And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Madiel]

You do it you don't break the law, but you are corrupt anyway. You take someone's money and do their bidding. That is corruption, legal or not.

Clearly we have different definitions of "corruption". Because I consider "legal corruption" to be a contradiction in terms. Like "lawful murder".

I mean, I pay people all the time to do my bidding. I pay a plumber, he fixes my plumbing. It's called providing a service. So you're clearly being a little imprecise there.

I know you're claiming that a politician ought not to be taking someone's money and then doing their bidding. And one level I agree. The problem is, you're throwing rule of law out the window and deciding that what matters here is your opinion, or my opinion. I don't know exactly what laws the USA does and does not have on corruption, but the whole point of laws is they represent what a SOCIETY has decided is and isn't okay.

And frankly, substituting the opinion of a Finn or an Australian as the standard for how an American politician is required to behave to avoid being labelled with a pejorative term like "corrupt" makes zero sense to me. Because I believe in actual trials. Not trials by social media, or in the court of public opinion, but actual trials based on laws that were written down so that the expected standards were known and defined.

[Madiel]

Calling both Biden and Trump corrupt doesn't mean they are corrupt the same way or degree. If you don't understand that you are one sorry puppy yourself.

And now I'm going call you out on this. You didn't call them both corrupt. You called them both UTTERLY CORRUPT.

Do you actually understand what "utterly" means?

Read your own words, and don't blame other people for reading them. If you meant that Biden was not as corrupt as Trump, then saying "they are BOTH utterly corrupt" was a complete failure on your part to convey your meaning.

[71 dB]

Clearly we have different definitions of "corruption". Because I consider "legal corruption" to be a contradiction in terms. Like "lawful murder".

Corruption can be legal or illegal depending how the law is written. Legal corruption is moral problem that can (and often does) lead to problems in society. For example the US has an unnecessory opioid crisis because Big Pharma legally bought the politicians.

I mean, I pay people all the time to do my bidding. I pay a plumber, he fixes my plumbing. It's called providing a service. So you're clearly being a little imprecise there.

Yeah, but it is YOUR plumber doing YOUR house. Other people pay their plumbers to do their pipes. What if you bought ALL plumbers? Your house would the the only one taken care of. Are you that dumb to not see it is a problem when billionaires buy politicians who SHOULD be serving everyone?

I know you're claiming that a politician ought not to be taking someone's money and then doing their bidding. And one level I agree. The problem is, you're throwing rule of law out the window and deciding that what matters here is your opinion, or my opinion. I don't know exactly what laws the USA does and does not have on corruption, but the whole point of laws is they represent what a SOCIETY has decided is and isn't okay.

The law in the US in this regard is very relaxed and it's practically an open auction for rich people and corporations. For example NRA has bought the whole Republican party and that's why there's never stricter gun laws happening despite of 97 % of Americans wanting some gun reform. NRA itself has been bribed by the gun manufacturers. The society as a whole has NOT decided this. The rich have. That's the problem. The rich replaced democracy with oligarchy and it happened in the 70's/80's, because Americans were too stupid to fight back in time. Bernie Sanders is one of the only ones who have been fighting back all the time.

And frankly, substituting the opinion of a Finn or an Australian as the standard for how an American politician is required to behave to avoid being labelled with a pejorative term like "corrupt" makes zero sense to me. Because I believe in actual trials. Not trials by social media, or in the court of public opinion, but actual trials based on laws that were written down so that the expected standards were known and defined.

Corruption is equally harmful in the US, Australia or Finland. Greed is the same everywhere. The only difference is how well democracy functions. You don't have to be a criminal to be a bad politician and legal corruption makes bad politicians.

[Madiel]

You don't have to be a criminal to be a bad politician and legal corruption makes bad politicians.

I said nothing about whether or not a politician was bad. But as far as I'm concerned "bad" and "corrupt" are not synonyms. This is the difference between value judgements and legal ones.

