Does anyone else but me see similarities between Trump and Berlusconi?

As in:

Silvio Berlusconi: a story of unfulfilled promises | World news | The Guardian

He entered politics vowing to transform and unify the Italian right.

Berlusconi also promised to make his compatriots rich. Seeing how rich he had made himself, many believed he could.

Berlusconi pledged to reform his country's notoriously cumbersome and unpredictable system of justice. But whenever he tackled the issue it appeared to be from the standpoint of his personal interest in dodging the law.

His first party, Forza Italia, was created in a few months using the resources and techniques of the media age, which its self-appointed leader could muster in abundance.

Forza Italia, which was to become Italy's biggest political movement, was profoundly undemocratic. Berlusconi or his lieutenants decided who should fill the key posts.

Though he presented himself as a free-market campaigner, and consistently referred to himself as a liberale, Berlusconi never paid more than lip service to promoting competition or the creating of a meritocracy.

If Italians were unable to grasp the seriousness of the financial misdemeanours of which he was accused; if they were willing to give the benefit of the doubt to his claim that he was a victim of politically motivated prosecutors; if they were untroubled by his anachronistic sexism, and if latterly they failed to grasp the extent to which Berlusconi was held in contempt outside Italy, it was to a large extent because of what was said – and not said – on their small screens.

They approved more restrictive legislation on immigration, drugs and in vitro fertilisation. They introduced an electoral law that even its sponsor later called a "load of rubbish". They endorsed a string of planning and tax amnesties that helped to weaken further respect for the rule of law.

Berlusconi's second and third governments will be remembered above all for endless clashes with the opposition over bills his critics said were drawn up exclusively to protect or further his interests.

---

Basically, a media savvy guy, a raging misogynist, with a penchant for saying exactly what people want to hear, constantly embroiled in controversies and thought of as a joke outside of his country.

Definitely, at least on the surface. Decent amount of talk about it over here in Europe. The main difference (aside from the political system they are navigating) would be Berlusconis media-empire (free and controlled airtime) and the media-savy that came from it as well. As in knowing the inner workings (i don´t see Trump as media-savy, not really) and having a shitload of contacts. But other than that there´s common ground. Heck, i can think of a few even less favorable comparisons but do not want to derail things here.

Maybe less media savvy, but certainly using the media to drive a certain narrative that dominates the discussion and garners extra coverage.

This is a great comparison.

Interesting article. Parts of it appear pretty much insane, but I'm not sure that his last few sentences are too far off the mark. If Trump manages to convince a decent-sized subset of his supporters that he can only lose if the election is rigged, it's not unreasonable to think that there will be violence. (I do think he is overestimating the magnitude of said violence, though.)

Yes, the system is rigged

Wondering how the Trump business empire is doing. I've got to believe its losing the well off clientele it caters to. The people supporting Trump probably can't or wouldn't have bought Trump products and services.

There was a pretty exhaustive analysis on Medium a couple of weeks ago regarding the effect of the campaign on the Trump businesses and you are correct it has been largely negative.

Trump appears to be setting the table for the eventuality when he loses. He will do the same thing that it appears he does in business and blame pretty much everyone else while taking no responsibility for any of it.

He's got the RNC, the media and now the process firmly in his sights as his own personal scapegoat.

Heh. Just checked this Twitter account and he posted this moments ago.

I am not only fighting Crooked Hillary, I am fighting the dishonest and corrupt media and her government protection process. People get it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2016

And another. Apparently in TrumpWorld, writing anything that isn't 100% accurate should be illegal.

It is not "freedom of the press" when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 14, 2016

It's pretty amazing to me that he can go all day stroking the fire of the second amendment supporters while appearing to be ready to violate the first and have those same rabid supporters of the constitution right there with him.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5h5 hours ago If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn't put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20%


yeah he's going hard on the corrupt media excuse. And it is not "freedom of Donald Trump" to say whatever the hell he wants either, and not suffer the consequences.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you could abrogate literally every right in the Constitution except the right to bear arms, and the 2A crowd would cheer you on every step of the way. For those people, the Second Amendment *is* the Constitution and nothing else matters.

