Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley (NY-14 Democratic Primary)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
...Seriously? You think things are equally as bad now as they were under Obama? Do you seriously believe that?

1. People are still getting bankrupt from medical bills.
2. People can barely afford to pay their student loans.
3. The NSA program that was expanded under Obama.
4.45,000 people die from lack of health insurance, even with Obamacare.
5. The wars in the middle east have not gone away. Obama ordered more Drone strikes that killed many innocent people. They have a very high failure rate.
6.Wages are stagnant, more than half of Americans live pay check to pay check. Unions are on the decline

So yes things are as equally bad during Obama's time, as they were during Bush's and Clinton's administrations.

1. And now it will stay that way cause Trump killed Obamacare.
2. And education is now worse off as Trump put people like Betsy DeVos into power.
3. It wont go away under Trump.
4. Obamacare was a stepping stone, a work in progress, until Trump killed it, and tons of people who needed it.
5. Warmongering Trump wont end them, and atleast those Drone Strikes kept US soldiers out of more danger, but Trump sent them back in. And he gets more civilians killed doing it.
6. Trump has deregulated everything he can and keeps pushing for more.

7. Children in cages. Way more than the handful that Trump supporters like to brag about under Obama that were for specific reasons beyond just being brown. Ya know, like making sure they actually are with their real family.

If you think things are equally bad, that is because of privilage protecting you. And yes, it is protecting me too, but I dont let that stop me from caring.

1. People still had no insurance, Obamacare didn't expand coverage other than the medicaid expansion, and people with insurance still have difficulty paying for health care. Plus premiums are sky rocketing, Obamacare barely fixed anything.
2. Which means the whole student loan crisis has not changed, people are still in debt for decades.
3. No and it won't until we elect a president who gives a shit about civil liberties.
4. Obamacare only helped the insurance industry, the only good things about it were giving people with pre-exisiting conditions health care and the medicaid expansion. Again people still don't have health insurance.
5. And niether future presidents unless their really anti war.
6. Obama also did deregulation, he's a neoliberal.

Oh and did I forget to mention Obama intensifield the drug war which continues to kill thousands of people along the border each year?

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

1. People are still getting bankrupt from medical bills.
2. People can barely afford to pay their student loans.
3. The NSA program that was expanded under Obama.
4.45,000 people die from lack of health insurance, even with Obamacare.
5. The wars in the middle east have not gone away. Obama ordered more Drone strikes that killed many innocent people. They have a very high failure rate.
6.Wages are stagnant, more than half of Americans live pay check to pay check. Unions are on the decline

So yes things are as equally bad during Obama's time, as they were during Bush's and Clinton's administrations.

1. And now it will stay that way cause Trump killed Obamacare.
2. And education is now worse off as Trump put people like Betsy DeVos into power.
3. It wont go away under Trump.
4. Obamacare was a stepping stone, a work in progress, until Trump killed it, and tons of people who needed it.
5. Warmongering Trump wont end them, and atleast those Drone Strikes kept US soldiers out of more danger, but Trump sent them back in. And he gets more civilians killed doing it.
6. Trump has deregulated everything he can and keeps pushing for more.

7. Children in cages. Way more than the handful that Trump supporters like to brag about under Obama that were for specific reasons beyond just being brown. Ya know, like making sure they actually are with their real family.

If you think things are equally bad, that is because of privilage protecting you. And yes, it is protecting me too, but I dont let that stop me from caring.

1. People still had no insurance, Obamacare didn't expand coverage other than the medicaid expansion, and people with insurance still have difficulty paying for health care. Plus premiums are sky rocketing, Obamacare barely fixed anything.
2. Which means the whole student loan crisis has not changed, people are still in debt for decades.
3. No and it won't until we elect a president who gives a shit about civil liberties.
4. Obamacare only helped the insurance industry, the only good things about it were giving people with pre-exisiting conditions health care and the medicaid expansion. Again people still don't have health insurance.
5. And niether future presidents unless their really anti war.
6. Obama also did deregulation, he's a neoliberal.

Oh and did I forget to mention Obama intensifield the drug war which continues to kill thousands of people along the border each year?

Republicans hindered Obamacare, but it was better than nothing, and the hope was that under Clinton it would be improved upon, and the hopier hope is that that would continue until we got legit and competent universal healthcare. But Bernie supporters do not tend to understand how incremental progress works.

People wont get out of debt with capitalists like Trump in charge, and Bernie wasnt going to fix that shit anyways.

Well, Trump hates civil liberties. Obama was pro-LGBT though, in office! That means alot.

See first point

Bernie would not have stopped anything. Probably would not let Russia and North Korea walk over him, but neither would Clinton. And Canada and Europe would still like us, relatively speaking.

Did he though? I honestly dont know, but I know whatever he did it was way less than Trump and way way way less malicious.

How did Obama intenfisy the drug war?

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
1. And now it will stay that way cause Trump killed Obamacare.
2. And education is now worse off as Trump put people like Betsy DeVos into power.
3. It wont go away under Trump.
4. Obamacare was a stepping stone, a work in progress, until Trump killed it, and tons of people who needed it.
5. Warmongering Trump wont end them, and atleast those Drone Strikes kept US soldiers out of more danger, but Trump sent them back in. And he gets more civilians killed doing it.
6. Trump has deregulated everything he can and keeps pushing for more.

