Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Cristalle]

Moreover, her problem with representing her past is going to come back and bite her in the ass.

Elizabeth Warren’s Troubling Relationship with the Truth

She's been fibbing about how she left a teaching job nearly half a century ago.

www.outsidethebeltway.com

She's got an amazing achievement, why is it so hard to just be straight about it? The problem is that she's been caught on video saying two different things (not including it here) and while there may be multiple reasons for losing that job, Trump is going to hammer one and make her seem like she's not telling the truth, lying for an advantage.

 

[Beebo Brink]

If this is the best you've got to throw against Warren, we're in pretty good shape.

 

[Cristalle]

If this is the best you've got to throw against Warren, we're in pretty good shape.

You think that "Crooked Liz" or "Lyin' Liz" isn't going to land?

 

[Beebo Brink]

You think that "Crooked Liz" isn't going to land?

Trump doesn't need facts to lash out with vicious nicknames. Not to mention that it is impossible to find a candidate that is so blameless that Trump can't attack them on some grain of truth blown up into a boulder. Every candidate is going to have some details of their life that are either questionable or can be twisted to appear questionable, not because they are especially corrupt politicians, but because they are human. A squeaky clean candidate doesn't exist, not if they've lived life with any relish.

If Sanders reaches a point where Trump takes him seriously, you're going to see some targeted nastiness as well. Sanders has a few blemishes and shady spots, too, not the least of which involve his wife. The glaring spotlight and Trump's assaults will be painful for them, I'm sure, but it's not like they don't know what they're in for at this level of politics. Same for Warren. This is not a sport for the faint of heart.

 

[Clara D.]

Trump doesn't need facts to lash out with vicious nicknames.

Trump makes up his own reality as he goes. And anything that disagrees with his reality is FakeNews(tm)

At this point, what he makes up on the fly that his idiot base will swallow hook, line, and sinker is more of a concern than real closet skeletons.

 

[Cristalle]

Trump doesn't need facts to lash out with vicious nicknames. Not to mention that it is impossible to find a candidate that is so blameless that Trump can't attack them on some grain of truth blown up into a boulder. Every candidate is going to have some details of their life that are either questionable or can be twisted to appear questionable, not because they are especially corrupt politicians, but because they are human. A squeaky clean candidate doesn't exist, not if they've lived life with any relish.

If Sanders reaches a point where Trump takes him seriously, you're going to see some targeted nastiness as well. Sanders has a few blemishes and shady spots, too, not the least of which involve his wife. The glaring spotlight and Trump's assaults will be painful for them, I'm sure, but it's not like they don't know what they're in for at this level of politics. Same for Warren. This is not a sport for the faint of heart.

We all know that there's no perfect candidate. But along with the Native American thing, it starts looking like a pattern. "Lyin' Liz" or "Crooked Liz" is going to become a thing, and her instincts when faced with that kind of taunting haven't been good.

 

[Anya Ristow]

"Lyin' Liz" or "Crooked Liz" is going to become a thing

Liawatha is already a thing.

 

[Ryanna Enfield]

Trump is going to label and attack all the Dem Candidate front runners because that is the only way he knows how to function. That includes "Commie Pinko Bernie". The facts and truth do not matter to Trump or his Trumpies. Everyone should know by now we are dealing with NPD.

 

[Anya Ristow]

If Sanders reaches a point where Trump takes him seriously,

Trump Privately Tells Confidants That ‘Socialism’ Won’t Be ‘So Easy’ to Beat in 2020

 

[Kara Spengler]

?
I'm interested what you mean by that technically. Client side cookies can last basically forever or they can be wiped out immediately. As far as I know, there are no "server side cookies". There is fingerprinting. There is my ip address to match but (especially overseas) ip addresses are shared.

Ah, my goof, I looked it up as I thought the max was 30 days, you are cool as long as it fits into a unix timestamp. The default is it gets cleared at the end of the session though.

For server side cookies I was thinking of session data, which is stored on the server (for example, with php it is the sessiondata directory). However the term 'session' is a bit flexible, most people use something sane like 30 minutes but you can also say a session is extremely long.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Ah, my goof, I looked it up as I thought the max was 30 days, you are cool as long as it fits into a unix timestamp. The default is it gets cleared at the end of the session though.

For server side cookies I was thinking of session data, which is stored on the server (for example, with php it is the sessiondata directory). However the term 'session' is a bit flexible, most people use something sane like 30 minutes but you can also say a session is extremely long.

