We could just keep using "First world" vs "Third world" as above. There are also multiple NGOs that measure these things and break down the "ratings" into component parts.
On the other hand, an advocate for greatly increased corruption might claim that corruption can't be measured at all. Or, hypothetically, they might strictly use un-anchored non-metrics like "the other guy does it too", "any is too much", "omg look over there!", etc.
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
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.
> [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.
Biden is a 5+ decades politician, he is corrupted and has had every fiber of being sold to the highest bidder over and over again. it is you that care about “which team you are on” - not me. I have been a democrat my entire life and will continue to be so especially now that alternative barely exists but I also posses intelligence to know that democrats (especially fucking establishment ones like biden) are corrupt to the core
Since this thread has mostly been for the benefit of others reading it, let me close with this:
It's fine, good even, to be unhappy with e.g, joe biden and want someone better, however you define that. It is very much not fine to not vote or vote for trump because getting trump is 1000 times worse and there is no conceivable world where electing trump leads to a better outcome for us.
well since we don't really get to pick much you get to pick the worst of two evils. like 2am at a bar and there are two of the ugliest people sitting and waiting - you know you are taking one home so... ;)
not sure where you are getting that I am "unaware" of the corruption, just not sure where you are all getting "oh, the 'degree and magnitude' of corruption is now 'much worse' than it was before" when in fact this isn't something you can back up reasonably so it is just shooting the breeze without anything to back it up with. they are all the same mate, all the same ;)
As far as I can tell, the only way you can assert that trump is precisely no amount more corrupt than any other politician in history is if you're completely unaware of what he's been up to the last 10 years.
That, or you truly deeply believe all acts of corruption are perfectly equivalent regardless of their circumstances.
You insist neither is the case, but i see no other way to reach your conclusions
I can, in fact, back up the assertion that the corruption is much worse now. It's not even difficult. What is the point of lying about something like that?
Boy I am real tired of this frankly, well, I was going juvenile, but I'm pretty sure most kids are smarter than this, so I'll just call it what it is: an idiotic, damaging and ultimately false understanding of reality.
The world is not some kind of simple morality play and your continued lack of understanding about what has actually happened in the real world is offensive.
It's not because you're ignorant, that's just mildly annoying, it's because you're so proud of your ignorance. The complete unwillingness to grow and learn and challenge your current understanding, that is what is offensive.
There's a great phrase I heard a while back, "thought terminating cliche". You just toss out these blanket statements, "all politicians are evil and corrupt" as if everyone else is supposed to just blindly believe in your assertions and stop thinking for themselves and searching for truths.
Biden did some bad things, possibly even some illegal things (mostly on the premise that every single american has done at least one illegal thing) but he's still vastly superior to trump in any metric you care to choose.
The reason this matters is because we (for now) still get a choice. Are any of the choices perfect? No, obviously not. But we can still choose the better option. We don't have to settle for the worst one.
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.
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
> 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.
> 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?
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.
didn’t copy and paste from wikipedia (though I can if needed) - wasn’t expecting to read USAID as american spreading goodness out of our pure hearts but here we are, have read crazier things than that for sure
At no point did the phrase "goodness of pure hearts" appear in my text.
That doesn't make usaid saving 90 million lives less great.
Also, remember how america is not a single person? It is in fact millions of people? You want to tell me with a straight face that every single employee of usaid is working entirely out of some kind of dispassionate desire to increase american foreign influence?
I don't get why it is so difficult to understand that countries (and people) and do both good and bad things over their existences and if we actually want a better future we should encourage the good things being done which means we need to actually be able to recongize good vs bad.
1 in 5 children are hungry in America right this moment, we don’t do a single fucking thing because we are “good” - can’t believe there are people (you are probably in majority) that still believe this nonsense. wild wild stuff
My point, which you keep missing, is that nobody is actually "good" or "bad". They do good and bad actions.
America actually does quite a bit for hungry children, both within and without her borders. Is it enough? Perhaps not, but that doesn't somehow make what they do bad.
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”
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.
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
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/...]
Except you're still calling us idiots for saying corruption can happen in degrees.
The only way for the "degree of corruption" to always be the same for every person ever is for every act of corruption to be of perfectly equal magnitude and consequence.
If an act of corruption can be of greater magnitude and consequence than another, than it's perfectly reasonable to say that someone who engages in corruption of greater magnitude and consequence does so "to a greater degree" than someone else.
So which is it?
I think deep down you really prefer to pretend that it's all perfectly equivalent, otherwise your simplified world-view doesn't make any sense
