USA news & politics

[dirty harry]

What is 'the' standard universal definition of corruption then.

I would say its very varied, but I would counter his comment on what 'the'definition was, especially when it was hardly in the parameters of corruption.

 

[McTallshort]

I didnt get beyond the definition and the claim selling fragrance was corruption.

Merch is not corruption IMHO

Yes it is. He's using his brand of the President as a marketing tool to enrich himself. That's corruption surely?

 

[Saintjay]

I would say its very varied, but I would counter his comment on what 'the'definition was, especially when it was hardly in the parameters of corruption.

Depending on your job. Corruption can be using that job for financial gain or favour etc. I don't know if in the USA if it's ok for politicians to do it. I'm guessing in the UK it isn't

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I would say its very varied, but I would counter his comment on what 'the'definition was, especially when it was hardly in the parameters of corruption.

Do you argue with people who say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing as expecting different results? People use the phrase "the definition of x is y" frequently to not give a literal definition and more as a figure of speech.

 

[dirty harry]

Depending on your job. Corruption can be using that job for financial gain. I don't know if in the USA if it's ok for politicians to do it. I'm guessing in the UK it is.

I would suggest financial gain is mandatory in the USA. There's lots of precedent of US presidents entering office with a net worth of very little, then 4 or 8 years later being worth 10s of millions on a salary of 400k.

If I remmeber correctly Clinton then Obama were incredibly successful, Clinton made 120 million I think.

 

[dirty harry]

Do you argue with people who say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing as expecting different results? People use the phrase "the definition of x is y" frequently to not give a literal definition and more as a figure of speech.

If that's how they started their political video, and that video was posted here and I was referenced in the comment attached to the video...

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If that's how they started their political video, and that video was posted here and I was referenced in the comment attached to the video...

So you'd not pay attention to any of the main content because you've decided to latch on to a fundamentally irrelevant part of what's being said as a means to dismiss everything that follows? Well we've been here before haven't we mr nuance?

 

[dirty harry]

Yes it is. He's using his brand of the President as a marketing tool to enrich himself. That's corruption surely?

Wanna play a game? Which US presidents sold merch?

Wanna play another game? Which US presidents multiplied their net worth the most from entering and exiting office?

Are you making the claim every US president was corrupt? Because I'm closer to being on board with that, than acknowledging selling fragrance is corruption lol

 

[McTallshort]

Wanna play a game? Which US presidents sold merch?

Wanna play another game? Which US presidents multiplied their net worth the most from entering and exiting office?

Are you making the claim every US president was corrupt? Because I'm closer to being on board with that, than acknowledging selling fragrance is corruption lol

We can play that game or you could just answer the question.

 

[dirty harry]

So you'd not pay attention to any of the main content because you've decided to latch on to a fundamentally irrelevant part of what's being said as a means to dismiss everything that follows? Well we've been here before haven't we mr nuance?

Not exactly, id be skeptical of links posted here, because of the untrustworthy nature of a lot of posters, for example yourself lieing about Kat Cammack.

So id take that scepticism, and look at the video, which begins with one man claiming Trumps done all the corruption, and another claiming 'the' definition of corruption being a behaviour by US presidents that superceded Trump.

To simplify it for you, it would be like walking home at night, through the dark and rain, and seeing an easy short cut of a lane, that had a reputation for muggings, but knowing committing to that short cut you'll save 2 minutes off your journey... I just sometimes choose the main road!

 

[dirty harry]

We can play that game or you could just answer the question.

The game answers your question, but it encourages you to think for yourself, and go research which presidents sold merch using their brand, and which presidents enriched themselves the most...

It's a fun critical thinking exercise, you can go and Google the answers and return.

EDIT: that sounded much more light hearted and less patronising in my head hahaha

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Not exactly, id be skeptical of links posted here, because of the untrustworthy nature of a lot of posters, for example yourself lieing about Kat Cammack.

So id take that scepticism, and look at the video, which begins with one man claiming Trumps done all the corruption, and another claiming 'the' definition of corruption being a behaviour by US presidents that superceded Trump.

To simplify it for you, it would be like walking home at night, through the dark and rain, and seeing an easy short cut of a lane, that had a reputation for muggings, but knowing committing to that short cut you'll save 2 minutes off your journey... I just sometimes choose the main road!

"untrustworthy nature", from the guy who sealions like crazy. Dismissing something because of "style" as you did with stuff I posted before is not scepticism and you know it. Scepticism is wanting a certain level of proof to support claims, it is not finding a thing that doesn't tickle your fancy and then deciding everything that follows must be false.

I could play that game and state that because you don't know the definition of superseded and used it in the place of preceded, everything else you said can now be dismissed. You seem to think dismissing everything for an incorrect definition is fine so there you go.

Also I didn't lie about Kat Cammack. You may argue it technically wasn't an abortion but everything else about it was true.

 

[Saintjay]

The everyone else is doing it so why can't we defence.

 

[dirty harry]

"untrustworthy nature", from the guy who sealions like crazy. Dismissing something because of "style" as you did with stuff I posted before is not scepticism and you know it. Scepticism is wanting a certain level of proof to support claims, it is not finding a thing that doesn't tickle your fancy and then deciding everything that follows must be false.

I could play that game and state that because you don't know the definition of superseded and used it in the place of preceded, everything else you said can now be dismissed.

1. I have no idea what 'sealioning' is, and tbh I'm not interested, its just another excuse to label and not counter the facts that prove you wrong.

2. When the style is algorithmic propoganda techniques, which I'm pretty sure I detailed and likend to some right wing versions, then yes, it is very fair to dismiss an untrustworthy source, from an untrustworthy poster, who utilises coercive techniques.

2 (a). Looking for proof of claims in a video that makes 18 claims per minute is impossible, and is designed to be impossible, its how you manipulate people.

I thought you already dismissed me by blocking me, I think that was your best idea yet. And tbh it saves me time going through your false claims, like I did and listed in the Kat Cammack case, for you to ghost and ignore. At least when I was blocked I could just laugh and move on, I didnt get challenged and ghosted.

But please, explain to me why seling merch is corruption, and why it isn't corruption when others do it, and I'll watch the entire video just for you.

 

[dirty harry]

The everyone else is doing it so why can't we defence.

Not a defence, I literally posted above that if the definition of corruption is making personal gains, then every politician is corrupt. That's my default position, and I'm on board.

 

[Which Tyler]

We can play that game or you could just answer the question.

Talking about the definition of insanity...

 

[Saintjay]

Not a defence, I literally posted above that if the definition of corruption is making personal gains, then every politician is corrupt. That's my default position, and I'm on board.

It's personal gains outside of your role, work policy, law.

I've no doubt other politicians are corrupt. You could say it's hypocritical that the podcast didn't call out others but they were discussing Trump.

If by definition In the US what Obama did, Clinton etc is seen as corrupt and what Trump is doing is corrupt. Then the podcast is correct Trump is.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

1. I have no idea what 'sealioning' is, and tbh I'm not interested, its just another excuse to label and not counter the facts that prove you wrong.

2. When the style is algorithmic propoganda techniques, which I'm pretty sure I detailed and likend to some right wing versions, then yes, it is very fair to dismiss an untrustworthy source, from an untrustworthy poster, who utilises coercive techniques.

2 (a). Looking for proof of claims in a video that makes 18 claims per minute is impossible, and is designed to be impossible, its how you manipulate people.

I thought you already dismissed me by blocking me, I think that was your best idea yet. And tbh it saves me time going through your false claims, like I did and listed in the Kat Cammack case, for you to ghost and ignore. At least when I was blocked I could just laugh and move on, I didnt get challenged and ghosted.

But please, explain to me why seling merch is corruption, and why it isn't corruption when others do it, and I'll watch the entire video just for you.

1. It's essentially people where they will constantly demand evidence and reasoning but have largely decided before it is even presented that they will simply deny it before demanding it again.

2. No, it's actually not fair in the slightest. If you had actually watched the video I gave you, you would have seen they do things like cite the exact laws and statutes, cite previous cases, use video footage of the events in question etc. However you decided to not get that far.

2a. How would you know how many claims were made when you refused to watch? In the above example, you could very easily check to see what the cited laws etc say.

It doesn't save you the time because I know you responded anyway so that's a lie. Saves you the time going through it? You just said you can't be bothered. The only thing you showed in the Kat Cammack case was that what she experienced may not be defined as a pregnancy. You didn't show anything else was false.

I've never claimed selling merch is corruption. Whilst it has the potential to be in a certain way, the act in and of itself it not corrupt. It's some ridiculous profiteering but tbh my contempt in that case is more with whoever buys it than him for selling it. I think on his side it's just egotistical and pathetic. Now why don't you explain, what has the corruption of other presidents got to do with whether Trump is corrupt or not?

 

[dirty harry]

It's personal gains outside of your role, work policy, law.

I've no doubt other politicians are corrupt. You could say it's hypocritical that the podcast didn't call out others but they were discussing Trump.

If by definition In the US what Obama did, Clinton etc is seen as corrupt and what Trump is doing is corrupt. Then the podcast is correct Trump is.

Hang on. Is Trump?

His 2nd term has just started, so we can't comment on his net worth after his presidency, because we dont know what will happen.

What we can assess him is on his 1st term...

The only president in US history to lose money in office? I think that's factual no, I'll have to check, but I'm very confident he's the only one in my life time.

So if by the definition of corruption, Trump is the only president not to be corrupt.

And yes, I'm being pedantic and argumentative, but I'm willing to bet they didnt mention that in the podcast, and that's why I dont believe the video trustworthy source. It's just typical anti Trump trash, that only applies their definitions to the last 5 odd months of his 2nd term, and not any other comparative situation, including Trjmps 1st term.

Does that make sense? Im rambling a bit

 

[McTallshort]

The game answers your question, but it encourages you to think for yourself, and go research which presidents sold merch using their brand, and which presidents enriched themselves the most...

It's a fun critical thinking exercise, you can go and Google the answers and return.

EDIT: that sounded much more light hearted and less patronising in my head hahaha

I have absolutely no doubt it's happened with other presidents but you said what the current president is doing isnt corruption and that's what I questioned.