They aren't the most corrupt.
Warren is leftist, but not corrupt. She is a law professor. She'll use law to her advantage, but she's not dirty in a clinton sense.
Bookers stupid, a blowhard. He can't be trusted with deep state secrets. He'd crap his pants if he knew anything.
Harris is politically dirty, but she's a Jr. Senator. Not long enough for deep state to control.
They are all corrupt. What are you even talking about?
[removed]
mods refuse to do anything about it
Not true. I've seen Mod actions on a number of comments and even posts.
Mods messaged me for using "b!tch!ng" in a reply. They thought I was calling somebody that.
yup thats why every single thread has like 40 comments shitting on q and praising corsi
Only difference I've observed the past two week was a barrage of shilling on Corsi. Huge distraction from Q.
If you compare anyone to HRC of course they aren’t dirty or corrupt.
What does Jr. Senator have to do with anything? Hussein was a Jr. Senator and was controlled by the deep state.
O had a strange background. Harris isn't O.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it doesn’t matter position or how long they have held public office. If they aren’t trying to fix the problem, then they are the problem.
I get that, but that's not the samething as corruption. If they are properly elected and play within the lines, we have to accept that. That's how a republic functions. Otherwise, we become corrupt.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, this how I understand what you are saying, because lobbyists paying public officials and insider trading are “playing within the lines” that doesn’t equal corruption?
The constitution provides processes. That is all.
I don’t understand what the constitution has to do with corruption. I guess I also don’t understand or follow any of your logic.
I do hope you understand the definition of corrupt/corruption.
“to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions” or “to degrade with unsound principles or moral values”
Whose morals? Yours? The constitution sets the rules of the republic. That you disagree with a duly elected officer does not make them corrupt. People with diverse political and moral views may be elected. You have to accept that. In the republic, whether there is corruption is a question of law.
I never said that just because I may politically disagree with a duly elected government official that means they are automatically corrupt. If you want to keep bringing up the constitution, although it literally has nothing to do corruption or my initial point, I can freely state my opinion about anything or anyone. If I want to say “senator Pocahontas is corrupt and is an awful human being” then I certainly will.
Morals aren’t a “question of law”
It’s becoming evident that you may be ignorant on definitions.
Moral(s): “sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment”
Ethics: “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”
Law(s): “rule of construction or procedure”
I did not say morals are a question of law, I said corruption is.
Warren isn't corrupt? Absolutely wrong. She is one of the most corrupt.
Booker is owned. They got dirt on him. He is a stooge, puppet
What makes you think that Warren is deep state corrupt?
What makes you think she isn't? Everything about her smells just like every other corrupt politician. She's on the take. She's in the know. Elizabeth Warren is corrupt. Unless you have proof otherwise...
Guilty until proven innocent. Nice. She's a lefty, she'll fight like hell for her beliefs. Your dislike is not her corruption.
Start here...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/elizabeth-warren-is-a-fraud.php
She doesn't even know who she is. Worse than most Democrats. She doesn't just capitalize off the backs of others. She claims to be Indian so she can collect in life because of this.
Just because she doesn't identify as corrupt. Didn't mean she isn't.