The media IS covering Trump honestly. Reporting his every word. That's why he's losing. He just never recalibrated his message

100% this. I went to the Green Bay Trump rally, not because I expected anything different, but because this way I'd at least be able to arm myself against those of my family who insist that the media just won't give him a fair shake.

The Trump you see in the media *is* Donald Trump. There is no exaggeration. That is who he is.

That must be in Article XII of the Constitution.

I do think going after the media is a decent strategy. They have an abysmal approval rating at the moment and are heavily bias. But the way he's going about it is embarrassing. It just comes across as childish name calling.

If he wanted to attack the media he needed to start earlier. He used the media to help him get the republican nomination and now that he's behind in the polls in the general he wants to attack them? It looks like desperation and I doubt it goes over well outside of his base. His base will eat up everything he throws at them that further entrenches the "us vs them" mentality though.

It's just Trump being Trump. While we all know the media is biased, it's not like we can get an honest discussion about it...through the media. It's just him rocking the boat to keep himself in focus. We hardly even know Hillary is also running. That's the only thing I can think of that he wants out of this. But yeah, it's not well done if it's a serious criticism.

Whining about the umpires only plays to your team's fans.

When your team's fans have a predilection for firearms and like to talk about how the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with blood from time to time, it only NEEDS to play to your team's fans to have an impact.

It can play to everyone. Media has a ridiculously low level of popularity these days. Especially among moderates that he needs to lure.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/am...mains-low.aspx

I don't think people give a shit about how someone thinks they're being treated by the media. Go win. GWB did. A ton of GOP congress people did. Most of the country's governors did. You can't whine about the game being rigged when you win most of the hands.

ping: tarcone

LOL. Like I said at least he is believes the crap he talks out his ass about.

See my Gary Johnson video up there.

I dont agree with it all. But those 2 guys have a positive track record dealing with issues.

No, he doesnt believe it. He says the complete opposite depending on the situation.

"Hillary is a wonderful women, works hard, and Ive known her for a very long time."

"Hillary is the worst Secretary of State in History and a liar"

Those are not opposite statements though. HRC could be wonderful and a hard worker. But she can also be the worst Sec. of State ever and lie.

I dont agree with the 1st statement at all.

The 2nd seems right.

Seriously, I don't want to get involved in this shit but how you can possibly believe somebody is being truthful when he's said and done completely the opposite for the entire rest of their life is beyond me. But I guess each to their own.

I think this is a pretty good ad, it deserves to get seen by more people.

Ive never said he was being truthful. I said he believes the crap he says. He may lie but he will sell it.
I dont think HRC believes anything she says. I think she will say whatever gets her what she wants. I honestly dont think she knows what the truth is.

In my mind there is a difference.

So you are saying Trump is a rambling idiot that doesnt check facts before spouting a bunch of false information out of his mouth? Is that better than just being liar?

One of the two lies considerably more than the other while campaigning. One of the two has switched stances on his political views in order to run for a specific party. Yet the other one doesn't know what the truth is and will say anything to get what she wants?

Look, Hillary is far from the ideal candidate. She's got baggage. A lot of that baggage comes simply from being inhigh level politics for so long while some of its her own doing. This image that people who don't want to vote for her project onto her has little to no backing though.

Trumps approach since he started has been throw as much bullshit out there as he can and focus his bullshit in the areas that stick with the people. What he's found out is that doesn't play well with people outside of his hardcore base which has him apologizing for shit he says while at the same time telling that base he really isn't sorry.

:+1:

I dont disagree with you what you said about Trump.
I do disagree with what you say about HRC. I believe there is much backing that isnt being shown to us. Or being hidden.

I think there is a lot more to HRC then we know about. There is no politician that I distrust more then HRC.

I will never vote for her. Its that simple. I believe she will scew up everything she touches but whitewash and sell it to us as a grand accomplishment. I believe she will blame anything else but herself for any failings.

She is the political politician that this country has ever seen.

Oh come on. Hillary has switched political stances as much as anyone in politics. She was against gay marriage and now she's for it. For nationalized health care and now against it. She was against global trade partnerships like NAFTA a few years ago and now she's all about TPP. She loved her husband's crime bill but now says we need justice system reform to reverse mass incarceration.

She's changed her position on the Keystone pipeline, immigration (her views were very much in line with Trump), gun control (she was for more regulation, than none, now wants more), and Cuba. There's a bunch more too if you look.

Clinton is a political chameleon who will say anything to get elected. Lets not pretend that she hasn't switched political views a lot. Or that she doesn't lie incessantly. The best thing she has going for her is that she's not Donald Trump.

I didn't claim Hillary doesn't or hasn't changed her political stances. There's a big difference between changing your political stances and changing them strictly to run for a party, which is what Trump did.

Hillary never went "well, I can't win as a democrat. Time run as a republican!" and switch her viewpoints to make herself electable that way.

I mean a couple years ago Clinton was talking about how we need to send undocumented children back to where they came from and bragging about how she funded walls along the Mexico border.

I guess the "paper of record" forgot that in their puff piece about her stance on immigration.

Log In - The New York Times

But at least Hillary has maintained her stance on inclusiveness in the face of Trump's racism.

I'm of course ignoring when her campaign passed out the photo of Obama in Somali garb, the co-chair of her campaign called him a drug dealer, and her husband claimed he was just Jesse Jackson and incapable of winning a national election. Or when her surrogates went around claiming the only reason he was in the position was because he was black. And of course when she sort of hinted that the Church he attends might be sympathetic to Muslim terrorists.

Umpires are biased?

More bad news for Trump?

Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief

yeah I was wondering why Trump was bad-mouthing the NY Times so much over the weekend. Now I know why. "many people have said" he's behind the DNC and Hillary hack too. See Donald I can do that too! :)

It's amazing that the guy who tells it like it is and hates the establishment is refusing to release tax returns or his donors. For the big liar Hillary, she has released decades of tax returns and much of her bundlers' info.

Election Update: 10 Big Questions About The Election, Revisited | FiveThirtyEight


I think at this point the major question is if Trump will get the lowest popular vote of any major party nominee in the past 80 years.

This is prior to Hillary owning Trump in the debates. You will see Hillary work him over in the debates. Her lawyer skills against his speak with no thought skills and short childish patience level.

yeah I think if Hillary can come out of the first debate as "the winner" and get Trump to say some of his usual racist stuff, then the election is over. Of course that depends on what may come out about Hillary before November too.

Just a reality check that people have been saying this since 2006. There is no Clinton smoking gun. She and Bill have been under intense media, congressional and investigative scrutiny since 1992, all of which failed to turn up anything more substantive than some blow jobs. Finding a smoking gun would literally make millions for the media outlet that got it, and set the "finder" up for a lifetime on whatever punditry circuit.

I'm happy to have Trump supporters, or Clinton haters, hold out hope that one day between now and November it's all going to fall down, but they're deluding themselves if they really believe this.

For those interested, Johnson/Weld are having a donation push today to try and get some media attention, and of course money. If inclined to donate, Gary Johnson for President 2016: Official Website

They've already reached $1.2 million of their $1.5 million dollar goal.

I don't disagree with you really Flere. I think too, like Trump, she has a "no-stick" box around her. I don't think anything seems to harm her anymore too much. Her emails. Benghazi, etc. But there is still stuff that could come out I think, like on the Clinton Foundation or Wiki Links, that timed well, could hurt her. Foreign events/terrorist action here in the US that she had no control over could also hurt her.

Thanks. I just donated.