Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 21:10:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
How many posts on the last page were you talking about these felonies.
It's an endless cycle. When asked what HRC did that is so bad, the gate re-opens to emails and Benghazi. And then Trump does something else terribad/stupid. Then we get the whole "they are both terrible". Prompting the initial question.
Tannhauser42 wrote: No. I flat out told you, multiple times, about the greater problem that the markings were being willfully removed or that there were failures to mark them to begin with. I NEVER said "they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed." And you continually dismissed that concern because it didn't play into your narrative that everything is Hillary's fault, all day, every day.
Tannhauser42 wrote:Posting from phone, sorry for not quoting your post Whembly.
Anyway, regardless of what classified material was sent to HRC, was any of it actually marked as classified? That's what will really matter most in getting her into trouble.
Also, that article about classifying info is inaccurate. All documents must also include the declassification instructions, as well. Classified info cannot remain classified indefinitely, there are time limits imposed by the executive order. And, again, anything beyond C/S/TS is just made up by that particular agency as a shortcut to quickly determine who would have "need to know" access.
It seems to me we got into it more of whether or not the fact the she actually received classified information (marked or unmarked) would get her in trouble. That's what our rumble back then was about... as we never really got into 18 USC §1924.
Tanner wrote:Do not misrepresent me, I have never "bought" such a thing. You, however, have still failed, after multiple attempts at explanation, to understand just what it is she can and should be in trouble for.
For the LAST TIME, she CANNOT be faulted for the simple act of receiving (regardless if it was sent to her by private email, post office, or folded up into a paper airplane and thrown in her general direction) classified material, correctly marked or not.
She CAN AND SHOULD be faulted for:
-Maintaining marked classified material on an unapproved system.
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself.
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it.
That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.
Those four bullet points you opined back in September?
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself. Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG So, the larger unresolved question is this: How did this get into her unapproved box?
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).Clinton emails contained spy satellite data on North Korean nukes Should we really suspend disbelief that she didn't think these were classified in any way shape or form?
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it. We now know there are over 2000 classified emails there were discovered on her system... is there any evidence that she took corrective actions??
whembly wrote: . It also violates 18 USC §1924 as Hillary and her staff "knowingly removes documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location..." Meaning... SOMEONE had to extract the information from a secured SIPRnet workstation and manually transcribe/send this information Clinton's unclassified email server.
Oh, please, you didn't give a flying feth about that a year ago every time I tried to explain it to you. In fact, you continually dismissed that particular issue as a "red herring". So why do you suddenly miraculously care about it now?
Explain what? All i could remember from our conversations that you worked on a different network. You don't work on SIPRnet workstations... right?
Edit: the "red herring" argument we got into was that they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed... which is incorrect. One of the first lies the HRC sprouted in defense of her malfeasance.
Question for you:
1) Do you acknowledge that she had classified information on her server?
2) If you acknowledge #1, how did said classified information reach her server?
yes those are some interesting questions. So if I'm following your logic correctly, if I email you a classified document, you should be arrested as a felon. If you delete the document you should then be arrested for obstruction of justice.
victim blaming at it's finest I guess. would googles CEO be an accomplice to your crime then?
#2 is the key question, most of the documents sent to her were not marked properly, surely if anyone should be in the cross hairs of a witch hunt, it should be the ones who sent them.
She's hot, from Venezuela. Of course she did. There's a reason we Texans call 'em hot blooded mammas. I would expect no less.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
yes those are some interesting questions. So if I'm following your logic correctly, if I email you a classified document, you should be arrested as a felon.
No. (which I believe was tanner's point as well). It's what you do afterwards...
If you delete the document you should then be arrested for obstruction of justice.
It's obstruction of justice if Congress issued a subpoena to preserve all documents... which the Clinton team violated.
victim blaming at it's finest I guess. would googles CEO be an accomplice to your crime then?
wut?
#2 is the key question, most of the documents sent to her were not marked properly, surely if anyone should be in the cross hairs of a witch hunt, it should be the ones who sent them.
At Monday night’s debate, Donald Trump was called out for stiffing the people who work for him. Trump has been accused of failing to pay hundreds of contractors. And so far, he hasn’t seemed very sorry. When asked about failing to pay someone by Hillary Clinton this week, Trump replied, “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”
I take that attack personally. I’m one of the many small business owners who’ve been used by Trump, exploited and forced to suffer a loss because of his corporation’s shady practices.
My relationship with Trump began in 1989, when he asked me to supply several grand and upright pianos to his then-new Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City. I’d been running a music store for more than 30 years at that point, selling instruments to local schools and residents. My business was very much a family affair (my grandsons still run the store). And I had a great relationship with my customers — no one had ever failed to pay.
I was thrilled to get a $100,000 contract from Trump. It was one of the biggest sales I’d ever made. I was supposed to deliver and tune the pianos; the Trump corporation would pay me within 90 days. I asked my lawyer if I should ask for payment upfront, and he laughed. “It’s Donald Trump!” he told me. “He’s got lots of money.”
But when I requested payment, the Trump corporation hemmed and hawed. Its executives avoided my calls and crafted excuses. After a couple of months, I got a letter telling me that the casino was short on funds. They would pay 70 percent of what they owed me. There was no negotiating. I didn’t know what to do — I couldn’t afford to sue the Trump corporation, and I needed money to pay my piano suppliers. So I took the $70,000.
Losing $30,000 was a big hit to me and my family. The profit from Trump was meant to be a big part of my salary for the year. So I made much less. There was no money to help grow my business. I had fewer pianos in the showroom and a smaller advertising budget. Because of Trump, my store stagnated for a couple of years. It made me feel really bad, like I’d been taken advantage of. I was embarrassed.
Today, when I hear Trump brag about paying small business owners less than he agreed, I get angry. He’s always suggesting that the people who worked for him didn’t do the right job, didn’t complete their work on time, that something was wrong. But I delivered quality pianos, tuned and ready to go. I did everything right. And then Trump cheated me. It’s a callous way to do business.
Trump keeps saying that it’s time we got a businessman to run the country. Of course, I think it’s important to find someone who can bolster the economy. But I also think we need a president who cares about small business owners, and about honoring his commitments. That’s not Trump.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 22:06:53
In another election cycle, it'd matter. For this one, I think it's just more fodder for how Clinton is the candidate of the fancy pants Washington insiders.
You really think so? I didn't think that the opinions of a former GOP Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, regarding the suitability of a potential Commander-in-Chief/POTUS candidate, was just "fodder".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I feel like Donalds solution to national debt is to tell everyone that suing America for their money is going to cost more than they'd get.
So basically the "feth off" strategy.
HOW IS ANYONE TAKING THIS FETH HEAD SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 22:36:36
I suppose his plan for the debt is to also not pay it then?
Hey... he had experience in his company going bankrupt (like four times?).
Apparently, he doesn't know of any mechanism to legal default at the national level....
Six times. He calls it leverage. As a corporation he was able to get creditors to agree to lower rates because they were afraid he would totally default (declare bankruptcy again) and they figured it's better to get 80% of what they were owed than nothing. He doesn't seem to understand that this "policy" would not translate well to the US govt.
I just figured out how he plans on having Mexico pay for his wall. He is going to hire a bunch of day laborers to build it and then stiff them on their bill. They are Mexico, right?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/28 23:20:16
Tannhauser42 wrote: No. I flat out told you, multiple times, about the greater problem that the markings were being willfully removed or that there were failures to mark them to begin with. I NEVER said "they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed." And you continually dismissed that concern because it didn't play into your narrative that everything is Hillary's fault, all day, every day.
Tannhauser42 wrote:Posting from phone, sorry for not quoting your post Whembly.
Anyway, regardless of what classified material was sent to HRC, was any of it actually marked as classified? That's what will really matter most in getting her into trouble.
Also, that article about classifying info is inaccurate. All documents must also include the declassification instructions, as well. Classified info cannot remain classified indefinitely, there are time limits imposed by the executive order. And, again, anything beyond C/S/TS is just made up by that particular agency as a shortcut to quickly determine who would have "need to know" access.
It seems to me we got into it more of whether or not the fact the she actually received classified information (marked or unmarked) would get her in trouble. That's what our rumble back then was about... as we never really got into 18 USC §1924.
Tanner wrote:Do not misrepresent me, I have never "bought" such a thing. You, however, have still failed, after multiple attempts at explanation, to understand just what it is she can and should be in trouble for.
For the LAST TIME, she CANNOT be faulted for the simple act of receiving (regardless if it was sent to her by private email, post office, or folded up into a paper airplane and thrown in her general direction) classified material, correctly marked or not.
She CAN AND SHOULD be faulted for:
-Maintaining marked classified material on an unapproved system.
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself.
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it.
That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.
Those four bullet points you opined back in September?
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself. Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG So, the larger unresolved question is this: How did this get into her unapproved box?
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).Clinton emails contained spy satellite data on North Korean nukes Should we really suspend disbelief that she didn't think these were classified in any way shape or form?
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it. We now know there are over 2000 classified emails there were discovered on her system... is there any evidence that she took corrective actions??
Absolutely none of that addresses the question I asked of you: If you so continually dismissed those points regarding the proper marking of classified documents, and the greater issue of what the lack of them meant, as red herrings, why the feth do you suddenly care now? Your deflection is worthy of Hillary herself.
I washed my hands of this subject with you some time ago, but your dishonest flip flop on the very issue I was trying to drill into you has sucked me back in. I should have remembered why I gave up then and not bothered to respond this time, either.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
LordofHats wrote: Good. Maybe it will burn to the ground and the mods will just ban future US political mega threads.
I can dream damn it.
Oh, c'mon! This thread has become the guilty pleasure of too many Dakkanauts. And on a serious note, debate is healthy even if it borders on the lunatic fringe at times.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 23:58:32
LordofHats wrote: Good. Maybe it will burn to the ground and the mods will just ban future US political mega threads.
I can dream damn it.
Oh, c'mon! This thread has become the guilty pleasure of too many Dakkanauts.
A thread with a topic as broad as "all of US politics" is completely unmoderatable short of people outright insulting each other. It's nothing more than a nest of the OTs worst posting behaviors, and the topic is so broad that there's nothing that can be done about posters who drive the topic into their personal dead horse constantly.
This thread might as well just be renamed "Hillary lied Trump Sucks" because it's the only thing that ever gets talked about in here.
Tannhauser42 wrote: No. I flat out told you, multiple times, about the greater problem that the markings were being willfully removed or that there were failures to mark them to begin with. I NEVER said "they needed to be "marked" in order to be classifed." And you continually dismissed that concern because it didn't play into your narrative that everything is Hillary's fault, all day, every day.
Tannhauser42 wrote:Posting from phone, sorry for not quoting your post Whembly.
Anyway, regardless of what classified material was sent to HRC, was any of it actually marked as classified? That's what will really matter most in getting her into trouble.
Also, that article about classifying info is inaccurate. All documents must also include the declassification instructions, as well. Classified info cannot remain classified indefinitely, there are time limits imposed by the executive order. And, again, anything beyond C/S/TS is just made up by that particular agency as a shortcut to quickly determine who would have "need to know" access.
It seems to me we got into it more of whether or not the fact the she actually received classified information (marked or unmarked) would get her in trouble. That's what our rumble back then was about... as we never really got into 18 USC §1924.
Tanner wrote:Do not misrepresent me, I have never "bought" such a thing. You, however, have still failed, after multiple attempts at explanation, to understand just what it is she can and should be in trouble for.
For the LAST TIME, she CANNOT be faulted for the simple act of receiving (regardless if it was sent to her by private email, post office, or folded up into a paper airplane and thrown in her general direction) classified material, correctly marked or not.
She CAN AND SHOULD be faulted for:
-Maintaining marked classified material on an unapproved system.
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself.
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it.
That second one is the big one. While she can reasonably claim that she wouldn't know if, say, a random military report should be classified, as it doesn't fall within her direct knowledge, she damn well should recognize when diplomatic assessments and such should be classified, as that falls directly within her duties.
Those four bullet points you opined back in September?
-Failing to recognize unmarked classified material as classified, assuming the content is what she would normally be able to recognize as such, and then falling to properly classify it herself. Hillary Clinton Emails Held Info Beyond Top Secret: IG So, the larger unresolved question is this: How did this get into her unapproved box?
-Failing to report spillage of classified material (if she knew it was classified, see above).Clinton emails contained spy satellite data on North Korean nukes Should we really suspend disbelief that she didn't think these were classified in any way shape or form?
-Failing to take corrective action against those who improperly sent it to her and who failed to mark it. We now know there are over 2000 classified emails there were discovered on her system... is there any evidence that she took corrective actions??
Absolutely none of that addresses the question I asked of you: If you so continually dismissed those points regarding the proper marking of classified documents, and the greater issue of what the lack of them meant, as red herrings, why the feth do you suddenly care now? Your deflection is worthy of Hillary herself.
I washed my hands of this subject with you some time ago, but your dishonest flip flop on the very issue I was trying to drill into you has sucked me back in. I should have remembered why I gave up then and not bothered to respond this time, either.
I'm not dismissing the point... I've ALWAYS stated that no one is asking the right questions regarding how she got the classified emails in the first place. I've always cared... So I'm really confused why you are accusing me of flip flopping....
LordofHats wrote: Good. Maybe it will burn to the ground and the mods will just ban future US political mega threads.
I can dream damn it.
Oh, c'mon! This thread has become the guilty pleasure of too many Dakkanauts.
A thread with a topic as broad as "all of US politics" is completely unmoderatable short of people outright insulting each other. It's nothing more than a nest of the OTs worst posting behaviors, and the topic is so broad that there's nothing that can be done about posters who drive the topic into their personal dead horse constantly.
This thread might as well just be renamed "Hillary lied Trump Sucks" because it's the only thing that ever gets talked about in here.
With the election thisclose, that's shocking! But seriously, it'll be interesting to see how the subject matter focus morphs once we actually get the new POTUS and react to what he/she does in office.
LordofHats wrote: Good. Maybe it will burn to the ground and the mods will just ban future US political mega threads.
I can dream damn it.
I believe these threads are useful as a catch-all so that other threads can be safe from the vitriol of US political discourse, tbh.
Pretty much. There were dark times before the first US politics thread. Picture all the one eyed news stories that are shared by both sides here in this thread, but give half of them their own thread, their own flame wars. There are a lot less warnings issued now in the OT about US politics, a lot less moderator action needed (which is a good thing for the board), because now that there is one thread to keep in line (and to be fair by and large the behaviour in here is better, I believe in part because there are multiple topics being raised at once so you can't get fixated on one for too long) rather than 1-5 threads a day that need to be taken out back and Old Yeller'd eventually. So yeah, this is far more preferable.
And that'll do us on the "why do we have one thread tangent" I think, thanks
As for me posting something on topic, uhh, I dunno. Let's just pick something. How is that whole "kill the Iranian sailors" thing from the debate not still being talked about? I feel if Shorten or Turnbull had said in a debate "we'd blow the Indonesian sailors out of the water" or something then that'd be a pretty big deal...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/29 01:15:41
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
As for me posting something on topic, uhh, I dunno. Let's just pick something. How is that whole "kill the Iranian sailors" thing from the debate not still being talked about? I feel if Shorten or Turnbull had said in a debate "we'd blow the Indonesian sailors out of the water" or something then that'd be a pretty big deal...
that's probably the quote that made so many people think he'd won the debate. no one's talking about it because they all agree with it.
Prestor Jon wrote: Who's confabulating? The fact that the FBI investigation could have gone worse for Hillary doesn't mean that it went well for her.
It is true that the investigation and its findings weren't good for Clinton. But it is also clear that was she did wasn't a felony, has never been treated as a felony, and would be ridiculous to be treated as a felony.
And it is also true that it is the one significant black mark against Clinton - she used a private server to skirt around transparency laws and that's not okay. It is also true that it was something also done by previous Secretaries of State, but while that makes the attempts to claim Clinton is somehow uniquely corrupt comical, it doesn't make Clinton's action okay.