Session data is done with a client side cookie I'm pretty sure. Possibly with posted stuff from the submitted web pages.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Trump doesn't need facts to lash out with vicious nicknames. Not to mention that it is impossible to find a candidate that is so blameless that Trump can't attack them on some grain of truth blown up into a boulder. Every candidate is going to have some details of their life that are either questionable or can be twisted to appear questionable, not because they are especially corrupt politicians, but because they are human. A squeaky clean candidate doesn't exist, not if they've lived life with any relish.

If Sanders reaches a point where Trump takes him seriously, you're going to see some targeted nastiness as well. Sanders has a few blemishes and shady spots, too, not the least of which involve his wife. The glaring spotlight and Trump's assaults will be painful for them, I'm sure, but it's not like they don't know what they're in for at this level of politics. Same for Warren. This is not a sport for the faint of heart.

Which is why I do not worry when people say that donnie will just use the nickname he already has for Warren. Do these people REALLY think he will not do some variation of the same stunt with any opposition when he has done it to every rival he faced in 2016? Actually, it is better to already have a nickname as he is basically semaphoring his attack ahead of time.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Liawatha is already a thing.

And?

Trump took out every single other Republican candidate with the same tactic. This is going to happen in the 2020 election too, regardless of who the Democratic candidate turns out to be. Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris, Buttigieg, Booker -- take your pick, they will have something in their past that Trump will use as a hook.

This can't be avoided, so I'm not sure why any of these nuisance nicknames are being presented as some kind of disqualifying aspect to Warren's candidacy. It's pretty weak sauce, actually, used mainly to rile up the base, like a pep rally chant, only more vicious.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Session data is done with a client side cookie I'm pretty sure. Possibly with posted stuff from the submitted web pages.

Well, they are close but not exactly the same thing. In some languages they appear as the same though which is probably where the confusion comes in. Actually, reading a page on stackoverflow right now and people are correcting each other all over the place back and forth between the two concepts.

 

[Anya Ristow]

I'm not sure why any of these nuisance nicknames are being presented as some kind of disqualifying aspect to Warren's candidacy. It's pretty weak sauce, actually,

FWIW I don't give a crap about Trump's nicknames. It may work well to simplify things for republican infighting, but there isn't going to be any this time, and for cross-party critique I doubt if it will matter much. "Crooked" stuck to Hillary only because she was already unpopular. I don't think any of the dem candidates this time around are as vulnerable.

BTW he already has a name for Bernie. "Crazy Bernie". I think it's endearing and will backfire

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

We all know that there's no perfect candidate. But along with the Native American thing, it starts looking like a pattern. "Lyin' Liz" or "Crooked Liz" is going to become a thing, and her instincts when faced with that kind of taunting haven't been good.

You mean "Pocahontas"?

*yawn*

It's a big nothingburger. Anyone who isn't already going to vote Trump knows Trump flings nasty nicknames like a monkey flings poo. Nobody is swayed by that. If Liz's reaction to a DNA test she took is all Trump has, then we're in pretty good shape.

 

[Anya Ristow]

Warren shuts down "lock him up" chant. She's obviously a better person than I am, because I find the "lock him up" chant hilarious.

 

[Han Held]

It's not a scandal. It's business as usual. Some of us are looking for the opposite of business as usual.

 

[Han Held]

The facts and truth do not matter to Trump or his Trumpies. Everyone should know by now we are dealing with NPD.

Not to mention that Trump aside it's GOP SOP.

 

[Beebo Brink]

It's a big nothingburger. Anyone who isn't already going to vote Trump knows Trump flings nasty nicknames like a monkey flings poo. Nobody is swayed by that. If Liz's reaction to a DNA test she took is all Trump has, then we're in pretty good shape.

It's also old news. If there was any damage from that dust-up, it's already done and gone and unlikely to damage her campaign any more. Warren had tried her best to learn from that incident, which is pretty much all we can ask for (unlike Biden, who doesn't seem to do the Lessons Learned thang). If anything, encountering a few rough spots early in her campaign has given her some practical experience in damage control. She'll be better at it next time around, assuming there's a next time around, which I think is a given. There's always a curve ball coming at you if you're a serious presidential candidate.

Sanders has more known vulnerabilities, which haven't been exploited, mostly because the GOP doesn't seem to think he's worth attacking strongly... yet. If they ever do, however, the low-hanging fruit will be his heart attack, socialism, and Jane Sanders. She's got some murky financial stewardship issues from her academic administration days that never quite reached scandal stage, but the Republicans will shred her with that, even if the accusations against her are groundless.