Memorable moment from Tues. night’s debate

10 thoughts on “Memorable moment from Tues. night’s debate”

  1. Thanks for this. I didn’t think I could stand to listen until the crowd thins a bit. Have you figured out how to pronounce his name yet? I came across this hint somewhere by some linguist… “Buddha Judge”. They played a clip of him saying it and that comes really close. 😀

    1. I’ve seen t-shirts that say BOOT EDGE EDGE. That sounds pretty close to what I’ve heard on newscasts. But there’s a difference between udge and edge, so I still don’t really know.

      1. Shoot wish I could point you to the clip of the linguist discussing it and then running a bit of him actually saying it. But that’s where I got the “udge” sound. They’re still pretty close… closer than what I’d come up with just looking at the spelling. 😀

  2. I swear “Buddha Judge” is the only one who seems to have consistently thought about what he is going to say before he opens his mouth.

    But… if my voting preference history is any indicator, he hasn’t a chance in Hades of getting the nomination.

  3. I would vote for almost any of the 24 over the incumbent, but so far I am most impressed with Bennet, Buttiieig and Ryan. They are relatively fresh faces and all seem to have gravitas, even Mayor Pete whose cv is remarkable despite his youth. Marianne Williamson is the odd duck in the gaggle. Be kinda like when Nancy Reagan was calling some of the shots.

    1. Bennet is a smart guy, very ethical, honest. Too bad he’s such a terrible speaker. I doubt he’ll make it to the next round of debates (in September?), although he certainly looked better last night than Tues. night. Williamson is a nut job; don’t know how she ended up in the debates. I liked Gov. Inslee last night, just because he’s bright enough to grasp the danger of global warming and the urgency with which it must be addressed. And Gillibrand suddenly loomed large on my radar. Overall, however, last night’s debate looked like a circular firing squad.

      1. “Overall, however, last night’s debate looked like a circular firing squad.”


        If Democrats think that dredging up questionable past actions, endorsements and allies of their DEMOCRAT challengers makes them look better, they are strategically ignorant.  They are illuminating heretofore unknown (to me anyway) weakness in the eventual nominee.  Trump campaign fodder.

        What they ought to be focusing on is their collective similarity in opposition to the idiot incumbent and his appointed band of fellow idiots.

      2. The assumption is that they all want to beat Trump, so they won’t waste time focusing on that right now. That’s for the eventual Dem nominee to do. Right now they are fighting for the right to be that nominee. Unfortunately that involves trying to take each other down and does do a lot of groundwork for Trump’s campaign. An ugly process. But as one reporter noted last night, it’s at least giving the candidates a lot of experience debating and countering all the negativity — experience Trump is not getting (and won’t get if no one challenges him for the GOP nomination).

... and that's my two cents