**** Elections thread *****

[spoonitnow]

Yes, refusing to sell something to someone based on their race, sexuality, or whatever, is discrimination. Fine. Discrimination shouldn't be illegal, it should merely be socially unacceptable.

I just want to point out that many types of discrimination are socially acceptable and legally mandated.

Completely independent of that, not all forms of discrimination are "bad" by typical definitions.

[OngBonga]

I just want to point out that many types of discrimination are socially acceptable and legally mandated.

Completely independent of that, not all forms of discrimination are "bad" by typical definitions.

Well yeah, fair enough. We regularly discriminate people legally based on their intelligence, or their fitness, or their attractiveness, or even gender. You're right.

I wasn't very clear. Certain discriminations should certainly be socially unacceptable, ie racism. But I don't think it should be illegal to refuse to sell something to a black man, if you don't want. I just think it should ruin your business if that's the path you decide to take.

[OngBonga]

I'm anti-gay marriage because I'm anti-marriage in its current state.

This is interesting too. I have no problem with gays marrying. I agree with you that marriage really has nothing to do with the state, the church, or anyone except the two (or more) people who agree to call themselves married.

As for "gay rights", I think this pharse flies in the face of equality. Gay people should have the same rights as non gay people. There shouldn't be gay rights, just human rights.

[spoonitnow]

Some dude with a literature degree who works as a janitor and makes $9.50/hour is bragging about helping Bernie Sanders raise >$5 million after the New Hampshire primaries based on Sanders wanting to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. This janitor with a literature degree doesn't seem to understand that his ass is going to be making $0/hour and have his job replaced with a bunch of fucking Roombas if that happens.

[a500lbgorilla]

Some dude with a literature degree who works as a janitor and makes $9.50/hour is bragging about helping Bernie Sanders raise >$5 million after the New Hampshire primaries based on Sanders wanting to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. This janitor with a literature degree doesn't seem to understand that his ass is going to be making $0/hour and have his job replaced with a bunch of fucking Roombas if that happens.

You'd think outsourcing our basic labor to circuits + coal, oil, atoms, and the sun would enrich us all. Well, you'd hope at least.

[wufwugy]

This got started partly due to there being a distinction between gay rights and gay people. I want to make the point that part of why I do not think Sanders is good for gay people even if he were good for gay rights is that gay people need freedom and healthy economies too. I'm not sure what good Sanders could do for gay people that wouldn't be greatly undermined by the bad he would do to the economy and state structure.

I gotta be honest and say I'm not sure if I think civil rights has been beneficial to black people. By rhetoric on paper, it's great, but in effect, not so much. The civil rights era marks a great decline in black communities. I'm just not sure how much (or all) of it can be attributed to targeted economic policies that aren't exactly civil rights.

[wufwugy]

It has and it is.

[a500lbgorilla]

It has and it is.

With people, it's all relative.

[wufwugy]

[a500lbgorilla]

I read an article about the Clinton scandal where she was bossing around the media and writing the plot points of their articles for them, I only found her more electable.

Still, 10/10 Cruz is best brain left.

[wufwugy]

sadly im getting bearish on cruz. the latest sc poll is probably not too far off of what would happen if the election was held today (even though for sure it will tighten in the next 8 days). if that's the case, rubio could end up being a slight favorite over cruz when it comes to who can take down trump. it also increases the probability of brokered convention with trump having the most delegates.

the problem is that soooooo many of the "anti-trump" and "pro-electability" people are going for rubio when they should be going for cruz. the other problem is obviously that loads of trump conservatives are not thinking things through. this can be seen in how they characterize cruz as same-old same-old. i largely blame rush limbaugh for helping his friend trump out. cruz is a once in a lifetime conservative and emphatically has done everything the trump supporters say they want politicians to do. it's weird that they don't see this.

[a500lbgorilla]

lol

[wufwugy]

If I didn't know anything about manliness I would say the same thing.

[a500lbgorilla]

If only the GOP could field an actual, capable human being to lead. It's said that their gameplan is still "wait for the next Reagan" and I suspect will be for the long foreseeable future.

Hillary Clinton is the best republican left.

[wufwugy]

It ain't that Clinton is a Republican, but that Republicans are Democrats.

The next Reagan is Cruz. At this point, it isn't so much that GOP voters are "waiting for the next Reagan", but that each candidate finds more value in attacking each other than Trump, so the field looks far less favorable to them and more favorable to Trump than otherwise.

[wufwugy]

but that Republicans are Democrats.

