Nate Silver on Snowden:

[Hissyspit]

@fivethirtyeight: Was agnostic about Snowden but some of the Op-Ed columns attacking him are so terrible I'm now convinced he must have done something right.

[Purveyor]

1. Indeed! +1 eom

[Logical]

2. Nate is right on track. n-t

[ProSense]

3. Nope, it

@fivethirtyeight: Was agnostic about Snowden but some of the Op-Ed columns attacking him are so terrible I'm now convinced he must have done something right.

...was still dumb.

"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178

[Hissyspit]

6. What is the dumb part?

You keep saying that but there's nothing at the link about "dumb," just about not having standing.

@GregMitch: I love argument that NSA spying is "completely legal." I'm sure you can list numerous things in USA that were "completely legal" but wrong.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. Stop! You're going to cause her to Link again!

Think of the children. Or something.

[Logical]

29. LOL, duzy! n-t

[Jamastiene]

58. +1

Not just link, but blue link, at that.

[ProSense]

32. Sure,

"@GregMitch: I love argument that NSA spying is "completely legal." I'm sure you can list numerous things in USA that were "completely legal" but wrong."

...but Snowden still broke the law by leaking classified information on a legally conducted program, and his subsequent actions isn't helping his case.

It's not like there were challenges being made to it prior to the leak, which means the program was known before he leaked it. So he committed a crime, and the net result is bringing an ongoing debate back into focus.

"With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997462

[JDPriestly]

77. The ACLU's lawsuits have generally been thrown out because

the administration claims the evidence is secret and protected under national security laws.

Finally, Snowden is providing some evidence that will hopefully give some individuals standing to be able to challenge this stuff.

I do think it is unconstitutional in that this broad program will chill our exercise of our fundamental rights. Demonstrate in front of the White House and you will be placed on a surveillance list of some sort. Is that where we are?

Obama may or may not be doing this. He may or may not know whether this is being done. But this massive surveillance is a means to control every word exchanged in the country that is exchanged in electronic media. It needs to be done away with, and all similar programs need to be done in the light of day, openly and open for public scrutiny in every detail.

A limited surveillance system that relied on specific subpoenas based on specific probable cause would have been reasonable, but the government has demonstrated that it cannot resist using such a system to expand its surveillance. I say end it all.

That may not happen, but we should demand it and then see what kind of solutions are proposed.

[BrotherIvan]

8. I love your links, especially this one!

The NSA is sharing (or selling) the data with other countries so they can spy too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2985752

HT: Prosense!

[longship]

14. ProSense, here's my take.

I had a DOD Secret clearance in the 1980's while working at Boeing Military Airplane Company in Wichita, KS. It was fucking hell going through the paper work and interviews, but what was incredible was the FBI investigation which basically verified everything I put down on my application. I was over 30 years old and they went back to my high school days, even interviewing neighbors from that period.

My boss at the time told me about this during my interview for the job, but warned me that even if I was hired I would be fired if I didn't get the clearance. It was a condition of employment at that place because all the engineering was military. I worked for several years there, all on military aircraft.

So I have a real problem with Snowden's professed time line and his education history. I don't see him getting the clearances he professes to have had. It took me about three months to get mine.

Something just doesn't jibe here. I don't want to say he's lying, but there just may be a scandal within a non-scandal here.

After all, although I hate all this snooping, we have known about all of it for years here at DU. I even have an Olbermann Special Comment from the W era where he is pissed off about just about everything that's come out in the past week or so, including Prism (although there was no name to it at that time).

There is something vewy, vewy scwewy about this. (My best Mel Blanc imitation.)

[A Simple Game]

17. And back then it used to take a week for credit approval, now it is instantaneous.

I'm sure security clearances have been accelerated also. Anyway the NSA probably already has all the information needed.

[Babel_17]

60. A can of worms that has problems for both sides?

If Snowden lacks substance as a technician then his actions and claims are seen, by some, as being much more dubious.

But if he lacks substance as a technician, but had access to all the secret data, and could easily just walk away with it, then our government has once again massively blundered in its choice of contractors. And perhaps there's a fundamental problem with how the data is secured.

It doesn't have to be all one way or the other. He could be very bright but under educated. He could have had an unimportant position but exploited a flaw to access lots of important data.

He might not have the experience to know exactly what he was handling but it could be important none the less.

Unfortunately for some people, the facts of the case are a bit bewildering and tough to fit into a quickly put together narrative.

[JDPriestly]

80. Snowden does not speak or think or act like an uneducated person.

That should be evident just from listening to him.

[zeeland]

18. I live in the land of Microsoft

along with many tech firms. Less than 10 yrs. ago when my kids were in
HS Microsoft was hiring local teenagers still in school and paying them six figures.

I know more than one of these kids who's life became a tragic mess due to this
practice. Don't kid yourself. These kids have skills some will never understand
regardless of their education. Corps, the kind our government hires to do 34%
Of their Intelligence work, want results, not educated idiots.

[longship]

27. I can see that you've never had to get a secret clearance before.

It's not like getting hired at Microsoft, or Starbucks, or WalMart.

None of those send FBI to check out your application, even going back more than a decade to your teen age years.

Big fucking difference when you are going to be actually working on stuff that is not just proprietary, but if you divulge it ever you go to fucking prison for a very long time.

No matter what Bill Gates thinks of his wealthy but college drop-out self, even he doesn't have that power. When you have a secret clearance you abide or you could go to prison. It's that simple.

It is a big fucking difference. I highly suspect that Snowden may soon understand the extent of that difference.

[snot]

42. I have to agree that there are aspects that seem odd; what would help,

along with more facts, are some possibilities as to what could be gained if Snowden were some kind of plant.

E.g., it doesn't really make sense to say that progressives might be being Ratherized. Is there an alternative theory that makes sense, in light of the fact that the government has admitted the program? Is there going to be some false flag "terror" event that's solved using the data collected, so as to influence the outcome of litigation or Congressional action that might otherwise result in having PRISM shut down?

Another aspect that seems odd is that we've been in possession of a lot of info about this kind of governmental surveillance for some time, and couldn't get most of the media or others to pay much attention. Of course, the big reaction now seen has at least in part to do with the kind of confirmation we've now received; but still, the contrast in the size of the reaction now vs. then seems a bit disproportionate. And why aren't we seeing more of the kind of "We already knew this, it's not news, nothing to see here, move along" dismissal we've seen regarding other revelations in the past -- is it just because now it's happening under Obama, so conservatives are piling on?

[longship]

46. I think you've pretty much nailed it.

Well, maybe only pretty much. I don't go into any false flag type of conspiracies.

But Greenwald is a libertarian, or at least has expressed some allegiance to Ron Paul et al. He also has been a bit of a wild card as far as journalistic standards are concerned. I don't want to make a big deal about that except for the fact that I am suspicious about his motives and one should cast a jaundiced eye at what he is writing.

Snowden is the joker in the deck. I have no idea if he's for real or not. But he could be a wild card, or merely a joker. Much of his story does not seem right. I have seen other posts the last couple of days from others who have had high level clearances reporting here on DU. So I decided to chime in on my experiences as well.

This isn't something one does normally. I have never discussed this publicly before. It just isn't anybody's business. That's part of the culture, too. But since others were doing it, and since I had already posted that I found Snowden's story not credible, I thought that I should add my experiences.

There's something that doesn't add up with Snowden's narrative. I suspect that he's not being honest.

And concerning the issue at large. Yes, we have known about all of this for some time. None of this is new and there is copious documentation for that fact, including repeated overwhelming bipartisan support from congress.

I don't like it anymore than anybody. But possibly President Obama did not have much of a choice on the matter.

I will leave it at that.

[zeeland]

67. I agree with much of your post,

but is it appropriate for someone with high
level clearance to be stating so on a public forum
just to make a point about Snowdon's credibility?

Just seems there would be some policy regarding
that admission even on an anonymous message
board if that clearance is so sacred.

