Did Snowden's Interview with Putin change your opinion of Snowden?

[el_bryanto]

Just out of curiosity.

Bryant

6 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Totally
	0 (0%)
	Somewhat
	2 (33%)
	Not really
	0 (0%)
	Not at all
	3 (50%)
	These bullshit polls confirm my opinion of bullshit polls
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	1 (17%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[MohRokTah]

1. Doesn't change my opinion of him at all.

It served to confirm my opinion of him, however.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

5. What is your opinion of the treachery of the NSA? nt

[MohRokTah]

8. Almost as low of an opinion of that

as I have of traitors who violate their oaths to their country.

[Savannahmann]

11. What oath?

The oath that is outlined in the Constitution says to serve and protect that document, against all enemies foreign and domestic. It doesn't say that you will remain silent no matter what you see.

In fact, such oaths, the oath to remain silent no matter what criminal activity is going on is the hallmark of the Mafia hearings during the 1960s not the Government.

So if a traitor is one who tells the truth, then what is the person who committed the crime in the first place?

[JayhawkSD]

17. Not the document.

The principles embodied in the words of the document.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

16. If we were to start with the population of the U.S., the NSA would have some

320,000,000 counts of illegal wiretapping. And that's not counting laws and victims over the rest of the planet.

How many charges do we have against Snowden?

[MohRokTah]

19. And you'd have zero prosecutions.

So what's your point?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

20. My point is that you said you had "almost" as low an opinion of the NSA as

you do of Snowden. Yet the NSA committed millions of times as many traitorous crimes as Snowden allegedly has.

Just trying to get a handle on your position regarding the NSA's crimes.

[MohRokTah]

21. I don't see it that way.

I believe Snowden's actions were far more criminal and much more damaging to the nation.

You disagree.

Never the two opinions shall meet.

[arely staircase]

2. yes because before I only suspected he was in the tank for the fascists

Now I know.

[djean111]

3. Is your assumption that everyone either liked Snowden, or hated him with the heat of a thousand

suns? Maybe the title should read - If you despise Snowden.......................

[el_bryanto]

6. How come you never like someone with the heat of a thousand suns?

After a winter like this I bet a lot of people positive about the sun coming out - admittedly a thousand suns might make it too hot.

That said - I think that there probably are people in the middle on Snowden (I'm one of them), but most of the arguments seem to be people who are passionate about either supporting him or denigrating him.

Bryant

[randome]

4. Not at all. A misguided wannabe super-hero at the start.

Now in need of a reboot.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[KurtNYC]

7. We can evaluate the truth and impact of Snowden's revelations without liking or disliking

Snowden, and we should.

The message, not the messenger, is important.

[el_bryanto]

9. That's more or less where I come down - but judging by the fury around Snowden

A lot of DUers think he's either the story or at least interesting enough to be a story in his own right.

Bryant

[leftynyc]

12. Uh - no

Too many Snowden supporters were very quick to call anyone who didn't consider Snowden a hero NSA suckups. Snowden supporters were and still are the ones conflating the two.

[el_bryanto]

13. Ah - I wonder if a Snowden supporter would agree with your analysis here? nt

[Savannahmann]

10. Nope.

Do I need to explain why? If I speak to a RW individual, that doesn't mean that I approve of them, nor do I adapt their beliefs. At worst, I understand them a little better and am able to discuss things with them.

Before I have mentioned that by declaring party purity above all, we sacrifice too much progress. The example I usually use is Libertarian ideals, specifically the one dealing with Marijuana. I feel safe saying that most of the people here agree that the criminalization of Marijuana is absolute bullshit. A majority of us would like to see it legalized. But that is never going to happen at the Federal level because we'll never get enough Liberals into office to make it a reality. Blue Dogs won't be able to vote for it and keep their seats, so Liberals and Progressives will never be able to move it forward using just Democrats. Yet, we have an ally on this one subject. An ally in the form of Libertarians. We can disagree and refuse to support their ideals on any other subject, hell every other subject. But in those handful of ideals that are not too dissimilar from our own, we have an ally.

Instead of doing the painfully obvious, and that is speak to the Libertarian minded and agree to work with them on this one lonely single solitary issue, we eschew them entirely. The usual cries from our party purity minded types is that if we agree with them on that, then they'll demand a slashing of Government programs across the board. The answer is no. We don't have to adopt their beliefs on any subject we don't agree with. We can work with them on one narrow issue.

I am opposed to the Death Penalty. I know some Christians are too. I don't agree with much of what the various Christian sects preach, but I do agree with them on that one issue. That doesn't diminish me in any way. Perhaps it would be better to say that they agree with ME on that one issue. I don't have to buy into the sexist women can't be priests to agree with them on one issue. I don't have to be party to the nonsensical homophobic crap. But on one issue, we agree.

So why should I think less of Snowden because he spoke to someone? Why should I think less of someone who would be in a deep dark hole for the crime of telling the truth because of that damned Putin. Because I choose not to get outraged over that doesn't mean that I agree with Putin on anything else. That is absolute nonsense which is part of the reason why Democrats are in the Minority in the House and in real danger of becoming the minority in the Senate. If a Republican agrees with me on campaign finance reform, and my ideals are based upon good liberal principals, then I am not the one who is wrong. Agreeing to work with same said Republican isn't a betrayal of the faith.

Churchill had helped fund the "White Guards" who were fighting against Lenin and the Communist party when Lenin was trying to take control of Russia and turn it into the Soviet Union. When Churchill sent the warning that the Germans were going to attack in 1941, Stalin put politics first, and disregarded the note because he did not like, and didn't trust the author Churchill. Stalin was unwilling and unable to put history aside and recognize a shared enemy. The result was Germans on the outskirts of Moscow.

Later, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin all worked together, setting their many differences aside to unite toward a common goal. This common goal was a worthy one. Roosevelt respected Stalin, but disagreed with him on so many subjects that it would bore any reader to try and list them all. Churchill believed that Communism was a scourge on the souls of the world. He referred to the German transport of Lenin to Russia during WW I as the most barbaric act anyone has ever done in warfare.

Yet, Churchill was willing to work with the state created by Lenin. Because co-operation was the only way to defeat the greatest of all evils, Nazi Germany. Churchill didn't put limits on his alliance. He didn't say we can't work together until you abandon your beliefs of this nature or that type. Communism could be dealt with later, the immediate threat was the Nazi's.

So no, meeting with Putin does not diminish my opinion of Snowden. Any more than meeting with Stalin diminishes my opinion of Roosevelt or Truman. The greater goals is what is important, and using what is around you in reality to achieve those goals used to be a hallmark of the Democratic Party. Now, it's become party purity first, grand goals second. We've gone from a nation that did things because they were hard to a country that refuses to take up challenges because they are too hard. And it appears that everything is just too hard to tackle.

[BenzoDia]

14. Yes. Russia allows it's agencies easy access to the citizen's communications.

Snowden would know all this and yet he didn't call them on it.

Complete hogwash.

[Rex]

15. Snowden meeting with a dictator to talk about the nations tranparency gave me a belly laugh.

Made me roll my eyes some. I wasn't sure if he was a total puppet, now I am pretty convinced he is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Nope. He still did a great thing for humanity and deserves our thanks.