil, then guilt tripping me and saying im the bad guy for calling establishment democrats corrupt and evil. Learn to tell the difference between gaslighting and cognitive dissonance.

Gaslighting - the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.

So, I witness the world around me and see a liar and a cheat sitting in the Whitehouse claiming voter fraud for which I see no substantial evidence. You provide a laundry list of accusations against our election system and when I attempt to address each one point-by-point you move on to other ones not on the original list. We never get any resolution.

I'm not saying you're gaslighting me, I'm saying I feel like I'm being gaslighted by you.

 

[Vendrah]

I smelled a conflict here so I read the last 4 pages.

This is not a subject where I am into because I don't need to because I am not american, but [MENTION=4347]Virtual ghost[/MENTION] isn't either, even though VG has a way larger knowledge on the politics section than I.

From an out stander point of view, I don't think [MENTION=37565]Dareyth[/MENTION] is trolling - I think she probably actually believe it.
I would not say I am not biased because there is a Bolsonaro->Trump connection and I suffer because and hate Bolsonaro, so by extension I do have a tendency to see Trump badly.
However, as far as I noticed, [MENTION=37565]Dareyth[/MENTION] skepticism might be completely against whatever source against Trump is and be able to completely trust whatever source for Trump says - and I would say that that skepticism might not be skepticism per se.
That does not mean that there are not people here that have an inverse skepticism - whatever Trump supporters says is false, whatever Democrats say is true. However, I don't really spot the same for [MENTION=9251]Jonny[/MENTION].

I also know that, in the skepticism point of view, any election result can be doubted, independently which side wins. But, at the same time, if we doubt everything, then no election and no democracy is real. I do live in a bunch of lies, I were indirectly cheated all the time and I agree that corporate media and mainstream media indeed has lies; I did hope when I was a teenager that the social media would fix that, but they didn't, Whatsapp is even worse in terms of lies. But I had also realized through reflection that, if I don't trust everything, then nothing will be real, and that is why the honesty of people is a very important thing in terms of nations. I need to have some accept some stuff in order to live, even knowing that they might be biased, but I would need to screw my whole life just to find out.

EDIT:

Gaslighting - the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.

But by that definition anyone willing to put point of views that are related to change the mind of another person is gaslighting, since that would be relating them to make them question their own thoughts and judgment about the events occurring around them.

 

[Maou]

Gaslighting - the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity.

So, I witness the world around me and see a liar and a cheat sitting in the Whitehouse claiming voter fraud for which I see no substantial evidence. You provide a laundry list of accusations against our election system and when I attempt to address each one point-by-point you move on to other ones not on the original list. We never get any resolution.

I'm not saying you're gaslighting me, I'm saying I feel like I'm being gaslighted.

Feeling like you are being gaslighted, goes hand and hand with cognitive dissonance. I found a description of the two, describing the differences in detail.

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term used to describe the state of having inconsistent and/or conflicting thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. Recognizing the disparity or conflict between thoughts or actions is what causes dissonance and as a result makes a person feel the need to return to a state of harmony or harmonious balance. (unease)

Gaslighting on the other hand is form of psychological manipulation (typically used and associated with narcissists / narcissism) whereby a person gradually causes the targeted individual / victim into questioning their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes including low self-esteem ultimately resulting in a complete erosion of the persons mental state. (over time)

Gaslighting essentially results in cognitive dissonance and a feeling of insecurity, not knowing what is true and what is not true. The survivor of gaslighting doubts their own internal sense of what is real including doubts about their internal and external sense of reality inclusive of their identity.

Typically a narcissist will use the combined tactics such as gaslighting (the most commonly used), silent treatment, blame-shifting, projection, smear campaigns, rageful reactions to perceived criticisms, pathological lying, and endless cycles of idealize, devalue, and discard.

All of these result in cognitive dissonance occurring within the victim as their state of mental equilibrium and harmony become complete disrupted"

From this description, gaslighting is something that happens over a long period of time that erodes the sense of self. Not from a single debate. The reason you feel like crap, is you have an internal conflict. The reason that conflict exists, is due to some part of you seeing truth to what I say, while another part of you says otherwise. Everyone experiences this when they argue. I feel it all the time, and its why I sometimes try to delete my account and leave this site forever. Yet I come back once the emotions have settled, and I try again, better and stronger than before.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Jonny]

Feeling like you are being gaslighted, goes hand and hand with cognitive dissonance. I found a description of the two, describing the differences in detail.

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term used to describe the state of having inconsistent and/or conflicting thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. Recognizing the disparity or conflict between thoughts or actions is what causes dissonance and as a result makes a person feel the need to return to a state of harmony or harmonious balance. (unease)

Gaslighting on the other hand is form of psychological manipulation (typically used and associated with narcissists / narcissism) whereby a person gradually causes the targeted individual / victim into questioning their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes including low self-esteem ultimately resulting in a complete erosion of the persons mental state. (over time)

Gaslighting essentially results in cognitive dissonance and a feeling of insecurity, not knowing what is true and what is not true. The survivor of gaslighting doubts their own internal sense of what is real including doubts about their internal and external sense of reality inclusive of their identity.

Typically a narcissist will use the combined tactics such as gaslighting (the most commonly used), silent treatment, blame-shifting, projection, smear campaigns, rageful reactions to perceived criticisms, pathological lying, and endless cycles of idealize, devalue, and discard.

All of these result in cognitive dissonance occurring within the victim as their state of mental equilibrium and harmony become complete disrupted"

From this description, gaslighting is something that happens over a long period of time that erodes the sense of self. Not from a single debate. The reason you feel like crap, is you have an internal conflict. The reason that conflict exists, is due to some part of you seeing truth to what I say, while another part of you says otherwise. Everyone experiences this when they argue. I feel it all the time, and its why I sometimes try to delete my account and leave this site forever. Yet I come back once the emotions have settled, and I try again, better and stronger than before.

No, actually I don't see truth in what you say. At all. From my perspective you seem delusional.

And there is no debate happening, only accusations and refusal to further discuss them.

What I feel right now is somewhat akin to how I felt when I used to transport psychiatric patients (I was an EMT in college). I'd have discussions with them and couldn't understand how they see the world the way that they do. I'd try to pin down their logic and I just couldn't. I couldn't organize the discussion with them in a way that made rational sense. When I'd ask them to clarify one point, they'd bring up another and we could never come to any conclusion.

That's how I feel talking with you.

Basically, it seems to me that either I'm being gaslighted or y'all are nuts, because your view of reality makes absolutely no sense to me. Seriously. I just don't get it.

I truly don't mean any offense by this, but I'm trying to express my internal read of the situation.

 

[anticlimatic]

I appreciate your providing me with a video, though it's unfortunate that any timestamp is cutoff and it isn't a direct clip (rather, it's someone who decided to record their television screen at this exact moment for some reason). Unfortunately, I can't find the direct footage. Here's what I found: WATCH: Election results - PBS NewsHour special coverage - YouTube 7:06:09 Trump - 1,571,972 Biden - 1,213,796 7:23:15 Trump - 1,720,016 (+148,044) Biden - 1,325,610 (+111,814) 2020 Election Night live coverage | NTD - YouTube 3:32:19 Trump - 1,081,776 Biden - 973,647 3:35:46 Trump - 2,119,202 (+1,037,426) Biden - 1,732,066 (+758,419) FOX NEWS -ELECTION NIGHT 2020 (10:00 P.M E.T-1:00 A.M E.T) (11-3-2020) - YouTube 49:44 Trump - 54.7% Biden - 42.6% 40% reporting 55:39 Trump - 54.9% Biden - 42.4% 42% reporting 1:01:56 Trump - 55.2% Biden - 42.2% 44% reporting These would have roughly taken place at similar times. In the second example, over the course of 3 minutes their numbers changed by over 1 million total votes. In the third example, while actual vote counts aren't shown, it roughly matches the percentages shown in the CNN results (reporting & candidate percentages). This is a testament to how differently the votes counted in the states actually make their way to various news organizations. In other words, these numbers have no bearing on what is actually being counted and reported by the counties, only how each news organization enters that data into their systems and projects it to the public. Let me know if you find direct footage. - - - Updated - - - I don't know what you're talking about when you say "tilt".

I mean that the large special interests in this election- Wall Street, globalists, Washington/swamp, lobbyists, big tech, main stream media, academia, corporate America, etc- were all heavily influencing the election in joe Biden's favor.

Typically there is a somewhat better balance, with corporate America and Wall Street propping up Republican candidates- Washington, the media, and big tech remaining at least slightly unbiased- with academia and globalists reliabley propping up democrats.

Not this year. It was all in, all hands on deck, get rid of trump. I'm not sure how that doesn't make anyone nervous in and of itself.

 

[Maou]

No, actually I don't see truth in what you say. At all. From my perspective you seem delusional.

And there is no debate happening, only accusations and refusal to further discuss them.

What I feel right now is somewhat akin to how I felt when I used to transport psychiatric patients (I was an EMT in college). I'd have discussions with them and couldn't understand how they see the world the way that they do. I'd try to pin down their logic and I just couldn't. I couldn't organize the discussion with them in a way that made rational sense. When I'd ask them to clarify one point, they'd bring up another and we could never come to any conclusion.