I understand much of the skepticism but not the
outright vicious character assassination by the
media and those in politics.

Keith Ellison (D-MN) gave an interview yesterday on
Current's news show Viewpoint. He stated most of Congress
was poorly informed due to the scheduling of briefings
that often ( possibly deliberately) conflict with
other important meetings, votes etc. Ellison gave other
examples for the lack of an informed Congress in his
interview.

[longship]

68. Well, I haven't had that clearance for decades.

But others had made similar observations here recently so I thought that I would bring my perspective to it. As I wrote in another post, I really don't think about having had such a clearance, but it seems to be applicable here.

The very reason I think there's something screwy with this guy stems from the fact that I have had a clearance. This is basically the same as others here have opined about their experiences.

[zeeland]

71. 1.5 million Americans have

the high level clearance we speak of reported by Matt
Lauer about 5 minutes ago on NBC for what it's
worth. How sacred is that clearance given Lauer's
statement is fact? Not very IMO.

[longship]

72. Well, it's important if there are many Snowdens among them.

As I inferred, or tried to, this may be the scandal within the scandal.

If Snowden wasn't properly vetted, and that's now obviously true, what does that say about how we are doing that?

That's why his history is puzzling, I think.

[Maedhros]

86. longship: Please do not promote utter falsehoods.

"But Greenwald is a libertarian, or at least has expressed some allegiance to Ron Paul et al. "

Greenwald has NEVER expressed allegiance to Ron Paul, or anyone else.

[JDPriestly]

81. If you listened to his interview with Greenwald, you know that Snowden

is well aware of the risks he is taking.

[brush]

48. Agreed

Something about the timing of this whole Snowden/NSA stuff doesn't quite seem right. Coming on the heels of all these other so called scandals makes me think that there may be others behind the scenes orchestrating the re-emergence of a this six-year-old story.

Now I'm certainly not in favor of a country spying on it's own citizens, and the Obama administration certainly should have replaced all the repug moles and ditched the Patriot Act crap left over from Cheney/Bush, but many of us here have posted before how repugs seem to gin up scandals in the second term of dem presidents to keep "shit" going so:

a. the administration is bogged down in trying to defend itself from scandal after scandal, month after month (we've
seen this movie before — it's called "Bill Clinton's Second Term&quot

b. nothing legislatively gets done about the economy or jobs

c. this in turn takes the spotlight off the repugs/party of "no" obstructionism

d. if the scandals can be extended long enough it helps the repugs in the mid-terms and maybe even 2016 when
Hillary is sure to be the favorite to win (maybe not if she/the dems can be stained enough by this)

Anyway, I say let's watch this closely and see how it plays out. Like I said, something smells about this whole "Snowden being a lone wolf-acting out of patriotism after only three months at this highly sensitive job thing" (wonder how he got the job in the first place, and then become "radicalized" in just 3 months).

If it turns out that his motives are entirely pure, fine, but let's get real, that's hardly ever the case.

[longship]

55. Well, from my posts here...

I even said that his narrative doesn't add up.

Greenwald lays out all these documents. He's a bit of a wild cannon, libertarian, and a self-promoter. But... Okay! We now have these documents.

Nobody is denying that they're the real thing. Okay, then they're very likely the real thing. Especially since everybody in the US security services are going immediately ape shit.

But now this dude, this Snowden guy, comes out of nowhere who is putatively Greenwald's source. He's Vidcasting from, of all places, Hong Kong. Okay, he had some history there so maybe he feels comfortable, knows some people, etc.

But his story almost immediately seems incredible. He's got this weird history with access to incredible secrets which he has leaked to the planet via Greenwald, a known self-promoter. And the dude never graduated from high school. He's allegedly been in an elite Army squad, but conveniently washes out because of broken legs. His GED gets him into a two year college but he takes no computer classes and does not complete any course of study. Then, he's hired by the CIA working on IT intelligence. And then he works for a security contractor in Hawaii for a couple months before he spills the beans to a blogger writing for the Guardian UK, after the WaPo won't touch him.

Sorry, if I am CIA HR, I might hire him, but maybe only for the office pool with no clearances beyond confidential. Just like working at Microsoft, or something.

[brush]

57. Yep, it doesn't add up.

Snowden comes from out of nowhere, with this mysterious, patchwork, seemingly unqualified background for the work he was allegedly doing, to spill the beans on NSA.

A lone wolf, by himself?

Yeah right, like James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan all acted alone. Gimme a break.

[JDPriestly]

78. We now have the verification that this is happening under the Obama

administration, and that verification is from an insider with information that proves he is an insider.

That is what is different. Obama promised transparency. This program is anything but transparent.

[former9thward]

87. Why has no government agency denied his story?

Are they part of the conspiracy also?

[longship]

89. Who said anything about it not being true?

I just think Snowden's resume is somewhat squirrelly.

I also think that there's a story here about how a high school drop out with no college education got a job with access to such information.

If I'm in HR, he doesn't get such a job.

Granted, I admit that I've had to form this opinion after the fact, after I already know what he does.

I don't dispute that his info is correct.

Thanks for your reply anyway.

[former9thward]

92. Who has said it wasn't true???

At least half the posters on DU. They said he was a "desperate loner". When the hot girlfriend showed up, they said she wasn't real. They said he wasn't in the army. They said he was never injured in training. There are many threads on all these.

[Logical]

28. Nonsense.....

You vs. Nate......hmmmm.....hard choice......!

[ProSense]

37. Well,

"You vs. Nate......hmmmm.....hard choice......!"

...my opinion isn't based on the media being mean to him.

Wait, weren't the media the heroes last week?

[Logical]

38. Please provide links when responding! n-t

[ProSense]

40. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022997095

My bad.

[MissMarple]

45. Not logical. "Something" does not mean legally defensible.

I think he may mean they protest too much. That raises, perhaps, cause for inquiry. Ethical and moral does not always mean legal or even constitutional. Snowden knows that.

[Marr]

43. There's one of those terrible attacks he referenced. /nt

[sabrina 1]

49. What probable cause was presented to get warrants to monitor the phone activity of millions of

people? That's really the only question that matters right now. If they did not present a credible reason for subjecting people to this monstrous invasion of their 'effects' then the Constitution itself has been violated.

I can post the 4th Amendment for you if you like.

[secondvariety]

82. This is what I don't get,

maybe I'm just dense. Did the FISA court give the ok to monitor the phone traffic of millions upon millions Verizon subscribers in the US or didn't they? Is it just "foreign" traffic being monitored? I read that up to 10 million Verizon accounts are being monitored-there's no way that doesn't include mostly random Americans.

The whole thing just reeks of incompetence. Monitoring the traffic of every single phone subscription looking for terrorist activity is casting the ultimate wide net. Any bad guy worth his salt would just go down to the local 7-11 and get a disposable phone.

[Avalux]

4. I love Nate! Such awesome powers of deduction.

When the facts are confusing, go with that.

[reformist2]

5. The establishment panicked and thoroughly embarrassed themselves.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Nate should stick to statistics

Nate once said this:

"I'd say I am somewhere in-between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose."

Kind of a Gary Johnson vs Mitt Romney decision? Yikes. I know some folks here are gonna be mad that I posted that quote, but quotes are quotes.

[kelly1mm]

11. Here is a thread where Senator/Candidate Obama quotes are compared

Last edited Tue Jun 11, 2013, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

with President Obama quotes. I think I like the Senator/Candidate Obama better! I know some folks here be mad that I posted those quotes, but quotes are quotes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017124703

[zeeland]

24. Who gives a damn if they're mad? It's our party too. We elected Obama

and have every right to hold him accountable. What is happening is beyond the pale.
It's as if the "powers that be " are redefining what the Demacratic Party stands for.

Frankly, I'm no longer sure Obama or Congress are in a position of power to set
policy.

[treestar]

34. Why do you hold only Presidents of the US accountable?

Not Congress, the voters, the judiciary, anyone else?

