4 ms·

> Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? I have no idea. But I do think that if he were the most corrupt in history, there would be more evide

by lisper 3y ago

> Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? I have no idea. But I do think that if he were the most corrupt in history, there would be more evidence. Donald Trump set the bar pretty high here. I think it's actually quite likely that Biden is not corrupt at all, because if there were even the tiniest shred of credible evidence of corruption against him, the Republicans would have impeached him for it already. I think the only reason they haven't done it is that there is no evidence. That doesn't mean he's not corrupt. But if he is, he seems to have concealed it pretty effectively.

lapcat 3y ago
I'm baffled that some people don't consider it corruption when politicians are owned by campaign contributors. I would call that legalized bribery. Legal because of course the bribed are themselves the lawmakers.
- lisper 3y ago
  If that's your definition of corruption then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. And no, I see no evidence that Biden has done that.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > If that's your definition of corruption I wouldn't say it's my definition. I don't invent words. > then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. I agree that it's extremely difficult. > So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. How is the truth vacuous? > My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. Ok, but that's an overly narrow conception.
    - lisper 3y ago
      The dictionary definition of "corrupt" is "Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved". The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. Words are only useful insofar as they allow you to draw distinctions between different concepts. Your definition (and it is yours -- you may not have invented the word, but you did advance one particular definition) isn't useful because it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United. On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human".
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Agreed. > Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Agreed. > Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. That's where I disagree, and again, "legal" is irrelevant if the lawmakers themselves are corrupt. There's a massive difference between legal and ethical. That's the whole purpose of corrupting lawmakers, to get them to write the laws in your favor. > it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United You appear to misunderstand Citizens United, which applies to independent expenditures, not to direct campaign contributions. [EDIT:] Besides, Joe Biden joined the US Senate in 1973. The Citizens United decision in 2010 is not temporarily available to him as an excuse and has nothing to do with whether he was a paid tool of the financial industry. > On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human". You can not run for office. I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt.
        lisper 3y ago
        > You appear to misunderstand Citizens United You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. (Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt?) > I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt. That's true. But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in.

by lisper 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

I'm baffled that some people don't consider it corruption when politicians are owned by campaign contributors. I would call that legalized bribery. Legal because of course the bribed are themselves the lawmakers.

lisper 3y ago
If that's your definition of corruption then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. And no, I see no evidence that Biden has done that.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > If that's your definition of corruption I wouldn't say it's my definition. I don't invent words. > then it is not possible for a non-corrupt person to get elected in the U.S. since the Citizens United decision. I agree that it's extremely difficult. > So on that view, calling a politician corrupt is vacuous. How is the truth vacuous? > My definition of corruption is someone who uses the power of their elected position to enrich themselves personally. Ok, but that's an overly narrow conception.
  - lisper 3y ago
    The dictionary definition of "corrupt" is "Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved". The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. Words are only useful insofar as they allow you to draw distinctions between different concepts. Your definition (and it is yours -- you may not have invented the word, but you did advance one particular definition) isn't useful because it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United. On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human".
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > The generally accepted definition when applied to politicians is that they use their power and influence to some unfair advantage. Agreed. > Enriching yourself at the expense of your constituents qualifies. Agreed. > Doing legal things that are required under our current system to get elected doesn't. That's where I disagree, and again, "legal" is irrelevant if the lawmakers themselves are corrupt. There's a massive difference between legal and ethical. That's the whole purpose of corrupting lawmakers, to get them to write the laws in your favor. > it applies necessarily to all U.S. politicians since Citizens United You appear to misunderstand Citizens United, which applies to independent expenditures, not to direct campaign contributions. [EDIT:] Besides, Joe Biden joined the US Senate in 1973. The Citizens United decision in 2010 is not temporarily available to him as an excuse and has nothing to do with whether he was a paid tool of the financial industry. > On your definition, calling a politician "corrupt" adds no more information than calling them "human". You can not run for office. I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt.
      - lisper 3y ago
        > You appear to misunderstand Citizens United You appear to misunderstand how the world actually works if you think that there is a substantive difference between "independent expenditures" and "direct campaign contributions." Money is fungible. (Just out of curiosity, do you think Clarence Thomas is corrupt?) > I don't run for office. Not all humans are corrupt. That's true. But if you are not "corrupt" on your definition, you will never win a contested election. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the world we currently live in.