That's how I feel talking with you.

Basically, it seems to me that either I'm being gaslighted or y'all are nuts, because your view of reality makes absolutely no sense to me. Seriously. I just don't get it.

I truly don't mean any offense by this, but I'm trying to express my internal read of the situation.

What is insanity to you? Serious question. I am not diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar, or any paranoia disorder. The worst I have is PTSD. "Insanity" is a curious term, because it has no actual meaning unless you are literally and severely mentally ill. I am a fully functional human being. I go to work, pay my taxes, and live my life just like everyone else. The only thing that's wrong here, is you disagree. That you rationalize everything too much in black and white, and are too rigid. You don't include theory or common sense in your analysis. You cannot even begin to think there is any legitimacy to anything I say, because of that rigidity (And you naturally reject it). You are locked into a one way mindset. This isn't open minded thinking. An open minded person would at least sometimes accept concepts and theories as much as fact in their overall view. As well as being able to debate in theory and concepts alone and entertain them with other possibility. Which is also why there is such a fundamental difference between me and a few others here. Politics is ruled by Te users.

The fault isn't with me, it's with your mindset. I know this, because I have had in depth conversations with a multitude of people of various leanings that had no issue with debating me, or holding a conversation about politics casually.

 

[Jonny]

I mean that the large special interests in this election- Wall Street, globalists, Washington/swamp, lobbyists, big tech, main stream media, academia, corporate America, etc- were all heavily influencing the election in joe Biden's favor.

Typically there is a somewhat better balance, with corporate America and Wall Street propping up Republican candidates- Washington, the media, and big tech remaining at least slightly unbiased- with academia and globalists reliabley propping up democrats.

Not this year. It was all in, all hands on deck, get rid of trump. I'm not sure how that doesn't make anyone nervous in and of itself.

Ok, I don't dispute what you're saying here. I would hope that some objective analysis can be done to determine the extent of that media-bias. The reason I say this is because sometimes accurate reporting can be seen as bias if there is a true disparity between the two sides of an issue. There is no doubt there was a larger amount of negative coverage around Trump, and that it very likely had an impact on the election. But, I am not convinced one way or the other that the negative coverage was the result of bias or just Trump being Trump.

 

[Jonny]

What is insanity to you? Serious question. I am not diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar, or any paranoia disorder. The worst I have is PTSD. "Insanity" is a curious term, because it has no actual meaning unless you are literally and severely mentally ill. I am a fully functional human being. I go to work, pay my taxes, and live my life just like everyone else. The only thing that's wrong here, is you disagree. That you rationalize everything too much in black and white, and are too rigid. You don't include theory or common sense in your analysis. You cannot even begin to think there is any legitimacy to anything I say, because of that rigidity (And you naturally reject it). You are locked into a one way mindset. This isn't open minded thinking. An open minded person would at least sometimes accept concepts and theories as much as fact in their overall view. As well as being able to debate in theory and concepts alone and entertain them with other possibility. Which is also why there is such a fundamental difference between me and a few others here. Politics is ruled by Te users.

The fault isn't with me, it's with your mindset. I know this, because I have had in depth conversations with a multitude of people of various leanings that had no issue with debating me, or holding a conversation about politics casually.

The problem here is we're trying to assess the veracity of your claims. To do so, we need to deal with each claim, one-by-one. If you cannot do that, then we cannot have a discussion with a legitimate conclusion.

Here's how I see you:

Or the pandemic was intentionally hyped up for political reasons. Notice all the sudden scientific retractions once the riots began happening? The riots should have caused a surge in infections right? Why are "health officials" declairing racism to be more deadly than Covid-19 and saying riots are good? Either A) the pandemic was overhyped and lied about, or b) the Plutocracy wants to kill minorities by letting them riot and mass infecting them with covid, as they are more susceptible to it. I am going with the former, because occams razor. You could argue people are just stupid too. But with what I seen going on behind the scenes with the riots and social media psyops. I think its being done by the FBI and foreign nationals to weaknen our country's economy.

And here's how I see me:

Just because the wall-to-wall media coverage of COVID-19 is over doesn't mean the virus isn't still out there and spreading. Please continue to act safely. Wear a mask. Limit public gatherings. Stay some distance away from others when in public. The cost is so low, and the potential upside is the life of a loved one.

Both of these were in early June, at the start of the protests and when media coverage shifted from COVID to BLM/protests/riots/etc.

 

[Maou]

The problem here is we're trying to assess the veracity of your claims. To do so, we need to deal with each claim, one-by-one. If you cannot do that, then we cannot have a discussion with a legitimate conclusion.

Here's how I see you:

And here's how I see me:

How are these statements contradictory or in disagreement?

 

[ceecee]

Statewide audit upholds Biden victory in Georgia - POLITICO

A recount, following the audit, would be exceedingly unlikely to change Biden’s victory. The recount would be a machine retabulation of the ballots, and the secretary of state’s office says the audit showed that the machines did a proper job in counting votes.

Trump and his allies have spread significant misinformation about the Georgia voting process. The president wrongly claimed that signatures could not be verified in the state, while he and his team have falsely alleged that Dominion voting systems have switched votes away from him across the country. Earlier in the week, Raffensperger’s office announced the results of an audit of a random sample of the actual voting machines, which “found no evidence of the machines being tampered.”

All kinds of links to read further in the article.

 

[Jonny]

How are these statements contradictory or in disagreement?

Well, both are in response to the then-declining coverage of COVID in the media.

My emphasis was on how media coverage does not always reflect everything that is happening in the world, and that COVID was still a real and present danger despite the decline in coverage.

Your emphasis was on what the decline in media coverage implied about the state of the world. Namely, that it was evidence that people overhyped and lied about COVID for political reasons. You then talked about a conspiracy perpetrated by the FBI and foreign nationals to weaken our economy.

One of these two follows pretty plainly from observable facts. The other doesn't.

You have a habit of seeing conspiracies and lies everywhere...when seeing them benefits Trump. It's an odd coincidence.

I should add, in the quoted post you mention Occam's razor. Well, let me ask you this. Which is easier to believe:

1. Trump is a Narcissist and habitual liar who is drumming up false conspiracy theories to stroke his ego and bolster his claim to victory.

2. There is a deep web of criminals and liars who worked together to change election results so that Joe Biden would win.

 

[anticlimatic]

Ok, I don't dispute what you're saying here. I would hope that some objective analysis can be done to determine the extent of that media-bias. The reason I say this is because sometimes accurate reporting can be seen as bias if there is a true disparity between the two sides of an issue. There is no doubt there was a larger amount of negative coverage around Trump, and that it very likely had an impact on the election. But, I am not convinced one way or the other that the negative coverage was the result of bias or just Trump being Trump.

Trump dug his own grave too. If he had managed to keep the anti-establishment fighter spirit without the bevy of other character flaws and mistakes, he would not have lost to the system (I forgot to include Hollywood and Entertainment Media in my list of "somewhat unbiased" in the past). How weird is it that almost every single major institution in America is in lock-step against the governing philosophies of half the country? That just seems insane and disturbing to me. I'm hoping it's just targeted at Trump the person, not the people that support him- though that premise in and of itself also has a touch of cosmic political horror to it. In a certain context, Trump was Right Wing Bernie Sanders- a radical departure from the norms and established intuitions governing directly to and for his supporters rather than the special interests of the system. In the anti-establishment, pro-change context, he is the Bernie Sanders success story. The horror element hits you at the ending- this is what happens when you fight the system: it rises up like a hydra and fights back.

Is this something progressives think is a good thing?

On the one hand it serves as antibodies to governing style's like Trump's, but on the other isn't that kind of the type of leader you want too- someone working directly for his supporters, not getting bought out, being very transparent and easy to read, staying out of the Forever Wars, experimenting wildly with policy, etc?

 

[Jonny]

Trump dug his own grave too. If he had managed to keep the anti-establishment fighter spirit without the bevy of other character flaws and mistakes, he would not have lost to the system (I forgot to include Hollywood and Entertainment Media in my list of "somewhat unbiased" in the past). How weird is it that almost every single major institution in America is in lock-step against the governing philosophies of half the country? That just seems insane and disturbing to me. I'm hoping it's just targeted at Trump the person, not the people that support him- though that premise in and of itself also has a touch of cosmic political horror to it. In a certain context, Trump was Right Wing Bernie Sanders- a radical departure from the norms and established intuitions governing directly to and for his supporters rather than the special interests of the system. In the anti-establishment, pro-change context, he is the Bernie Sanders success story. The horror element hits you at the ending- this is what happens when you fight the system: it rises up like a hydra and fights back.

Is this something progressives think is a good thing?

On the one hand it serves as antibodies to governing style's like Trump's, but on the other isn't that kind of the type of leader you want too- someone working directly for his supporters, not getting bought out, being very transparent and easy to read, staying out of the Forever Wars, experimenting wildly with policy, etc?

