Has there ever been a person like Trump in history? Do we have any solid parallels?

yeah populist leaders are nothing new.

Politics aside.

Let's not compare Teddy Roosevelt to Donald Trump please.

>Let's not compare Teddy Roosevelt to Donald Trump please.

Well, seriously. Trump is closer to Hugo Chavez than he is any other recent Republican president.

>populist
>when the democratic majority disagrees with me

Nah man I'm not shilling anything I just want to know if there was another time when there was such a powerful troll.

>please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago.

Andrew Jackson? He was more a rags to riches type, but behaved pretty much the same.

> I just want to know if there was another time when there was such a powerful troll.
Only other guy I can think of was that former Iranian President that apparently wanted to kill all the jews.

But that was recent.

the politics of today is centered around celebrity and media appearances. in that regard trump was involved in politics without holding office for many years (especially as a commentator through twitter)

>IT WAS HER TURN REEEEE
leftypol is still mad as fuck

it has to do with who the politician seeks to represent, not how many people actually follow them.

That's another thing. I can't believe the polls got it so wrong. How did that happen?

>Teddy
>recent
wew

If only the Progressive Party won.

OP is asking for historic figures.

I personally think this kind of question should be allowed if people can refrain from turning it into pure contemporary politics

Nice trips, and that's exactly what I mean. I don't really see how he's like Caligula though. At least we don't have /leftypol/ memers comparing him to Hitler.

I mean Iran is not really that powerful though

You have to be 80 to post here kiddo

Obama.

Almost every Latinamerican president

It happened because of stigma of openly supporting Trump. Hell back during the election I couldnt even talk about supporting a 3rd party candidate without being called a racist retard. Every one who wasn't a typical republican that also supported Trump pretty much kept their opinion to themselves until it was time to cast the vote.

Tiberius Gracchus

>implying trump's deed aren't exaggerated by fake news

He's literally the American Juan Peron.

Berlusconi + Mussolini + Andrew Jackson.

>mfw he knows about /leftpol/ but not about acclerationism
Come on, if you want to shit on your opponents, at least spend some time to understand them

Electoral College

Populism is literally defined as "giving a shit about poor people." It's only used as a pejorative when monied elites are reminded that they live in a democracy

Why do Americans think of Trump as anything other than a typical conservative leader. This isn't a special snowflake moment in time

leftists are the willing pawns of capitalists

>Trump
>conservative

In terms of his bombastic style and appeal to a nationalist/populist base of support, he reminds me a lot of Mussolini. I am not one who regards Trump as an incipient fascist, so I would say they differ in that respect. If it turns out I am wrong, then they are strikingly similar.

What the fuck, I like Hitler and hate Trump now. Or the other way around.

He's a carbon copy of a meme politician in the Swedish parliament 25 years ago called Bert Karlsson.

kek
Politics is always pandering to the middle class, populism doesn't mean "giving a shit about poor people" in the slightest. You're pandering to the masses, not the poor. The masses aren't poor. You don't see a populist go around from hobo to hobo trying to convince them to vote for him.

>when the democratic majority disagrees with me

Errrrrr

Most news organisations intentionally over weighted democrat voters

Not sure I see that one, except "Hur I think they both bad."

Gaius was a young man who had been groomed for a slot in government, Trump is an old guy with zero government experience.

Trump appeals to a populist base, Gaius was placed in power by the previous Emperor and the acclimation of the political establishment in the Senate.

Gaius started out extremely popular, Trump is extremely controversial as he starts his term in office. Gaius became less popular (at least with the Senatorial class) over time -- not sure what will happen there with Trump, we'll have to wait and see.

Maybe they both had the pussy grabbing thing going on, but I suspect stories about that have been exaggerated for both men.

People misinterpreted Trump having a *low* chance of winning as Trump having *no* chance of winning. Reputable polling sources predicted that, if Trump won, he would most likely win by the Electoral College, and that the states he won would be by very small margins. Lo and behold, that's what happened.

Are you saying that Trump does NOT draw his power from an appeal to the "little guy," the common people, over the heads of the political and cultural elite?

There's reaches, and there's REACHES. Your post is the later.

That's how he won the Rust Belt, but it's certainly not where he gets his power. Trump is more connected to the elite than nearly any other president in history.

Reagan

Nobody thought you could win an election by appealing to white middle class people.

>he doesn't understand America's electoral system

Or are you one of the people who thinks 6 billion dead jews voted?

>not going for every single vote you can grab

Isn't Mussolini's flamboyantness an Italian thing though?

I understand it fine.

But it's a tad delusional for a Trump supporter to declare the majority agree with them since that's clearly not the case.

LITERALLY HITLER

According to the opposition a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for trump, in their own terms Trump could have the majority.

I hope you realize they're speaking figuratively when they say that.

If chickens were unicorns then you could have a tasty unicorn stew.

Figuratively speaking Trump has the majority then?

Not gonna lie, former Trump supporter here. It's been hilarious watching him crash and burn. In all seriousness we cannot let this man get the nuclear codes.

People make a mistake in thinking polls are predictive, They are not -- having a lead at one point in the race does not mean you will win later when the election rolls around. The electorate changes, that is the whole point of what the campaigns are doing.

The polling does seem to have exaggerated Clinton's strength. I suspect that this had to do with trying to screen for Likely Voters with a bad methodology. They then focussed solely on the "horse race" question in media reporting, which is the least important question asked usually, and missed what was driving voter interest and enthusiasm during the election. This was a pretty classic "Change Election," and the candidate who had been a longstanding feature of the political landscape, a high ranking member of the outgoing administration and who never found ways to explain why she was not just More of the Same, was at a huge disadvantage.

There was a media narrative that she was inevitably going to wipe the floor with him, they focused on that part of the polling that was confirming the narrative, and ignored that the lead had changed several times in even the horse race question, that the momentum was against her in pretty much every state in the last week, and that he had the enthusiasm among his supporters.

>It happened because of stigma of openly supporting Trump.

That may have been a factor -- back when I used to work polling, we found that the identity of the caller had a surprisingly big impact on how people answered on the horse race. Not to be /pol/ish, but there is a pretty well-known link between ethnicity and party support, and callers who are identifiably of that ethnicity by accent tend to hear what the respondent thinks they want to hear, on that question.

>Most news organisations intentionally over weighted democrat

I don't think so -- I think they did it unintentionally, trying to balance for a turn-out model that was just wrong.

And now back to Veeky Forumstory

Not even then. It's a provable fact that more people chose not to vote than vote for Trump, and more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump and independents combined.

>independents
I said third-party though.

>I have no argument to make so I'll just post a picture of a guy with pink hair

If you have nothing to say then say nothing.

You know what I mean when I say independent.

Stopping in to say that I agree with this analalisys

>Trump is more connected to the elite than nearly any other president in history.
I'd like to hear you justify this statement

He almost certainly defines 'elite' in terms of economic power rather than political power.

>and more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump and independents combined.
>independents

Wew this is some straight up shill word-parsing.

Libertarians alone make up for the difference. 2.9 million versus 3.6 million.

What the fuck does "independents" even mean in this situation?

The difference in the popular vote can be entirely accounted for by the huge margin Clinton won California by. Their political leanings aren't representative of the mixed bag you get throughout the rest of the country.

more people chose not to vote than voted for hillary
How do you know who they didn't vote for?

A man goes into a deli and orders a roast beef sandwich.
"Can I get that with out mustard?"
"Were out of mustard. Would you like that with out mayo?"

Yes, elite in the literal sense, but he's very much outside the club.

So?

And? It's still the popular vote. Doesn't matter where they came from, the population is the population.

>What the fuck does "independents" even mean in this situation?
Not that user but doesn't that usually refer to any candidate not democrat or republican?

Art thou retarded? An independent is a person running or voting without a declared party. If you are in a party that isn't the Republicans or Democrats, you are regarded as a third party.

As an Italian I would say that the comparisons with Berlusconi only work on a superficial level. Silvio kept the old First Republic gravy train rolling, while Trump seems serious about dismantling the previous power structures.

Comparisons with Mussolini already work better, but the key difference of course is that Trump never defied institutions(which isn't the same as defying their representatives), much less acted unlawfully during his rise to power, or after attaining it.

Thank god Hilary isn't president, but hopefully we can get this parody out of office and then we'll have the best case scenario of neither of them.

>while Trump seems serious about dismantling the previous power structures.

He doesn't appear to have any intent to do so.

Some of his first acts appear to have been to hire a bunch of Goldman Sachs employees and deregulate all the banks again.

>media
>not a power structure

Are you seriously suggesting that Donald Trump intends to use presidential powers to dismantle the media?

Proviso -- in some places there is a party called The Independent Party. I know they exist in Oregon, for example.

>muh Goldman Sachs

I was talking about purging the neocons and the deep state, which is specifically what Trump refers to when talking about the "swamp". It isn't anything you don't like, you fucking bernigger.

To delegitimize it, and it is useless as an institution if it has no credibility. Thankfully he is failing.
Ah, fair enough then.

He frequently attacked Goldman Sachs in the election and you are completely incoherent and making little sense.

Not him but independent and third party are two completely different things you dumb fuck.

Trump is literally the anti-Reagan.

Reagan:
>de facto state of war against Russia
>open borders policies
>free trade
>amnesty for illegals
>heavily relying on the neocon/Friedmanite vote

which club? to be clear, it seems to me like clubs are many and people take part in more than one

>He frequently attacked Goldman Sachs in the election

Maybe so, but it still isn't what he called the "swamp". Lefty retards like Bernie Sanders associated the two things. And these people "from Goldman Sachs" he hired in his cabinet haven't been working for GS in years.

>o delegitimize it, and it is useless as an institution if it has no credibility. Thankfully he is failing.
He's not delegitimizing all media, just the media he doesn't like. It's no different from lefties constantly shitting on Fox. Anyone who's pro Trump already hates and distrusts most of those sources, and rightfully so. He's not jailing journalists. The idea that he should just let the media spread any narrative they want without responding is just sour grapes from the Democrat propaganda mill.

Sounds like he's succeeding, actually. Media approval ratings are at all time record low.

Daily reminder that Napoleon, Hitler and Bismarcks were all 100% correct about the press.

They were right about how the only people who actively campaign against press that doesn't actively praise them are tyrants and dictators?

Maybe "dictators" are actually the good guys while the press is an outright propaganda tool of their owners of sponsors?

Are you /pol/ and just repeating this as a talking point and pretending to be ignorant or are you actually serious?

Nate Silver wrote up an article about it. It's because it looked like Clinton was going to win a lot of states with slim margins. Instead Trump won those states with slim margins. National polls accurately reflected the popular vote. It was the state polls that were off, which were used to predict state races.

Nero. Nero wasn't a degenerate psychopath, but he was a narcissist and did troll the Senate/elite of Rome so much for 12 years

You're an outright fucktard if you think it was only Nate Silver.

youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg