3 ms·

Yes, it is different. Pretending it is the same is just another way to defend the corrupt ones.

by wredcoll 10mo ago

bdangubic 10mo ago
how exactly is different…? I give you Trump, you give me Biden. I give you Scott, you give me Pelosi. I give you Bush, you give me Clinton… it is not different but regardless of whether it is or isn’t no one is defending it. it is just a disservice to everyone to think somehow magically things are all this different now than before, same crap different toilet paper
- wkat4242 10mo ago
  It's different because it's all about that now. The Clintons had their scandals, the "pay to play" lists etc. We all know they are in bed with the moneymen. But it didn't define their administration, and they were pretty hush-hush about it. Trump on the other hand is completely open about this. He even brags about making money from deals, something that was previously considered a huge conflict of interest. He appoints people based on loyalty alone, not knowledge or experience. He bullies countries into compliance with mafia tactics ("appease me or else..." tariffs or even war like venezuela and greenland). It's a huge moral shift where that is no longer unthinkable. The US used to have values. It was a country that was at least trying to be the good guy. Also, the constitution used to be holy. Now Trump is flaunting the 1st amendment on a daily basis (limiting LGBTIQ+ speech, establishing America as a "christian country" which is explicitly forbidden). I think all these developments are very concerning. I don't live in America but considering it is still a big world power it does worry me.
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    I love the spirit of your comments but IMO it is misguided The US used to have values. It was a country that was at least trying to be the good guy. This really is all wrong. One might think this based on pitches from different times but all Empires are evil by their definition and America has always been that, always
    - wredcoll 10mo ago
      > This really is all wrong. One might think this based on pitches from different times but all Empires are evil by their definition and America has always been that, always Again, the problem with this train of logic is you inevitable condemn everyone and everything as evil, at which point the word completely loses its meaning. Evil is only useful as a term if there are actually things that are not evil. America has certainly done immoral, unethical and frankly evil things. It's also done moral, beautiful and even heroic things. It's a big complicated entity made up of literally millions of people and trying to summarize it as "good or evil" is pointless. The reason this nuance matters is that we want, need to encourage doing good and the first step to doing that is to actually be able to distinguish between good and evil.
      - bdangubic 10mo ago
        > It's also done moral, beautiful and even heroic things give me a list of these “beautiful and heroic things” - very interested to read them
        wredcoll 10mo ago
        Ok, I'll play: > We estimate that over the past two decades, USAID-funded programmes have helped prevent more than 91 million deaths globally, including 30 million deaths among children. How about that? Or are you going to come up with some excuse that somewhere, somehow, an american also benefitted from saving all these lives and therefor it doesn't count? [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext#:~:text=We%20estimate%20that%20over%20the,of%20US%20global%20health%20engagement. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
        bdangubic 10mo ago
        I mean you are making this too easy that I can copy&paste above the fold..: The core reason for creating USAID in 1961, under President John F. Kennedy, was to consolidate and revamp U.S. foreign aid into a single, more strategic agency to counter Soviet influence during the Cold War, promote democracy and free-market principles, and fulfill America's moral and economic role as a global leader. It aimed to separate economic aid from military assistance and make it more effective in fostering development, spreading U.S. values, and creating stable partners, distinct from the bureaucracy of the State Department.