BTW I should clarify that even though this looks like opinion, it's not. Over the last decade, the GOP political establishment has consistently moved to Democratic Party positions while vise versa has not happened.

[a500lbgorilla]

Nah, the socialist independent is the Democrat. The Democrats have been Republicans since the invention of the RINO. Where normal republicans were attacked for not being fanatical enough.

Fanaticism to achieve moderate conservative gains was a clever ploy that tied up Obama for all of 3 years while he figured it out, but it's dead now.

[wufwugy]

Fanaticism to achieve moderate conservative gains was a clever ploy that tied up Obama for all of 3 years while he figured it out, but it's dead now.

What were those?

[a500lbgorilla]

What were those?

The fiscal cliff.

That was the manifestation of Thomas Schelling's "An Essay on Bargaining".

It worked until Obama simply excused himself from the conversation and the GOP was forced to fold.

[wufwugy]

Democrats did move right somewhat under First Clinton. But the fact that the Democratic Party is moving towards the socialist is that the socialist's appeal is pretty much entirely about doing more of what the Democratic leadership has done for the last decade.

[a500lbgorilla]

Democrats did move right somewhat under First Clinton. But the fact that the Democratic Party is moving towards the socialist is that the socialist's appeal is pretty much entirely about doing more of what the Democratic leadership has done for the last decade.

They're not moving. Bernie is simply the first real democrat to come out of that party of nigh-Republicans.

edit Well, Obama is also a real democrat, so I walk that comment back.

[wufwugy]

They're not moving. Bernie is simply the first real democrat to come out of that party of nigh-Republicans.

This is the narrative many people need to rationalize why doubling down on Obama's policies is somehow not a doubling down on Obama's policies.

[wufwugy]

You said there were conservative gains for 3 years under Obama. What have those been?

[a500lbgorilla]

You said there were conservative gains for 3 years under Obama. What have those been?

I should correct, it was more like 5 years but pick anything. Obamacare wasn't a liberal proposal. Insurance is an awesome business model - people give you a shit ton of money and while you do have to pay out of that nest-egg when shit happens, you've still got a shit ton of money to sit on in the mean time. And what did Obamacare do but make health insurance companies out of granite?

They didn't get a conservative agenda pushed, but they played their cards real well for quite a while.

[wufwugy]

I should correct, it was more like 5 years but pick anything. Obamacare wasn't a liberal proposal. Insurance is an awesome business model - people give you a shit ton of money and while you do have to pay out of that nest-egg when shit happens, you've still got a shit ton of money to sit on in the mean time. And what did Obamacare do but make health insurance companies out of granite?

They didn't get a conservative agenda pushed, but they played their cards real well for quite a while.

Obamacare was a dyed-in-the-wool left liberal proposal. It seems you're using an invalid spectrum or something that mislabels a policy that substantively reflects the necessary elements of historical leftism.

[a500lbgorilla]

Maybe. It seems to me that single payer is the left proposal and free market is the right proposal. And when a lefty comes out and says his starting point is an enshrined market, you're seeing the right get away with something.

[wufwugy]

Maybe. It seems to me that single payer is the left proposal and free market is the right proposal. And when a lefty comes out and says his starting point is an enshrined market, you're seeing the right get away with something.

The invalid spectrum I reference gained prominence due to the factionalism of warring interests. They had pretty much the same beliefs but were different nations who hated each other, so they described their beliefs differently. But this didn't change the fact that they were the same beliefs, just with a different coating of paint. I'm referring to the European divide between fascism and communism. The invalid spectrum puts one on far right and one on far left while disregarding some simple things that show that distinction to be wrong (like how they're both extremist national socialism by philosophy and often by name too).

While elements of fascism, corporatism, and general government-related cronyism are called right-wing, they are not. I really do not know why this narrative has stuck, especially since the way historians describe the movement of liberty, which is entirely different from those other movements, is that it is generally right-wing. This is seen in how the US Constitution was considered a strongly conservative document (IIRC this can be thought of as classical liberalism). It got that label by rejecting the fascism, socialism, corporatism view. The valid spectrum is something along the lines of interventionism-------------liberty-ism. I'm not sure what's behind the push of the invalid left-right spectrum, but it seems to have something to do with the view that crony capitalism is somehow not related to government intervention even though it is explicitly and clearly so.

[wufwugy]

More specifically, yes single payer is the left proposal, but nationalization isn't the only left proposal. Intervention by regulators is also leftism, and corporatism is also leftism (due it existing by way of intervention).

