• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ill. Governor taken into custody, Obama's seat part of inquery...

It's kind of hard to argue with the facts, isn't it? The poster (Jallman) who was so defensive about Alaska and how it is in no way as politically corrupt as Illinois was speaking from his heart not from his head.

Hell ex-Senator and convicted felon Ted Stevens was found guilty on seven felony counts and still only lost the election by a few thousand votes so it's not just the politicians in Alaska who accept corruption but it's also the general populace who are willing to overlook felonies by their Senator because he was great at bringing home the bacon for Alaska...isn't that like the general public accepting bribes for their vote...aka "Pay to Play"?

No, he was speaking from FACT. Alaskan politics are nowhere near as corrupt as Illinois politics. Stevens was not the norm for Alaskan politics and he is now gone. Try again.
 
No, he was speaking from FACT. Alaskan politics are nowhere near as corrupt as Illinois politics. Stevens was not the norm for Alaskan politics and he is now gone. Try again.

I thought that there was a lot of oil corruption that had to be cleaned up.
 
I thought that there was a lot of oil corruption that had to be cleaned up.

There was but it was very recent (as in the past 5-10 years or so). That is nowhere near the history of corruption that Illinois and, especially, Chicago politics has.

And another big difference: it actually got cleaned up.
 
There was but it was very recent (as in the past 5-10 years or so). That is nowhere near the history of corruption that Illinois and, especially, Chicago politics has.

And another big difference: it actually got cleaned up.

Chicago is really bad. Chicago is Illinois.

Can you guarantee that Alaska will remain free of corruption. Oil=Money=corruption.
 
Chicago is really bad. Chicago is Illinois.

Can you guarantee that Alaska will remain free of corruption. Oil=Money=corruption.

Why would I have to guarantee such a thing? I can guarantee this: politicians found to be corrupt in Alaska don't make it very far. I don't know this, but I have a good idea that Steven's corruption was probably pretty recent. He never would have made it as far as he did if he'd started out corrupt. His run is over.
 
Why would I have to guarantee such a thing? I can guarantee this: politicians found to be corrupt in Alaska don't make it very far. I don't know this, but I have a good idea that Steven's corruption was probably pretty recent. He never would have made it as far as he did if he'd started out corrupt. His run is over.

Then why did Alaska have the THIRD most convictions of Politicians per capita in from 1998 to 2007?

THAT is a fact.
 
Then why did Alaska have the THIRD most convictions of Politicians per capita in from 1998 to 2007?

THAT is a fact.

That's just it. There are many corrupt politicians in Alaska, however, they get prosecuted and convicted when found out. The same cannot be said about cities like Chicago.

Chicago is known for its corruptness mainly because corrupt politicians don't get prosecuted and convicted many times even though they are corrupt.
 
That's just it. There are many corrupt politicians in Alaska, however, they get prosecuted and convicted when found out. The same cannot be said about cities like Chicago.

George Ryan would probably disagree. There were 500 convictions in Illinois as well during the time frame.

Chicago is known for its corruptness mainly because corrupt politicians don't get prosecuted and convicted many times even though they are corrupt.

Chicago is corrupt. I'm not claiming it isn't, but Alaska is ALSO corrupt. ALL States have corrupt politicians. I thinka ****load of people who don't know squat about Chicago outside of its reputation (One that stems from Al Capone's era) are talking a lot of **** and pretending their own states aren't similarly corrupt.
 
Why would I have to guarantee such a thing? I can guarantee this: politicians found to be corrupt in Alaska don't make it very far. I don't know this, but I have a good idea that Steven's corruption was probably pretty recent. He never would have made it as far as he did if he'd started out corrupt. His run is over.

How long did he represent the people of Alaska?
 
That's just it. There are many corrupt politicians in Alaska, however, they get prosecuted and convicted when found out. The same cannot be said about cities like Chicago.

Chicago is known for its corruptness mainly because corrupt politicians don't get prosecuted and convicted many times even though they are corrupt.

Then how come half of our Governors have done time?

How about Bettty Loren-Maltese?
 
Mayor Nick Blase of Niles is going to do time as well.

Woodford county had a sherrif using the county credit card at the strip clubs. They also had a judge who was caught growing weed. Reagan went to school in that county! :rofl
 
Mayor Nick Blase of Niles is going to do time as well.

This can't be true. Illinois politicians don't get prosecuted and convicted. :2razz:
 
Well I can prove statistically that Alaska is far more corrupt politically based on political crimes per 100,000 population. The great state of Alaska is the THIRD MOST CORRUPT STATE in the USA when you measure actual convictions of politicians per 100,000 people.

North Dakota is first
Louisiana is second
ALASKA IS THIRD
Mississippi is fourth and
Montana is fifth.

Illinois is ranked 18th! Not even close to the worst state.

