I'm obviously failing once again to quit the discussion...
> I'm also not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks that having Multiple Philosophy Degrees actually matters.
I mentioned them only in response to one claim of yours, already about twenty levels deep into the debate:
> Have you considered the possibility that you don't read very carefully?
Otherwise, I didn't try to cite them to support any other point of mine.
> necessary for anyone who wants to advance in politics under our current system
Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians? Their job is supposed to be to represent us. If the winners of elections cater to their donors rather than to their constituents, if the representatives, at the behest of their donors, purposely prevent progress that would help the majority of people, then what good is winning?
My argument was that it's the moral corruption of the political parties, especially their leaders, that makes it necessary for party officials to be corrupt, e.g., "if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation." There doesn't even appear to be a desire among most politicians to change this sad situation. Also: "I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the type of ladder-climber that I mentioned. It's possible to be courageous (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection."
Let me make a little analogy. Instead of talking about the US government, let's talk about the government of a totalitarian country. Take your pick: China, Russia, North Korea, etc. It's "simply a fact", as you say, that in order to advance to a high position in the government of such a country, it's necessary for a politician to be terrible, ruthless, evil, even murderous. We can admit that as a fact. But this terrible fact doesn't excuse the behavior. Not in the least. It's still inherently wrong to be terrible, ruthless, evil, murderous. There's simply no excuse. A moral person would play no role in that villainy. And I would say the same thing about corruption in US politics.
I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't vote for Biden, or even that you shouldn't donate to him, but at least we should call a spade a spade. It's simply admitting the truth, which is much more important than politics IMO. The truth only seems to come out of his lips when talking to his donors, promising "Nothing fundamentally would change" if he was elected. And he kept that promise! https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-no... This is and always has been who Biden is, fundamentally. You seem to want to defend him as a victim of "necessity", whereas I see him merely as an ambitious, corrupt ladder-climber with no real principles, and one of the worst of all the Democratic candidates in 2020. It wasn't actually necessary for Biden to run, and remember that he was forced to drop out of a previous Presidential run because of his dishonesty.
> I'm obviously failing once again to quit the discussion...
Welcome to my world.
> Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians?
Another non-sequitur. Your penchant for going off on tangents is one of the reasons I don't want to engage with you any more. But just for the record: I'm not making any value judgements here, just a factual claim: politicians in the U.S. spend a lot of time fundraising, and they do this not necessarily because of any moral failing but simply because it's a prerequisite for keeping their jobs.
If you accept that, then we can go on to have a discussion about whether or not this state of affairs is desirable, and, if not, why it's undesirable what might be done about it. But that is a different topic, and it is important to keep a clean separation between the two.
> Your penchant for going off on tangents is one of the reasons I don't want to engage with you any more.
I already said (2 days ago), "I agree that I was following a bit of a tangent", since the submitted article was about political advertising on Twitter/X. However, it's been the same tangent the whole time: "Serious question: Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? As far as I've seen, which is a lot, he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career."
> politicians in the U.S. spend a lot of time fundraising, and they do this not necessarily because of any moral failing but simply because it's a prerequisite for keeping their jobs.
> If you accept that
I already accepted that long ago in the discussion: "You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election." "Of course every politician raises campaign funds, an empirical fact beyond dispute." "I wasn't talking about the fact that Joe Biden has raised campaign funds; by itself, that's not interesting or worth noting."
> then we can go on to have a discussion about whether or not this state of affairs is desirable, and, if not, why it's undesirable what might be done about it.
That wasn't ever the question, I was never trying to debate that with you, and I'm not sure we would even disagree about the answer.
My question has always been very specific: "Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt?" I assume that, like other politicians, Biden spends a lot of time fundraising, so we can take that for granted. Time spent fundraising is not the question. I'm more interested in what Biden does when he's not fundraising, i.e., when he's supposed to be doing the job he was elected for.
> Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt?
And I'll give you the same answer I gave before, but I'll try to be more succinct: the answer to that questions turns entirely on your definition of "corrupt". I have seen no evidence that Joe Biden has done anything materially different from what every U.S. politician does by necessity in order to remain employed. If that's "corrupt" then it is not possible to hold elected office in the U.S. without being "corrupt", which makes that not a very useful definition IMHO.
