this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
375 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23087 readers
3345 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (4 children)

face it man, Snowden is a Russian asset at this point.

he didn't start out that way be given the options of tea, window, or sabotage he chose sabotage.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (3 children)

He's a survivor.

What would you have done differently than him? Die?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Quietly quit because his whistle was never going to stop that kind of surveillance. If you held a gun to my head and said I had to leak then NYTimes and WaPo would get the relevant slide deck and I'd stand my day in court knowing I'd probably have my sentence commuted after several years.

He chose the literal worst option.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What would you have done differently

Traveled under a fake ID. People do it in films and TV all the time. Not sure how practical that is in reality though.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Real life is not like TV. High quality counterfeit papers that stand up to scrutiny are very hard to get. The only way to get ones that are guaranteed to work is by having someone at the state department who can issue them or buying them from someone with those kind of connections. And the odds are good that the fads have honeypots set up to catch people trying to get fake documents.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't have done anything differently.

Just pointing it out because so many have a fetish to make him a hero even after he's helped the guy who wants to destroy our nation.

[–] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He did the right thing at the cost of his own safety and wellbeing. If that's not a hero I don't know what is.

At the same time he basically had to cooperate with the Russians because they tend to torture and kill those who don't.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So are Trump and the Republican Party.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

yes. they are.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

no. Assange cares only for Assange.

Snowden cared about Americans once, but was abandoned by his nation to a corrupt government.

he's an unwilling Russian asset now, think of it like indentured servitude for his life.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you able to point to actions that Snowden has taken to negatively impact the interests of the US people or to materially aid Russia?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

no, and I don't have to.

It is my opinion after all.

we're allowed to share those on here still, right?

edit: did I hurt all the snowbunnie feewings?

Boohoo

[–] Exatron@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not unreasonable to ask someone to elaborate or justify their opinion, kiddo.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

and it's not unreasonable for someone to refuse.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Of course not, it just means you're leaving that particular discussion

[–] Quexotic@infosec.pub 3 points 4 months ago

I haven't given it any though till this moment, but the fact that he

  • leaked US government secrets, then
  • went to Russia and
  • isn't dead from being windowed

To me implies a certain level of Russian collaboration. Purely speculative, granted, but I bet he's not about to go speaking up for Ukraine or anything.

He sought and received protection from an adversary and I can't believe that Putin didn't put a price on that, and feel confident that he had the "currency" to pay.

I believe what he did, he did with good intentions, but after that I think he had to start making some practical decisions in order to save his and his families' lives.

Would I make those same decisions? Let's just say, I probably wouldn't have the courage to blow the whistle in the first place, so it's kinda a moot point.

Suffice it to say, he paid for his ability to stay in Russia. Who's to say the cost to US security?

[–] Exatron@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is if you want to be taken seriously, sweetie.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

rich coming from someone calling others "sweetie".

[–] Exatron@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You're still a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot, spud.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You weren't stating it as opinion, you were stating it as if it's objective fact.

Very big difference in wording.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think you might be confused. it's not your fault.

unless someone provides evidence, it should always be considered an opinion. that's how the world used to work.

now everyone just reads all comments as facts instead of using their cognitive ability to read and comprehend. it's not your fault that the Internet made your brain lazy.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are a child. Or at minimum, very childish.

I recommend swallowing your extremely overinflated pride/ego, and growing up a bit.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

big words coming from someone attacking a "child".

because you couldn't argue against what I said you decided to attack me personally. seems pretty immature to me.

BTW, that is my opinion. just clarifying so it's not confused as fact. some people read anything on the Internet and automatically attribute it as fact these days. also an opinion, but I might have some proof around here that could sustain it as a strong theory.

😉

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This piece of shit fucks kids.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

is that supposed to bother me?

It's downright depressing that you're willing to go to such lengths to show how pathetic you are.

The fact that you're going the nuclear option tells me that you're jimmied to the extreme and honesty I'm sad for you.

seek help.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Woah there, kid fucker I didn't ask for your opinion.

[–] aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The question of whether someone works for a government is not really a matter of opinion

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I'll give you a legitimate response since I've got the time while taking the Browns to the Super Bowl.

opinions are varied and limitless as the ideas that feed them. One can have opinions on opinions!

so, when the neurons in your brain were firing on all cylinders to come up with your question, did you actually think that one couldn't have an opinion on something as menial and useless as, "whether someone works for a government"?

I have many opinions, some are rather good, others not so much.

for example, my opinion of you isn't very good.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not triggered in the slightest - I thought there might be something to learn. Thanks for clarifying that it was nothing more than the baseless opinion of a fragile moron.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

if you were a firearm you would be decommissioned for premature firing.

Your trigger is so loose, a stiff breeze sets it off.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It'd take something a little stronger than the opinion of infamous kid fucker GreenKnight23 to pull my trigger, champ.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what's more pathetic, your delivery or your lack of imagination.

Don't expect me to report your comments either, your tiny comments of shame will live on to fester and eat away at you.

I won't even remember your name tomorrow.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You're going to drop the pretence that you've got anything worthwhile to say and sulk off back to your little lair? Try not to fuck any kids on the way out, eh?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Being an American liability doesn't make you a Russian asset.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

it heavily implies it if a genocidal dictator shelters you.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If your passport is cancelled and transport is blocked then you don't get much choice over who shelters you.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

that's besides the point. he's there and it's death or sell out national secrets.

I get it, doesn't make him any less of a Russian asset.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

His internal knowledge of the CIA and NSA gained as a contractor is an American liability.

That doesn't necessarily make him a Russian Asset.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the "thorn in Americans side" trope about five years ago.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he's selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.

if you disagree why do you think Putin has allowed him to stay alive this long?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

do you honesty believe that Putin would allow him to live as long as he has in Russia without some form of cooperation? I mean, the guy outlived the "thorn in Americans side" trope about five years ago.

No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that he's selling strategic processes and how Americans think for his safety.

How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, I think the NSA are still embarrassed.

even after 11 years? most credit card debt is forgotten after 7...

How many relevant strategic secrets do you think Snowden has after 11 years out of the game. Remember all his documents were passed to journalists. He retained none.

not secrets. he has valuable information on how the US reacts. Strategies change, but at the core their goals and how they plan on achieving them usually doesn't change that often.

imagine if you were fighting someone. you don't try to predict when/where they are going to punch. you try to predict what they will target. if you can understand who you're fighting, you have a better chance at winning.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

even after 11 years?

Yep. Is Snowden allowed back into the US? No? Then he is still an embarrassment.

he has valuable information on how the US reacts

Nothing that he wouldn't have already given up 11 years ago. He can't provide anything new.