Can we just say all parties are guilty?

Sheesh. Tons of smoking guns against Trump and Clinton's, no indictments - but that's not how the swamp works. The elite protect their own. They look out for themselves and care only about themselves.

Instead of deflecting every time someone points at an entrenched corrupt politician/billionaire, why can't we just come to a reasonable meeting point where we say it's more likely everyone is guilty, yet being protected by the elite ties they have? Why do we have to choose sides and act like one side is better than the other when they're part of the same beast?

The act is amusing, I suppose, and hundreds of flags and stars are given out on a daily basis, only proving the media-driven clash between a divided people is thriving... But this is getting really old.

Your political agenda is not more righteous than your neighbors.

The person you voted for is not inherently a less corrupt person than those you didn't vote for.

The swamp is real - but it includes those you believe are draining it.

Anything else would work against themselves and would dry up the swampy ecosystem they thrive in.

Who's actually enacting term limits, reductions in corporate subsidies and lobbyism, living wages, truly affordable Healthcare?

The left pretends they are, but yet bail out banks, benefit large corrupt corporations, continue unnecessary wars, and allowed the affordable Healthcare act to pass ( which only raised prices for many including self ...)

The right doesn't even pretend, they're fully open with their ties to big business, but somehow that's interpreted as the American dream...

I'm still using left/right terminology as it's what people understand and identify with but let me make it clear - I'm absolutely convinced that Trump, the Clinton's, the bush's, Obamas, etc are all a part of the same group, lines are only painted to keep us voting for those that we believe represent our interests

*sigh*

originally posted by: deadlyhope
Your political agenda is not more righteous than your neighbors.

I disagree, but that's the thing about subjectivity, I suppose.

The person you voted for is not inherently a less corrupt person than those you didn't vote for.

Unless the reason for which you voted for them was based on the level of corruption at the time of the election.

The swamp is real - but it includes those you believe are draining it.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. That's the problem with politics, you never know if what you're being told, through any source from any side, is the complete truth.

And not all drains are effective...draining a pool with a coffee stirrer will take some time.

Who's actually enacting term limits, reductions in corporate subsidies and lobbyism, living wages, truly affordable Healthcare?

Well, only two of those things are proper use of our government as designed, so this is where I say that subjectivism is a major problem because it is often founded upon apathy and ignorance to how our federal government was designed and should be working.

I'm absolutely convinced that Trump, the Clinton's, the bush's, Obamas, etc are all a part of the same group, lines are only painted to keep us voting for those that we believe represent our interests

We'll agree on that point, but again, that's just subjective beliefs--we little peons will never know the truth in that regard, even if it's pretty apparent.

But to answer the question in your title, I will not say that all parties are guilty because I see official guilt through the eyes of the law, and when indictments refuse to be produced on rather obvious issues, I think that the guilt that should be addressed is that of the "justice" system and how it doesn't even know what 'blind justice' means anymore.

a reply to: deadlyhope

In all actuality, you MUST list your party as corrupt BEFORE you mention how corrupt the other side is. (if you are on the right, that is) If you do not, you will be whataboutismed to death. But even before the obligatory "yea, my side sucks too", there is some evidence to support that on both sides. When your side has a super majority, and does nothing with it, then bitches about how the other side is at fault for nothing getting done, and then the pendulum swings back, and power is split, the bitching is only ratcheted up a few notches for optics.

Those in Washington are truly only interested in getting richer. "the will of the people" is more of a joke it would seem.

But as the guy I am, I'll still wish for a world where people have integrity, and smug arrogance was punishable by death.

There's a vast difference between a 'smoking gun with no prosecutable evidence' and 'crimes for which evidence exists and people have already been found guilty and sentenced to jail time'.

To clear the swamp, you must know the swamp from being a swamp creature. It is a power struggle between types of swamp creatures that we are seeing, piranhas vs crocks. Of course, Trump is full of croc but is it because he is a croc or because he is a piranha eating croc.

originally posted by: Painterz
There's a vast difference between a 'smoking gun with no prosecutable evidence' and 'crimes for which evidence exists and people have already been found guilty and sentenced to jail time'.

That is something that 90% of ATSers choose not to understand.

originally posted by: Painterz
There's a vast difference between a 'smoking gun with no prosecutable evidence' and 'crimes for which evidence exists and people have already been found guilty and sentenced to jail time'.

Oddly enough, that seems to be subjective to party affiliation as well.

For instance, we have evidence that exists that Hillary broke the law. A law that other people have been found guilty of and sentenced.

So why is she walking around still with people defending her?

A fascinating world to watch.

🍻

a reply to: deadlyhope

Could begin by stop referring to parties and just keep pointing out how once they have gained office, all politicians are susceptible to corruption?

a reply to: deadlyhope

I think both sides have to stop blaming the minority party when they are in charge.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Painterz
There's a vast difference between a 'smoking gun with no prosecutable evidence' and 'crimes for which evidence exists and people have already been found guilty and sentenced to jail time'.

Oddly enough, that seems to be subjective to party affiliation as well.

For instance, we have evidence that exists that Hillary broke the law. A law that other people have been found guilty of and sentenced.

So why is she walking around still with people defending her?

A fascinating world to watch.

🍻

It's simple, those in charge consider themselves above the law, it's why they have slush funds for example to pay out accusations of abuse.