corrupt: having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

dishonestly: n an untrustworthy, deceitful, or insincere way.


okay. so getting to the basics of how CORRUPT is defined and understanding the vital element of DISHONESTY involved ...


I wonder how corruption is actually proven without a court of law, because it is so difficult to understand or prove an intent to deceive

but saying we ASSUME the intent, (and most often we do)

how do we then gauge levels of corruption as to who is MORE or LESS corrupt than another. Do we keep a running tally of each item we ASSUME was deceptive?


As I see it most all sales people and people in positions of power are going to have places where personal gain and community gain overlap(because they are also part of different communities) but I wonder how we believe we know that one person's intent is deceptive and another is not.


I ask because I hear this reasoning from alot of people discussing Hilary Clinton, but they never really have anything but ASSUMPTIONS of her intent based upon whats splattered by random and various sources in various places. I believe Hilary has had much more intent to help others and serve the community than Trump ever has had to think about having. But it seems like a common theme/excuse when people describe why they voted Trump.

One Trump supporter even said that Trump says what needs to be says to get into a position to do something because that makes a good leader, but if someone is only saying something without intending or meaning it, isnt that the DEFINITION of corrupt? Yet some corruption is apparently good leadership skill and other corruption is eternal unfitness to be POTUS.


double standards are alive and well. I truly think if Hilary were the man and Trump the woman, the ending would still have the man ahead. The woman would not have been overlooked for callous remarks about so many other demographics or how they related to their husband or family or how they had done business in the past as easily as it seems the man was. And I feel people would have insisted on focusing on the experience of the man in Hilary's spot while railing against the inexperience and tackiness of the woman in Trumps.


Do we really care about this concept of 'corruption' or is it just a distraction to hide our real motives and priorities?

I understand your attempt at discussion.
The Hillary/Donald remarks detracts from the discussion topic the way I see it. Your rant about the woman POTUS also detracts from the question. The intent of your statement can be a question using them as an example tho.

Since this is the politics forum I agree with using POTUS antics in the discussion asking what makes "someone" (the politician) considered as corrupt.

I think it has a lot to do with the news coverage and the sway of public opinion. However, I don't feel either candidate was "totally corrupt".
There were personality red flags in both campaigns. Both have personality issues that are not desirable in the position of POTUS, in my opinion.

Both candidates used their power to force the election into the two major party lines. I voted independent but there were other candidates that were better suited that were forced to drop out of the race. Forced by pressures brought to bear by the two in the final race.

Neither final candidate were good choices.
Corruption is not the only reason the public has the sentiments they do.
Its no one thing but a combination of defective thinking over long periods of public exposure.

Both final candidates thought their win would make this nation theirs.
The POTUS isn't supposed to be the king or queen. The POTUS is there to represent the people of this nation and make sure that what we want gets accomplished. We need politicians that listen to the people they represent and make their will happen. Neither candidate displayed any such thinking.
I think people pick up on that.

We don't live in Donald Trump's United States.
We don't live in Hillary Clinton's United States.
We live in OUR United States.

Our elected politicians are supposed to represent us.
It shouldn't matter what they personally want.
They, as citizens, still have only ONE VOTE.
The problem occurs when political actions are personal choices that get power to over-rule the nation.
There shouldn't be a Trump's policy.
Its should be our nation's policy.

If our people vote to have all bridges painted pink.
All bridges should be painted pink.
It shouldn't matter if the POTUS wants the bridges blue.
If we want them pink, he should make sure they get painted pink, no matter his own preference.

The fact that politicians are not representing the will of the nation in favor of their own agenda can be considered corruption.
We the Sheeple have given our power to the elected few, then We the Sheeple can't figure out why it isn't working and continue making the same mistakes over and over again.

Overall, although I do agree that "corrupt" could be used to describe the state of many American politicians and voters these days, I wouldn't choose it as the primary problem. More like a symptom or a result, of the real core problem infesting these people.