[wufwugy]

This contrast can be seen by the proposals that conservatives give. They are opposites, sometimes in direct action and sometimes in philosophy, of Obamacare. Examples: Obamacare raises taxes, conservative proposals do not; Obamacare imposes mandates on businesses (and people), conservative proposals do not; conservative proposals look to expand competition across state lines, Obamacare regulates against it; conservative proposals look to expand health savings accounts that would be managed on the individual level, Obamacare does the opposite and creates a more unified juggernaut.

[wufwugy]

scalia just done croaked.

i have a hard time seeing an obama nomination getting through this close to an election. scotus appointments will probably now be the defining issue of the 2016 race, as well as of the gop race. i see cruz (and maybe rubio) coming out hard tonight on how he is only person who can reliably make conservative nominations.

[a500lbgorilla]

scalia just done croaked.

Hoe-lee shit.

[wufwugy]

also i suspect hillary will very much not want obama to get an appointment through. both sides think scotus is their trump card to win elections.

[JKDS]

He has a legacy greater than most 2 term presidents. What he has done for 4th amendment law and others is something that will impact this nation for centuries. It's a heavy loss.

[a500lbgorilla]

He has a legacy greater than most 2 term presidents. What he has done for 4th amendment law and others is something that will impact this nation for centuries. It's a heavy loss.

He's a man who deserves respect. But still, what's your real opinion about his work? Your politics included.

[JKDS]

He's a man who deserves respect. But still, what's your real opinion about his work? Your politics included.

He was consistent. There was the odd case here and there, but he was largely consistent with his view on interpretation. He believed the constitution was a dead document, to be viewed as it would have been at the time it was written. This sometimes lead to results that both the left and right would disagree with, but it also came with a bunch of persuasive heft.

He's not without his faults tho, no one is. His comments leave some believing him to be a bigot, or a racist. I have no opinion on that one way or another. He was devout though, and that language would sometimes seep into his opinions. I will say that I believe he stood in the way of gay rights, and wrongly so. But that's because my interpretation is that of a living document...so we fundamentally disagree. I'm not sure I'd call him a bigot for that.

His mark on history though is immense. He was the greatest 4th amendment protector we will likely ever see. From keeping dogs from sniffing your pourch, to officers from spying in your bathrooms, Scalia ensured that officers followed the constitution. He's had a great effect on the confrontation clause, and many other critical areas of criminal law like the death penalty. For the most part, all these decisions flow logically from his way of interpreting the constitution. (Example, the 4th specifically protects the home...so scalia grants the home huge protections; the 8th prohibits cruel and unusual punishment...but since the death penalty existed in the 1700s...how could it be cruel and unusual?)

You could always count on him to follow that interpretational view, and it's something well miss in future justices

[wufwugy]

Trump may have lost the nomination with his attacks on W. Bad news in SC. He looks flapped.

[JKDS]

I forgot to mention. Scalia was very witty, and his opinions always well written. That cannot be said of every justice (Alito's are annoying to go through). At minimum, even if you disagree with the rest of what I said, Scalia made the law fun and a pleasure to read.

[JKDS]

One last thing.

Many are talking about how this is a great chance to create a liberal court by Obama (or the next dem). Theres large problems with that on its own, and i worry about a court deciding things along party lines as this one seems to have been doing. But people are neglecting to discuss the alternative. A Republican pres, and a Republican senate (assuming that's still the case) could be a disaster. The current rhetoric by republicans is borderline fanatical, and they continually disregard constitutional notions we used to hold sacred across party lines. The easiest example is now. It is unheard of for the Senate to outright refuse to do their duty and ignore ANY appointment Obama could make. Not just the crazy liberal ones (which wouldn't get past them anyway), but even more moderate ones as well. Their language is to deny even a hard core conservative nominee.

I get the "hate Obama at all costs" rhetoric, but it seems to be without foresight. Suppose a dem not only wins, but also inspires great wins in the Senate. They would rather gamble and risk having a liberal court for decades than accept what would have to be a moderate nominee from obama?

They should be compromising here. Especially since the make up of the court will likely change yet again within the next 4 years.

[wufwugy]

What's the borderline fanatical rhetoric?

The Senate holds as much Constitutional authority on appointments as POTUS. It should have shut down Obama's actions a long time ago, but instead it has been a mild hindrance at best. I find it strange that people think that just because the President wants something, it means giving him a measure of that something is compromise and reasonable. The legislative authority of the President is fractional (more like non-existent) compared to Congress. Just because Congress has been doing the wrong thing for so long doesn't mean it should continue to do so.