The rest of your post is either making the same point I was making, or just missing the point I was making because nuance is lost on you.

[71 dB]

And now I'm going call you out on this. You didn't call them both corrupt. You called them both UTTERLY CORRUPT.

Do you actually understand what "utterly" means?

Read your own words, and don't blame other people for reading them. If you meant that Biden was not as corrupt as Trump, then saying "they are BOTH utterly corrupt" was a complete failure on your part to convey your meaning.

Both of them are utterly corrupt, but not exactly the same way. Neither of them would ever improve the lives or regular Americans in the expense of the rich and that makes them utterly corrupt. If they were only corrupt they would sometimes improve the lives or regular Americans. If Biden is elected and he improves ObamaCare A LOT then I am ready to admit he is only corrupt, not UTTERLY corrupt, but nothing indicates he would do that. He has promised the rich nothing will change, so how can you improve healthcare a lot without changing anything?

[Madiel]

Both of them are utterly corrupt, but not exactly the same way. Neither of them would ever improve the lives or regular Americans in the expense of the rich and that makes them utterly corrupt. If they were only corrupt they would sometimes improve the lives or regular Americans. If Biden is elected and he improves ObamaCare A LOT then I am ready to admit he is only corrupt, not UTTERLY corrupt, but nothing indicates he would do that. He has promised the rich nothing will change, so how can you improve healtcare a lot without changing anything?

Oh FFS, I'm not trying to have a policy debate right now. Just make up your mind what your position is. You can either say they are both utterly corrupt, or you can tell people that one of them is less corrupt than the other.

What you cannot do is berate people for not understanding your apparent claim that one might be less "utterly corrupt" than the other.

[71 dB]

I said nothing about whether or not a politician was bad. But as far as I'm concerned "bad" and "corrupt" are not synonyms. This is the difference between value judgements and legal ones.

The rest of your post is either making the same point I was making, or just missing the point I was making because nuance is lost on you.

"Bad" and "corrupt" are not synonyms, but there's a correlation between the two. That's why legal and value based judgements have a connection and why even the US has laws against corruption, althou weak. Some "bad" things are illegal because they are considered bad. If "bad" things didn't exist, nothing would have to be illegal. Law would be pointless.

Sorry if I missed your point/nuance. Perhaps for Americans Biden is not that corrupt, but for my Finnish eyes he is utterly corrupt because I live in one of the least corrupt countries in the World. In Finland Both Biden and Trump would have been sent to prison decades ago.

[drogulus]

I don't think what Joe and Hunter Biden tried to pull off (or did) in the Ukraine is covered by taking money from US donors to finance one's campaign. They were in bed with kleptokrats and if one believes otherwise one is as naive as many Trump supporters.

     What Joe Biden was doing was to lead the anti-corruption drive in Ukraine, which was official U.S. policy as well as the policy of the EU and the (intellectually corrupt?) IMF. In the process he might have put his son in danger. The prosecutor Biden got fired was doing nothing. Why not leave him there?

     

[71 dB]

Oh FFS, I'm not trying to have a policy debate right now. Just make up your mind what your position is. You can either say they are both utterly corrupt, or you can tell people that one of them is less corrupt than the other.

What you cannot do is berate people for not understanding your apparent claim that one might be less "utterly corrupt" than the other.

Are you saying I can't call both Walton family and Jeff Bezos FILTHY rich? Do I have to say Walton family is less rich than Jeff Bezos? No! Both both Walton family and Jeff Bezos are UTTERLY rich and that doesn't mean their net worth is the same to a penny! Any billionaire is UTTERLY rich!

[Florestan]

What will be left for you to do when you see genuine hatred? Your latest Johnny one-note wheeze is wicked as well as undiscerning.

I apologize, Karl. I was in a bad mood yesterday and had a momentary lapse of reason. Those posts were stupid. I'm really sorry.