I disagree with Tom, I think that the way that Hillary was treated, and even more so, the way that the Republicans treated Obama, are very much prime examples of the Big Mess we are all suffering under.

The core of it all, in my observation, is that more people THINK they have principles and or moral or religious beliefs and convictions, than who actually do. I've been seeing this since I was very young, and first began to notice that some people quote authorities only when it gets them the extra cookie, or the revenge against another playmate that they want, but completely ignore the same rules when it comes to regulating their own behavior.

The history of US politics is packed with instances where one party or another loftily proclaimed some grand notion of propriety and high mindedness, just long enough to persuade voters to put their own person in charge, and then after the votes were in, dropped their "principles" in the waste bin like used paper cups after a meeting.

What has become intolerably worse in recent times, has been that the very core idea of HAVING principles at all, has come to be directly derided by the political party in power, and by the people who put them there.

This is the principle of "Anti-ism" in action (my own term). Anti-ism has been used by lots of people during my lifetime, on various "sides." But it has never been as widespread or as firmly and thoroughly seated in the formal ideals of a major political party until now.

Anti-ism, is where someone puts their OPPOSITION to someone or something, above literally EVERYTHING ELSE, and makes all of their judgement of right and wrong, and of good and bad, and of moral and immoral, based on who or what they are angry at or about.


That is WHY the Republican Party in particular (though the Democrats have done it on a slightly smaller scale in the past) decided consciously to set ALL of their once high principles aside for the last few decades. They attacked Hillary the way that they did, and purposely allied themselves with anti-female-leader males, because they wanted to win elections, and didn't care whether they had to lie to do that or not. They allied themselves similarly with Anti-black racists, in dealing with Obama. And more than anything else, they decided that LIES IN THE NAME OF POLITICAL VICTORY OF THE MOMENT, not only don't matter, but are acts of actual heroism.

It is amusingly the same reasoning that was used years ago by the Anti-capitalists and communists who wanted to bring the US down. It's based on the TERRIBLY short-sighted idea that you can't "fix the world," until you get to be in power, and that obeying high standards of behavior get in the way of winning, therefore you should discard all high principle until you ARE in power.

The thing is, which we saw in the election of Trump, and in many of the poor decisions made for the last few years, is that since it takes a finite amount of time to GET into power through election, that by the time you get there, you will have caused your own entire party to be run, not by the genuinely principled people who you planned on carrying out your real agenda, but rather by the people who you LIED to, in order to gain their support.

That is indeed a grand sized example of corruption, but as I said, the corruption is a RESULT, rather than the CAUSE of the situation.

you've been brain washed.....lady~ tell you what.....

to do or not to do combine to be one choice then there're 50% each will be present......through the well educating from the political learns and the enviromental solutions control then will adding more percentage to avoid the do present.
then the principle of animal natral reaction tells that the corruption equal to the do because they both are define as verb......

it is a very simple question. karma and evil just lay on the double hand.......church and other offical religions already define this question thousand years before......

This country has been mired in corruption for hundreds of years. The teapot dome scandal, Grants administration, Tammany hall, the robber barons who used their money to rig elections, the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about, Hilary getting the nomination over Sanders, the list goes on. Money runs this country not the people.

ms.harmony,

your attempt to paint Trump as the corrupt, inexperienced politicians hasn't gone unnoticed.

For whatever reason you seem to believe that HiLIARy loss was because she was a woman and that her experience in public life should have been enough to secure the white house.

Here is why your thinking is wrong.

If experience was the Key, Biden would have been president instead of Barrack Obama, the 2008 democrat primary , it was Obama, Biden, HiLIARy, Governor Bill Robinson, Chris Dodd and a few others.
Of all the above had way more experience than the fresh faced Barack Obama, yet Obama won.

During the 2008 presidential race , Senator John McCain, the maverick senator from Arizona, War hero had plenty of experience over Obama, yet Obama smoked him like a bad cigar.

It wasn't because HiLIARy is a woman that she lost, its because who she is and what she represents.