7. Children in cages. Way more than the handful that Trump supporters like to brag about under Obama that were for specific reasons beyond just being brown. Ya know, like making sure they actually are with their real family.

If you think things are equally bad, that is because of privilage protecting you. And yes, it is protecting me too, but I dont let that stop me from caring.

1. People still had no insurance, Obamacare didn't expand coverage other than the medicaid expansion, and people with insurance still have difficulty paying for health care. Plus premiums are sky rocketing, Obamacare barely fixed anything.
2. Which means the whole student loan crisis has not changed, people are still in debt for decades.
3. No and it won't until we elect a president who gives a shit about civil liberties.
4. Obamacare only helped the insurance industry, the only good things about it were giving people with pre-exisiting conditions health care and the medicaid expansion. Again people still don't have health insurance.
5. And niether future presidents unless their really anti war.
6. Obama also did deregulation, he's a neoliberal.

Oh and did I forget to mention Obama intensifield the drug war which continues to kill thousands of people along the border each year?

Republicans hindered Obamacare, but it was better than nothing, and the hope was that under Clinton it would be improved upon, and the hopier hope is that that would continue until we got legit and competent universal healthcare. But Bernie supporters do not tend to understand how incremental progress works.

People wont get out of debt with capitalists like Trump in charge, and Bernie wasnt going to fix that shit anyways.

Well, Trump hates civil liberties. Obama was pro-LGBT though, in office! That means alot.

See first point

Bernie would not have stopped anything. Probably would not let Russia and North Korea walk over him, but neither would Clinton. And Canada and Europe would still like us, relatively speaking.

Did he though? I honestly dont know, but I know whatever he did it was way less than Trump and way way way less malicious.

How did Obama intenfisy the drug war?

There's a little thing called Fast and Furious https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/barack-obama-scandal-atf-fast-and-furious/2014/12/28/id/613434/ and I'm not talking about the movie franchise.

I'll give Obama kudos for being pro-lgbt. But he still had Chelsea manning jailed for spilling the beans on our atrocities overseas., and he jailed alot of whistle blowers

Yes incremental progress...You know Obama had a super majority and the house for two year, he could've passed a sweeping single payer health care if he wanted to. But he didn't.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

1. People still had no insurance, Obamacare didn't expand coverage other than the medicaid expansion, and people with insurance still have difficulty paying for health care. Plus premiums are sky rocketing, Obamacare barely fixed anything.
2. Which means the whole student loan crisis has not changed, people are still in debt for decades.
3. No and it won't until we elect a president who gives a shit about civil liberties.
4. Obamacare only helped the insurance industry, the only good things about it were giving people with pre-exisiting conditions health care and the medicaid expansion. Again people still don't have health insurance.
5. And niether future presidents unless their really anti war.
6. Obama also did deregulation, he's a neoliberal.

Oh and did I forget to mention Obama intensifield the drug war which continues to kill thousands of people along the border each year?

Republicans hindered Obamacare, but it was better than nothing, and the hope was that under Clinton it would be improved upon, and the hopier hope is that that would continue until we got legit and competent universal healthcare. But Bernie supporters do not tend to understand how incremental progress works.

People wont get out of debt with capitalists like Trump in charge, and Bernie wasnt going to fix that shit anyways.

Well, Trump hates civil liberties. Obama was pro-LGBT though, in office! That means alot.

See first point

Bernie would not have stopped anything. Probably would not let Russia and North Korea walk over him, but neither would Clinton. And Canada and Europe would still like us, relatively speaking.

Did he though? I honestly dont know, but I know whatever he did it was way less than Trump and way way way less malicious.

How did Obama intenfisy the drug war?

There's a little thing called Fast and Furious https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/barack-obama-scandal-atf-fast-and-furious/2014/12/28/id/613434/ and I'm not talking about the movie franchise.

I'll give Obama kudos for being pro-lgbt. But he still had Chelsea manning jailed for spilling the beans on our atrocities overseas., and he jailed alot of whistle blowers

Yes incremental progress...You know Obama had a super majority and the house for two year, he could've passed a sweeping single payer health care if he wanted to. But he didn't.

The link you provided made my anti-virus get antsy. I ended up reading about it via Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Apparently this started before Obama was president, however he did hold documents involving it, which I do not support.

But as I have maintained, being President is a dirty thing. I wish Obama did a better job, but he was the best we had, and Bernie and Hillary would have been guilty of similar things I am sure.

I do not support jailing whistleblowers who are trying to call out shady shit, I want to be clear on that. Though there are shady whisteblowers too.

Republicans are better at putting their foot down than Democrats are. That is unfortunate. Obama was under a policy of trying to work together, to see the middle path, to compromise, things I am -told- are good things. They did not work, but Obama's intentions were good. But their failure is why I am so harsh on Bernie and his supporters. (And Right-wingers too).

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Republicans hindered Obamacare, but it was better than nothing, and the hope was that under Clinton it would be improved upon, and the hopier hope is that that would continue until we got legit and competent universal healthcare. But Bernie supporters do not tend to understand how incremental progress works.

People wont get out of debt with capitalists like Trump in charge, and Bernie wasnt going to fix that shit anyways.

Well, Trump hates civil liberties. Obama was pro-LGBT though, in office! That means alot.

See first point

Bernie would not have stopped anything. Probably would not let Russia and North Korea walk over him, but neither would Clinton. And Canada and Europe would still like us, relatively speaking.

Did he though? I honestly dont know, but I know whatever he did it was way less than Trump and way way way less malicious.

How did Obama intenfisy the drug war?

There's a little thing called Fast and Furious https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/barack-obama-scandal-atf-fast-and-furious/2014/12/28/id/613434/ and I'm not talking about the movie franchise.

I'll give Obama kudos for being pro-lgbt. But he still had Chelsea manning jailed for spilling the beans on our atrocities overseas., and he jailed alot of whistle blowers

Yes incremental progress...You know Obama had a super majority and the house for two year, he could've passed a sweeping single payer health care if he wanted to. But he didn't.

The link you provided made my anti-virus get antsy. I ended up reading about it via Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Apparently this started before Obama was president, however he did hold documents involving it, which I do not support.

But as I have maintained, being President is a dirty thing. I wish Obama did a better job, but he was the best we had, and Bernie and Hillary would have been guilty of similar things I am sure.

I do not support jailing whistleblowers who are trying to call out shady shit, I want to be clear on that. Though there are shady whisteblowers too.

Republicans are better at putting their foot down than Democrats are. That is unfortunate. Obama was under a policy of trying to work together, to see the middle path, to compromise, things I am -told- are good things. They did not work, but Obama's intentions were good. But their failure is why I am so harsh on Bernie and his supporters. (And Right-wingers too).

Shady whistle blowers? Like who?

And why does that make you so harsh on Bernie supporters?

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

There's a little thing called Fast and Furious https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/barack-obama-scandal-atf-fast-and-furious/2014/12/28/id/613434/ and I'm not talking about the movie franchise.

I'll give Obama kudos for being pro-lgbt. But he still had Chelsea manning jailed for spilling the beans on our atrocities overseas., and he jailed alot of whistle blowers

Yes incremental progress...You know Obama had a super majority and the house for two year, he could've passed a sweeping single payer health care if he wanted to. But he didn't.

The link you provided made my anti-virus get antsy. I ended up reading about it via Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Apparently this started before Obama was president, however he did hold documents involving it, which I do not support.

But as I have maintained, being President is a dirty thing. I wish Obama did a better job, but he was the best we had, and Bernie and Hillary would have been guilty of similar things I am sure.

I do not support jailing whistleblowers who are trying to call out shady shit, I want to be clear on that. Though there are shady whisteblowers too.

Republicans are better at putting their foot down than Democrats are. That is unfortunate. Obama was under a policy of trying to work together, to see the middle path, to compromise, things I am -told- are good things. They did not work, but Obama's intentions were good. But their failure is why I am so harsh on Bernie and his supporters. (And Right-wingers too).

Shady whistle blowers? Like who?

And why does that make you so harsh on Bernie supporters?

I think it was Edward Snowden. I have not thought about it in awhile, but if I remember, it was Snowden who had a bunch of shady aspects of what he did. Running to Russia didn't help.

Because too many refuse to help oppose Trump and despite blaming people like me for 'causing a divide' refuse to themselves work to bridge that divide. That is unfair and hypocritical.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
The link you provided made my anti-virus get antsy. I ended up reading about it via Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Apparently this started before Obama was president, however he did hold documents involving it, which I do not support.

But as I have maintained, being President is a dirty thing. I wish Obama did a better job, but he was the best we had, and Bernie and Hillary would have been guilty of similar things I am sure.

I do not support jailing whistleblowers who are trying to call out shady shit, I want to be clear on that. Though there are shady whisteblowers too.

Republicans are better at putting their foot down than Democrats are. That is unfortunate. Obama was under a policy of trying to work together, to see the middle path, to compromise, things I am -told- are good things. They did not work, but Obama's intentions were good. But their failure is why I am so harsh on Bernie and his supporters. (And Right-wingers too).

Shady whistle blowers? Like who?

And why does that make you so harsh on Bernie supporters?

I think it was Edward Snowden. I have not thought about it in awhile, but if I remember, it was Snowden who had a bunch of shady aspects of what he did. Running to Russia didn't help.

Because too many refuse to help oppose Trump and despite blaming people like me for 'causing a divide' refuse to themselves work to bridge that divide. That is unfair and hypocritical.

Snowden is a hero for exposing the NSA data collection.

WolvDragon:

Snowden is a hero for exposing the NSA data collection.

Releasing the NSA files was courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that Snowden is also a rather suspect person all things considered. His "biography" as told by the journalists that he released the NSA files too reads more like juvenile spy fiction (a "computer wizard" who "was hand picked to support the President" and who, despite being a tech guy, had intimate knowledge of operative CIA operations, just to pick one), is clearly doctored and there are still a bunch of question marks surrounding his decision to take refuge in Russia. Not to mention that he's spent the last few years being little more than a sock puppet for Putin's regime and that the NSA files compromise a relatively tiny amount of all the data he took from the NSA, DoD and other nations like Australia and England. For all intents and purposes, Snowden snatched as much classified information as he could, then went to the largest enemy of his nation and, undoubtedly, traded all those military and intelligence secrets for asylum. I believe the old word for that is "traitor" or "defector".

What Snowden did was courageous and his whistleblowing changed the political landscape. That doesn't mean he isn't a shady person himself, whom we should approach with some caution.

Gethsemani:

WolvDragon:

Snowden is a hero for exposing the NSA data collection.

Releasing the NSA files was courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that Snowden is also a rather suspect person all things considered. His "biography" as told by the journalists that he released the NSA files too reads more like juvenile spy fiction (a "computer wizard" who "was hand picked to support the President" and who, despite being a tech guy, had intimate knowledge of operative CIA operations, just to pick one), is clearly doctored and there are still a bunch of question marks surrounding his decision to take refuge in Russia. Not to mention that he's spent the last few years being little more than a sock puppet for Putin's regime and that the NSA files compromise a relatively tiny amount of all the data he took from the NSA, DoD and other nations like Australia and England. For all intents and purposes, Snowden snatched as much classified information as he could, then went to the largest enemy of his nation and, undoubtedly, traded all those military and intelligence secrets for asylum. I believe the old word for that is "traitor" or "defector".

What Snowden did was courageous and his whistleblowing changed the political landscape. That doesn't mean he isn't a shady person himself, whom we should approach with some caution.

Doesn't change the fact that what he did was brave and heroic.

WolvDragon:

Gethsemani:

WolvDragon:

Snowden is a hero for exposing the NSA data collection.

Releasing the NSA files was courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that Snowden is also a rather suspect person all things considered. His "biography" as told by the journalists that he released the NSA files too reads more like juvenile spy fiction (a "computer wizard" who "was hand picked to support the President" and who, despite being a tech guy, had intimate knowledge of operative CIA operations, just to pick one), is clearly doctored and there are still a bunch of question marks surrounding his decision to take refuge in Russia. Not to mention that he's spent the last few years being little more than a sock puppet for Putin's regime and that the NSA files compromise a relatively tiny amount of all the data he took from the NSA, DoD and other nations like Australia and England. For all intents and purposes, Snowden snatched as much classified information as he could, then went to the largest enemy of his nation and, undoubtedly, traded all those military and intelligence secrets for asylum. I believe the old word for that is "traitor" or "defector".

What Snowden did was courageous and his whistleblowing changed the political landscape. That doesn't mean he isn't a shady person himself, whom we should approach with some caution.

Doesn't change the fact that what he did was brave and heroic.

How does that change what Saelune said about him?

Jux:

WolvDragon:

Gethsemani:

Releasing the NSA files was courageous, but that doesn't change the fact that Snowden is also a rather suspect person all things considered. His "biography" as told by the journalists that he released the NSA files too reads more like juvenile spy fiction (a "computer wizard" who "was hand picked to support the President" and who, despite being a tech guy, had intimate knowledge of operative CIA operations, just to pick one), is clearly doctored and there are still a bunch of question marks surrounding his decision to take refuge in Russia. Not to mention that he's spent the last few years being little more than a sock puppet for Putin's regime and that the NSA files compromise a relatively tiny amount of all the data he took from the NSA, DoD and other nations like Australia and England. For all intents and purposes, Snowden snatched as much classified information as he could, then went to the largest enemy of his nation and, undoubtedly, traded all those military and intelligence secrets for asylum. I believe the old word for that is "traitor" or "defector".

What Snowden did was courageous and his whistleblowing changed the political landscape. That doesn't mean he isn't a shady person himself, whom we should approach with some caution.

Doesn't change the fact that what he did was brave and heroic.

How does that change what Saelune said about him?

And what changes what Snowden revealed about the NSA program? Even if Snowden didn't have the best intentions of revealing the NSA documents, he still exposed a very corrupt and illegal spying operation.

WolvDragon:

Jux:

WolvDragon:

Doesn't change the fact that what he did was brave and heroic.

How does that change what Saelune said about him?

And what changes what Snowden revealed about the NSA program? Even if Snowden didn't have the best intentions of revealing the NSA documents, he still exposed a very corrupt and illegal spying operation.

Drop the whataboutism, and just answer the question. Saelune said he was shady, she didn't say anything about wanting him jailed over his whistleblowing.

Jux:

WolvDragon:

Jux:

How does that change what Saelune said about him?

And what changes what Snowden revealed about the NSA program? Even if Snowden didn't have the best intentions of revealing the NSA documents, he still exposed a very corrupt and illegal spying operation.

Drop the whataboutism, and just answer the question. Saelune said he was shady, she didn't say anything about wanting him jailed over his whistleblowing.

I already answered your question, it doesn't change anything about him.

WolvDragon:
Snowden is a hero for exposing the NSA data collection.

I certainly think he did the right thing in blowing the whistle, but he made a mistake by going to Russia for asylum. Russia has no genuine interest in transparency; they simply want to damage America's reputation.

I think if Snowden had stayed in the US and gone to trial, he would've stood a chance of getting away with it just from the public support he would have. And if he was jailed, he should be prepared to accept that as the cost of doing the right thing. He would end up on the right side of history, guaranteed.

But going to a kleptocrat like Putin for shelter is an act that taints one's moral principles. It shows that you're willing to tolerate cover-ups, corruption, surveillance and tyranny - so long as it's another country's tyrant doing it. So I'm hesitant to say that Snowden is a hero. I'm more hesitant to say that he's a patsy; I think he's really just a guy who tried to do what he thought was right, got scared by the potential of being drawn and quartered, and fled to the only place willing to offer him protection. His asylum deal with Russia is limited - it needs to be renewed annually. That puts his balls firmly in Putin's grasp.

I wouldn't put him in the same zone as Julian Assange. Assange has gone stir-crazy from living under house arrest for nearly a decade and legitimately thinks Hillary Clinton has assassinated people. Wikileaks has stopped being about transparency and turned into a laundering operation for intelligence stolen by the Russians. With Assange I think his prominence and paranoia went to his head way too fast and he quickly lost his moral authority. With Snowden, I think he's just scared. That's easier to sympathise with.

Edit: Oh, wow, I forgot what thread I was in. This is way off-topic.

Talk about thread drift. Jesus Christ.

bastardofmelbourne:

WolvDragon:
Snowden is a hero for exposing the NSA data collection.

I certainly think he did the right thing in blowing the whistle, but he made a mistake by going to Russia for asylum. Russia has no genuine interest in transparency; they simply want to damage America's reputation.

I think if Snowden had stayed in the US and gone to trial, he would've stood a chance of getting away with it just from the public support he would have. And if he was jailed, he should be prepared to accept that as the cost of doing the right thing. He would end up on the right side of history, guaranteed.

But going to a kleptocrat like Putin for shelter is an act that taints one's moral principles. It shows that you're willing to tolerate cover-ups, corruption, surveillance and tyranny - so long as it's another country's tyrant doing it. So I'm hesitant to say that Snowden is a hero. I'm more hesitant to say that he's a patsy; I think he's really just a guy who tried to do what he thought was right, got scared by the potential of being drawn and quartered, and fled to the only place willing to offer him protection. His asylum deal with Russia is limited - it needs to be renewed annually. That puts his balls firmly in Putin's grasp.

I wouldn't put him in the same zone as Julian Assange. Assange has gone stir-crazy from living under house arrest for nearly a decade and legitimately thinks Hillary Clinton has assassinated people. Wikileaks has stopped being about transparency and turned into a laundering operation for intelligence stolen by the Russians. With Assange I think his prominence and paranoia went to his head way too fast and he quickly lost his moral authority. With Snowden, I think he's just scared. That's easier to sympathise with.

Edit: Oh, wow, I forgot what thread I was in. This is way off-topic.

Talk about thread drift. Jesus Christ.

What did you expect him to do? Had he gone to any of our allies he would've been extradited. Sure going to Russia may seem hypocritical, but at least he wouldn't arrested.

WolvDragon:
What did you expect him to do? Had he gone to any of our allies he would've been extradited. Sure going to Russia may seem hypocritical, but at least he wouldn't arrested.

I would have expected him to get arrested, then take his case to court and put on a goddamn show. If he really intended to hammer home a point about the US surveillance state, that's how to do it. By seeking asylum in Russia, he actually undermines his own appeal to principle by demonstrating a willingness to apply those principles selectively. If he'd gone to trial, he would have captured the nation's attention and brought the legality of the program directly before the Supreme Court. He would have put the surveillance program front and center in the public eye.

I mean, he had to have known when he did it that this would likely result in his arrest. He's not an idiot. So the best possible interpretation of his actions that I can fathom is that he tried to do the right thing, but panicked when the prospect of a criminal prosecution became a reality. That's understandable. It's sympathetic. It's not my definition of "heroic."

The alternative interpretation is that he planned to flee to Russia all along, which reeks of "patsy" to me.

bastardofmelbourne:

WolvDragon:
What did you expect him to do? Had he gone to any of our allies he would've been extradited. Sure going to Russia may seem hypocritical, but at least he wouldn't arrested.

I would have expected him to get arrested, then take his case to court and put on a goddamn show. If he really intended to hammer home a point about the US surveillance state, that's how to do it. By seeking asylum in Russia, he actually undermines his own appeal to principle by demonstrating a willingness to apply those principles selectively. If he'd gone to trial, he would have captured the nation's attention and brought the legality of the program directly before the Supreme Court. He would have put the surveillance program front and center in the public eye.

I mean, he had to have known when he did it that this would likely result in his arrest. He's not an idiot. So the best possible interpretation of his actions that I can fathom is that he tried to do the right thing, but panicked when the prospect of a criminal prosecution became a reality. That's understandable. It's sympathetic. It's not my definition of "heroic."

The alternative interpretation is that he planned to flee to Russia all along, which reeks of "patsy" to me.

And you think the U.S. government would've shown any mercy to him the same they did to Chelsea Manning? Who was kept inside a locked cell for nearly 24 hours a day. I can understand why Snowden had to flee, the U.S. government has shown that they will show no mercy to whistle blowers. Even if he is a hypocrite, he still do us a service by exposing the NSA spying program.

bastardofmelbourne:
I would have expected him to get arrested, then take his case to court and put on a goddamn show. If he really intended to hammer home a point about the US surveillance state, that's how to do it. By seeking asylum in Russia, he actually undermines his own appeal to principle by demonstrating a willingness to apply those principles selectively. If he'd gone to trial, he would have captured the nation's attention and brought the legality of the program directly before the Supreme Court. He would have put the surveillance program front and center in the public eye.