North Dakota tops analysis of corruption - USATODAY.com

North Dakota Tops State Corruption List

Alaska has a US senator who has been convicted of felonies THIS year. Alaska is as corrupt as it gets politically and to deny this is to deny the facts.

Hmm, three of the least populated states in the top 5, who would've guessed.

It couldn't possibly be because of the fact that while there is a lower population that doesn't always form a correllary to an equal percentage of less political positions, right?

Its amazing thing about Statistics, they're easy to make say what you want. Its why the statement is out there that there's the lies, the truths, and then statistics. Its why I can show you statistics that tell you that if you foul people a lot you're naturally score more points as well in basketball.

And its amazing how you leave out certain facts from your thing. Such as the actual numbers of convictions.

Alaska had 51 convictions. Illinois had 10 times that number with 502.

Yes, by your statistics you could say Alaska is one of the most corrupt per person. HOWEVER, Illinois has TEN TIMES more corrupt politicians by your numbers than Alaska does. You can compare that to population all you want, that's a lot more dirty politicians.

This is all pointless however, as per capita is rather useless as the number you'd need to get even a halfway decent statistic would be to compare it to "per political position".

Even then, as has been pointed out, convictions is a poor means of determining corruption due to other variables...

...Have I mentioned that your source is a ****ty statistian that would be laughed out of a base level political science course if they tried to claim this "proved" anything...

...such as the effort by the justice departments of the states at actually rooting out corruption, how wide spread it may be that it is covering up other politicians, and other such things.

Lets look shall we, just a quick look between the two:

Illinois in the past few decades:

Two programs,
Illinois Chicago Hired Truck Program, city hiring of trucking companies with mob connections and ties to city employee's that did little work.

Operation Greylord, influence peddling and bribery within illinois circuit courts

Daniel Rostenkowski, mail fraud
Carol Moseley-Braun, conspiring to hide $30k of medicaid money
Percy Giles, racketeering, extortion, and other lesser charges
Arenda Troutman, bribery
Jim Laski, bribe taking in relation to trucking companies
Lawrence S. Bloom, tax evasion
Jesse J. Evans racketeering, extortion, conspiracy, attempted extortion, mail fraud, influence peddling, obstruction of justice
Virgil E. Jones, extortion
Joseph Martinez ghost payrolling
Ambrosio Medrano extortion
Allan J. Streeter extortion
Fred B. Roti racketeering, conspiracy, bribery
Judge Thomas Maloney bribe taking, extortion, and obstruction of justice
Treasurer Edward Rosewell mail fraud
Secretary of State Jesse White, fraudulently funneling taxpayer money to non-existant charity
Miriam santos, mail fraud and extortion
John S. Madrzyk, mail fraud
Walter S. Kozubowski, city clerk, mail fraud
Governor Blagojevich, well we all know that one
Governor George Ryan, illegal sale of government licenses and contracts while Sec of State
James DeLeo, state rep, taking bribes and tax offenses
Joe Kotlarz, state rep, theft and conspiracy
Bruce A. farley, state senator, mail fraud
John A. D'Arco, state senator, bribery and extortion
State Treasurer Jerry Cosentino, check kiting
Governor Daniel Walker, savings and Loan scandal
Jack ryan, sex scandal
Mel Reynolds, sexual abuse of 16 year old campaign volunteer
Dan Crane, censured in Congressional Page Sex Scandal

and Alaska:

Trooper Gate
Thomas Anderson, extortion, bribery, conspiracy, money laundering
Pete Kott, Bribery
Vic Kohring, bribery
Jim Clark, conspiracy
Ted Stevens, Bribery and tax evasion

Chicago is really bad. Chicago is Illinois.

Can you guarantee that Alaska will remain free of corruption. Oil=Money=corruption.

Not at all. I don't think anyone in here was saying that Alaska is not corrupt. Politics in general is corrupt. Go anywhere with politics and you'll find some corruption.

The statement however was that someone was trying to compare Alaska to Illinois in regards to a history and routine nature of corruption.

Then why did Alaska have the THIRD most convictions of Politicians per capita in from 1998 to 2007?

THAT is a fact.

Read above. You can get a lot of interesting "FACTS" with statistics, doesn't mean they MEAN anything.

George Ryan would probably disagree. There were 500 convictions in Illinois as well during the time frame.

Chicago is corrupt. I'm not claiming it isn't, but Alaska is ALSO corrupt. ALL States have corrupt politicians. I thinka ****load of people who don't know squat about Chicago outside of its reputation (One that stems from Al Capone's era) are talking a lot of **** and pretending their own states aren't similarly corrupt.