Too many people think the President, whoever it is, does everything.

[MNBrewer]

63. Wow, what a silly thing to say.

[A Simple Game]

66. HST knew who was accountable. But we have President Obama now,

and you know he is only responsible and accountable for the good things.

[treestar]

73. HST was wrong

Maybe he's the one who created the idea of the monarchist presidency.

[Maedhros]

88. The NSA is under the control of the Director of National Intelligence

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President.

Thus, the President is ultimately responsible for what the NSA does.

[morningfog]

13. You love to piss on people.

Libertarians are problematic for you, but hang with me a minute. They share with dems and liberals, generally, positions on civil liberties. They diverge on economic policies.

It is frustrating to converse or debate libertarians because they are essentially half liberal (socially) and half conservative (economically). In other, simple words, they are sometimes right, especially when addressing civil liberties and individual rights. Hard to fit them in a black/white love/hate world.

But, I don't expect you to adjust your dichotomic views.

[Alcibiades]

19. Personally, I rather enjoy debating liberatarians

I have a Ph.D. in political science, with political theory as my first field. I brought myself up Marxist, but my teachers were Straussians.

Interestingly enough, your average Straussian would rather debate a Marxist than a layman who agrees with them. I have literally seen several of the finest conservative minds in the country turn their backs on laymen who agree with them in order to talk to me. It is more interesting to talk with someone who knows the field but who disagrees with you than to talk to someone whoa agrees with you but who does not know shit from Shinola.

Libertarians are like the Socialist Workers Party: small and pure. They know their political theory better than laymen, but less than real intellectuals. I would rather debate with a well-educated libertarian than preach to a choir of Democrats who don't know they are Democrats. If you know what you are about, their pretense of open-mindedness is such that you could get them agree to Stalinism! Such fun.

[Marr]

44. Zero to Character Assassination in 2.6 seconds.

It seems like a reflex on your part. Do you even realize what you're doing?

[sabrina 1]

51. What do you think of what he said? You haven't commented on that.

Lincoln was a Republican, so what? John Adams and most of the Founding Fathers were more Libertarian than anything else, so what?

Ari Fleischer is a Republican. He agrees with the President.

Peter King is a Republican, a vile one at that, he agrees with the President.

We could play this game all night, but it has nothing to do with what he said.

Your comment makes no sense. Is it supposed to mean something?

[Cali_Democrat]

54. If your positive opinion of someone is based off the amount of negative articles written about them

then Barack Obama is the greatest President of all time.

BTW, Glenn Beck agrees with Snowden and so do a lot of other right wing nuts.

Your logic fails.

[sabrina 1]

56. Ari Fleischer and Peter 'we-count-the-votes King are praising the President

for 'continuing Bush's policies and protecting the American people'.

If your positive opinion of someone is based on who supports them, then I would be very worried as more and more Republicans are supporting the President on this.

I am happy with who supports my position on our Constitutional rights, people like Daniel Ellsberg, Ron Wyden, Udal, Alan Grayson, and so many great Democrats.

I am very sad that this President allowed himself to get roped into Bush's scare tactics and actually admit that he 'kept Bush's policies'. That is not why we supported him, we supported him to END Bush's policies, but he has told us himself that he kept them. I wish he had told us before both elections that he intended to continue the worst policies ever in living memory for many of us.

I think the President can take care of himself, but I will never, ever support anyone who thinks we have to give up any Constitutional Rights, as he said publicy yesterday. I wish him well, I supported him, now we have to go take care of this country.

[NoPasaran]

59. I think Lincoln would still have him beat

Remember, some folks actually seceded and started a war because of their negative opinions of Old Abe.

[WillyT]

10. K & R !!!

[morningfog]

12. Zing. Great point. He has lots of folks shitting themselves.

[CakeGrrl]

15. If attack columns are indicators,

The President has a STELLAR track record.

Funny, I don't see any actual reasoning or analysis here.

