I simply don't get how a person who said "we came, we saw, he died" can be considered a good choice
as president of the United States.
Sorry, I see no common ground whatsoever with people who can listen to that, and similar phrases ("we'll obliterate them" etc.) and just shrug. It's almost like we come from a different planet.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Notice the largest math went to: None/No opinion followed by Other
These sorts of polls are often more an exercise in name recognition rather than an intelligent assessment of merit.
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/in-1939-princeton-students-most-admired-man-washitler/
“People try so hard to believe in leaders now, pitifully hard,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald in This Side of Paradise, his roman à clef about his college years at Princeton. “But we no sooner get a popular reformer or politician or soldier or writer or philosopher — a Roosevelt, a Tolstoy, a Wood, a Shaw, a Nietzsche, than the cross-currents of criticism wash him away. My Lord, no man can stand prominence these days.”
Only a couple decades later, his alma mater’s students certainly believed in a leader. Above is a real article from the New York Times recounting a real poll taken of Princeton students in November 27, 1939. Nearly three months after the invasion of Poland, Princetonians named Hitler as “the greatest living person,” followed, bafflingly, by noted Jewish person Albert Einstein and, less bafflingly, by British PM Neville Chamberlain. The Einstein inclusion makes some sense, as from 1933 onwards he was based out of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ, but apparently even the nation’s brightest young men were incapable of seeing the contradiction between honoring Einstein and honoring the dictator whose rule he had fled.
third way Wall Street droppings will be more tasty?
turd sandwhich, while admitting we are played by bith sides, reminds me of what an apostate of democratic values really sounds like.
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
That should tell you something!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
...I found it very, very telling about the person.
But thanks for not being snarky -- really, I am not being snarky myself when I say that! I do appreciate being able to have an exchange without vitriol, pretty rare on this site these days, and both sides have done their share to make it like that.
is a Latin phrase popularly attributed to Julius Caesar who, according to Appian,[1] used the phrase in a letter to the Roman Senate around 47 BC after he had achieved a quick victory in his short war against Pharnaces II of Pontus at the Battle of Zela.[2] The phrase is used to refer to a swift, conclusive victory.
Veni, vidi, and vici are first person perfect forms of the Latin verbs venire, videre, and vincere, which mean "to come", "to see", and "to conquer", respectively. The sentence's form is classed as a tricolon and a hendiatris. It appears in Plutarch (Plut. Caes. 50) and Suetonius (Suet. Iul. 37.). Plutarch reports that Caesar "gave Amantius, a friend of his at Rome, an account of this action",[3] whereas Suetonius says "In His Pontic triumph he displayed among the show-pieces of the procession an inscription of but three words, 'I came, I saw, I conquered'".[4]
A variation on that phrase to indicate a quick victory over a dictator is what is supposedly giving you the vapors. Find something better. It's only highlighting how she is highly educated.
I never realized we were actually showing concern for a poor dictator 
Then that is in a way almost more troublesome. So what other things should we expect from her "to prove her toughness" when she is in office?
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Bernie on the other hand...
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
...i.e., when someone objects to torture, they rejoin with "but these guys are the worst of the worst, who cares what happens to them?" And of course they, and you, imply that anyone who disagrees, must have actually liked the guy ("he was a real peach" . It is a disingenuous argument.
It's a lot like those who fail to see that protecting the rights of criminals who are actually guilty, is necessary in order to protect all of our rights.
Again: we are philosophically very, very far apart. And for me, this particular philosophical disagreement IS very telling. It means that you value your own hatred for a despot, over the principles of law. It's like asking Dukakis if he would be for the death penalty if it was his own wife and daughter who were raped and murdered. The correct answer would have been, yes, I am opposed to the death penalty on principle; but the politically expedient answer, the one that gives people a satisfied and self-righteous feeling, is: damned right I would want to kill the bastard myself.
Thanks for clarifying.
And those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
Good point. 
For that, and so many other reasons.