I mean, he had to have known when he did it that this would likely result in his arrest. He's not an idiot. So the best possible interpretation of his actions that I can fathom is that he tried to do the right thing, but panicked when the prospect of a criminal prosecution became a reality. That's understandable. It's sympathetic. It's not my definition of "heroic."

The alternative interpretation is that he planned to flee to Russia all along, which reeks of "patsy" to me.

Daniel Ellsberg (who faced trial for stealing the Pentagon Papers) disagrees. But by all means, direct opprobrium at someone for merely accepting exile while informing the public instead of hanging around to be unjustly prosecuted by an unjust country.

Seanchaidh:
Daniel Ellsberg (who faced trial for stealing the Pentagon Papers) disagrees. But by all means, direct opprobrium at someone for merely accepting exile while informing the public instead of hanging around to be unjustly prosecuted by an unjust country.

I'm not blaming Snowden for his decision. It's the kind of decision that a normal person who was reasonably concerned for their safety would make. It's perfectly understandable. But it's not really heroic. It's certainly brave of him to blow the whistle in the first place, but it was not exactly brave to then flee the possibility of jail time and accept asylum from a notorious despot who holds his principles in contempt and who intends to use him as ammunition in a propaganda war.

If the countries were reversed, my opinion would be different; in all likelihood, if you pissed off Putin within Russian borders you would simply be tortured and then vanished, or shot by "unknown assailants." But in the US, a person is entitled to a trial, and it is very easy to turn a trial into a spectacle that captures the attention of the public.

And Daniel Ellsberg was not jailed, and the charges against him were dismissed. Ultimately, Ellsberg made the right decision, and by making that decision helped expose illegal wiretapping in the Nixon administration. Maybe Ellsberg himself disagrees with that assessment; I don't. If he had fled to Russia instead of facing trial, he would only have given Nixon cover for his misconduct, rather than forced a corrupt government to turn judicial and public scrutiny towards its affairs.

WolvDragon:
And you think the U.S. government would've shown any mercy to him the same they did to Chelsea Manning? Who was kept inside a locked cell for nearly 24 hours a day. I can understand why Snowden had to flee, the U.S. government has shown that they will show no mercy to whistle blowers. Even if he is a hypocrite, he still do us a service by exposing the NSA spying program.

Chelsea Manning ended up serving seven years. She was released last year after Obama commuted her sentence. Her conviction was unwarranted and her treatment prior to conviction was unjustifiable, but as a point of comparison, Snowden has spent the last five years essentially under house arrest in Russia at Putin's mercy. Julian Assange has spent six years trapping in an embassy in London slowly going stir-crazy. Both of them will probably still face prosecution if they ever return to their home countries, and the fact that they evaded arrest for years will count against their chances of ever receiving clemency or public sympathy. Neither of them is exactly a free man right now.

Again; I'm not judging Snowden. He did what anyone would do if they were faced with the possibility of a heavy-handed and politically motivated jail sentence. Sure, I'd take indefinite house arrest as an alternative to being hurled into an oubliette designed for terrorists. Anyone would. But "what anyone would do" is not the definition of "heroic."

Silentpony:
Its going to be so sad when she's assassinated. Trump will just say 'Can you believe the Democrats are running an illegal immigrant who hates babies and the flag in New York? Someone should do something about that!' and she'll be shot and killed either right before or right after the election and Trump will go 'Well the shooter must have had his reasons, everyone has done something'

Assassinated? Nah. They'll probably bring out some totally-not-made-up(tm) accusations of involvement with pedophilia and child traffic rings. I wonder if they'll call it "tacogate" (I'm not being sarcastic).

crimson5pheonix:

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

Does it really? Then all the other republican candidates where specially incompetent in order to lose in the primaries. Is the whole Republican party in such bad state?

CaitSeith:

crimson5pheonix:

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

Does it really? Then all the other republican candidates where specially incompetent in order to lose in the primaries. Is the whole Republican party in such bad state?

Considering they control the entire American govenrment, not really.

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:
Its going to be so sad when she's assassinated. Trump will just say 'Can you believe the Democrats are running an illegal immigrant who hates babies and the flag in New York? Someone should do something about that!' and she'll be shot and killed either right before or right after the election and Trump will go 'Well the shooter must have had his reasons, everyone has done something'

Assassinated? Nah. They'll probably bring out some totally-not-made-up(tm) accusations of involvement with pedophilia and child traffic rings. I wonder if they'll call it "tacogate" (I'm not being sarcastic).

I considered that too, and that does sound like something Fox would do, but Cortez seems pretty tech savey and social media smart. a smear campaign could work, but I think someone will decide 'second amendment remedies' are a quicker, more fool-proof solution.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

crimson5pheonix:

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

Does it really? Then all the other republican candidates where specially incompetent in order to lose in the primaries. Is the whole Republican party in such bad state?

Considering they control the entire American govenrment, not really.

Then requiring a special level incompetence in order to lose to Trump contradicts the level of competence of the Republican party (as all their other candidates lost to Trump before Clinton did).

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

Does it really? Then all the other republican candidates where specially incompetent in order to lose in the primaries. Is the whole Republican party in such bad state?

Considering they control the entire American govenrment, not really.

Then requiring a special level incompetence in order to lose to Trump contradicts the level of competence of the Republican party (as all their other candidates lost to Trump before Clinton did).

If the Republicans are that incompetent, then the Dems are a special kind of incompetence.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

Except campaign in swing states. Or give people a reason to vote for her.

Your pot shots are not appreciated.

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

Hardly. This was a perfect alignment of circumstances. When you look at the last 30 years, you see a few things. Conservative talk radio has been filling it's listeners heads with rot for years about how the libs would be coming for their guns, outlawing christianity, and throwing red blooded americans in fema concentration camps while brown hordes over ran the country, and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. Juxtapose that kind of fear mongering against the establishment republican party, who, while basically swinging further and further to the right, didn't really act like the enemy was at the gates the same way conservative media was portraying things.

So you've got this republican base who will basically jump at their own shadow, with their politicians who are seemingly nonchalant to this existential liberal threat. Combine that with the white aggrievement over Obama's eight years, turning the country into a muslim, communist hellscape (if fox and rush are to be believed), and here comes this outsider. Non establishment, talking in the same bombastic language they're used to hearing in their media, supposedly free of influence, who has been peddling the obama birth certificate conspiracy for years, and already an accomplished grifter. If trump is good at a single thing beyond anything else, it's being the loudest confidence man I've ever seen.

That's not to say a misogynistic view of female politicians didn't hurt Clinton, they did. And she made plenty of unforced errors. But to say there a 'special' level of incompetence to lose to a 'reality tv star' is so far off the mark here it really bares pointing out.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

Considering they control the entire American govenrment, not really.

Then requiring a special level incompetence in order to lose to Trump contradicts the level of competence of the Republican party (as all their other candidates lost to Trump before Clinton did).

If the Republicans are that incompetent, then the Dems are a special kind of incompetence.

What makes the later "special" if both lost to the same man reality tv star?

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

Then requiring a special level incompetence in order to lose to Trump contradicts the level of competence of the Republican party (as all their other candidates lost to Trump before Clinton did).

If the Republicans are that incompetent, then the Dems are a special kind of incompetence.

What makes the later "special" if both lost to the same man reality tv star?

They lost a thousand seats under Obama, and it's likely that their poised to do worse this midterm election against a very unpopular president. Millenials are leaving the democratic party due to their corporatist ways.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

If the Republicans are that incompetent, then the Dems are a special kind of incompetence.

What makes the later "special" if both lost to the same man reality tv star?

They lost a thousand seats under Obama, and it's likely that their poised to do worse this midterm election against a very unpopular president. Millenials are leaving the democratic party due to their corporatist ways.

If Trump is so unpopular, how did all republican candidates lost to him at the primaries?

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

What makes the later "special" if both lost to the same man reality tv star?

They lost a thousand seats under Obama, and it's likely that their poised to do worse this midterm election against a very unpopular president. Millenials are leaving the democratic party due to their corporatist ways.

If Trump is so unpopular, how did all republican candidates lost to him at the primaries?

I answered your previous question, now you're just moving the goal post.

Jux:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Your pot shots are not appreciated.

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

Hardly. This was a perfect alignment of circumstances. When you look at the last 30 years, you see a few things. Conservative talk radio has been filling it's listeners heads with rot for years about how the libs would be coming for their guns, outlawing christianity, and throwing red blooded americans in fema concentration camps while brown hordes over ran the country, and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. Juxtapose that kind of fear mongering against the establishment republican party, who, while basically swinging further and further to the right, didn't really act like the enemy was at the gates the same way conservative media was portraying things.

So you've got this republican base who will basically jump at their own shadow, with their politicians who are seemingly nonchalant to this existential liberal threat. Combine that with the white aggrievement over Obama's eight years, turning the country into a muslim, communist hellscape (if fox and rush are to be believed), and here comes this outsider. Non establishment, talking in the same bombastic language they're used to hearing in their media, supposedly free of influence, who has been peddling the obama birth certificate conspiracy for years, and already an accomplished grifter. If trump is good at a single thing beyond anything else, it's being the loudest confidence man I've ever seen.

That's not to say a misogynistic view of female politicians didn't hurt Clinton, they did. And she made plenty of unforced errors. But to say there a 'special' level of incompetence to lose to a 'reality tv star' is so far off the mark here it really bares pointing out.

That explains why the Republicans were motivated to vote, but not for the lack of enthusiasm over the Democrats. People like to say "she won the popular vote" and "there was as much turnout for her as there was Obama", but that ignores that it was a much less even distribution. The coastal cities came out and voted for her in force, but Democrats elsewhere, like the former blue wall, dropped her like a rock. Oh yeah, she got a million more votes in California than Obama did in 2012, but Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Maine, and so on, dropped Hillary. She bled votes in these places. A lot of the time Trump didn't even get appreciably more votes than the Republicans got before, Hillary just lost them that hard.

crimson5pheonix:

Jux:

crimson5pheonix:

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

Hardly. This was a perfect alignment of circumstances. When you look at the last 30 years, you see a few things. Conservative talk radio has been filling it's listeners heads with rot for years about how the libs would be coming for their guns, outlawing christianity, and throwing red blooded americans in fema concentration camps while brown hordes over ran the country, and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. Juxtapose that kind of fear mongering against the establishment republican party, who, while basically swinging further and further to the right, didn't really act like the enemy was at the gates the same way conservative media was portraying things.