And no one is saying Alaska ISN'T corrupt. What people were rolling their eyes at was a poster trying to take a partisan jab because someone DARED to insult the almighty Obama and thus had to take a jab at Palin, using a comparison that was faulty. Alaska had 50 convictions for corruption in the span that the article was done, Illinois had 500. It wasn't that Alaska wasn't corrupt, it was saying that trying to compare it to Illinois in this example was a bad example and was just someone trying to take a ****ty partisan jab and doing it incredibly poorly. This was doubly true considering that no one before that poster was making it a partisan thing, instead talking about Illinois/Chicago politics in general. You'd note that two of those governors I listed above were REPUBLICANS...it wasn't about party until one hyper-partisan poster decided it'd be funny to throw a ****ty comparison in to protect their "Side".
 
And no one is saying Alaska ISN'T corrupt. What people were rolling their eyes at was a poster trying to take a partisan jab because someone DARED to insult the almighty Obama and thus had to take a jab at Palin, using a comparison that was faulty. Alaska had 50 convictions for corruption in the span that the article was done, Illinois had 500. It wasn't that Alaska wasn't corrupt, it was saying that trying to compare it to Illinois in this example was a bad example and was just someone trying to take a ****ty partisan jab and doing it incredibly poorly. This was doubly true considering that no one before that poster was making it a partisan thing, instead talking about Illinois/Chicago politics in general. You'd note that two of those governors I listed above were REPUBLICANS...it wasn't about party until one hyper-partisan poster decided it'd be funny to throw a ****ty comparison in to protect their "Side".

It's not about party, and I agree that Illinois is Corrupt, but there has been an air of superiority about how Chicago politics guarantees that anyone who comes form here would be corrupt just by the fact that they are from here.

Many people have said that about Obama and they have said it is because of Chicago's Corruption. What that stat given does is show that no matrter WHERE you are talking about, corruption exists.

But there are posters form Louisiana making negative comments about Chicago and Illinois and that is plumb retarded.
 
I agree with you in saying that ANYONE that comes out is definitely corrupt. I can understand people stating it, but I don't agree with it.

I DO however think its a LOT more legitimate to ask about the likihood of someone coming out of Illinois, Chicago espicially (i'd love to see Chicago compared to some of the other major cities in the U.S.), completely clean. I don't care about what the per-capita is...when you have 500 people found guilty of corruption charges, in all branches of government, and a countless amount not discovered I don't think its out of bounds to question it. I don't even think its out of bounds to be skeptical and think its likely. I do think its hard to say "100%, I'm positive he's dirty".

I think its FAR more likely as well, no matter what the "per capita" flawed statistics try to tell you, that such a question is FAR more fitting in a place like Illinois or Louisiana with a long history of NUMEROUS dirty political actions than in a place like Alaska or Montana where the number isn't even into three digits. The per capita statistics is a flawed method of judging.

Yes, corruption exists everywhere, that is true. But its also like saying someone living on the streets of Detroit's or Oaklands chance of being murdered "Soft of" like someone living in Mississippi or New Mexico. And then, after people look at you strangely thinking "you're kidding right, Detroit is known for being pretty murder heavy you go "Yeah! Well, Mississippi is the 4th and New Mexico the 3rd most murders per capita of any state, so naturally they're a lot more dangerous than 13th ranked Michigan or 11th ranked California

Of course, ignore the fact that Michigan and California's numbers are skewed in have much larger populations than Mississippi and New Mexico. It also ignores the fact that if you don't look at states but focus on the hot beds of states, Detroit is the biggest per capita murder city in the U.S. and Oakland is 6th.

This is the issue with statistics. They are easily twisted, manipulated, presented, and have facts and factors ignored to be able to show what you want but prove really nothing.

Is there corruption in Alaskan politics? Yes, there's corruption everywhere. But a reasonable view of the history of both places and viewing them in the full scope of that government, and specifically looking at Chicago itself, you can not say that Alaska is on par in regards to the wide spread nature of corruption nor can you really say that its WORSE than Illinois and Chicago in particular have been in the past decades.

That's not saying there's not corruption there, its just saying its not reasonable to say its as bad or worse than what's been present in Illinois/Chicago.
 
I agree with you in saying that ANYONE that comes out is definitely corrupt. I can understand people stating it, but I don't agree with it.

I DO however think its a LOT more legitimate to ask about the likihood of someone coming out of Illinois, Chicago espicially (i'd love to see Chicago compared to some of the other major cities in the U.S.), completely clean. I don't care about what the per-capita is...when you have 500 people found guilty of corruption charges, in all branches of government, and a countless amount not discovered I don't think its out of bounds to question it. I don't even think its out of bounds to be skeptical and think its likely. I do think its hard to say "100%, I'm positive he's dirty".

I think its FAR more likely as well, no matter what the "per capita" flawed statistics try to tell you, that such a question is FAR more fitting in a place like Illinois or Louisiana with a long history of NUMEROUS dirty political actions than in a place like Alaska or Montana where the number isn't even into three digits. The per capita statistics is a flawed method of judging.