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    just do a simple thing - ballpark how many lives of innocent people has America taken, lets just say since WWII. then lets see after you ballpark this whether you still think we are (or ever were) “good guys”
    - queenkjuul 10mo ago
      [flagged]
    - wredcoll 10mo ago
      Sure: define innocent.
  - breppp 10mo ago
    The major difference is the disappearance of shame. However, the greatest enablement was the overblown cynicism large swaths of the american elites had towards the national proclaimed values. When you think everything is cynical even when it is not then the next step is to have governments that are completely cynical.
    - bdangubic 10mo ago
      so it is shame that is important? As long as we are shameful of corruption etc it is good but once the shame goes away we gonna draw the line?
      - wredcoll 10mo ago
        No, what they said is we had less corruption when people were ashamed of it.
        bdangubic 10mo ago
        This should be political slogan for 2026/28 election - “Bringing Shame Back to Politics”
      - breppp 10mo ago
        yes, when politicians aren't ashamed of corruption, corruption has no self imposed limits
- wredcoll 10mo ago
  Ok, give me biden. Where are his lists of corruption scandals[1]? His public statements about taking bribes? I'm not quite sure how to explain this very obvious point: biden and his government was not corrupt in any meaningful sense and trump and his government is extremely corrupt and pretending that they're the same is both factually wrong and has the effect of protecting trump and his corruption. The point isn't that anyone is above reproach, the point is that all you're doing is normalizing the increased awfulness of the republican corruption. And normalizing it means that it is more likely to continue happening and less likely to be punished. If you're supposedly unhappy about clinton "corruption" why aren't you really mad about trump? This whole "oh everything is the same nothing can improve" attitude is literally a favored tactic of the most corrupt governments. They want you to think that way because it means they'll never be held accountable. Any time people start talking about improving things they're met with an endless deluge of "oh it's all the same nothing can change" which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy. [1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
  - alexandre_m 10mo ago
    https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/ https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-ti...
    - wredcoll 10mo ago
      I'll quote from myself: > [1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
- queenkjuul 10mo ago
  Lol which major media companies paid bribes to the Biden family? I don't disagree that they're all corrupt bastards but come on man you cannot seriously pretend the degree of corruption is the same.
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    > degree of corruption is the same the echochamber is going nuts… look at this thread and see how many of you are saying “degree of corruption” and then think whether or not you are getting this fed like clowns from whatever fucking (“social”) media your brain is being poisoned and then start to question your life’s choices
    - queenkjuul 10mo ago
      Lmao you don't know anything about what i read or believe, and i don't use social media. Are you arguing that every act of corruption is of precisely equal magnitude and consequence?
      - bdangubic 10mo ago
        nope, I am educated so I don't write silly blanket statements like this without having something to back it up with. I am not saying that it less, equal or more corruption cause this is something that you cannot measure. you can only believe crap you read (depending on your politics you will be in one or the other echochamber) and then go "oh, the 'magnitute' of corruption is now "bigger/smaller/equal" than in ____ [insert year/administrations/...]
        queenkjuul 10mo ago
        Ok, so you do actually believe there's no difference in degree. You can just say as much.
        bdangubic 10mo ago
        I have said so, in like 13 comments in this thread