Regardless, it's reasonable for Obama to be expected to not get a nomination through at this point since he is already an effective lame duck with the election in full swing. If this was the beginning of 2015, those who dislike "obstructionism" would have a point if the Senate blocked it until the election. Still, the Senate has authority to block it as long as it wants and the Senate has the duty to block any nomination as awful as the rest of Obama's policies have reflected.

When the guy said he was going to fundamentally transform the country, he meant it. And look what it has gotten us. An economy that has recovered so poorly that virtually all economists think that a recession may be around the corner and that if it were to happen there would be no tools to combat it like there normally are, and a foreign policy that is identical to how North Korea got the bomb (down to the chief negotiator herself). Just to name a few.

It upsets me that Obama gets credit for gay rights. He was always behind the country on that and the gay rights advancement during his administration had zilch to do with his administration. The advancements came out of the military brass itself, out of the state voters and judiciaries, and finally out of SCOTUS wanting it to become a non-issue for the country.

[wufwugy]

I'm curious because I forget, on what basis was the gay marriage decision decided and on what basis was the dissent?

[Eric]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lied-WMDs.html has "9/11 was your brother's fault!" in the heading.

I can't find any youtube videos with Trump saying these exact words to Jeb in the South Carolina debate. Is the media exaggerating/embellishing the statements made by Trump?

[wufwugy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lied-WMDs.html has "9/11 was your brother's fault!" in the heading.

I can't find any youtube videos with Trump saying these exact words to Jeb in the South Carolina debate. Is the media exaggerating/embellishing the statements made by Trump?

Nope. He said it. I'll post video when I get one. They've made the circuit on the conservative sites like redstate and therightscoop.

[wufwugy]

I recommend watching the debate if you have the time. It was crazy. Trump is batshit. He went bananas.

Ofc since Cruz is my guy I'll add that he knocked it out of the park and Rubio included a handful of lies about him, per usual.

[wufwugy]

It's near the end of the second video: http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-trump...s-safe-on-911/

He didn't say explicitly verbatim that it was W's fault, but the implication is there. He said "The WTC came down during the reign of George W Bush. He kept us safe? That's not safe." He also said (about OBL) "And George Bush had the chance to kill him", implying he didn't take it.

In any other venue this would be considered assigning culpability to W for the attacks.

[wufwugy]

absence of trumpitnow's tooting of trumphorn has made thread a dull boy.

[spoonitnow]

Winning is winning

[spoonitnow]

Anyway, Trump is crushing as usual. All of this hope for Cruz and Rubio has good intentions, but it's ultimately hopeless. His polls keep going up, and he will not lose the lead on delegates from this point on.

[wufwugy]

There's an internal Jeb! poll putting Cruz just 2 behind Trump. It makes sense since that debate should have sunk Trump and probably propped up Cruz.

Though I do think Trump is strong enough to win SC, Cruz will win several states for the coming few weeks and Rubio/Bush will likely not. This would completely change the race and possible make it HU.

[spoonitnow]

There's an internal Jeb! poll putting Cruz just 2 behind Trump. It makes sense since that debate should have sunk Trump and probably propped up Cruz.

Though I do think Trump is strong enough to win SC, Cruz will win several states for the coming few weeks and Rubio/Bush will likely not. This would completely change the race and possible make it HU.

It's already heads-up because Cruz's head's up Trump's ass.

Also come to IRC you sack of shit : http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...om-199601.html

[wufwugy]

lol. it works as trump too, just different substance

[wufwugy]

marco rubio has shown himself to be an unprincipled shithead. too bad it's hard to see (he hides it well). but it comes out when you follow closely.

given the actions taken by the candidates this cycle, their measure of principle is as follows: cruz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>kasich>>>bush>>>>>>carso n>>>>>>>>>>>rubio>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trump .

[spoonitnow]

Principles don't win elections

Come to chat

[wufwugy]

Principles don't win elections

[wufwugy]

no time for chat today.

[a500lbgorilla]

lol

The Pope calls out DT saying something like "people who build walls and not bridges are not real christians" and Trump trumps him back pics of the walls around Vatican City

lol

[wufwugy]

So basically what's been happening is that Cruz has been crushing the different campaigns' internal polling so much among conservatives that opponents strategies have been turning to shit. Trump saw days ago that he had dropped to mid twenties, which only just now the public polls that aren't using ridiculous weights are showing. It's not a coincidence Trump's strategy the last week has been to appeal to liberals.

