Would have been nice to have Snowden actually there in person if he were not such a coward.
How many government employees faced jail time on his accusations?
Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
211–220 of 600 posts
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#212There is a real lesson here about just how cavalier the American government - and to some degree the public - is about civil liberties, but that isn't the biggest problem. The problem here isn't even so much the government is being shady - that has happened before, it will happen again. I can understand people not feeling threatened by constant snooping even though I disagree. To me the real problem is how effectivel…
There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosi…
Bull. Shit.
> If you read the history (and these days there are tons of resources) this sequence of events (of overreach) has unfolded a thousand times. There are a whole bunch programmes that have been shutdown because one group or the other got carried away or did damage.
There are many such programs, says you, and yet you fail to name even one.
There has never been this level of government overreach -- if only because of the technology involved. Never has it been like this. Or at least, never has a government survived this.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Fake” whistleblower? This is a hop and a skip away from Q-anon territory, and shouldn’t be on hn.
Real whistleblowers: Snowden, Kiriakou, Binney, Drake, Manning, Winner. Notice a theme of career loss, prison, total life upheaval, and a press that DGAF. Fake whistleblower: still works for CIA, whistleblowing has purely political rather than administrative effects, and ongoing adulation in the press. If you don't want to see this on HN, then downvote and move on.
So rather than fake it’s more legally protected versus not legally protected?
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#214We live in a time where the president of the United States himself questions any law that inconveniences him personally, same goes for any oversight, and he retains a great deal of support from the population and his own party. I wonder how / if it is possible to convince the public that laws and oversight are necessary for good government.
We also live in a time when the CIA and FBI has been trying to remove a duly elected POTUS for the past three years. Why? because they think they know better than the unwashed masses.
Actually, it is the Democratic house representatives that are trying to remove the president.
Edit: Original words below
Actually, the Democratic party is in motion to remove a questionably elected president. And he'll actually end up resigning in utter disgrace. His crimes will be revealed and his name will become synonymous for greed, stupidity, and treachery.
I bet you, here in front of all of HN.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you agree that if there is real legitimate evidence of him being compromised then working with congress to legally remove him from office according to the process given in the constitution is the right choice?
Do you agree that if there's real legitimate evidence of the FBI and CIA lying to the FISA court in order to spy on a political campaign that Comey and Brennan should be imprisoned?
Yes, absolutely. Just like clapper should have been for lying to congress.
That doesn't absolve trump of consequences for his own actions though. If he's dirty too, then he needs to go.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#216We live in a time where the president of the United States himself questions any law that inconveniences him personally, same goes for any oversight, and he retains a great deal of support from the population and his own party. I wonder how / if it is possible to convince the public that laws and oversight are necessary for good government.
Not throwing support either way, but what is wrong with questioning inconvenient laws? Should laws never be repealed?
I don't want to get in to a line item list but he tweeted that it was inconvenient that the justice department indited two Republicans near election season (ignoring that they actually committed crimes).
His recent statements about the emoluments clause.
The list goes on.
That's not someone looking into strange random laws as part of an effort to improve government, that is questioning things purely to further his personal goals / enrich himself personally.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Joe is not a master interviewer. Compare him to someone who does a lot of research ahead of time and comes prepared with thought-provoking questions, and can keep pace with the deep conversations, like say a Tim Ferriss. Joe does little research on most guests (mostly due to the sheer volume of guests I'm sure), which could be a more stylistic choice if he were a deft interviewer who could think on his feet and dig d…
Narduar is my favorite example of a master interviewer. Watch him leave Pharrell speechless multiple times (starting around the 5:15 mark is a good example). This guy does his homework better than anyone. https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q
His researching skills are indeed impressive, but I feel like he's a bit "loud" in his personality/character and that can take some attention away from the interviewee.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#218We live in a time where the president of the United States himself questions any law that inconveniences him personally, same goes for any oversight, and he retains a great deal of support from the population and his own party. I wonder how / if it is possible to convince the public that laws and oversight are necessary for good government.
Not throwing support either way, but what is wrong with questioning inconvenient laws? Should laws never be repealed?
Laws should be questioned and repealed as needed.
The problem here is not that the people in power want to "question" the laws, they're literally ignoring them and breaking them, in secret, without the consent of the people.
It's only when this stuff is uncovered that these perpetrators shift to "questioning"-- as though it's a open debate, it's not.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#219There is a real lesson here about just how cavalier the American government - and to some degree the public - is about civil liberties, but that isn't the biggest problem. The problem here isn't even so much the government is being shady - that has happened before, it will happen again. I can understand people not feeling threatened by constant snooping even though I disagree. To me the real problem is how effectivel…
There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosi…
“There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two.”
Very true. For example I think Marx did a great analysis but his solutions lacked. Same happens often in medicine. People who observe something are asked to also explain it. But if they can’t explain the observation it doesn’t mean the observation is wrong.
Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intelligence agencies have proven to be vindictive, and also a back-channel arm for straight up partisan politics. It seems like it goes unnoticed when the outcome is something that aligns with a party's goals. I just can't tell if it's fallible people in positions of power, or a real concerted effort. I think a lot of our problems stem from the undermining of our system of checks and balances, and whatever is up…
If it were partisan politics I don't think we would see the continuity that we did between Bush and Obama. I think it was clear and overt during the Bush era that there were some dubious claims thrown around about "we need this to prevent another 9/11", with "this" being vague, broad, varying with the particular speaker. It was disappointing to many when Obama embraced some of these conclusions.
Yeah the idea that the intelligence community pushed these stories doesn't hold up.
If you look into the folks who were in the spotlight pushing "we need this to prevent another 9/11" they were mostly former military and some with intelligence connections... but the real connection was their political connections.
Many outright stated the information they were provided to go on TV with came from politically associated groups not some secretive internal policy. In fact intelligence groups internally pushed back on some of the claims and political appointees ignored them.