It's using a position of trust in a dishonest way. That's the actual definition.
And it is 'you guys.'
I can assure you there is only one of me.
I can't argue with your definition. How does that describe Obama?
But you aren't the only one asking silly questions. 
As a candidate, Obama is suppose to show the public that he can be trusted. Correct?
Obama has associations with ACORN on several levels. He has given them money (not directly), he has promised them and other community organizations (at an event organized by ACORN), and he has taught classes for ACORN. There are more, but I honestly don't remember them.
Obama also accepts a large amount of earmarks, but overall accepting earmarks is minor in comparison to ACORN connections.
There are other things I'm not thinking about, but Ayers is one thing I wouldn't count among Obama's corruption.
You've accused a presedential candidate of corruption, I've asked you to explain, and THAT's a silly question? What a bizarre world you live in.
I haven't followed the Acorn stuff too closely. As I understand it, Acorn pay people to register voters and those people have turned in bogus registrations. Acorn are bound by law to turn those over to the elections' boards. So its Acorn that are the victims of fraud, no? But as I say, I haven't followed it too closely.
Regardless, you say Obama is supposed to be corrupt because he's taught classes for Acorn? Or because he's donated to them? How are either of these cases "
using a position of trust in a dishonest way"? [rhetorical question - of course they're not]
Oh well. You've finally come up with an explanation of sorts. I'm satisfied from your answer that there is no evidence of Obama corruption. If you want to continue this discussion then start a new thread. Sorry to everyone else for clogging up the Rasmussen tracker thread.
Ciao.
