I'm not sure if you're intentionally distorting what I'm saying or just replying without fully reading it but a purge does not mean a mass execution, though yes we do want them in prison. You should also understand this isn't just congressmen. This any political figure that's part of the "establishment". It expands to executive agencies, corrupt judges, etc etc. Honestly if we knew who really pulled the strings we'd probably want the specific billionaires and others in prison too. But sadly that may be unrealistic.

It's not about agreeing with Sanders, it's never been about that, hence why we don't care if a Republican or Democrat is in office. We are mostly independent after all, either pushed to it due to what we saw or always it. We just want a government that represents the citizenry above corporations which yes means not taking their money.

If one gives off the perception that they are corrupt then they will be treated as if they are corrupt. This has been a pretty typical reality of life and it's actually a quote from someone in a different wording.

We don't need to prove quid pro exchanges, that's never been the need. The laws to fight off corruption sadly aren't there for one reason or another, as such we believe that it is simply better to get rid of those that are taking such things and aren't supporting such a change (which I suppose is the real way to differentiate yourself from the supposed corrupt) and instead replace them with people that are not.

As for getting someone elected it's not that simple. To garner and motivate people throughout a long point of apathy towards the government not representing us is akin to trying to get a depressed person to have a good day, it can be VERY difficult and at times impossible depending on the situation. As such we can not guarantee that we can get people to individually fund and campaign for every single individual with their own money, this could very well be a one time only thing unless we have some reason to be motivated. It's not about putting in the effort, it's about dealing with that political depression.

The information we want to know about a candidate IS NOT at our finger tips actually. You may not want to see it but for instance the FOIA requests expressed certain emails being investigated from Hillary and a few of them were quite telling. T hings we wouldn't know otherwise. One of them showed a say one thing do the other type thing. Further beyond that, the debates are very theatrical so who knows how someone is really represented, the law bills have riders and it's hard to understand that unless someone calls them out. Sanders does as much as he can but typically not many others do. Then there's so many other factors. Then there's the contributions, the campaign contributions, the whole history of someone, and then you have to sift through scandals because sometimes they're true and sometimes they aren't and determining that is a pain.

I do all that research but most people don't even have the time to do a 50 - 100 hour research session on people. It'd be better if an impartial information gathering source existed that could be trusted to provide information to equip yourself with prior to a debate that included a lot of this and led to a lesser need for commercials and billions for a general election.