[tomkin]

When Obama says that Snowden created serious security implications, do you think that's from a point of privilege, or simply placing ideology over practicality? Based on everything I know, both Obama and Snowden appear to be fairly authentic characters. It seems weird that they would have opposing view points. If we're to assume the best ideals are forged though intelligent reasoning and debate, shouldn't they have both concluded the same? Glenn Greenwald has proven himself to be less than authentic at times. If I could pass a criticism Snowden's way, it was who he went to, not what he did. Am I wrong to feel this way?

[ocdtrekkie]

Fairly authentic characters regularly have drastically diverse viewpoints. For instance, Republicans and Democrats. Parties on both sides have fairly authentic views[1] on various moral points, that end in very, very different opinions. And no amount of intelligent reasoning or debate will bring either party closer to the other.

[1]Both parties ALSO have fairly unauthentic views, on how they will in fact, happily sell us out to a corporation for a side gig when they leave office. But they tell us they won't and that's shameful to even suggest that's what they're doing.

[lern_too_spel]

How about the South China Morning Post, whom Snowden also provided with classified information? Does that also merely call into question merely whom he went to, not what he did?