Trump isn't corrupt?

Much negative has been said of Sec. Hillary Clinton, namely, that she is unfit to serve as President because she is untrustworthy.  Some have even said that Donald Trump is a better choice because, unlike Sec. Clinton, he is not corrupt.  

In order to better understand this claim, one should ask, "What makes a politician corrupt?"

First, let's define the term such that we are all on the same page.

Corrupt:  —adjective (From Dictionary.com)

  • guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
  • debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
  • made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
  • infected; tainted.
  • decayed; putrid.

So, in plain words, if one lies, cheats, or steals, that person is corrupt.

Based on this definition, I submit that Sec. Clinton is no more corrupt that Donald Trump.  Nor is Donald Trump any more corrupt than Sec. Clinton. Both have issues that support the theory that both candidates have challenges in the area of corruption.

For instance:

  • Clinton's Email Issues
  • Clinton's Whitewater Involvement
  • Clinton Foundation Alignment with State Department

 

  • Trump's lies with regard to his support of the Iraq Invasion
  • Trump doing business in Cuba before the lifting of sanctions
  • Trump using his foundation to fund his personal initiatives

These are only samples of the integrity shortfalls of both of these people. Neither occupy the moral high ground on this front. At the end of the day, voters have to figure out which of their nostrils they will push closed. Calling out one of them over the other on this filter is oxymoronic.

At the end of the day, voters will make their choice on rational and irrational bases. Irrationally, I am not a Clinton supporter. In short, I really don't like her.  I think she is shrill, arrogant, and two-faced.  That said, I think she better understands how our Government works than Trump. She also has demonstrated some level of intellectual curiosity about things that she doesn't understand.  My issues with Donald Trump, beyond those cited above, are too numerous to list here.  

Rationally, voters should take a "blind taste test" of these candidates.  For instance, if you were sitting in the departure lounge of an airport talking to one of two possible pilots, would you climb on the plane with the guy in a pilot's uniform or the guy who talks about flying but can't even discuss the plane's nomenclature? Granted, both have their risks, but one presents a far less risky proposition than the other.  

This is an over-simplistic view of the choice before Our Country. However, there exists an axiom at play that has so far powered Trump's rise to power: The less one knows about something, the simpler it must be."  The thought that someone without knowledge can "shake things up" without doing more damage than good makes as much sense as letting Homer Simpson run a nuclear power plant.