Cabbit posted:

Can we go back to bread chat for a second because:


Naan is awesome, especially if you throw some brisket or tri-tip and cheese on it. It's my go-to post BBQ sandwich bread.

Aspergeoisie posted:

Biden already knows he's running 'cause Clinton goofed. Here's hoping he doesn't announce for as long as possible

Phone posted:

I think exorcisms are still going on.

The Larch posted:

You're slipping.

Talmonis posted:

The man's the best pope in living memory. Possibly of all time.

Dogstoyevsky posted:

Hey MIGF, did anyone ask you yet how you feel about Kanye's incipient 2020 candidacy? Good ol' Chiraqi boy and all that.

Zeroisanumber posted:

No. The issue at play with Clinton's private server is whether or not she and her staff were knowingly sending classified material to an offsite, private server. What it looks like now is that some things were sent which were later classified (including someone's grocery list for whatever reason) but that no one knowingly mishandled classified data.

If the GOP could prove that Clinton was knowingly sending classified data, then she could be charged with a crime.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Guess who's back!

QuoProQuid posted:

Glenn Beck wants to personally march 400 Syrian refugee families across the U.S.-Mexico border where he will establish a "New Selma" for oppressed Christians. All it will take is your donation to my off-shore bank account.

blue squares posted:

I saw an interview that said "things later being classified is bull." Essentially, the argument was that "classified" is not something instantly applied or not applied to every piece of information the moment it is created/learned. That a Secretary of State has a responsibility to look at information and determine for herself whether or not it is important enough to be classified. The actual status at the time has no bearing for someone like a SoS.

So, if something could potentially become classified later, it should have been recognized by the SoS as essentially classified.

Anyway, I have a question that will make me either very sad or mildly relieved. Our country is hosed UP. In so many ways. Infrastructure, healthcare, campaign finance, justice system, etc. It seems every institution is majorly failing us. My question is: is this unique to the United States (among industrialized nations)? Or is every country more or less a complete loving mess in every way?

hobbesmaster posted:

Just leave your next post at "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not"

hobbesmaster posted:

Just leave your next post at "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not"

Popular Thug Drink posted:

1) everyone always has the feeling that everything is going to hell and the world is collapsing as you shift out of the soft innocence of childhood into the frankly harsh reality of being an adult. this drives some people completely nuts and, being uncritical, they externalize it as everyone else's problem rather than their own

2) society is always collapsing but it's also always reforming itself and recovering from that collapse. each generation faces new, unprecedented problems that seem insurmountable but most of the time, we manage to deal with them, just in time to create totally new and totally scarier problems

pick whichever one works for you the most

Klaus88 posted:

blue squares posted:

Our country is hosed UP. In so many ways. Infrastructure, healthcare, campaign finance, justice system, etc. It seems every institution is majorly failing us. My question is: is this unique to the United States (among industrialized nations)? Or is every country more or less a complete loving mess in every way?

DivineCoffeeBinge posted:

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but sometimes? Things change.

Let's look at an entirely hypothetical example. You know the whole "gefilte fish" thing that some people seem to be convinced was actually code for something mysterious and subterfuge-laden but which was, actually, genuinely about gefilte fish? We'll use that.

The whole deal was that this guy needed to ship his gefilte fish to Israel and was having difficulties that he asked the Secretary of State to help him out with. So, in our hypothetical, Hillary sends out some emails to subordinates saying "hey get on the gefilte fish thing." And then one of the subordinates writes back and says "I think we've worked out a deal with Israel about the gefilte fish thing but it turns out that the Israeli diplomat I was talking to about this stuff also mentioned a top-secret plan for Israel to reduce the Gaza Strip into a smoking crater, so, um, what should I do about that?

So now the discussion has moved into a phase that obviously has to get classified, right? I think it's safe to say that "things we learned about another country's military intentions" deserve classification. But you can't only classify that stuff and leave the rest of the relevant messages unclassified, because if someone reads 'em later - which is, you know, happening - then you don't want people to read "Yeah I talked to the gefilte fish guy and we got that squared away but also CLASSIFIED poo poo." Because doing that makes it kind of obvious that it's the gefilte fish guy who was the source for your newly-classified information. So now you have to classify the whole fuckin' gefilte fish discussion.

Your argument is, essentially, "Hillary should have known that a discussion about gefilte fish could have potentially turned out to later involve classified stuff so it should have been classified even when it was just a discussion about gefilte fish." Which is dumb.






I will neither confirm nor deny that I constructed this hypothetical example specifically to allow me to type the words "gefilte fish" as often as possible.

Kalman posted:

Kinda makes sense to me. Every time I eat gefilte fish I am filled with an overwhelming urge to kill whoever just forced that abomination on me.

Kalman posted:

More so than a candidate who got so scared of what the gefilte fish might lead to that he hosed off to America's worst city, Chicago.

Random Number posted:

It's because chi-town so lovely even the criminals leave.

Trabisnikof posted:

I'm pretty sure the secret torture site served both part of the city.

Lprsti99 posted:

Your gimmick is really dumb and bad.

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

Was HP's decline purely the result of Fiorina or is there some truth to the idea of HP setting up her up to fail? It's not unheard of for a corporation to put woman in a no-win position.

Kalman posted:

You forgot Hispanic Chicago (aka the slightly less poo poo part.)

Trabisnikof posted:

While the capacitor plague can be blamed for many things, the fall of HP is a stretch.

Next, cosmic rays caused Cisco to product so much inventory they lost count!


Oh wait, no both were caused by idiot management.

Fried Chicken posted:

So I wondered how they were going to go after Trump. "He used to be a democrat" didn't get any traction because he speaks to the base now, and could always say "so was Reagan". Bush tried " chummy with the Clintons", didn't work because he is tighter and Trump could play it off. "He wants to raise taxes in the rich/to spend more on Medicare/to increase social security payouts/other break with think tank orthodoxy" doesn't work because the base is in agreement with him.

I'm not linking to the fuckers, but now the National Review is highlighting his past ties with Al Sharpton

I can see ways to play that off but I think it's the first thing anyone has rolled out with any potential bite. Be interesting to see if it takes.

Litany Unheard posted:

Basically, you need to show yourself to be the sane, serious candidate, so that when Trump starts to look unelectable the voters have somewhere to turn. Fortunately for America, the most dangerous Republican candidates have decided to kneecap their presidential ambitions by getting down into the thick of it with Trump. Little did they know you can't out-Trump Trump.

chitoryu12 posted:

Trying to play logic against Trump is a losing battle because it assumes that Trump plays by any kind of political rules or sanity. He "won" the primary debate because he didn't bother preparing and just spewed whatever came out of his mouth instead of a carefully crafted response to everything, because he figures he's the only honest guy on the stage and doesn't have to play nice (which is technically true, as he'll backstab you in the businessroom and then fully admit to it with a poo poo-eating grin when he no longer has anything to gain). If you try to respond to him, he just shouts louder and accuses you of being "the real racist."

Talmonis posted:

In unsurprising news, white conservatives love socialist policy when it's couched in racist terms.

mdemone posted:

You're referring to the practice of using private email while serving as SecState, right? I'm trying to follow along.

Technogeek posted:

I just want to remind everyone that during Fiorina's tenure as CEO, HP printer drivers literally included an installation of Apache Tomcat to operate the printer control panel.

EDIT: I don't think this was her fault specifically, but I am still obligated to remind people of this because holy loving poo poo.

A Winner is Jew posted:

On the one hand, yeah I agree with you that Trump is absolutely using racism and xenophobia to support his populist message which is loving awful in the short term, but unlike the last several times it was done in this country people are actually calling him out on that poo poo, and not just a few people but the entire other party along with the majority of the country.

So yeah, poo poo's hosed but I'm hopeful since poo poo is way less hosed when it was done the last several times.

Fried Chicken posted:

Channeling Ross Douthat today, huh? It would be more convincing if you dropped the swearing and ended it by declaring that, as a Catholic, you know torture is good and the Pope doesn't know Catholic dogma.