But this too is a non-sequitur, because the question was never whether Biden is "corrupt" or not, but rather whether he is, as Donald Trump often claims, the most corrupt president in U.S. history. I don't think there is any plausible definition of "corrupt" under which that is true. Indeed, I think that Trump is vastly more corrupt than Biden under any plausible definition of the word.
[UPDATE]
> he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career
I don't know much about the details of Biden's career, but I don't doubt that he's supported legislation beneficial to the financial industry and they have in turn spent generously to keep him in office. But is that "corruption" or "being responsive to his constituents"?
The thing I have not seen Biden do is use his power to enrich himself personally the way Trump and Thomas have done. That to me is a useful distinction, and a more appropriate deployment of the word "corrupt".
> I don't know much about the details of Biden's career
Ok, well, I really wish you would have said that a long time ago.
> I don't doubt that he's supported legislation beneficial to the financial industry and they have in turn spent generously to keep him in office. But is that "corruption" or "being responsive to his constituents"?
Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question.
I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars.
> I really wish you would have said that a long time ago.
Why? If I accept your premise, what difference does it make if I'm familiar with the details?
> Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question.
It's dead serious. Why do you have such a hard time believing that?
> I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars.
Do you not think that supporting one of the leading industries in the state you represent, an industry that directly employs tens of thousands of people and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands more, counts -- or is at least defensible -- as being supportive of your constituents even when measured by people rather than dollars?
Also, if I have money then chances are that I earned it by being productive. Why should that not entitle me to greater consideration than someone who has been less productive as adjudicated by the free market? (Yes, I know earlier I said there were no free markets. The phrase "free market" meant something different there than it does here. There it referred to sellers, here it refers to buyers. The U.S. does have a relatively free market on the demand side, just not on the supply side.)
BTW, counting constituents by number of people rather than dollars has never been the American way. It's actually a very modern notion. At the founding, only white male land owners could vote. The founders specifically designed our system to not make all voices equal. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I don't think it is. But it's a fact.
> I'm also not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks that having Multiple Philosophy Degrees actually matters.
I mentioned them only in response to one claim of yours, already about twenty levels deep into the debate:
> Have you considered the possibility that you don't read very carefully?
Otherwise, I didn't try to cite them to support any other point of mine.
> necessary for anyone who wants to advance in politics under our current system
Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians? Their job is supposed to be to represent us. If the winners of elections cater to their donors rather than to their constituents, if the representatives, at the behest of their donors, purposely prevent progress that would help the majority of people, then what good is winning?
My argument was that it's the moral corruption of the political parties, especially their leaders, that makes it necessary for party officials to be corrupt, e.g., "if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation." There doesn't even appear to be a desire among most politicians to change this sad situation. Also: "I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the type of ladder-climber that I mentioned. It's possible to be courageous (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection."
Let me make a little analogy. Instead of talking about the US government, let's talk about the government of a totalitarian country. Take your pick: China, Russia, North Korea, etc. It's "simply a fact", as you say, that in order to advance to a high position in the government of such a country, it's necessary for a politician to be terrible, ruthless, evil, even murderous. We can admit that as a fact. But this terrible fact doesn't excuse the behavior. Not in the least. It's still inherently wrong to be terrible, ruthless, evil, murderous. There's simply no excuse. A moral person would play no role in that villainy. And I would say the same thing about corruption in US politics.
I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't vote for Biden, or even that you shouldn't donate to him, but at least we should call a spade a spade. It's simply admitting the truth, which is much more important than politics IMO. The truth only seems to come out of his lips when talking to his donors, promising "Nothing fundamentally would change" if he was elected. And he kept that promise! https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-no... This is and always has been who Biden is, fundamentally. You seem to want to defend him as a victim of "necessity", whereas I see him merely as an ambitious, corrupt ladder-climber with no real principles, and one of the worst of all the Democratic candidates in 2020. It wasn't actually necessary for Biden to run, and remember that he was forced to drop out of a previous Presidential run because of his dishonesty.