Asked by
21st Century Wire
Which of these US oligarch families is more corrupt (and why)?
57%
Clinton Family
WINNER
3
43%
Bush Family
9
57%
Clinton Family
43%
Bush Family
They are equally corrupt. The Bush family has been at it longer.
Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:07:28 -0600
Reply
The evil Bush families crimes go back further and started at least as far back as Prescott Bushes father. Prescott Bush had dealings with the nazis even during WW11. Rotten all through and all members of Skull and Bones for 3 generations
Wed, 23 Nov 2016 07:02:28 -0600
Reply
Bush has a long history, genetic links, extremely organized, and ruthless beyond belief. Clinton is a light weight, very sloppy, and ruthless within belief.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:32:58 -0500
Reply
The Bushes win along every axis: longevity (all the way back to Prescott Bush), treason (friends of 'Tim Osman' and family), and broad-spectrum deception (kicking off the 'War on Terror.') The Clintons are a close 2nd, but thanks to Wikileaks, their rotten roots have been ripped out & exposed.
Sun, 30 Oct 2016 10:48:03 -0500
Reply
Possible/likely involvement in JFK and 9/11 events on the part of two successive generations! Maybe Chelsea will get elected and fire off some nukes like mama never could, until then I say Bush.
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:16:06 -0500
Reply
Great question: the Bush crime family has been corrupt longer. The Clinton's are gaining ground quickly.
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 12:48:56 -0600
Reply
The Clintons' corruption has been actively steady for more than four decades, their actions being unprecedented in scope and depth, involving outright selling out of U.S. policies on an international scale and incorporating a network that has permeated and involved nearly every government level.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 21:46:56 -0500
ReplyActually it's a toss up. Bush family is the biggest drug cartel on the Planet. Clinton Foundation the biggest money-laundering enterprise.
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:46:22 -0500
ReplyPretty clear that the Clinton Foundation is a Money Laundering and Criminal enterprise.
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:53:43 -0500
Reply