I think there must be different definitions or, at least, understandings of "corruption" in politics. I've seen and participated in a few discussions where Clinton's speech to Goldman Sachs while she was not in office was pure corruption, but Trump putting Goldman Sachs people actually in charge of government agencies is not. Not to mention putting people in charge of the agencies their professional lives were largely pitted against. Also not to mention the nepotism and ongoing conflicts of interest.
Can anyone explain to me the perspective of why the former is seen as legitimate corruption and the latter is not?
Can anyone explain to me the perspective of why the former is seen as legitimate corruption and the latter is not?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2n0el3L
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire