The intercept has a ton of articles smashing Trump and conservatives. I don't care if sometimes they disagree with me so long as they are honest about their views and so long as they keep publishing things I agree with too.

People here seem mad at them because they question things the American security agencies say about Russia interfering in our elections. But the American security agencies have lied about a gazillion things. maybe it is ok to ask for proof beyond the military people just saying something is true. What exactly is wrong with their skepticism?

If you just accept what the CIA says without question I have a great Iraq war you might like.

cherry picking public comments from Breitbart and trying to make them into some kind of legit narrative is beyond fucking lazy and you know it...

And spare me the random anti-Trump pieces these days like Greenwald is on our goddamned side all of a sudden... Go tell me how many anti-Trump pieces were printed on his bullshit newz site from January 2016-May 2017 and get back to me...

They just don't want us to remember how much water they carried for Trump and his Kremlin overlords

He said he thinks the FBI leaked to help Trump and harm Hillary
Trumps muslim ban is uniquely shameful
top story right now about Trump envoy Eric Prince meeting with Russian in Seychelles

Greenwald hates Trump and he hates Hillary both

I voted for Hillary, I hate Trump, but I concede that Hillary tilts to aggressive assertion of US interests abroad. that she voted to let Bush invade Iraq, that she has a militaristic tilt in many situations. I agree with Greenwald that Obama, who I love, was horrible to whistleblowers contrary to what he had said before.

Greenwald is right on a ton of issues, he has logical reasons for his views, and I am not going to condemn him for views he has which I disagree with any more than I am going to condemn Hillary, Obama and Bill Clinton for views they have I disagree with. I was ecstatic about the presidencies of Clinton and Obama, but I don't pretend they were perfect. I think people here are angry at Greenwald because he does not view Obama and Hillary as perfect. I can live with his view on that.

It makes him seem edgy to promote his brand of both siderism. He's a laughing stock carrying water for nationalist bigots.

that "this could even help telecommunications companies that are close to the Democratic Party" - an assertion that the Intercept deems a "correct conclusion"? Do you believe that Comcast - the example used - fits that descritpion?

so sometimes he will agree with progressives on certain issues -- like LGBT issues, and pot.

But as a libertarian his economic views are aligned with the most far-right conservatives.

Don't be fooled. He is NOT an ally, and the Intercept is carefully crafted to pull gullible progressives in.

Russia's scheme from the very beginning. It was no accident he landed in Russia. That was the plan from the beginning.

Maybe you can make a case he's a traitor. So what? That still doesn't refute that he is a hero. It may come as a shock to some that America is not perfect and has done some truly horrible things. Invading Iraq was horrible. If opposing that makes me a traitor then so what? Extending the clearly unwinnable war in View Nam was horrible. I protested against it. If that makes me a traitor then so what?

I wish the government would not lie so much. Snowden busted our government about many of their lies. I don't find that so horrible. Indeed I find it admirable.

But sometimes I am wrong. Maybe I am wrong here. But I haven't seen anything to make me think Snowden isn't a hero.

to Russia.

Why didn't he take what he'd found to Bernie Sanders, for example? Or some other trusted figure? Instead, he took a million documents to China and Russia, and selectively released what he wished from there.

He's a traitor.

But Russia surely knows what the US govt was doing to spy on us all. Snowden did not reveal this information to our enemies, who already knew. He revealed the information to the American people. Most classified information is classified to prevent Americans from learning about it. Our govt knows our enemies already know it, in most cases. Richard Feynman opposed our excessive classification on this basis.

And anyone who believes him that those countries didn't access them is naive.

And there were more than a million documents. No one is disputing that. He didn't need to prove his point with a million documents.

He said nobody knows how many files Snowden took because the way Snowden did it means the government has no way of counting. What General Keith Alexander said was that we only know how many files Snowden “touched” in his career at the NSA, not how many he downloaded. Surely Snowden touched a great many files as part of his normal work.

Let me quote General Alexander: “I don’t think anyone really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents”

The former Director of the NSA says I don’t think anyone really knows. Would “anyone” include you?


For all you know Snowden downloaded 3 documents. Or 300. Or as a British official claimed 58,000.

because that is a sign of how sloppy their system was.

And even the Director admits that he "may have downloaded" more than a million documents.

3? 300? 58K? Why are you making all these claims with no links?

I am writing on an IPad. I don’t know how to copy from a website in Safari and then paste it here. On my pc I would know. But it is damned cold here and I am under a comforter where I can take this small IPad. You can easily find my sources by googling British Official 58,000 Snowden. You can google say 12 of the words quoted from Alexander. The claim that Alexander would lie is slander and highly implausible.

because it reflects badly on his leadership.

When I say Trump is a pathological liar many people do not welcome that statement.

Leon Festinger wrote about cognitive dissonance, an unpleasant state when people are presented with ideas contrary to their beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is probably why people so rarely change their views even when presented with compelling evidence proving they are wrong. We probably can learn more from things we find unpleasant than we can learn from things we find pleasant.

So perhaps your desire to shunt discussions away from your attention should cause a bell to ring reminding you that you might be facing a possible learning experience.

You really believe this?