|
Because there is so much money in politics, reporters have gotten lazier and lazier about it, now just using money to explain a position. As the say in science, correlation does not mean causation. It is difficult to prove causation, so they just put two things out there, and infer that a politician is patently corrupt. I have read about corrupt politicians like Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel (the evidence is piling up on those two), and simply by showing money given and a vote means nothing without full context. And as you say, in this case, there is little evidence of the money stake as well.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
