I thought corruption meant using power in a dishonest (or at least doing something illegal) way for explicitly personal gain (and not something that was, for example, beneficial to your citizens too. Colonialism can be evil but not corrupt, no?). Similarly for the treatment and holding of slaves; evil but not corrupt.
Your point about the expense account fits, thank you. I’ll gently note that if we have the expense book, he didn’t lie (?), and that it’s a book by a comedian first, historian second. I’ll try to look at it more closely.
My bit about his peers was specifically in the context of corruption. I think you’ve misunderstood me.
Benefitting from an economic boom that enriched many many folks (America went from a backwater to a superpower) is not evidence of corruption, or even particularly suspicious. It should not surprise you that protest leaders often stand the most to lose from the status quo; being self interested is not the same as corruption I think. Sometimes the right thing is also right for you (eg, organizers of mutual aid often need aid, this doesn’t make them corrupt).
I also don’t think motive is sufficient; if someone implemented a higher minimum wage that is generally not corruption, even if they only do it because their children will personally get a raise. The use of power should also be illegitimate.
If you can’t connect the dots that the founding fathers used terrorism for their financial gain then you are perhaps bereft of insight.
Concentration of wealth is one of the huge issues we are facing right now as a culture. We can see this was a problem from the start. A government that was designed to only benefit the wealthy for the wealthy.
I get your are just acting like a bootlicker. My only question is what it tastes like.
I thought corruption meant using power in a dishonest (or at least doing something illegal) way for explicitly personal gain (and not something that was, for example, beneficial to your citizens too. Colonialism can be evil but not corrupt, no?). Similarly for the treatment and holding of slaves; evil but not corrupt.
Your point about the expense account fits, thank you. I’ll gently note that if we have the expense book, he didn’t lie (?), and that it’s a book by a comedian first, historian second. I’ll try to look at it more closely.
My bit about his peers was specifically in the context of corruption. I think you’ve misunderstood me.
Benefitting from an economic boom that enriched many many folks (America went from a backwater to a superpower) is not evidence of corruption, or even particularly suspicious. It should not surprise you that protest leaders often stand the most to lose from the status quo; being self interested is not the same as corruption I think. Sometimes the right thing is also right for you (eg, organizers of mutual aid often need aid, this doesn’t make them corrupt).
I also don’t think motive is sufficient; if someone implemented a higher minimum wage that is generally not corruption, even if they only do it because their children will personally get a raise. The use of power should also be illegitimate.
If you can’t connect the dots that the founding fathers used terrorism for their financial gain then you are perhaps bereft of insight.
Concentration of wealth is one of the huge issues we are facing right now as a culture. We can see this was a problem from the start. A government that was designed to only benefit the wealthy for the wealthy.
I get your are just acting like a bootlicker. My only question is what it tastes like.