I don't think this is too difficult to understand. It's anti-establishment versus establishment, populist versus elite, that sort of axis.

I still don't get it. It just seems silly to favor a candidate based on who rejects them. If policies on opposite sides of the political spectrum are interchangeable then why care at all who gets elected?

At least voting for a 3rd party one can be said to be contributing to a cause closest to one's ideal, but being favorable to anyone who the mainstream doesn't approve of just seems like flawed logic.

The establishment/mainstream is the real enemy of the people. It totally makes sense to support anyone who you think could realistically challenge and destroy the status quo.

What if the person that destroys the status quo is worse? Is your argument that nothing could be worse than the status quo?

A useful example might be to look at the fallout of the various protests during Arab Spring, and how it led to both more liberal and less liberal outcomes.

Anti-establishmentarianism can bring together people of different political persuasions who all want to dismantle parts of the current system. What comes after that is a new battle, and that one may end up fought along more traditionally ideological lines.

This is not about the person. It is about alternative voices to be heard in policy making and policy execution.

Fighting against "globalism" could have been something people like Bernie used before Trump too. Ironically anarchist and antifa groups have always tried to burn down cities where globalists meet, G7 etc. They might have different explanations but in the end it's fight for the capital.

Corbyn for instance, very much left wing, opposed EU because of all the globalist bankers and buerocrats in Brussels controlling the society, cheap labor bringing down wages.

If you're a bit older or have better knowledge, then trumps policies are far more similar to someone like Sanders if they really wanted to team up. (I'm not talking about his speech and the way of saying things)

We actually see Trump/Sanders directly overlap in Tulsi Gabbard, a democrat who supported Sanders, but who often disagrees with Trump (and indeed, was the sole democrat to not vote for impeachment). Many Trumpers like her too. I like that she is honest personally. She has both criticized the antifa/blm riots and the riots on the sixth. Brought up concerns of both police brutality (concerns I share, BTW), and election integrity (which I also am concerned with).

I actually have supported with many actions of Antifa / BLM (probably wouldn't guess that from my post history), including the protests at Pelosi's and McConnell's houses, and the disruption of the globalist meetings you mention. I don't agree with them in their destruction of property, especially that of small mom-and-pop businesses, or even big business if it affects small businesses (by raising insurance rates for example). And obviously, I disagree with anything actually threatening lives.

> Based on your logic, if both parties rejected Stalin then you'd be in favor of him.

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. -- Winston Churchill

> Based on your logic, if both parties rejected Stalin then you'd be in favor of him.

Yes, I'd rather have a social democrat that rejects Stalin than a fiscal conservative that embraced him.

Unlike the various 'what-ifs' of policy issues, anyone can examine the actual record of Stalin and his policies. And, in my opinion, anyone who finds him a source of inspiration, regardless of their stated policy preferences, has a severe lack of judgement.