[phoronixrly]

> Eg. you are not going to stop that nurse at the hospital from letting her sister in law into the doctor's office early even if it was not her turn.

Boy, what an example of a lie. I'd be more than happy even if they dare to limit themselves to stopping all corruption with public funds and government contracts.

Somehow I think I'll live if my doctor prioritizes a family member before me. There's a chance I won't even accuse them of a crime because of it, let alone blame the government for it...

[necovek]

I agree with you that we should be happy with the most blatant corruption eliminated, and living in a neighbouring country (Serbia), I've long advocated for an even more realistic goal of limiting corruption to a single digit percentage of all the government contracts. That's definitely not a good platform to run for office though, I agree.

FWIW, this is a mathematical tool called a contradiction to disprove a claim: you seem to be agreeing that they won't achieve 100%, so you are fine with the lie. That does not make it not a lie.

They are similarly not going to completely eliminate most of the corruption no matter what, even the corruption you are concerned with. The same case as above will play out in granting a large government contract when a clerk at the office discloses competing offers to his best friend who runs a company in the same space, or they add in particular requirements and clauses to exclude some competitors.

They are either "lying" of planning to achieve 100%-corruption-free society (sorry, they are being "diplomatic" to win the office first), or they are utterly unrealistic and unfamiliar with human patterns of behaviour. Lying is likely better if their motives are truly pure, but I'd have a hard time trusting someone who lies their way into office.

Your mileage may vary.