How to be a good politician: Lessons from Silvio Berlusconi

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
You might think that Turnip, but you're wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4705363,00.html

The Guardian has never pretended that it's anything other than a mouthpiece for the left. Even if the BBC was stuffed with Jeremy Paxmans and smug Ian Hislops, they'd still say there's a right wing bias.

Sparks

Turnip,
Did you even bother to read the article?
And more importantly, can you prove that their conclusion is wrong?
Because what you just posted was pretty much the definition of ad hominem.

Xhen

Berlusconi's remark was boorish and tactless, but so were the heckling, mobster references, and questions about his suitability. Why are Eurolefties so intent on questioning Berlusconi's fitness for office while the odious Jacques Chirac is also avoiding corruption charges by remaining in office? So far the EU parliament looks like a regular three-ring circus.

BTW, there are no charges of illegality being made against either Bush or his brother over the 2000 elections except by a few loons like Michael Moore. The election was a virtual tie so one side was going to be angry about the results no matter who came out on top. The election did reveal some structural problems in Florida's polling system but absolutely no evidence of illegality on anyone's part. Anyone who claims that Bush didn't legally win the election is either lying or doesn't understand the American election system.

Sparks

Why are Eurolefties so intent on questioning Berlusconi's fitness for office while the odious Jacques Chirac is also avoiding corruption charges by remaining in office?

Chirac's corruption is both known and condemned. However at the last election, he survived because the only other candidate was a rabidly xenophobic fascist. So given the choice between corrupt moderate and xenophobic fascist...
It's was a major scandal at the time.

The election did reveal some structural problems in Florida's polling system

Yes, and there were some minor tobacco abuses under Clinton.
:rolleyes:

but absolutely no evidence of illegality on anyone's part.

Only because those involved claimed gross incompetence.

Anyone who claims that Bush didn't legally win the election is either lying or doesn't understand the American election system.

You might want to tell that to the people making the charges...

BTW,

can you prove that their conclusion is wrong?

Xhen

Originally posted by Sparks

You might want to tell that to the people making the charges...

BTW,

You might want to tell me the names of the people making the charges first.

BTW, "making charges" doesn't mean sour grapes whining by someone with an agenda. Any idiot can throw out unsubstantiated claims, and most do. Please provide the name of the investigative body that found illegalities and the charges filed.

Sparks

You might want to tell me the names of the people making the charges first.

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/011101/gen_0111017695.shtml
http://www.hurricane2001.com/03/04/florida/d924919a.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.27B.fl.avoid.suit.htm

BTW, "making charges" doesn't mean sour grapes whining by someone with an agenda. Any idiot can throw out unsubstantiated claims, and most do. Please provide the name of the investigative body that found illegalities and the charges filed.

That would be the US Commission on Civil Rights...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004pZP

Xhen

You've provided evidence of lawsuits - an inevitability in a close election - and a US Commission on Civil Rights report that makes claims of sloppy voting procedures but no allegations of illegality. No one has argued that there weren't problems with the voting procedures in Florida but where is the proof that either Bush or his brother Jeb were guilty of crimes? If you're going to claim it start backing it up.

Sparks

a US Commission on Civil Rights report that makes claims of sloppy voting procedures but no allegations of illegality

It's more than that, and you know it.
From here:

It accuses Governor Jeb Bush, the president's brother, and his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, of "gross dereliction" of duty, saying they "chose to ignore mounting evidence" of the problems.

After more than a month of haggling over recounts and the intervention of the supreme court, George Bush was declared winner of the presidential election in Florida by 537 votes.
The report says the tiny margin was overwhelmed by the numbers of disproportionately minority voters denied the right to vote by the flawed database of felons, and the widespread use of outdated voting technology in black and Hispanic districts, where the resources to correct mistakes were scarcest.

And from here:

Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is not necessary to prove deliberate or intentional discrimination against citizens, only that certain practices resulted in the disenfranchisement of those whom the statute is designed to protect. Practices, the commission noted, “are illegal when they have the effect of restricting opportunities for people of color, language minorities, persons with disabilities, and the elderly to participate fully in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.”
In her conclusions, Chairwoman Berry was careful not to state explicitly that Jeb Bush, Harris or other Florida officials were guilty of violating voting rights. However, her preliminary report provides a picture of pervasive fraud, manipulation and intimidation, which can be explained rationally only as the outcome of a deliberate policy. Moreover, the ferocious effort of Republican officials, both nationally and in Florida, to block manual recounts after election day is consistent with a policy of suppressing votes on election day itself.

Xhen

Sparks, your source is an opinion piece from the unbiased folks at the World Socialist Website? Even the WSW admits "Chairwoman Berry was careful not to state explicitly that Jeb Bush, Harris or other Florida officials were guilty of violating voting rights" before launching into their predictable spin on the report.

You haven't made your case. None of those articles, not even the one by the Socialists, claim the George W. Bush himself did anything illegal, so I suggest you put that particular piece of propaganda back into your bag until you can back it up.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Xhen
You haven't made your case. None of those articles, not even the one by the Socialists, claim the George W. Bush himself did anything illegal, so I suggest you put that particular piece of propaganda back into your bag until you can back it up.

And I suppose that Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate breaking because he did not break in himself? :rolleyes:

I don’t think it an unfair assumption that if an action, legal or otherwise, strategically benefited him in his election that he would have been party to it, even if he were not so directly. Were the actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election illegal, it would probably be very naive to assume that he had no knowledge of it at the very least, although he almost certainly will have retained plausible deniability.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Corinthian
although he almost certainly will have retained plausible deniability.

Which seems to be all that Xhen is interested in. Reading through his various posts, all I see time after time is "show me the proof".

In other words - Buish is completely innocent and even above suspicion because nothing has been proven against him in a court of law, and to even suggest anything otherwise would be a disastrously bad move - as Xhen put it : you'd have to be lying or just not understand the US system.

Xhen - I'm curious about something. Using your logic and requirements of proof : was Bush lying about Saddam's possession of WMDs - including being close to obtaining nuclear technology - or did Bush just not understand what a WMD or the terms "possession", "close to" or "obtaining" actually means ???

After all - you're the one insisting that these seem to be the only two possible explanations for allegations based on lack of conviction in court and a lack of absolute proof.



jc

Xhen

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And I suppose that Nixon had nothing to do with the Watergate breaking because he did not break in himself? :rolleyes:

I don’t think it an unfair assumption that if an action, legal or otherwise, strategically benefited him in his election that he would have been party to it, even if he were not so directly. Were the actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election illegal, it would probably be very naive to assume that he had no knowledge of it at the very least, although he almost certainly will have retained plausible deniability.

This is a perfect illustration of how arguments are made, not on the basis of evidence or reason, but on assumption of guilt because it fits into a person's ideology. It's a kind of circular reasoning where absence of evidence becomes further proof of guilt and conspiracy theories are concocted to fill in the gaps. If one politician is involved in a crime - don't forget Nixon and Watergate! - then that proves that ALL politicians are involved in similar crimes!

If you're going to make a claim that Bush's election was illegal or that he was involved in a crime, then you're doing so with an absence of proof no matter how you try to spin it. If your ideology depends on the spreading of unproven allegations in order to justify it then maybe you ought to re-evaluate that ideology.

The Saint

If your ideology depends on the spreading of unproven allegations in order to justify it then maybe you ought to re-evaluate that ideology.

Where are the WMD's. Proof please.

Xhen

What's the matter? The debate over the election isn't going well so you want to throw in unrelated issues like WMDs? Trying to shift the focus when an argument isn't going well is a typical debating maneuver but I'm not going to get suckered into it. I'll be happy to discuss WMD's but not while the issue is the 2000 election and the lies and disinformation being passed around as facts on this forum. You people are too used to getting away with discussions where anything and everything is thrown against the wall to see if something sticks. Get back to proving your contention that Bush stole the election and we'll move onto WMDs later.

Sparks

Xhen,

Sparks, your source is an opinion piece from the unbiased folks at the World Socialist Website?

No, my source is the US Committee on Civil Rights - the opinion piece I cited was in direct reference to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - but you happily saw that my point was made and so you jumped at the ad hominem argument, didn't you?
And yet in another thread, you use a blogger with no qualifications who posts from the "USS Clueless" as a more believable source than an international team of lawyers with pertinent qualifications and decades of experience - and somehow that's supposed to pass the Xhen test of source credibility?

Trying to shift the focus when an argument isn't going well is a typical debating maneuver

Quite right Xhen - now, back past your diversion and to the point - can you say that their specific opinion, which I quoted, on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is in any way incorrect?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Xhen
This is a perfect illustration of how arguments are made, not on the basis of evidence or reason, but on assumption of guilt because it fits into a person's ideology. It's a kind of circular reasoning where absence of evidence becomes further proof of guilt and conspiracy theories are concocted to fill in the gaps. If one politician is involved in a crime - don't forget Nixon and Watergate! - then that proves that ALL politicians are involved in similar crimes!

The Watergate analogy served only to remind us that even if one does not commit an act directly, one might still be guilty of conspiracy in that crime.

There is no assumption of guilt. However one may point at circumstantial evidence. Many crimes are in fact not proven as a result of direct evidence but by the weight of indirect evidence. So that while one may not directly prove an individual has committed an act, one may still possess enough circumstantial evidence that would point to a probability so high of this being the case that the opposite would be absurdly unlikely.

I would contend that you appear to be ignoring the weight circumstantial evidence, regardless of how damning it may be; for the very (if opposite) ideological reasons that you accuse Sparks or myself of.

Oh, and for the record, Sparks and I share very little commonality ideologically.

If you're going to make a claim that Bush's election was illegal or that he was involved in a crime, then you're doing so with an absence of proof no matter how you try to spin it. If your ideology depends on the spreading of unproven allegations in order to justify it then maybe you ought to re-evaluate that ideology.

But if you read what I wrote you’ll find I made no such accusation. I said “Were the actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election illegal” as opposed to “The illegal actions taken in Florida to help GWB’s election” or similar (which I never said).

My point was not to say that the actions were illegal, but that if they were (or even if they weren’t illegal, for that matter), they would almost certainly imply collusion by GWB given the circumstances surrounding them.

As such, you seem to be as guilty of the same ideologically based selective deduction as you accuse others of. Ironic, isn’t it?

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
What's the matter? The debate over the election isn't going well so you want to throw in unrelated issues like WMDs?

At the risk of pointing out what would appear to me as glarilgly obvious, the link is the convenience of the use of proof.

You seem to think it, and its presentation, is an absolute requirement for the issuing of any statement which doesn't fit ideally with your beliefs.

On the other hand, the leader of your nation whom you are so strenuously defending with all of your prodigious might would appear to have differing standards - proof and its presentation would appear somewhat less sacrosanct.

And if the man you are defending can be so dismissive of such stricture when discussing the future of a nation, don't you think that it is at teh very least ironic that you are demanding struct adherence to the same principle in the midst of whats supposed to be some friendly discussion.

Unrelated? Not to anyone who's actually following the discussion, I'd warrant. Inconvenient? Most definitely, in terms of the distraction from the discussion.

jc