Similar is probably the case with Rubio. He dropped the ball major time by last-minute-ducking Levin's huge conservative event yesterday.

I may be picking Cruz to win tomorrow.

My second favorite person in all the races is Sanders. Not because of policy, but because he appears to be the second least cunty. Contrast him to Rubio, who has shown himself to be exclusively a tool of Republican elitism. A Rubio presidency would be as much of a disaster as HW and W Bushes were.

Hoping Cruz picks Walker as his VP. There aren't that many people he can pick since most of them are traitors and tools. But Walker's one of the good ones. He may have to pick Perry though, since Perry is the only vetted candidate to have strongly endorsed Cruz. I love Perry but he probably shouldn't be on a presidential ticket. Put him in charge of the CIA or something.

The best Rubio should ever get is Secretary of State. Coupled with Cruz's guidance, his douchebaggery would likely not harm that position.

[spoonitnow]

And Trump hasn't dropped in any nationwide polls except the one, single rigged one.

He's polled mid-upper 30s in every single poll except the one that showed him with an lol 2% loss to Cruz. Yeah fucking right. Trump has actually surged at Rubio's expense since the last debate.

Here's a good summary of recent polls. It's pretty clear how ridiculous it is. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

[wufwugy]

As far as I can tell, the polls with Trump leading so much are making the same mistakes that the Iowa ones did. Mostly they're projecting turnouts of >200% than normal. Half of these polls are so unreliable that they don't even give the sample size data.

[spoonitnow]

As far as I can tell, the polls with Trump leading so much are making the same mistakes that the Iowa ones did. Mostly they're projecting turnouts of >200% than normal. Half of these polls are so unreliable that they don't even give the sample size data.

So conveniently the only poll that you think is doing it right is the only poll showing it even being close. lol yeah ok

Also come to chat

[wufwugy]

I think the race is real tight between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio and don't have much prediction beyond that, other than Cruz could be the one to get third.

As much as I want Cruz to run away with it, even the majority of his supporters don't like him for the right reasons. It's depressing. We finally get a truly transformative politician and so many have tricked themselves into thinking that he's not electable. Watch as Rubio becomes the President and makes the same mistakes as his recent predecessors. What upsets me the most about this is that what makes Cruz's policies great is their liberty orientation, yet the reason he's popular is his social conservatism. It's the same social conservatism that Rubio has, which encourages would-be Cruz supporters to instead support somebody who has been lying his way through the campaign, giving little message other than "imagine the wonderful stuff I make you feel" bullshit, who has actively run away from his previous liberty-oriented stances.

[wufwugy]

I want to believe that humans are at large capable of wisdom, but I fear that I'll be walking away from this election at my most jaded point. Maybe that's just the reality check I need.

[wufwugy]

Strong post by Dilbert creator examining Trump's chief persuasion tactic.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

[spoonitnow]

Strong post by Dilbert creator examining Trump's chief persuasion tactic.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

This just in: Trump is more charismatic than his rivals, and that counts for a whole lot. Red pill/game blogs have been writing about this since before Scott Adams was (if you'd like further reading).

[spoonitnow]

So Trump won SC, keep hatin

[wufwugy]

Eh I probably hate him less than Rubio and Carson by now.

Regardless, as more candidates drop out (Bush already did, Carson rumored to be waiting till after Nevada), Cruz and Rubio will pick up most of their votes.

Rubio will probably win that fight. The way he wouldn't, however, is if the further west you go, the more liberty-oriented those who identify as "conservative" and "evangelical" are. SC conservatives, for example, are quite a bit different in nature than Oklahoma conservatives. Rubio is unlikely to get a lot of endorsements as key as Nikki Haley's was. The Deep South has always been a bit different than the cowboy states (Appalachians and western plains). The western Midwest could also be friendly Cruz territory like it was friendly Santorum territory, which can also explain why Cruz fared better among conservatives and evangelicals in Iowa than SC. Also SC has a history of adoring bombastic tough guy and hyper military stuff.

If the difference in regional sensibilities is not as much as some think, Rubio will probably over take Cruz and then beat Trump after Cruz drops out. From what I read in the blogs, I can say with fullest confidence that most Cruz supporters will hold their noses and vote Rubio long before they even consider voting for Trump. Only a handful are hung up on Rubio's amnesty lies.

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that Trump's support is unique. It consists of people who decided to support him a long time ago and almost immediately after he announced. It doesn't grow and he doesn't get that many undecideds or any momentum from wins and dropouts. This is why he can hit 33% in a big field yet not poll above 43% in a HU field.

[spoonitnow]

It should be noted that Trump's support is unique. It consists of people who decided to support him a long time ago and almost immediately after he announced. It doesn't grow and he doesn't get that many undecideds or any momentum from wins and dropouts. This is why he can hit 33% in a big field yet not poll above 43% in a HU field.

Yeah that theory fits perfectly with how his numbers have kept increasing pretty steadily for the most part since he first announced he was running

[wufwugy]

I think it is likely that after Super Tuesday, Rubio will have won zero states, while Cruz will have won a handful (Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, maybe Tennessee and Colorado and Alaska or something), and then Rubio will have no choice but to drop out. After which Cruz can beat up Trump, especially since Kasich will likely stay in the race like a fucking dweeb who doesn't realize even a great showing in Ohio and Michigan will do him nothing. If Cruz won Texas by enough and if he took a handful of Super Tuesday states, he would be neck and neck (or even have delegate lead) on Trump.

[wufwugy]

Going over the 2012 results, it very much looks like South Carolina (and Georgia) is its own entity. It voted wildly different than the normal conservative and evangelical vs moderate divide. Newt's tough guy and bombast did not play well at all in the western plains, Appalachians, Midwest, and even the western Deep South, but Santorum's (weak version of) compassionate conservatism did.

[spoonitnow]

Trump Trump Trump Trump

[wufwugy]

By this point, I support Trump infinity more than Rubio. Rubio embodies all that is wrong in politics. He has zero accomplishments, got elected on an issue that he completely flipped on immediately after he got in office (amnesty), is actively running away from most of the positions he claims he believes in order to get party support, and this guy, this fucking guy, is embraced by the establishment as their one last hope. The Republican Party is a fraud. A Rubio/Haley ticket would win the general election without breaking a sweat, but the presidency would just be more of the same pro-people-already-in-power-and-nobody-else garbage.

I'd be okay with a Trump/Cruz ticket. At the very least that would signal that Trump is interested in actually solving problems instead of perpetuating the government aristocracy.

[wufwugy]

His numbers hit mid-thirties real fast and haven't budged. It's looking like it's possible his open primary numbers are mid-low thirties and closed primary numbers are twenties.

Cruz is still the only player to consistently outperform his polls, by ~3-5%. Lots of western closed primary states may be going to Cruz.

[JKDS]

No republican nominee has ever lost the primary after winning both NH and SC.

[wufwugy]

There's always a first.

The reason that history exists is because the candidates embodied certain characteristic. The wins came along for the ride; they weren't deterministic.

Or if you like sticking to patterns, in the last several cycles, NH and SC each diverged wildly from historical trends.

[a500lbgorilla]

Found this interesting talking about the comparison between Trump and Berlusconi

The similarities go well beyond what /u/Vaernil pointed out: a billionaire coming from outside the political system (at a time in which the political system is weak due to its own shortcomings, rampant corruption, disconnect from the people), a man who speaks straight (unlike standard politicians), who can get around the opposition of the political establishment because he can pay for his own campaign, who can claim he won't be corrupt like all other candidates because he's rich already so what would be the point, who can claim that — being a successful businessman — he knows how to make economy work again, who can use pretend-humor to say things which are normally unacceptable in politics (always claiming that he's been misquoted or misinterpreted or that he was exaggerating, all the while appealing to those people which actually want to hear that kind of politically-incorrect stuff). A man with rude but brilliant communication abilities which no one in the establishment really knows how to deal with.Yes they are different people in different countries at different times. But let me tell you: they are exactly the same type of political phenomenon. Looking at what Berlusconi has done to Italy, it really is scary. Berlusconi's damage was limited to Italy and to some minor extent Europe, the same kind of thing in the US would be an epic disaster.

To clarify: the trouble with Berlusconi was not the Bunga-bunga parties he became famous for. It was the systematic attempt at the destruction of the rules of the country to bend them for his own and his close friend's personal gain. It was a disaster for the economy, the judiciary system, the political system (e.g. he changed the electoral law for his own advantage — the law was later repealed by Italy's Supreme Court but in the meanwhile had already been used, and the repeal left a mess anyway, and this is just one example among dozens).


Berlusconi fooled a lot of people, even smart people, when he "descended into the arena" (as he put it). When he got in power and showed his true face it was already too late, it took 20 years for him to lose his grip on Italy.

TL;DR: I was there, I remember it and can draw the comparison, Trump is following the steps of 1994 Berlusconi almost exactly. Berlusconi was a disaster and very hard to get rid of.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comm...9cqj?context=2