I cannot speak for progressives. From personal experience, I think that institutions/establishment can be overhyped. Sometimes, the bloat can get out of control, and bad habits/inefficiencies can persist in these places under the guise of expertise and cause great harm to those institutions and our country. We saw this with the financial crisis. We are seeing this with our university system. It's real and it's a problem.

But, what Trump delivered was not the promised (and needed) revamping of these institutions. Instead, he simply rejected norms and customs (many of which were good and needed), and struck down regulations with wonton disregard for the consequences. He's incompetent and self-serving. What he was doing was not good and was not needed, and this is irrespective of his personality. His policy and decisions were flawed as well.

Institutional change, should it come, must be done by someone smarter and more competent than Trump. And, especially so, more ethical.

We certainly need it.

 

[Maou]

Well, both are in response to the then-declining coverage of COVID in the media.

My emphasis was on how media coverage does not always reflect everything that is happening in the world, and that COVID was still a real and present danger despite the decline in coverage.

Your emphasis was on what the decline in media coverage implied about the state of the world. Namely, that it was evidence that people overhyped and lied about COVID for political reasons. You then talked about a conspiracy perpetrated by the FBI and foreign nationals to weaken our economy.

One of these two follows pretty plainly from observable facts. The other doesn't.

You have a habit of seeing conspiracies and lies everywhere...when seeing them benefits Trump. It's an odd coincidence.

I should add, in the quoted post you mention Occam's razor. Well, let me ask you this. Which is easier to believe:

1. Trump is a Narcissist and habitual liar who is drumming up false conspiracy theories to stroke his ego and bolster his claim to victory.

2. There is a deep web of criminals and liars who worked together to change election results so that Joe Biden would win.

All I did was point out hypocrisy and inconsistency in the media reporting. Media said protests didn't spread Covid, and that they were more important than the lock downs. I said that was bullshit, that it does spread it. As the 6 foot rule and mask mandate wasn't being followed in said protests. Both of what we said, follows in line with that logic. Who should be held accountable? The media, for being more concerned with clicks then they are with the health and safety the of the American people.

Just because something is a conspiracy, doesn't mean it isn't true. "Conspiracy theorist" was a term coined to discredit dissenters of the government. It is a censorship tactic. Just like racist, bigot, and various other terms. It is all used to discredit possible credible sources on uncovering corruption. If you completely understand what I mean when I say that the deep state has control over the media, intelligence agencies, and academia. You will fully realize the extent of the corruption and misinformation in this country. And that answers your 2nd question. Do I believe the USA is run by a web of criminals and liars who worked together to not only change our election results to Joe Biden, but to perform a coup and seize control of our country to establish a socialist dictatorship? Then Yes, I believe in #2. Because it has been in the works since WW2. JFK tried to warn us, and we seen what happened to him.

But thats okay, I understand most people don't ever think its real because normalcy biased. But if Biden wins, 20 years from now you might realize. Oh shit, you were wrong. That is the real difficult part about politics, is that you tend to fall into the boiling frog effect.

 

[Jonny]

Just because something is a conspiracy, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Correct. There are real conspiracies. One needs evidence, however.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Trump dug his own grave too. If he had managed to keep the anti-establishment fighter spirit without the bevy of other character flaws and mistakes, he would not have lost to the system (I forgot to include Hollywood and Entertainment Media in my list of "somewhat unbiased" in the past). How weird is it that almost every single major institution in America is in lock-step against the governing philosophies of half the country? That just seems insane and disturbing to me. I'm hoping it's just targeted at Trump the person, not the people that support him- though that premise in and of itself also has a touch of cosmic political horror to it. In a certain context, Trump was Right Wing Bernie Sanders- a radical departure from the norms and established intuitions governing directly to and for his supporters rather than the special interests of the system. In the anti-establishment, pro-change context, he is the Bernie Sanders success story. The horror element hits you at the ending- this is what happens when you fight the system: it rises up like a hydra and fights back.

Is this something progressives think is a good thing?

On the one hand it serves as antibodies to governing style's like Trump's, but on the other isn't that kind of the type of leader you want too- someone working directly for his supporters, not getting bought out, being very transparent and easy to read, staying out of the Forever Wars, experimenting wildly with policy, etc?

Actually the establishment supported him for things like his strikes against Syria, which Clinton almost certainly would have done as well.

The establishment's issue with him is primarily one of optics. It's largely not over policy but mostly about him being "improper." You could see this even if you turned on MSNBC(a supposedly left-leaning outfit) for much of his presidency.

It also seemed to me that MSNBC gave far more airtime to never-Trump neocons than leftists.

 

[Jaguar]

Trump told ally he's trying to get back at Democrats for questioning legitimacy of his own election - CNNPolitics