> 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.
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".