Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton

[LivingWordUnity]

What's the difference?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Who cares?

 

[Speedwell]

What's the difference?

View attachment 248454

LOL! Only one of them is married to Bill Clinton.

But seriously, folks, one of them is a progressive Democrat and a currently serving Senator, the other is an "establishment" Democrat whose political career is largely behind her.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's harder to make up ridiculous conspiracy theories about Warren being a murderous pizza-slinging pedo pimp.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

It's harder to make up ridiculous conspiracy theories about Warren being a murderous pizza-slinging pedo pimp.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[SimplyMe]

Perhaps I should post a picture of Putin and Trump, or Kim Jong-Un and Trump, where they are being friendly and ask what's the difference? While I won't claim that Trump is the same as either of those two, it does help point out the logical fallacy (primarily an Association Fallacy).

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Perhaps I should post a picture of Putin and Trump, or Kim Jong-Un and Trump, where they are being friendly and ask what's the difference? While I won't claim that Trump is the same as either of those two, it does help point out the logical fallacy (primarily an Association Fallacy).

Except that Elizabeth Warren gave Hillary Clinton a full endorsement and campaigned for her. When Putin was campaigning for president in Russia was Trump there with him giving him hugs and high fives?

 

[SimplyMe]

Except that Elizabeth Warren gave Hillary Clinton a full endorsement and campaigned for her.

And there is solid evidence that Putin "campaigned" for Trump (if illegally) and "endorsed" him (though, granted, not publicly until after the election).

And McCain endorsed Trump, does that imply that they are the same? People often endorse people politically that they dislike and campaign for them, people they are nothing like, merely because they have similar goals and politics. Your attempt to defend your OP this way merely reinforces that you are using an Association Fallacy.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

And there is solid evidence that Putin "campaigned" for Trump (if illegally) and "endorsed" him (though, granted, not publicly until after the election).

And McCain endorsed Trump, does that imply that they are the same? People often endorse people politically that they dislike and campaign for them, people they are nothing like, merely because they have similar goals and politics. Your attempt to defend your OP this way merely reinforces that you are using an Association Fallacy.

Russia worked with Clinton campaign operatives against Trump by helping create the anti-Trump dossier.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Russia worked with Clinton campaign operatives against Trump by helping create the anti-Trump dossier.

A good criminal knows to at least try and cover their tracks.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

A good criminal knows to at least try and cover their tracks.

If Russia ever did anything to help Trump they did a lot more to hurt him.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If Russia ever did anything to help Trump they did a lot more to hurt him.

How have they "hurt" Trump?

 

[SimplyMe]

Russia worked with Clinton campaign operatives against Trump by helping create the anti-Trump dossier.

Care to cite that? First, the dossier was originally created for the Washington Free Beacon -- a Republican leaning media source. The Clinton campaign worked with no one directly to create the anti-Trump dossier. My recollection is that the Clinton campaign tasked the law firm working for them (a US law firm) to do opposition research. That law firm then contracted with Fusion GPS, again a US company created by a former British intelligence officer, to provide the report they created for the Washington Free Beacon.

So, yes, Fusion GPS did work, and possibly even paid, Russians for information -- but the Clinton campaign was in no way involved with that -- other than the contracts to provide opposition research. In fact, when the research was started, the Clinton campaign wasn't even involved yet -- that was for the Washington Free Beacon.

There is a huge difference, particularly in whether laws were broken, between paying for research to a US company that may have gotten/paid for information from foreign sources vs. having a meeting where the campaign (or top officers in the campaign) is offered a meeting with a representative of a foreign government that has information on your opponent.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

My recollection is that the Clinton campaign tasked the law firm working for them (a US law firm) to do opposition research.

Those are the Clinton campaign operatives. They were working for the Clinton campaign which makes them Clinton campaign operatives. They had a guy working for them named Steele who was working with the Russians to compile the anti-Trump dossier. And that dossier is what officially got the Mueller investigation started. The Mueller investigation itself is an example of Russian collusion.

 

[Speedwell]

Those are the Clinton campaign operatives. They were working for the Clinton campaign which makes them Clinton campaign operatives. They had a guy working for them named Steele who was working with the Russians to compile the anti-Trump dossier. And that dossier is what officially got the Mueller investigation started. The Mueller investigation itself is an example of Russian collusion.

And I bet you think they went ahead and used it without confirming any of the material it contained.

 

[SimplyMe]

Those are the Clinton campaign operatives. They were working for the Clinton campaign which makes them Clinton campaign operatives. They had a guy working for them named Steele who was working with the Russians to compile the anti-Trump dossier. And that dossier is what officially got the Mueller investigation started. The Mueller investigation itself is an example of Russian collusion.

No, they aren't. Again, the investigation was being done before Clinton hired Fusion GPS. The Clinton campaign purchased a report. Your definition of "campaign operative" is so broad as to be meaningless. As an example, say you work for AT&T (or even Walmart) and the Clinton campaign used AT&T as their cell phone provider (or they once purchased some goods from a Walmart) -- that would have you, per your definition, an "operative of the Clinton campaign." In essence, under your definition half the US would be "operatives" of one, or even both, of the Clinton and/or Trump campaigns.

Further, there is a legal definition for the word "operative" -- one that is far removed from your definition.

 

[Sparagmos]

What's the difference?

View attachment 248454

Their policies, particularly with regards to regulation of Wall Street and banks. This is an important distinction, since Warren is known for her years long campaign to reign in the oligarchy via the banks and Wall Street, where Clinton is a member of the oligarchy. Warren has always been more progressive, while Hillary is a centrist establishment democrat who adopts progressive positions only after she sees that it is politically savvy. Honestly, if you’ve followed both of their policy positions over the years I’m at a loss why you would lump the two together.

 

[USincognito]

edit - is there a purpose behind this thread?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Their policies, particularly with regards to regulation of Wall Street and banks. This is an important distinction, since Warren is known for her years long campaign to reign in the oligarchy via the banks and Wall Street, where Clinton is a member of the oligarchy. Warren has always been more progressive, while Hillary is a centrist establishment democrat who adopts progressive positions only after she sees that it is politically savvy. Honestly, if you’ve followed both of their policy positions over the years I’m at a loss why you would lump the two together.

You know, you can't honestly have a political potshot narrative that goes after both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren at the same time if you follow the facts like you pointed out in your response. You're totally ruining the OP's narrative when you post actual facts like that. Come on, get with the program.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What's the difference? Easy - one is wearing a red suit and the other has a blue suit! I mean, they've even appeared on the same stage together, so I don't think your "Elizabeth Warren is just Hillary Clinton in disguise" conspiracy theories are going to gain much traction...