Yes, corruption exists everywhere, that is true. But its also like saying someone living on the streets of Detroit's or Oaklands chance of being murdered "Soft of" like someone living in Mississippi or New Mexico. And then, after people look at you strangely thinking "you're kidding right, Detroit is known for being pretty murder heavy you go "Yeah! Well, Mississippi is the 4th and New Mexico the 3rd most murders per capita of any state, so naturally they're a lot more dangerous than 13th ranked Michigan or 11th ranked California

Of course, ignore the fact that Michigan and California's numbers are skewed in have much larger populations than Mississippi and New Mexico. It also ignores the fact that if you don't look at states but focus on the hot beds of states, Detroit is the biggest per capita murder city in the U.S. and Oakland is 6th.

This is the issue with statistics. They are easily twisted, manipulated, presented, and have facts and factors ignored to be able to show what you want but prove really nothing.

Is there corruption in Alaskan politics? Yes, there's corruption everywhere. But a reasonable view of the history of both places and viewing them in the full scope of that government, and specifically looking at Chicago itself, you can not say that Alaska is on par in regards to the wide spread nature of corruption nor can you really say that its WORSE than Illinois and Chicago in particular have been in the past decades.

That's not saying there's not corruption there, its just saying its not reasonable to say its as bad or worse than what's been present in Illinois/Chicago.

The per capita numbers should be proportional to the total number of politicians, so there would be some validity to these data when discussing the propensity for corruption.

I think a better metric would be "Corruption convictions per 100 politicians". That would be more indiciative of how widespread the corruption is. Each state has only one governor, but Illinois has way more politicians than Alaska.


Alaskan State Legislature has a total of 60 members, whereas the Illinois General Assembly has 177. Alaska has a total of 3 National representatives (2 senators, 1 Congressman) while Illinois has a total of 21 (2 Senators, 19 congressman)

Even just looking at these data, Alaska has 63 politician while Illinois has 198. That's without including Judges, Alderman, Elected Officials form individual municipalities and counties, etc.

****, Chicago has 50 Alderman. Almost as many alderman as there are total members in the Alskan Legislature. Since the list you gave of corruption includes these alderman, we should probably include them in our total numbers.

If there were data showing the total number of all politicians in the entire state over the time vs. number of convistions over that same span, you would probably see that the proportions favor Illinois as well.

The murder per capita comparison isn't appropriate because it is determinant on where you are located at a much more specific level than the larger statewide level.

Whereas, in our representative republic, the per capita numbers DO have relevance. This is because the political population is a reflection of the total population.

It wouldn't be a factor if the states had an equal number of politicians, but they aren't even close to equal.

I'd be interested to see the ration of total politicians to the number of politicians convicted of corruption over the total time span.

That would tell you more correctly than anecdotal evidence how pervasive the corruption is.
 
The per capita numbers should be proportional to the total number of politicians, so there would be some validity to these data when discussing the propensity for corruption.

I think a better metric would be "Corruption convictions per 100 politicians". That would be more indiciative of how widespread the corruption is. Each state has only one governor, but Illinois has way more politicians than Alaska.


Alaskan State Legislature has a total of 60 members, whereas the Illinois General Assembly has 177. Alaska has a total of 3 National representatives (2 senators, 1 Congressman) while Illinois has a total of 21 (2 Senators, 19 congressman)

Even just looking at these data, Alaska has 63 politician while Illinois has 198. That's without including Judges, Alderman, Elected Officials form individual municipalities and counties, etc.

****, Chicago has 50 Alderman. Almost as many alderman as there are total members in the Alskan Legislature. Since the list you gave of corruption includes these alderman, we should probably include them in our total numbers.

If there were data showing the total number of all politicians in the entire state over the time vs. number of convistions over that same span, you would probably see that the proportions favor Illinois as well.

The murder per capita comparison isn't appropriate because it is determinant on where you are located at a much more specific level than the larger statewide level.

Whereas, in our representative republic, the per capita numbers DO have relevance. This is because the political population is a reflection of the total population.

It wouldn't be a factor if the states had an equal number of politicians, but they aren't even close to equal.

I'd be interested to see the ration of total politicians to the number of politicians convicted of corruption over the total time span.

That would tell you more correctly than anecdotal evidence how pervasive the corruption is.

Then why don't you show us going back to say...1958, which would be Alaska's beginning as a state. Show us proportional data over the years and let's see who has the most corruption. I waiting with bated breath.

It would also be helpful if you could show a trend in the severity of the convictions, time served in office by the convicted, some measure of how many were involved in each corruption charge (Illinois has Alaska beat hands down when it comes to actual corruption rings), and a trend in how high the level of government of each of the convicted was.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom