• An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 1 day, 1 hour, 32 minutes, 36 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

Bernie Sanders pledges to end practice of prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. Edward Snowden: "Whoa."

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
again, I look at people who say EWarren is the better candidate and progressive and I fucking laugh. Warren isn't progressive.
She's progressive, not socialist.

These are of Tulsi supporting Bernie and not the other way around?

Tulsi has a long term relationship, both with Bernie's inner circle and his organisations - like his think tank, ran by his wife. Bernie's silence on her most of the time is telling, as well, and when he does say something - look up.
 

snowhite

Member
Aug 7, 2018
298
I decided to look it up, since it seems this line of discussion is very important to people.
He last posted on that Ars Technica forum in 2012.

It's interesting how it's hardly ever brought up that in 2014, he made comments about being socially liberal and supporting basic income:

But I suppose we could continue talking about how nearly a decade ago, a nerdy white dude from North Carolina liked Ron Paul's gold standard idiocy, and pretend this automatically means he shares Ron Paul's racism by association and is therefore perfectly demonizable "far right", still today in 2019, and also pretend that this is all very relevant to the importance and impact of his actions as a whistleblower.

Or we could be having a rational discussion instead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like how Kirblar and other 'Snowden is a racist POS' chanters are completely ignoring Morrigan's post as they have no answer to it, and they cannot stand being wrong and have their little bubbles burst.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,826
I like how Kirblar and other 'Snowden is a racist POS' chanters are completely ignoring Morrigan's post as they have no answer to it, and they cannot stand being wrong and have their little bubbles burst.
I decided to look it up, since it seems this line of discussion is very important to people.
He last posted on that Ars Technica forum in 2012.

It's interesting how it's hardly ever brought up that in 2014, he made comments about being socially liberal and supporting basic income:

But I suppose we could continue talking about how nearly a decade ago, a nerdy white dude from North Carolina liked Ron Paul's gold standard idiocy, and pretend this automatically means he shares Ron Paul's racism by association and is therefore perfectly demonizable "far right", still today in 2019, and also pretend that this is all very relevant to the importance and impact of his actions as a whistleblower.

Or we could be having a rational discussion instead. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, I think Morrigan is fundamentally wrong on her read of him. We're not going to agree on this. I don't see a "young kid being stupid" when there's only a year or two gap here and stuff like UBI is very much compatible with libertarian views, as we're so frequently reminded. Everything he's saying there in the quoted section isn't really at odds with the shithead libertarian stuff he was spouting just a few years prior. Notice he sounds oddly similar to Andrew Yang here. They'll talk nice about social issues but won't lift a finger to defend them. Which is why you have his buddy Glenn Greenwald repeatedly going on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour.

And really, "rational discussion?" Are you suddenly Ben Shapiro or something? The reason I bring it up is that accidentally doing something for the wrong reasons makes you an asshole who stumbled assbackwards into doing something decent. Motivations matter.
we libs stan grand juries and the CIA don't we
What on fucking earth could you have against Grand Juries?
 

oledome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,853
Snowden exposed mass, illegal, surveillance of innocent US citizens. I don't get the hate that boils from small sections of Era at all, his actions came at great personal cost, there is zero evidence that the information he disseminated through news outlets endangered anyone, the release of that information was handled by them. It started a conversation and opened the public's eyes to what extent the government was capable and willing to just soak up all the data it could without any consideration for an individual's right to privacy.

Middleman I want to understand where your line of thinking (and some others) comes from. To describe him as reckless doesn’t line up with how he released the information, to describe him as a traitor rejects that he is a whistleblower when he is the very definition of one. Do you disagree that Snowden demonstrated the US government acted illegally, unethically and at a cost to you (I'm going to assume you're from the US)?

Snowden's politics as a US libertarian are irrelevant in a discussion about his actions as a whistleblower in 2013 and what should happen to him now. Snowden deserves protection and should be allowed back into his country.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
User banned (1 week): trolling (peddling misinformation, ignoring facts) over a series of posts in the thread + history of similar infractions
Lol. You might as well admit that to you it's only good whistleblowing when they don't dig up shit about Democrats.
Did Snowden ever say why he didn't do anything like this doing George W Bush administration? Whistleblowing is necessary for any party who breaks the law, but Snowden's only doing it when a black Democrat in office deserves a side eye. It's not like Bush wasn't doing bad shit in office.
 

RoninStrife

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,070
.. A serious candidate wouldn't give policy without discretion, unless he wants to score cheap populist brownie points and he's getting desperate to find the next agenda to prove his mettle as, "the most progressive" candidate. That's just my opinion though, but I've seen this in countless democracies across the world, especially anti-establishment parties/groups with a socialist rhetoric.

Free land, free up your student debt, free free free. And when those rhetorics reaches terminal velocity, we get these kind of policies.

Frankly, I prefer Warren, because my mind is so use to this socialist narrative going bust in the end, I don't believe anything Bernie says anymore. It's never going to be rainbows and puppies, Bernie. And I've lived your side of the coin, the socialist narrative sounds beautiful, but it's NO Savior. Not even close.
 

Gunblade47

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
495
Lol American's really have a bizarre view on the evils of Snowden compared to the rest of the world.

He was a hero for the information he provided to the media and had legitimate reasons to fear his safety. He's also stuck in Russia because his government intended for him to be stranded there.

Not really surprised by this. Bernie's been pretty vocal on his support for whistleblowers.
 

coconut milk

Member
Jan 17, 2018
3,226
.. A serious candidate wouldn't give policy without discretion, unless he wants to score cheap populist brownie points and he's getting desperate to find the next agenda to prove his mettle as, "the most progressive" candidate. That's just my opinion though, but I've seen this in countless democracies across the world, especially anti-establishment parties/groups with a socialist rhetoric.

Free land, free up your student debt, free free free. And when those rhetorics reaches terminal velocity, we get these kind of policies.

Frankly, I prefer Warren, because my mind is so use to this socialist narrative going bust in the end, I don't believe anything Bernie says anymore. It's never going to be rainbows and puppies, Bernie. And I've lived your side of the coin, the socialist narrative sounds beautiful, but it's NO Savior. Not even close.
need a bingo card for bernie threads
 

Hugare

Member
Aug 31, 2018
818
Its nice to want things

It would be awesome, but can you guys tell me if there are any chances of Bernie winning?

I'm asking since I'm not american
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
6,172
Sydney
Did Snowden ever say why he didn't do anything like this doing George W Bush administration? Whistleblowing is necessary for any party who breaks the law, but Snowden's only doing it when a black Democrat in office deserves a side eye. It's not like Bush wasn't doing bad shit in office.
Snowden didn't start working as a subcontractor for the NSA until 2009.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,127
Bandung Indonesia
Did Snowden ever say why he didn't do anything like this doing George W Bush administration? Whistleblowing is necessary for any party who breaks the law, but Snowden's only doing it when a black Democrat in office deserves a side eye. It's not like Bush wasn't doing bad shit in office.
Even if the motive is allegedly not at all peachy, does it mean that the what the government was (and still is, I imagine) doing does not deserve public scrutiny? If allegedly the whistleblowing was motivated by racist motives, does that mean all the mass surveillance done during the Obama's government are okay to be done without public knowledge or oversight and it's okay for the public to continue not knowing it forever?

If your answer is "of course not", then why does it matter?
 

AdrianG4

Member
Oct 29, 2017
476
Did Snowden ever say why he didn't do anything like this doing George W Bush administration? Whistleblowing is necessary for any party who breaks the law, but Snowden's only doing it when a black Democrat in office deserves a side eye. It's not like Bush wasn't doing bad shit in office.
Mate, everyone on this board gives you a side-eye for your non apologetic discriminatory philosophies on all Chinese people.

Can Itchy please be barred from ever talking about race again please? I love the idea of freely being able to punch nazis and also Chinese people haters by pretending they're doing it for the love of their love country. Some honky ass american shit right there
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
Even if the motive is allegedly not at all peachy, does it mean that the what the government was (and still is, I imagine) doing does not deserve public scrutiny? If allegedly the whistleblowing was motivated by racist motives, does that mean all the mass surveillance done during the Obama's government are okay to be done without public knowledge or oversight and it's okay for the public to continue not knowing it forever?
Of course it deserves public scrutiny, however, he shouldn't get a free pass if what he's doing has suspicious motives. According to Wiki Snowden was working for the CIA by 2006 at Langley, this puts his whistleblowing in a bad light since we all know what bad shit the CIA was doing under Bush.

If your answer is "of course not", then why does it matter?
Why wouldn't it matter? It's part of who he is, him doing one good thing doesn't absolve him from being a piece of shit or having ulterior motives - which means he shouldn't be trusted so easily or have his persona whitewashed by the media because he's a right winger who happened to do something right for once.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,127
Bandung Indonesia
Of course it deserves public scrutiny, however, he shouldn't get a free pass if what he's doing has suspicious motives. According to Wiki Snowden was working for the CIA by 2006 at Langley, this puts his whistleblowing in a bad light since we all know what bad shit the CIA was doing under Bush.



Why wouldn't it matter? It's part of who he is, him doing one good thing doesn't absolve him from being a piece of shit or having ulterior motives - which means he shouldn't be trusted so easily or have his persona whitewashed by the media because he's a right winger who happened to do something right for once.
That's just it, you even admitted what he's doing is the right thing to do, so why make it seem like what he's divulging is suddenly less valuable because he did it--allegedly--due to racist motivations?
 

Sedated

Member
Apr 13, 2018
1,806
People can change and intentions in the grand scheme of things hardly matter compared to the outcome.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
That's just it, you even admitted what he's doing is the right thing to do, so why make it seem like what he's divulging is suddenly less valuable because he did it--allegedly--due to racist motivations?
I explained everything in my prior post. This isn't just his racial motivations in questions its his ideology - Bush was doing more and worse and he didn't lift a finger. So it's not the fact that it was the methods he disliked but who was the White House when they were made. Which set the stage for him becoming a Russian pawn because once he was blown that was a likely fate awaiting him and he did it, anyway.
 

oledome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,853
Of course it deserves public scrutiny, however, he shouldn't get a free pass if what he's doing has suspicious motives. According to Wiki Snowden was working for the CIA by 2006 at Langley, this puts his whistleblowing in a bad light since we all know what bad shit the CIA was doing under Bush.
He didn't walk into the CIA in 2006 and have the curtain drawn on the surveillance programme, you fool. His information came from the NSA, where he started in 2009, we don't know at what point he knew what he did. This idea he was motivated by racism to blow the whistle is baseless, you've just tried to say he was in a position do so while Bush was president, you'll need to change tack on that one.
 

BowieZ

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,748
Maybe then we can have people like Assange and Snowden blow the whistle without being forced to flee the country* and wind up compromised Russian assets in Cold War-style disinformation warfare.

*any Western liberal democracy with relevant extradition treaties
 

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,422
The problem is there needs to be more precise definition of what are crimes in the first place.

Snowden exposed piracy invasions, but under the CIA/NSA umbrella, what they were doing could have been legally signed off on because there's no concrete law saying they couldn't do it.

This past decade has brought to light many issues that simply are not defined and/or no precedent has ever been set for and Congress needs to sit the fuck down and start legislating this stuff so it doesn't happen again. Everything from Trump's charades to the NSA activities.

I mean they won't even budge on new election security bills. How will they iron out CIA/NSA limits and overreach?
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
He didn't walk into the CIA in 2006 and have the curtain drawn on the surveillance programme, you fool. His information came from the NSA, where he started in 2009, we don't know at what point he knew what he did. This idea he was motivated by racism to blow the whistle is baseless, you've just tried to say he was in a position do so while Bush was president, you'll need to change tack on that one.
Snowden worked at Langley itself, you think he couldn't find shit to whistleblow on if he wanted to? It was a slight insinuation, since how I framed it was correct. He didn't do anything until Obama was president and in later posts I addressed other motives since it's known he wasn't a Democrat. Did he disagree with what the CIA was doing while Bush was in office?
 

BossAttack

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
18,054
Lol. You might as well admit that to you it's only good whistleblowing when they don't dig up shit about Democrats.
My views on Snowden has nothing to do with political parties.

And if the whistle blower raised the issue through internal channels, nothing was done about it, and they resorted to doing it through the media?
Totally fine since Trump was committing a crime.

I'll ask this one question, which will determine whether or not a debate about Snowden is possible. Do you believe it was fine for Snowden to reveal U.S. spying efforts in China as well as Germany?
 

oledome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,853
Snowden worked at Langley itself, you think he couldn't find shit to whistleblow on if he wanted to? It was a slight insinuation, since how I framed it was correct. He didn't do anything until Obama was president and in later posts I addressed other motives since it's known he wasn't a Democrat. Did he disagree with what the CIA was doing while Bush was in office?
You weren't being slight in the first instance. I've just explained he didn't know about the surveillance programme while at the CIA, your response is: well he should have done something. Sorry he didn't release some random, unimportant information so it could support this fantasy of yours. We have the surveillance programme, that's what he wanted to blow the whistle on, such was its importance, reach and illegality.

You're suggesting (not in a slight way) that he had information about something as important for the public to know while Bush was president. You're saying his motivation for the release of information was racism and/or his political allignment. You have nothing to back that up. Snowden not being a Democrat has led you and some others to a non-sensical position.
 

Dekim

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,028
There are far better avenues to attack Snowden on. Going on 'he's a sly racist because he didn't whistle blow under GWB' is weak and is just a cheap way to try to paint him as bad a monster as possible.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,369
Hopefully the other candidates follow him.

Frankly it's ridiculous that it's gone on for this long.
 

Snowy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
935
Its nice to want things

It would be awesome, but can you guys tell me if there are any chances of Bernie winning?

I'm asking since I'm not american
It’s a long shot. Going by the polls, no. He has 15-20% of people captured by current polling models, and he can’t really seem to move beyond that. If Biden collapses, he’ll pick up some of them, but Elizabeth Warren will pick up more. He’ll probably get most of Tulsi’s voters, but that’s maybe another percent or two. His gambit is that he has a large grassroots campaign apparatus, and he’s trying to activate non-voters or people with loose affiliations, who might not be accounted for in current polling models. Given his fundraising and rally sizes, my gut says he’ll do better than he’s currently polling, but unless Warren has a Native American scholarship or blackface or something in her past, she seems inevitable at this point.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
8,737
You weren't being slight in the first instance. I've just explained he didn't know about the surveillance programme while at the CIA, your response is: well he should have done something. Sorry he didn't release some random, unimportant information so it could support this fantasy of yours. We have the surveillance programme, that's what he wanted to blow the whistle on, such was its importance, reach and illegality.
Why are you assuming all he should have done was get what he found? It's the CIA. The place that's supposed to be doing all sorts of dirty shit, did he bother looking for something, anything worthy of whistleblowing on? What did he think of what the CIA and the government was doing while Bush was president? Was he ok with Guanatamo?

You're suggesting (not in a slight way) that he had information about something as important for the public to know while Bush was president. You're saying his motivation for the release of information was racism and/or his political allignment. You have nothing to back that up. Snowden not being a Democrat has led you and some others to a non-sensical position.
Then explain why he only found this patriotic fervour while the US had a Democrat president. Did he bother trying to do this at the CIA back then? Snowden going to Ron Paul for an interview and going on about the Deep State is what concerns me, why doesn't concern you? Why did it take all that time to muster up that courage to blow the whistle when he was in the lion's den for years before a Democrat won the presidency. I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking you to question things and not take anyone at their word just because they did something you liked once.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
6,172
Sydney
Snowden worked at Langley itself, you think he couldn't find shit to whistleblow on if he wanted to? It was a slight insinuation, since how I framed it was correct. He didn't do anything until Obama was president and in later posts I addressed other motives since it's known he wasn't a Democrat. Did he disagree with what the CIA was doing while Bush was in office?
Snowden became a whistleblower once he found out the NSA was spying on US citizens and James Clapper lied to Congress and said they weren't.

He wouldn't have been in a position to blow the whistle on any of that when he was at the CIA since the CIA largely operates outside the USA.
 

coconut milk

Member
Jan 17, 2018
3,226
Snowden liked Ron Paul/hated Obama so much he was willing to do a 180 on his entire life.

Too much of a reach