• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

Who would you rather have as president?


  • Total voters
    49
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Is Warren a populist? Well, she does support and champion ideas that are popular and constructive, without fear-mongering, and that contrast with the interests of the elite. So yes, technically, she's a populist.

that's not an accurate description of populism. and she is an elitist who panders to populist bigotry and suspicions in order to gain power and wealth.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

no she is not
thank you for nothing. please read more

Which of my posts are you refuting? I assume you read them all since my opinion matters so much.

Be specific, and cite your reasons why I'm wrong.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

that's not an accurate description of populism. and she is an elitist who panders to populist bigotry and suspicions in order to gain power and wealth.

And lies about being a native American to get benefits. How can anyone trust that lying bitch? If she can lie about that, what else is she lying about?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

And lies about being a native American to get benefits. How can anyone trust that lying bitch? If she can lie about that, what else is she lying about?

nothing bugs me more than rich elitists who pander to the poor and lower middle classes by bashing elites and the rich. people like that are almost always power hungry assholes. And since I know quite a lot about Ivy League law school professorships, her appointment to harvard after graduating from what is best seen as a third tier law school and her Fauxachontas nonsense, raises real red flags about that twit
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

nothing bugs me more than rich elitists who pander to the poor and lower middle classes by bashing elites and the rich. people like that are almost always power hungry assholes. And since I know quite a lot about Ivy League law school professorships, her appointment to harvard after graduating from what is best seen as a third tier law school and her Fauxachontas nonsense, raises real red flags about that twit

Yet people will vote for her, and then when she effs everything up, they will complain. When the evidence has been clearly put forth that she is not above lying to get what she wants. :roll:
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Yet people will vote for her, and then when she effs everything up, they will complain. When the evidence has been clearly put forth that she is not above lying to get what she wants. :roll:

elitists pandering to the poor by bashing the rich are invariably scum bags.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

elitists pandering to the poor by bashing the rich are invariably scum bags.

Yeah, that's always hilarious. It's like "BUT YOU'RE RICH TOO!" I suppose what they are saying is that it's acceptable and honorable to be rich as long as you're a phony liar, but if you inherited from your parents, you're a terrible person.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I think that is accurate. Hillary is mainly an opportunistic big government elitist. Warren is a populist power hungry asshole. NOt much difference but there is some.

Both are ethically bankrupt.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Both are ethically bankrupt.

I concede that is an accurate statement beyond serious dispute
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

As usual, this OP doesn't know how to set up an unbiased poll.

The author of the OP wanted to make everyone choose one or the other. But in real life it doesn't work that way. In the General in November of 2012, I didn't like either Obama or Romney, so I took another route, I voted for Gary Johnson. Life is never so simple as with an either or choice.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

The author of the OP wanted to make everyone choose one or the other. But in real life it doesn't work that way. In the General in November of 2012, I didn't like either Obama or Romney, so I took another route, I voted for Gary Johnson. Life is never so simple as with an either or choice.

This poll was designed, specifically, to contrast Hillary with Warren. If you want to include Gary Johnson, start a poll with Gary Johnson.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

This poll was designed, specifically, to contrast Hillary with Warren. If you want to include Gary Johnson, start a poll with Gary Johnson.

No, that was not what I want. I was responding to Chris who said, "As usual, this OP doesn't know how to set up an unbiased poll."

I replied with "The author of the OP wanted to make everyone choose one or the other. But in real life it doesn't work that way. In the General in November of 2012, I didn't like either Obama or Romney, so I took another route, I voted for Gary Johnson. Life is never so simple as with an either or choice."

So the addition of Johnson was an afterthought once I stated what I though the author of the OP wanted. No where in this little short two post combination did I state I wanted another poll between Warren, Clinton and Johnson.

Got it?

Or was I wrong in assuming the author of the OP wanted one to choose just between Warren and Clinton? If so, please advise.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

This poll was designed, specifically, to contrast Hillary with Warren. If you want to include Gary Johnson, start a poll with Gary Johnson.

They're pretty much the same. I think Hilary is probably more towards center than EW though. EW is a liberal through and through. I did like her speeches about taking on the big banks and such things, but the problem is that I just don't believe her. Politicians tell you what you want to hear in order to win elections.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

no, but your post is

why is that justabubba? I worry about men who lionize those two harpies btw. Their agenda is the opposite of masculine values
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

why is that justabubba? I worry about men who lionize those two harpies btw. Their agenda is the opposite of masculine values
[emphasis added by bubba]
ok, share with us what their agendas are, and then identify what about their agendas is in opposition to masculine values
i look forward to your reply
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

[emphasis added by bubba]
ok, share with us what their agendas are, and then identify what about their agendas is in opposition to masculine values
i look forward to your reply

1) less government dependence

2) less handouts

3) a freer economic environment

4) pro gun rights
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

1) less government dependence

2) less handouts

3) a freer economic environment

4) pro gun rights
what are their agendas?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

what are their agendas?

whose agenda? Hillary and Lieyawatha? a more collectivist and centralized government-to whit-a bigger nanny state
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Specifics? Now that's funny.

Like this specific:

Community banks were generally not guilty of some of the worst abuses of the last decade, and community banks remain more constrained by reputational concerns than are the biggest banks. But community bankers are not incapable of bad conduct. In the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George Bailey was a community banker, but so was Mr. Potter.



Two things about that "specific". One, it backs up what I've been saying which is that the community banks were generally not guilty of the abuses. Yet Warren and the others want them to have to pay. Two, he references a movie from the 1940s as proof of...what exactly?

Miller goes on to say absolutely nothing in his testimony that refutes what I've been saying. He was part of the creation of the CFPB and if you're inclined to take only the word of a non-banker who created the agency in question, then you are only looking for partisanship, and not objectivity.

The "scare tactics" you mention come from people who actually understand community banking, and have given - contrary to what you said - specifics on their concerns, which I have been posting about all along.

When you want to be serious and non-partisan, please let me know. This was obviously a waste of my time.

No, this was a complete waste of my time. Your posts gave zero specifics. ZERO. I'll wait to see a specific on Warren harming them.
 
Back
Top Bottom