But it remains the one black mark against a very long record of public service.
So from there we have to look at the attempt of the right wing, and of many people on this thread, to equate that one mark against Clinton's record, against the dozen or more instances in Trump's record where he's scammed people, bribed people, used charity funds for personal vanity, and so on. The only sensible conclusion is that the two records are nothing alike, and anyone who claims that they are is being ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: In another election cycle, it'd matter. For this one, I think it's just more fodder for how Clinton is the candidate of the fancy pants Washington insiders.
I don't think a traditionally Republican paper endorsing a Democrat would matter in any election cycle, these days. The Republican establishment and its base don't respond to questions and doubts from traditional parts of the conservative movement by listening and considering that point of view, they respond by just shutting that doubter out of the party.
Right when you think there's a "game changer"... skeletons and whatnot neuters it.
Wait, so your argument is that it is a game changer to call a woman fat... unless she's been accused of driving a getaway car in a murder, then it is okay to call her fat? That's the argument.
Jesus, America, elections are actually serious things. What is happening here is beyond Trump, it's even beyond the decline of the Republican party.
I mean, you have a presidential candidate who answered a question about cyber security by talking about how his son is really at computers. That's amazingly pathetic and speaks to a total lack of substance or ability in Trump. But it didn't seem to matter much to voters. But then he called a woman fat, and apparently that's a serious issue that disqualifies someone from being president.
And then in the days after the debate you see an argument put up that it's okay to call her fat because she accused of being an accessory in a murder. How in feth does any of this have anything to do with the actual business of being president? Holy fething gak America, this is supposed to be serious. You're deciding who is going to lead the free world for 4 years, who is going to have their trigger on the finger of nuclear weapons.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When asked about it, he said he would look into renegotiating it. No really, that's his idea.
Well sort of. He spoke kind of vaguely about how he'd handle government debt in the context of his own debt management, which has involved renegotiating with debtors to pay them back less money than originally owed. And he spoke about renegotiating on debt after a collapse, apparently having no idea about the difference between bond markets and private loans. But he then later clarified that he wouldn't risk defaulting or debt, or even creating the possibility of default, and so renegotiation wouldn't happen, instead moved to talking about refinancing, which is fairly different. That's where you issue new debt at cheaper rates and use the money to retire older, more expensive rates of interest. This theory is basically total gibberish when it comes to US bond debt, because it's already issued at close to 0% interest, and the bond market acts almost instantly to adjust the price of bonds so that any debt you buy back would already be at the new rate of interest.
Ultimately it's just another thing where Trump spoke off the cuff and said something very stupid and very dangerous, then half backed off with an idea he thinks is very clever, but shows he still doesn't understand the subject at all.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/09/29 02:30:16
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
As for me posting something on topic, uhh, I dunno. Let's just pick something. How is that whole "kill the Iranian sailors" thing from the debate not still being talked about? I feel if Shorten or Turnbull had said in a debate "we'd blow the Indonesian sailors out of the water" or something then that'd be a pretty big deal...
that's probably the quote that made so many people think he'd won the debate. no one's talking about it because they all agree with it.
The politicians in general and the Republicans in particular have invested a lot of time and effort into painting Iran as a boogeyman. Specifically, as a boogeyman we can actually bully and do stuff to, unlike Russia and China.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
jasper76 wrote: I believe these threads are useful as a catch-all so that other threads can be safe from the vitriol of US political discourse, tbh.
I think you can effectively quarantine other threads just by having a rule that says people aren't to bring politics in to non-political threads. The real advantage of these threads is that you don't spam the board with dozens of political threads. I've seen that on other boards get really problematic in the run up to an election, and I've seen it get pretty bad here on dakka. It can end up basically crowding out anything non-political.
The other advantage is that many elements of a campaign are related. Splitting off in to lots of issues means there's off topic limits to raising related matters. Where all political issues are thrown together then things can be discussed in their greater contexts.
The disadvantage is there's little control of the same old issues being endlessly raised, no matter how minor they might be.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
3000
4000 
after that!
And on a serious note, debate is healthy even if it borders on the lunatic fringe at times.