[SidDithers]

20. Nailed it...

Sid

[bobduca]

16. Yep

Welcome to under the bus, Nate Silver #bog

[pscot]

21. There's that.

[OnyxCollie]

22. K&R. nt

[randome]

23. And Senator Al Franken says the NSA is not spying on us.

The litmus test for heroes and villains no longer applies. Everyone has someone to support their viewpoint.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Union Scribe]

41. It's almost like we should make up our own minds

instead of appeal to personalities, regardless of position on an issue.

[jonthebru]

53. True that.

I don't particularly like the NSA's powers but I do agree with Franken.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Oh, no. Now we're going to start revering everything this numbers guy says?

He's a statistician, folks. His opinion is no more valid than yours or mine.

[Logical]

31. I think he is smarter on many topics than most here! n-t

[Aerows]

50. You and me both!

[brush]

52. Maybe on numbers

But someone quoted him here on this thread saying that politically he's somewhere between Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson. That doesn't sound too smart about politics. Maybe Nate should stick to statistics.

[burnodo]

62. Revering?

Is that a way to attack people who don't agree with you? Classifying agreement with what someone says as reverence?

[morningfog]

69. I think, for some, DU has a filter that automatically makes normal comments hyperbolic.

[Honeycombe8]

90. What makes you think I don't agree with him? Your bias is showing.

There ARE some people who call out things because of principle, regardless what they say.

Posting a post of what someone says, implying it's some sort of authority opinion, when the opinion is on something the speaker is not an expert on, maybe doesn't have all the facts on...is close to reverence. It'd be like posting, "Barbra Streisand says that furniture pieces should never be glued!" Maybe she knows something about furniture. Maybe not. But that's not her area of expertise w/o some background as to why we'd care what she thinks about how furniture should be made.

[still_one]

26. They attacked him on his predictions in 2008, however, what I find interesting is the "group think"

each side takes, and in many situations if group think side does not agree with what the other group think side thinks, they make personal attacks. So much for free-thinking open minded discussion, and respectfulness of everyones opinion, even if they do not agree

[LeftInTX]

30. Darn, I was hoping to see some of Nate's statistical analysis here!!!

[treestar]

33. that's pretty stupid

So you let other people decide what you think based on your emotional reaction to them, whether negative or positive.

[Fumesucker]

39. The point seems to be more about *their* emotional reaction

Rather like Teabaggers getting all upset by the melanin content of the President's skin, the reaction tells us a lot about them.

[LittleBlue]

35. Indeed. The best way to judge a man

is often to examine his enemies.

[BlueStreak]

36. I think he has "walking scott free" at 38.9%

[ReRe]

47. Yeah, like David Brooks' editorial in....

... the New York Times!

[RainDog]

61. LOL

David Brooks' column was so insanely bad. I have never laughed so hard at such a blowhard.

[grantcart]

79. Didn't he used to be somebody?

[Laelth]

64. Methinks they protesteth too much. n/t

-Laelth

[Gus Lammas]

65. Innate wetrust

Spelling deliberate. Already DURec'd.

[randome]

70. Isn't Nate the one who taught us not to let skewed opinions sway us?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Nate did not 'teach us' anything, he uses statistical models to predict elections, that's his

claim to fame. This is just him making a damn good point. He can not only count, he can also read.

[MynameisBlarney]

74. Up until he spilled the beans to the HK press.

He's a traitor now.

[arely staircase]

75. did nate tweet this before or after snowden gave away the farm to the chinese?

i'm guessing before.

[JDPriestly]

76. True mathematician. Playing the odds as usual.

[blkmusclmachine]

83. Snowden revealed some Truth.

And Big Brother doesn't like that. Not one damn bit.

[BillyRibs]

84. If both Boner and DiFi,

Say he's a criminal He must be doing something right!

[Kurovski]

91. Funny comment, but when the "shut-up" chorus

is this loud, this vicious, this unrelenting and insistent and almost...organised...it's a clue.

Especially the old trope of calling someone like Snowden "stupid" "Idiotic", etc.

I mean, my gosh! YOU don't want to be considered stupid TOO, do you?!

A real operation maneuver, that one.