Yes, it is different. Pretending it is the same is just another way to defend the corrupt ones.

how exactly is different…? I give you Trump, you give me Biden. I give you Scott, you give me Pelosi. I give you Bush, you give me Clinton… it is not different but regardless of whether it is or isn’t no one is defending it. it is just a disservice to everyone to think somehow magically things are all this different now than before, same crap different toilet paper

wkat4242 10mo ago
It's different because it's all about that now. The Clintons had their scandals, the "pay to play" lists etc. We all know they are in bed with the moneymen. But it didn't define their administration, and they were pretty hush-hush about it. Trump on the other hand is completely open about this. He even brags about making money from deals, something that was previously considered a huge conflict of interest. He appoints people based on loyalty alone, not knowledge or experience. He bullies countries into compliance with mafia tactics ("appease me or else..." tariffs or even war like venezuela and greenland). It's a huge moral shift where that is no longer unthinkable. The US used to have values. It was a country that was at least trying to be the good guy. Also, the constitution used to be holy. Now Trump is flaunting the 1st amendment on a daily basis (limiting LGBTIQ+ speech, establishing America as a "christian country" which is explicitly forbidden). I think all these developments are very concerning. I don't live in America but considering it is still a big world power it does worry me.
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  I love the spirit of your comments but IMO it is misguided The US used to have values. It was a country that was at least trying to be the good guy. This really is all wrong. One might think this based on pitches from different times but all Empires are evil by their definition and America has always been that, always
  - wredcoll 10mo ago
    > This really is all wrong. One might think this based on pitches from different times but all Empires are evil by their definition and America has always been that, always Again, the problem with this train of logic is you inevitable condemn everyone and everything as evil, at which point the word completely loses its meaning. Evil is only useful as a term if there are actually things that are not evil. America has certainly done immoral, unethical and frankly evil things. It's also done moral, beautiful and even heroic things. It's a big complicated entity made up of literally millions of people and trying to summarize it as "good or evil" is pointless. The reason this nuance matters is that we want, need to encourage doing good and the first step to doing that is to actually be able to distinguish between good and evil.
    - bdangubic 10mo ago
      > It's also done moral, beautiful and even heroic things give me a list of these “beautiful and heroic things” - very interested to read them
      - wredcoll 10mo ago
        Ok, I'll play: > We estimate that over the past two decades, USAID-funded programmes have helped prevent more than 91 million deaths globally, including 30 million deaths among children. How about that? Or are you going to come up with some excuse that somewhere, somehow, an american also benefitted from saving all these lives and therefor it doesn't count? [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext#:~:text=We%20estimate%20that%20over%20the,of%20US%20global%20health%20engagement. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
        bdangubic 10mo ago
        I mean you are making this too easy that I can copy&paste above the fold..: The core reason for creating USAID in 1961, under President John F. Kennedy, was to consolidate and revamp U.S. foreign aid into a single, more strategic agency to counter Soviet influence during the Cold War, promote democracy and free-market principles, and fulfill America's moral and economic role as a global leader. It aimed to separate economic aid from military assistance and make it more effective in fostering development, spreading U.S. values, and creating stable partners, distinct from the bureaucracy of the State Department.
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  just do a simple thing - ballpark how many lives of innocent people has America taken, lets just say since WWII. then lets see after you ballpark this whether you still think we are (or ever were) “good guys”
  - queenkjuul 10mo ago
    [flagged]
  - wredcoll 10mo ago
    Sure: define innocent.
- breppp 10mo ago
  The major difference is the disappearance of shame. However, the greatest enablement was the overblown cynicism large swaths of the american elites had towards the national proclaimed values. When you think everything is cynical even when it is not then the next step is to have governments that are completely cynical.
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    so it is shame that is important? As long as we are shameful of corruption etc it is good but once the shame goes away we gonna draw the line?
    - wredcoll 10mo ago
      No, what they said is we had less corruption when people were ashamed of it.
      - bdangubic 10mo ago
        This should be political slogan for 2026/28 election - “Bringing Shame Back to Politics”
    - breppp 10mo ago
      yes, when politicians aren't ashamed of corruption, corruption has no self imposed limits
wredcoll 10mo ago
Ok, give me biden. Where are his lists of corruption scandals[1]? His public statements about taking bribes? I'm not quite sure how to explain this very obvious point: biden and his government was not corrupt in any meaningful sense and trump and his government is extremely corrupt and pretending that they're the same is both factually wrong and has the effect of protecting trump and his corruption. The point isn't that anyone is above reproach, the point is that all you're doing is normalizing the increased awfulness of the republican corruption. And normalizing it means that it is more likely to continue happening and less likely to be punished. If you're supposedly unhappy about clinton "corruption" why aren't you really mad about trump? This whole "oh everything is the same nothing can improve" attitude is literally a favored tactic of the most corrupt governments. They want you to think that way because it means they'll never be held accountable. Any time people start talking about improving things they're met with an endless deluge of "oh it's all the same nothing can change" which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy. [1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
- alexandre_m 10mo ago
  https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/ https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-ti...
  - wredcoll 10mo ago
    I'll quote from myself: > [1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
queenkjuul 10mo ago
Lol which major media companies paid bribes to the Biden family? I don't disagree that they're all corrupt bastards but come on man you cannot seriously pretend the degree of corruption is the same.
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  > degree of corruption is the same the echochamber is going nuts… look at this thread and see how many of you are saying “degree of corruption” and then think whether or not you are getting this fed like clowns from whatever fucking (“social”) media your brain is being poisoned and then start to question your life’s choices
  - queenkjuul 10mo ago
    Lmao you don't know anything about what i read or believe, and i don't use social media. Are you arguing that every act of corruption is of precisely equal magnitude and consequence?
    - bdangubic 10mo ago
      nope, I am educated so I don't write silly blanket statements like this without having something to back it up with. I am not saying that it less, equal or more corruption cause this is something that you cannot measure. you can only believe crap you read (depending on your politics you will be in one or the other echochamber) and then go "oh, the 'magnitute' of corruption is now "bigger/smaller/equal" than in ____ [insert year/administrations/...]
      - queenkjuul 10mo ago
        Ok, so you do actually believe there's no difference in degree. You can just say as much.
        bdangubic 10mo ago
        I have said so, in like 13 comments in this thread