Why did you think Obama won in 2008 and 2012, he was still considered a washington outsider in 2008, and in 2012 he was masterful in exposing Mitt Romney as the inept power hungry candidate.

But after 8 years of Obama the people wanted the hope and change they desired and thought they were getting in Obama turned away from the Democrat party.

This is why Trump won, the american people are sick and tired of washington lackies, Biden was smart enough not to run because he know he would get his azz handed to him, If Obama was really good for America, Trump would never be president.

I truly believe this, If carly fiorina won the republican nomination instead of Trump and it was Fiorina vs Clinton, Fiorina would be president of the United States.

If Bernie would have won the Democrat primary instead of HiLIARy, and it was Bernie vs Carly, Carly would have won hands down and been president, so do you really think its about HiLIARy being a woman that held her back?

She couldn't beat Obama in 2008 her scandals followed her and the public doesn't want her or Bill back in the white house.

If the democrats were smart they would look for new blood, someone that doesn't have a tainted past, and that isn't Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.

The best chance the Democrat have is if Amy Klobuchar the senator from Minnesota, she for a Democrat is as honest as the day has 24 hours,I cant believe that Im saying that.

She isn't flashy, but for a Democrat she has a good reputation with a clean background,I am willing to bet that she will become the first female U.S.President.


If she runs in 2020, I honestly believe should could beat Trump or make it close, whether its 2020 or 2024 she will be the frontrunner.

I like your term.
It fits well with my own idea that people, in general, concentrate on the negative more than positive things.


I'm not really sure what it is you disagree with? For discussion purposes could you be a bit more specific?


I agree with this. Our current situation is a result of behavior that has been in 'practice' for many generations. The "power elite" have had the power over the people for so long people, if they can even imagine how it is supposed to be, can't break the cycle.
I'm not sure if it is because they are unwilling or unable, but the cycle still continues.

The only fix I can see is to "Change All the Monkeys". All as in every level of government. Chopping the head off this snake won't fix the problem. It just grows a new head.

During WW2 the people of this country unified and worked together in support of POTUS. We made bombs, bullets and bandages as a nation. We made steel and worked in factories together.
After the bombs were dropped on Japan and the war ended, we had a national celebration. People were happy and united. There was Unity in the States.
It was the big story, the one that sold papers and airtime. No focus on the destruction of the people in those two cities, not till later.

The United States is no longer a unified nation. The disruption of our unity is coming from within. It manifests in the people we choose to represent us. The unification that is present now is an illusion. Illusions are fragile and our own anti-isms are making true unity very difficult.

People have lost their ability to unify. Lost the ability to see the conditions they are in are of their own creation.
Its much easier to select a few to blame for everything than to own up to the real problem. That problem being, we have given the power of the people to a select few.
We do that to ourselves in the process of election. We end up being faced with figuring out the lesser of two evils. Thing is, the lesser of two evils is still evil. We do this by a sort of pseudo-unity.
We unify under an illusion and when reality hits, our unity is broken.

Some corruption will always be in government whether proven or not proven by law. Two previous choices for POTUS. And now we have a POTUS.

time will tell.

Like with any job, Experience is NEVER ALL that matters, but it certainly seems to be always where it starts .. and candidates for the lead political race, should already have had experience within the political structure. AFter that, its not a zero sum comparision of 'more experience' but to get there I will always believe the minimum value should be SOME experience.

American history has showed us that the experienced isnt always the best choice or the choice people pick.

Nixon should have beaten kennedy in 1960
Ford should have beaten Carter in 1976
Adlai Stevenson should have beaten Eisenhower in 1950

Nothing is what it seems, this why people say corruption exists, it always has existed in American politics since the days of John Adams.

Before Nixon ran, he was in the Navy and the Congress
Ford was a house representative.
And Adlai had been a governor.

who 'should' have one is a matter of personal taste, but even these men had experience within the political structure.

PLANET X IS HERE..GET READY...REPEAT..... PLANET X IS HERE...

I think you misunderstood, Nixon, Stevenson and Ford had MORE experience than the presidents they lost too.