So you've got this republican base who will basically jump at their own shadow, with their politicians who are seemingly nonchalant to this existential liberal threat. Combine that with the white aggrievement over Obama's eight years, turning the country into a muslim, communist hellscape (if fox and rush are to be believed), and here comes this outsider. Non establishment, talking in the same bombastic language they're used to hearing in their media, supposedly free of influence, who has been peddling the obama birth certificate conspiracy for years, and already an accomplished grifter. If trump is good at a single thing beyond anything else, it's being the loudest confidence man I've ever seen.

That's not to say a misogynistic view of female politicians didn't hurt Clinton, they did. And she made plenty of unforced errors. But to say there a 'special' level of incompetence to lose to a 'reality tv star' is so far off the mark here it really bares pointing out.

That explains why the Republicans were motivated to vote, but not for the lack of enthusiasm over the Democrats. People like to say "she won the popular vote" and "there was as much turnout for her as there was Obama", but that ignores that it was a much less even distribution. The coastal cities came out and voted for her in force, but Democrats elsewhere, like the former blue wall, dropped her like a rock. Oh yeah, she got a million more votes in California than Obama did in 2012, but Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Maine, and so on, dropped Hillary. She bled votes in these places. A lot of the time Trump didn't even get appreciably more votes than the Republicans got before, Hillary just lost them that hard.

I'm not glossing over the fact she made mistakes. I specifically pointed it out in my post. But you're selling this line as if her loss was some kind of special blunder, where if you subbed her out for another establishment, female dem, we'd automatically be looking at the first female president. Painting Trump as some kind of bumbling Homer Simpsonesque character that any old rube could have beat in the election with their eyes closed.

It didn't have to end up the way it did, but I wouldn't chalk this up to some kind of special Clinton incompetency. She might be a lot of things, but grossly incompetent isn't one of them. That suggests a lack of skills to do the job.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

They lost a thousand seats under Obama, and it's likely that their poised to do worse this midterm election against a very unpopular president. Millenials are leaving the democratic party due to their corporatist ways.

If Trump is so unpopular, how did all republican candidates lost to him at the primaries?

I answered your previous question, now you're just moving the goal post.

How so? Since my first question my goalpost has been that losing to a reality tv star was as shameful in the Republican primaries for his opponents as in the presidential elections.

Jux:

crimson5pheonix:

Jux:

Hardly. This was a perfect alignment of circumstances. When you look at the last 30 years, you see a few things. Conservative talk radio has been filling it's listeners heads with rot for years about how the libs would be coming for their guns, outlawing christianity, and throwing red blooded americans in fema concentration camps while brown hordes over ran the country, and the only thing holding them back was the republican party. Juxtapose that kind of fear mongering against the establishment republican party, who, while basically swinging further and further to the right, didn't really act like the enemy was at the gates the same way conservative media was portraying things.

So you've got this republican base who will basically jump at their own shadow, with their politicians who are seemingly nonchalant to this existential liberal threat. Combine that with the white aggrievement over Obama's eight years, turning the country into a muslim, communist hellscape (if fox and rush are to be believed), and here comes this outsider. Non establishment, talking in the same bombastic language they're used to hearing in their media, supposedly free of influence, who has been peddling the obama birth certificate conspiracy for years, and already an accomplished grifter. If trump is good at a single thing beyond anything else, it's being the loudest confidence man I've ever seen.

That's not to say a misogynistic view of female politicians didn't hurt Clinton, they did. And she made plenty of unforced errors. But to say there a 'special' level of incompetence to lose to a 'reality tv star' is so far off the mark here it really bares pointing out.

That explains why the Republicans were motivated to vote, but not for the lack of enthusiasm over the Democrats. People like to say "she won the popular vote" and "there was as much turnout for her as there was Obama", but that ignores that it was a much less even distribution. The coastal cities came out and voted for her in force, but Democrats elsewhere, like the former blue wall, dropped her like a rock. Oh yeah, she got a million more votes in California than Obama did in 2012, but Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Maine, and so on, dropped Hillary. She bled votes in these places. A lot of the time Trump didn't even get appreciably more votes than the Republicans got before, Hillary just lost them that hard.

I'm not glossing over the fact she made mistakes. I specifically pointed it out in my post. But you're selling this line as if her loss was some kind of special blunder, where if you subbed her out for another establishment, female dem, we'd automatically be looking at the first female president. Painting Trump as some kind of bumbling Homer Simpsonesque character that any old rube could have beat in the election with their eyes closed.

It didn't have to end up the way it did, but I wouldn't chalk this up to some kind of special Clinton incompetency. She might be a lot of things, but grossly incompetent isn't one of them. That suggests a lack of skills to do the job.

Well no, part of her problem was being establishment. I mean, there were mistakes on top of that, but if it were some "generic female establishment Dem", she probably would have lost too. It's precisely that establishment policy that lost her the election. Where incompetent comes in is not recognizing how that was going to turn out. And also the whole ignoring the rust belt thing. That's pretty bad.

Jux:
I'm not glossing over the fact she made mistakes. I specifically pointed it out in my post. But you're selling this line as if her loss was some kind of special blunder, where if you subbed her out for another establishment, female dem, we'd automatically be looking at the first female president.

You build up Trump as some kind of especially tough match, but all he amounted to was Romney+population growth. Most votes cast for either candidate were votes against their opponent. That should tell you something about the quality of both candidates and their campaigns.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here