[Madiel]

Are you saying I can't call both Walton family and Jeff Bezos FILTHY rich? Do I have to say Walton family is less rich than Jeff Bezos? No! Both both Walton family and Jeff Bezos are UTTERLY rich and that doesn't mean their net worth is the same to a penny! Any billionaire is UTTERLY rich!

All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand what "utterly" means. It does not function the same way as "filthy" does (I don't even know why you're raising the word "filthy" when it hasn't come up before, no, I'm not saying you can't call them both filthy rich, I would have hoped that when you go to the EFFORT of putting WORDS in CAPITALS you might NOTICE that they're actually two DIFFERENT words, that is a TERRIBLE way to CONSTRUCT an ARGUMENT, ACTING as if FILTHY and UTTERLY are the SAME WORD).

And "utterly rich" is simply not a term in use. Describing someone as "very" rich or "extremely" rich works, but describing someone as "utterly" rich sounds weird because someone can always be richer.

I would be quite happy saying that all billionaires are extremely rich. Because that allows that one billionaire is even richer than another (note the difference between using rich/richer). The word "utterly" does not permit this kind of comparison. You cannot have degrees of "utterly" in the way that you are claiming. It is the end point. "Utterly corrupt" does not admit of the possibility that someone else is more corrupt. It means completely, absolutely corrupted. If you want degrees, use "quite", "rather", "very", "extremely".

[71 dB]

I am "utterly" fed up with this discussion.

If you don't believe the corruption in the US is bad then have at it. What do I care?

[Madiel]

I am "utterly" fed up with this discussion.

That's viable.

If you don't believe the corruption in the US is bad then have at it. What do I care?

That wasn't the question. The question was whether there was any difference between Trump and Biden. The reaction you got was because many of us think claiming there is no difference is absurd.

We can only go by what you actually say. Not what you had in your head.

[71 dB]

The question was whether there was any difference between Trump and Biden.

Of course there is diffrence! Rapers and bank robbers are very different criminals, but might end up sharing the prison cell.

[Madiel]

Of course there is diffrence! Rapers and bank robbers are very different criminals, but might end up sharing the prison cell.

The point is that, whether you meant to or not, YOU wrote something that said to us THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE.

And then got cranky when people responded to what you had written.

Okay? Don't go saying "of course" when it's your own words that created the opposite impression. At no stage in this have you admitted even the possibility that you fucked up your English. No, instead it's all my fault for trying to go through the boring task of explaining to you the difference between what you said and what you apparently meant.

It's YOUR fault. YOU misspoke.

Goodnight.

[Muzio]

What will be left for you to do when you see genuine hatred? Your latest Johnny one-note wheeze is wicked as well as undiscerning.

And what will you do, young man, when you see genuine wickedness?  Physician, heal you-know-who. 

[Karl Henning]

I am "utterly" fed up with this discussion.

Then why cannot you keep your own damned "resolve" to participate in other threads instead?

Why, unless you are determined to make yourself serially ridiculous?

[JBS]

Meanwhile Bernie seems to have decided to outflank everyone else on the Palestinian issue
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-u-s-should-withhold-military-aid-unless-israel-fundamentally-changes-its-relationship-with-people-of-gaza/

Mind you, reducing aid to Israel is not a new idea, or even one that's confined to the US Left.  What is new is the idea of the US giving money to Gaza directly.  That means, as long as Hamas controls Gaza, giving money to Hamas which Hamas then diverts from humanitarian uses to its campaign of violence against Israel. So Bernie is proposing we actually finance terrorism.

[Muzio]

The Onion...

[71 dB]

Then why cannot you keep your own damned "resolve" to participate in other threads instead?

Why, unless you are determined to make yourself serially ridiculous?

I am fed up with this nonsense of the meaning of the word "utterly." English is not my first language. I'm not a linguistic expert of the semantics of English words. I am here to talk about The Democratic Candidates.